None of the Above
None of the Above:
An Argument for Rejecting
Pragmatism in the Voting Booth
Introduction
It
is that time again. Once again, “the
most important election of our generation/era/lifetime” is upon us (until, that
is, the next one comes along and then it will be the most important). “The stakes have never been higher” (until,
that is, the next election). “We are at
a critical juncture and if we do not vote for candidate X, the other guy, who
is a known Plutocrat and whose wife is a closet thespian, will wreak havoc and
destruction on us that has no parallel in the annals of this universe or any
other” (OK, so you get the point). We
are once again subjected to the kabuki theater that is the modern American
political process. It is time to vote
for national civil officers, the most important of which is the President. So I thought this would be as good a time as
any for me to argue against the standard fair.
This is to say, I thought I would explain why I will not be voting for
“the lesser of two evils,” “the best candidate who actually has a chance to
win,” or something similar. In short, I
will not be voting according to the philosophy of pragmatism. This paper will make the case for why this is
so.
To begin with, I
think some definitions and distinctions are in order. I do not have a problem with pragmatic criteria
as secondary considerations. Indeed,
there are plenty of good ones out there to, well, consider. Such criteria should be applied – in the
proper manner. Pragmatism, which goes
heavy on the -ism, does not do this. So
what's the difference? Pragmatism first
asks “practical” questions like "Who has a chance to win?" The best candidate is then chosen from among
those who "could win." Thus,
the first and primary "weed-out" criterion is pragmatic or tactical. Those candidates who are left, however rotten,
constitute the possible and only options from which one must choose. Sometimes, pragmatism is applied “more
aggressively” so that the first weed-out criterion leads directly to the final
choice (e.g., “Which candidate will most likely ensure or prevent consequence
X?”) In opposition to this, my first
weed-out question would be, "Regardless of what the competition might look
like and regardless of my assessment as to which candidates ultimately have a
decent chance of winning, does candidate X meet my principled and biblical
criteria for office?" This question
is put to each candidate and those who cannot meet these criteria are out of
contention. Then, of those who are left,
tactical questions such as "Who has the best chance to win?" may be
asked. The first view is primarily
pragmatic/tactical and is secondarily (if at all) ideological/principled while
the second view is primarily principled and secondarily pragmatic.
Conservative Christians,
by and large, hold to the first view – what I will call “the primacy of
pragmatism” or simply “pragmatism” (with the “ism” part denoting that pragmatic
criteria have been elevated to the first and primary concerns). This is evidenced by a number of common
arguments and or views expressed by them.
Obviously, it can be as straightforward as the positive claim that we
need to vote for the best candidate who has a real/meaningful/significant
chance to win. It often also takes the
negative form, i.e., we need to vote so as to give us the best chance of avoiding
wretched candidate so-and-so. Sometimes
the view may appear fairly principled.
The proponent will lay out various qualifications that he thinks
candidate X has and the various deficits that he thinks candidate Y has. But throughout the comparison, only the two
major party candidates are ever mentioned.
Third-party candidates, write-in votes, and principled no-votes are
never even mentioned much less considered.
This is because the principles being used to compare the two major
candidates are not the first and primary concern. Pragmatism has already been used to filter
the field and the principled criteria are then applied to those who are left
(and this usually means the two major party candidates). Moreover, when some Christians reject this
method, the primacy of pragmatism is often evidenced by responses such as “you
shouldn’t be a purist/perfectionist” or “one less vote for major party
candidate X is one more vote for the other major party candidate Y.”
In contrast, I will
refer to my view as “principled” for now (though I will tweak that name
momentarily). This view says that when
we vote for people to represent us in the crafting, interpreting, and/or
enforcing of civil laws, we should do so in a principled fashion. Each candidate should be independently
compared to a set of biblically derived, ethically based criteria to see
whether or not he qualifies. If he does
not, then he is unacceptable. It does
not matter that he may compare favorably to one or more of the other candidates
or even to the current office holder. If
more than one of the candidates qualifies, then the choice between them is no
longer an ethical question and tactical considerations may be entertained. On the other hand, the primacy of pragmatism
is the view that such biblical/ethical criteria, to the extent that they are
relevant at all, are secondary to pragmatic and tactical concerns. As mentioned above, the most common form this
takes is to decide which candidates have a statistically meaningful change to
win (based on past experience, current polling data, etc.) and then chose the
best one. It does not matter whether any
of these “viable” candidates can meet the principled criteria; the candidates
are never actually compared to such criteria directly. They are always compared to one another in
the governing context of certain desired “practical” ends. Thus, while a principled view can make use of
pragmatic considerations in a secondary role, pragmatism puts those considerations
first and foremost.
Before
addressing pragmatism in detail, I would like to respond to perhaps the most
common complaint leveled against a “principled” stance such as the one
described above. It is often the case
that when one learns that someone else has chosen not to vote pragmatically for
one of the main party candidates because neither candidate is acceptable, the
plea is made that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of some possible
progress (even if it is small and even if the only “progress” consists of
avoiding a much worse candidate). The
perfect candidate, we are told, does not exist.
No candidate will agree with you at every point. And so on and so forth.
Time
and time again when a Christian advocates pragmatically voting for dubious
candidate X (because candidate Y is Freddy Kruger on a bad day), the assumption
is made that a rejection of this primarily pragmatic method is purist or
perfectionistic. But while I am sure
there are such “perfectionists” out there, such a dichotomy is false and this
paper will not advocate perfectionism.
This complaint is therefore inapplicable to my view. I think a biblically principled view is
consistent with (and therefore I can accept) a fair amount of variation within the
basic paradigm. I can distinguish
between primary issues and secondary issues, I can see when someone is trying
to be faithful to God’s word even if we disagree on what that requires in a
certain case, etc. But what I do argue
for is a Copernican shift that reverses the order and importance of that which
is principled and that which is pragmatic.
I
believe that candidates must stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of
who the competition is and regardless of whether or not they have a chance to
win. If a candidate's views and actions
significantly depart from my understanding of the biblical view of the State’s proper
role as it pertains to the sought-after office, then he is unacceptable. Who can and cannot win does not alter this
fact. Thus, the label I would give to my
view is “principled imperfectionism."
It is principled because I judge candidates first and foremost based
upon my understanding of the biblical criteria relevant for the office being
sought and it is a form of “imperfectionism” because the biblical criteria do
not require such candidates to be sinless or perfect. Thus, I think this view offers a real
alternative to the perfectionism-pragmatism dichotomy.
Biblical
Principled Imperfectionism
To
get right to the heart of the issue, Christian pragmatists (saying “Christians
who vote according to the primacy of pragmatism” is a bit too bulky for
repeated use) often seem to operate as if the Bible were silent on the question
of how leaders should be chosen. I have
seen a number of informal debates of this topic and I have been involved in a
few of them and I rarely see pragmatists argue biblically for their
position. It is not just that biblical
exegesis directly related to the topic forms a secondary part of their argument.
I rarely see it form any part of their
argument. This is rather odd because I
am talking about “Conservative Christians,” those people who generally affirm
at least something like sola Scriptura – the Bible is the sole infallible and
ultimate epistemological standard (i.e., standard of knowledge). And it is not like the topic at hand can only
be related to biblical instruction by subtle and complicated linguistic
gymnastics. The Bible actually addresses
the topic in several ways including the most direct one.
But
before we get to the biblical principles for choosing leaders, it will help to
set the stage by reviewing the nature of the topic we are discussing. For if we are discussing our selection of
civil rulers, what is it that they are supposed to do? What is there basic job description? Simply put, these rulers are elected to define,
execute, and adjudicate the laws of our various political units (e.g., state
and federal governments). There are some
amoral aspects to these activities as there are for all areas of life but it
should be obvious that such activities are primarily and fundamentally about
applying moral principles to the variegated instances of human
interaction. The truly amoral aspects
(e.g., some administrative rules) are secondary since they exist as support
structure for the primary, moral aspect/purpose.
