I keep reading blogs and net entries and titles of books (that I am not interested in reading) that insinuate or outright claim that the link between evangelicals and the Republican party over the years is something of an evil alliance. We are told this alliance was concocted by cynical politicians who took advantage of naïve church folks or worse, was a cynical attempt by religious leaders to seize power through the Republican party apparatus and establish a theocracy.
While there are always opportunists in every movement, I really don’t think that is anything like the truth. To that end, I have decided to jot down a few thoughts on what I think the Christian Conservative movement is really about.
First on the list – limited government.
I vividly recall an old segment of William Buckley’s “Firing Line” program where he interviewed Malcolm Muggeridge. Muggeridge made a statement to the effect that one of the greatest contributions of Christianity to the Western world was it’s pessimism. I find that a profound statement in an age when many Christians on the theological and political left seem to want to create an earthly utopia through the expansion of government.
Limited government is the first principle of conservatism and it is grounded in the doctrine of the fall. The ancient dictum “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” ought to resonate deeply with anyone who believes human beings are fallen. It ought to be an unquestioned principle for any Christian or any student of history, that human beings are capable of being exceedingly cruel. Those who hold the power of government, of police force, of military force, are therefore potential despots and potential tyrants. Not that all will succumb to the temptation, but that any leader may. Conservatives recognize this principle and for that reason theologically conservative Christians who believe in original sin tend to lean toward political conservatism as well. It is why I generally look at Christians who embrace the political left and wonder if their theology includes a clear view of human fallenness.
Limited government does not mean minimalist government or no government. The need for a court system, for police, for national defense, are all included in the calculation of how to have a civil society in a fallen world. While it is true powerful rulers can commit horrible evils, it is also true individuals can commit significant evil as well. No conservative would deny the need for law, law enforcement and national defense. But the greatest civil evil is tyranny, too much power in the hands of those who might abuse it.
The founding fathers clearly understood things in this way, which is why I think it correct to say the United States was founded on a “Judeo-Christian consensus.” The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, the development of the idea of term limits, all were a response to “tyranny” which was nothing more than sin at the level of the state. While it may be true that some of the ideas surrounding the “pursuit of happiness” were individualist notions influenced by the enlightenment, I believe the majority of the principles of our government came from the Reformation and a very clear view of the fall of man and the possibility of the abuse of power.
As one contrast to this, Barack Obama, in a 2001 interview given while a Senator, indicated he believed that the Constitution enumerated “negative liberties” regarding what the government should not do, but that he felt it was time to move in a direction that included “positive liberties”, rights that the government should extend on behalf of the people. I quote:
"…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
Note that he indicated that the "negative rights" included "constraints" that the government was under. He wanted to codify into the constitutional understanding that certain benefits of the government were “rights”, which expands the role of government in the lives of individuals. This is clearly a move away from limited government and toward a more powerful state, a move toward collectivism and away from individual responsibility, a move which does not show the level of skepticism about the nature of man that leads to a limited government. It includes the “redistribution of wealth” as a “social justice” issue, (for those like Jim Wallis who think Glen Beck is making stuff up).
As a Christian, I believe the greatest political mistake is the theological mistake of thinking of human nature as perfectible. Nothing scares me more than the naivete of the religious left who continually ask the government to right every “social” or “economic” wrong with some bureaucratic solution, consolidating more and more and more power in the hands of the state. It flows from a falsely optimistic view of the human condition, from the belief that evils are “systemic” and can be corrected by changing the “system”, failing to account for the evil that infects the hearts of the humans who run the systems. Changing the systems only relocates the problem, it does not solve it. And seeking to solve inequities by granting more power to government only makes it easier for the opportunistic and unprincipled to seize control of the system. It creates a structure that is tailor made for the tyrant.
I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I have very few political points of agreement with Jim Wallis. I am a conservative because no single fact of human existence is plainer than the reality of evil in the human heart, evil that repeatedly has seized and abused power on a massive scale throughout human history. Limited government is the first principle of conservatism and the first reason I am a conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment