John H Armstrong

The Will of the Majority, the Rights of the Minority and the Bill of Rights

In my college days I took one of the toughest undergraduate classes offered at Wheaton College. It was a course on constitutional law taught by a rigorous and demanding professor who knew the history of the debates very well. The class was a challenge and getting a decent grade was really hard work. But I believe that course may have done as much to shape my view of America as any single college course I ever took. More than forty years later I remain grateful for this class. It has helped me understand America in a way that I think far too few Christians get, especially in the heat of modern debates over political opinions, left or right. 

I learned then, and have seen since, that debates about the interpretation of the Bill of Rights are common in modern American political and social debate. Ever since I can remember we have debated judicial activism. Whether from the political left or the political right our national tradition of ensuring religious liberty for all stems from the protections of the First Amendment. Our courts, especially our Supreme Court, must vigorously enforce the religion clauses in ways that are often counter-majoritarian if we are to ensure the proper separation of church and state. The will of the majority does not apply to court decisions if the courts are doing their job as intended by the founders.

President Obama, in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing debate over his signature legislative accomplishment on mandatory health care, recently made strong remarks about the problem of “unelected judges” opposing the will of elected legislators. The president taught constitutional law for ten years and knows better. The right of the judiciary to declare specific acts of legislation unconstitutional goes back to the famous Marbury vs. Madison (1803) decision in which Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the concept of judicial review and thus declared the judiciary to be the final arbiter in determining what the law is. 

The President clarified his statement the day after making it by saying he had in mind the 2010 Affordable Care Act case, not the responsibility for judicial review. He knows the necessity of judicial review and admitted he was speaking only about this one case. But regardless of your view of Obamacare, love it or hate it, the president’s statement raises a great question about several basic concerns in our democracy that both liberals and conservatives do not often understand well. 

For example, how do we handle the will of the majority and legally support the rights of the minority? J. Brent Walker puts this succinctly, in Report from the Capital (Vol. 67, No. 4), when he says, “How do we resolve the tension between a fundamentally majoritarian Constitution with an essentially counter-majoritarian Bill of Rights?” 

Most of our elections and policy decisions are rooted in the will of the majority expressed through a peaceful democratic process. But, as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been withdrawn from the “vicissitudes of political controversy” and “depend on the outcome of no elections.” We rightly fear totalitarianism in this country but we forget that “pure majoritarianism” can also wreak havoc on our freedoms as well. The majority is not always right and there are times and situations in which the majority must be legally challenged. This is why judges have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority, even if the majority is led by the president and/or an overwhelming election result. (This is also why federal and Supreme Court judges are not subject to elections!)

Again, the political left and right both tend to forget this vital point based on a case by case context. What was odd about the president’s statement was that it reflected a strong reaction against the Court from the left. 

This understanding of the Bill of Rights is what should guide the Court in all decisions but this is especially true with regard to cases about religion. The Court has the task of enforcing the religion clauses in the First Amendment. In recent history no other part of the law has been more frequently undermined by Christians in particular. Believing that Christianity is the “majority faith” and that the nation was founded on Christian principles people on the right tend to argue that the Court is repeatedly thwarting the will of the majority about the role of the church and religion in our society. For this reason the majority of cases that end up before the Supreme Court these days are related to the free exercise clause. 

When majoritarian values push a case before the Supreme Court the decision, which sometimes does not go for the majority view, is sometimes struck down. This raises the cry of “judicial activism” thus we hear again debates about the courts making laws and the courts being out of control. For the duration of my lifetime, since the end of World War II, the conservative movement has actively opposed “judicial activism.” While there are times when lower courts have been guilty of this charge the Supreme Court seems to have gotten this just about right, at least in most cases. 

Think, for example, about major decisions that were extremely controversial; striking down school-sponsored prayer, upholding abortion rights, protecting unpopular forms of speech and flag burning. These have fostered “judicial activism” feelings on the right. But recent opposition has come from the left who remind us that the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have struck down 46 federal laws over two decades compared with fewer than 130 in the first two centuries of the Supreme Court. (Read that again!)

What is the lesson here? J. Brent Walker rightly concludes: “The lesson we should all learn is to be careful, those on the left and on the right, about charges of judicial activism. No, the Court should not strike down laws of Congress and other legislatures lightly and without much study and discretion. However, when elected branches pass or enforce laws that transgress constitutional rights, including protection for minority rights, the courts must act to take up their mandate to correct the error.” 

No one complains about judicial activism when the Court’s decision agrees with their own. Someone once quipped, “When the Court makes a decision that you like, it’s applauded as judicial statesmanship. If you don’t like it, it is called judicial activism.”

