religion & politics

Published in The Core Tenets of Conservative Theology of Politics available on Amazon

Our society suffers from intellectual impoverishment, emotional saturation, spiritual emptiness, and social divisions. The ability to distinguish what is valuable from what is trivial, or to differentiate good from evil, has been significantly diminished. This decline is accompanied by a widespread failure to recognize the significance of the current historical moment. The unceasing influx of information and misinformation generates an overwhelming abundance of eclectic yet superficial and meaningless content, which dulls moral perception, fragments reason, and replaces the useful information with noise. In such an environment, lacking substantive meaning and characterized by pervasive nihilism of post-modern ideology, figures such as Nick Fuentes, emerging “conservative” influencers Sneako, or existing like Candace Owens have become prominent public personalities. The emergence of individuals whose public personas are defined by unresolved contradictions to positions of influence within the conservative movement signals a severe crisis within the conservative audience, especially younger ones. It is therefore essential for conservatives to critically reassess the foundations of their values, as these foundations appear increasingly disconnected from Christianity, intellectual discipline, and virtue, and risk converging with the same destructive tendencies that have historically precipitated the collapse of totalitarian ideologies.

This situation prompts a critical inquiry into the future of American conservatism. The aforementioned figures represent an extreme faction that should be rather ephemeral. Their influence should not overshadow the rich and substantive tradition of the conservative movement in the United States. The continued vitality of conservatism depends on two key principles: diplomacy and moderation. Diplomacy should be understood as the practice of persuasion and alliance-building within a democratic society, rather than as an indication of weakness. Likewise, moderation should be regarded as disciplined restraint grounded in principle, not as ideological capitulation. As Wess Mitchell boldly underlines: “diplomacy - strategic, farsighted, and sedulously tactful - is the foundational importance to the survival and prosperity of a successful great power.”[1]
Recent political discourse among both Democrats and Republicans has frequently favored impulsive reactions over principled moderation. For conservatism to remain a respected political alternative, it has to prioritize intellectual depth, moral virtue, and statesmanship. The renewal of the movement will depend on the emergence of steady, principled voices rather than those who are merely louder. The tradition established by figures such as William Buckley, Milton Friedman, Russell Kirk, and Ronald Reagan establishes a high standard that remains difficult to equal or surpass.

The term diplomacy originates from the ancient Greek word diplōma (δίπλωμα), meaning “a folded document,” which itself derives from the verb diploō, meaning “to fold in two.” During the Middle Ages, the study of official charters and documents became known as “diplomatics,” with an emphasis on authenticity and form. By the eighteenth century, particularly in France, the term evolved into diplomatie, shifting from the study of documents to the conduct of international relations. English adopted the word “diplomacy” in this expanded sense, denoting the art, method, and institutional practice of conducting negotiations between sovereign states.
In academic literature, diplomacy is often defined as the peaceful and institutionalized management of international relations through negotiation and representation. A British diplomat, Harold Nicolson, defined it as “the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist.”[2] In a similar fashion, an Australian scholar, Hedley Bull, defined diplomacy as “the conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means, ” emphasizing its role within international society.[3] A champion of Anglo-Japanese relations, Ernest Satow emphasized the ethical and pragmatic dimension of diplomatic skill, as “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states.”[4] Contemporary definitions, such as one from Berridge, a renowned scholar from the University of Leicester, define diplomacy as “the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law,”[5] highlighting its contrast with coercive instruments of power. Likewise, Barston understands diplomacy as “the management of relations between states and other actors.”[6] Altogether, these definitions converge on the view that diplomacy is a norm-governed practice of communication and negotiation conducted by authorized representatives to regulate relations among political entities without recourse to violence. Diplomacy is the most efficient way to navigate the complex world of making policies which are “intended to preserve order, justice and freedom.”[7]

A well-known maxim attributed to Henry Kissinger, that “diplomacy is the art of restraining power,” should be internalized by every high-ranking American diplomat and member of Congress. Even for one of the most powerful nations in the international system, possessing immense military and economic capabilities does not absolve a state from the discipline of negotiation; rather, it increases the moral and strategic responsibility to prioritize diplomacy as the primary instrument of engagement with others, regardless of their relative influence. In contrast, the slogan “peace through strength,” frequently invoked by the Trump administration, appears to have undergone a subtle but significant transformation. In this context, “strength” risks becoming less a deterrent safeguard and more a coercive mechanism intended to compel other states to conform to the immediate will of the United States. This tendency is not unique to the current administration but reflects a broader continuity in foreign policy and self-assessment, or lack thereof. All US military interventions in the last 40 years have been guided by a doctrine that prioritizes strength over peace and diplomacy. The 1999 NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the 2003 Iraq War, and the 2011 intervention in Libya each illustrate moments in which the language of stability, humanitarian protection, or security was accompanied by the decisive application of military force. In such cases, “strength” functioned not merely as deterrence but as an instrument of strategic imposition - reshaping political orders through coercive means rather than sustained diplomatic settlement.

