Calvinist Absolutism, Catholic Pragmatism, and the Incompatibility of Ideologies
The belief that negotiation with the United States can produce a lasting compromise is among the most persistent and dangerous illusions in international affairs. This illusion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the American character—a failure to recognize that the American approach to the world is not merely a set of policies that can be adjusted through diplomatic engagement, but an expression of a deeply rooted ideological framework that admits no genuine compromise.
The United States does not negotiate; it dictates. It does not compromise; it demands. It does not seek mutual accommodation; it seeks unilateral advantage. This is not a matter of political choice; it is a matter of ideological necessity.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine, examined earlier in this work, is not an aberration of American policy but an expression of American identity. Its insistence on preventing the emergence of any independent power, its commitment to maintaining military supremacy, its declaration that any state pursuing an independent foreign policy must be subordinated—these are not the preferences of a particular administration or a particular political faction. They are the logical expression of an ideology that has defined American self-understanding since the nation’s founding. To negotiate with the United States is to negotiate with this ideology, and this ideology does not permit genuine negotiation.
The roots of this intransigence lie deep in American history, in the Protestant, Puritan, Calvinist foundation of American identity. The early settlers of New England did not come to the New World seeking religious freedom in the sense of toleration; they came seeking the freedom to establish their own religious order, to create a society that would embody their vision of divine truth. They saw themselves as the chosen people, the new Israel, the city upon a hill that would serve as a beacon to the world. This self-understanding has persisted through centuries of American history, shaping the American approach to the world in ways that remain profoundly influential.
The Calvinist doctrine of predestination—the belief that some are elected for salvation and others for damnation—has shaped American thinking in ways that are not immediately obvious but are profoundly consequential.
The doctrine implies a division of humanity into the saved and the damned, the chosen and the rejected, the elect and the reprobate. This division has been secularized over time, transformed from a theological doctrine into a political one. The Americans see themselves as the elect, the chosen, the saved. The rest of the world is the reprobate, the damned, the rejected. The elect have no obligation to compromise with the reprobate; they have an obligation to convert them, to transform them, to subordinate them to the will of the elect.
The Calvinist Foundation of American Absolutism
The Calvinist inheritance is not merely a historical curiosity; it is a living force that shapes American behavior in the present. The doctrine of predestination, the sense of election, the conviction of divine mission—these are not relics of a distant past but active elements of American self-understanding. They shape the American approach to negotiation, to compromise, to the give-and-take of international relations.
The doctrine of predestination implies that some are chosen and others are not. This division is absolute, fixed, and eternal. There is no middle ground between the elect and the reprobate, no space for ambiguity, no possibility of partial election. The division is binary, and the binary is absolute.
This theological framework has been translated into a political framework: the Americans are the elect, the chosen people, the city upon a hill. The rest of the world is the reprobate, the unchosen, the outer darkness. The elect have no obligation to compromise with the reprobate. The elect have an obligation to transform the reprobate, to bring them into the light, to subordinate them to the will of the elect.
The concept of the covenant is central to Calvinist theology. The covenant is an agreement between God and the chosen people—an agreement that imposes obligations on the chosen but also confers upon them a special status, a special mission, a special destiny. The covenant has been secularized into the American sense of mission—the belief that the United States has a special role to play in history, a special responsibility to shape the world according to its values, a special destiny that sets it apart from other nations. This sense of mission is incompatible with genuine negotiation. A nation that believes it has a divine mission cannot compromise with those who stand in the way of that mission. It can only demand their compliance.
The concept of the “city upon a hill”—the phrase coined by John Winthrop in his 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity”—has become a central element of American self-understanding. The city upon a hill is a beacon, an example, a standard against which others are measured. The metaphor implies a hierarchical relationship: the city upon a hill is above the plain, the light is above the darkness, the elect are above the reprobate.
This hierarchical understanding shapes the American approach to international relations. The United States does not see itself as one nation among many; it sees itself as the nation, the standard, the example. The rest of the world is expected to follow, to emulate, to conform. The expectation of conformity is incompatible with the give-and-take of genuine negotiation.