I am thankful for our third branch of government, the one we know the least about and also the one we complain about routinely. The nine justices do not judge every case perfectly, which is of course impossible. They have made decisions that I do not like. But they have more often than not protected us from allowing the will of the majority to trample on the rights of the minority, a right that is vital to the well-being and peace of this nation. With three branches of government there are ways to challenge Court decisions but they require a slow and (seemingly) tortured process. It is this very process that helps protect our way of life from tyranny and majority domination. This makes America rather unique among modern nations, a uniqueness that I have deeply treasured ever since I took constitutional law in college. 

 

 

The Problem of Conservatives and Government

We loosely speak of conservatives and liberals when we talk about ideologies and modern politics as it relates to government. Besides the fact that these labels are often anachronistic, and even widely misused, we infrequently take care to see the downside of the views we personally promote. As in all areas we share in a kind of personal and corporate blindness to the weaknesses of the views we so stridently promote. While I might be labeled a conservative, at least on some issues, I am clearly more progressive when it comes to other modern debates over issues. I view the death penalty, and our modern wars and continual military buildup, with considerable suspicion. I also care for the environment in ways that are anything but consistent with the party line views of most political conservatives. I further believe that our personal liberties are being violated by an over-reaction to questions regarding terrorism and security. (I have named only a few issues to simply give you a sense of my problem with the label.) Yet, I am not a modern political liberal either, at least when it comes to promoting entitlement programs and a great deal of state and federal spending. I am profoundly troubled by the liberal partnership between governments and almost all labor unions. This is why I admire Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. (I believe in the right to form unions and to unionize work but the pendulum has swung too far from the middle through massive entitlements.) The long term well-being of the nation is thus threatened by our out-of-control debt problem. Our present spending could well destroy our economy and then alter our way of life in radically unforeseen ways that could wreck the social fabric of our society. For this reason, the rising debt (and everything connected with solving it) is THE issue that moves me profoundly at the present moment. (What we need is a better, and more realistic, centrist argument about the real size and consequence of our debt.) I do not believe this is a left or right issue. I believe both parties need to give on some of their special projects and stop posturing in order to work together to solve this massive problem. Until after November I am not holding my breath for any real solutions and beyond November I am still not sure that we will see the radical changes that we actually need. If this is a form of political cynicism then so be it. 

Some months ago I heard a prominent conservative express my deep doubts about what happens when conservatives hold power. He said that "the tendency of conservatives is to turn government into a private sector bidding war." That nailed it for me. When this happens we have a government by entrepreneurship. While I believe deeply in the power and initiative of the entrepreneurial spirit I do not believe that governments should pursue entrepreneurship. When they do, bad things always happen. Conservatives need to understand this if they are to ever learn to govern wisely and humanely. I am just not sure most of them do at this moment. 

The Problem with Nondiscrimination Laws and the Rights of Homosexuals

I hate discrimination. I believe that when it comes to barring people from public places civil rights laws are quite necessary. I also believe that discrimination against homosexuals, because of their sexual orientation or private practice, is wrong. We presently face a number of legal struggles about discrimination that will impact all of us in one way or another. Let me explain what I mean with an intriguing development out of Great Britain. 

Fifteen years ago Peter and Hazelmary Bull made headlines when some reporters saw their "stodgy guest policy" (Wall Street Journal, 3/16/12) in these words: "No double rooms for unmarried couples." Since 1986 the Bulls had been turning away unwed couples at their Cornish B & B. No one bothered much until very recently. They just considered the Bulls out of touch. But things have changed now and this change is happening all across the West. 

A British appeals court recently upheld a stiff fine against the Bulls for turning down two men who wanted a room in their B & B 2008. These two men were joined in a legal civil union. (Great Britain has accepted civil unions since 2005.)  The Bulls, who refer to themselves as "born again Christians," feel they should decline such guests. The charge against them is that they violated the 2007 Equality Act. They have now appealed to the U.K. Supreme Court and if they lose they will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. (They are being represented by a very conservative Christian legal group.) Current British law exempts some from nondiscrimination laws, especially churches. But commercial guesthouses do not get such an exemption, thus the battle with the Bulls and their house. 

Here is the point. The Bulls are allowed to hold their convictions in private but they cannot practice them in regards to their B & B because it is a "service and public function."  The Bulls are seeking "reasonable accommodation or expansion" for enterprises such as their own business. Here is the problem. The equality law is constructed to allow religious liberty only within a religious organization. Anne Jolis, writing in the Wall Street Journal, adds, "That's true enough, though Britain's equality and nondiscrimination rules already have more loopholes than a coherent principle can bear. A case in point involves British Airways, a private business that has had the better luck enforcing its standards under Britain's patchwork of rights, responsibilities and opt-outs." 

