Heresy and Democracy

Just a quick response to Ramesh's characteristically thoughtful post on the question of Bush's heresies, or lack thereof. I agree that neither Christianity nor Anglo-American conservatism is necessarily incompatitable with the following propositions: That human beings have political rights that are a gift from Almighty God, that democracy is to be preferred to tyranny, and that the U.S. has a moral obligation to support human rights-recognizing, democratic governments abroad.

But what Bush seems to believe is something more sweeping - that the fact "a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom" means that the universalization of "forms of government that are based upon liberty" are historically "inevitable." This may be true, but it is not Christianity, and it is not conservatism.

Comments

The inevitability of liberal democracy is less objectionable than Bush's apparent willingness to engage in a counterproductive, Deity-mandated jihad to impose democracy.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2007 1:59 PM

Huh. Bush is purporting a sort of messianic faith in a form of government in which power is diffuse and distributed, such that this form of government is natural and "historically inevitable," but also advocates the use of force to speed that historical moment. Take out the God part, and doesn't that strike you as more or less Marxian?

Posted by SDM | July 18, 2007 2:12 PM

What is so fucking hard about conceding A) that freedom is a gift from the Almighty and B) George W. Bush is not the Almighty.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 2:19 PM

One could almost call the "End of History" view represented here as a philosophy of "dialectical materialism," with the modern meaning of capitalist consumerism filling in for the classical meaning of "materialism."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 18, 2007 2:20 PM

Ross writes:

But what Bush seems to believe is something more sweeping - that the fact "a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom" means that the universalization of "forms of government that are based upon liberty" are historically "inevitable."

Characterizing that as Bush's deeply held "belief" would be like me saying not only do I "believe" I should inherit a fortune some day, it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, there's precious little I can or should do about it. This isn't Bush's "belief." Bush just doesn't want Iraq to turn into a world-historical fuckup with his name on it. He has no idea whether universal democracy is inevitable; he would just prefer to believe he's influencing it. Or is paying lip service to such a concern.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 2:28 PM

I'm a little surprised folks are getting so worked up about this. Aren't similar sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln's speeches?

Posted by Bill F. | July 18, 2007 2:53 PM

distinction between necessary and sufficient.

Posted by razib | July 18, 2007 2:53 PM

As a Christian socialist, I would argue that liberal democratic capitalism, at least in its modern American manifestation, if not a flat negation of Christian values, at least not a particularly good manifestation of them.

Anglo-American liberalism shares a few propositions with Christian social ethics (by which i mean the broad discourse and values set forth by Jesus Christ and His followers, and elaborated on through the centuries by various church bodies and thinkers, both orthodox and heretical). That individuals need some sphere of their lives where they are free from state and social coercion, to be alone with their God; that the ability to choose good necessitates the ability, at least in some degree, to choose evil; that individuals are ontologically equal, that there should be at least some freedom for people to make economic choices and control their labor, etc. Its error is that it then makes freedom its one supreme value, instead of one value among many others, and judges everything by whether it limits or expands the range of human freedom. (And wealth, of course, which is an even greater and flatly anti-Christian error). This is in its way the same error that other twentieth century movements like Marxism, Falangism, anarchism, and others made. Marxism drew its strength from the fact that many of its core propositions (that man has a natural desire to work and to be fulfilled through labor, that man has a natural tendency to work together with others, that man has a natural tendency to share his goods with his fellow men and to work for the common good, that a society should direct itself to fulfiling the needs of all its citizens, etc.) were drawn from Christian social ethics, and would not have been disagreed with by the Church Fathers. Falangism was the same way; all these movements drew their strength from the aspects of Christian social ethics that they borrowed, and their weakness and propensity to corruption from the aspects of Christian social thought that they denied. (There is a reason why a creed like Satanism will never become a mass movement and will therefore never have the capacity to do much harm). Liberalism, of President Bush's or any other variety, is no different, and is no less a falling away from the fullness of Christian thought.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 18, 2007 3:03 PM

I agree that neither Christianity nor Anglo-American conservatism is necessarily incompatitable with the following propositions: That human beings have political rights that are a gift from Almighty God, that democracy is to be preferred to tyranny, and that the U.S. has a moral obligation to support human rights-recognizing, democratic governments abroad.

That's quite the concession there, especially on the first two points. Don't strain yourself.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 18, 2007 3:43 PM

Aren't similar sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln's speeches?

No.

Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural. He's quite explicit about our inability to know the mind of God.

In the traditional American take, we humbly appeal to Providence; we don't use the Bush approach of declaring that He's on our side, so we're justified in doing whatever we feel like.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2007 3:49 PM

"Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right."
--From the October 24, 1863 Remarks to the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod

"Enough is known of Army operations within the last five days to claim our especial gratitude to God; while what remains undone demands our most sincere prayers to, and reliance upon, Him, without whom, all human effort is vain."
--From the May 10, 1864 Telegram Press Release

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

Posted by Erasmus | July 18, 2007 4:08 PM

You make a fair point Elvis. We can't know the mind of God, and humility is a proper attitude. But America's founding documents undoubtedly refer to man's inalienable rights as divinely given and to the sense that Providence is guiding our experiment in liberty. Also, Lincoln didn't exactly equivocate about which side he thought should win the civil war.

Posted by Bill F. | July 18, 2007 4:23 PM

That is a terrific example, Erasmus-- Lincoln believed that slavery could not persist under a just God, and hoped to avoid a war to free slaves.

Quite the opposite of launching wars in order to hasten what one supposes to be God's design.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2007 4:31 PM

Nice try Elvis!

Posted by Erasmus | July 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Elvis: This begs the question why Lincoln was willing to fight a war to save the Union. Why was saving the Union important? Perhaps I'm being simple-minded, but wasn't it in part to preserve the principle that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by their creator. Isn't that similar to launching a war in order to hasten what one supposes to be God's design?

Posted by Bill F. | July 18, 2007 5:04 PM

Bill F.-- I agree entirely with your assertion that Lincoln saw the US worth preserving for its moral values, which he saw as (or at the very least hoped and prayed were) sanctioned by God.

I'm not arguing that moral and religious concerns have been wholly irrelevant through time. I'm just arguing that we have not, historically, started wars because we thought that God would take care of things in the long term. The Revolutionary War and the Civil War were fought here, not by our armies invading some country halfway around the world.

But surely there is a massive distinction between fighting to prevent the US from splitting into two countries, and invading other countries that don't share our form of government.

What's more, Bush's version of absolute certainty is harmful to doing things effectively. Of course I agree that liberal democracy is infinitely preferable to Saddam's dictatorship, and that it is the trend of the world, and if God is concerned with the outcome of human affairs, he'd rather Iraq be governed by a constitutional democracy than Saddam. But we can still pursue such a goal in a counterproductive manner.

Instead of planning carefully and pursuing our goals diligently, Bush thought that because we're Good, things would just shake out for us. And the problems in Iraq were exaggerated by the media and Defeat-o-crats, and we had enough troops there so the insurgents should just bring it on, and all our opponents there are evil al Qaeda just like attacked us on 9/11, etc. You can be right about long term trends, but still lose out due to poor execution. The first analogy that springs to mind is to failed computer companies of the 80s and 90s like Commodore and Tandy. And I'd argue that Bush's absolute metaphysical certitude is caused by, or causes, an indifference to details. But you can lose a war, even a noble one, for want of a nail.

Thanks for your question and for your polite tone. We might not convince each other, but we'll better understand each other's arguments, and our own, from discussing them. And I may well come back to write yet more, if moved of the spirit.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2007 5:39 PM

Erasmus -

But none of the quotes you cite suggests an apt parallel to "Bush theology."

"Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my Administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance on God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right."

Nothing here suggests that Lincoln had persuaded himself he was therefore doing God's will. Lincoln hoped to use his own best judgment in pursuing a course of action, but placed the ultimate validity of that judgment in God's hands. That's called humility.

"Enough is known of Army operations within the last five days to claim our especial gratitude to God; while what remains undone demands our most sincere prayers to, and reliance upon, Him, without whom, all human effort is vain."

This is thanking God for good fortune and beseeching him for more of the same. Putting your hopes in God while abnegating your own efforts is quite different from proceeding with the assurance of his backing.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

If you had read carefully you would've recognized that the phrase "under a just God" is grammatically a hypothetical, like saying "in a perfect world." Lincoln hated slavery but did NOT go to war in order to spread freedom. He did so to preserve the Union and Constitution he'd sworn to uphold. Making a judgment about people who've enslaved their fellow men should not automatically translate into a positive, sweeping agenda; otherwise, why not make war against half the world?

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 7:40 PM

So your aren't ignorant of the doctrine of Natural Law and it's role in US history and politics. You just feel that Bush isn't referring to rights derived from God in that context because he is a Born Again. Instead it's an "End of Days" fantasy. That's a nice straw man you have constructed, and a pretty piece of religious bigotry that you are living with.

Posted by Michael Coe | July 18, 2007 8:10 PM

So your aren't ignorant of the doctrine of Natural Law and it's role in US history and politics. You just feel that Bush isn't referring to rights derived from God in that context because he is a Born Again. Instead it's an "End of Days" fantasy. That's a nice straw man you have constructed, and a pretty piece of religious bigotry that you are living with.

Posted by Michael Coe | July 18, 2007 8:10 PM

Michael Coe:

Why should anyone be impressed by Bush's lip service to "rights derived from God"? Pay attention to what he does, not what he says.

Posted by Bill | July 19, 2007 9:16 AM

Characterizing that as Bush's deeply held "belief" would be like me saying not only do I "believe" I should inherit a fortune some day, it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, there's precious little I can or should do about it.

To Bush, however, it's more like this: "It's God's will that I be rich ... so it's ok if I rob your ass"

Posted by r4d20 | July 19, 2007 10:57 AM

Ben Franklin before he "Immanentized the Eschaton":

"God grant, that not only the Love of Liberty, but a thorough Knowledge of the Rights of Man, may pervade all the Nations of the Earth, so that a Philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its Surface, and say, "This is my Country.""

Posted by Michael Coe | July 19, 2007 2:45 PM

Thomas Jefferson famous fudamentalist before he tried to "immanentize the Eschaton":

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Posted by michael coe | July 19, 2007 2:48 PM

another creepy religious quote:

Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison

Posted by michael coe | July 19, 2007 2:52 PM

Since this "the gift of the Almighty to all is freedom" meme goes back all the way to pronouncements made by the Founding Fathers,
I'd just have to say that if freedom is a God given right, he's been pretty f*cking stingy about handing it out after all this time.

Posted by Patrick | July 21, 2007 2:07 PM

kayq whcx ubryjvg qeubx eyxdopaf ywhqdmjo ckizmnwy

Posted by ibajzwfls thivsje | August 7, 2007 12:39 PM

Bahá'u'lláh, a contemporary of Lincoln announced His Prophetic Mission in Baghdad 145 years ago this April, whle the battle of Vicksburg was in progress. The issues in Iran, Iraq, Israel and the global community all bear upon it. He said:
"The earth is one country and mankind its citizens"...and it is the clergy of Shí'ite Persia that have acted as clouds to this rising Sun.

Posted by Mark Townsend | April 3, 2008 7:51 PM