Isn't it time for them to sojourn out of here?

The Democratic Party's defense of the SCHIP bill would be ironic in light of their radical defense of all forms of abortion, except that it's completely unintentional, and thus nothing more than an addendum to the volumes of ideological blunders we've come expect from our friends in blue. Of course, Jim Wallis is upset, but then again Mr. Wallis makes the late Jerry Falwell look like a paragon of theological interpretation and rationalism.

The Human Side of Austrian Economics

Jim Fedako has a great post Forgotten at the Door on the Mises blog. He does a great job explaining the importance of recognizing individuals the way Austrian economists and libertarians do. For all the statist's talk about helping people, he is only helping one imagined group and hurting everyone else. As Ron Paul explains, we need not be concerned with women's rights, gay rights, or minority rights. There should only be individual rights for real individuals, not collective rights for imagined groups.

In addition to writing for Mises.org, Jim Fedako has an excellent blog of his own, Anti-Positivist. I have taken the liberty of adding it to the links list.

Exercising Liturgical Resistance

I met Steven Wedgeworth at RUF's Summer Conference in 2004. I was a freshman and he was on track to graduate in a year. Through the years we've kept in touch, and he is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, pursuing Masters of Divinity studies. If Cerberus had a list of heat-seekers, he'd be charted for sure. He also blogs at Wedgewords, and you'll find the link on the sidebar. Steven wrote a guest article on a topic related to some of the political discussion here, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.” - Never has a motto so stirred emotion and instilled action among conservative Christians. This slogan, combined with the Huguenot political tract Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, was highly influential in both the American war for independence from Great Britain and the second war for independence against the dreaded North.

Ok, that second title is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is undeniable that both major wars on America’s soil were deeply connected to religious as well as political though. The interesting, perhaps surprising fact, however, is that the slogan “Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God” finds its origin not in Calvin and Knox, but rather Jefferson and Franklin. Indeed, when one inspects Calvin’s political thought a very different conclusion is reached.

Vehemently anti-democratic, Calvin affirms a conservative theocratic position that states that the magistrate, regardless of personal piety or justice, has been instilled with genuine authority from God. Citing Romans 13:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, Calvin soundly declares that the King is a minister of God. In the face of protest, Calvin has this to say:

It may, however, be objected here and said, that kings and magistrates often abuse their power, and exercise tyrannical cruelty rather than justice. Such were almost all the magistrates, when this Epistle was written. To this I answer, that tyrants and those like them, do not produce such effects by their abuse, but that the ordinance of God ever remains in force, as the institution of marriage is not subverted though the wife and the husband were to act in a way not becoming them. However, therefore, men may go astray, yet the end fixed by God cannot be changed. (Commentary on 1 Peter 2:13)

On the other hand, Calvin was no mere absolutist, and he likewise turns the Scriptures back on the King to assert that since he is a minister of God, he is bound to God’s law. The State’s highest goal is to protect the proper worship of God and promote the justice and peace so that the gospel may be freely preached. Calvin was no secularist.

In Calvin’s political theory, the individual citizen expresses dissent primarily through prayer. He is not free to rebel or to engage in civil disobedience, however, he can bring imprecations against oppressive rulers. The fact that some may find this inadequate today perhaps says as much about the contemporary low view of prayer and worship as it does about Calvin’s failure of nerve.

He did, however, allow for the so-called “lesser magistrates” to defend the rights of the oppressed. This concept was picked up again by Samuel Rutherford in the 17th century when he wrote his apology for Scotland’s defensive wars against England, Lex Rex. Writing at the dawn the social-contract theories, Rutherford insisted that the King is in covenant with God, and thus upon violation of the terms of the covenant, the King forfeits his authority.
It is to be noted, though, that Rutherford does not simply call for citizen revolt, but rather he insists that the local officials have the right to enforce the law upon the King. Civilians are allowed the right of self-defense and are free to refuse religious coercion, but they are not given license to break the law.

Perhaps as we move to America we can gain a little perspective as to how rebellion was received. Political theory had advanced since Calvin’s day, and the very structure of society was undergoing major change. The colonies viewed themselves as having their own lesser magistrates, and thus as the King broke covenant, they were just in enforcing negative sanctions. The South was certainly of this mind in the 19th century, as each state understood itself to possess sovereignty.