Thus,
the job of civil rulers is to make and work with civil law (civil in the sense
of the law of a city/state/nation) and that law ought to be thoroughly rooted
in ethics. The chief purpose and goal of
civil law is and ought to be justice.
Because of this, the choice of those who fashion this law is
fundamentally an ethical and not a pragmatic choice. Thus, the standards that we use to make such
a choice should be principled, ethical criteria. Pragmatic considerations are secondary in
importance and may only be made after the principled criteria have first been
met.
Consider,
as examples, the following general areas of law:
1. Criminal law (murder, violence)
2. Property law (theft, fraud, destruction of
property, rightful ownership)
3. Contract law (failure to fulfill
promises/obligations)
4. Liability/tort law (injury, damages,
negligence)
5. Labor law (health and safety of working
conditions, “fair” wages)
6. Environmental law (negative economic
externalities, i.e., pollution)
7. Civil rights law (discrimination, civil
liberties)
8. Family law (marriage, divorce, division of
assets, child custody)
9. Competition/antitrust law (conspiracy to
restrict trade, monopolies, “unfair” pricing)
10. Procedural law (chain of evidence must rule
out errors/tampering, no secret evidence, judge must be impartial, both sides
must get a full hearing)
For
most of these areas, it is obvious that their content is heavily focused on
moral issues/questions and the purpose of such content is justice. Words such as “justice,” “rights,” “duty,”
“fair,” and “unfair” permeate their discussion.
Whether or not any particular law within these general areas actually achieves
its goal of justice is another matter.
But the areas themselves, the subject matters of these areas, and the
purpose of the various laws (or opposition to such laws) are at bottom meant to
promote justice, defend rights, and punish certain forms of evil. And when we move to specific issues or
topics, the fact that civil law is fundamentally an ethical endeavor (or at
least an attempt at such) is just as clear.
Think about the following examples:
1. Bribery of civil officials
2. Witness tampering
3. Perjury
4. Use of the death penalty
5. Long term incarceration (at taxpayer expense)
for property crimes
6. Due process
7. Foreign aid (i.e., international welfare)
8. Forced embargos of other nations (which affects
everyone – men, women, children, the elderly, civilians – indiscriminately and
affects the poor and/or unconnected much more so than the rich and/or
politically connected)
9. When to go to war
10. How to fight a war (e.g., carpet bombing of
civilians, use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons)
11. Torture of enemy combatants
12. Immigration and immigrants’ access to various
taxpayer funded services
13. Abortion
14. Pre-born baby stem cell research
15. Euthanasia
16. Legitimization and normalization of
homosexuality and homosexual marriage
17. Commercial discrimination based on some
personal characteristic
18. War on drugs
19. Libel, slander, and defamation
20. Welfare and the war on poverty
21. Social security (i.e., forced, state-owned
and administered retirement program)
22. Civil government’s role in forming the minds,
desires, and character of children (a.k.a. education)
23. Civil government’s running sustained,
intergenerational debts that must be serviced by people who did not help build
the debt and who may not have even been alive at the time the debt was created
(perhaps the most extreme form of taxation without representation)
24. Fractional reserve banking (whether applied
to basic demand deposits or more esoteric financial instruments such as
mortgage-backed securities or credit default swaps) that internalizes and
privatizes all of the gains while it externalizes and socializes most of the
risk and, when that risk is realized, losses
25. Civil government / Federal Reserve
manipulation of the money supply (e.g., inflation, central bureau determined interest
rates, Fed monetization of government debt)
26. Zoning laws (do they justly protect the
property of some or violate the property rights of others?)
27. Eminent domain
28. Asset forfeiture laws
29. Pollution
30. Climate change (which is really just a
subcategory of pollution)
31. Fraud (in products or services for sale)
30. Subsidies, tariffs, and other devices that
transfer business and profits from politically disliked groups to politically
connected or approved ones
32. Minimum wage and other labor laws that
control, restrict, and/or subsidize certain labor agreements
33. Civil government regulation and/or setting of
consumer prices
34. Widely different tax brackets (i.e., the
attempt, or failure, to get taxpayers to “pay their fair share”)
35. Tax deductions/loopholes for politically
favored groups or ideas (thus, some groups are forced to subsidize the services
of others)
This list could go on
and on but I have tried to use examples from a variety of legal areas and that
would resonate with people who hold a variety of political views. Once again, one does not have to hold a
particular position on these issues to see that at least one side and usually
more than one side of any particular issue understands it to be fundamentally
ethical in nature. These are not topics
of expediency, convenience, or personal taste.
To summarize these areas of law in general and issues in particular, we
are talking about human social interaction.
We are talking about how one person treats another person. We are talking about justice. These are issues of ethics, not efficiency.
The Bible
substantiates this understanding by teaching that concepts such as
righteousness and justice are fundamental to and inherent in good civil law
while, conversely, the law should proscribe acts of sin and evil. There should be two main goals of civil law. The first is retribution and justice so that
the criminal “pays” the appropriate price for his crime (no more and no
less). Thus, the Bible teaches the basic
civil principle of the lex talionis, the law of proportionate retribution
(i.e., “an eye for an eye”, Ex. 21:23-25; Deut. 19:21). The law is not to play favorites by taking
three strands of hair for an eye but it must also avoid the emotional response
of a blood vendetta that ends up taking two eyes, an arm, and a kidney for an
eye. The criminal should pay the
appropriate price whether he “deserves to be beaten… according to his guilt” (Deut.
25:2), is “not deserving of death” (Deut. 19:6), is “worthy of death” (Deut.
21:22), or is “deserving of death” (Acts 25:11). Civil law, according to the Bible, provides
“a just recompense” to the guilty (Heb. 2:2).
The second main goal
is the restoration of the victim (as much as is possible; obviously, for example,
a murder victim cannot be restored).
Various statutes therefore require the guilty to “make it good” (Ex.
21:33, 34), “pay ox for ox” (Ex. 21:36), and “make restitution” (Ex. 22:5,
6). Straightforward theft (as opposed,
for example, to “ox for ox” negligence) without a voluntary confession requires
double restitution to the victim (which amounts to one part restoration to the
status quo ante and one part penalty for the crime, Ex. 22:4, 7, 9). Violence requires full restitution for
healing and for lost productivity (which is not limited to productivity while
“at work”, Ex. 21:18, 19).
In addition to the
ethical nature of the basic goals of civil law, such law is often described in
unambiguously moral terms/categories. So
in general, civil judgment should be conducted in righteousness and not in
unrighteousness (Lev. 19:15) and the statutes as a whole are righteous (Deut.
4:5-8). More specifically, witnesses
testify in civil court about matters of iniquity and sin (Deut. 19:15). False witnessing is wicked precisely because
it perverts justice (Ex. 23:1). Showing
partiality in judgment or the taking of a bribe are perversions of justice
(Deut. 16:19); judgment must be just (Deut. 16:20). Theft is trespass (Ex. 22:9), and employing
fraudulent scales of measurement is an abomination (Deut. 25:13-16). Theft is a sin and a trespass against the
Lord that incurs guilt (Lev. 6:1-5). A
murderer is guilty of death and therefore, according to the lex talionis, must
receive the death penalty (Num. 35:31). And
negligence that results in death brings the guilt of bloodshed (Deut. 22:8).
Finally, we should
note what civil punishment is for from the standpoint of morality. In general, civil punishment is designed to
“put away the evil from among you” (Deut. 17:7; 19:18, 19; 21:18-21; 24:7). More specifically, a trespass offering is
required in order to make atonement for theft (Lev. 6:1-7). Capital punishment applies to acts that are
sin (Deut. 24:16). Additionally, we can
compare all of the passages that impose the death penalty for a crime with the
statement that we should “Keep [ourselves] far from a false matter; do not kill
the innocent and righteous. For I will
not justify the wicked” (Ex. 23:7).
