A conservative friend of mine sent around an article written by Joseph Sobran, a former columnist for the National Review, in which he describes his transition from conservative, to libertarian, to philosophical anarchist. His main conclusion was that government might be restrained by Christian principles in the short or medium term, but that in the long run, as those forces waned, “we can expect the state to show its nature nakedly”. In these uncertain times, more people will give credence to that assertion. My friend asked for our thoughts, and I—ever the reluctant one—forced a reply: J
I found Sobran’s thoughts very interesting; but not at all revolutionary. James Madison said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
That is in Federalist #51. A key problem is that a constitution is often a better reflection of it’s framer’s ideals than the actual practice of their power. The Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration made it clear that the first amendment was no protection against one party rule. Jefferson and Madison became the chief critics of this expansion of federal powers, and their new party won the next election. Yet, one of the first things James Madison (the father of the constitution) did upon becoming president in 1809 was to confirm the power of the Congress to charter a national bank (something long considered to be unconstitutional by Madison and Jefferson’s supporters.) It would seem they scrapped their ideological scruples for what “worked”.
The author of the article discussed his transition from blind belief in the “intent of the framers” to disillusionment in government altogether. The truth is that there was no “intent of the framers”. There were only the “intents” of each individual framer, given strength through coalition and realized only through compromise. The arguments, fears, motivations, and even strategies are little–if any–different than those of today.
The Civil War was not the death of the Constitution; it was the reshaping of its application in simply another (albeit more radical) departure from those practices that no longer worked–at least to the standards of contemporary policy makers. The author’s argument has been made about Nullification in the 1830s, The Progressive movement of the 1900s, and the desegregation of the 1950s and 60s, to name a few. The intents of many framers would have us living in a state run only by landed aristocracy and devoid of any rights for those who are not white men.
Still, he makes a valid point. Government, as an institution of man, is a failure. Unfortunately, the purpose of our lives is not to overcome all the failures of man-made institutions, but rather to deal with them the best we can while recognizing that in a fallen world, there are no ultimate solutions outside of the second coming of Christ.
This fact, however, does not make me disillusioned about government; rather it avoids any illusions about it in the first place. I will, as a citizen of a representative democracy, be thankful for my political freedoms but realize they are not guaranteed by God. (The Declaration of Independence is a fine document but devoid of true Christian principles). Therefore, as a participant in our political process, I will vote and act in ways that I believe will leave the most people open to conversion to true faith. For me, that means giving people opportunity along with freedom, choice along with education, and the message of Christ along with the protection of traditional institutions. I may disagree with conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, and other liberals, but I will not see those disagreements as fundamental to my expression of faith or practice of mission. Instead, I will seek to encourage others to view no human institution as a solution to the problems of mankind. Government is a tool, like money, that can be an asset or a liability for Christians as they seek to do the will of God. I hope people of faith will have the wisdom to discern whether it is a tool they want to train themselves to use.
Agape—or at least the best I can do,
Chris
