Integralism is back.
You may not have heard the word, but you've seen its effects — in the post-liberal intellectual movement, in the Heritage Foundation's ideological realignment, in the network of thinkers who've concluded that liberal democracy doesn't just need reform, it needs replacement.
Integralism is not a new idea. It emerged from 19th and early 20th century European Catholic political thought, where traditionalist thinkers argued that civil governments had an obligation to operate under the authority of the Church — that the liberal separation of church and state was not a neutral arrangement but an active political error, a usurpation of the proper order of things. Its most visible expressions were associated with authoritarian regimes in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America. After the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, the Church itself moved toward affirming religious liberty, which put official Church teaching at odds with integralism's core claims. The ideology retreated to the margins of academic theology, where it remained for decades.
The revival began quietly around 2012, when Oxford philosopher Thomas Pink argued that the Church had never actually abandoned its pre-conciliar political theology — that Vatican II had been misread. By the mid-2010s a small group of American academics had developed a modern version of the argument. The leading figures were Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard constitutional law professor; Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political theorist; Chad Pecknold, a theologian at Catholic University; and journalist Sohrab Ahmari. Their online home was a website called The Josias, where integralist political theory was developed and debated in relative obscurity.
Then the political disruption of the 2016 Trump election created a new audience for root-cause critiques of liberal democracy. Deneen's 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed became a significant seller in conservative intellectual circles. At this point the movement made a strategic decision: change the name. "Integralism" carried historical associations with European fascism and antisemitism that made it politically toxic in an American context. The movement's own leaders documented the transition, experimenting with "political Catholicism" and "Christian realism" before settling on "postliberalism" — a label that described what they opposed rather than what they proposed, and sounded considerably less radical. By 2021, Vermeule, Deneen, and their allies had completed the rebrand with a Substack newsletter called Postliberal Order.
Not every postliberal is an integralist. Postliberalism is a wider tent, encompassing Protestant nationalists, Orbán admirers, and various critics of liberal proceduralism who have no particular commitment to Catholic political theology. But a significant wing of American postliberalism overlaps with or descends directly from integralist arguments, even when it avoids the label. And that wing has acquired institutional weight. When Kevin Roberts, the newly appointed president of the Heritage Foundation, attended the 2021 National Conservatism conference and publicly aligned Heritage with the national conservative movement — reversing Heritage's own position from two years earlier — it signaled that this tendency had moved from academic journals to the commanding heights of American conservative institutions.
The diagnosis these thinkers offer is serious and deserves a serious answer. Liberal proceduralism, they argue, was never truly neutral. It embedded substantive commitments about autonomy, about the bracketing of transcendence from public life, about the priority of rights over duties — and then pretended those commitments were just the absence of commitments. The resulting society didn't stay neutral. It dissolved. Family breakdown, opioid deaths, pornography as a mass medium, institutional distrust at historic highs: integralists look at all of this and say liberalism did this, and patching liberalism won't fix it.
They're not entirely wrong about the problem. The problem is their solution.
Their solution is a specific theological-political hierarchy: God, Church, State, Citizens. The state enforces moral order defined by the Church. Authority flows downward. Legitimacy is doctrinal. Correction, when it comes, comes from ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Any moral-political system needs an internal mechanism to recognize when its own principles are being used to justify persecution, scapegoating, or civic degradation — and that mechanism must function without relying on the goodwill of its current leaders. Call this the correction standard. It isn't a bar any particular system is guaranteed to clear. But any system that cannot clear it is not a moral order. It's an enforcement order waiting for the wrong enforcer.
I have pointed out that antisemitism is a metric to measure the morality of systems. Any political, moral or social system that allow antisemitism is not a moral system, by definition. The hatred of Jews or Judaism or the Jewish nation has been rationalized by sophisticated thinkers across centuries. It has attached itself to high-minded frameworks and emerged from them looking like a conclusion rather than a crime.
That makes antisemitism uniquely diagnostic. A system that cannot identify why antisemitism is wrong at a structural level — not merely inconvenient, not merely regrettable, but a reasoning failure detectable from within the system's own principles — will also fail to identify other forms of systematic moral distortion. Antisemitism is the stress test precisely because it is so old, so elaborate, and so persistent. Pass it and your correction mechanism is real. Fail it and you've told us something important.
Integralism, unfortunately, fails it structurally.
Classic integralism places Catholic doctrinal authority at the apex of the political order. Jews are, by definition, outside that hierarchy. The best integralism has historically offered Jews is toleration as a subordinate category — the Augustinian "witness people" doctrine, permitted to exist in Christian society in permanently diminished civic status as living proof of the Old Testament's authenticity. That isn't protection from antisemitism. That is antisemitism, in theological dress.
The integralist regimes of the 19th and early 20th century didn't drift into antisemitism despite their principles. They expressed it through their principles. The framework contains no internal audit, no correction mechanism, no appeals process outside the hierarchy itself — which is to say, outside the historical source of the problem.