A dispute with British Airways (BA) now makes its way to the European Court of Human Rights. In this case BA has a long-standing dress code that bars employees from wearing visible religious symbols. In 2006 a check-in attendant named Nadia Eweida refused to stop displaying her crucifix and then refused a job that would have placed her in a non-public place with BA. She was placed on unpaid leave for six months. Subsequently BA relaxed its policy in 2007. British courts rejected her claim and BA was not forced to pay her back wages. She is now arguing her case before the European court in Strasbourg. Her argument? The UK court failed to protect her religious rights to nondiscrimination in the workplace. The government's argument, in this case, is actually based on the fact that Christianity does not require a believer to wear a symbol of their faith. (To be honest about this, I have to agree with this interpretation!) Wearing such a sign does not constitute the "practice" of the Christian faith. She is thus engaging in behavior that is "inspired by belief" but not essential to her expression of Christian faith. The court also argued, and this is a more persuasive point, that a private company has no "positive obligations to ensure this right." Her rights were not violated since she was "free to resign and seek employment elsewhere." 

But here is the problem with the argument of the Bulls with regard to their B & B. Just as no one forces Christians who wear symbols to work for secular-sensitive airlines nothing should compel a same-sex couple to lodge at a B & B that seeks to run its business by their Christian principles. In the case of the Bulls the government's position, says the Wall Street Journal "comes down to the fact that no one forces Christians to open businesses." 

A Downing Street spokesman said a few weeks ago that if a European court finds against Ms. Eweida, then the government may look into new protections for religious workers against private standards such as dress codes. The Wall Street Journal concludes: "That might satisfy devout Britains for a while, as would a new carve-out for religious business owners such as the Bulls--at least until the next time anyone's convictions, mores, practices or habits conflict with anyone else's in the country. Meanwhile, these small victories will only further muddle companies' freedoms to dispose of their resources as they see fit--regardless of faith, sexual orientation, or ever-changing estimations of political expedience."

These same types of arguments are already playing themselves out in the legal and political culture of the U.S. If you think this is simply a matter of "equality" or "prejudice" then I believe you clearly fail to grasp the deep significance of the points made above. Does this rise to the level of refusing service to a black person in a hotel or restaurant in the 1960s? It could if you are really honest about it. Does a company have the right to make standards about how employees should dress when the public will engage with them? I think so. But does this mean that there can be no show of religion in such a place? What about Muslim female employees who wear the traditional head coverings? I would guess this would be allowed because it would be seen as part of the practice of Islam.

I, for one, am not profoundly alarmed by this debate. Thus I do not agree with Christians who see all of this as a form of persecution. But I also do not agree that all laws against discrimination are entirely equal. This seems to be the reason we are still working this out in public contexts. I hope Christians will keep a cooler temperament about these debates and contribute to the future by helping us end discrimination against homosexuals wherever possible without sacrificing our religious freedom in the process. The way forward is slippery. Many challenges will have to be faced legally. I pray that we will respond with civility and grace in how we engage in these struggles about the law. I do not believe my rights are under constant assault. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to deny me my faith or to stop my public practice of Christianity. I do believe the way I can express my faith is changing and it is only right that I observe this and respond where I can since mission must always be contextualized if it is done well. At the same time I am committed to the open practice of religious freedom. If religious freedom is only a private right then we have lost a vital freedom for all of us, including homosexuals, blacks, non-Christians, etc. This debate will not end soon. Let us pray for wisdom in how we respond. There will be plenty of heat from the far left and far right but Christians should look for better ways to show the love of Christ in public. 

The Contraception Coverage Debate

I have tried to get my mind around the current debate over contraception and the freedom of religion in America. In my opinion this is not easy to do. I admire the Catholic bishops deeply and share their concerns in general. But I also see other factors at work in this controversy that are seemingly missed in the heat of this debate. 

What I do know is that the Obama administration made a huge miscalculation in its initial proposal, a proposal which clearly required Christians to violate their conscience. What I am not as sure about is the present compromise and where it will lead. The White House, if I am understanding their stance correctly, has granted a year to faith groups to find a way to comply with mandated health insurance that does not cover contraception. Report from the Capital (Baptist Joint Committee) says that "The White House has privately assured religious leaders--especially those who head the Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies most affected by the employer mandate--that President Obama will be directly involved in efforts to find a workaround that would satisfy their concerns" (February 2012). 

