Democracy Is Not a Stocking Stuffer
Even hardened sailors get nervous when the rudder snaps, and the 2006 GOP defeat made the most steadfast of neocons rethink the Iraq war (McCain notwithstanding). But Joe Klein of Time nailed the real problem on Bush and the Middle East last February. “How did it come about,” asks Klein, “that when Bush talks about Palestinians he sounds like Ted Kennedy talking about Americans?” Klein answers that “Bush’s flashy love affair with democracy is a fallback position: it ascended when the original rationale for the war in Iraq—the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction—receded” (Joe Klein, “Democracy, the Morning After,” Time, Feb. 6, 2006).
Bush’s foreign policy has evolved into an image of jolly St. Nick spreading cheer and democratic government to good Middle-Eastern boys and girls. But you can’t fit self-government down a chimney. Klein lists several factors that must be present: A solid middle class. Rule of law. Freedom of speech. Active, not passive, mentality.
We might also point out the moral and theological underpinnings necessary for free and just civil government. Freedom doesn’t just grow in any soil; without theological support, democracy may spring up quickly only to wither at the first signs of heat. There’s a reason the Greeks fell apart. There’s a reason Rome became an empire. And there’s a reason our teenage American republic is in the back of John Dewey’s Taurus.
Liberty in the civil sphere requires a theology that makes belief in freedom consistent. This means a strong dose of divine, not political, supremacy. And this is also where American Christians have largely failed both church and state in the past century. When Christianity is viewed as some sort of ideological vehicle for conservatism—contra C. S. Lewis’ insistence on “Mere Christianity”—the temptation to use politics to enforce a (purportedly) Christian agenda becomes too great. In the haste to pass “Christian” legislation, the actual biblical doctrines of limited government and personal responsibility are cast aside. Hence leftist big government is bad, but conservative, drug-busting, dictator-toppling big government is okay. But unless I’m missing something, these agendas are both big government.
True liberty, in the Middle East or anywhere, also requires the destruction of artificial barriers in which fallen nature always prides itself. Hindu caste theology, for instance, makes political freedom hard to swallow. Islamic values jeopardize the equality of women. And in the last 150 years, distorted Christianity became a statist poster boy for segregation, despite St. Paul’s pronouncement that “in Christ is neither Greek nor Jew.” These walls have to come down before democracy can flourish.
All these beliefs I’ve outlined must dwell in the people. It’s not enough merely to post them on a courtroom wall. Nor can they be imposed through a top-down takeover. Only as the people are animated by a sense of freedom and all its responsibilities can democracy have a chance. And note that part about responsibilities. Liberty isn’t just a gift; it’s a calling. That’s why Washington warned in his Farewell Address that Americans would have to be virtuous if their fledgling republic was going to make it. And the past century has taught us that government picks up where public virtue ends. Government takes responsibility for so much today because we—the family, the church, and the broader culture—stopped doing so. To quote San Diego rock band Switchfoot, we’re the problem. We’re the politicians.
History, as always, is vital here. Bush would have done well to trace a few questions through the centuries. Why did England gradually grow into a constitutional (though imperfect) government, while France nearly destroyed herself in bloody revolution? Why were the Scots and the American colonists able to throw off English tyranny? How compatible is freedom with Islam, a religion whose progress has historically come by the sword? And why haven’t last year’s Middle East elections left their countries truly stable?
Klein concludes that despite Bush’s cheer, free republics aren’t likely to spring up in the Middle East anytime soon. But is that really our job right now? Like Voltaire’s satire Candide, America (especially in the grasp of war-hawk neoconservatives) can’t always solve the evil she recognizes.
So maybe, like Candide, we should cultivate our own garden.
Posted on April 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
Awesome, put what I've been thinking about a lot lately into words, very eloquent words. I hate how Democracy become an idol that Americans worship. Would you say that Democracy can't really be simply transplanted in a country that has no history with it but rather must be organic and evolve with that country? It seems that we as a country forget our own history when we go nation building. Furthermore doesn't it undermine the entire idea of Democracy if you invade a country and then politely ask them to adhere to your philosophy of government? Either way great article, enjoyed it.
