“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” - George Washington
Through this blog post we will walk through different ideas and theories that form the foundation of our modern political system. I will examine some underlying themes that are often unstated, but understood in political discussion. Some theories will reach back to look into history, others will speak of an ideal state of government, but all are meant to provide us with the same starting point in this discussion. There have been many political philosophies over the years, and just as many political philosophers. Each in their own way has contributed to the world we live in today. I hope to bring as much clarity to political thought as I can. Many of these ideas are too big for this one post, and they will be covered in others as time goes on, so if a thought seems incomplete I hope to address it more in depth at a later time. Though this post may seem tedious at points my hope is that this, and our discussions on Christian doctrine, will lay the framework for all the posts that follow. When covering such weighty subjects it is important to be as precise as possible. Hopefully these introductory posts will set a baseline understanding so that when we dive into the discussions around how Christianity and politics interact we are all on the same page.
In its purest form the purpose of any government is simple: to provide for the common good. Since the Enlightenment, the common good has generally been understood to include certain liberties and the equitable application of laws. The liberties that are afforded in a government are a replication of liberties that humanity had in what many political philosophers have called “the natural state.” This natural state had natural freedoms, and a natural law that was essentially Darwinian survival of the fittest. Each philosopher has had their own interpretation of the natural state, however most acquiesced the point that at some level this system was imperfect. For one reason or another humanity saw fit to band together into groups for protection and their greater flourishing. With the understanding that they would give up some certain natural freedoms or liberties, in exchange for civil liberties and the common good. John Adams states it best:
“The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights and the blessings of life... The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.” (1)
The natural rights Adams mentions above should be distinguished from natural liberties. In the natural state might made right, there was a freedom of the strong to do as they pleased, however the framers of our constitution, and many political philosophers of their day, saw that part of the natural law included rights and laws imprinted onto all by their creator. Before the Declaration of Independence, it was the Philosopher John Locke who famously said that all men were endowed with the right to “life, liberty, and property.” (2) According to Locke, these rights were given by God, and thus they were unable to be infringed upon by man or government. Any movement against these God-given rights was a movement against the basic laws of humanity in its natural state. Thus, a higher power needed to be introduced in order to protect these rights where there was the chance they could be transgressed. The “body politic” as Adams states above, is the voluntary association of citizens, who implicitly or explicitly agree to what Hobbes and Rousseau refer originally referred to as “the social contract.” This social contract between citizens and the government is an agreement, that as we the citizens give up some of our “natural” freedoms we in turn gain security and civil rights. By assenting to be governed, the citizenry provides legitimacy, authority, and power to the government. These three ideas form the core of our understanding of government, and will be further examined below.
For our usage, I am primarily defining power (3) as the ability for a particular will to achieve its objectives. Power can be direct, such as a police officer blocking off a road from pedestrians. Or it can be indirect, such as a family member influencing another to achieve their objectives, not through direct force or request, but through the innate desire to please and help one another. In politics, it is often easiest to see the effects of a direct exercise of power through laws. There is a, usually, simple cause and effect. If a person breaks the law, the government, usually, has the power to punish that person.
Authority, as I will use in this discussion, is a particular government’s right to exercise power, give orders, or make decisions. This authority comes from the group of people who elect, or decide by some other method that a particular governing body has the ability to exercise authority. The inverse is also true though, that those who put that this governing body into a position of authority have a responsibility to obey its orders or decisions.
Legitimacy, is the basic feeling by a given populace that their government “should” have power and authority. There are multiple methods that a government may be perceived to have legitimacy, most often it is through their history, their results, or by procedures. In holding legitimacy by history a few questions can help clarify, does this current government fit into the mode of past governments? Does it uphold ideals and qualities that a given nation was founded on? A government is seen as legitimate by their results in so much as the process that they came to power was seen as transparent, and without issue (free and fair elections). Finally, we can see the example of a government having legitimacy through their procedures by how they handle a transition of power. Are there guidelines established that allow for a peaceful process to take place so that the safety and common good of the populace is not disturbed? A large portion of the populace needs to believe their government is legitimate in order to be successful.
