Thanks for commenting. I’m glad we agree state capture by itself is normal, not extreme. That’s why I’m not treating state capture as a boogeyman. Feser’s claim must be that *integralist* state capture is what’s extreme.
I think you and I agree my evidence shows that’s what Vermeule favors as his ideal. Vermeule is at least a soft integralist.
Vermeule nowhere indicates soft imtegralism because he has never said integralism is very likely not to work in practice, so we might as well shelve it forever (Feser’s soft integralism.)
Maybe Vermeule is a moderate integralist. That I can accept. But then my transition argument and my stability argument apply just fine.
You’re also right that *Vermeule* thinks in some sense liberalism is dead. We’re in a leftist secular integralist state. But I don’t think that affects the transition argument. Both liberal and progressive starting points are going to be rough starting lines to get to integralism.
I don’t think it follows *at all* that I think Vermeule’s support for state capture is problematic because it isn’t liberalism. Liberalism and integralism are at two ends of a spectrum of church-state separation/integration. There are many intermediate positions. Consider that in chapter 5, I’m asking whether integralism will collapse into a moderate Catholic establishmentarian state, of the sort the conservative V2 council fathers envisioned. That’s an intermediate position.
In chapter 4, I’m clear about the starting conditions for transition. They’re quasi-liberal democratic with modern education and technology because Vermeule’s transition plan takes off once liberal elites are discredited to the public as a whole and vulnerable to competing elite classes. He also presumes we start with a modern state. It’s like the USSR in 1991.
So, we agree that state capture is not extreme. And I’m happy to say Vermeule is a moderate integralist. That won’t hit my arguments.
That means the interesting question is whether Vermeule thinks, in general, that integralism is very likely to fail in practice almost all the time. And *surely* the evidence I cite here demonstrates he doesn’t hold that position, which is Feser’s soft integralism. So I think it is fair and reasonable to treat Vermeule as a moderate integralist.
I appreciate the reply. As my comment indicates, I think you are attributing *something* extreme to Vermeule, though not direct violence. I'll leave aside whether you give the *implication* that Vermeule calls for violence (which I know was partially the point of this write up, as you and Feser are debating this). But when you say Vermeule is promoting "radical state capture", I read that as "extreme." Further, when you say that the only way to practically realize Vermeule's vision is through hard coercion or violence (the transition/stability problem), I read that as "extreme."
Since you say that state capture in the sense we are speaking is ordinary political action, I have to assume that you don't find "radical state capture" that would cause "substantial social change" extreme. But you can see where someone might get the impression, based on this language, that you see Vermeule as a bit of an extremist.
More interesting is whether Vermeule's vision *requires* extreme action, which you claim it would while at the same time denying that Vermeule himself calls for it. Obviously, it's impossible to know beforehand what conditions and circumstances are required for any political action to succeed in any given context. But in Common Good Constitutionalism, for instance, Vermeule outlines a plan of political action and suggestions for judicial determination that work incrementally and within the existing framework of America's constitutional republic. There is nothing extreme either about the stated end goal, or about the means described to achieve it. To extrapolate from this that transition *requires* extreme action, again while not explicitly attributing extremism to Vermeule himself, makes it sound as though Vermeule is either 1) ignorant of political possibilities, or 2) secretly an extremist.
I think the final issue is what Vermeule's end goal really is. As stated in Common Good Constitutionalism, the end goal is to reorient the American state in accordance with the natural law. It is not to usher in a Catholic integralist state. You cite to articles Vermeule has written elsewhere, but I'm not sure these provide a solid enough basis to claim that the state capture Vermeule envisions is for the end of an integralist Catholic state. At least, not necessarily in the short term. Most integralist authors I know (Fimister comes to mind) state that integralism in practice should only be implemented when it would fit appropriately over the society which is being integrated. So even *if*, big picture, Vermeule thinks an integralist state is ideal (as all integralists--soft, medium, and hard--think), there is no reason to think he would advocate for a regime whose only practical path forward would require extreme action. But ultimately, the evidence that Vermeule wants to use state capture for the end of *integralism* rather than common-goodism is spotty and not directly stated in his fullest writings on the subject (at least as far as I can tell).