Is it possible to reconcile the contraception mandate with the conscience and practice of faith-based employers? This is still unclear to me. What is very clear is that faith-based groups, especially Catholic groups, have mounted a serious fight to defeat the new Obama rules. According to Report from the Capital the administration is hoping to develop a system like the one already used in Hawaii. This system, used in several states, mandates birth control coverage but mitigates it through a complex process that tries to accommodate religious employers. It is this claim that I have not studied fully and thus do not completely understand. In the present environment it is hard to get a good answer about this question since the whole debate has gone viral and become deeply political. 

Baptist Joint Committee Executive Director Brent Walker, who is clearly not a voice from the politically conservative side in this debate, says this exemption, while important, "is insufficient and should be broadened" (Report from the Capital). He adds, "At the same time, the exemption need not deprive anyone of health care coverage. The exemption could carry a duty of full disclosure by the employer as well as an obligation to help employees who want contraceptive coverage to get it elsewhere at a reasonable cost."

It thus seems reasonable to me to think that this administration hopes that this one year period will allow the heat over this issue to die down until after the election. Have they understood the issue or are they simply committed to pushing their universal coverage so far that they are actually willing to threaten our cherished religious freedom? Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals thinks the answer is yes. He says, "No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience." He calls this direction a "dangerous precedent." 

While many religious conservatives have lumped a number of issues with this new one (same-sex marriage and gay rights in particular) the contraception decision deeply disappoints some progressive Catholic allies of the Obama administration who have regularly supported him on many other social issues. Concludes the Report from the Capital, "Those Catholics, like other Christians in the progressive camp, had expected the administration would expand the exemption." 

This report is non-political, which makes me believe this issue really is touching religious freedom, a cherish freedom that we cannot afford to compromise regardless of our views on contraception. While I do not think the Obama White House is openly determined to oppose religious freedom this decision does not appear to be crafted in a way that has a strong enough commitment to this vital American right. This is why I remain troubled but cautious. I am troubled, not by the rhetoric I hear but by the reality of some fuzzy thinking that is sending terribly mixed signals. Yet I am also cautious because I do not like the fact that this has become another bomb to throw in an election year. We already have enough political bombs lying around for one election year, at least for my personal taste. 

The Santorum Debate and the Missional Church

On Monday, February 27, R. Albert Mohler wrote on his blog site. www.albertmohler.com, a post titled: “The Santorum Predicament: A Sign of the Times.” It was not an endorsement of Santorum but a rational and reasonable reflection on why the media is so deeply troubled by the man’s candidacy. The bottom line, says Dr. Mohler, is that the media really believes Santorum means what he says about theology and culture and thus they are profoundly appalled by him.

Here is some of what Mohler said:

Keep in mind that Rick Santorum has said a great deal, and is still talking. In a world accustomed to bland politicians, Santorum breaks the mold. He admires conviction politicians, and he aims to be one. He speaks his mind, and then keeps on talking. On crucial issues of a moral nature, Santorum not only states his position, he explains it in detail and then goes on to present his convictions in the form of an argument. He is willing to make comprehensive statements of cultural analysis and sweeping moral judgments.

He talks of moral issues — shockingly — in terms of right and wrong. He believes that marriage has been undermined by cultural confusion and that marriage can only mean a union of a man and a woman. He is a stalwart defender of human life — opposing abortion, arguing for the prosecution of abortion doctors, and warning that the widespread use of prenatal testing will lead to even more abortions.

When moral conservatives reveal their reasoning, the elites hear the launch of a new Inquisition. It is simply incomprehensible to them that sane, rational, educated people might still believe in the Father of Lies. When Catholic Rick Santorum speaks theologically at Catholic Ave Maria University, the secular elites go into toxic shock. The same would be true of an Evangelical politician who would speak theologically of such issues at a truly evangelical college. Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.

I believe Mohler understands what is going on culturally very clearly. My problem is not with his analysis. I agree with him. My problem is with his solution(s). Let me explain

We have undergone a huge cultural shift in my lifetime. We have become an increasingly secular and non-religious society. Every survey you study reveals this to be the case. While the New York Times does not speak for “every man or woman” in the land (probably not even a majority) it does represent a cultural and social direction that the majority of younger Americans are now following. My generation still wages the cultural war and seems to believe that we can win this war by fighting political battles through direct public confrontations before cameras and the press. Santorum speaks of moral positions that many of us believe for good and compelling reasons. But when he speaks as a Catholic Christian, in a presidential race, of these same cultural issues, or social “hot buttons,” it creates a whole new form of skirmish in a long-term culture war that we have been publicly waging since 1976. In fairness to Senator Santorum he did not launch this war nor did he set out to make this central to his campaign. But he has spoken, at times, with less than reasonable care. (I'm thinking here of his reference to how JFK presented his Catholic faith publicly and Santorum saying he wanted to "throw up." Not the kind of presidential response that works well in the modern age.)