In
sum then, the often heard bumper sticker slogan that “you can’t legislate
morality” is, in a very important sense, completely false. If all that is meant by this phrase is the
idea that people cannot be made moral by imposing laws on them, this is true
enough but probably goes without saying.
It is doubtful that a significant number of people think that law has
such a transformative effect. However
this phrase (especially when uttered in a political context) usually means that
one should not try to enact laws that are based on one’s moral code. It should be clear by now that the vast
majority of the time, this is precisely what we either do or at least attempt
to do. Whether or not we are legislating
a good and true understanding of morality in any given instance is a separate
question, but the fact that we are constantly working with questions and issues
that are fundamentally ethical in nature and are trying to legislate some
understanding of morality is abundantly clear.
This is what we elect leaders to do.
And since the job of civil rulers revolves around activities that are
fundamentally about ethics and only secondarily about non-ethical qualities
such as simple expediency, what sense would it make if those rulers were
supposed to be chosen based on the primacy of pragmatism? Their job is fundamentally about working with
something that has quality X but we should expect to choose them primarily based
on a philosophy of not-X. This is hardly
the basis of a coherent system of government.
On
the other hand, if the job of civil rulers is fundamentally about ethics and
requires them first of all to be principled, it makes perfect sense that they
should be chosen based on principled criteria fundamentally based in
ethics. And indeed, this is just what
the Bible presents. The Bible gives us three
categories of requirements that would-be leaders should meet before being
chosen. The first category is one of
ability; would-be leaders should have the general skills and understanding
required for the sought-after position. So
at a fundamental level, civil rulers should be able/capable (Ex. 18:21). To expand on this a little, we should “Choose
wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will
make them heads over you” (Deut. 1:13).
Rulers need such wisdom, understanding, and discernment in order to properly
do their jobs (I Kin. 3:7-12; Prov. 8:12-16; 28:16). They should therefore be able to make careful
inquiries in order to resolve difficult issues (Deut. 19:16-18). Shifting institutions (but not the basic
concept) from the civil to the ecclesiastical, a deacon must be wise (Acts
6:1-3). He must rule his own house well
(I Tim. 3:8-12). Likewise, a bishop must
be able to teach, he must be experienced, and he must rule his own house well and
have submissive children (notice that the quality of his household rule is a
proxy for how well he would be able to rule as a bishop, I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus
1:5-9).
What
we therefore see in the Bible for civil and ecclesiastical rulers alike is a
requirement for competency that is tailored to the particular office being sought. So for example, a judge who would be deciding
between people in court cases should be impartial. However a judge, if he were simply a judge in
the judicial sense and not an executive leader as in the Book of Judges, would
not need “executive” skill in order to be considered “capable.” On the other hand, a king would certainly
need such executive wisdom and skill.
Bishops should be able to teach, but this is not necessary for someone
seeking office in a legislature.
But
while there are areas of knowledge and many skills that are specific to
individual positions, there are also aspects of the competency requirement that
apply more or less the same for any prospective leader. Most of these aspects can probably be grouped
under the term ‘wisdom.’ This is a
critically important requirement for those who would be leaders of men and it
generally requires a solid understanding of God’s word (which is the ultimate
standard of wisdom, cf. Proverbs) and a life long enough to have seen many
“situations” (using the word very broadly), both those that were handled well
and those that were handled poorly. True
wisdom is in fact the skilled application of God’s word to all areas of our
lives and to all of the diverse situations that people manage to find/get
themselves into. “But as for you,
continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom
you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred
writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training
in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good
work.” (II Tim. 3:14-17) I will say more
about wisdom shortly.
As
important as basic ability and skill are, far more emphasis is given to the
second requirement: the prospective
leader must be someone of moral character and a pious disposition. Those who do not fear God or who are not clearly
ethical (according to God’s law of course) simply do not qualify. “Moreover you shall select from all the
people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place
such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of
fifties, and rulers of tens” (Ex. 18:21).
They should be the kind of people who do not show partiality and who cannot
be bought (Ex. 23:8; Deut. 1:16-18; 16:18-20).
They must be just and they must rule in the fear of God (II Sam. 23:1-3;
II Chr. 19:4-7). And they should be the
kind of people who do not use their offices to collect graft (Deut. 17:14-17). Likewise in the ecclesiastical realm, a deacon
must be honest, well-behaved, and he must not be greedy (I Tim. 3:8-12). Similarly, a bishop must be blameless,
well-behaved, he must not be covetous, and he must have a good reputation (I
Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
The
importance of this second requirement is difficult to overstate. With any form or instantiation of government,
it is not possible to write enough laws and to write them thoroughly and
clearly enough to remove the necessity of personal judgment. This is not even possible in theory because
at the hermeneutical level, all communication must be interpreted by the
receiver(s). There is plenty of room
during this interpretation process for mistakes, misunderstanding, and
mischief. It is very important at this
fundamental level of communication to have officials with strong integrity and
with more loyalty to God than they have to themselves or to some other
“earthly” cause.
But
even when we communicate well, people have the ability to engage in a seemingly
infinite variety of activities. No law
code could possibly be big enough to cover all of the detailed situations and
combinations of relevant factors that make up the full scope of human activity
and interaction (though the 50 title, several hundred volume Code of Federal
Regulations is clearly an attempt at such arrogant omnipresence). A well-organized code will therefore have
general statements about a certain category of activity followed by some
detailed applications of those statements to specific situations where the
relevant activity is involved. The
general statements give the rules associated with the area of activity and the applications
demonstrate the logic or form of reasoning that is to be used to apply the
rules to specific situations. This
process of applying general rules to specific situations by means of a
pre-supplied form of reasoning is called “casuistry,” and it is critically
important that this process be conducted by people of integrity (as an example
of evil, self-serving casuistry, see Matt. 15:1-7). The goal of the law is justice, so we
obviously need those who would work with the law to value that goal well above
all distorting and corrupting influences.
Personal judgment is imbedded throughout the laws we make as well as
throughout their application and interpretation. That personal judgment, consistent with the
laws themselves, should therefore be God-centered and focused on justice.
The
third principled requirement for prospective rulers is that they must have a
biblical paradigm with respect to the position in question. They must realize that God’s word is the
ultimate authority for all areas of life including their rule. This is first of all entailed by the
requirements of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, because God’s word is the
foundation of and ultimate standard for such things. After all, God is the God of knowledge and
truth (I Sam. 2:3; Ps. 31:5; Is. 65:16), and all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge are to be found in Christ (Col. 2:2, 3). Thus, it is God that gives us knowledge,
wisdom, and understanding (Ex. 35:30 - 36:1; I Kin. 3:6-12; 4:29-31; Prov. 2:6;
Dan. 1:17-20; 2:20-22). Such
understanding comes through His precepts (Ps. 119:104). Our wisdom and understanding are basically
identified with God’s law and our observance of it (Deut. 4:5, 6). Through His word, we can have more
understanding and wisdom than our teachers (Ps. 119:98-100). His word even gives wisdom and understanding
to the simple (Ps. 19:7; 119:130). Thus,
we should fully trust His word (Ps. 119:42), for it is His word in the
Scriptures that is able to make us wise unto salvation (II Tim. 3:15). Blessed is the man whom God instructs from
His law (Ps. 94:12).
Not
only is the fear of the Lord itself wisdom (Job 28:28; Prov. 15:33), it is also
the beginning (i.e., foundation) of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding (Ps.
111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Such reverent
fear is equal to the instruction of wisdom (Prov. 15:33). God is our epistemological starting point,
and seeking Him is synonymous with understanding (Ps. 14:2). His word is the light for our path (Ps.
