First Things is arguably the most influential magazine in the American ‘faith and politics’ arena, widely read by religious leaders. Its contributors include notable voices like Senator Josh Hawley and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, making it a bellwether for significant trends on the political and ecclesial right. However, the editorial shift from founding editor Richard John Neuhaus to current editor Russell Ronald Reno III has been dramatic, from “neo-conservative” to “national conservative,” something Neuhaus would likely have opposed.
This article starts by exploring the neo-conservative worldview of Richard John Neuhaus, of which he was a leading advocate. It will then look at the national conservative ideology of R. R. Reno. We will note the incompatibility between these two approaches and offer a theological critique that suggests that the Christian faith has more in common with Neuhaus than with Reno.
Neocons
On a certain set of questions, Neuhaus and Reno agree. They both affirmed the traditional family. One man should be married to one woman; the marital union is the only legitimate abode for sexual intimacy; and the family is the appropriate setting for the raising of children.
In addition, they shared a pro-life position. This has been a lifelong preoccupation for Neuhaus. His break with the liberal left was over abortion. He was adamant that support for the weak and marginalized must extend to the unborn. A consistent theme of his writing is that the “prevalence of abortion in America today is deeply disturbing.” In addition, Neuhaus wrote, “public policy on abortion should have a clear and emphatic bias towards preserving the life of the unborn.” Reno supports all these positions.
Turning now to the differences between Neuhaus and Reno, they diverge sharply over their view of the nation state. Back in 1977, Neuhaus wrote:
The world is one and interdependent. The idea of the human family is not one of poetic sentiment; it is grounded in the creative and redemptive love of the God of us all. Every policy, whether domestic or international in name, must be measured by its impact upon the whole of humanity. This is especially true of the policies of the United States of America which have such singular influence – militarily, politically, economically and culturally – upon the rest of humankind.
For Neuhaus, talk of “America First” is theologically inappropriate because it denies the story of salvation history. God is the God of the whole world; and a nation that impacts the entire world must be concerned for the whole world. In the same book, Neuhaus advocates for immigration, which he sees as an uncomplicated good. He writes:
The churches should contend vigorously for a generous and open policy on immigration and should combat relentlessly every sign of a revival of what used to be called nativism. Nativist sentiment is morally repugnant and, in an immigrant nation, conceptually absurd. This great land is nowhere near being overpopulated. … Immigrants have in the past, and will in the future, enrich our common life. As to immigration from Latin America in particular, … we should welcome the prospect of America becoming a more truly bilingual culture.
He never deviated from this theme. In his most sustained critique of economic life, published in 1992, involving an exploration of the papal encyclical from Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, Neuhaus gives some prominence to the plight of immigrants. He writes:
Ours is a time of massive population movements, exceeding even the great migrations from the Old World to the New in the nineteenth century. War and famine play their dolorous part in motoring these migrations but, as frequently, people are seeking opportunities to ‘enter the sphere of economic and human development.’ The argument of the Pope would seem to have a direct bearing on the millions of migrant laborers moving about Europe and, even more directly, on Latin Americans seeking opportunities in the United States. While not denying the legitimate and necessary reality of nation-states, an understanding that ‘the earth is the Lord’s’ disposes one to an open and liberal view of the fluidity of national boundaries. Centesimus positions itself against all forms of nativist sentiment. Catholics, Jews, and others, we might note, do well to remember that a century ago they were the ‘unwashed immigrant hordes’ who were viewed with alarm by ‘old stock’ Americans.
There is nowhere in Neuhaus’ voluminous writings where these sentiments are modified or questioned. Once again, it is the theological truth of the one God responsible for the entire world that grounds his commitment to a ‘fluidity of national boundaries.’
While America had to be welcoming, Neuhaus also believed that America had to be assertive. He was persuaded by Reinhold Niebuhr that nations must occasionally exercise force to bring about a just peace. And, so, Neuhaus became the most prominent advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the quest for weapons of mass destruction. It is widely recognized that the support of Neuhaus was significant in providing the rationale for the war.
Perhaps the Iraq debacle (after all, there were no weapons of mass destruction) was a factor in the disintegration of the neo-conservative approach. And so, the journal that provided a theology to support a neo-conservative politics would inevitably shift. And it is to R. R. Reno that we now turn.
Nat Cons
Neuhaus died in 2009. Reno was appointed in 2011. Before taking the appointment, he was a professor of theology and ethics at Creighton University and was involved in the activities of the journal. Like Neuhaus, he was also a Roman Catholic convert; Reno joined the Roman Catholic Church in 2004.