Posted by: Grant | April 30, 2007 5:59 PM
I agree, this is a great article. I think it was very telling when (Chablis was it?) the interim government in Iraq following the invasion was wanted by the people, because Chablis (please correct me if I'm mixing him up with the actual person) was known as a harsh man who ruled with an iron fist. Do I think they want more freedom? Yes, but in a culture that has been overrun with dictator types for so long, they don't know what freedom feels like. They just know what fear feels like.
Posted by: Russ | May 4, 2007 11:39 AM
I agree with much of what you're saying. But where exactly does the Bible tell us that limited government is good? You can attempt to align the principles in scripture with the principles underpining a great many political stances, and have at least partial success in most, so let's not pretend that God openly favors any one form of government, big or small. Seems to me like He doesn't seem all that interested in governmental solutions to the problems of the human condition.
Posted by: Joy F | May 4, 2007 9:55 PM
I'm going to have to agree with the post immediately preceding mine, with some reservations. If we look to the Bible for our political philosophy, we find theocracy in the Old Testament and pacifistic separatism in the New Testament. True, Jethro's advice to Moses to delegate authority (Exodus 18:13-26) could be seen as a model for the separation of powers, but we are fooling ourselves if we believe that our government is founded on anything but French Enlightenment political philosophy (that whole mess about a nation built on biblical principles just doesn't hold up under scrutiny).
These things notwithstanding, the scenario that Chris paints for us suggests (if those certain theological underpinnings truly are necessary for democracy) that evangelism and kingdom-building must precede Wilsonian foreign policy (policy directed at spreading the "blessing" of secular democracy). I am not hostile to this idea, but I'm not sure whether it is what Chris had in mind. I am also not sure, given the irreligious nature of many secular democracies, that one must suppose "divine supremacy" to be a necessary pre-condition for democracy in the first place. It would seem, rather, that democracies require at least tacit acceptance of Western political agnosticism (i.e. Thomas Jefferson) - something the Islamic world may never be prepared to accept.
Posted by: Mike Radcliffe | May 9, 2007 7:14 AM
The Bible does guide us in all things. Including politics. But people get confused about context. The Bible is written in application. This means that we don't copy the application today, but we look to see how God acted. What principles was God working on. In Deut. 1 we see the principles of representative, consensus based, judicial appeals process, separation of church and state. Whatever you call your government today, these are so good principles for government.
Please, let's never say that God doesn't have answers for us. That's what the Bible is about.
And for Mike. agnosticism is a religious idea. We should recognize that all people have their religious/philosophical ideas. Jefferson was a deist and many young Christians act like they want God to be a deist God as well. But God is not drifting out there waiting for us to leap out of our minds to reach him. He is actively trying to direct our needs with his principles as found in the Bible. Granted, some Pat Robertsons don't get God's principles right, but let's not give up on God's guidance just because some Christians get it wrong. The real question is, "even if you don't allow for Christian ideas in government, where are the rest of the ideas coming from?" God has ideas.
Posted by: Ryan | May 22, 2007 1:57 PM
This is a great article and the comments are interesting as well; but what many people (Americans mainly, which I am) tend to overlook is the simplicity of survival. When I went to Iraq— in the first year when we were so naïve— I bought into the idea that democracy and freedom of all sorts would appear so appealing that the Iraqis would jump at the chance for such idealistic abstractions.
In Iraq, and possibly among the American homeless and extremely poor, survival from one minute to the next generally keeps the mind off concepts like democracy, and even religion. Feeding a family while unemployed and lacking any employment prospects or desperately trying not to get blown up or trying to deal with the factions in power, be it American or some other peoples, from day to day will nearly always come before thought of a political future, freedom, or even the afterlife.
Before we can honestly discuss the ideas of spirituality or democracy in a place like Iraq, we, a people that live like kings in the land of poppers, need to understand the basics. Before any success will be achieved in Iraq or abstract ideas will begin to flow, we must find a way for these people to meet the most basic of needs.
Posted by: Bryan Catherman | May 27, 2007 9:09 PM