Sorry about that. Yes, there is much that needs to be explored here, and at a deeper level.

You mentioned: “But it is hard to imagine the ‘American Political Experiment’ apart from liberalism/individualism, in its various forms.”

You put your finger on something very important, namely, the notion of the individual as the ground of the American Political Experiment. And yet, it is too often thought that the individual must be defined in an atomistic sense, as in Hobbes. However, that is not necessarily the case.

In an article I’m writing on President Kennedy, I say: “Unlike its popular rendering, Kennedy saw the defining logic of the person to be intrinsically relational, not atomistic and self-contained. His was a politics of dignity and liberty in pursuit of solidarity, not a selfish contest for power induced by greed, fear, and narcissistic indifference. For him, personal dignity was inexorably tied to a just order of perfecting relations among men.”

Until we explore more deeply the nature of the individual in its relational dimension — and elucidate this existential content in the public forum — I don’t expect to see any progress on issues such as abortion. Nor can we begin to argue effectively in terms of the common good. Democracy in America will be reduced increasingly to a collection of narcissistic individuals.

If America is a positive creed to which one gives assent, probably not. But referring to or thinking about one’s home country as a positive creed to which one gives assent is itself a peculiar, modern, and uniquely American phenomenon.

Actually, Gerald, the question was Matthew’s. And I agree that it begs a lot of (interesting) questions.

JH,

Just because one chooses not to take part in a party or even not to vote does not mean that one is “doing nothing and tuning out.” Heck contributing on blogs is a form or participating in public discussion and can be a way working out the changes we so badly needed. Obviously it can’t stop here, but you get the point.

I pray that alot more Catholics can recognize that Catholics can not (presently?) call either party a comfortable home, which I think is indicative of the fallenness of our “post-Christian” American society and culture.

Three points:

First, what is the significance of the adjective “good” here? Does the focus on the “good” denote a voluntarist inclination? How would the meaning of your question change if you used the adjective “true?” Is there a consensus around the terms “good American” or “good Christian?”

Second, as a Catholic, I don’t consider myself Christian, as the term is popularly used. Catholic has the larger significance.

How does the doctrine of analogy factor into your query? It seems as though the phrase “good American” and “good Christian” is univocal at best, perhaps even equivocal. It may be that the question itself is meaningless — or at least begs for some intellectual content.

Here’s a question to put this conversation in the direction I’m angling for:

can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?”

Well I suppose since I am a Republican “party worker” I should speak up. NO political party is perfect by far. However the parties are not one monolithic blob. It often differs from region to region of the country. We all come together because we agree on more items than we disagree.

As a party worker I am not sure that the world I want is buch different than the what non party political people want. So much of my time is trying to fdrag people screaming to hear people running for office talk. It is about trying to get local people involved in their Govt and excited and involved in the political process.

I have visions for wher eI wnat my party to be. In fact it is pretty obvious to everybody that the Republican party is having a mighty big discussion on this right at the moment. It is not pretty but it is real and its vibrant.

I will not defend every action of the “Republican” party. In the end it (as well as every other politcal party and movement) wrestles and grapples with the world and gets her hands dirty. It makes mistakes However it is far better than doing nothing and tuning out.

THe political parties are made up of real like flesh and blood human beings. THey differ and agree on various subjects

THere seems to be a lot of statements here declaring that people cannot be good Christians and member of a political party or even by some far leap of logic good Americans. Well I must say that is not what the American Church or even the Bishops of Rome have indicated.

Is Americn more Fundamentally flawed than Japan, Italy, France, the UK, Monaco, or the Island nation of Naru? Well I don’t think so. IF so that arguemnt should be made.

We need to revisit the intrinsic meaning of practical reason.

See my comment: http://vox-nova.com/2008/01/25/more-on-the-call-for-incivility/#comments

Depends on the understanding of those terms. But as I have argued many times, U.S. Catholics seem to assume that there is no conflict whatsoever between being American and Catholic, with the exception for a few hot button issues. They do not seem to understand that the entire American project is fundamentally flawed both in its philosophical underpinnings and in its historical origins in colonialism.

Well said. That is exactly what I have observed in ‘socialist’ Sweden. It has become a nation of autonomous individuals who ‘gave at the office’.

‘Can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?’

Wow. It depends on what you mean by ‘American’. But it is hard to imagine the ‘American Political Experiment’ apart from liberalism/individualism, in its various forms.