The question of civil disobedience today, however, usually concerns individuals. In this regard we must emphasize Calvin’s seeming aristocratic disdain as actually quite in keeping with the Biblical concept of submission. As Peter’s first epistle shows, submitting to civil officers follows the same pattern of slaves submitting to masters and wives submitting to husbands (sorry for the context ladies! 1 Peter 3:1). To put a more positive emphasis on this, submission ought to be grounded in the Trinity, as the Son freely submits to the Father. This is not a question of ontology, but rather of order. So likewise our respective submitting and ruling ought to be characterized by love. This, of course, finds great difficulty in godless states.

When the magistrate is not ruling out of love, we are still to submit. We are always allowed the right of self-defense and religious dissent, but in the civil realm we are not to seize authority.

America’s governmental system provides us some assistant of course, and for this we can be thankful. In many respects, democracy makes the individual a type of lesser magistrate. He carries out his vengeance in the voting booth and even in those, often very effective, James Dobson mailing lists.

I would like to return to Calvin’s suggestion of prayer though and go further in expounding the theme of liturgical warfare, perhaps adding a little more “muscle” to our concept of spiritual resistance.

In order to find the notion of prayer as resistance satisfactory to our activist cravings, we should consider the way in which God grants vengeance (Rom. 12:19, Rev. 6:10). Paul, quoting Solomon, says that when we feed our enemies, we heap burning coals on their heads (Rom. 12: 20). What are we to make of this? Is this “spiritual talk”?

As one studies the Hebraic background for this, he quickly understands just how “earthy” this concept is. Psalm 3: 7 speaks of Yahweh breaking the teeth of the ungodly. Psalm 10: 2 asks God to cause the wicked men’s plots to backfire. Psalm 21 pleas for multigenerational judgment. Psalm 109: 6 even asks that Satan be set up as the wicked’s judge.

As we read the Revelation of St. John with this Hebraic understanding of liturgical warfare, we see that all heaven breaks loose when the saints bring their prayers before the Lord. The cosmos is engaged in warfare, and vengeance- real vengeance- is the Lord’s.

It is certainly true that good citizens are well within their rights to engage in lawful activism. We can make petitions, write congressman, even hold public gatherings, but when it comes to violent resistance against the government, Christians should conduct this sort of warfare in the Spirit. Our weapons are not carnal swords and guns. They are actually much more devastating. The Church holds the power over generations, and is entrusted with the baptism of the nations. It is not a political entity, but neither is it a-political. The Psalter is a great place to begin, and the congregation of the faithful is always marching are the Church militant on earth. Our message is more than political. It is cosmic.

There is another king, Jesus.

Endgames

The major topic of the 2008 Presidential Elections seems to be the war in Iraq, or issues related to that overarching argument, whether it's torture, the PATRIOT Act, or the concept of wire-tapping. Only two of the candidates for the Republican and Democrat parties voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, with individuals like Barack Obama not having served in the legislature at the time of the vote. Nearly everyone else has openly supported the war at some point in their careers, and many continue to support it still.

There are a variety of endgames which could occur, depending on which candidate is elected.

If a mainstream Republican wins, the war will most likely continue with a blue legislature demanding benchmarks. An unlikely event would involve an invasion of Iran. As much as the mainstreamers hate Iran, if they're mainstream they hopefully have enough political savvy to realize we all might riot at that point. If a mainstreamer wins, I'm going to practice tying bandanas on my face. Humor aside, this second option would almost guarantee that the Republican party would become unelectable for a time.

Mainstream Democrats are a bit harder to call. One pundit, and I forget who it was, suggested three ending scenarios for Democrats and Iraq. The second is that Democrat is elected on a withdrawal platform, and faced with all of the information about Iraq, switches positions and uses the benchmarks idea, but keeps our troops in the area (and perhaps even surges). This could really gum up the party, and it would be interesting to see what would happen to our blue friends as a result.