Assume, whether you agree with his views or not, that Santorum’s moral views (with perhaps room for disagreement among Protestant evangelicals re: birth control) are correct. Assume further, which we should, that he is not only entitled to hold them but to speak publicly about them as a candidate for the White House. And assume that he wins the presidency, which is more possible than those on the far left might think. My question for Christians and churches is simple: What has fundamentally changed in America? 

Well, for one thing conservatives of deeply moral conviction would feel a lot better about the leader of their country. And some presidential decisions that do not require Congressional approval would be reversed and some kinds of abortion would even be stopped. This is no small feat. But I have a more pressing question for my Christian friends. Have we moved the conversation and culture any closer to understanding and living a life of faithful (real) discipleship? Or have we won a shallow campaign to “restore” our values in a culture that has clearly been moving away from those values at a fairly consistent pace since 1990? Have we done anything, through a Santorum victory, to regain the next generation for the gospel, the generation that is under 35? 

Here is where the designs and devices of the conservative effort to transform moral values and practice fails. We might, and I would be happy if we did, decrease the number of abortions. We might even get some judicial changes that could (a very big assumption here) successfully challenge Roe v. Wade down the road. But would all this money, time and effort over the next eight-plus months actually help Christians and the church to effectively accomplish the missional mandate of Christ?

I have no qualms about Christians debating and engaging in politics. I have no doubt at all that Christians should educate themselves about issues and vote. I have no question that Christians should run for office and work for justice and mercy in the public arena. I am thus not appealing here for leaving the public space to secularism by simply going home to our Christian intellectual and spiritual ghettos, which happen to be disproportionately middle-class and white. 

What I am asking is very simple: “Is it good missional strategy, in a culture where the shift away from the moral values of our near past has already taken place, to spend so much money, time and energy on framing our shared public life in these terms?” These terms sound like moral campaigns, if not moral crusades. Young Christians are not going to fight these battles, at least not in large numbers. Most young churches are not attracted to them at all? Why? They understand that the culture war was almost over before it started. Why? Because it was over when people inside the church did not line up their actual lives in public with how they lived at home and in their communities. It was over because the post-War generation had already moved away from the sexual morality of the distant past and embraced Enlightenment secularism inside the church.

So are we defeated? Not at all. I find young Christian leaders all across America have a new hope for the church. But this hope is not shaped by politics and campaigns. It is shaped by learning how to love their neighbors, their cities and even their enemies. 

There is one line in Albert Mohler’s blog that jumped out at me. While I type these words on a Monday morning in San Francisco I am looking out my hotel window at a large billboard encouraging men to get a free HIV test if they’ve recently met a “new love” in their life. Each day I have been here I have seen that sign as soon as I open my curtains in the morning. It has powerfully reminded me of the changes in our culture that are not going to be turned back by an election. In fact, they are not likely to be turned back by some type of revival, as we’ve known them historically. This culture has fundamentally changed, the values of millions of people are different and large numbers of people are not going to be compelled to embrace conservative views on moral issues because of who is or is not the next president. 

But note again that Mohler said, “Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.”

What an interesting and significant point. My mind moved seamlessly to St. Paul’s words as I thought about this. I read the following:

⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. ⁹ The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

And then the words of the apostle John came to my mind as well:

¹⁶ And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. ¹⁷ This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.

And these words of St. Paul struck me as well:

¹³ You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. ¹⁴ For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:13-14).

Speak on love? How much better to not only speak about love but to actually demonstrate it. The younger generation, the generation that is not engaging in this cultural-political struggle with vested interest, responds deeply to real love. My time in San Francisco has underscored that again in a most powerful way. I actually believe Dr. Mohler may have said more than he realized in this one sentence. I know it got me thinking about missional church and ecumenism in a whole new contemporary context.

 

Is the World on a Permanent Downhill Slide?

Is the world on a permanent downhill slide? To listen to many Christians you would think so. During this political season you would think so even more than during other years. People, left and right, remind us daily of the dire consequences of this election and of what will happen if the wrong person, or party, is elected in November. For many you would think that America's entire future hangs in the balance. Pardon me if I am skeptical about all of this but I heard this message in 1960. I was only eleven years old. It was not true then and it is very likely not true now either. Wars followed Kennedy's election, economic cycles came and went, morals improved and declined (yes there have been ups and downs both). Over and over things went on coming and going like waves of the sea. Some things improved, some didn't. Has our culture drifted? Well, in some ways yes. Marriage is in deep trouble. But then if I was an African American I would say things have improved, at least in terms of freedom, since 1960. And the economy, with some setbacks, has generally grown over the long haul. 

