Jonathan David

Firefighter by trade. Interested mainly in theology, sports, and investing. Anglican.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

Decided to put my understanding of and argument for Christian Nationalism on paper. Not super in depth but i think it’s a decent summary of where my head is at on the subject. https://t.co/pK5bL2KcTE

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@ChoppinBravos I wanted Sonny Gray in 2019

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@km8xfjdbvn @OwnedByATL Lol have you watched any of Tech’s recent games against either of those teams?

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@joncoopertweets This is exactly why trump got elected lmao

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@SlangsOnSports Dang so he must have won tonight I guess right?

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@NeilShenvi @BMcGrewvy You might be appalled by it but he’s 100% capturing the attitudes of the mainstream working class against the upper middle class Christian conservatives here. This has been a thing for decades and had already played out in the broader culture outside of evangelical Christianity.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @CivilApologist @NeilShenvi What do you think the grounding of liberalism is? Or more fundamentally, how are you defining liberalism in the first place?

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

Neil is right about this. The issue is you can’t just reject critical theory as an intellectual exercise. You have to oppose it at an institutional level and be willing to use the power of the state against it, which necessarily means rejecting liberalism as well.

[Neil Shenvi @NeilShenvi]

Reposting this excerpt from Post Woke about understanding the Dissident Right as a Gen-Z backlash against wokeness:

"While Christians are quite rightly concerned about the tremendous inroads that critical theory has made within the culture and within the church, 1/

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi This is a very long thread but i think it mostly captures my basic critique

[Christian Heiens 🏛 @ChristianHeiens]

I promised a steelman of Liberalism, and here it is.

Liberalism is the political philosophy that defends the freedom of the individual against tyranny, whether in the form of kings or the mob.

There are four essential principles that make up Liberalism:

1) Individual Liberty

Every person is born with rights that are not allotted by the state, but are rather self-evident and granted by God or Nature. These include freedom of speech, the right to worship however they please (if at all), to own property, and to associate freely with others in a system of voluntary contract without coercion from the state.

The role of the state is not to define the good life, but to protect the individual's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, provided they are not infringing on the rights of others.

Nor is this a comprehensive list of individual freedoms, either. There are others that our founding documents recognize under the 9th and 10th amendments. The lack of a codified freedom does not mean the lack of freedom itself.

2) The Rule of Law

Power must not be arbitrarily wielded by tyrants. No one wants to live under a Caligula or a Stalin. Accordingly, authority has to be bound by a codified list of rules that even the powerful must respect and obey.

We call this codification a Constitution, a system of Checks and Balances, and an institutional framework that protects the rights of all minorities, even the individual, against both the power of the state as well as the will of the majority.

Ultimately, the Law itself must rule over society, not the will of a single powerful individual or faction.

3) Equality Before the Law

Liberalism does not promise equality of outcomes, but equality of treatment. No one is born into a higher or lower legal status. Whether rich or poor, man or woman, young or old, citizen or immigrant, each person deserves equal protection and due process under the law.

Justice is blind, and in place of the old aristocracy of blood, liberals recognize a meritocracy of talent and skill.

4) Political Pluralism and Tolerance

A liberal society is a marketplace of ideas, not the gulag of totalitarian states or the throne and altar of absolute monarchies. Disagreement is not a threat to be crushed, but a means to test out new ideas and discover what works.

And instead of adjudicating those disagreements by the sword, Liberalism promotes a republican or democratic form of government that allows all citizens to engage in a process of open debate and dialogue, and to live peacefully alongside others with different worldviews.

Liberalism holds that the state should not impose a single moral or religious doctrine or worldview, but should instead protect the rights of all. This is what it means to have a truly pluralistic and tolerant society. "Tolerance" does not imply approval. It means resisting the urge to coerce those whom you cannot convince.

---

As a former Classical Liberal myself, I believe this faithfully articulates the Liberal worldview in a way that does not constitute a strawman. And it doesn’t end with these four principles either. Liberalism has been the most successful engine of human freedom and flourishing in history.

It overthrew monarchy, built constitutional governments, ended slavery, expanded civil rights for millions who never enjoyed a say in how their own government works, raised billions out of poverty through free markets, created societies where political dissent isn’t punished with prison or death, and outlasted the twin totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century (Fascism and Communism).

If there is any ideology that deserves to claim the mantle as humanity’s final stage of political development, it is Liberalism.

So how could I and millions of others possibly oppose any of this? And not just oppose it out of habit or birth, but walk away from it after once proudly calling ourselves Liberals?

I will do my best to explain why in this thread below. This is by no means a comprehensive set of objections (that would take an entire book), but the summary is this:

"The Postliberal Right does not deny that Liberalism was born as a revolt against tyranny. We reject it because it has become a new and more nefarious form of tyranny that wears the mask of human rights and freedom while dissolving the necessary foundations for the very freedom and prosperity that Liberalism claims to cherish."

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi It’s not limited to speaking under protection of the state. Literally any time anything is legislated in the name of CT they are operating with the backing of coercive power.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi Ultimately the proponents of CT depend on liberal norms and values in order to exist while simultaneously undermining those very values. And yet liberals insist on allowing its own enemies to exist and then wonder why every single constantly gets weaponized against them.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi They used and continue to use all of them. Their ability to use words to promote CT is based on the fact that the state will use coercive power to protect them in doing so, which is something that liberals insist upon. 1/2

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi Leave the PCUSA and create the OPC, etc but the thought never occurs to you that if you don’t actually stop progressives, they’ll simply hijack whatever you build and weaponize it for their own ends because you fundamentally don’t believe in disenfranchising them.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@CivilApologist @D00M42 @NeilShenvi This is the problem with evangelicals especially. You’ll abandon traditional institutions because they get too progressive and create new ones (leave Princeton and create Westminster, leave the public schools and create homeschool co-ops) 1/2

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@MarcusAhen48867 @ryanburge What beliefs do you want the culture to be based in then?

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @NeilShenvi @CivilApologist It means absolutely nothing to say “I oppose critical race theory but I think the critical theorists should still be allowed to teach in the seminaries, organize politically, and legislate based on critical theory if they win enough elections”

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @NeilShenvi @CivilApologist I would say it is morally legitimate to forcibly oppose those who promote the incorrect one through the weaponization of our institutions.

I.e. it’s legitimate to fire CT professors, forbid the publishing of CT books, dismantle institutions that promote CT, etc.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @NeilShenvi @CivilApologist And so if you’re not willing to see your rejection of CT forcefully imposed on the proponents of CT, then you don’t oppose CT politically. You merely oppose it intellectually. And if you are willing to to see it forcefully opposed, then you don’t oppose it liberally.

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @NeilShenvi @CivilApologist Because the government itself is not an institution defined by voluntary association among its members. It does not interact with the people under it in those terms. The government can only act as a mediator between individuals because it can forcefully impose its rulings on them

[Jonathan David @DMac_thesecond]

@D00M42 @NeilShenvi @CivilApologist The individualism of liberalism is precisely why it can’t justify actually opposing collectivist ideologies apart from that opposition simply being the expression of personal disagreement with them.

The moment it appeals to government, it ceases to be liberal.