Democracy Stinks

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Well, I'm not so sure.

Democracy stinks. Sometimes.

Take for example, this speech by Democratic front-runner Senator Barack Obama about democracy given at the Sojourners Pentecost conference last year. He talked a lot about justice issues, but then he goes on to explain how he handles the abortion issue as a religious man and as a lawmaker in a democratic system:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Let's be honest here, Senator. You "may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons," or, you may (and do) support abortion for political reasons. I'll blame political opportunism for your recent fiery rebuke of the ban on partial-birth abortion as a slippery slope toward the imminent subjugation of women. I would hate to think that you support such a horrific procedure "for religious reasons."

Liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis and company may think they are being prophetic by giving left-leaning politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton a platform to speak to evangelical audiences. In reality, they are just as politically idolatrous and cynical as the ugly caricature they paint of religious conservatives. Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards are all on tap to make a repeat appearance at this year's Pentecost event.

Back to the original quote, Senator Obama lectures us that democracy demands "universal" as opposed to religion-specific values. Score one for those of us who are sane enough to admit that all religions are not the same. But of course, that is not Obama's point, or else his attempt to legislate universal values that are "amenable to reason" would be dead on arrival. No politician would ever have recevied an invitation to deliver the a speech to a room full of Christians if he or she was advocating some bland mix of Islamic, Christian and secular values on, say, religious toleration or women's rights. In fact, the very issues Obama champions (e.g. social and economic justice, civil liberties, ending the Iraq War) are based not on universal values amenable to (a-religious?) reason but rather on deep-seated religious convictions.

Abortion is no less heinous to many evangelicals than slavery or cold-blooded murder. Slavery and segregation, as Obama would readily admit, were not ended by politicians bowing to the values of the majority. Dr. King, after all, was assassinated for his convictions. The fact that we are created equal may still be self-evident to those who inherited the vestiges of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Nevertheless, the worldview of non-believers (whose values we must also consider as equally important in our "democracy") does not find this truth to be self-evident, but rather counter-intuitive. Naturalism, after all, is based on the principle of survival of the fittest. That, too, is self-evident if empirical science is your only source of revelation. So how exactly did the "human rights" agenda win the day? Christian (not secular or universal) values became the law of the land.

Politicians like Obama do not have the option to legislate supra-cultural values that everybody can agree to. Laws by nature are divisive things. Laws by nature involve the imposition of the will of those in power (be it a democratic majority, an aristocracy, or an autocrat) upon the unwilling. Lawmakers must choose some values over others. And contrary to Mr. Obama's nonsense-idealism, the criteria by which those choices are made have little to do with being "amenable to reason." Unless, of course, reason dictates that the one making the choice gets to stay in power. That after all, is the nature of politics.

Prophetic religion, on the other hand, cares about what is true and right and good. Without revelation (a highly exclusive thing, I realize), there is no standard for good and evil. Without revelation, reason gets us nowhere but to some airy-fairy social contract theory of governance. As American society has by and large rejected the normative value of revelation, their politicians have followed suit. The canard that politicians are controlled by special interest groups is a truism--it cannot be avoided for lack of a higher standard of judgment. Politicians are no different than the average American--they do what they must to survive. True prophets value truth more than their own reputation and even their own lives.

Who, then, should evangelicals vote for? Must they by necessity become a more powerful and vocal interest group in order to get the legislation they want? Must they elect the right people so as to enforce the will of God on the unwilling? How much compromise must we tolerate in order to consider anyone the right person for the job?

Sometimes I wish I didn't have the right to vote. Then maybe what is true and pleasing to God would be more important than the person we choose to empower. It's hard to speak the truth to a guy (or gal) who "we the people" gave a mandate to rule, especially when he or she seems to be better than the other guy. But as reason should tell us, the good is often the biggest enemy of the best.

One day democracy as we know it will disappear. On that day, the King of Kings will write the law on our hearts and minds. We won't have any say in the matter. I long for that day.