I think it is the framing of Vermeule as radical in his theory, ignorant (or secretly extremist) in the practical implementation of his policies, and insincere or secretive in the stated goal of his political writings that makes one think you have cast him in an overly negative light. I can't speak for Feser, but I wonder if this is partly what he has in mind when he thinks you have mischaracterized Vermeule.
I'm curious why you think Vermeule's position on soft integralism versus moderate integralism is relevant?
We disagree on how much evidence is required to think that Vermeule favors integralist state capture as his political endgame. The evidence in this post isn't spotty, and it is how Vermeule has been commonly understood for years. CGC was never meant to touch on these issues. Vermeule expressly sets aside issues raised by the supernatural aspect of the common good in that book, but he's written on it before CGC even appeared in the Atlantic.
It isn't in the least bit strange to think an extremely intelligent person can get hoodwinked by their own ideology, enough to miss the awful real-world consequences of their view. Isn't that just the tale of countless socialist intellectuals in the 20th century?
For Vermeule to be a soft integralist, he would have to hold, by Feser's definition, that integralism is unlikely to ever work in practice. My evidence above shows at least that Vermeule rejects that view. That's why moderate integralism matters.
It's also worth recalling that I discuss the time-length issue in the book (123). The problem with integralism I raise in that chapter is that the ideal isn't action-guiding. The purpose of the chapter is not to refute Vermeule but rather to take the most developed transition plan, explain why it doesn't work, and then use that to explain why the integralist ideal has a critical defect.
My view is that, to the extent that Vermeule's transition plan rests on a small time frame, to that extent, it requires violence. I then say that if Vermeule's transition plan rests on a very long time frame, he can avoid violence, but uncertainty about achieving the plan expands by orders of magnitude. That's why it is so ridiculous to say that I am attributing violence to Vermeule. I expressly state that the issue of violence depends on the time frame (among many other disclaimers). Feser just didn't read the chapter carefully.
Feser also never presented the structure of my argument in chapter 4, which is modeled on Hayek's argument against socialism in The Road to Serfdom - expressly, and on the first page of the chapter. Feser is a Hayek scholar and *totally* missed this. He doesn't understand why I bothered to use Vermeule in the first place. It is not of the *first* importance for my argument that Vermeule has a transition plan, but rather that a plan very much like his is required for integralism to be an action-guiding ideal.
You treat the concept of state capture as a boogeyman. All moral commitments require "state capture," i.e., influencing the political order and wielding power for a given end (be it liberalism, integralism, common-goodism, etc.) This is normal, not extreme, political action.
If state capture is normal, perhaps Vermeule is extreme for advancing integralism. You read into the term "integration" and the political leanings of publishers to assume Vermeule is speaking of hard integralism, (not the "less problematic" soft/moderate types). This is unfair.
As you acknowledge, state capture for a natural law regime /= integralism. But it does mean a divergence from liberalism. You claim this would be a substantial social change. But if you follow Vermeule, you know he claims that liberalism IS ALREADY DEAD.
The debate is whether state power should be wielded for woke secularism, or for the common good. The pluralistic, freedom loving liberalism that many still defended does not exist in any meaningful sense. It is pure fantasy.
Given all of this, one must conclude that you find Vermeule extreme because he opposes liberalism, not because he advocates for state capture (which is normal political action), or even for integralism (common-goodism /= integralism; even if integralism, why not soft).
To answer your questions:
1) No, it is obvious that he believes in state capture, but this is completely mundane.
2) It is not entirely clear where Vermeule stands on integralism. My best guess is that he wants the advancement of a natural-law abiding, common-goodism state. This is compatible with a soft or moderate view of integralism, whereby, as the state becomes virtuous, it may become more disposed to receive supernatural goods under an integralist order.
It's well known in Catholic philosophy circles that Ed Feser doesn't read (for example, Chris Tollefson once told me he didn't think Feser had read a single page of New Natural Law theory). I'm not surprised he got you wrong.
