[If you haven't read part 1 and part 2, you might want to do that.]
Now that I’ve tried to debunk both sides, or at least show the weaknesses of both sides, I’ll finally state my own personal views.
As you may have heard me say before, I am a monarchist, in (almost) all seriousness. I think democracy is not a bad form of government, but I would argue that monarchy is not only a more effective form of government, it’s also more Biblical, because like marriage it is a model for how God interacts with the world. I’ve got more reasons to back some of this up, but that’s not what this discussion was supposed to be about, so if you want to debate with me about monarchy, let’s do it another time, or in another place. At any rate, the reason why I said I was a monarchist is because that would lead to the obvious conclusion that I personally think that government ought to be the head, not an arm. However, as I have said before, in the US our government functions as more of an arm. The government is not an autonomous institution separate of the people: in fact, it is the very foundation of our government that this is not the case (“of the people, by the people”). So things get kind of sticky as I try to wade through the options of what I think should be, and what practically can be. My gut reaction to a lot of things the government does (like federal welfare programs, nationalized health care, federal intrusion into education, etc.), is to say “you have no right to do that! That’s the state/local government’s or the Church’s job to do that!”. Which may or may not be true, but whether it’s true or not is beside the point, because (being a monarchist), I don’t think that our government has any right to even exist in the first place. So if I’m going to argue on the basis of “right”, I have to throw out the Constitution*, which would be highly impractical, as it might led to my being burnt at the stake. So since “rights” have been defenestrated, the only way I can form opinions on what policies to support here in this democracy is to base it off what will work best. And thus, I enter into the world of government being an arm. I find this highly unfortunate, but I see little other recourse than to work from within the pragmatic, “secular” perspective on government. Not to say that I won’t try to “govern” by what the Bible lays out as best for society–in fact, with my vote and (albeit limited) activism, I will try to influence the government in such a way that good things happen and bad things don’t. I will support those policies which I think will most decrease abortion, poverty, crime, divorce, etc., and those which will most increase education, health, and the Gospel. I won’t vote necessarily based on representation, because really, politicians don’t represent us at all. They do whatever it takes to get reelected. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that any significant portion of politicians actually care about what is in the best interest of those they represent.
So here are the economic policies I would support with my pragmatic approach**: I would be FOR federal healthcare legislation, so long as it let the states administer it (and pay for at least most of it), and so long as it didn’t allow state money to be used for abortions. I personally think that state and local governments would be better suited to this kind of legislation, but I understand that there are many states which would never actually pass that kind of bill because the government is controlled by wealthy and middle-class conservatives. So I understand the necessity for making it a national requirement–I just don’t want the federal bureaucracy running it in their typical super-inefficient methods. I am FOR federal welfare programs in hard times, though I think it needs to be done by creating jobs even if they’re somewhat pointless (a la New Deal), rather than just handing out money, because that would foster laziness, which undermines anything good that would’ve otherwise come out of the welfare. In times that are better economically, I would prefer that welfare happen on the state and local level, but again I understand that many states would not do a good job with it, so the national government sometimes has to step in. But I still think that they should let the local governments at least administer it. I am AGAINST the nationalization of dying corporations, though I am FOR the bailout as long as it gets paid back (as it did from the economic sector). I am even FOR raising taxes to pay for all of this stuff, though it’d be nice if politicians would stop lying like they’re going to lower taxes–we all know that it won’t happen, or that if it does it’s probably not a good idea. And you know what, I’m even FOR a graduated income tax, although I think if it’s too steep it will actually do more harm than good because the lavish spending of the rich can create a large number of jobs and help boost the economy. But in theory I’m cool with it. Also, I am FOR upping relief efforts in foreign nations, though obviously not at the expense of our own citizens. In general, one of my biggest pet peeves is the unchecked spending practices by politicians from both parties. They need to learn that YOU CAN’T SPEND MORE THAN YOU EARN!!! THAT’S WHAT DESTOYS ECONOMIES!!! But it’s unlikely that that’ll ever get fixed, due to all that pork-barrel spending. As Mr. Bill says, throw ‘em all out.
Are you happy, Riley? I took a side, and on more issues than I was even required to. Oh, and in case you were wondering, on the abortion issue, I’d probably vote conservative. I find Zach’s logic most compelling, but I can’t agree with him that the liberal economic policies will do enough good to reduce abortions. I’m very suspicious of the federal governments ability to run stuff like healthcare and welfare efficiently enough to accomplish anything significant in the long term. Although I like the ideas in theory.