Modern integralists like Vermeule and Deneen don't espouse explicit antisemitism, and some actively disavow it. But good intentions are not a structural safeguard. Consider what has happened in the broader postliberal space. Candace Owens, who converted to Catholicism and has been warmly received in integralist-adjacent Catholic media, has made statements about Jews and Israel that are antisemitic by any rigorous definition. Tucker Carlson has platformed explicitly antisemitic voices, used demographic replacement rhetoric, and drifted toward treating Jewish institutional influence as a legitimate political grievance.
Serious integralist thinkers would say these figures represent a hijacking — that they don't understand post-liberal ideas and shouldn't be held against them. But that response misidentifies the problem. The issue is not whether Owens and Carlson are integralist theorists. They aren't. The issue is that a movement explicitly claiming to restore moral order has shown no robust internal capacity to identify or repel antisemitic drift among adjacent allies — not when that drift serves broader anti-liberal goals, not when it's popular, not when calling it out is costly. That is not a hijacking problem; it is a correction mechanism problem. A framework that can be steered toward the oldest civilizational pathology in Western history, without its own principles generating an alarm, has told us everything we need to know about how it would function with state power behind it.
So where does that leave the right? It is philosophically exposed.
The traditional conservative answer — call it fusionism — holds that free markets, limited government, and religious faith naturally reinforce each other, producing what its advocates called "ordered liberty": a society where people are free because their families, churches, and communities have formed them into people capable of governing themselves. It's an appealing vision. Yet integralists point to fifty years of family breakdown, addiction, and cultural dissolution and ask what exactly got ordered. The vision assumed its supporting institutions would remain healthy without political protection. They didn't.
A more sophisticated conservative answer draws on the political philosophy embedded in the American Founding — the idea that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution already contain a moral order grounded in natural law, the self-evident truths that governments exist to protect rights inherent to human beings as such. This is more robust than simple fusionism because it doesn't depend on economic outcomes. But integralists mount a serious counterargument: the Founders' natural law was a product of Enlightenment rationalism, which is philosophically thinner than the centuries-deep tradition of Catholic moral theology going back to Aquinas. And the practical evidence is hard to dismiss — the Founders' framework has demonstrably failed to reproduce itself culturally across generations.
A third answer, Protestant nationalism, says integralism is a foreign import — that American Christianity is evangelical and biblical, not Catholic and hierarchical, and that restoring Christian moral culture doesn't require taking orders from Rome. This has real political force as a coalition argument. As a philosophical response to integralism it falls short, because it doesn't actually refute integralism's core challenge. It just asserts a different Christian preference.
None of these answer the question integralism is actually asking: where do the values that sustain a free society come from, and what do you do when they erode?
At this point, most people assume there are only two options: ground morality in God and religious authority (and fight out exactly which version of God and religion is the one people must follow), or accept the secular drift that integralists correctly diagnose as catastrophic. That is a false binary, and accepting it is what leaves the right philosophically defenseless.
The Enlightenment tried to derive morality from reason alone and produced frameworks too thin to sustain themselves culturally. But that failure doesn't mean the project is impossible. It means that particular attempt was insufficient. Rigorous moral reasoning doesn't require either divine authority at the top or secular relativism at the bottom. The assumption that it must produce one or the other is itself the error. There is a third path: moral reasoning that is transparent, auditable, pluralism-respecting, and capable of identifying its own failures — not because God commands it or because secular consensus endorses it, but because the reasoning holds and can be shown to hold.
What would that require? A framework in which authority comes from demonstrated coherence rather than institutional position. A correction mechanism that doesn't depend on the hierarchy being virtuous. A structure that accommodates genuine moral pluralism without collapsing into relativism. And — this is the test — a set of principles from which antisemitism can be identified as a reasoning failure, not merely a political liability.
That is the framework I am working on.
That framework doesn't yet have a prominent place in the debate on the right. It needs one. Because the alternative is a choice between liberal proceduralism that cannot defend itself and a theocratic politics that has already shown us, repeatedly, where it leads.
Any philosophy that cannot structurally guard against antisemitism is not merely incomplete. It is, by definition, an immoral philosophy — because it has no reliable way to distinguish moral order from moral catastrophe. That's not a Jewish complaint. That's a philosophical indictment. And it applies with full force to the most intellectually serious attempt the right has yet produced to answer the civilizational crisis it has correctly identified.
Donate Us
6:53 AM
Elder of Ziyon
![[Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News] 02/19 Links Pt1: Is Israel the Problem, or Are Jews the Problem?; Matt Lee embarrasses Jen Psaki again](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tdPJG48lrDZKQUi6GVfWZtQYDxbaIyHZlQEPjrJeLZXcGYhIvkecKUD1VZ915cAChOOJtLPlCgFmBTxq3TXAOZMKdYnSS4tLSUHUTYJdLdRA)
.jpg)
![[Elder of Ziyon] Facebook may add "Insha'Allah" button for events](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9KIDYyRBYSDMD-x2PZwXZNYKl0eHCeNWbuEWt6IvsNL6IFhtZTpF2SvNRlui4o-nPTjPMcmSOxJ1nPo0pPGPzI5r7GHO_ZfKV9WUcNnkMeMslnkgWq0GeILJg-5vXLLCLckj6SUmdJqmc/s72-c/arabic_facebook_logo_by_ali_normal-d37tr0q.jpg){kind=logo}
