Riding the Tiger , Riding the Wave : Christian Conservatives and Radical Anti - ModernismBy Benjamin R . Teitelbaum Riding the Tiger , Riding the Wave : Christian Conservatives and Radical Anti - ModernismBy Benjamin R . TeitelbaumLos Angeles Review of Books agust 9 , 2017 AN EAST ASIAN parable tells of a man who confronts a tiger in the forest . Unable to escape , and lacking the strength to subdue the animal by force , he opts for a third tactic . He leaps on its back and rides . one day the tiger would grow old , and if the man remained inconspicuous and patient , he might survive long enough to witness its decline , at which point he could grab its neck and start to squeeze . This parable entered Western politics through the writings of Italian fascist - sympathizer and race theorist Julius Evola . The defeat of Hitler and Mussolini convinced him that nothing could stop the advance of liberal modernity — which he regarded as an anarchic scourge that sought to render natural human difference , moral truths , and tradition meaningless . He resigned himself to life in a postwar West where confrontation with progressive dogmas like equality and liberty was tantamount to political suicide . Resistance for the true anti - liberal consisted instead in secrecy and self - preservation . The tiger of modernity , he wagered , had a limited lifespan , and only those who kept themselves intact would be positioned to strike once the beast began to sigh . Fear of chaos and of nihilism . Despondency as rallying cry . Withdrawal as political strategy . Hope only in the promise of time ’ s elapse . Evola would transfer these ideas to future generations , most notably to those utmost outcasts of postwar Western modernity we call white nationalists and ethnic separatists . I offer this summary of Evola ’ s beliefs so that no one will be fooled into thinking that the literature coming from conservative Christian America today is especially new or distinctly Christian . I refer , first and foremost , to Strangers in a Strange Land by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput and The Benedict Option by Rod Dreher , senior editor at The American Conservative . Each of these works proceeds from the same concession : doctrinaire Christians ’ struggle for the heart of America is over , and they ’ ve lost . According to Chaput and Dreher , secular liberalism has breached the innermost ramparts of our society , and mainstream American culture now finds itself in a loathsome state of aimlessness , in which history , place , and even our bodies mean nothing . The authors mobilize to expose this social confusion and guide Christians on a path toward spiritual and cultural survival . This path is one of entrenchment , of waiting out liberalism ’ s vital phase . Yes , like the deluge , liberal secularism too shall pass , if only on “ God ’ s time ” — as Chaput puts it — rather than our own . To compare Chaput and Dreher to figures like Julius Evola is not to insinuate that they are closet fascists . Rather , it is to highlight the existence of a broad anti - modernism that now encompasses diverse , even mutually irreconcilable ideologies and agendas . It is an anti - modernism that , for all its cries of feebleness , poses the most serious threat to global liberalism . Strangers in a Strange Land and The Benedict Option are ｅxpressions of this phenomenon , and they show it through the grievances they lodge , the reactions they advocate , and the changes they envision . It is wise to read the texts in tandem , because each has something the other lacks . That is true at the level of writing mechanics : Chaput is an exceptional crafter of sentences , but only Dreher consistently assembles coherent sections and chapters . More importantly , however , each text complements the other in terms of argumentation . Strangers in a Strange Land offers a more cogent reading of history and indictment of modernity , but its concluding chapters and responses to the ostensible malaise of our times are so vague and unimaginative that even a hostile reader is likely to feel let down . The Benedict Option ’ s strength , on the other hand , rests in the poignancy of its call for a new Christian separatism . Dreher has hitherto garnered more attention for his book , due in part to his own notoriety and in part to the clarity and ( apparent ) novelty of his prescriptions for action . But Chaput ’ s text is arguably more arresting , if only because it marks a stark reversal from his 2008 book Render Unto Caesar , which called for Catholics to increase — rather than decrease — their participation in politics . “ Time passes . Times change , ” he writes in defending his recent U - turn , and “ [ w ] atersheds happen . ” Indeed , Chaput and Dreher identify the same watershed moment . The United States took an unalterable turn downward , according to both texts , with the 2015 Obergefell v . Hodges court ruling legalizing same - sex marriage across the country . Critics have already panned Dreher for regarding this , of all things , as our country ’ s cardinal sin . Chaput faced similar criticism for his earlier fixation on abortion , and he was poised to defend the privileged place afforded to homosexuality in his latest polemic . He indicates that his concern centers not on same - sex marriage per se , but rather on what it allegedly represents and perpetuates — namely , a society in which we are no longer able to orient ourselves because one of the most fundamental features of identity , gender , has been stripped of consequence . Any notion that certain features of who we are might be givens , that we could be born into one association or social role but not others , is now anathema . This drive to extinguish collectivizing instincts and practices , Chaput claims , is the logical conclusion of a democracy that lacks principles and ideals other than the absolute sovereignty of individuals . It requires citizens to disassociate from any institution or identity that could come between themselves and the state — be it a religious organization or a family — so that they can function as independent voices in democracy ’ s market of opinion . Furthermore , it pursues this hyper - individualism with fanatical intolerance of dissent . ( So much for the hopes of some conservatives that their opposition to same - sex marriage might be permitted to live on in the wake of Obergefell v . Hodges as a token of “ diversity . ” ) What begins as a conversation about sexuality ends with visions of a society void of structure , a nightmare of order dissolving into chaos . And that narrative , more than any uniquely Christian message , emerges as a common thread in Chaput ’ s and Dreher ’ s writing . It receives additional fuel , for example , as both authors turn to lament the irrelevance of place and history in American life . Chaput in particular describes the United States as a nation of transients , where