The Calvinist emphasis on discipline, on order, on the enforcement of moral standards has also shaped the American approach to the world. The Calvinist tradition emphasizes the importance of moral discipline, of the enforcement of righteous behavior, of the punishment of sin. This emphasis has been secularized into the American approach to international affairs—the insistence on enforcing American standards, the demand for compliance with American rules, the willingness to punish those who deviate. The enforcement impulse is incompatible with the tolerance that genuine negotiation requires.
The Protestant Foundation of American Exceptionalism
The Protestant foundation of American identity extends beyond the specific Calvinist doctrines to a broader Protestant worldview that shapes American thinking about the world. This worldview is characterized by a particular understanding of truth, of authority, of the relationship between the individual and the community.
The Protestant emphasis on individual conscience—the belief that each individual has direct access to divine truth, unmediated by institutional authority—has shaped American thinking in ways that are paradoxical. On the one hand, the emphasis on individual conscience has fostered a spirit of independence and self-reliance.
On the other hand, it has fostered a spirit of absolutism—the belief that one’s own understanding of truth is the only valid understanding, that those who disagree are not merely mistaken but morally wrong. The individual who is certain of divine truth has no need to compromise with those who are equally certain of a different truth. The certainty is absolute, and the refusal to compromise is absolute.
The Protestant emphasis on the Bible as the sole source of authority—the doctrine of sola scriptura—has shaped American thinking in ways that are similarly paradoxical. On the one hand, the emphasis on the text as the sole authority has fostered a spirit of literalism, of adherence to the letter of the law. On the other hand, it has fostered a spirit of interpretation—the belief that each individual has the right to interpret the text according to their own understanding.
The combination of literalism and interpretative freedom has produced a particular approach to truth: the truth is absolute, but each individual’s understanding of the truth is equally valid. This paradox—absolute truth combined with individual interpretation—has shaped the American approach to international relations. The Americans believe that their understanding of truth is absolute, and they see no need to compromise with those who hold different understandings.
The Protestant emphasis on the priesthood of all believers—the doctrine that each individual has direct access to God, without the need for priestly mediation—has shaped American thinking in ways that are consequential for international relations. The doctrine implies a radical egalitarianism—all believers are equal before God. But it also implies a radical individualism—each believer is responsible for their own salvation.
The combination has produced a particular approach to community: the community is a collection of individuals, not an organic whole. This approach has been secularized into the American approach to international relations: the international community is a collection of individual states, not an organic whole. The Americans see themselves as the most important individual in this collection, and they see no need to subordinate their individual interests to the interests of the collective.
The Catholic Foundation of European Pragmatism
The European approach to international relations has been shaped by a very different ideological foundation—the Roman Catholic tradition that has defined European civilization for nearly two millennia. This tradition is characterized by a fundamentally different understanding of truth, authority, and the relationship between the individual and the community.
The Catholic tradition emphasizes the role of the Church as the mediator of divine truth. Truth is not something that each individual discovers independently; it is something that is transmitted through the institutional authority of the Church. This emphasis on mediation has fostered a spirit of pragmatism—the recognition that truth is complex, that understanding is partial, that certainty is elusive. The Catholic tradition accepts that human understanding is limited, that error is possible, that compromise is sometimes necessary. This pragmatism is fundamentally different from the Protestant absolutism that has shaped American thinking.
The Catholic tradition emphasizes the importance of hierarchy, of order, of the institutional mediation of authority. The Church is a hierarchical institution, with the Pope at the top and the faithful below. This hierarchical understanding has been secularized into the European approach to international relations: the international order is a hierarchy, with different states occupying different positions. The Europeans accept hierarchy; they do not see themselves as the supreme authority, the city upon a hill, the chosen people. They see themselves as one part of a larger order, and they are willing to negotiate within that order.
The Catholic tradition emphasizes the importance of confession, of penance, of the possibility of forgiveness. The sinner who confesses can be forgiven; the error that is acknowledged can be corrected; the relationship that is broken can be repaired. This emphasis on forgiveness has fostered a spirit of reconciliation—the recognition that conflicts can be resolved, that compromises can be reached, that relationships can be restored. This spirit is fundamentally different from the Calvinist emphasis on predestination—the belief that the division between the elect and the reprobate is fixed and eternal.
