Well, luckily I dodged that particular bullet with The End of Secularism by Hunter Baker. I have never met the good Dr. Baker (not to confuse you with his wife who is an actual doctor) but have become friends with him over the years through our participation at Red State and other conservative venues.

So I was quite happy to find that Hunter’s book was enjoyable and very well done (I expect nothing less from Crossway). It is in fact a book I am likely to recommend to friends and family.

Baker’s slim volume is an intelligent brief against the popular “modern” conception of secularism that seeks to keep the religious out of public life. Readable, and useful, for non-academics but interesting for those with a greater depth on the subject as well.

He uses straightforward arguments and language to lay out both the history and the debates surrounding the issue before making his own – in my opinion persuasive – case against what might be called hard line secularism.

Here is a section of the publisher’s blurb that sums it up nicely:

The result of Baker’s analysis is The End of Secularism. He reveals that secularism fails as an instrument designed to create superior social harmony and political rationality to that which is available with theistic alternatives. Baker also demonstrates that secularism is far from the best or only way to enjoy modernity’s fruits of religious liberty, free speech, and democracy. The End of Secularism declares the demise of secularism as a useful social construct and upholds the value of a public square that welcomes all comers, religious and otherwise, into the discussion. The message of The End of Secularism is that the marketplace of ideas depends on open and honest discussion rather than on religious content or the lack thereof.

Two things that are laudatory about this book:

1. It is written in an easy and enjoyable style. More academics should learn to write this clearly and succinctly. It is neither “dumbed down” nor unnecessarily verbose. Understandable for the average reader but deep enough for the academic.
2. It is a great length. Too many books seem padded or are overly dense. Baker introduces the subject well, provides the background, makes his argument and wraps it up. Again, more authors should strive for this sort of presentation. Not everyone has the time or energy to dive into long complex tomes, but we don’t need fluff either. This length is perfect for me anyways.

If you are interested in the subject of secularism or the interaction of faith in the public square you will want to read this book. It can serve as a useful introduction or an interesting argument/debate kickoff for those with more of a background in the subject.

But let’s face it, not all of these battles are intelligent and civil debates over first principles. And that is what makes The Future of Conservatism edited by Charles W. Dunn and published by ISI so refreshing. Rather than a diatribe about which faction hijacked the movement, or which politician betrayed it, it is an intelligent and thoughtful discussion about the various perspectives within conservatism, the principles at issue, and how these debates might play out in the future.Editor Charles W. Dunn attempts to define and describe modern conservatism. He offers “Ten Canons of Conservatism” and describes five “wings” of the conservative movement (neoconservative, libertarian, Midwest conservatives, traditionalists, and religious conservatives). This introductory essay is a useful entry into the development and structure of conservatism and its many factions or perspectives. I am sure many will want to question or quible with parts, but it is a great place to start

George H. Nash looks back in order to look forward. He surveys the historical development of American conservatism to understand how we got here and where we are headed. He notes that much of the discontent on the right is due to its maturity and success which bring unique problems. He also notes, however, that philosophical and political unity was always a challenge for conservatism and inter-movement discussion and debate – often quite heated – has always been evident.

After these two introductory type essays, the book goes on to offer various perspectives on the future of conservatism. James W. Ceaser argues that the conservative coalition is made up of four heads: traditionalist or paleo-conservatism; neoconservatism; libertarianism; and the Religious Right. He goes on to argue that for neocons natural rights are the foundational concept and the American Founding is the emblematic event. Ceaser feels that the natural right perspective of the neocons, broadly defined, and the faith based perspective of the Religious Right can combine to lead conservatism into the future. He claims that they “alone posses major projects that speak to the great political issues of our time.”

George W. Carey argues the the nature of the presidency and political parties has led the Republican Party away from conservative principles and that conservatives must look to tradition and crtical checks and balances in order to preserve freedom and fight an ever expanding state.

Harvey Mansfield argues for a “Constitutional Conservatism” that is roughly equivalent to classical liberalism. Michael Barone outlines why he thinks the country remains evenly divided and how conservatives can continue to succeed in this environment.

Marvin Olasky offers ten thoughts on how Christians should engage the culture. He argues that:

The future of American conservatism depends on the ability of libertarians to understand that liberty without virtue cannot last, and the ability of Christian conservatives to understand that being strong and courageous doesn’t mean demanding ideological purity.

Two of the strongest essays, or at least most though provoking to me, were those by Daniel J. Mahoney and Allan C. Carlson. Mahoney’s essay is one of the most intelligent and yet respectful critiques of the foreign policy of the Bush administration that I have seen. In setting out a balanced view Mahoney insightfully argues that:

We are confronted then, with a foreign policy that in many respects operates within sober parameters of principle and prudence – but which is expressed in a self-defeating rhetoric that both encourages overreach and leaves the administration vulnerable to tendentious criticism.

Carlson looks back at the history of pro-family politics to understand why Reagan was once a Democrat and became a Republican. Clearly the revolutions of the sixties changed which party was home to support for the traditional family.

But despite some real gains, Carlson also notes that the GOP hasn’t done a great deal for traditional families lately. Too often big business has triumphed over families in Washington. If the Democrats were ever to moderate their support for the sexual revolution and embrace pro-family policies signficant social and political realignment is possible.

This is an issue that the GOP and conservatives ignore at their peril. I was so fascinated by Carlson’s argument that I added his recent book, The Natural Family: A Manifesto, to my reading list.

Peter Augustine Lawler attempts to explain how conservatism and postmodernism need not be antithetical. And William Kristol argues that conservatives should look to the lessons of Ronald Reagan and offer “counterintuitive leadership” and have the ‘courage to make history.”

The Future of Conservatism is a great collection of essays. It offers a nice blend of history, politics, philosophy, and personal perspective from a variety of conservatives. There is much to agree with, argue about, and think further on. An added benefit is that the book and the essays it contains are slim enough to make it an easy read.

As I noted above, anyone with an interest in conservatism will want to add this volume to their library.