The continuities in outlook over human sexuality and abortion have continued: it is still committed to the traditional family and the pro-life movement. However, as Donald Trump emerged as the leader of the Republican Party in 2015, Reno started offering a sympathetic critique of Trump’s underlying position.
In Reno’s reflection on “Election 2016”, he gives a thoughtful and nuanced critique of the Trump option. He explains that Trump represents the move from a globalist vision of the world to a world that honors the integrity of nation-states. Reno writes:
Trump promotes nationalism. He says that we need to reassess our military commitments, weighing them against a stricter standard of national interest. He rejects the notion that America must take responsibility for the world, while at the same time conveying a pugilistic image, willing to strike ruthlessly when crossed by foreign powers. Critics call this “isolationism.” It’s more accurate to say that Trump’s rhetoric suggests a return to Westphalian internationalism, one based on the balance of power among sovereign nations rather than an American-led internationalism and development of ever-stronger, supranational institutions.
For Reno, the era of America bringing the values of democracy to the world is over. The era of global institutions “running” our world is over. Instead, Trump represents the new era. This is the era of robust nationalism. Here is the Reno’s shift. He will take First Things in a national conservative direction.
Part of this shift is represented by Reno’s advocacy for immigration controls. In January 2024, Reno talks about uncontrolled immigration as an engine of destruction. He explains:
I’m not “anti-immigration” (although anyone who advocates reduction of the present influx is invariably called that). The ability to attract and assimilate immigrants has been a great American strength. But what has struck me in these debates is the obtuse mentality of those who oppose my calls for restraint on immigration. I point out that the non-native-born are reaching a historic high of nearly 15 percent of the total population, and that immigration rates are accelerating. At some point (20 percent? 25 percent?), won’t the country become culturally incoherent?
The problem, explains Reno, is cultural coherence. By implication, Americans need to share a language and a religion. Nations need to share a set of values. Too much diversity is problematic. By the time Reno wrote this editorial, he was already at the heart of the movement called “national conservatives.” And it is now necessary to look more closely at this movement.
A key text for understanding the “national conservatives” is Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue of Nationalism. It is probably the best statement of an “America First” philosophy. The thesis is simple: independent nation states are the best mechanism of human coexistence and thriving. Hazony develops his argument with a series of contrasts, such as between nations and empires. Later in the book, he offers another contrast in the form of a spectrum, with anarchy at one end and empire at the other, and the nation state midway between. This analysis serves to illustrate the idea that to live in harmony, enjoy freedom, and honor global diversity, different peoples with their own shared affinities should be gathered together into nation states. This way of thinking also means opposition to any over-arching supranational structures (the UN, NATO, and EU are all problematic).
Hazony’s philosophical opponent is John Locke – arguably the most influential articulator of the social contract theory of government. In Locke’s narrative, the essence of society is individuals choosing to surrender some of their individual rights in order to live under law. These individuals are not defined by culture, family or religion, but those who want to survive and enjoy their property. Hazony is harsh, writing:
“In reducing political life to the individual’s pursuit of life and property, Locke did not merely offer an impoverished and unsuccessful account of human motivation and action. His political theory summoned into being a dream-world, a utopian vision, in which the political institutions of the Jewish and Christian worlds – the national state, community, family, and religious tradition – appear to have no reason to exist.”
Instead, nations developed organically. They start with families and neighborhoods. They often share a language and a religion. They blend around a variety of symbols that create loyalty. Nations have a “national character.” Nations with too much diversity are fragile – a major problem with the artificial states created by the French and British in the Middle East. Although minorities must be protected, to be an effective nation, there must be a coherent majority culture. Bring these things together, and you arrive at a stable nation. He opposed forms of federalism, especially in places where there are major differences in language and religion. And he opposes the “neutral state,” or one built on a constitution that does not attempt to reflect the religion and culture of a people but instead aspires to neutrality.
The logical implications of Hazony’s position are clear: it is right to put your nation first. This does not entail indifference to the interests of other nations, but it should be assumed that this is the principle according to which all national leaders should act. It also means being pro-families (I suspect as traditionally understood) and supportive of a religious identity to a nation. It means being opposed to the imposition of “liberal values” on other nations. So, presumably, the US should not be doing “democracy promotion” anywhere around the world. Nations should not get involved in wars that are not their business or directly related to their interests. And international organizations are intrinsically suspect.
