Live Not by Lies
I remember the night the Berlin Wall fell and the world seemed to change overnight. The bogeyman of so many stories ceased to be quite so real as in the Soviet Union dissolved in the following years. It seemed like a significant phase of history, if not history itself, had ended by declaring Western capitalistic democracy the victory.
However, I met a Ukrainian exchange student while I was at college who told me that things weren’t quite as simple as they seemed. And then, when listening to a missionary speak in the early 2000’s, I learned that portions of the former Eastern Bloc were still “pink”—the formal police state may have ended, but many of the Communist thought processes were still in place under new leadership.
Then, in more recent years we’ve seen the increasing popularity of Che Guevara t-shirts in the U.S.—an amazing ploy to market the image of a Communist thug using capitalist principles. There have also been an increasing number of people that are willing to declare that the First Amendment should be abolished, full on Communism is desirable, and mass murderers like Stalin and Lenin are to be preferred over America’s founders. Add to that the weird logic by which anyone who doesn’t agree with racially based discrimination against whites is racist and we find ourselves in a topsy turvy world in which it is not hard to imagine attempts to force orthodox Christians underground.
Live not By Lies
Rod Dreher’s recent book, Live Not by Lies, is a warning of the possibility of “soft totalitarianism” in our future. As Progressives celebrate the latest invention of alternate reality in the pursuit of the deconstruction of humanity, there are an increasing number of people on the political left calling for the punishment of those who disagree with their orthodoxy. Do you affirm the innateness of sex within biology? Then you must not be allowed to work in a public-facing job. Do you still hold to the fundamental human understanding of marriage as a union (romantic or not) between people who are of biologically distinct sexes? Then you should be hounded from the public square and humiliated, if you are not physically harmed. There is an ever-thinning wall of civilization between reality and the coming storm. Anyone who denies the possibility of soft totalitarianism is not paying attention.
Dreher’s book takes its title for an Alexander Solzhenitsyn essay. Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago is a masterpiece that traces the evil of Soviet socialism through the experiences of many people who passed into, if not through, the grinder of the Gulag system. That larger work was intended to expose the horrors of the hard totalitarianism of the Soviets to a world that had frequently glamourized it. Solzhenitsyn’s essay speaks to those who are being called to deny truth to live at peace. In other words, to those who are facing a soft totalitarianism. The essay is a call to live in truth and not to succumb to lies for the sake of comfort.
What Solzhenitsyn warns against in his essay, and Dreher discusses, is a soft totalitarianism. This is a term defined more clearly by Vaclav Havel, a dissident poet who because a longstanding president of Czechoslovakia after the people peacefully ousted the Communist regime. As Havel documents it, particularly in essays like his “Power of the Powerless,” the Communist rule in much of the Eastern Bloc countries was driven by internal social pressure rather than by tanks, guns and dogs. There was a real threat of police enforcement, in some cases, but the deeper threat was through social ostracization and removal from the marketplace based on non-conformity to the untruth of the Communist platform.
Soft totalitarianism is the condition in which someone who refuses to affirm the preferred worldview of the dominant social order can be effectively marginalized within society without formal coercion. Do you decline to wear a rainbow pin at work for pride month? There go your promotion opportunities. Does your business decline to post a Black Lives Matter poster for any of a number of valid reasons? Prepare for the fake, negative reviews, belligerent activists coming in to harass your employees and customers, and, perhaps, having your business set alight by “protesters” fighting against “fascism.” Did you post online about a political candidate disfavored by the “right” crowd? Be ready to be denied admission to a university or to have your children denied admission.
In hard totalitarianism conformity to the external constraints is generally sufficient. One need not believe or state that Communism is good to get by. One needs only avoid getting caught with more goods than allotted, show the right papers when required, and not actively and openly declaim the controlling regime.
Soft totalitarianism is much more insidious because it demands not mere conformity but expression of support for something that violates the conscience. This is what Dreher describes in Live Not by Lies as a possible near-future for the West, including the United States, and there is reason to believe he is at least partially correct. We may be nearer or farther from the point where certain beliefs—common among humans for millennia—are ruled entirely out of bounds in polite company. What cannot be denied is that such a soft totalitarianism is the overt goal of an increasing number of people, especially those on the political left. It also cannot be denied that technology is making it easier to enforce soft totalitarianism through corporate and governmental means.
