The « Contrat Social » in matter of style, is one of the most terse, lucid and elegant books ever written; the very embodiment of French logic, precision and clarity.

I thoroughly agree with Hilaire Belloc, when he says, “It is indeed astonishing to one who is well acquainted not only with the matter, but with the manner of the Contrat Social, to remark what criticisms have been passed upon it by those who either have not read the work or, having read it, did so with an imperfect knowledge of the meaning of French words.”

Robespierre, like Rousseau, was utterly sincere and even intolerant in his theism. The contempt he expressed for Hébert and Chaumette was real, not affected, although one may feel there was truth in his remark that he had been « un assez mauvais catholique »

Very interesting commentary from Acton. It would seem that Rousseau was a latter-day Protestant reformer, like his acolyte Robespierre. But, as with Robespierre, who seems to have thought alà Comte avant la lettre, that religion was more useful than true, Rousseau didn’t really believe very much of the rubbish he put down in “Emile” and “La nouvelle Heloïse.” He was mainly fencing for effect, you see. At least that’s what I’m proposing.

After awhile he couldn’t lay aside the costume of sacerdotal Philosophe. That MIGHT contribute to explaining Rousseau’s appeal to a cynic like David Hume.

I understand that he wrote beautiful French. You give the impression of reading French well, which I do very slowly and only after much consulting with a dictionary. Is that true? Otherwise I am at an impasse in comprehending Voltaire’s infatuation with such a charlatan

Lord Acton neatly summarises the origins of his theories, “Taken jointly or severally, they are old friends, and you will find them in the school of Wolf that just preceded, in the dogmatists of the Great Rebellion and the Jesuit casuists who were dear to Algernon Sidney, in their Protestant opponents, Duplessis Mornay, and the Scots who had heard the last of our schoolmen, Major of St. Andrews, renew the speculations of the time of schism, which decomposed and dissected the Church and rebuilt it on a model very propitious to political revolution, and even in the early interpreters of the Aristotelian Politics which appeared just at the era of the first parliament.”

Yet given that the context of his first success was a contest, a debate, and arguably a form of sophistry, I wonder if this man’s entire subsequent intellectual career should not be looked at as a vast and opportunistic con, in which he believed not a word.

Certainly his own personal life suggests nothing so much as a sleazy con man with an eye for the main chance. He abandoned Catholicism for Protestantism for Catholicism with the same cynical lubriciousness as he did one (older) woman for another, after he had milked them of their usefulness. He abandoned five children, personally bringing them to the orphanage door. He was also an incorrigible suck-up toward anyone who could further his career. If he is to be studied, it seems to me, it would be as a cautionary tale of what is likely to result when depravity is married to sophistry. Observe one of his better known disciples Karl Marx, and ponder in what wholesome influence on human well-being taking Rousseau seriously may result.

We pay the scoundrel the compliment of taking his work seriously? Shame!

There are so many wise thoughts in your comments that I will not be able to address them all, but I will address a few.

Thank you for describing the party system with such clarity. We speak of “belonging” to one party or another, and that language trains the mind to think of the party as an authority to which we submit. We do need to remember that it is a coalition, and that we are not defined by it.

I agree with you that we must accept our responsibility, as the laity, to change the political order, and to educate others about political matters, and stop griping that the bishops are not doing this.

Finally, I agree that we owe the world serious intellectual engagement regarding matters of faith. The angry responses to the Pope’s condom remarks, and to Paul Ryan’s budget, fueled by emotion without enough reason to actually advance an argument, are good examples of a lack of such intellectual engagement.

The only area where I would like to issue a caveat to your remarks is that mothers with young children, who often feel the weight of the world is on their shoulders, do not have time at that stage of life to be deeply engaged in the political process. I am sure you agree. You did not exert any such pressure on young mothers. I only want to make the point in case there are any young moms reading this. I would like to affirm the choices of those who are unable to finds time for anything beyond family.

“It does inherit some truths from Christianity which it keeps.”

Very true and something much insisted on by the French « Nouvelle droit » “In most respects, it represents a secularization of ideas and perspectives borrowed from Christian metaphysics, which spread into secular life following a rejection of any transcendent dimension… Individualism was already present in the notion of individual salvation and of an intimate and privileged relation between an individual and God that surpasses any relation on earth. Egalitarianism is rooted in the idea that redemption is equally available to all mankind, since all are endowed with an individual soul whose absolute value is shared by all humanity. Progressivism is born of the idea that history has an absolute beginning and a necessary end, and that it unfolds globally according to a divine plan. Finally, universalism is the natural expression of a religion that claims to manifest a revealed truth which, valid for all men, summons them to conversion. Modern political life itself is founded on secularized theological concepts.” – Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier.

There is more than a little truth in that analysis.

Because Liberalism’s notion of freedom is flawed from the ground up (because, that is, it believes only in “negative freedom” or “freedom from”) there is no way to stop the drive towards more and more freedom from restrictions. Take a long hard look at the Liberal regimes in the world and see how marriage, family, bio-ethics, etc. are doing. We divorce more, kill more unborn children and old people, sexualize our children more, provide ever more and ever worse pornography, “liberalize” more and more marriage and sex laws, engage in more acts of euthanasia, cloning, abusing embryos, etc. Every ten years things are allowed that were once forbidden and this is inevitable given our view of freedom.

Meanwhile, on the “right” (conservative) side of Liberalism, that freedom results in more and more unjust wars (every war seems to have more “collateral damage” than the one before it). Economic inequalities rage on (in 1970 the top CEOs in Forbes 500 made 49 times their average workers; in 1998 that number has risen to over a thousand times their). Our “free” economy has always worked by allowing unrestricted evil on Wall Street until things are wrecked and then the very “big government” we allegedly detest has to swoop in and bail out the greedy idiots who got us there in the first place. This has been going on ever since we allowed almost totally “free” markets (you should read Karl Polanyi on this).

And yet you want to tell me that Liberalism “works.” I could go on (in 1950 20% of African American children were born out of wedlock; last year 75% were; Poland’s strong Catholic faith withstood the test of Fascism and Communism, but it is not surviving Democratic capitalism). Etc. Etc.

In short, your notion that Liberalism “works” begs the question because you’re using purely Liberal standards to define “works.”

The traditional view was summarised by de Lubac, “the church is not instrumental to God’s purpose of redeeming the world, rather the world is instrumental to God’s purpose of fashioning a body and bride for his Son.”