Abstract

Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and George Weigel have arisen as the central theorists of a Catholic neoconservatism which attempts to bridge the gap between the Catholic and liberal traditions of social thought. This dissertation evaluates their work through a systematic comparison with the work of Yves R. Simon. Systematic treatment is given to the neoconservatives' treatment of the political, economic, and moral-cultural systems. A separate chapter deals with practical reason. Central concepts treated include the common good, authority, freedom, and equality. ;The neoconservatives have cogently argued the case for democratic capitalism with respect to markets, pluralism, the principle of subsidiarity, and the need to revive the notion of practical wisdom. However, the comparison with Simon also reveals serious shortcomings. First, the neoconservatives tend to reduce prudence to the behavioral requirements of democratic capitalist society. Second, their positions are not compatible with the Catholic tradition's commitments to the common good and the necessary role of political authority to formulate policies expressing the requirements of the common good considered materially. Third, their romanticized understanding of capitalism bypasses many problems of the global market economy. Fourth, the concept of freedom which they defend is insufficient to forestall the nihilistic threat they themselves fear.