119:105, 130); it is in His light that we see light (Ps. 36:9). Thus, the law of God is synonymous with
knowledge, and a lack of it destroys (Hos. 4:6). Therefore, we should not lean on our own
understanding nor should we be wise in our own eyes (Prov. 3:5-7). Our faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men (I Cor. 2:5). We should do what is
right in God’s eyes (Ex. 15:26; Deut. 12:28; 13:17, 18; I Kin. 15:4, 5) and not
our own. We should reform our minds to
reflect God’s mind (Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 2:16; Eph. 4:23, 24). Thus, we must cast down anything that exalts
itself against the knowledge of God, and all of our thoughts (even about
standards for choosing civil rulers and for how they should rule) should be
captive to the obedience of Christ (II Cor. 10:4, 5).
On
the other hand, the consistent rebel/unbeliever has a very different standard
for wisdom, understanding, and behavior.
His only real delight is to express his own heart and he foolishly
trusts in it (Prov. 18:2; 28:26). He
therefore rushes to do his own will (Jer. 8:6).
This is because he ultimately judges his actions with his own heart and
will as the final standard for conduct (Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:5, 6; Prov. 12:15;
21:2; Jer. 3:17; 7:23, 24; 16:12; 18:12; II Cor. 10:12). This means that he is an enemy of God in his
mind (Rom. 8:5-8; Col. 1:21) and naturally, he despises God’s word (Ps. 50:16,
17; Is. 5:24; 30:8-10). His “wisdom” is
diametrically opposed to godly wisdom (Jas. 3:13-17). Thus, he hates true knowledge, instruction,
and wisdom (Prov. 1:7, 22, 29; 8:36; 18:2).
His “wisdom” is actually foolishness (I Cor. 1:20; 3:19, 20). He has rejected the word of the Lord; he
therefore has no wisdom (Jer. 8:8, 9).
His mind is blind and corrupt (II Cor. 4:4; II Tim. 3:8). His reasoning is darkened and futile leading
to self-deception and idolatry (Rom. 1:18-23; Eph. 4:17, 18). His philosophy and basic principles are empty
deceit and his beliefs are pseudo-knowledge (Col. 2:8; I Tim. 6:20).
Of
course, Christians are never fully consistent with Godly wisdom and unbelievers
cannot be fully rebellious and live very long because, as personified Wisdom
notes, “All who hate me love death” (Prov. 8:36). Consistent rebellion quickly leads to
destruction and death, not only for all those around and near the perpetrators,
but for the wicked themselves. And so
unbelievers have generally learned that there are things you cannot do much of (or
at all) without inviting unacceptable consequences. In addition, though the Western world is
generally in what has been called a “post-Christian” age, it is still living
off of a large amount of Christian intellectual and behavioral capital that it
had built up over the centuries. So at
least for the time being, the West is still a fairly long way from the kind of
pagan, war-of-all-against-all culture that often existed in the ancient world
and that still exists in places today.
But as governing principles go, true wisdom and understanding are
defined by God’s word and not by one’s own will so prospective rulers should be
evaluated accordingly.
The
third requirement is also entailed by the core aspect of a ruler’s job. He is supposed to decree justice, justify the
righteous, and condemn the wicked according to a just judgment. These concepts are likewise defined by God’s
law and not by man’s secular, philosophical speculations (e.g., “the people did
what was right in their own eyes”).
Thus, this can only be fulfilled by someone with a sound, biblical
paradigm. For a civil ruler’s primary
task is described as upholding good and punishing evil in the civil realm
(Deut. 25:1, 2; Ps. 94:20-23; 101:6-8; Prov. 20:8, 26; Is. 10:1, 2; Rom. 13:3,
4; I Pet. 2:13, 14). Recall as well the
passages previously mentioned in connection with the civil laws function to
“put away the evil from among you” (Deut. 17:7; 19:18, 19; 21:18-21;
24:7). This distinction between good and
evil is defined by God’s word/law (II Kin. 17:13; Neh. 9:28, 29; Prov. 28:4;
Ps. 119:53, 115, 128, 150; Dan. 9:10, 11; Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 7:7, 16; I Tim.
1:8-10; I John 3:4). A civil ruler’s
primary task is also described as upholding justice and righteousness (Deut.
1:16, 17; 16:18-20; 25:1; II Sam. 8:15; II Chr. 9:8; Ps. 72:1-4; Prov. 16:12;
29:4; Jer. 21:11, 12; 22:1-3). And once
again, the concepts of justice and righteousness are ultimately defined by
God’s law (Deut. 6:24, 25; Ps. 119:172; Is. 42:4; 48:18; 51:4, 7; Hab. 1:4; II
Pet. 2:21).
So
whether we are talking about the kind of laws that legislators make in the
first place, the way they are executed, or the way they are interpreted and
adjudicated by judges, the foundational task of civil rulers is to wisely justify
the righteous and condemn the wicked (Deut. 25:1). “A wise king sifts out the wicked, and brings
the threshing wheel over them.” (Prov. 20:26)
Moreover,
civil rulers are God’s “deacons” (the Greek word is diakonos, deacon) and “ministers” (leitourgos) who are supposed to be a terror to evil doers by
avenging God’s wrath upon them (Rom. 13:1-6).
It is interesting to note here that Romans 13 was written originally
about the pagan rulers of the Roman Empire (Nero was on the throne at the time
though he had not yet gone homicidally insane).
Even they were supposed to uphold justice as God understands it and
dispense God’s wrath (not their own wrath).
To the extent that they did not do this (and this was usually a big
extent) and instead dispensed their own distorted understanding of justice,
they were failing to live up to the requirements of their positions. All civil rulers (as well as those they
oversee) have a moral responsibility to worship and serve the King of kings
(Ps. 2; 72:8-11; Matt. 28:18-20; I Cor. 15:20-28; Eph. 1:19-22; Phil. 2:9-11). Civil rulers should therefore continually
review and learn from God’s law, seek to uphold justice as He has defined it,
and grow in the fear of the Lord (Deut. 17:18-20; Josh. 1:5-8 cf. II Kin. 22:8
- 23:15). They simply cannot be
effective terrorizers of evil doers or avengers of God’s wrath if they are
ignorant of true justice or if they arrogantly insist on “doing what is right
in their own eyes” (cf. Deut. 12:8).
Not
surprisingly then, when it comes to those who work with the law, the Bible
praises and condemns these rulers because of principled/moral reasons, not
pragmatic ones. Leaders were not praised
because they were the lesser of two evils (or, we could say, the best of a bad
lot) and they were not condemned for trying to be too faithful/ethical. They were praised when they ruled justly
(e.g., I Kin. 15:9-15; II Kin. 18:1-6).
Conversely, condemnation and judgment came to those rulers who were unjust
(e.g., I Kin. 14:7-16; Neh. 9:32-38; Ps. 82; Is. 14:3-23; 24:1-6; Ezek.
28:1-10; Joel 3:1-8; Jon. 3; Mic. 3; 5:6-15; Zech. 9:1-8). This sort of principled, morality-based
condemnation of rulers is all over the Bible but what is much harder to find
are examples of praise for those who choose rulers according to pragmatism or praise
of rulers who ruled according to a primarily pragmatic and secondarily ethical
paradigm. In the Bible, good kings were
loyal to God and ruled according to His definition of justice. They did not do this perfectly of course but this
was their guiding motivation, they sought such an application in faith, and
they were usually fairly successful in this effort. Bad rulers, on the other hand, were disloyal
to God and unjust in their rule.
As
a thought experiment, imagine that we were supposed to choose rulers based on
the primacy of pragmatism. And let us
further imagine that an election occurred which put Christians in the same position
that they are often put in: neither
candidate who could actually win is very good but one is decidedly less problematic
than the other. So we do what we are supposed
to do and choose the lesser of the two evils who could actually win. Now suppose that once in office, this ruler often
acted/governed unjustly and in a pragmatic, Machiavellian manner. How could we criticize this ruler? We could hardly complain that he failed to
live up to a standard that was not used to select him and that we already knew
ahead of time he could not meet. Sure,
he may have turned out to be worse than we thought he was when we voted but the
best of bad lot is still bad (and we knew that going in).