When Reagan’s maxim originated, the geopolitical landscape was significantly different. Two superpowers dominated the global stage, while China was still emerging. Today, the international order has shifted significantly. Russia, as the successor to the USSR, and the United States remain principal actors, while China, India, and the OPEC countries have become increasingly influential, especially China, with unmatched technological supremacy. In such a constellation of powers, US diplomacy needs to act with extreme caution. While the current administration undoubtedly regained the influence that was lost during Biden’s presidency, it should not follow the doctrine of Pax Americana, but rather use the privileged status to sustain and improve the lives of its constituents - the American citizens, rather than being involved in perpetual proxy wars. The most recent conflict with Iran possibly indicates that the current administration will not significantly diverge from such a direction, though my personal belief is that this might be one of the only conflicts that are morally justified as it about the regime change of oppressive Islamist government that has been waging a proxy war with the American administration for the last 40 years and openly supporting and exporting Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism. This time, the very people of Iran are asking for help. That being said, engaging into a new conflict may have significant ramifications not only for the Middle East, but for the entire world, not to mention, the outcome of the following midterms and consequently the 2028 elections. The current administration won the elections on promise to stop the mindless tradition of waging “endless proxy wars” and put America first, yet with this conflict it may not only break that promise but open Pandora's box.

It appears that the current administration is overconfident in its own military supremacy, as Russia and China are somehow lagging in this race. Such an assessment is nothing short of arrogant if true. In reality, they are not; if anything, they are a step further. It is a positive trend that, unlike Biden, President Trump understands the need to maintain the highest level of diplomacy with Russia. Still, internally our political establishment has never been more polarized, which brings us to the second important term: moderation. For a while, there has been a circulating argument among the left that the Republican Party ceased to exist, as it was taken over by “MAGA fundamentalists”. Regardless of whether such a shift occurred, there was a significant shift in the Democratic Party as well, as the most prominent figures now belong to the ideological far left, though that is not the focus of this discussion.

Buckley’s famous words are still reminding us where we should stand as American conservatives: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”[8] For politically aware believers who fully understand the relation between faith and political responsibility, political conservatism is not a question of choice but rather the only reasonable way to faithfully politically articulate the very principles of Christian beliefs. In times when we face the most difficult challenges, when our values are disputed and mocked and even labeled as anti-American, we must not be hesitant, uncertain, ambivalent, or behave like mere spectators in the middle of the ferocious political arena. It is no less than a battle between the apostles of political nihilism and those who are envisioned to preserve the core values of the American tradition, deeply rooted in principles our forefathers regarded and cherished. The future of our state politics could either be a horrific cry of despair  - Becket's "Breath" or a hopeful venture to a "city on a hill". Morality stems from a Judeo-Christian tradition and, ultimately, from the authority of a monotheistic God. It is up to us to tell society to stop with the ideological madness of performativity and petty grievances, and look back to the roots, to our forefathers.

Contemporary American conservatism is not an ideologically uniform block but rather a set of distinct, sometimes competing currents. The Republican Party is composed of representatives aligned from center to right, from more moderate and classical libertarians to more right-wing conservatives. From hardliners and Trump backers like J.D Vance, Mike Johnson and Steve Scalice, to more skeptical ones, though still very based like Vivek Ramashvany, Ron DeSantis, and Josh Howley, to absolute skeptics like Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Populist nationalism exercised by the current leadership will undoubtedly remain dominant, as it is a predominant orientation among younger representatives. Skeptics and more moderate republicans like Youngkin, Greene, and Massie are in the minority, and it's unlikely that such an orientation will radically shift in the near future. In the media sphere, Ben Shapiro, Walsh, and others will likely dominate for a long time, continuing the legacy of giants like David Prager and somewhat younger veterans like Tucker Carlson and Glen Beck. Charlie Kirk, however, as the undisputed future of conservatism, unfortunately, will not have that chance. His flame was abruptly and prematurely quenched by the victims of ideological indoctrination. Institutional leadership will also remain important, particularly through figures like Marissa Streit of PragerU, whose role in shaping educational media has become increasingly influential. Emerging commentator voices belong to Allie Stuckie, Isabell Brown, Tim Pool, Xavier DeRusseou, and, particularly, young but brilliant fellows: Franklin Camarco, and Shabbos Kestenbaum. In the academic sphere, such titles belong to Christopher Rufo and Sohrab Ahmari.
The future of conservatism in America does not belong, indeed, not even remotely to figures such as Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, or younger influencers like Sneako when their rhetoric descends into antisemitism, hostility toward core Christian principles, or sentiments fundamentally at odds with the American constitutional order. Such currents may generate noise and momentary attention, but they cannot sustain a serious political tradition rooted in moral responsibility and civic discourse.

