*3.3. Faith and Public Religion*

Hazony's National Conservativism is built strictly on a specific reading of the Hebrew Bible as a political book; to be more precise, as a programmatic guide to nationalism. There can be no legitimate political theory without an anthropological foundation, which, according to Hazony, only exists within the Hebrew Bible. This has three concrete consequences. First, National Conservativism as an anthropologically based and thus legitimate political theory demands for independent national states on the basis of a uniform language, religion and history. Second, it distances itself from the imperial, universalist projects of Babylon, Egypt and their ideological successors. Third, the alternative national states must be organized according to the schematic fractal hierarchy of family, clan, tribe and nation.

Hazony does not only regard his theory as rooted in the Hebrew Bible, but also makes extensive use of the tradition of public religion, which is strongly represented in Anglo-American thought and which he considers essential for "Anglo-American Conservativism", a school of thought he wants to revive as "National Conservativism" (Hazony 2018, pp. 53–54; for a detailed discussion of National Conservativsm as legitimate realization of Anglo-American Conservativism see Haivry and Hazony 2017). It includes a "public religion based on the Bible" (ibid., p. 54), which concretely results in three convictions. First, the biblical God and religious practice are indispensable for justice and public morality. Second, other faiths may be tolerated as long as their practitioners are no danger for the integrity and well-being of the nation. Third, the Bible is the basis for national independence, justice and public morality.

Hazony recalls the old tradition of public religion in the U.S., but he gives his own interpretation of what is included in a legitimate public religion. Whereas for public religion in the sense of Robert Bellah's "American Civil Religion" the institutional separation of state and religion (church) is essential (see Bellah 1967), Hazony wants to abolish it. For him, the institutional separation of state and religion is a mere product of post-WW-II liberalism. "The liberal doctrine requiring a 'wall of separation between church and state' at all levels of government is, as has been said, a product of the post-World War II period, and not an inherent feature of American political tradition" (Hazony 2019).

The wall destroys the national state, the traditional family and (Judaeo-Christian) religion, and thus has to be torn down: "But liberal principles provide no resources for maintaining institutions such as the national state, the family, and Christian or Jewish religion. Having displaced the older biblical worldview that had given these institutions life, liberalism has, in the course of a few generations, severely damaged all of them. The current political reality of disintegrating national states, ruined families, and eviscerated religious traditions is the direct consequence of the embrace of liberal dogma as a kind of universal salvation creed throughout much of the West." (Hazony 2019).

Reflecting on the role of faith and religion in the political project of National Conservativism, we can observe that both are reduced to a specific kind of Judaeo-Christianism. It distances itself first of all from secularism and Islam in particular, but also draws a clear line to schools of thought and religious practices within the Jewish-Christian sphere that are identified as "liberal" or "progressive" and thus illegitimate interpretations of the respective faith tradition. Reflecting on the use of Scripture, we see an almost classical "quarry exegesis" where texts which could possibly contradict the national-conservative project are excluded. One might think of Jotam's fable (Judges 9: 8–15) or other recurring warnings against earthly kings.

For Hazony and his supporters, the institutional separation of state and church (religion) endangers the programmatic foundations of a functioning human society—namely, national state, traditional family and religion. There can be no legitimate political theory, no legitimate state without his reading of the (Hebrew) Bible. What Hazony suggests is, however, no public religion in the sense of an integrative framework which is open for different interpretations of what the Divine and human responsibility in relation to the world and the transcendent could mean. For him, a legitimate public religion is an institutionalized religion, deeply entangled with a homogeneous concept of the nation and based on a hierarchical account of the political community, itself rooted in a patriarchal traditional family. Freedom and conflictive-productive discourse are only possible insofar as the non-negotiable institutions of the Judaeo-Christian collective are not put into question.

## *3.4. Nation, National State and Nationalism*

Already at the beginning of this section, we have seen that Hazony's idea of a nation is based on a common language or religion and common history of fighting an external enemy, a community of fate in a hostile world. If an independent state wants to really work well, it necessitates "the overwhelming dominance of a single nationality within a given state" (Hazony 2018, p. 159). There is one nationality within the state which consequently is described as a "national state", not a nation state (Hazony (2018, p. 109ff). For him, only this homogenous state respects the diverse loyalties of the individual within its family, clan and tribe (cf. Yaffe 2021, p. 10).

However, why is nationalism superior to any other political paradigm, especially liberalism? Hazony (2018, p. 10) points to several advantages. First, only nationalism guarantees collective self-determination and protects from wars of conquest. In contrast, independent national states based on faith and family will peacefully compete for their best development. They will tolerate different ways of life and the loyalties within every single social level from family to clan, tribe and nation, and this will guarantee for independent institutions and individual freedom. Not reason or contract, but loyalty within the collective will lead to peace and prosperity. However, in the same breath, Hazony is clear that not every stateless people can have its independent national state. One might ask which people Hazony is thinking about, but he does not give a word about it.

What is labelled as a sovereign political community actually transpires to be a Judaeo-Christian national state (not: nation-state) based on the greatest possible homogeneity of ethnicity and religion. Its basis is mutual loyalty within the collective, first and foremost fostered in the traditional family. The individual is subject to the given order, prescribed by a nationalist, hierarchical and patriarchal reading of chosen texts of the Hebrew Bible. Minorities may be tolerated, but Hazony does not speak about civil rights or any kind of equal participation in the political process, but instead of tolerance. This raises severe questions. Is Hazony's National Conservativism still within the sphere of democracy, especially with regard to the legal position of minorities and their right to equal participation in the process of political decision-making? Recently, Müller (2021) has pointed to the essential value of equality within the framework of democracy. Special attention also has to be paid to the role assigned to women and men. It is never outlined directly, but it nevertheless becomes very clear that only a male human being can be the head of the family, clan, tribe

or nation. Could a queen be head of the state, or just a "king (or president)" (Hazony 2019)? Is the capacity to lead and guide a privilege of men?