Throughout
the Bible, God told His people that rulers should be able to meet principled,
ethically-based criteria. When rulers generally
lived and governed according to the basic confines of such criteria, they were
praised. When rulers generally failed to
live and govern according to these criteria, they were condemned. And when the failure was great, the whole
nation was condemned as well. Thus,
there is perfect consistency between the requirements for leadership and the
standards according to which leaders are held accountable. Rulers can be and are to be judged by the
same standard that they should have met in order to be eligible to rule. But if we are supposed to choose rulers
according to a primarily pragmatic, best-of-a-bad-lot methodology, we should
hardly expect much sympathy from onlookers if those rulers turn out to be,
well, bad.
In
sum then, there are three categories of principled requirements for prospective
rulers. These basic categories are the
same whether we are talking about civil or ecclesiastical rulers (though
specific application of the categories will vary). Such rulers must have the understanding,
skills, and ability for the desired position, they must have a morally upright
and pious/God-oriented character, and they must have a biblical paradigm with
respect to the desired position (the heart of this requirement for civil rulers
is the implementation of justice the way God defines it while for
ecclesiastical rulers it is the proper understanding of God’s word so as to
teach it and administer the sacraments).
The primacy of pragmatism – reversing the order and importance of the
ethical and the pragmatic – is simply not part of the biblical teaching
here. We are not taught to choose
leaders this way, leaders are not taught to govern this way, and leaders (along
with the people) are not judged after the fact based on this methodology. The pragmatism half of the
pragmatism-perfectionism dichotomy is therefore unbiblical.
On
the other hand, these three categories do not require perfection in any of them
(for civil or ecclesiastical candidates).
The candidate for civil office does not have to know most everything
related to the sought-after office, be sinless, or have perfect views on the
proper role of the civil magistrate and the proper definition and application
of justice. In other words, the
candidate does not have to agree with me on everything. Seriously though, this means that the
pragmatism-perfectionism dichotomy is just as false when talking about the
choice of civil rulers as it is when talking about the choice of ecclesiastical
rulers.
It
would be well beyond the scope of this paper for me to go into detail regarding
the principled criteria, how I would apply them in this or that case, or the
like. Such an effort is also unnecessary
for the defense of principled imperfectionism. It is enough for the argument I am making to
see that there clearly are principled, non-pragmatic criteria that need to be
met before a political candidate is acceptable.
Pragmatism
If
we shift the focus from biblical principles in order to look at pragmatism more
closely, we find that pragmatism itself has numerous philosophical problems as
well. To begin, we can let one of
pragmatism’s standard bearers describe it for us.
"The pragmatic
method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its
respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to
any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be
traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute
is idle." (William James, Pragmatism, Prometheus Books, 1991, pg. 23).
“It is astonishing to
see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you
subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence…. The whole
function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will
make to you and me, at definite instances of our life, if this world-formula or
that world-formula be the true one.” (Pragmatism, pg. 25)
Pragmatism is
therefore known as a consequentialist theory.
Ideas, claims, and actions get their justification from their
consequences. This ultimately means, as
James tell us, that pragmatism is only a method and is not concerned with proclaiming
or denying any particular content.
“But, at the outset,
at least, it stands for no particular results.
It has no dogmas, and no doctrines save its method. As the young Italian pragmatist Papini has
well said, it lies in the midst of our theories, like a corridor in a
hotel. Innumerable chambers open out of
it. In one you may find a man writing an
atheistic volume; in the next some one on his knees praying for faith and
strength; in a third a chemist investigating a body’s properties. In a fourth a system of idealistic
metaphysics is being excogitated; in a fifth the impossibility of metaphysics
is being shown. But they all own the
corridor, and all must pass through it if they want a practicable way of
getting into or out of their respective rooms.
No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation,
is what the pragmatic method means.” (Pragmatism, pp. 26-27)
Thus, pragmatism
rejects fixed principles.
“A pragmatist turns
his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to
professional philosophers. He turns away
from abstraction and insufficiency,… from fixed principles, closed systems, and
pretended absolutes and origins. He
turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and
towards power…. It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against
dogma, artificiality, and the pretense of finality in truth.” (Pragmatism, pg. 25)
If this all sounds
relativistic, it should. And if the
ultimate focus is on consequences, then we may ask, “Consequences for whom?” James tells us.
“If there be any life
that is it really better we should lead, and if there be any idea which, if
believed in, would help us to lead that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally
clashed with other greater vital benefits.” (Pragmatism, pp. 36-37, italics
in the original)
Putting aside the
precise scope of the word “us” (is it people grouped as individuals, family,
friends, geopolitical entities, etc.?), the important consequences are the
consequences for humans. And since the
ideas/actions get their justification from such consequences, pragmatism is
fundamentally man-centered. Man is the
measure, so pragmatism is a form of humanism.
Yet in true non-principled, non-committal fashion, pragmatism leaves
room for religion as long as it is “helpful” to the individual.
“Interested in no
conclusion but those which our minds and our experiences work out together,
[pragmatism] has no a priori
prejudices against theology. If theological ideas prove to have a value
for concrete life, they will be true, for pragmatism, in the sense of being
good for so much. For how much more they
are true, will depend entirely on their relations to the other truths that also
have to be acknowledged.”
(Pragmatism, pg. 35, italics in the original)
“On pragmatic
principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense
of the word, it is true. Now whatever
its residual difficulties may be, experience shows that it certainly does work…
when I tell you that I have written a book on men’s religious experience, which
on the whole has been regarded as making for the reality of God, you will
perhaps exempt my own pragmatism from the charge of being an atheistic system.
“You see that
pragmatism can be called religious, if you allow that religion can be
pluralistic or merely melioristic in type.
But whether you will finally put up with that type of religion or not is
a question that only you yourself can decide.
Pragmatism has to postpone dogmatic answer, for we do not yet know
certainly which type of religion is going to work best in the long run. The various overbeliefs of men, their several
faith-ventures, are in fact what are needed to bring the evidence in. You will probably make your own ventures
severally. If radically tough, the
hurly-burly of the sensible facts of nature will be enough for you, and you
will need no religion at all. If radically
tender, you will take up with the more monistic form of religion: the pluralistic
form, with its reliance on possibilities that are not necessities, will not
seem to afford you security enough.
“But if you are
neither tough nor tender in an extreme and radical sense, but mixed as most of
us are, it may seem to you that the type of pluralistic and moralistic religion
that I have offered is as good a religious synthesis as you are likely to
find. Between the two extremes of crude
naturalism on the one hand and transcendental absolutism on the other, you may
find that what I take the liberty of calling the pragmatistic or melioristic
type of theism is exactly what you require.”
(Pragmatism, pp. 131-132)
This, in sum, is
pragmatism: a humanistic, relativistic venture that rejects fixed principles
(except, inconsistently, for itself as a fixed principle that claims there are
no fixed principles) in favor of beliefs and actions that have certain
consequences “for us.” Of course this is
in complete contrast to Christianity which is not man-centered and is obviously
based on fixed principles. The Bible
teaches that beliefs and actions are not justified by their consequences. Rather, some of our beliefs and actions are
either good or evil because God has defined them as such, and He defines those
as such because they either agree with His nature or are opposed to it. Good and evil are defined by God according to
His nature quite independently of how an individual or group of individuals
assesses consequences. So it should be
readily apparent that Christians should reject pragmatism as just another
variant of humanist philosophy.