The second possibility is that a Democrat withdraws the troops and permits Iraq to have a civil war (and we just don't see enough of those these days). If troops are withdrawn, we can certainly expect this to happen. The resulting conflict would then be blamed on Democrats for withdrawing, not for Bush's invasion, and that would be a credible assessment. This would render the Democrats, like any Iran-invading Republicans, in a supremely unelectable position.

The third option, if I remember it correctly, is that Democrats would withdraw and Iraq would get it together. Since we've established a democracy (an irony in itself), it is highly unlikely that Iraqis would get behind a political tradition almost completely foreign to their regional history.

Other possibilities would involve breaking Iraq up into three districts for Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia Muslims. Dennis Kucinich, the other Congressman in the running, also has a somewhat detailed plan for withdrawing.

When it comes to the war, I have a harder time accepting Ron Paul's approach than any of his other ideas. He advocates a quick troop withdrawal. He thinks that our military presence keeps lesser extremists in check, but at the same time it keeps Iraqi politicians from taking steps towards independence or even decent responsibility. If we withdraw, Paul suggests, the Iraqis will have to govern themselves because of the grizzly alternative. I'm not sure that this concept is present in the minds of the Iraqi public. Between dictatorial rule for a couple of decades and Islamic traditions that usually have monarchic/theocratic rule, I doubt self-interest will enter into the equation for your average Iraqi citizen.

In short, I'm still not sold on any Iraq war plan. I don't like the idea of staying there, but there are a lot of risks involved in leaving. I do think we invaded a sovereign nation under false allegations, or failing those WMD-charges, poor rationale. While the functional history might judge George W. Bush as a decent president for offing a dictator, ideological types like myself will still be nauseated for quite some time.

Exploitation of the Majority

I saw this article on the Mises Institute's blog:
Why Government Can't Make Decisions Rationally by Ben O'Neill

O'Neill does a great job of explaining why government decisions are always biased in the favor of small groups, particularly when it comes to cutting spending. Since every government action involves using tax revenues for things that benefits the population in non-uniform ways, every government action is really a redistribution of wealth. Since taxes are collected from almost everyone and most government programs primarily affect a much smaller group, the people on whom the program will have the greatest effect is that smaller group. As O'Neill points out, these people will be far more vocal about decisions concerning the program, and the government will give their views disproportionate consideration.

This mechanism explains the myriad of government programs that are of little advantage to most of the population. This is what is really going on with all the "special interests" that politicians always talk about. Since programs that take from the many and give to the few are allowed (even if forbidden by the Constitution), it is only rational for every small group to use their disproportionate influence to profit from the political system.

The proper functions of government such as national defense and police protection primarily benefit the entire populous. Even these cases, however, every change to expenditure or allocation will disproportionately affect some group(s), and they will be disproportionately vocal about these changes. Opening or closing a military base has a greater effect on the area immediately around the base than on the nation at large. When considering a proposal to decrease the size of a police force, the effect on the police officers will be given disproportionate weight over the issues of public safety and cost.

This over-representation of all small groups does have an advantage: it helps prevent the exploitation of minorities. The problem, of course, is that it has pulled us too far in the other direction, to the point that the majority is exploited though a plethora of government programs that redistribute wealth. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from both extremes, but the parts that limit the government are usually ignored. This is the logical outcome of allowing any latitude in the interpretation of the Constitution. The state makes decisions that increase the power and authority of the state. The three-branch system helps restrain this, but the President will nominate and the Senate will confirm judges who will deliver rulings that are advantageous to the Executive and Legislative branches. In-fighting slows the process down, but the direction of the drift remains the same, toward statism. The only way to stop or reverse this trend is for the population to use every election to insist that the Constitution be strictly upheld.

Profit

For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?
- Matthew 16:26, NKJV

I haven't seen Micheal Moore's latest film, SiCKO, but I have paid a great deal of attention to Moore's promotion of his video, whether it's his mini-war with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, or his discussion with Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown program. I have enjoyed how much he's drawn attention to some of the dangers of the health care system in the United States. He's done us all a favor in putting the conversation back in daily rotation, but he hasn't gone so far as to make that discussion an honest one.

