The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly Commentaries
|
Have We Become Unfit for Democracy?
November 3, 2008
S. Michael Craven
In ancient Athens, two political parties—or social classes—vied for power: the oligarchs and the democrats. The oligarchs sought to establish a state in which only wealthy property owners could vote and hold public office, while the democrats insisted that all male citizens have the same rights. Aristotle summarized these competing approaches to government in Politics, writing, “An oligarchy is said to be that in which the few and the wealthy rule, and a democracy that in which the many and the poor are the rulers.”
For most of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Athens was a democracy. While the oligarchs only succeeded twice in establishing rule by the few over the many (in 411 and 404 BC), the struggle between these two forces was long, contentious, and occasionally bloody.
Plato (427–347 BC), who is often described as the greatest Western philosopher, grew deeply disillusioned by the political conditions in his home city of Athens. Though tempted to turn his back on politics, Plato applied his considerable mental faculties to the problem of government in his most famous work, Republic.
Plato had no faith in the rule of the rich; but neither was he confident in the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in the affairs of government. Plato observed that the oligarchs were driven by their own interests and during their short-lived regimes they demonstrated to what length they would go to defend the advantages of the few against the majority. However, the rule by the many wasn’t the solution, according to Plato, because the uninformed masses were too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians.
In Plato’s mind, the only solution to this dilemma was to place government in the hands of the philosopher, those who had a cultivated sense of self-discipline by means of advanced reasoning abilities, i.e., Plato’s philosopher-king. Plato, who trusted ultimately in human reason, believed that without the self-discipline imposed by superior reason a person would easily fall into self-destructive gluttony or be carried away by foolish emotions and thoughtless ambitions. From a Christian point of view, we certainly value the gift of reason; however, Plato’s reasoning powers were focused inward on the human mind in search of answers, whereas we would argue that true truth can only be discovered by the application of human reason to God’s revelation.
Nonetheless, Plato’s concern over the inability of the uninformed to adequately participate in the governance of the nation holds some truth. James Madison, a prominent founding father, asserted that “a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” John Adams offered even greater clarity into the nature of this knowledge when he wrote, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, it is moral knowledge informed by religion that best serves to restrain destructive human passions and enlighten the electorate, thus rendering them better equipped for governing themselves. Given the recent decline of this moral knowledge, the question must be asked: Have we grown unfit for democracy?
While Plato argued that philosophical knowledge was the restraining factor in our appetites and desires, history has demonstrated that it is moral knowledge that best serves to restrain our selfish interests. As to the source of this moral knowledge, Boston College professor Peter Kreeft observes, “The fact is no society has ever yet existed that has successfully built its knowledge of morality on any basis other than religion” (Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 51).
Unbridled by true religion and the moral knowledge that follows, the current political season reveals that the majority of Americans may have finally succumbed to self–destructive gluttony. Thus their choice on Tuesday may represent what Plato feared: that the masses, uninformed by [moral] reason, have been easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians.
The fundamental differences in the current presidential race are, in my estimation, these. On the one hand, there are those who believe moral issues are preeminent and that government should play a limited role in our lives. These are those that hold to a free constitutional republic. We appear to be in the minority. On the other hand, there are those who increasingly look to government as the solution to every societal ill and as a source of personal unmerited benefit, i.e., a socialist democracy. These appear to be, for the first time, in the majority. I would suggest that the latter come perilously close to those of whom Benjamin Franklin warned when he wrote, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
There is only one solution to this dilemma if this nation is to have any future. It is not political education nor is it even moral education, but rather religious education—and that being of the Christian religion. It is from this foundation alone that free societies arose to produce unparalleled prosperity, relieve human suffering, and establish human dignity.
To be clear, this religious education is not merely of an academic nature, but should be of an incarnational nature. C. S. Lewis offers a proper description of this difference and its affect when he writes:
A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it; and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I may repeat “do as you would be done” till I am black in the face, but I cannot learn to carry it out till I love my neighbor as myself; and I cannot learn to love my neighbor as myself till I learn to love God; and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so … we are driven on to something more inward—driven on from social matters to religious matters.
So tomorrow we cast our votes and the day after—regardless of the outcome—let us return once again to religious matters; the higher calling of Christ.
© 2008 by S. Michael Craven
|
|
Responses
|
|
Response from : Brian |
|
|
|
November 3, 2008 9:45 AM
|
|
We are certainly becoming unfit for democracy. There are really only two ways to restrain behavior, 1) Self-Restraint stemming from a moral code, or 2) By External Force, e.g., the police or military. The American Democratic system depends on each citizen, doing his or her civic duty, for the most part, voluntarily. This duty means participating in the political system, obeying the laws, paying taxes, and participating in the common good. As the American culture becomes increasingly "idea diverse," the predominant collective social view will depart from the collective Judeo-Christian social view that prevailed at the contry's founding. This new collective view will likely be a more selfish and destructive view or at least one that is in error, based on Humanism. Over time, the only solution to the increased selfish behavior will be to increase the "external restraints," and this will be a more oppressive atmosphere but it will be seen by the masses, "As for the best."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : David Grandgeorge |
|
|
|
November 3, 2008 10:48 AM
|
|
I assume that in your "one side" and "the other side" you mean Republicans and Democtats, in that order.