Unfortunately, we're not experiencing the “end of history” at least not how Fukuyama envisioned, neither the resurgence of religions as Huntington once boldly stated, but rather a demise of liberal society crushing under the weights of its delusions of freedom and decision-making which is now being transferred from people to the globalist managerial elite. As Deeden observes “liberal state expands to control nearly every aspect life while citizens regard government as distant and uncontrollable power, one that only extends their sense of powerlessness by relentlessly advancing the project of globalism”[9] We’re not witnessing the end of history, and ultimate victory of a free society but the inevitable demise of liberalism as we know it. Deenen asserts that neo-liberalism is rather incompatible with democracy. “Democracy requires extensive social forms that liberalism aims to deconstruct”[10] which becomes evident in the efforts of the radical left to denounce the established social forms and hallmarks of society, like traditional family, marriage, relations, gender, and religion. The traditional (nuclear) family is the very core of American society, any society. Any system, idea, or movement that aims to disrupt the very notion of a family is inherently anti-Christian, anti-traditional, or anti-American.

The struggle becomes even more apparent when oppression originates from political establishments labeled as parliamentary or presidential democracies. There is little left of Lockean liberalism in the “progressive” left. It’s been replaced by the political articulation of radical secularism and far-left ideological concepts of cultural Marxism which aim to dismantle traditional Judeo-Christian foundations of American society. Progressive political agenda aims to “transfer decision-making from political to judicial institutions. Liberals are turning to law to entrench values and policies for which they cannot secure democratic assent.”[11] Liberal democracy gravitating under pretenses of progressiveness and wokeism is an untenable concept that inherently disrupts freedoms and beliefs of the majority in favor of extreme political and philosophical precepts, ultimately polarizing the society to the brink of state-wide conflict. The very stage for a friend-foe (oppressed-oppressor) matrix is set and legitimized behind the concepts of equality and radical inclusiveness. The foe is everyone who dares to oppose the current “mainstream” agenda. If the task of  “modern political theology” is  “reflection on statecraft [...] most notably: the nature and purpose of the public sphere”[12], then the task of radical political theology is to reflect and deconstruct the social and political trends that aim to cancel the entire system of beliefs and traditional values, therefore to obliviate our society and nation as we know it. [13]

The future of American conservatism belongs to leaders who are capable of defending the Judeo-Christian framework that has shaped the American constitutional experiment, while prudently navigating the complexities of contemporary political life. This requires a form of statesmanship that neither compromises essential principles nor fuels unnecessary resentment - a conservatism that is firm without being reactionary, principled without being performative, and pragmatic without surrendering its moral core. Does that mean the party should shift its course from populism, nationalism, and culture wars to more moderate positions? Only if the other side decides to abandon their fixation with cultural, racial and gender grievances stemming from tradition of the Frankfurt School and Marxism and return to the roots of classic Lockean liberalism. Perhaps then, we can find a common language grounded on the values of our forefathers to preserve them for generations to come.


________________
[1] Mitchell, A. Wess. Great Power Diplomacy: The Skill of Statecraft from Attila the Hun to Kissinger. United States: Princeton University Press, 2025: 4.
[2] Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 3.
[3] Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 162.
[4] Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 6th ed., ed. Ivor Roberts (London: Longman, 2009), 3.
[5] G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 5th ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 1.
[6] R. P. Barston, Modern Diplomacy, 2nd ed. (London: Longman, 1988), 28.
[7] Russell Kirk, The Politics of Prudence (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2023), 1.
[8] William F. Buckley Jr., quoted in National Review, November 19, 1955.
[9] Patrick Deenen, Why Liberalism Failed, Yale University Press, 2018: 4
[10] Ibid, xv
[11] John Gray, “The Closing of the Conservative Mind: Politics and the Art of War,” New Statesman, October 23, 2019, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/10/the-closing-of-the-conservative-mind-politics-and-the-art-of-war.
[12] Luke Bretherton, Christ and the Common Life: Political Theology and the Case for Democracy (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019).
[13] Nikola Knezevic, Towards The Radical Political Theology, Independently published, 2025.