Moore's proposal is that, given the corrupt nature of the health insurance system in the United States, we should move to a tax-funded, single-payer health care system provided by the government. A universal health care system is necessary for providing treatment for all Americans, including those who either cannot afford health insurance or those who do not purchase it (I met one of the latter the other day).

Moore continually talks about how health insurance companies are profit-driven organizations who care little for the well-being of the consumer or the solvency of his or her personal finances. Solvency is the ability of an individual or organization to effectively pay for debts. The filmmaker points to the number of people who have gone bankrupt paying for medical care through health insurance companies.

While there are a number of issues to address with the health care system, I want to focus on the increasingly popular idea that profit is bad for the consumer. Profit, when restricted to the financial meaning, simply means the money a corporation or individual has left over after a financial engagement, when everything is taken care of, including debts like salaries and other financial expenses. Health insurance providers, like any other corporation, seek to turn a profit as they try to meet the needs for people. For Moore, this is bad.

But are profits really bad? Any economist will answer in the negative. Business types believe that profit is not only the ultimate reason behind why something is done, but the motivation for doing the best job possible. I suggest that this is precisely the case.

Profits themselves are vulnerable either to taxation or choice. The government of a municipality, state, or nation may tax income and thus, profits are diminished. Profits are also damaged by people seeking business elsewhere. Seems simple enough.

I will get to a point, by the way. Please put up with the economic discussion.

But the idea of profit can also be harmed in the same way. Our governments can provide services, using our taxes, in an apparent non-profit sort of way. But the most evil way of destroying the virtue of profit is to eliminate choice.

This is part of the reason why the health care system is flawed. Because our government says that employers must provide benefits like health care, dental care, maternity leave, etc., employers are forced to use part of a company's income to meet insurance premiums. Employers often make decisions for the whole of the company as well. Because the choice of providing insurance has been written into law, the employer has no choice to make but take sizable portions of income and fund health care. In turn, this negatively affects the employee, who now has no choice in which insurance company to use, or whether health care insurance is desirable in the first place.

By eliminating all of these choices, people lose the money they would otherwise receive in the form of salary or wage income. They could use their money at their discretion to buy alternative policies or not buy a policy at all. It's up to the individual. And these individuals can proceed to make more choices in which competing insurance companies are affected, which in turn try to make better choices in terms of providing insurance. Did I mention that people have more money?

Profits are undercut when choices are made for people by levels of bureaucracy. So the problem, Michael, is not really profit, but those that make decisions for other people. The concept of profit drives innovation.

I mentioned that I was discussing profit in the economic sense, but the verse I quoted helps us understand that profit is much more than some financial black ink. Stephen considers Christianity to be a form of hedonism, not like John Piper's Christian Hedonism particularly, but a hedonism in the sense that the investments and abstinences of Christianity lead to the salvation of the soul. Jesus isn't using "profit" as the "p-word" that Moore discuss, but a way of understanding what salvation is. It does profit the Christian to place faith in Jesus, to search the Scriptures, and live in the community of the Church.

There are other things I'd like to say on economics as I increasingly think about that particular science, although I think I shall leave that for later.

Theyocracy and Secular Protestantism

David Hart:

We call upon the state to shield us from vice or to set our vices free, because we do not have a culture devoted to the good, or dedicated to virtue, or capable of creating a civil society that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of subjective will. This is simply what it is to be modern.

Why do we have wars on drugs, poverty, terrorism, even a "war on want" in the UK? Maybe it's because we haven't the foggiest idea of how to beat those things without a government, and wars, in the end, are the only things governments have ever been able to win. Or maybe it's because we have no devotion to good or virtue in ourselves. Whatever it is, it's all too easy to assume the problem has little to do with us, and demand They do something about it.

This, I think, is where Christians go wrong. Of course there is a problem; conservatives and liberals agree on that. So some fight abortion and some fight poverty; but in the end they agree on where the problem lies, and too often we think it lies with the government. We would do well to adopt the mindset of J. R. R. Tolkien:

If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

From a letter to Christopher Tolkien, 29 November 1943.

We need not adopt Tolkien's premodern anarchism in order to take his point (but it might not be so bad if we did). But I fear that the Christian response to Tolkien's Theyocracy usually takes no stronger a form than a call to increase the moral character of They, whether by ending abortion or being more tolerant or whatever tomorrow's big push is. But Christians still collapse into writing government with a capital G, to use Tolkien's evocative phrase. Does the church have nothing better to say to the world?