The Catholic tradition emphasizes the importance of the sacraments, of the physical mediation of divine grace. Grace is not something that is experienced directly; it is something that is transmitted through the sacraments—baptism, communion, confession. This emphasis on mediation has fostered a spirit of patience—the recognition that transformation is gradual, that change takes time, that compromise is a process. This spirit is fundamentally different from the Protestant emphasis on immediate conversion, on sudden transformation, on the instantaneous experience of grace.
The Diametric Opposition
The Calvinist-Protestant ideology that has shaped American identity and the Catholic ideology that has shaped European identity are in diametric opposition. They represent fundamentally different understandings of truth, authority, community, and the nature of international relations. The opposition is not merely a matter of different religious doctrines; it is a matter of different ways of being in the world.
The American approach to truth is absolutist; the European approach is pragmatic. The Americans believe that their understanding of truth is absolute and that those who disagree are not merely mistaken but morally wrong. The Europeans accept that understanding is partial, that error is possible, that compromise is sometimes necessary. The American absolutism makes negotiation impossible; the European pragmatism makes negotiation possible.
The American approach to authority is individualist; the European approach is hierarchical. The Americans believe that each individual has direct access to truth, unmediated by institutional authority. The Europeans accept that truth is transmitted through institutions, that authority is mediated, that hierarchy is natural. The American individualism makes compromise difficult; the European hierarchy makes compromise possible.
The American approach to community is contractual; the European approach is organic. The Americans see the community as a collection of individuals bound together by contract. The Europeans see the community as an organic whole, with different parts serving different functions. The American contractualism makes compromise a matter of individual choice; the European organicism makes compromise a matter of collective necessity.
The American approach to conflict is absolute; the European approach is relative. The Americans see conflict as a struggle between good and evil, between the elect and the reprobate, between truth and error. The Europeans see conflict as a struggle between competing interests, between different perspectives, between partial truths. The American absolutism makes conflict total; the European relativism makes conflict manageable.
The Implications for Negotiation
The implications for negotiation are clear. The American ideology does not permit genuine negotiation. The Americans do not see negotiation as a process of mutual accommodation; they see it as a process of unilateral imposition. The Americans do not seek compromise; they seek compliance. The Americans do not offer reciprocity; they demand submission.
The European ideology permits negotiation. The Europeans see negotiation as a process of mutual accommodation, of give-and-take, of compromise. The Europeans seek agreement, not domination. The Europeans offer reciprocity, not submission.
The difference is fundamental. When a European negotiates with an American, the European expects a process of mutual accommodation. The American expects a process of unilateral imposition. The European is disappointed; the American is frustrated. The European seeks compromise; the American demands compliance. The negotiation fails, not because of a lack of goodwill, but because the two parties are operating within fundamentally different ideological frameworks.
The Swiss, as a European nation shaped by the Catholic tradition and by the broader European culture, have repeatedly experienced this fundamental incompatibility. They have approached negotiations with the Americans expecting mutual accommodation, and they have been met with unilateral demands. They have sought compromise, and they have been given ultimatums. They have offered reciprocity, and they have received nothing in return. The experience has been frustrating, and it has produced a growing recognition: negotiation with the United States is impossible, not because of a lack of effort, but because of a fundamental incompatibility of ideologies.
The Recognition of Impossibility
The recognition of impossibility is growing. The European states, including Switzerland, are beginning to understand that negotiation with the United States cannot produce genuine compromise. The understanding is gradual, but it is accelerating.
The recognition begins with the observation of American behavior. The Europeans have observed that the Americans do not negotiate in good faith, that they do not offer reciprocity, that they do not compromise. The observation produces disappointment, then frustration, then resignation. The Europeans learn that the Americans cannot be negotiated with, that they must be managed, worked around, or ignored.
The recognition continues with the understanding of American ideology. The Europeans are beginning to understand the Calvinist-Protestant foundation of American identity, the sense of election, the conviction of divine mission, the absolutism that admits no compromise. The understanding produces clarity, then acceptance, then adaptation. The Europeans learn that the American ideology is fundamentally different from theirs, and they adjust their expectations accordingly.
The recognition culminates in the development of alternatives. The Europeans are developing alternative arrangements—alternative partnerships, alternative institutions, alternative frameworks—that do not depend on American cooperation. The alternatives are not yet mature, but they are growing. The recognition of impossibility is the foundation of autonomy.