Dreher’s book is a call for Christians to hold fast to truth, but also to be prepared to go underground to avoid what he views as an inevitable and near-at-hand persecution. He combines research from sources like Havel and Solzhenitsyn with contemporary interviews with those that survived under Communist regimes to create a very readable, journalistic volume that may be helpful in preparing for the storm to come.
Analysis
If one approaches Dreher’s work primarily through his books, the content of them appears quite different than if one follows Dreher’s blog. Being fair in reading Dreher’s books requires reading them as a distinct genre from his online work.
I have not seen Dreher describe his work this way, but his three most recent books form something of a trilogy. If readers begin with Crunchy Cons, followed by The Benedict Option, and then come to Live Not by Lies then you will find a helpful, cogent, and perfectly reasonable stream of thought that is quite helpful. In fact, reading the books together might be the simplest way to avoid seeing Dreher as excessively reactionary.
Though the books span more than a decade of a rapidly shifting culture, they all tie together to form one consistent message: there is an objective reality that explains the order of the world and we should seek to live in a way that honors that. To the extent that cultural forces demand that we deny the objective reality of the world, we must be prepared to resist and hold fast to our witness to the truth.
Critiques of Dreher’s work are generally muddled because part of his vocation is to put out content for The American Conservative on a regular basis. He has a blog to feed to stay relevant and employed. He also is very engaged with his readers, who through their networks have access to some of the worst examples of progressive thought and social abuses. As a result, Dreher’s primary public discourse is often reactionary and colored by the conduits through which he gets his material. Because he is publishing in the moment, there are times when his takes turn out to be factually incorrect or unhelpful as part on an ongoing public conversation. Immediacy can be detrimental to nuance. That is the nature of a journalistic blog and Dreher does not escape that.
Dreher’s books are much more carefully constructed than his blog posts. In much of the discussion of The Benedict Option after its publication, it became clear that many critics had not read that book, but were instead responding to what Dreher had blogged about. I expect the same to be true of Live Not by Lies. It really is helpful to keep the two genres of Dreher’s work separate, because his books are much more consistently balanced and carefully argued than his blogs.
Time will tell whether Dreher is right or wrong about the oncoming soft totalitarianism. I tend to think that he is right that we are trending that direction, but that it may take longer than he thinks to get there. However, the power of algorithms, the ubiquity of social media to be engaged as a citizen, and the lack of catechesis among Christians may turn out to make Dreher’s concerns nearer than I suspect.
Whether the timing is right or not, the central message of Dreher’s most recent book is correct: Christians need to improve the way we live in the world, but not of the world. All signs point to an increasingly progressive shift in the anti-culture that surrounds us, which is largely alien to reality. The Church will increasingly need to find ways to live in ways consistent with truth, in a society that considers truth repugnant.
A Concluding Caution
There is no question that we live in a polarized world that is becoming increasingly hostile to a Christian worldview. However, within that context there is a strong tendency to seek allies in the fight. So, if the progressivism of the Left is bad, then we align our selves with the political and social forces on the Right. Or, if the xenophobia of the Right is bad, then we align our selves with the “inclusivism” of the Left. If one side is wrong, then the temptation is to default to the opposite extreme, or at least to tolerate extreme views on one’s own side.
Truth is not the property of Right nor Left. Neither is it something that is “centrist.” Approaching questions of truth from a primarily political angle, rather than one driven by ontology and epistemology is reactionary and unhelpful.
Even as we join coalitions in resisting soft totalitarianism, we have to be careful that we do not allow their different conceptions of truth to sway us from the True Truth of Christianity. Being a Christian dissident is like being an Ent: We are not really on anyone else’s side, because no one else is really on our side. That is to say, while we may share a common goal of resisting a creeping soft totalitarianism, our ultimate goal is to the spread of the gospel to every tribe and tongue and nation. In the first goal we may find ourselves in agreement with nationalists or atheists. Regarding the ultimate goal, we will find ourselves alone. There is a strong temptation when we find a point of alliance on an important goal to neglect the ultimate goal and to fail to see points at which pursuit of the ultimate goal may cause us to compromise on other significant objectives.
Dreher’s book does not displace True Truth with resistance to soft totalitarianism as the ultimate goal. However, because it is a book about the second and not the first, incautious readers may find themselves driven toward that extreme. Our duty as Christians is to the True Truth, which should always remain our ultimate goal in whatever political circumstances we find ourselves.
NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.
The way we talk about humans also has moral implications, which are more significant than how we treat our pets. In his 2011 book, Less than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith explores how language changes culture and leads to the justification of extreme violence against others, especially when they become perceived as less than human.