people move frequently and establish no community : “ It offers too little sense of a shared history or national purpose ; too little reasoned debate ; too little civility ( despite endless calls for it ) ; too little moral gravity or continuity with the past . ” And the rootlessness these authors observe is not confined to the material world of bodies and localities . American thought is similarly unhinged . The core of this problem , according to Chaput , is our disinclination to treat morality as fact . You might think that the claim “ All men are created equal ” is not the same kind of falsifiable statement as “ the temperature outside right now is 86 degrees , ” but Chaput begs to differ . The former is as much of a fact as the latter , he claims , and if it is regarded as a non - fact — as an opinion — it is more easily relativized and conditionally dismissed . “ Moral disagreements , ” he writes , “ become rationally irresolvable because no commonly held first principles exist . ” Chaput thus operates with a menacing standard for success . Until our society gives moral statements — presumably those he endorses — the status of scientific fact , he will not be satisfied . Things needn ’ t have come to such a pass , of course . Both Dreher and Chaput cite the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville , who foretold that the United States would need Christianity to survive democracy . If liberal democracy had an inherent drive toward radical materialism and individualism , it could be tamed by religion ; de Tocqueville saw Christianity and Enlightenment values as having found an ideal balance in the early America . What threw things out of whack ? Social movements like the 1960 s sexual revolution , as well as technological advances that separate us from each other . That , and non - Christian immigration . A lost sense of a common history , purpose , and community ; alienation from place due to the free movement of peoples ; growing contempt toward the notion that any aspect of identity is inborn . one might be tempted to think these grievances are more at home in the mouths of those defending hereditary rather than ideational collectivities . And it isn ’ t only Chaput ’ s and Dreher ’ s grievances that align them with other anti - modernists , but also their prescribed solutions . As Dreher writes , “ Nobody but the most deluded of the old - school Religious Right believes that this cultural revolution can be turned back . The wave cannot be stopped , only ridden . ” The metaphor , mutatis mutandis , should sound familiar . But aside from other references to building an ark , Dreher ’ s main inspirational visualization for a response to the death of Christian America is that of monastic communities forged in the spirit of Saint Benedict , Patron Saint of Europe , who withdrew into a sheltered life of piety amid the collapse of Roman civilization during the sixth century . Dreher likewise calls for a strategic withdrawal from mass society into localized , historically anchored community life . The bulk of his text attempts to elucidate what that life might look like . He advocates a more rooted and regimented religious practice , calling for a revival of liturgy . He draws inspiration from Orthodox Jews by imploring Christians to live close together and surveil the convictions of their children ’ s friends . on that same theme , he asks parents to remove their children from public schools and instead pursue a Western Classical education that conveys “ a sense of order , meaning , and continuity , ” a kind of education likely to emerge only if parents found such schools themselves . He also challenges readers to embrace manual labor , develop a trade , and restrict their participation in the immaterial world of the internet and digital technology . These are Dreher ’ s weapons against liberalism , through which will come the “ communities , institutions , and networks of resistance that can outwit , outlast , and eventually overcome the occupation . ” Which brings us back to Evola and his latter - day followers , who likewise defend a bounded community against a totalizing liberalism deemed too strong to face head - on . We ought not get carried away with the analogy : there is little to suggest , for example , that Chaput and Dreher mean “ white people ” when they say the “ Christian West . ” Dreher has responded to such accusations , asserting that the population he champions is based on spirituality and culture rather than race . But neither is his the evangelizing Christianity that proclaims itself true for all peoples in all ways and at all times , and which cannot allow itself to retreat from any arena of human society lest it betray its own destiny . Rather , his Christianity is the banner of a tribe — which may not necessarily be racialized , but which yearns for a similar sense of belonging in time and space . It is one of many tribalisms reluctant to participate in pluralistic democracy and to accept the limitations of public influence that come with it . They are the forces of disintegration reshaping our world today , striving , each in its way , to undo the project of the global community . Christian anti - modernists may be the most tragic participants in the anti - modernist cause , however . Both Chaput and Dreher would do well to ponder more deeply the charges coming from other anti - modernists that their religion is the real driver of globalist liberalism . Some contemporary ethnic separatists — like , for example , Alain de Benoist — name Christianity itself as the enemy of community , identity , and spirituality . Modern liberalism ’ s claim to universal validity , its disinterest in roots and history , its yearning for a hyper - individualism , its contempt for religion — all of these features are , according to such thinkers , elaborations of a Christian model whereby God ’ s word is the singular , ultimate , and final revelation , where the past is sin and the future is salvation , where all are deemed equal before God and the divisions humanity has erected within itself are illusions to be transcended . The seeds of public secularism , they would argue — following Nietzsche — were sown by Christianity ’ s totalizing teleological vision , and by Christ ’ s edict to render unto Caesar . These anti - modernists may tolerate their Christian conservative allies for the time being , but fundamentally believe that a revival of Christian faith in American life will lead back to Pride parades , open borders , and godlessness . In the end , the tribes of anti - modernism may devour each other before the tiger of liberalism breathes its last . ¤ Benjamin R . Teitelbaum is assistant professor of Ethnomusicology and Affiliate Faculty in International Affairs at the University of Colorado , Boulder . His first book is Lions of the North : Sounds of the New Nordic Radical Nationalism ( Oxford University Press , 2017 ) .