Let's start with the basics. What is a theocon?

A "theocon" (or "theoconservative") is someone who believes that the United States needs a governing philosophy or civil religion rooted in orthodox Christianity, and especially in orthodox Catholicism. They believe that the United States is a Christian nation, and that only a narrow band of secularist elites believes otherwise.

You distinguish in the book between theocons, neocons and paleocons. Who's who? (Please name names.)

The leading theocons are all deeply religious. The key figures are Richard John Neuhaus (a priest), Michael Novak (Catholic theologian and author), George Weigel (biographer of Pope John Paul II), and Princeton University's Robert P. George (co-author of the Federal Marriage Amendment outlawing gay marriage).

Most of the original neocons were secular and Jewish: Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer. The current generation (William Kristol, David Brooks, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer) is somewhat less culturally homogeneous, though the ideology remains less theologically oriented than theocon ideology. The neocons, for example, favor an aggressive foreign policy that aims to spread democracy around the globe. The theocons agree, but they defend it in terms of Catholic just war reasoning and frequently speak of the United States fulfilling a providential role in enforcing divinely sanctioned order in the world.

The paleocons tend to be much more skeptical about the use of American military might (as well as much more critical of capitalism and immigration). The leading paleocon is Patrick Buchanan and the group of writers surrounding his magazine The American Conservative. This ideology's other home base is a small journal called Chronicles.

How Catholic is the theocon group? Can you be a theocon if you're not Catholic?

The movement is very Catholic, but one doesn't have to be a Catholic in order to be a theocon. The only requirement is that you believe that America needs an orthodox Christian governing philosophy. This philosophy is typically articulated in Catholic terms (using concepts derived from natural law, for example), but it is deliberately interdenominational in character -- a form of "mere orthodoxy," if you will. It is designed to appeal to conservative Protestants as well as Catholics (and perhaps even a handful of Orthodox Jews). Basically anyone deeply troubled by the secular drift of American culture and politics since the 1960s can be a theocon.

Just how influential have the theocons been? Can you point to any concrete achievements? Have they proven decisive in any elections?

They've been very influential in teaching evangelicals how to be more effective in pressing their agenda in the nation's public life. George W. Bush's line about how "every unborn child must be welcomed in life and protected by law" comes straight from Neuhaus. Anytime you hear a politician talk about the importance of building a "culture of life," and combatting a "culture of death," that's a sign of theocon influence. The theocons also authored the Federal Marriage Amendment and then personally persuaded the president to endorse it, which he did in the winter of 2004. Then there was the decision of the Catholic bishops' conference to threaten to withhold the sacrament of Communion from pro-choice Catholic politicians (mostly Democrats), which Neuhaus strongly endorsed and lobbied for. In this effort, he was aided by powerful allies in the Vatican, including then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Do theocons have a foreign policy? Or are they mainly focused on domestic politics?

Their foreign policy is very similar to that of the neocons, though the theocons talk about war and peace in terms of the "Catholic just war tradition." In one of the most radical statements of their views, theocon George Weigel wrote in January 2003 (just a few months before the start of the Iraq war) that all rightly constituted public authorities (including the president) enjoys a "charism of political discernment" -- a gift of the holy spirit that aids him in his decision making. The point seemed to be that critics of the administration -- including religious critics -- ought to keep quiet and put their faith in the divinely inspired wisdom of the President of the United States.

What accounts for the birth of the theocon movement?

Back in the late 1960s, founding theocons Neuhaus and Novak were on the far left, toying with revolution in the name of civil rights and ending the Vietnam War. But unlike most of the protesters at the time, both men saw their political commitments as flowing from deep piety. They both wanted religion to play a much greater role in American life. But with the decline of the protest movement and growing secularization of the left, both men became convinced that a religious revival in the United States would likely come from elsewhere on the political spectrum. This began a rapid ideological shift to the right, which was largely completed by 1980. At first, Neuhaus placed his hopes for a populist religious revival in Jimmy Carter, but Carter soon disappointed him. The emergence of the Moral Majority in the late 70s, and its decision to abandon Carter and embrace Reagan, persuaded Neuhaus and Novak that the Republican Party was the natural home for devout religious believers.

In 1960, as you note in the book, JFK as a Catholic candidate had to promise not to take marching orders from the Vatican. That is, he promised to maintain a high wall between church and state. Today the wall seems a lot lower. How did Catholics come to reverse course on this vital principle?

JFK took that position largely to neutralize anti-Catholic sentiment in the country; it was an unorthodox position then, and it remains one today. Since then, and especially since the start of John Paul II's pontificate in 1978, the Church has re-affirmed its historic insistence that Catholic public figures must uphold the teachings of the Church -- that they ought not bracket their faith and its moral requirements. So, for example, the Church teaches that abortion is murder; it is therefore just as unacceptable for a Catholic politician to call abortion merely a matter of private "choice" as it would be for him to say that the murder of eight-year-old girls is a private matter of choice. Murder is murder -- in all cases it is a public matter and a grave evil. The state should do what it can to prevent the murder of innocents. Conscience should lead all people to this view, but Catholics have a special obligation to abide by it. That is the Church's position. It was JFK's privatization of faith that was the anomaly in Catholic history.

Many conservatives often say that in modern America they often feel under siege. But your subtitle indicates that you believe it is secularists who are under siege. How so?

My subtitle is meant primarily to grab people's attention. The fact is that there is a small group of very smart, very influential, but not very well known Catholic intellectuals in this country who wish to define the United States as a Christian nation -- in its history, in its principles, and in its actions in the world, at home and abroad. If that's not an example of placing secular America under siege, I don't know what would be.

You refer toward the end of the book to "A Historical Fantasy." What is it?

The "fantasy" is theocon revisionist history about the country's founders, whom they portray as deeply pious men who set out to create a Christian nation. As conservative columnist George F. Will recent wrote, this is the most audacious "intellectual hijacking" since the medieval church baptized Aristotle. In reality, most of the founders were deistic Episcopalians who worried about the dangers of public religiosity. At the same time, they also thought that the country would be well served by a civic religion of liberal Protestantism. So, a mild, watery piety would prevail in public life, while devout faith would be privatized. But the theocons take a very different view, attempting to channel devout faith directly into public life. That is something that the founders would have considered profoundly ill-advised. To deny this is to believe in a fantasy version of American history.

The book flap notes that you served as the editor of First Things, the "flagship journal" of the theoconservative movement. I hate to be flip, but how did somebody like you wind up in a place like that? From the book it sounds as if you are uncomfortable with much of the theocon agenda.

I was more conservative when I landed the job at First Things back in 2001. (At the time I was working as a speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani and thought of myself as a Giuliani Republican.) I supported what I thought was the main goal of the magazine: to oppose restrictions on serious believers participating in politics. As a pluralist, such restrictions seemed arbitrary and unfair to me; there was no reason why pious citizens should be forbidden from having a seat at the table of public debate and discussion. But after a year or so at the journal, I began to see that the magazine didn't so much want these citizens to be granted a seat at the table as it want them to take over the table. At the same time, the policies of President Bush, which the journal supported wholeheartedly, drove me to the left in protest. So the magazine and I were moving in opposite directions. Before long, it was obvious that I'd have to resign.