I would suggest, if I were asked, that Christianity has a lot to say about government, but it says it by speaking to the individual. Of course Christianity is able to change cultures and social systems, but we cannot conceive of this without seeing it through the lens of Christianity's changing of individuals. Otherwise we have adopted the mindset that asks the government to answer each new problem that comes along, and too often They will answer it with a war (whether we convince them to end abortion or not). Orthodox thinker Fr. Stephen Freeman contrasts the Christian call to the individual with "the default position of America" which he says is "secular protestantism."

I say this is the default position and mean by it - that without effort and care - we all find ourselves thinking and acting out of a secular protestant mindset. Of course, I need to offer a definition for my terms. By secular protestantism (and I mean no insult to Protestants by the term) I mean a generalized belief in God - but a God who is removed from the world (hence the term secular). Secularism is not the belief that there is no God - but the belief that God belongs to a religious sphere and the rest of the world is neutral in some independent sense. I add the term “protestantism” to it, because, generally, our culture gives lip-service to protestant foundations, and because Protestant Churches generally understand themselves as relatively human organizations, the true Church being something in the mind of God. (I will grant exceptions to my definition and understanding).

With such a mindset, of course, whatever religious sense one has is generally a matter of effort, organization, control, marketing - in short - religious life is no different from every other aspect of life. It is separated and defined only by its purpose. Such religion is, of course, not Christianity at all, even though it may strive to do good secular work for Christ. True Christianity is a life lived in union with Christ and all that we do that has value is what we do in union with Him.

Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox can argue about what it means to be and do "in union with Him", but the point remains that, unless Christians conceive of their political task as one involving, in the words of N. T. Wright, "a God with muddy boots and dirty hands, busy at the center of the mess so that all may be cleaned up and sorted out", they will always be just another political party, albeit one that also does the religious thing. Likewise Christians must conceive of their political task as one involving a changed individual -- not changed in the sense of believing in Intelligent Design and opposing Planned Parenthood (not to pronounce on whether those things are good or bad), but changed by union with Christ -- before, and as the means of enacting, a changed government.

If I may co-opt the above quote from David Hart, the church's call to the individual (Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life) is the only way to a culture devoted to the good, dedicated to virtue, the only One capable of creating a civil society that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of subjective will. An all-too-secular protestantism cannot answer the pull of Theyocracy unless it works out this truth in its individual and collective belief and practice.

Well, I had to get in my political rant for the month.

Iraq and Technical Difficulties

What do you get when you cross a longtime legislator, a cheap audio setup, and a questionable war?

You get my new favorite Washington Post article. What could have been just another Republican leaving the pro-war camp was instead the most useful, moving public appearance by an equally public official since Howard Dean let loose.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) preached through his entire collection of talking points without delivering a single clear point or complete sentence, thanks to malevolently malfunctioning audio equipment that winked on and off throughout the entire presentation.

The venerable Senator made such profound statements as "I do believe it's fair to say that (long audio gap, series of thumps) to tell you that there are very few wars that (audio gap, more thumps, whispered expletive, thumps)." Not content with such relatively commonplace comments, Domenici went so far as to claim that the war "was (audio gap)."

The multiple gaps and mysterious thumps obscured and deterred whatever message New Mexico's finest may have been trying to communicate, but we heartily applaud him anyway. If we are to truly move forward on the issue of war in Iraq, we must all look to whispered expletives and awkward silences to take the debate to the place it should have been all along.

"NPR, meet Toby Keith; Toby Keith, NPR."

Yesterday I heard a rather amusing piece of broadcasting. NPR's show Fresh Air contained a review of Toby Keith's new album. I suppose the people at NPR were trying to prove that they are accepting of all kinds of music and ideas, but the result was rather comical. As a frequent NPR listener who disagrees with its prevailing political philosophy and as a southerner who doesn't listen to country music, I feel ideally positioned to observe this collision of two worlds with which I am familiar but of which I am not really a part. If you are in a similar position, you might also find it entertaining.