And because pragmatism
is such a variant, it suffers the same fate as all such philosophies: arbitrariness, incoherence, and
self-refutation. For when you get right
down to it, consistently applied pragmatism can be used to justify anything. To be blunt about it, for pragmatism, the ends
justify the means. That which is right and true and good to choose is that
which works (i.e., has certain desired consequences). The giant problem with
this, however, is obvious. The definition of what "works" is
completely arbitrary. Some may like consequence A while others may like
consequence B. The definition of “works” is totally subjective. Thus,
pragmatism can be used to justify anything. The only relevant question is,
"What consequences would you like (or like to avoid in the case of candidate
X)?" Therefore, pragmatism attempts
to justifies actions by their consequences, but because people can and do
evaluate such consequences very differently, William James’ “no fixed
principles” becomes a truly arbitrary exercise of supporting that which helps
me. Innumerable chambers indeed.
But even if two
people seek the same basic consequences, they can legitimately differ on the right
route to those consequences. In theory,
there are multiple, incompatible ways that the primacy of pragmatism can be
implemented and there are no objective criteria by which the differing ways may
be compared. When the primacy of
pragmatism is used to choose leaders for example, focusing only on the current
election begs the question regarding our “time focus.” Why not pragmatically cast a none-of-the-above
vote in order to send a message to the two major political parties for the next
election? This would still be voting
pragmatically in order to win as much as is practically possible but in this
case, two consecutive elections (or maybe several consecutive elections) are
viewed together instead of atomizing them into separate units. I could even be a pragmatist and say that we
should vote for the worse of the two evils in this election in order to speed
an “awakening” among the electorate. The
populace has become ignorant and apathetic but if you turn the heat up fast
enough (instead of increasing the heat slowly enough that the proverbial frog does
not notice), the people may well cry out and begin to move back towards fiscal
soundness, justice, etc.
This perspective also
takes a longer perspective than just focusing on the current election. So should we vote for the lesser of two evils,
the greater of two evils, or none of the above?
In fact, all three of these can follow from the primacy of pragmatism. And why atomize elections and think only or
primarily about the next one? Why not
group elections together and lengthen our time horizon? One again, the choice is arbitrary. It wholly depends on the individual making
the assessment.
But the problem gets
even worse. Pragmatism is completely
subjective from person to person at any given point in time and it does not
escape arbitrariness even if two people happen to generally agree on the
desired consequences. But it is also
arbitrary when considering a single person at two different points in
time. One of James’ “possibilities of
nature” is actually quite common:
namely, people change their minds (sometimes more than once). And so a certain group of consequences that
were evaluated by some individual to be good when he applied his
consequentialist calculus two years or even two months ago may be very
differently evaluated by him today. And
under pragmatism, the second evaluation is just as right as the first. As exemplified by James’ radically tough,
radically tender, and mixed breed people who see religion very differently,
people who assess such issues consequentially do so based on their own
individual personalities, scales of likes/dislikes, and circumstances. All three of these can and do change.
And so pragmatism is
not only “inter-subjective” and therefore arbitrary from person to person at
any given point in time, it is also “intra-subjective” and therefore arbitrary
for the same person from one point in time to another. So if we compare pragmatism to a sport like
archery, it is not simply the case that it is difficult to “hit the bull’s eye”
by perfectly applying the theory to some complicated situation. There literally is no target. And so any place that I shoot then becomes my
“target.” Pragmatism is therefore a
Rorschach plot; it means whatever the individual pragmatist wants it to mean at
that particular point in time (but we only need wait a while, the possibilities
of nature are vast and neurochemistry is a strange, variable brew).
In addition to being
completely arbitrary, pragmatism would be operationally self-refuting if, in
applying it consistently in election after election, you actually ended up with
a bigger collective mess than any of the individual messes you sought to
avoid. This is a specific instance of a
larger critique that all consequentialist ethics fall prey to. It is not uncommon for some significant
consequences to manifest only in the long run.
It may even be the case that most of the consequences and/or the most
important ones require months, years, or even decades to manifest (recall
James’ non-commitment to the truth-value of religion because we do not know
what will work best in the long run).
Thus, even if one’s pragmatism “works” for the current election, the
long term consequences of this election by itself and/or the cumulative effect
of voting pragmatically for years may well lead to long term damage and failure
that makes the short term “victories” pale in comparison. Thus, the primacy of pragmatism fails to even
meet its own standard because it gets its justification from the outcome (i.e.,
what works) but most of the true outcome will be unknown at the time the vote
is cast and for many moons afterwards. If
the long term consequences are important and negative (and this is rather
common in politics), then what was first thought of as the better choice will
be exposed as the worse one.
As an application of
this failure of pragmatism, consider the old political adage that says,
"You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax." Well, there is a good reason why
"politics as usual" is usual.
We subsidize it heavily by the way we vote. The two consequentialist sides of this coin
are as follows. First, the ubiquitous
claim that good candidates have no chance of actually winning has become a
self-fulfilling prophecy. They have no
chance of winning precisely because of the systematic acceptance (including the
large support from Christians) of the primacy of pragmatism. If dubious, pragmatic politicians win the
majority of elections year after year, it is because we have collectively made
that choice. And if we keep making that
choice decade after decade, that kind of mentality becomes woven into the fabric
of our society. And so fewer and fewer
seriously qualified, principled people even run for office. Consistently voting according to the primacy
of pragmatism may well have created a self-selection bias among those who would
even consider running for office, and then pragmatic voting finishes off most
of the good candidates who even bother to run.
Second, if we
routinely vote pragmatically for slick, empty suits, Machiavellian sharks,
hollow windsocks, bought-and-paid-for political harlots, ambitious power
junkies, teleprompter jockeys, and assorted other characters, why should we be
surprised when we get more of what we ask for?
If we are slaves to the grind of the political machine, we have no right
to complain about that machine or our slave status when we put the chains on
ourselves.
Christians have consistently
subsidized "politics as usual," so they continue to help secure and
perpetuate a large number of significantly problematic political themes, ideas,
candidates, and activities. As a general
example, the "conservatives" of the current generation hold a number
of the views that were held by the humanist "liberals" of a few generations
ago. This seems to have been a steady
theme in American politics for quite some time. And so we drift more and more toward secularism
and liberalism. The primacy of
pragmatism is bad enough, but there is something rather ironic and embarrassing
about a pragmatism that just doesn't work.
But
by arguing that our use of pragmatism has been merely self-contradictory
because we cannot see into the future in order to know the very consequences on
which our actions are supposed to be based, I’ve been much too generous. The real problem gets worse yet again. Hindsight is useless for making and/or
justifying decisions, but at least it is a form of sight. At least at some point, we may begin to see
the long term consequences with clear enough vision (if they are not too
complicated, difficult to trace, or subtle) that we can recognize them as the
consequences of our decisions. So maybe
we will be able to learn something from the experience. But there is an entire category of
consequences that we can never see.
Economists refer to this category as “opportunity costs.” These are the options, possibilities, and/or
things we give up because of the choices we make. If I spend $50 on a single meal at some
overpriced restaurant, many would say that this meal cost me $50. This is true enough, but a more significant
explanation is to ask what I could have done instead with that $50. And what would the consequences be if I had
chosen a different route? The
opportunity costs of my meal are the things I could have purchased instead but
now cannot because the money is gone.
And this ultimately leads back to the time that it took to earn that
money. That time is an opportunity cost
since it could have been used for something other than working for the money
that was used to purchase the meal.
So
what are the opportunity costs of voting pragmatically for eight years? What about for eighty years? Just how much have we given up, and what
would the societal consequences have been had we taken a more principled route? How much have we denigrated respect for and
interest in principled, ethical decision making and how much have we normalized
pragmatic, Machiavellian decision making in our society by consistently arguing
for and voting according to pragmatism? All
we can do is speculate, because we have no way to track or measure such a
comparison. The pesky thing about
opportunity costs is that most of them are not just unknown the way the future
is not yet known, they are unknowable.
They are quite literally the roads not taken.
Recall again James’
general description of pragmatism.
"The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each
notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would
it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true?” And again, “The whole function of philosophy
ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at
definite instances of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be
the true one.” Pragmatism requires us to
trace the practical consequences of an option.