The nation and consequently the idea of a national state is presented as a quasi-divine institution and the privileged path to freedom, peace and plurality. However, freedom is first of all freedom of the collective; the individual has to arrange its freedom within the requested mutual loyalty of the community. Although Hazony polemicizes against liberal multiculturalism, he presents nationalism as the way to plurality in the sense of separated, homogenous communities. Plurality is identified using particularity and has to be protected from external blurring.

#### *3.5. Tracing the Context: The Jewish State (Hazony 2000)*

The nationalism presented by Hazony (2018) is not without forerunners in his own written work. Already in 2000, then still president of Jerusalem's Shalem Center, Hazony published *The Jewish State*, a harsh critique of the "Post-Jewish" character of Israel (Hazony 2000, p. xix), fostered by Israeli intellectuals, political and mainstream culture and their "Post-Zionism" (ibid., p. xxvi). Especially the Hebrew University, Martin Buber and his allies are depicted as the origins of Jewish intellectual opposition to a Jewish nation-state.

In several aspects, *The Virtue of Nationalism* is an attempt to universalize concepts already presented in *The Jewish State* and turn Zionism—in Hazony's version—into the prototype of National Conservativism. This is particularly visible in four points. First, Hazony now universalizes the unity of religion, nation and state. When he criticizes Israeli intellectuals for their call to separate religion and state, Jewish nationality and state (Hazony 2000, p. xxv), he now brings forward a very similar critique against liberalism and the concept of a secular nation state in general (cf. above 3.3.).

Second, already in 2000 Hazony rejects the concept of a state of citizens. Also in his recent work, citizenship as a guarantee of equality among people of differing (religious, ethnic etc.) backgrounds has no positive value.

However, probably most striking are two more characteristics. These are the focus on political and military force as the basis for a strong collective and the rejection of humanism and dialogue as fostered by Martin Buber and other intellectuals in the tradition of humanism and non-violence. Hazony (2000, p. 6ff) accuses Buber and his students of rejecting Israel as an illegitimate Jewish State longing for power. In the 1990s, it is particularly historian Moshe Zimmermann (pp. 10–11) that serves Hazony as a prolific representative of academic anti-Zionism in Israel. In particular, authors such as David Grossmann and Aharon Appelfeld are attacked for advocating a concept of strength through the experience of weakness (p. 28). As the Jewish State of Israel can only survive with political and military force, the same is true for any other legitimate state. Survival and sovereignty can never result from vulnerability and actually experienced pain. Hazony (2000) criticizes the rejection of force and military power in Israel's intellectual culture of the 1990s, and in (2018) he expands this critique to liberalism in general.

Hazony (2000, p. xxviii) accuses Buber of rejecting Zionism as morally illegitimate, whereas in (2018) he broadens this argument against liberals in general who reject nationalism as morally illegitimate and the origin of violence. Martin Buber, a devoted religious humanist who intended to overcome the vicious circles of violence, is depicted as the crucial internal enemy of the State of Israel. "It seems that for Buber, no horror was greater than the reality of Jewish power", Hazony (2000, p. 283) summarizes Buber's critique of the Eichmann process and the final death penalty. Although for Buber, violence could not be the answer to violence, Hazony focuses on the necessity of political and military force, including violence, in order to guarantee the sovereignty of the people—be it the Jewish people or any other homogeneous nation, as then outlined in *The Virtue of Nationalism*.

## **4. Analysis: On the Way to Religiously Based Authoritarianism**

*4.1. The Sense for Current Hot Issues*

National Conservativism as theoretically outlined by Yoram Hazony raises serious questions on a theological, philosophical, historical and political level. However, it also shows a sincere sense for current hot issues within theo-political conflicts. It is no secret anymore that liberal democracies are in crisis, both on a theoretical and a practical level (see i.a., Crouch 2005; Manow 2020; Müller 2021). Although one might argue that "being in crisis" is an inherent feature of a working, developing deliberative democracy, the recent rise of populist actors, especially from the political right, but not exclusively, using more or less democratic instruments to undermine the basic principles of democracy and consciously instrumentalizing religious sentiments, has introduced a new level of escalation (see Applebaum 2020). The Peace of Westphalia (1648) has shaped Western understandings of the relation between state, nation and religion, but this relation has to be reflected anew, especially after 1989 and after 9/1111.

In particular, the rise of social pluralism and migration have contributed to a rising desire for homogeneity. What is particularly interesting, however, is the specific attention Hazony and his allies pay to the family, or what is imagined as the "traditional family"; its endangerment and its necessity for any functioning legitimate political community. Gender and family orders have been shattered for 200 years, when the secular nation state and religious communities started fighting about the "legitimate" authority over family, reproduction, gender roles and thus crucial aspects of the future of a community (cf. Scott 2018).

Hazony and National Conservativism have a sense for the growing fragmentation of our societies, which long for a new solidarity. Their diagnosis has some credibility, but the suggested cure has to be regarded with great caution. There is the increasing danger of serious scenarios of religiously motivated violence, where one will again ask the question: Is religion the source of violence or is it instrumentalized by political actors for their specific power interests? Who serves whom and what can religion contribute to overcome the dead-end of violence, especially to the marginalized?

In the following, I will outline four dimensions of critique, which need to be deepened in further studies on Hazony, the Edmund Burke Foundation and the national conservativist movement and the future of nation, state and religion. After shortly introducing some philosophical and historical issues, I will focus on theological and political concerns. The article will conclude with a reflection on the possible theo-political consequences of National Conservativism, especially the danger of re-introducing a new dimension of religiously legitimated exclusivism, violence and authoritarianism.