Oh, yeah, and I was supposed to relate this back to the whole view of man thing. Well, originally, I started asking the question about the view of man because I was trying to find the fundamental difference between Christian liberals and conservatives. Since we agree on a lot of things, I wanted to figure out where the disconnect was. What I had drawn up for the typical view of man from the (secular) liberals and (secular) conservatives showed that both sides had major holes, which would be obvious to a Christian that fell on either end of the spectrum. So that couldn’t quite answer my question. Then as I talked with Riley, I stumbled upon the idea that maybe the fundamental difference was in what each side though the primary function of the government was. And I think it turned out that it was the deciding factor generally. So now I could make up some connection between view of man and what I’m about to say, but I don’t think that’s really necessary, or relevant at this point. I’ll spare you the nonsense. Suffice to say that I think the way government should view man is this: He is fallen and evil by nature, with a tendency to do evil. He does not know what is best for him, but he should. If he breaks the law he should be punished, though given a chance at redemption. If he screws his life up and needs help, he should be given mercy, but not allowed to be lazy and live off the hard work of other good citizens of society. So yeah, that’s it.
*I have to step back for a moment to say that I think there are lots of good things in democracy, and that I think there are ways that it could be good, and used to reform the easily-corrupted elite, or at least hold the damage from their corruption to a minimum. However, I think that a great irony has occurred in the populist movement that transformed the political scene of our country in the 1830′s: by assuming that the common man is the most qualified to govern himself, elections became no longer contests to see who could represent and govern the people more effectively and justly, but rather contests to see who could manipulate the most people to vote for them through rhetoric, propaganda, and good inter-personal skills. So now the elites still rule the nation, except it’s just the best con artists and most ambitious, power-hungry of the elites. Also, to get up on my soapbox, what could possibly make people think that the common man is best qualified to decide on complex policy matters? Why would you rather have hourly workers, office secretaries, and in general ordinary lay people deciding what the best way to pull a country out of an economy is, rather than a large group of well-educated people who have doctorates? I mean, excuse me for sounding pompous, but that’s like saying that parents should consult their four year olds as to how and where they should get their education, and letting them make the decision. Oh wait, people do that too. My bad. /rant
**Honestly, my current plan for deciding who to vote for (when I turn 18, that is) is to find some person smarter, more educated in politics, and more godly than I am, and have him tell me which candidates to vote for. Unless I take the time to do the insane amounts of research and reading and thinking and discussing to figure out what I think are the best economic/social policies, I would rather trust someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. I know this is an unpopular concept these days, because you’re supposed to “think for yourself”, but I think I have good justification for it. I am a mortal, and I am finite. My day only lasts 24 hours, and my weeks only 7 days, and my years only 52 weeks, and my life less than 100 years–in short, my time is limited. So I figure there are much better uses that I can put my time towards, because I have neither a passion nor a concerned interest in government, so I’ll leave the politicking to those more qualified than I. Let me give an analogy: I take geologists at their word when they say that at the center of the earth is a molten core of heat. I have not ever experienced the earth’s core to know that it’s real, nor done all the mathematical calculations by which the scientists arrived at their conclusion. From my limited understanding of science, it makes sense to me, but I’m not going to refuse to believe it until I “think it out for myself”, because I trust that the scientists know what they’re talking about. Perhaps if I decided to undertake such an absurd endeavor, I could prove out for myself through already established facts that at the earths core is freakishly hot lava. But perhaps I would make a mistake due to my inexperience in the field or poor mathematical training, and would come to the conclusion that at the center of the earth is really a land where dinosaurs still live (like in that one movie that came out a couple years ago). So what do I believe? Probably the scientists, because they know better than I do. The same thing applies to government. /rant#2
***How many cool points do I win for my footnotes being almost as long as my actual post itself? Does that make me automatically cool?
****Footnotes for the win.
*****I wonder if one of these days I’ll hit double digits
******Today is the day that the strength of this man failed. Today IS that day. No more footnotes.
*******Oh wait, look, the eagles are coming! The eagles are coming!
********No Sam, I can’t recall the taste of food, or the sound of water, or the touch of grass beneath my feet.
*********This would be so non-legitimate that I can’t bring myself to do it. We’ll stop at nine. And I’m out.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Haha I like it.
