Will the real conservatives please stand up?

Church history and theology are among my interests, particularly the Reformation and subsequent Protestant movements (yes, there have been and continue to be many). One thing that I think contributed to the endlessly multiplying number of denominations within Christianity is the calcification of the issues that the original Reformers brought to the fore. Issues that were meant to serve as correctives to a Roman pontificate stuck in a medieval mindset -- issues like sola scriptura (the belief that the Bible is the only inerrant authority in the life of the believer) and justification through faith -- became articles themselves in the belief structure of the heirs of the original Reformers. As a consequence, entire new churches and denominations were erected to protect the new articles of belief, rather than those original grievances serving as correctives to transform the original church from the inside out.

A similar phenomenon has happened to the modern-day conservative movement in America. What was a dynamic movement with a particular aim took hold of the means and fossilized them into the end goals themselves. Witness: the original goal of the American conservative movement was to preserve the Constitution of the United States. Means to this end were to push for smaller, more responsive government, protect the economic interests of small business and the middle-class, defend and expand civil liberties, work for lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, and commit to peace through a strong military.

Now the heirs of these great conservative founders have taken *some* of these means and calcified them into hardened, transcendent principles: lower taxes, even during a period of war and record government growth; strong military (what happened to the peace part) that we use to beat the rest of the world into submission to our will (or at least go down trying); protection of big corporate interests rather than small business and the middle-class worker. No sign of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, commitment to civil liberties. Rather, the opposite - all power is to be consolidated into the hands of the President at the expense of civil liberties, congressional prerogatives and responsibilities, and the Constitution. Insufferable! The greatest defenders of the Constitution have transformed themselves into its greatest threat!!

That's irony enough to make George Lucas himself proud.

The parallels and similarities between the heirs of the Reformation and the heirs of the American conservative movement are too much to be coincidental. This must speak to a tendency within our human nature. Kelly has asked the question well: "What is a good citizen to do when the irrationality of politics and partisanship drown out the rationality of the issues at hand? When a group is more interested in besting their opponents than doing the right thing or whitewashing their own failures to save face, how can we in good faith give them our undivided loyalty?

Why does it seem like the root of the problem for any political party (or any movement in general) is when they become so certain that they have all the answers that they no longer need to listen to criticism or feedback from those with whom they disagree. It goes beyond hubris and into self-delusion."

Conservatives indeed! In the tradition of socialism, communism, and every other traditionalist movement that sought to empower the Government at the expense of the people. The conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan that sought to preserve the Constitution of the United States, conservatism that was really an extension of eighteenth-century Enlightenment liberalism that sought to empower the people, has been swept aside by modern disciples of expanding presidential power at any and all cost.

And I want nothing of it!

The Math of Politics

I'm beginning to think that people judge politicians by how far away they are from them in generally held beliefs. Think of the political spectrum as a number line with zero as the 'middle'. Which side is the positive side depends on the individual. Let's say 'Bob' in this example considers himself to be a moderate conservative. He agrees with a few traditionally liberal principles but with the conservatives for vast majority of the rest. So Bob might define his comfort zone from -1 to 5 (using a scale of -10 to 10). Since Bob identifies with the conservatives, the liberal portion of the scale is on the negative side. This gives three groups of people relative to Bob. If Bob feels that he has no beliefs in common with a candidate, he won't consider them at all. If there is some overlap then Bob will listen and consider. If a candidate's perceived beliefs fall entirely within the area that Bob defines as his own, then Bob will more then likely be an ardent supporter, feeling like he has found a candidate that understands him. The challenge is to keep from being blinded by the situation and keeping a pragmatic understanding of how people who don't share Bob's beliefs will react to the candidate. It also makes it easy to understand why candidates are always trying to include as widespread a group of beliefs as they can.

Democracy in Strange Places

Pirate ships are not normally held up as good examples of human behavior but Joanna Weiss has a good piece about how pirates participated in the social experiment called "Democracy". That people even at the very fringes of civilization could develop advanced social structures is intriguing. It is strong evidence of the Governance Imperative in action. People who must deal with their fellows as equals figure out ways to govern themselves in an egalitarian manner. Thinking of ways to improve the structure of government is not just some ivory tower dream, no longer the sole territory of the educated wealthy landholder.

Even pirates are concerned with making sure the rules by which they live are fair, regardless whether they are 'right' since they knew they were considered criminals.

Teaching the Blind to See

Even the Buchanan, the Duke of Neocons, won't be able to get the King George robots, those who support the man regardless of what he actually says, to change their mind.

The degree of loyalty that G. Gordon Liddy expressed is more like that of a soldier and not that of a thinking citizen of a republic devoted to personal liberty. "My President right or wrong" is not too far away from "But I was just following orders". The world finally agreed, through the Nuremberg trials, that unquestioningly following orders is no excuse for doing the wrong thing.

As a country, which would we rather have people do, blindly following the a leader who shares our principles or blindly follow principles which are shared by our leaders? It may seem like the same thing but the key difference is how we handle leaders who diverge from our principles. If you attach your loyalties to the man, what do you do when they do something with which you do not agree? You can call him on it or you can defend him and defer coming to terms with his transgression. A free society needs citizens who hold their leaders accountable, not make excuses for their bad behavior or poor choices.

A person who blindly follows their leader has abdicated their decision making, as if to say they don't have to think because all they've determined that their demagogue of choice can do no wrong and any questioning of authority is redundant at the least or a personal affront beyond that.