Democracy, If We Like the People Who Are Elected

I have been writing a lot about politics lately, but I do intend to address other topics, just not right now. My apparent obsession is probably the result of my recent obsession with public radio. Thanks to the internet, I can listen to a continuous mix of NPR, PRI, APM, and the BBC. New Hampshire Public Radio is one of my favorite feeds. The recent events in Gaza and the resulting political shakeup have gotten a lot of coverage.

In case you are unfamiliar with these events, I will attempt to provide a brief summary based on various Wikipedia articles: The Palestinian National Authority governs two area, Gaza and the West Bank, which are separated by Israel. The two largest political organizations in the Palestinian National Authority are Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is the more secular, moderate organization; Hamas is Islamist and radical. Both have armed branches; Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and the EU. President of the PNA, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), is a member of Fatah. In the last elections, in January 2006, Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council with the highest percentage of the popular vote (44.45%). In response, Israel and the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN) instituted economic sanctions against the PNA, including Israel withholding tax revenue. During 12-14 June 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza. In response, President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government. The United States and Israel have shown support for Abbas and have resumed aid to the PNA.

Days later, on 19 June, Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert met with President Bush. Their joint press event focused on the situation in Palestine. Bush made several comments concerning democracy. This is part of one of his responses:

It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy, or a potential Palestinian democracy. And what that should say clearly to people all around the world is that we are involved with an ideological conflict that is a monumental conflict. And those of us that believe in liberty and human rights and human decency need to be bound together in common cause to fight off these extremists, and to defeat them.

You can only defeat them so much militarily. We have to also defeat them with a better idea. It's a better idea that's being practiced by our friend, Israel. It's called democracy. And that's the fundamental challenge facing this century: Will we have the courage and the resolve necessary to help democracy defeat this ideology. And I will tell the Prime Minister, once again, I'm deeply committed to this cause, whether it be in Iraq, or Lebanon, or the Palestinian Territory, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and around the world.

In response to another question, Bush said the following:

First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. Secondly, we recognize that it was Hamas that attacked the unity government. They made a choice of violence. It was their decision that has caused there to be this current situation in the Middle East, about which we'll be spending some time discussing.

Matt, what you're seeing now in this part of the 21st century is going to be played out over time. This is an ideological struggle. We're looking at the difference between a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace, that want a better way for their people, that believe in democracy -- they need help to build the institutions necessary for democracy to flourish, and they need help to build security forces so that they can end up enforcing what most of the people want, which is to live in peace -- and that's versus a group of radicals and extremists who are willing to use violence, unspeakable violence sometimes, to achieve a political objective.

In the first response, Bush talks of the need "to fight off the extremists," but extremists are represented in a democracy, too. He seems to working from the idea that in the Middle East there are a few small groups of people who want to establish Islamist states, but the vast majority of people want to be free and want others to be free. Earlier, he refers to "the moderate people, the ordinary Palestinians." The trouble is that the data does not support this view. Almost half of Palestinians voted for a party that wants to destroy Israel and institute Islamic law. To a significant extent, Palestine is a land of extremists.

In the first paragraph of the second response, Bush says something very telling. He says, "First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. " This is all literally true, but the implication that the President is more legitimate than the Hamas-led government is false. He could just as accurately have said, "First of all, we recognize the Parliament of all the Palestinian people, and that's the Hamas-led Parliament. They were elected; They're the Parliament." This suggests that Bush only recognizes governments and parts of governments that he likes. This is a very troubling policy for a man who claims to be spreading democracy to hold. More troubling domestically is the suggestion that Bush considers heads of state to be more important and better representations of the people than legislative bodies. This may explain Bush's extensive use of signing statements, but that is another topic all together.

In the next paragraph, Bush refers to "a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace" as the good guys. Democracy doesn't only represent those who believe in peace. If democracy only represented those who believe in never using violence, then Bush wouldn't be in office. In fact, almost everyone around the world believes in both peace and violence. The disagreement is over when and how to use violence and what kinds of peace are acceptable. Hamas wants peace too; they just want to destroy Israel first.