If you say, "Things got much worse after 1960" then I'd like to ask you what you know about the period between 1861 and 1865 in this country? And what about the moral breakdown in the 1790s following the Revolutionary War? Illegal drugs, alcohol consumption and divorce were at amazing highs. What about the Great Depression, from which many felt we would never recover? Or the hippies and the counter-culture of the 1960s, through which I lived during my college years? And when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 some felt strongly that Armageddon would be launched by this crazy yahoo of a new president.

I was thinking about this social and cultural pessimism last week when I came across my friend Fr. Robert Sirico's "President's Report" in the January-February issue of Acton Notes. Here is how Fr. Sirico puts it:

Many people I know are rather despairing about our future. This is contributing to a real and growing pessimism throughout society. I can understand all of these feelings but there is a potential mistake here. I’ve begun to think that those who are too attached to the day’s headline news develop a bias toward thinking that the world is on a permanent downhill slide. The mistake is looking only at the bad things we know about without considering the good trends for the future.

Consider, for example, all the amazing technologies we are benefiting from today that would have been unheard and unimagined five or ten years ago. Digital communications—fueled by private investments, the market economy, and entrepreneurial risk— have connected the world as never before, making life much more efficient and easing poverty. These technologies have spread art, beauty, and truth across the globe.

The very nature of the market economy, which is an extension of human action and choice, is that we can’t anticipate its results ahead of time. Markets are constantly surprising us with new ways of communicating, healing, teaching, creating, interacting. In a way, it reflects God’s restoration of creation. Because we cannot know the shape of the future precisely, we tend to look only at the bad trends and form an overall picture that can be very bleak.

Such a bleak outlook on life can also cause us not to seize on the special opportunities that our times have given us for living out the dream of a free and virtuous life. If we understand free markets and the astounding way in which the Lord delivers us from despairing about our contemporary politics, we would temper our pessimism to realize that blessings can come to us when we least expect them. Our age has given every living generation a difficult challenge. This challenge is unlike any we’ve faced in our past. Through prayer and hard work, we can build a beautiful future for truth and liberty. This is what we are working toward at the Acton Institute, and we are grateful for your support.

Some of you who read this blog are inclined to question this kind of optimism. Why? Perhaps you've been listening to too much cable news lately. Or maybe you've been touched by the kind of prophetic teaching that confuses God's people and leads them to pessimism as a way of life. I know not the reason(s) but I can assure you Fr. Sirico is not offering a perspective that is without some serious reasons for commending it. Is the world on a permanent downhill slide? Are you sure? Have you bought into some form of pessimism when there is always reason to believe that God has a lot more to do to accomplish his good purpose in our world? Even if things do get worse there will be new opportunity to see the myriad of ways in which God might lead us in order to bless us and show again that his ways are not our ways. A little less pessimism is not a bad thing right now. God's truth marches on and he is still blessing those who trust him and follow his ways.     

Will the Election Fundamentally Change Our Government?

Thomas B. Edsall, professor of journalism at Columbia University and the author of the forthcoming book The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics, wrote a Sunday opinion piece in the New York Times (01/08/12) that should give us considerable pause if we really think that the electorate, at least those of us who are ordinary citizens who might be called the grass roots, will be able to fundamentally change the way our government works.

In his next to last paragraph Edsall concluded:

There are idealists who believe that two recent developments raise the potential for reform. On the conservative side, the Tea Party movement is adamantly opposed to machinations inside the Beltway. On the liberal side, the Occupy Wall Street movement has similarly challenged the power of the ‘1 percent,’ a constituency heavily represented by the special-interest community, many of whom are themselves members of the 1 percent. In Washington, the consensus is that despite these movements, little will change (emphasis mine).

What is the problem here? Many believe that our government is broken and many also believe that no matter what happens in these elections our biggest problems will not be fixed by what they try do about it. Increasingly I share this perspective. This is not a conclusion based on pietism or upon a complete disdain for the dirty business of politics. And it is not a position of fatalism. I think, as best I understand what has happened in our society during my six-plus decades of life, we have passed through a fundamental change where both money and power have a much greater influence over the electoral process than ever before.

Make no mistake about this. Money and power have always corrupted societies and governments. This is why Lord Acton said in the 19th century, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What has changed in America is that money and power have become the real game-changer in our electoral politics and now on a massive scale. Unless, or more likely until, the people change we will not see government change. We as people will change when we value freedom and moral responsibility over influence and personal pleasure. If the roots are rotting then the tree will follow. It appears that we are in a long process of moral and social decline that might even speed up in ensuing years. Time will tell.