When a group of people consent to the social contract, they give their chosen form of government authority. This authority in turn holds a certain amount of power that the government can wield to enforce laws and regulations. We the citizens accept the use of power by the government because it has the authority, and ideally the legitimacy to do so. Thus, a government’s power is a direct function of its authority and legitimacy. So, if a government is perceived as lacking in either of the other two functions, its power will, usually, be diminished. In this section I have often qualified a statement with “usually,” this is because, of course, there are always exceptions to the rules. Many dictators have stayed in power long after their authority or legitimacy diminished. Many governments have held on to power as they struggle for the other core qualities. At this point I would like to emphasize that the founding fathers were mostly worried that the government would have too much power over the citizenry. That is why so many safeguards were put in place to ensure the power rested with the people. However, they were not the first to see the necessity of such checks and balances as Rousseau points out: “It is therefore past dispute, and indeed a fundamental maxim of political law, that people gave themselves chiefs to defend their liberty and not to be enslaved by them. ‘If we have a Prince,’ said Pliny to Trajan, ‘ it is in order that he may keep us from having a master.’” (4) It is therefore essential to understand that the “common good” as understood by the men and women that built this country, is liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe or harm the inalienable rights of our fellow citizens.
Above we have defined the common good, power, authority, and legitimacy. The next fundamental topic to understand is classical Liberalism. Liberalism is one of the great political ideologies that arose out of the Enlightenment, which is generally understood as the time between the late 1600s and early 1800s which saw massive upheavals in science, philosophy, economics, and politics. The early stages of the industrial revolution were beginning, and it was clear that the old ways were no longer acceptable. As the population shifted, became more educated, worked harder, and grew wealthier, new ways of seeing the world, and governing its people were needed. The founders of America were men and women of the Enlightenment. They drew inspiration from all the great political philosophers of that time (though not exclusively, John Adams was a big fan of Cicero for instance). As such, it is important to understand the ideology this nation was built on, as well as some of the counter ideologies that arose from it. Liberalism sees the “highest good of society as the ability of the members of that society to develop their individual capacities to the fullest extent.” (5) As a general rule, classical liberal ideology includes the following elements:
“Democracy of some sort is the proper form of government.
People should have full intellectual freedom, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
Government should remain minimal and should regulate people’s lives very little.
In particular, people should be free to regulate their own economic activity.
Power of one person over another is a bad thing; hence, government should be organized to guard against abuses of power.” (6)
From the definition above we can see that most every American alive today is a liberal, at least in the classic definition of that term. The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States were liberals as well. Two ideologies that live within classical Liberalism are American-liberalism and American-conservatism. We will dive deeper into each of these at a later time, but suffice it to say that the modern American ideologies are not easy to put into boxes. Over time their core beliefs and objectives have shifted as the country has changed, as have the political parties. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make them hard to define. For example, traditionally American-liberalism has focused on being the champion of the down-trodden and the working class. Within the previous three decades however, that role has shifted to the Republican party. On the flip side, traditional American-conservatism has focused on fiscal responsibility, with an emphasis on laissez-faire economics. However, within the previous three decades we have seen some in the American-conservative camp champion economic policies that have previously been the policy dreams of their American-liberal counterparts. A few causes for this change have been highlighted as the awakening of the evangelical voter, increasing economic disparity, and a shift in cultural norms brought on by the sexual revolution. These changes have made it increasingly difficult to predict the outcomes of elections, and have also dramatically increased the polarity within our political system. Whichever direction a particular voter leans towards in our American system, it is important to note that our interpretation of Liberalism has largely gone unchallenged by opposing ideologies from within. Countries in Europe where Liberalism flourished have had to reckon with the two major opposing ideologies more frequently than we have. Those two major ideologies are Conservatism and Socialism. We have seen each of these in the governments of other countries, and even fought against them during the Cold War.
As this post comes to a close, I hope this discussion has helped to level set us for what lies ahead. Governments are complicated, even within a given ideology there is variation and shifting definitions of what is important. While we are every day attempting to define the “common good” let us try to remember that our fellow citizens mostly want the same things we do. The framers of our government applied this more perfectly in theory than in practice. But today, as we live and work with Americans from all political perspectives, I hope we remember that the vast majority of us agree on much more than we disagree on. Though we have work to do, we can at least start the discussion in that we support those high ideals of Liberalism that all have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
1. Adams, J. (1780). Massachusetts Constitution (1780) | Constitution Center. National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org.
2. Locke, J. (1980). Second Treatise of Government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company Inc. (Original work published 1690)
3. For the source on power, authority and legitimacy see the excellent political science book: Shively, W. P. (2007). Power & Choice (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.
4. Rousseau, J. (1967). The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.231
5. Shively, W. P. (2007). Power & Choice (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.
6. Shively, W. P. (2007). Power & Choice (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Comments