A couple of times Bush mentions democracy as opposed to another ideology. He never clearly states what this is, but from the context it appears that he is talking about extremism. Extremism is not itself an ideology, however. Islamism (activist or political Islam) is an ideology. I assume that Bush knows that Islamism is the ideology he is opposing but couldn't say anything like "We will eliminate Islamic fundamentalism." The problem is that democracy is not the opposite of extremism or Islamism nor does it oppose them. Democracy by itself allows both to flourish and provides representation to both.

I am not saying I support Hamas. I do not. I am not even saying there is no hope for a peaceable Palestinian state. I just think that we need to be honest about what we want other governments to look like. Bush's goal is not democracy in the Middle East. He wants a Middle East that won't attack Israel or the United States and won't build nukes, which is a fine goal, but it is not democracy. The best way to get a Middle East that won't attack us is probably to leave them alone, as Ron Paul suggests. The existence of Israel and our alliance with them may be a problem for this, however, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to many Islamists. I am not sure it would even be possible to sufficiently cut ties with Israel to convince Islamists that we are not supporting Israel. Ron Paul has spoken of avoiding entangling alliances, but I don't know what he would do with our existing alliances.

On a lighter note, I have a couple of suggestions for what we could call what Bush is actually trying to spread, since it is not actually democracy:

• Philiarchy: Government by those we like
• Inferiocracy: Government by those who recognize that they have to do what better nations like the United States say to do

Please comment if you can think of any more appropriate terms or if you think I have been unfair to Bush in any way. I want to avoid attacking straw men or taking cheap shots at anyone.

The Danger of National Conceit

The mythology of the United States, those ideas that form the nation's self-image, includes the idea that the United States is the greatest society that has ever existed or will ever exist, although it will probably go on in greatness forever. This is accepted as an obvious fact by politicians from both major parties and by the general public. Questioning this is considered heresy. If any newly-elected senator said, "I would like to thank the voters of this state giving me the opportunity to proudly serve a pretty good country," his supporters would be appalled and wonder if he thought they had just elected him to the Canadian parliament.

Supporting this idea that the United States is the greatest nation of all time are other similar assumptions. Most Americans take for granted that democracy is the greatest political ideal and that the American brand of democracy is the best possible system of government. It is certainly better than all those crazy systems with prime ministers and unscheduled elections that no one really understands. Americans also take for granted that the ideals on which the nation was supposedly founded are the greatest of all ideals and that America is the greatest possible expression of those ideals.

I do not know how long this idea has dominated the way the United States views itself, but it is almost certain that this has not always been the case. The founders and their contemporaries were likely optimistic about their attempt to form a nation, but they would have been fools to think that it was the greatest one on earth. If not for an apathetic British populous and advantageously exploiting centuries of animosity between the French and English, the United Sates would not have won independence. For the majority of the time since the United States gained independence, the United Kingdom was more powerful. Elements of the myth of greatness likely arose with the idea of Manifest Destiny. It would be interesting to look at historical documents (letters, speeches, etc.) to see when and how this idea developed and gained popularity. I will leave any additional historical speculation or research to Daniel. As for contemporary influences, I believe that the emphasis on self-confidence and positive reinforcement in today's society has helped to reinforce this concept. People are taught to believe that they and everything they are a part of are the best some category and that category is the one that really matters.

This actually points to part of the reason that rational people accept this idea so completely. We judge ourselves by our own standards, and we assume that people in other countries are using the same standards. This is why we are confused when other countries don't like us, and we think that it must be because they are envious. The idea that America is the best is so deeply rooted that when we start slipping in one of our criterion of greatness we adjust the criterion.

I don't know exactly how other countries view themselves or us, but I assume that most are not so conceited as to think of themselves as the greatest nation of all time. Last summer I visited Scotland, and as soon as I got off the airplane I was amused to see posters welcoming me "to the best small country in the world." These were just tourism posters, of course; more serious Scottish self-evaluation is far less exalted. Some countries probably see themselves as the best at certain things or in certain categories, but few if any see themselves the way we do.