Now Neuhaus would have been sympathetic to Reno’s concerns. In some cases, conservative Christians in America really are embattled for their sincerely held beliefs. Neuhaus believed that children need mothers and fathers. He was concerned about the fertility rate. And he was an ardent advocate for school choice because he wanted parents to have the option of a school where their children could pray. All of this, he would have shared. But the shift he would not have understood is the idea that nations are best thought of as fortresses, or that American power (which he largely saw as a force of good) should be constrained because no nation should ever violate the sovereignty of another, even if some greater good could materialize from the exercise of that power.
Neuhaus would have sympathized with concerns about American culture but would reject the fortress mentality of national conservatism. He believed American power should be used to support universal values – human rights, democracy, and minority protection. Neuhaus would have identified three problems with national conservatism:
The conservative cultural agenda is not advanced by national conservative political theory. Nationalism does not remove the obligation for conservatives to argue for their vision. If America chooses progressive values, conservatives must either accept minority status or emigrate. Ironically, immigrants who are culturally conservative are precisely those that national conservatives want to exclude.
America’s vocation is to use its power to support the “American experiment”-universal moral values. To have power and not use it to protect minorities or oppose tyranny is wrong. Hazony, a Jewish American, supports a Jewish Israeli state, which relies on American support – contradicting his own nationalist logic.
National conservatism is theologically misguided and potentially anti-Catholic. Neuhaus argued that theology begins with a Creator God responsible for the whole world. A political theory that denies this is a denial of divine creation. The Roman Catholic Church is transnational; historically, European states were answerable to higher law embodied in Christendom. The Roman Catholic Church is a transnational organization. Indeed, the compelling case can be made that the rise of national sovereignty has nothing to do with the Biblical narrative – contra Hazony – but, for Europeans, everything to do with the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, European “states” were answerable to the higher law embodied in Christendom, in the Church. The Pope, as head of the spiritual realm, had some form of authority in every national realm. All nations are answerable to the divine law; and ideally, the international nature of the Roman Catholic Church can be a mechanism for witnessing to that divine law.
Standing Back
In one respect, the national conservatives are clearly right. The Lockean myth of a “social contract” being formed by a group of individuals deciding to surrender unlimited liberty to live under law is historically false. The truth is that nations emerged because of a shared sense of identity within a group; the shared traits were often linguistic and religious.
It is also true that national identity is fragile if the nation is seeking to accommodate major differences. The classic illustration of this Yugoslavia, which in 1990, slowly disintegrated into five different states. Religion and culture were part of the reason for the disintegration, along with the complex history of World War II and the various atrocities that were committed by different sides.
Although national conservatives are right on the genesis and origin of nation states, they overstate the corollary that follows from this truth. For Hazony, this means that America has a Christian identity; Israel has a Jewish identity; and everything must be done to safeguard these identities. Hazony also concedes that some pluralism in nation states is inevitable, and that the cultural identity of a particular nation can change.
National conservatives also want to claim that traditional moral codes are essential for supporting a national identity (so, perhaps, divorce, abortion, and homosexual relations should all be illegal). But this begs the question, which traditional moral codes? Are the world’s innumerable cultures not composed of equally numerous and morally incommensurable traditions?
National conservatives already recognize that there are different cultures supporting different nations. We have majority Muslim, Christian, Taoist, Hindu, and increasingly, in Europe, secular cultures. Secular and progressive cultures (say Germany and France) are not inherently less stable than Hindu (India) or Islamic (Pakistan) cultures. One can agree that a nation needs a shared culture, but what should be the essential features of a healthy culture considered is not clear. Neuhaus was right that appeals to Lockean liberalism are unhelpful because shared culture is undoubtedly essential to nationhood, though what that culture looks like in practice is varied.
Having conceded the link between culture and the state to the national conservatives, I now want to strongly support Neuhaus’s view that to make the national self-interest paramount is sinful and to deny compassion to the migrant is anti-Christian. Now of course immigration can and should be appropriately managed according to pragmatic and logistical reasons. But God, as Creator, cares for the entire world. God cares for every sparrow; and God cares so much more for every person. (See Matthew 10: 29-31). Neuhaus was right: policy for the United States must consider the impact on the rest of the world. The privilege of power brings responsibility for the right use of power. The United States is powerful and that brings responsibility.
The Reno shift at First Things is a fundamental departure from the theology of the journal’s founder. It reflects a wider shift in the discourse of the political right. Both First Things and the Christian right need to avoid the language of particularism and nationalism and return to an appropriate sense of catholicity. After all, Neuhaus is right: God cares for the entire world.
