This is the promised “conclusion” that I’ve reached about economic policy, based on the discussion at the earlier post as well as some other real discussions (as in, not via the internet) with Zach and Riley. Huge disclaimer here that I know little to nothing about politics, and perhaps less about what the Bible says specifically about government (though to Andrews point, I think that would be very little). So we’ll see if I have anything worth saying or not, and if this post resolves any confusion/disagreements, or at least clarifies exactly what the disconnect is. I’m thinking that hopefully this post will bring some resolution to this discussion so that we can all move on past this little political streak we’ve been on. So here we go. I’ve broken this into three parts because it’s really long.
It seemed to me* that most of the disagreement taking place is due to the two “sides” talking past each other. The “liberal” argument is working more on the practical level, thinking mainly about how things will get done, whereas the “conservative”** argument is working more on the abstract, ideological level, thinking mainly about what the government’s role/responsibility is. However, as I discussed this with Riley, I realized that the confusion may actually be rooted deeper than this, that perhaps the disconnect is so foundational as where the sovereignty of rule lies, or to say it a different way, what exactly the nature of government is.
We’ll start with the first track: the issue of sovereignty. Most people (in the US, and from what I can tell in most of the Western world) take for granted the idea of popular sovereignty. If you suggest to someone that perhaps they don’t have the God-given (or nature-given, of whatever atheists say these days) right to have a voice in their government, you’ll probably get crucified as supporting totalitarianism or fascism (what’s the difference, anyways?) and all kinds of oppression and evil. But I’m going to risk it, and suggest that perhaps there is no such “right”, that it is the creation largely of John Locke’s “social contract theory” and whatnot (history check, Andrew?). Further, I’ll go way out on a limb, and say that though everyone says they believe in popular sovereignty, most conservatives don’t really believe it to it’s fullest, or at least don’t take the logic out all the way. Allow me to explain.
If the right to govern lies wholly with the people, then whatever the [majority of the] people want is what needs to happen. So for instance, on a basic level that everyone can agree with: the people decide that society would work a whole lot better if people couldn’t just go around killing each other, because that would not be a safe or orderly society. So they outlaw murder. To take it the next step, the people decide that society would work better if there were some control on the expansion of monopolies, because that destroys local business. So they create anti-trust laws. In the same line of thinking, the people decide that they want the poor cared for, so they create national welfare programs to ensure that it happens. That, I think is where most conservatives get off the popular sovereignty train, and the next step is where I think most Christian liberals get off. The people decide that unborn babies aren’t really humans, so it’s okay to have abortions, so they make it legal; or, the people decide that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, so they make homosexual marriage just as valid as marriage between a man and a woman. And then the next step is where I think perhaps even the wildest liberals get off, because it goes contrary to human nature. The people decide that mass genocide is cool, and so they start killing off all the [fill-in-the-blank]‘s. Now, before anyone freaks out on me to say that I’ve totally distorted the popular sovereignty argument, bear with me for a while, because I’m not saying it’s totally incorrect, I’m just trying to point out that it cannot stand alone, as I will try to also do to the other side.
Conversely, if the right to govern lies in the institution of the government (whether it be a king or a legislature or whatever), then what is right is what needs to happen. And of course, from a Christian perspective the foundation for what is “right” comes from God through the Bible. So to use all the same examples, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that murder is wrong (and that it’s bad for society), so the government outlaws it. Also, it can be seen clearly in Scripture that God hates the oppression of the weak, so the government makes anti-trust laws. Similarly, the Bible is clear that the poor should be cared for, and so the government either encourages its citizens (and the Church especially) to take care of the poor, or in times of dire need starts welfare programs. But then on the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage, the government sees that those things are wrong and thus outlaws them, and punishes those who break the law, as it would in the case of mass genocide. But here are the problems with this theory of government: first of all, i don’t think we have it here, and so it doesn’t really apply to our current discussion on economic/social policy, and secondly, the government doesn’t always take the Bible as its authority, or if it does it often misinterprets it. And then there’s that one problem of taking things out to their logical ends. Because if you sit on this particular merry-go-round for too long, you get into the discussion of other sins like adultery, and lying, and dancing divorce, et cetera. And it’s hard to find a good logical reason to NOT outlaw that stuff, because God clearly hates it and it’s clearly bad for society, so by all means such things should be outlawed by the government. But I don’t think even any Christian conservatives want that, because then you start to look kind of like Puritan New England where things tend to get really legalistic really fast. What I think has ended up happening is that both the liberals and the conservatives have tried to straddle both trains, if you’ll follow that analogy, and have ended up falling off both, though in different directions. In the next post I’ll try to discuss the difference in ideology a slightly different way.
*Notice how masterfully I begin by breaking as many grammar rules as possible in the first clause. Let’s count: unclear pronoun (it) + passive voice (seems) + and first person pronoun (me) = three, which we all know is the number of divinity. Got ‘em.
**From this point on I’m going to drop the quotation marks, but just understand that I’m stereotyping, not trying to say that every conservative believes this, or every liberal believes that. Also, I want to make sure that I establish that these discussions I’m referring to are between real Christians.
The “liberal” argument is working more on the practical level, thinking mainly about how things will get done, whereas the “conservative”** argument is working more on the abstract, ideological level, thinking mainly about what the government’s role/responsibility is.
I actually think this is backwards. Liberalism is completely immersed in theory. There’s a reason that people self-identifying as liberals are, in general, the most educated members of society (the university cocoon is real).
The conservative opposition to many liberal programs isn’t that they are bad in theory, or that they accomplish disagreeable goals, it is that they don’t work in practice. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as abstract conservative thought, but the conservatism of Burke, Eliot, Oakeshott, etc. concerns itself with the relationship between practice and theory, and how to balance the two. If conservatives believed welfare programs worked to alleviate poverty, they would likely be for them.
But here are the problems with this theory of government: first of all, i don’t think we have it here, and so it doesn’t really apply to our current discussion on economic/social policy, and secondly, the government doesn’t always take the Bible as its authority, or if it does it often misinterprets it.
Exactly. I believe, more than anything, that government/power corrupts religion.
@Objection one: I guess my footnote was not clear enough. I was referring throughout the paper to Christian liberals/Christian conservative, and specifically as it related to economic policy.
But thanks for pointing out my mistake. I’ll have to hone my political treatise at some point to include all areas of government. Was I otherwise relatively accurate?
I thought it was very nice. I think my definition of conservatism is probably colored a lot by the British. American conservatives are pretty different.