Thanks for commenting. I’m glad we agree state capture by itself is normal, not extreme. That’s why I’m not treating state capture as a boogeyman. Feser’s claim must be that *integralist* state capture is what’s extreme.
I think you and I agree my evidence shows that’s what Vermeule favors as his ideal. Vermeule is at least a soft integralist.
Vermeule nowhere indicates soft imtegralism because he has never said integralism is very likely not to work in practice, so we might as well shelve it forever (Feser’s soft integralism.)
Maybe Vermeule is a moderate integralist. That I can accept. But then my transition argument and my stability argument apply just fine.
You’re also right that *Vermeule* thinks in some sense liberalism is dead. We’re in a leftist secular integralist state. But I don’t think that affects the transition argument. Both liberal and progressive starting points are going to be rough starting lines to get to integralism.
I don’t think it follows *at all* that I think Vermeule’s support for state capture is problematic because it isn’t liberalism. Liberalism and integralism are at two ends of a spectrum of church-state separation/integration. There are many intermediate positions. Consider that in chapter 5, I’m asking whether integralism will collapse into a moderate Catholic establishmentarian state, of the sort the conservative V2 council fathers envisioned. That’s an intermediate position.
In chapter 4, I’m clear about the starting conditions for transition. They’re quasi-liberal democratic with modern education and technology because Vermeule’s transition plan takes off once liberal elites are discredited to the public as a whole and vulnerable to competing elite classes. He also presumes we start with a modern state. It’s like the USSR in 1991.
So, we agree that state capture is not extreme. And I’m happy to say Vermeule is a moderate integralist. That won’t hit my arguments.
That means the interesting question is whether Vermeule thinks, in general, that integralism is very likely to fail in practice almost all the time. And *surely* the evidence I cite here demonstrates he doesn’t hold that position, which is Feser’s soft integralism. So I think it is fair and reasonable to treat Vermeule as a moderate integralist.
Smart comment! Thank you!
I appreciate the reply. As my comment indicates, I think you are attributing *something* extreme to Vermeule, though not direct violence. I'll leave aside whether you give the *implication* that Vermeule calls for violence (which I know was partially the point of this write up, as you and Feser are debating this). But when you say Vermeule is promoting "radical state capture", I read that as "extreme." Further, when you say that the only way to practically realize Vermeule's vision is through hard coercion or violence (the transition/stability problem), I read that as "extreme."
Since you say that state capture in the sense we are speaking is ordinary political action, I have to assume that you don't find "radical state capture" that would cause "substantial social change" extreme. But you can see where someone might get the impression, based on this language, that you see Vermeule as a bit of an extremist.
More interesting is whether Vermeule's vision *requires* extreme action, which you claim it would while at the same time denying that Vermeule himself calls for it. Obviously, it's impossible to know beforehand what conditions and circumstances are required for any political action to succeed in any given context. But in Common Good Constitutionalism, for instance, Vermeule outlines a plan of political action and suggestions for judicial determination that work incrementally and within the existing framework of America's constitutional republic. There is nothing extreme either about the stated end goal, or about the means described to achieve it. To extrapolate from this that transition *requires* extreme action, again while not explicitly attributing extremism to Vermeule himself, makes it sound as though Vermeule is either 1) ignorant of political possibilities, or 2) secretly an extremist.
I think the final issue is what Vermeule's end goal really is. As stated in Common Good Constitutionalism, the end goal is to reorient the American state in accordance with the natural law. It is not to usher in a Catholic integralist state. You cite to articles Vermeule has written elsewhere, but I'm not sure these provide a solid enough basis to claim that the state capture Vermeule envisions is for the end of an integralist Catholic state. At least, not necessarily in the short term. Most integralist authors I know (Fimister comes to mind) state that integralism in practice should only be implemented when it would fit appropriately over the society which is being integrated. So even *if*, big picture, Vermeule thinks an integralist state is ideal (as all integralists--soft, medium, and hard--think), there is no reason to think he would advocate for a regime whose only practical path forward would require extreme action. But ultimately, the evidence that Vermeule wants to use state capture for the end of *integralism* rather than common-goodism is spotty and not directly stated in his fullest writings on the subject (at least as far as I can tell).
I think it is the framing of Vermeule as radical in his theory, ignorant (or secretly extremist) in the practical implementation of his policies, and insincere or secretive in the stated goal of his political writings that makes one think you have cast him in an overly negative light. I can't speak for Feser, but I wonder if this is partly what he has in mind when he thinks you have mischaracterized Vermeule.
I'm curious why you think Vermeule's position on soft integralism versus moderate integralism is relevant?
We disagree on how much evidence is required to think that Vermeule favors integralist state capture as his political endgame. The evidence in this post isn't spotty, and it is how Vermeule has been commonly understood for years. CGC was never meant to touch on these issues. Vermeule expressly sets aside issues raised by the supernatural aspect of the common good in that book, but he's written on it before CGC even appeared in the Atlantic.
It isn't in the least bit strange to think an extremely intelligent person can get hoodwinked by their own ideology, enough to miss the awful real-world consequences of their view. Isn't that just the tale of countless socialist intellectuals in the 20th century?
For Vermeule to be a soft integralist, he would have to hold, by Feser's definition, that integralism is unlikely to ever work in practice. My evidence above shows at least that Vermeule rejects that view. That's why moderate integralism matters.
It's also worth recalling that I discuss the time-length issue in the book (123). The problem with integralism I raise in that chapter is that the ideal isn't action-guiding. The purpose of the chapter is not to refute Vermeule but rather to take the most developed transition plan, explain why it doesn't work, and then use that to explain why the integralist ideal has a critical defect.
My view is that, to the extent that Vermeule's transition plan rests on a small time frame, to that extent, it requires violence. I then say that if Vermeule's transition plan rests on a very long time frame, he can avoid violence, but uncertainty about achieving the plan expands by orders of magnitude. That's why it is so ridiculous to say that I am attributing violence to Vermeule. I expressly state that the issue of violence depends on the time frame (among many other disclaimers). Feser just didn't read the chapter carefully.
Feser also never presented the structure of my argument in chapter 4, which is modeled on Hayek's argument against socialism in The Road to Serfdom - expressly, and on the first page of the chapter. Feser is a Hayek scholar and *totally* missed this. He doesn't understand why I bothered to use Vermeule in the first place. It is not of the *first* importance for my argument that Vermeule has a transition plan, but rather that a plan very much like his is required for integralism to be an action-guiding ideal.
Thanks again!
You treat the concept of state capture as a boogeyman. All moral commitments require "state capture," i.e., influencing the political order and wielding power for a given end (be it liberalism, integralism, common-goodism, etc.) This is normal, not extreme, political action.
If state capture is normal, perhaps Vermeule is extreme for advancing integralism. You read into the term "integration" and the political leanings of publishers to assume Vermeule is speaking of hard integralism, (not the "less problematic" soft/moderate types). This is unfair.
As you acknowledge, state capture for a natural law regime /= integralism. But it does mean a divergence from liberalism. You claim this would be a substantial social change. But if you follow Vermeule, you know he claims that liberalism IS ALREADY DEAD.
The debate is whether state power should be wielded for woke secularism, or for the common good. The pluralistic, freedom loving liberalism that many still defended does not exist in any meaningful sense. It is pure fantasy.
Given all of this, one must conclude that you find Vermeule extreme because he opposes liberalism, not because he advocates for state capture (which is normal political action), or even for integralism (common-goodism /= integralism; even if integralism, why not soft).
To answer your questions:
1) No, it is obvious that he believes in state capture, but this is completely mundane.
2) It is not entirely clear where Vermeule stands on integralism. My best guess is that he wants the advancement of a natural-law abiding, common-goodism state. This is compatible with a soft or moderate view of integralism, whereby, as the state becomes virtuous, it may become more disposed to receive supernatural goods under an integralist order.
It's well known in Catholic philosophy circles that Ed Feser doesn't read (for example, Chris Tollefson once told me he didn't think Feser had read a single page of New Natural Law theory). I'm not surprised he got you wrong.