I don’t think the way you described representation is the way I intended to describe it in my post… if you were trying to make the comparison.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:58 pm
The second footnote is my fave – another reason I’m excited to be married, so I can have someone by default to tell me who to vote for
.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:25 pm
@Riley: no I wasn’t comparing anything. That was just me randomly ranting.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:52 pm
I second molly
January 21st, 2010 at 11:59 pm
How good of you to be a Monarchist. Just great!
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I’m kind of a monarchist, too, but not really. I don’t believe in the divine right, or anything like that. I’m not sure if I like hereditary rule, either. I’m a Hobbsian, I guess. I think my desire is to have a kingly or queenly President. I would craft my ideal ruler in the model of Elizabeth I, Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, or King David. The problem is, they don’t really come all that often. We’ve had a few Presidents in that mold (Lincoln, Washington, FDR) and I’ve read a few Englishmen say that Churchill was a kind of King to the British people. I like the idea.
I think the world has changed too much for truly autocratic rule to be possible. Any time there is widespread literacy and a little freedom of information, the people call for democracy. For many countries, it’s only a matter of time. Even China’s day is coming.
In some ways, my peace with Representative government is that it is imperfect. I love all the little kinks and idiosyncrasies of the American system. I love looking at how our system has evolved. We take it for granted, I think. Every once in a while, the people elect a Lincoln (it’s telling that the statue at the Lincoln Memorial has Lincoln seated at a throne). I don’t know whether America has the best system in the world, but it has worked this long.
I don’t know if I agree that monarchy is the biblical model of human government. I don’t have much evidence to support it, really, but God only gave the people a monarch when they begged for one. Monarchy was just the context they had to work in. Except for Classical Greece and Early Rome, representative governments were unheard of. In another universe, the Israelites might have called for democracy, and God probably would have given it to them. When the Kingdom comes, it will be God as King, and all us below Him, but God is the only possible true and perfect ruler. I still plead inconclusive on the Bible’s model for government. I just don’t think God concerned Himself much with how we rule ourselves. He probably sees it as pretty redundant, anyways.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Oh, I was joking when I said it was Biblical. I just said that because it’s the only government (short of a theocracy) that’s mentioned/assumed in the Bible.
But by the same reasoning, I’d also have to say that arranged marriages are more Biblical than any other options, and I not even gonna TOUCH that.
But as to the serious comments: I agree with you. I’m down with our system having it’s flaws, because I think that the checks/balances are effective in some ways to keep corruption to a minimum. But what you said about kingly presidents I find to be more support for monarchy being if not the superior form of government, at least the natural form of government. I agree with what you said in a earlier comment about how people WANT a leader, who they can love and fear and respect and get behind–who they can follow. So that to me is the problem with our system: in a normal situation at least half the country hates our leader, or if hate is too strong of a word, at least they don’t follow him. What we see in times of distress when a charismatic, capable leader rises up and gains the support of nearly all the people, you get a king-like figure. So I say why don’t we just have a king in the first place?
But I mean, I realize that there will always be dissension, especially as you mentioned in this day of high education/literacy/information. So you’re probably right that a true monarchy wouldn’t work.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
So I say why don’t we just have a king in the first place?
The short answer is just that people get tired of the same person. Even Churchill was ousted in 1945 (he left office before V-J day). In America, at least, we’ve got a very anti-dynastic streak. Why that is, I can’t say without rambling, but we just get tired of the same people in power. That’s why power shifts so often from one party to the other.
In times of distress, people would rather follow one of their own, even if they don’t agree with him/her than succumb to the other. That’s why approval ratings generally jump after disasters and at the beginning of wars.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
“However, I think that a great irony has occurred in the populist movement that transformed the political scene of our country in the 1830’s: by assuming that the common man is the most qualified to govern himself, elections became no longer contests to see who could represent and govern the people more effectively and justly, but rather contests to see who could manipulate the most people to vote for them through rhetoric, propaganda, and good inter-personal skills.”
So we’re agreed. Andrew Jackson* ruined America.**
*pretty monarchical guy though
**as a bonus, with my first comment comes a big thumbs up to the treatise and an even bigger pat on the back to the whole blog
January 27th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Well thank you, sir. I’m glad you like it.
When I first read your comment I saw it “Michael Jackson”, and I was kind of confused as to what he had to do with the whole populism thing, and how exactly he was a monarchial figure. But either way, I think it’s safe to say they both had a hand in destroying America.
But Stonewall Jackson was da bomb.