If so, you ascribe to the Republicans the higher moral ground.
It is poor theology and a tired political refrain to assume one party does or should have the blessing of Christians.
Republican party principles are closer to the oligarchy of the rich in the belief that if the wealthy are made wealthier the benefits will trickle down to the poor.
There are Christians of strong faith in both parties.
Christians are for the sanctity of life, but that includes ending death penalties and wars.
Christians are for moral fundamentals, but that includes rights to all citizens for shelter, food, health care, safety, etc.
The one thing you are right about is that we should all seek to live in the higher calling of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Lan |
|
|
|
November 3, 2008 11:15 AM
|
|
Well put. I have observed that "nothing is new under the sun". To consider the result of this election a hopeless conclusion, it is rather an opportunity to continue in the race, to remain faithful to the much higher calling in Christ Jesus. I cringe at the utterances of my brothers and sisters in Christ when they take a doomsday approach to this election year. Let us not stoop in fear for fear is faith corrupted. Cultural Humanism, as manifested in our populist socialistic leaning as a society, is doomed on the basis that humanity cannot save itself, no matter how much you tax it, coerce it, and manipulate it. Wolves eventually get hot in thier sheep's clothing and must come forth. I welcome that day, for the Glory of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : S. Michael Craven |
|
|
|
November 3, 2008 12:11 PM
|
|
Dear Mr. Grandgeorge,
Thank you for your comments, however you are making assumptions beyond the scope of my article. I did not identify republican versus democrat nor did I favor one party over the other. I contrasted those who believe moral issues are preeminent and that government should play a limited role in our lives with those who increasingly look to government as the solution to every societal ill and as a source of personal unmerited benefit, i.e., a socialist democracy. These are two distinctly different political philosophies not parties (there are many in the democratic party who are fiscal conservatives, Bill Clinton among them) and yes, I would assert that the socialist scheme is less consistent with the biblical worldview.
Thank you,
Michael
http://www.battlefortruth.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Bethany |
|
|
|
November 3, 2008 1:37 PM
|
|
This is my second response - first didn't seem to go through. I am so disappointed in this commentary that I am unsubscribing after many years of reading your thoughtful views. If you truly believe that those of us who are voting for Sen. Obama are lacking moral judgment, are gluttonous, ignorant, selfish, and deluded, you are not someone I choose to hear from on a regular basis. I am a Christian, know my Scripture, am educated, and have prayerfully chosen to vote Democrat as I believe that the Rep. party, apart from its claims to be pro-life, is morally bankrupt. I believe government is instituted by God to protect and provide justice for the helpless. Small gov't. can not do this adequately. I agree both parties can be corrupt, and know full well that the Democrats are not the savior of this country, but neither are the Reps. by any means - only Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : kar |
|
|
|
November 5, 2008 11:51 AM
|
|
Michael, have you ever thought about going really back to the beginnings, even of society? Well, the Greeks, and even Plato didn't start with this. I still consider Moses and what the revelation he got has basic even for society. The OT is despised, and wonder why - Anti-semitism has not been weeded out of our Bible.
Sorry - as long as we don't get a better picture about how God wants us to live together (marriage, family, work, state) we are on the wrong track. I dare even to say that the basics of our country need to be weeded out of that and other evil weeds...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Ken Quick |
|
|
|
November 5, 2008 12:04 PM
|
|
To Bethany and like minded folk:
I recently read an outstanding article on WorldNetDaily.com (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71830) which convinced me that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is sin. Fortunately for me here in Canada I had the option of voting for the Christian Heritage Party candidate in our recent Federal election. Previously I had always voted conservative, but came to realize I was just voting for the party that was a little less farther down the path to destruction than the other two major parties. Many would say that my vote was 'wasted', but for the first time since becoming a Christian I feel I voted my conscience. For you Americans I guess the equivalent would be to vote for independent candidates who advocate Christian positions, or not voting at all. Just some food for thought.
I completely agree with the points Michael makes in his article, especially the idea that people get the government they want and/or deserve. The only way to reform politics is by reforming the family, hence the local church, hence the church catholic. Then our political systems will reform themselves. Look what happened to Geneva in Calvin's time for an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Michael R. Guertin |
|
|
|
November 9, 2008 11:36 PM
|
|
I am intrigued by your article. I think you, Ben Franklin and John Adams were/are right on. I shall pray more earnestly for our nation because too many have apparently voted to give themselves money this time around.
In Christ's love,
Mike Guertin
Clarksville, TN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to This Article
Navigation Key
|