The impossibility of negotiation with the United States is not a cause for despair; it is a cause for liberation. The recognition that negotiation cannot produce compromise frees the Europeans, including the Swiss, from the obligation to negotiate. It frees them to pursue their own interests, to develop their own arrangements, to build their own future.
The American ideology—the Calvinist-Protestant ideology of election, mission, and absolutism—is not permanent. It is a particular historical formation that has shaped American behavior for centuries. But historical formations change, and the American formation is changing. The erosion of American military supremacy, the decline of the dollar, the collapse of the narrative—these are eroding the material foundation of the American ideology. The ideology will persist for a time, but it will lose its force as the material foundation crumbles.
The European ideology—the Catholic ideology of pragmatism, hierarchy, and reconciliation—is also not permanent. But it has proven remarkably durable, persisting through centuries of change and adaptation. The European approach to the world—the willingness to negotiate, the acceptance of hierarchy, the pursuit of compromise—has been a source of strength, and it will continue to be a source of strength in the era that is emerging.
The Swiss future lies not in negotiating with the Americans but in building alternatives. The Swiss banks are developing alternative arrangements that do not depend on American cooperation. The Swiss government is developing alternative alignments that do not depend on American goodwill. The Swiss population is developing alternative perspectives that do not depend on American narratives.
The recognition of impossibility is the foundation of liberation. The Swiss are recognizing that they cannot negotiate with the Americans, and they are adapting accordingly.
The adaptation is the path to renewal.
And Switzerland, with its Catholic heritage, its European identity, and its centuries of experience navigating the conflicts of nations, is ready to build a future that does not depend on the impossible negotiation with a nation that cannot compromise.
The Calvinist absolutism will fade. The Catholic pragmatism will endure. The European future will be built on the foundation of compromise, reciprocity, and mutual respect—the very things that the American ideology cannot offer.
Endnotes
1. The Wolfowitz Doctrine refers to the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance drafted by Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The document declared: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival… we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The document was leaked to The New York Times in March 1992. See De Gruyter Brill, “Power and world order”; Archive.org, “The Wolfowitz doctrine for global primacy”; GlobalSecurity.org, “Defense Planning Guidance,” December 2, 2003. (See “The Wolfowitz Doctrine and Its Implications”)
2. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), traced the relationship between Calvinist predestination and the development of capitalist rationality. The doctrine of predestination created psychological anxiety about salvation that believers sought to resolve through worldly activity and discipline. See Air University, “Given the doctrine of predestination, Calvinist theology does not emphasize the practice of conversion.” (See “The Calvinist Foundation of American Absolutism”)
3. The Calvinist doctrine of double predestination holds that God has eternally decreed some to salvation (the elect) and others to damnation (the reprobate). This creates a binary theological anthropology that has been used to justify subjugation of those outside the scope of election. See Currents Journal, “The Doctrine of Election and Christian Nationalism: A Trinitarian Response”; Currents Journal, “Adam’s original task, his dominion mandate, was to bring the earth to maturity.” (See “The Calvinist Foundation of American Absolutism”)
4. John Winthrop delivered “A Model of Christian Charity” in 1630 aboard the Arbella before the Puritan colonists landed in New England. The sermon declared: “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” The phrase derives from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:14). See Cambridge University Press, “A City upon a Hill,” in A Nation of Immigrants (2012); Daniel T. Rodgers, As a City on a Hill: The Story of America’s Most Famous Lay Sermon (2018). (See “The Calvinist Foundation of American Absolutism”)
5. The doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) holds that the Bible is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice, in contrast with the authority of the Church. The Reformers “dethroned the pope and enthroned the Bible.” Catholic theologians countered that without an infallible interpreter, there could be no infallible revelation. See Brill, “Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First!” (2017); Cambridge University Press, “The Bible in the Reformation,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible (2008). (See “The Protestant Foundation of American Exceptionalism”)
6. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, rooted in Luther’s theology, holds that every Christian has direct access to God without the need for priestly mediation. This doctrine “carried with it the right to examine for oneself” and has been widely interpreted individualistically, fostering a spirit of independence that “any institutional or corporate expression of it becomes unthinkable.” See Cambridge University Press, “Priesthood and Ministry in the Theology of Luther,” Church History (2009); First Things, “Priesthood of Believers,” October 29, 2010. (See “The Protestant Foundation of American Exceptionalism”)
7. The Catholic tradition emphasizes the Church as the mediator of divine truth, transmitted through the institutional authority of the Magisterium. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the Church has been entrusted with “handing on the truth” and is “led by the Holy Spirit,” with the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops in communion with him serving as authentic teachers of the faith. See Aleteia, “Why the Catholic Church isn’t a democracy,” October 9, 2021; United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, “The Teaching Office of the College of Bishops.” (See “The Catholic Foundation of European Pragmatism”)
8. The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is called the sacrament of conversion, confession, penance, or reconciliation. It consists of three actions of the penitent—contrition, confession, and satisfaction—and the priest’s absolution. The sacrament is described as “a powerful experience of God’s forgiveness and mercy” that imparts to the sinner “the love of God who reconciles.” See Vatican.va, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Articles 1486, 1491; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Teaching Aid: The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.” (See “The Catholic Foundation of European Pragmatism”)
9. The Catholic sacraments are understood as means of grace—physical elements through which spiritual power is transmitted. “The sacramental principle in its simplest form is the belief in the transmission of spiritual power through material means.” Christ “acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace.” This emphasis on mediated grace fosters a spirit of patience and gradual transformation. See Cambridge University Press, “Sacramental Causality in Aquinas and Rahner,” Scottish Journal of Theology (2009); Bible.org, “Catholic Theology: Seated at the right hand of the Father.” (See “The Catholic Foundation of European Pragmatism”)
10. The contrast between American absolutism and European pragmatism in international relations has been explored by scholars of American exceptionalism and its Protestant roots. The “impulse has its roots in the religious philosophies of the dissenting Protestants who first isolated themselves in North America,” and this impulse has shaped American foreign policy in ways that generate “intense resistance and international conflict.” See University of Colorado, “American Exceptionalism and Destiny”; Liberty University, “The Protestant Declension and American Foreign Policy.” (See “The Diametric Opposition”)
11. Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, was deeply influenced by his Catholic faith. He “envisaged a European political integration through economic cooperation at the service of man and his transcendence and rooted in the common European spiritual and cultural heritage.” This vision “implied reconciliation, effective solidarity, subsidiarity and supra-nationality for European common interests through an integration in small steps.” See Brill, “Robert Schuman and the Catholic Roots of European Integration.” (See “The Catholic Foundation of European Pragmatism”)
12. The concept of “benevolent domination by one power” replaced the post-World War II strategy of “collective internationalism” in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. The doctrine was “imperial in tone” and proclaimed “a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military interventions to counter threats to American dominance.” It envisioned “permanent U.S. military dominance of virtually all of Eurasia.” See Taylor & Francis, “The Bully on the Block: Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, and American Foreign Policy” (2013); Responsible Statecraft, “How 9/11 enabled a preconceived vision of an imperial US foreign policy,” September 11, 2021. (See “The Wolfowitz Doctrine and Its Implications”)
13. The “covenant theology” of the Puritans established a framework in which the American nation was seen as bound to God through a special agreement, conferring upon it a unique status and mission. This covenant theology “justif[ied] the existing order as set by God’s will, therefore pronouncing it as unique and exemplary for the whole world” and “patroniz[ed] the American nation as God-chosen nation.” See INSIS, “Justifications of political, social and spiritual foundations for North-American society”; Georgetown University, “Practical and theoretical rebellion against the absolutism of the Stuart monarchs.” (See “The Calvinist Foundation of American Absolutism”)
14. The Puritan tradition created a binary framework in which the “elect” and the “reprobate” were separated by an absolute division. This binary “became part of US political culture despite Calvin,” shaping American attitudes toward outsiders and dissenters. The God of Calvinism “does not exemplify Jesus Christ’s God of love, but exemplifies the God of violence,” and this “God of violence” flowed “wrongly into the post-Jesus Christian history.” See RISS, “The Predestination Doctrine of Calvinism”; University of Bath, “Puritans followed Reformed theology.” (See “The Diametric Opposition”)