And if there is more than one option, this becomes a comparison. When this is applied to the political arena,
it becomes this: What difference will it
make if candidate A or candidate B gets elected? But we cannot answer this question with any
significant level of knowledge. If
candidate A gets elected, all of the consequences of this choice will occur
after the decision is made. Meanwhile,
all of the consequences of candidate B’s election will be opportunity costs; we
will never know what they are.
It is tempting here
to say that we can surely get an accurate view of what will/would happen by
relying on the candidates’ promises of what they will do. Yes, that was a joke. But more seriously and first of all,
political campaign rhetoric and promises are not exactly known for a
statistically high rate of fulfillment (a consequence of pragmatism, perhaps?). More to the point though is the rather
finicky nature of the future: it often enough
decides to zig when we expect it to zag.
I believe some guys named Solomon and James had some pointed comments
about confident predictions concerning the future (Prov. 27:1; Jas. 4:13-16).
In just the recent
past of Presidential history, Bill Clinton was supposed to be a really scary
option. There were jokes during the 1992
campaign about what his simplified 1040 tax form would look like. It had two lines: 1. How much money did you make last
year? 2. Send it in. Yet he was hardly the economic disaster that
many conservatives predicted, and when the Republicans won big in the 1994
elections, Clinton pivoted significantly to the right (his so-called
“triangulation”) even implementing and taking credit for some of the
Republicans’ ideas. (I hardly think
Clinton was a good President but the point here is that rumors of his ability
to perpetuate economic ruination were greatly exaggerated.)
The next President,
George W. Bush, ran as a limited government conservative who promised a “more
humble” foreign policy. But a funny
thing happened on the way to the future, and eight years later, Bush had
presided over a big increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the
federal government on the domestic front, a much more arrogant, aggressive, and
violent foreign policy, and a big fat increase in the federal debt. And that increase in the debt came despite
the fact that federal revenues were artificially juiced by our unsustainable,
artificially low interest rate-driven, debt-fueled, fraudulent banking-based
pseudo-economy. If we cannot even keep
the debt from rising during a bubble economy, then what do we think will happen
to the federal balance sheet when the economy (and thus, tax receipts) gets
back to a more sustainable level? We are
looking at the $16 trillion (and rising quickly) answer right now.
Some may be tempted
to say of the foreign policy “shift” at least:
you cannot criticize Bush because “9/11 changed everything.” Exactly.
One (admittedly big) event changed everything. Prediction is tough, especially with regards
to the very near future (9/11 occurred just eight months after Bush was
inaugurated). Prediction with regards to
the distant future is downright dicey.
And what would have happened if George H. W. Bush would have won again
or if Bob Dole, Al Gore, or John Kerry would have won? What would they have tried to do, what would
they have actually been able to do, and what would the consequences of all of
their actions have been? Moreover, what
would be different both in the political arena (e.g., how would the major
parties have been forced to change?) and in society if Christians had rejected
the primacy of pragmatism beginning in, say, 1996? We should not even pretend that we have good
answers to these questions.
And so at this point,
it should be clear that the lofty theory of pragmatism’s consequentialist
methodology has degenerated into one part attempted divination of the future
(because we do not know what will happen tomorrow much less what candidate A
will do years from now, what the consequences of those actions will be, or what
the consequences of those consequences will be) and one part pointless
speculation (because we will never know what consequences we gave up by denying
candidate B the election). Pragmatism is
therefore doubly incoherent: for the first part it requires a decision to be
partially justified on what cannot be known in time, and for the second part it
requires a decision to be partially justified on what cannot be known even in
theory. It would be bad enough if we had
to justify decisions based on actual consequences, but we are relegated here to
guesswork about the consequences. Some
future consequences may seem somewhat or even fairly predictable but the
process is still guesswork, not knowledge.
Trends hold until they don’t.
Philosophically speaking, this methodology is not simply a train wreck;
it is a train that wrecks into a train wreck.
In
stark contrast, the Bible’s principled criteria require us to use actual
knowledge to make our leadership choices.
For the criteria of ability, we look at past and present education,
subject knowledge, job history, major choices, and the like. For the criteria of character, we look at
past and present behavior. And for the
criteria of having a biblical worldview, we look at the candidate’s basic
theology (or lack thereof), his basic philosophy regarding the State in general
and the position he seeks in particular, and his specific views on a
representative range of “big ticket” issues.
We have ready access to this kind of information and it therefore
qualifies as knowledge according to the Bible.
But God’s word does not consider either amateur divination or
unverifiable speculation about alternate universes to be sources of knowledge
in any sense. And because they cannot
provide knowledge, they cannot be used to make important ethical decisions.
Finally, consider the
following dilemma that the political pragmatist has. How consistently would the pragmatic
Christian carry this best-of-a-bad-lot philosophy out? Unless there is only one candidate in an
election, there will always be a "lesser evil" (even if the
differences between the candidates “who actually have a chance to win” are very
small). If one major candidate were a
consistent fascist while the other major candidate were a consistent communist,
would the pragmatic Christian vote for one of them? What if both were consistently pro-death
(i.e., pro- abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, etc.)? How evil is too evil for the pragmatic
Christian to say that neither major party candidate can adequately represent him? Unless the Christian is willing to ride the
pragmatic train to the end of the line and say that he would always vote for
the lesser of the two evils no matter how wicked they both were (e.g., Caligula
vs. Nero), then he must get off the train somewhere. And if there is a point where he would reject
both major candidates (i.e., the ones “who actually have a chance to win”),
then he will have abandoned the primacy of pragmatism and adopted my
position. So it turns out that in yet
another irony, the primacy of pragmatism only has a limited range in which it
is useful. It only works as far as the
Christian’s ability to ignore the stench.
As soon as both major candidates stink too much for the Christian’s
nose-holding to be effective, he will have to admit the bankruptcy of
pragmatism.
Under the pretense
that the best defense is a good offense, it might be tempting to try to reverse
the dilemma. How consistently would I
carry my principled imperfectionism out?
What if there were two candidates who actually had a chance to win. One of them does not meet what I see as
biblical, principled criteria but he is hardly the devil incarnate. To pick a completely random name, let us call
him “Mitt Romney.” The other candidate
is, literally, Satan. Let us say that
Romney is running on some generic, big government, neoconservative,
the-other-guy-stinks platform, and Satan is running on your standard helter
skelter platform with the usual promises of demonic activity, mass leprosy, and
lions for Christians. Let us further
stipulate that poles show a very close race; “every vote counts” as they
say. Surely in this case, I would
abandon my principles in order to help avoid apocalypse now, right?
As tempting as this
sounds from the standpoint of my own selfish interests, I would reject this
option. Does it sound like I am willing
to be disingenuous just to win an argument?
Does is sound like I am willing to commit suicide for the sake of some
abstract consistency? If so, then consider
the scenario more closely. We are
talking about a society that has gone so far beyond the moral event horizon
that it is close to electing the actual Devil incarnate. In a society that far gone, it would be a
gross understatement to say that Christian’s who obey God’s word when they vote
are not the problem. It is also
stunningly obvious that this kind of society – the kind that would wear “The
Devil Is on the Level” campaign buttons – would be spreading mass quantities of
destructive sin and mayhem through many means other than the ballot box. Even if Satan lost the election, that kind of
society would still be doomed. And so in
such a society, it would be ludicrous to complain about the Christians who vote
by faith (i.e., according to God’s word) and not by “sight” (i.e., what one
tries to see regarding the future consequences). They did not cause the problem and their
votes are hardly going to fix it.
Instead of such complaints, the pragmatic Christians (along with the
principled ones) should either abandon the Titanic or brush up on early Church
history. I would suggest texts such as
the Martyrdom of Polycarp inasmuch as it has some things to say about being
faithful to God in the face of torturous and deadly persecution.
