The Shortcomings of Democracy

white and grey voting day sign
Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

I’ve written before about the relationship between democracy and Christianity. The piece linked here was from about three years ago, wherein I wrote that democracy does not ensure inherently more moral outcomes than other forms of government, but rather is just as subject (if not more so) to the poor judgment of human beings, and thus just as likely to produce immoral and undesirable governing outcomes (see Trump, Donald.)

As I was reading When War is Unjust by Yoder last night, I came across this passage that struck me as making the same point, but in a more concrete and insightful way. Here is Yoder:

In order to gain a popular mandate and seem stronger than their adversaries, politicians may exploit nationalistic and xenophobic, even racist, enthusiasms of common folk, thereby putting themselves under pressure to perform in a way as “patriotic” as their campaign language. Once the battle has begun and lives have been given, it is far more difficult to contemplate suing for peace. The medieval vision of the prince as a responsible and wise decision-maker, able to lead his people because he knew more of the facts, had studied the craft of governing, and had the courage and also the power to make unpopular but right choices, is replaced be elected politicians who become captives of the patriotic sentiments and short-circuited analyses their own campaigning stirred up. The medieval monarch could, if wise, cut the losses and make peace. Democratic leaders may be less free to be wise, especially once they have cranked up the fervor for war. Whether we speak of the relatively genuine democracies, in which popular suffrage is effective, or of the many places in which the facade of an electoral process is used to cover less worthy policies and less valid processes of decision, it often appears that to involve the masses in decisions about war and national honor does not provide for more effective defense of the real interests of most people. The issues at stake are subject to rapidly changing moods and to deceptive rhetoric. Decisions about whether to have a war, about what, and how long are not made more wisely just because there are elections. Democratic forms may well work against restraint.

I don’t post this as an endorsement of a return to medieval monarchy as a government (or, even less, as some sort of theocratic technocracy bringing together Plato and Aquinas.) Rather, I read and share this as a reminder of my point in the earlier piece: democracy is not a cure-all for what ails the world and the nation socially and economically. Those of us who have stood opposed to Trump since early on should know this as well as any, and in fact, his election is what awoke this line of thinking in myself. The same democracy that elected a Barack Obama is just as likely and capable to elect a Donald Trump. It is also just as likely to turn around and elect an Elizabeth Warren next time, and who knows what after that.

I do think this passage is interesting in the sense of what Yoder points out specifically as the things democracy does less well. He notes the accumulation of facts, the art of governance, and the ability to use restraint as three things that the idea monarch could bring to bear that democratic forms of governance fail at more often. The depredations and downfalls of monarchy often impeded the exercising of these good points, but then again, the depredations and downfalls of democracy often override the positive elements of it as well. The use of restraint, and the making of hard decisions, stands out to me most as what the American project in democracy is failing at most often; we seem unable, as a democratic populace, to make hard decisions involving sacrifice or the giving up of privileges, in order to achieve a greater and broader good. Our democratic guidance seems all too often geared towards maximizing our own good in the here and now, at the expense of any longer-term vision. This is evident on the right in the denial of and refusal to deal with the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change; on the left, we see this in the drive for further atomization and individualization of the body politic, driving towards intensely personal understandings of cultural engagement at the expense of some form of national coherence and unity, something that is key to the success of any community of any size and form.

When I think about these shortcomings of pure democracy, it makes me think of how prescient were the Founders in this sense, in their writing in of checks and balances in our governing documents. Madisonian democracy, enmeshed in the Constitution, is representative and limited, for the purpose of ensuring some semblance of a ruling elite; I like to think that this ruling class could be one that is elite in it’s ability to make hard decisions for the greater good, in it’s knowledge of governing forms and policy, and it’s attention to facts and details. But again, the ideal runs up against the realism of human fallibility; history has shown us that any form of a ruling elite inevitably turns into a kleptocratic, oligarchic economic elite.