Edsall concluded his editorial by saying:

The weaponry of the special-interest community has become increasingly powerful. Lobbyists not only have ever greater resources at their disposal, they are also armed with the sophisticated technology of influence — polls, television, focus groups, computerized data banks, micro-targeting, each of them important in itself, and devastating when deployed in effective combinations. The net result is that the power of the electorate relative to the power of the Washington establishment has inexorably declined.

Can the power of the electorate be regained by the people? Yes, but the electorate has to change itself. If we are many and yet one nation, as e pluribus unum says we are, then something truly culture changing must take place. This requires more than grasping for power, from either the left or the right. It requires a new kind of civic commitment that requires a new kind of citizen/person. Where will these new citizens/persons come from? How will they be prepared for a future that looks very different from the past? Given the breakdown of family and communities what will bring us together?

My own dreams are not rooted in the past. What I long for is a greater display of the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of those who love Christ and sacrifice their time and money for the good of community. This might influence the political process but this surely cannot be limited to what is happening in the elections of 2012. You will hear a lot about how this election is the most important in history. Don’t believe it. It is mostly rhetoric. Both sides will employ it to great effect. But in the end the outcomes of this election will not fundamentally alter our society.

What Kind of President Is an "Idea Guy?"

In an editorial in the December 28 edition of USA Today two writers asked if America was ready for an "idea guy" as president? The person who they had in mind was Newt Gingrich. But the question goes much further if their thought is expanded. Newt Gingrich self-describes his candidacy as that of an Idea Guy who knows what America needs. You have to admit, love him or despise him, he is a bright guy. (He routinely reminds us that he is!) He was a history professor and has a good grasp of a lot of facts and ideas about America, past and future. Personally I would love to see him debate the president. Gingrich jokingly says he would debate President Obama and even allow him to bring his teleprompter along. But the real question here is not, "Who is the smartest guy in the room?" I know a lot of smart people who can get very little done. I know a good number of very smart people who are not great leaders. (This is neither an attack nor an endorsement as you will see soon enough.)

Harry Truman said the job of president is trying to persuade the people to do what they should have had the common sense to do in the first place. Truman, who was despised by many when he was in office, is now highly respected as a pretty good leader. I happen to agree with his assessment of the office and the president's role. We do not need a genius leading the country. We need someone with good judgment, common sense and skills learned from life experience that serve the general well-being of the people. We need someone who can persuade Americans and the Congress to listen and follow. FDR had it, Ronald Reagan had it and Bill Clinton sometimes had it but repeatedly hurt himself by his foolish behavior. 

The editorial hearkened back to one of our most prominent Idea Guy presidents, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was exceptionally bright, indeed our last president with a Ph.D. He had also been a college president. He even won the Nobel Peace price for his idea of The League of Nations. But The League became an obsession as his health broke down. He then refused to compromise and in the end his idea failed. 

The editorial suggested that "the very talent that allows you to think 'outside the box' can then box you in to a position where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. This is doubly troublesome when the person with the idea doesn't know it's a bad one." 

Have "idea" leaders been the best presidents? This is truly debatable. George Washington was not a brainiac but he had one big idea---the young nation should not be drawn into war among greater foreign powers! Abraham Lincoln's one big idea, that of the Union, saved the country in the long haul. Before he died in 1865 Lincoln had already put in plan the idea that the North would not punish the South after the War. This was not consistently carried out after his death but the idea was so important to our future. 

Might American need, or want, an Idea Guy at this point in time? We shall see. The irony is that President Obama also ran as an Idea Guy filled with hope and bright new insights he would bring to Washington to save our republic. Unlike Gingrich he doesn't have the instinctive flair, opine the editors in their opinion piece, for sound bites and careful debate. I am not convinced he actually has a clue how to make his ideas work in the present context given his lack of leadership experience. Our last president, George W. Bush, was anything but an Idea Guy. He even said he went with his "gut instincts." How did that work? You be the judge. 

Of the leading Republicans Romney says experience counts. Ron Paul says consistent principles matter most. Michele Bachman and Rick Perry campaign against the establishment, a stance that often attracts votes. Rick Santorum was an insider but is deeply committed to a moral bottom line joined with a fairly reasonable ability to explain it. But he has never governed, having served two terms in the Senate. The Senate has not often proved to be the best place to find great presidents.  

So what will it be? A person with a few ideas who can govern and create some kind of compromise and deal with several hugely important issues or an Idea Guy? Gingrich strikes me as the anti-Obama, the Idea Guy from the opposite side of the pendulum. I could be wrong but I am not convinced such an Idea Guy can effectively lead the nation. I am pretty sure the Idea Guy we chose four years ago has not led us very well so far. (This is not intended as an ideological blow, just a common sense observation I hope.)