In
the end though, I do not believe we have an escape hatch that says we should be
faithful to God’s word until things get too uncomfortable for us personally at
which point we can switch to “more practical” options. Psychologically, I can certainly understand the
desire to avoid what looks like scary consequences. I can understand that in extreme situations
(e.g., torture, threat of death), Christians have even denied Christ to avoid
serious threats. These are not
high-handed sins and they can certainly be forgiven (e.g., Peter’s denial of
Christ). But this hardly justifies a
policy that says it is fine to run from faithful principles of behavior when
times get tough.
Some
Counter Arguments
A
fairly common response (or perhaps more of a surprised exasperation) to the
view presented above is something along the lines of “How do you ever expect to
win, get anything done, or fix the system?”
This question, when posed by Christians, exposes two significant errors.
The
first problem is the pragmatic Christian’s assumption that even if unbelievers
have turned politics into a swine trough, it is acceptable for Christians to
get down there with them and roll around in the mud. After all, isn't that the only way the game
can be played? But we are not supposed
to “play the game” according to rules dreamed up by unbelievers. Would it be right for a good Christian girl
to try to clean up a whore house by becoming a whore in order to reform things
from the inside? Maybe it would be
alright if she just did stripteases.
Think of the good she could accomplish while she was there. In reality, the fact that some social
institution may be significantly corrupt is no license for Christians to accept
that corruption as normal or to abide by the corrupt paradigm of that
institution in order to change it.
The
second problem is the assumption that significant and lasting social change
should come and can only really come from a-moral, power politics. If we can just get enough of “our guys” in
office, they can force such change from the top down. But for the most part, this gets cause and
effect backwards. Significant and lasting improvements in
society and civil government will usually only come if they grow organically
from widespread support. From a
Christian perspective, this means significant conversion and spiritual growth
among the populace with such conversion and growth coming as a result of the
Church’s proclamation of the gospel and work within society. A (more or less) godly State will generally be
the result of, not the cause of, a (more or less) godly society.
This
point nearly becomes a law of physics in our form of civil government where the
people directly choose all of the executives (including governors and mayors),
legislators, and some of the judges (the rest of the judges being chosen
indirectly via other offices). For
better or worse, “we the people” ultimately decide what direction our culture
and our governments will take. The
direction of cause and effect is therefore overwhelming from the people to the
State, not the other way around. Framed in
a slightly different way, the problems in our society go much deeper than our
politics, and our political/governmental situation looks the way it looks
because of where our society is.
Fighting such political symptoms is not going to fix the real problem. This should hardly be taken to mean that
political activity is pointless, without value, or wrong. It is none of these things. Such activity is necessary and it is also
good – in its proper place and conducted by proper means. But if my view seems hard to swallow because
it seems like a recipe for lasting ineffectiveness and failure, then you are
thinking very much like a pragmatist with mixed up priorities and a retrograde
understanding of cause and effect.
If
we really want to be “pragmatic” and focus our time, energy, and money where it
will be most relevant and effective, we should put our focus on the real
problem (the spiritual decay of the country) by employing the God-promised
solution (the Church preaching the gospel and serving society). To the extent that such a focus can be seen
as “practical,” it is that way because that is the way God has ordered things
and that is the way Jesus has modeled such an order.
“Have
this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was
in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but
emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of
men. And being found in human form, he
humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a
cross. Therefore God has highly exalted
him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.” (Phil. 2:5-11)
“You
say you want a revolution?” Jesus
instigated a revolutionary way of doing revolution. He served humbly instead of grabbing
aggressively, and in the ultimate example of cosmic judo, He defeated death by
dying. True, lasting, effective, and
righteous authority and power flows to those who serve, not to those who
impatiently grab for it (relativizing their principles in the process). If this is true of Jesus and the authority
that was His by (literal) divine right, then how much more is it true of
pragmatic Christians and the political power they seek? Have this mind among your
pragmatically-tempted selves.
Perhaps the most
common argument made against voting for a third party candidate (or no one at
all) is the “aiding the enemy” argument.
In conservative Christian circles for example, it is usually taken for
granted that a large majority of Democrats are completely unacceptable. If a particular Republican candidate is
pretty bad, he is usually thought of as being a less offensive choice than the
Democrat. And so it is common for
Christians in such circles to hold their noses and vote for the Republican. If a principled Christian in such circles were
to reject that pragmatic voting pattern, he would invariably be told that a
vote for some third party candidate (or a principled no-vote) would be one less
vote that the Democrat would need to overcome. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote
for the Democrat (whom, we all agree, makes Freddy Kruger on his worst day look
like Moses on his best).
The problem with this
argument is that it contains an erroneous presupposition. It tacitly assumes that the principled
Christian is ignoring some default responsibility that he has to vote for the
Republican. But the existence or
non-existence of such a responsibility is the very point in question (because
pragmatism is the very method being disputed).
Thus, this argument begs the entire question at issue. Consistent with my principled imperfectionism,
no Republican candidate has a default claim on my vote. A candidate, any candidate, must earn my
vote. No one has it by default. In other words, my default view of any given
election at t = 0 seconds is “none of the above.” Each candidate is then compared to my
principled criteria and either passes or fails that criteria. If more than one candidate passes,
non-ethical criteria (e.g., tactical criteria) can then be used to further narrow
the choices.
Moreover, the
Republican candidate cannot lose something he never had. This argument assumes that there was a point
in time, or at least some plausible scenario, in which the Democratic candidate
would have to overcome my vote for the Republican candidate. But if the Republican is not acceptable based
on my principled criteria, then he could never earn my vote and there is therefore
no scenario in which the Democrat would have to overcome such a vote. It is only by first assuming that my position
is wrong and that there is some pragmatic, default view in favor of the generic
Republican candidate that this argument can even get posited. So this argument assumes the very position it
was meant to prove and is therefore fallacious.
Conclusion
I
will conclude by pointing out that my view is a specific application of the way
we are to live all of life. In any given
situation or in order to evaluate any given concept/view, we must first satisfy
the moral requirements as revealed in the Bible. This is the hedge or boundary that we are
obliged to stay inside of. All options
that are inside the boundary are permissible options and we can choose among
them based on non-ethical criteria such as efficiency, expediency, simple
“personal taste”, etc. So whether we are
contemplating what to believe about subject X or what to do in situation Y, we
first figure out what is permissible according to biblical moral principles and
we then choose among those options based on other criteria. Thus, principled imperfectionsim is nothing
more than run-of-the-mill, faithful Christian living applied to the process of
choosing leaders. Nothing special to see
here. But the primacy of pragmatism
turns basic Christian living quite literally on its head by claiming that the
perceived and estimated consequences according to [insert pragmatic criterion
here] make up the most important hedge setter. Biblical ethics are then left to clean up the
details once we determine what is inside the hedge. And this special exception of reversed
importance and the relativization of ethical principles supposedly exists for,
of all things, the choice of those who make and work with the law!
In
the words of the great philosopher Mel Brooks from his academic tome Blazing
Saddles, “What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is a-goin’ on here?” This seems like the kind of “logic” that
gives lawyers a bad name. What possible
justification could there be for allowing this exception for this
activity? Do we really want to argue
that we should reverse our polarity here because the activity is so important
and the potential consequences are so significant? Sure, biblical ethical principles are good
enough to be the primary hedge setter for small to midsize matters. But do we really want to be seen in public
claiming that the very point at which we need to relativize our moral
principles so that pragmatism can do the primary and heavy lifting is the point
where things really get important and where we are choosing people who make,
execute, and adjudicate that which is (or at least is supposed to be) saturated
in moral principles?
Pragmatism (i.e., the
primacy of the pragmatic) is a secular philosophical theory that is arbitrary
and question begging at the most fundamental definitional level, it can be
applied in contradictory ways, it cannot meet its own standard, it leads to
various absurdities, and it is unbiblical.
But other than that, I suppose pragmatism itself could still be the best
of a bad lot.
Continue Reading Here