This all brings me around to the reminder I feel I am constantly banging away at for Christians, namely, that democracy is not a “Christian” form of governance, any more than any temporal form of human governance is. As we get closer and closer to the 2020 elections, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all the problems we face will not be wiped away by the election of more favorable candidates to higher office; even more importantly, we cannot forget that no matter who assumes (or retains) the presidency and Congress next year, our role as Christians is one outside the structures of coercive power. Even our friends need a robust voice of criticism pushing them on towards a higher vision of the Good, beyond the needs of the next electoral cycle. Christians are not democrats; we are Christians, first and last.

Advertisements

Life Update: Graduation, Public Schools, and My Online Presence

It’s been a busy few months in my life.

60953253_10218714442712780_4161352203451236352_nIn May, I graduated from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary with my Master’s Degree in Theology and Ethics. My master’s thesis, titled A God Who Can Suffer And Die: Putting Moltmann’s Crucified God to Work in Rural White Working Class Communities, is finished and published on ProQuest (and you’ve all seen glimpses here). I have moved back to Tulsa, after two years in Chicago, and in about two weeks, I will begin work as a 5th grade teacher at Clinton West Elementary School here, after an intense summer in the Tulsa Teacher Corps learning on the fly how to become an emergency certified teacher.

It’s been, needless to say, a fairly busy eight months.

Teaching elementary school is going to be a whole new beast this year, one which probably won’t allow me to write much (not like I’ve been keeping up well doing that anyways.) As always, I am hopeful otherwise. I am trying to stay theologically active, despite the end of my seminary career, through writing here, through lots and lots of reading (more on that in a moment), through my regional wing of the American Academy of Religion, and through active correspondence with fellow theologians. I have embraced being labeled a theologian, but that means I need to be active. Again, here’s hoping.

So, hopefully I’ll be writing here somewhat regularly. I’m trying to be intentional about my online presence going forward, and I want this WordPress space to be part of that. Besides this, I have recently set up a Micro.Blog account that I hope can redirect me towards a more sustainable, more healthy version of social media usage (I’ve documented my struggles with social media in the past here.) The Micro.Blog account will be for shorter musing that don’t necessarily warrant an entire blog post, but they may evolve into posts here! I hope you’ll connect with me in you are also there. Finally, following the lead of a couple of voices I have great respect for (and some envy of), I am toying with the idea of a regular email newsletter, that will serve as more of a status update space, as well as a place to do further writing. (Alan Jacobs’ newsletter has been a great inspiration, along with a few others. I encourage you to check his out, and subscribe.) If and when I get that going, I’ll share a subscribe link here.

One thing I do want to try to do here (something that will hopefully make me write

65708095_10219052707929199_4638795405323141120_o
My current bookshelf of to-be-read books. There is a bit of a backlog after 3 years of seminary.

more) is share what I’ve been reading. I do use the Goodreads app to keep track of my reading and whats on my shelf. But I want to be thinking and writing thoughtfully about what I’m reading. So, as I finish books here, I will probably at least document the fact that I finished something, and maybe share some thoughts the books raise for me. I’ve come into possession of a collection of almost all the major works by Yoder and Hauerwas, so I’m concentrating on those this summer and fall and will have a lot to say about them more than likely.

As mentioned above, I also am staying involved with AAR, and I have a paper idea I need to get worked up by October, so I’ll probably share some of that here. I also want to not only write, but be in conversation with others about theology and ethics and religion and society and all of the things. So, comment away on the posts you find here, and I will strive to be better at interacting than I have been recently!

Excerpt #2

Committed Christians see in their life of faith not merely an ethical stance in which they want to be consistent, nor a set of rules they want to be sure not to break, but a gracious privilege which they want to share. They guide their lives not so much by “How can I avoid doing wrong?” or even “How can I do the right?” as by “How can I be a reconciling presence in the life of my neighbor?”

John Howard Yoder, What Would You Do?, pg 40