My other concern is whether or not the present process actually helps us find the best candidate(s). But that post is for another day. What we have is a form of active democracy and the sad part is so few people are involved. In the Iowa Caucus this week so few Republicans actually participated that it was really a small straw poll more than a true primary. How did we come up with these weird ways of choosing a candidate? 

The Complete Failure of Prohibition

I spent a few days before Christmas watching the recently released Ken Burn's documentary series Prohibition. It is, as most Ken Burns' productions, a great success. This three-part series, lasting over five-plus hours, relates the story of American idealism, folly and unintended consequences.

In 1920, after literally a century of crusades and agitation, we passed the 18th Amendment which outlawed the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. For thirteen years we then battled to apply a law that had no chance of doing what its proponents had hoped for, namely saving families and ending vice. And who do we have to thank for this foolish amendment? Mostly well-intentioned moralists who were crusading and zealous Christians! These Christians may have had good motives but their actions were rooted in a terrible misuse of Scripture and a total misunderstanding of the role of government in terms of personal freedoms. 

This series tells the amazing stories of small-time whiskey-jobbers, big-time bootleggers, and brutal gangsters; e.g. think Al Capone and Chicago in the late 1920s. From politicians to preachers America became a land of massive hypocrisy. Some studies actually show that drinking and drunkenness increased as a result of prohibition. One thing we know for sure; the number of lobbyists increased, as did wide-spread graft in government and the police departments. Catholics and Protestants (at least some Protestants like the Methodists and Baptists) became even further divided over prohibition. The debate was as much about small-town values vs. city-values as it was about drinking or not drinking. And there was a strand of anti-immigration xenophobia in this that ran deeply through the American divide much as it runs through our politics today. 

What is the proper role of government? We still debate this question as fiercely as ever. On the Left and the Right we think we know the answer, and thus give simplistic answers routinely. But history reveals how little we truly understand the question or the answer(s). And no issue shows this quite like prohibition. 

In 1933, less than a year after FDR became president, the state of Utah became the deciding vote that was needed to repeal the only amendment to the U. S. Constitution that was ever rejected. (I found that intriguing given the deep roots of Mormonism in Utah!) Few would deny that prohibition was a complete and total disaster. In the throes of a Great Depression repeal became a no-brainer when the revenue from alcohol was desperately needed and as many as one in four Americans was out of work and the repeal created jobs. "The Noble Experiment" came to an ignominious end. But what did we learn from its failure? I wonder, I seriously wonder. 

Personally this series made me question a number of the ways that conservative Christians still try to bring about a better moral environment through passing governmental laws against "sin." What made prohibition a total failure and Civil Rights a moral necessity? If you cannot answer that one with a fair degree of clarity then you had best rethink your zeal for making laws to stop or check sin in society. I can still hear, from my childhood, Christian people telling me that passing Civil Rights laws would not work since we could not change people's hearts through legislation! Their piety might be admirable but their grasp of law and freedom was positively awful. These same people were the folks who promoted prohibition! History makes us come face-to-face with some genuinely moral ironies in our American story. It would be extremely useful for modern Christian conservatives, and liberals, to see this excellent series. 

A Canadian Leader Who Models Christian Grace in Leadership

A Canadian Christian friend recently introduced me to the head of state in his province by sharing an email link. I thus learned about a remarkable politician named Brad Wall. Wall was elected Premier of Saskatchewan in the November 2007 provincial election. 

Since that election, the Wall's leadership of the government can point to a remarkable list of achievements, including;  

- Three balanced budgets; 
- The largest tax cuts in the history of Saskatchewan; 
- Cutting the province's debt by almost 40 per cent; 
- Record infrastructure spending to improve roads, schools and senior's facilities all across Saskatchewan and providing more affordable housing for those with lower incomes.

Prior to his career in politics, Premier Wall was active in his local business community and was involved in service work spanning local events, economic development and health care recruitment.

One of his earliest forays into politics was in the late 1980's as a founding member and western co-chair of the Alliance for the Future of Young Canadians. This was an organization dedicated to promoting free trade.

Brad Wall was born and raised in Swift Current, which is in Saskatchewan's south-west.  He still lives there with his wife, Tami as well as their three children: Megan, Colter and Faith.  And because of them, he tries to get home most nights, even though it's a two hour drive from Saskatchewan's capital-Regina.  He also enjoys coaching minor football in his hometown.

Here is the premier's Christmas greetings to his people. This is an amazing balance of faith and leadership in a time when we are learning how to live in the public sector where Christendom no longer dominates the culture. God bless Premier Wall.