I could go on but wanted to get this general thought out there. The question to be addressed is this, why do some people stop questioning the actions or decisions of their leaders?

Too old and tired for democracy?

But there is not a grain of evidence that primitive government was despotic and tyrannical. It may have been, of course, for it may have been anything or even nothing; it may not have existed at all. But the despotism in certain dingy and decayed tribes in the twentieth century does not prove that the first men were ruled despotically. It does not even suggest it; it does not even begin to hint at it. If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep.

...

But the spirit that endures the mere cruelties and caprices of an established despot is the spirit of an ancient and settled and probably stiffened society, not the spirit of a new one. As his name implies, the Old Man is the ruler of an old humanity . It is far more probable that a primitive society was something like a pure democracy. To this day the comparatively simple agricultural communities are by far the purest democracies. Democracy is a thing which is always breaking down through the complexity of civilization. Anyone who likes may state it by saying that democracy is the foe of civilization. But he must remember that some of us really prefer democracy to civilization, in the sense of preferring democracy to complexity.

--The Everlasting Man, Chapter 3, G.K. Chesterton

One of the great Christian writers of the 20th Century, G.K. Chesterton wrote The Everlasting Man as a critique of H.G. Wells' An Outline of History and as a history of Western Civilization. (It is also a remarkable apologetic for the Christian faith.) In the early chapters of the book, Chesterton spends a great deal of time highlighting just how little we actually know about prehistoric peoples. We find a tooth or a piece of pottery, and the imaginations of archaeologists, psychologists and biologists join together to weave an intricate picture of the society and culture that must have produced the two artifacts.

This is a gold mine of contradictions and incompetencies that Chesterton mines, but one of the points he brings to light is this notion that prehistoric societies must necessarily have been despotic. We are all familiar with the image of the Stone Age village submitting to the will of the strong man with the club. We assume that the path to democracy is a path of enlightenment and evolution that marks the progress of true civilization. Chesterton argues that this, however, is not the case.

True democracy is kept close to the people, bringing the entire community together to vote on any business effecting the community as a whole. Once we move beyond the community into more complex structures and layers of government, complexity, specialization, and distances necessarily erode the ability to govern by pure democracy, so the people send representatives to vote for them. The people of the local community are already starting to be removed from the process. So Chesterton's point that democracy is the enemy of civilization is well taken. The more complex a civilization becomes, the less democratic it can be.

What I find particularly insightful in Chesterton's analysis, however, is his contention that despotism is the by-product of a tired democracy. "As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep." We can see that this has happened throughout history to various civilizations, Athena and Rome the obvious two that come to mind. Rather than something human societies evolve out of, Chesterton observes that despotism and dictatorship is something that human societies evolve in to. Indeed, the more civilized a society becomes, the more susceptible to despotism it becomes.

I can't help but think of the Star Wars prequel movies. Although fiction, the story line that plots Senator Palpatine's orchestration to consolidate power illustrates a lot of truth about the human condition. The Republic has become brittle. Various factions are out only for their own interests and have no regard for the greater good. Morality has no place in the hedonistic environment that governs day-to-day interactions. People grow tired of the inability of the Senate to get anything done, so they gladly hand over power "temporarily" to the strong-man who promises to make everything right. Except once the emergency passes, temporary somehow becomes permanent. The Republic has somehow become an Empire.

It is a slippery slope indeed, and the people must be ever vigilant to keep such a nightmare scenario at bay.

It is natural to inquire as to the health of the American Republic. While it is silly, as some try (even if only for polemical reasons), to claim that President Bush is a dictator or monarch, it is undeniable that the institution of the presidency has been strengthened at the expense of congressional and judicial powers. Not only this, but power has been consolidated at the federal level at the expense of state and local governments and the civil and religious institutions of society continue to atrophy from neglect, abuse, and apathy. The stage is being set for one who is patient and crafty to orchestrate, through the presidency, the establishment of a dictatorship.

Perhaps the only reason we have been spared such a fate this long is because of the unique way in which we elect our Presidents (for the benefits of the electoral college, see my post on the direct election of the President.) The United States has been blessed with a remarkable cadre of exceptional and godly men to serve as president, even if they have been most guilty of gathering up power for the office of the presidency. We can only hope and pray that the people will continue to remain vigilant to protect the Republic and constitutional principles that we claim we are committed to.

Horse races and human nature

I'm watching the Democratic nomination process and am very intrigued. The two remaining candidates are so close that the nomination might be decided at the convention. The party has a defined process to handle this but I keep hearing people who say they want it decided before then; I ask 'why'? Is it because their candidate is ahead by a nose and they don't want it to go to a photo finish? What about all these states that have their nomination contest late on the calendar? What if the nomination came down to the last State? Are they not important enough to be the deciding factor? Are we so impatient that we have to have a decision at the earliest possible moment? Are we so allergic to uncertainty that we'll short circuit the process just to have an answer? Does uncertainty gnaw at us until we crave relief however painful? The Democrats sometime sound like a wild animal caught in a trap. Not knowing when they'll be let out makes them anxious and nervous, searching for any escape. At some point they become willing to painfully chew off their own leg and be free rather than remain in that state of uncertainty.

Maybe this reveals something deeper about human nature; that we'd rather have certainty even if unfairly determined.