By this point, I have likely infuriated some people (if anyone is actually reading this), and such people may have quit reading, but in case any have made it this far, a few qualifications are in order. I am not saying that I do not think America is really great. America is great. It is the most powerful nation in the world. It has the highest GDP (nominal, PPP) of any nation in the world (although the total for the EU is higher by most measures). It has a good system of government. I really like it here. I like capitalism and the republican form of govern. The United States may be the greatest nation (whatever that means) in the world at the moment, but it is far too soon to make any historical judgments. The U.S. is still in its rookie season or sophomore season compared to the careers of the great empires of history. It is also foolish to claim that certain American ideals are superior to competing ideals in every way. God did not give ancient Israel a republic with three branches of government. Chances are that for some future society a different system will work much better than ours could.

Regardless of how great America may actually be, it is very dangerous to accept America's greatness as an absolute fact. For one, thinking that we are better than everyone else is a good way to make them all hate us. More importantly, accepting any uncertain principle as an absolute leads to a temptation to wrap it up with true absolutes. This is largely the cause of the misdirected passions of the religious right. If Christians accept certain political principles as absolutes, then it is logical to promote them with the same unwavering determination with which the gospel should be promoted. I am not saying that Christians should not be involved in or passionate about the political process. Christians should not, however, put any political ideal ahead of the gospel or anywhere near it. The gospel and all of Scripture should inform political decisions, but politics must never be made into a gospel. This is true for both domestic and international politics. God is neither a Republican nor an American. Just as Christians should not support any political party with absolute zeal, they should not support the spread of American political ideals overseas with absolute zeal. Instead, they should carefully and constantly examine the entirety of both in the light of the Scriptures.

If we are to stop thinking of America as the absolutely greatest nation of all time, we must develop a new image of our nation. I believe it is safe to apply the instructions given in Romans 12:3 to our nation as well as to ourselves: "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (ESV). I believe Philippians 2:3 is also applicable here: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (ESV). Sober judgment and humility will serve us well as we think about ourselves and our nation.

The Bizarre Idea of Nationhood

Yesterday I was thinking about something closely related to what Daniel talked about in "...liberty and justice for all." Most notions about foreign policy depend on the concept of the sovereignty of independent nations. To an extent, the United States has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable under such a view. First, we did so through fairly covert means such as installing friendly dictators during the Cold War. More recently, the actions have become more overt (Afghanistan and Iraq), but they are now pursued under the cover of rhetoric about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Whether or not this rhetoric is true and these wars are just is not my concern here. The point is that in spite of what our actions might indicate, we still claim that we believe in national sovereignty. This was the primary justification for the first war with Iraq. Iraq invaded another sovereign nation, Kuwait, and the U.S.-led coalition rushed to Kuwait's aid. This idea of sovereignty is also behind much of what our beloved Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

The idea is generally that every nation, regardless of its form of government or military strength, has the right to rule itself and control everything that happens inside its own borders. We attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwaiti territory. If instead Kuwaiti military forces moved into Iraqi territory, and Iraq then obliterated them, we probably would have left Iraq alone. Clearly, territorial boundaries are terribly important to the idea of a nation and national sovereignty. It seems that the United Nations wants nations to get along and stay out of each other's territory. Starting a war to gain more land is considered unacceptable behavior.

The problem with all of this is that throughout history, national boundaries have been in constant flux. One empire after another conquered and ruled the Middle East. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European borders have shifted many times, and parts of Europe such as Italy and Germany had no central government for much of their history. (I am sure that Daniel can provide details and corrections as necessary concerning the history of national territories.) The current national boundaries that the UN tries to preserve are relatively new and completely artificial.

Just because one nation now controls a particular piece of land, there is no objective reason to believe that it has an absolute right to that land. The ethic group(s) that live there and the government ruling there probably gained their current position by force. If military might determines who gets to live in and rule a particular place, then any nation that can conquer a territory should be allowed to. The conquering nation has as much right to be there as the conquered. Often when people set out to draw up new national boundaries (after major wars, for example), they do so based on where ethnic groups live, but no people group is truly indigenous. Any definition of a people group and any determination of what groups deserve their own nations are also artificial.

It seems that the UN has decided that peace is better than war so the best thing to do in most cases is to maintain the status quo. This may be the best policy, since one of the most radical attempts to change ownership of territory in modern times, Zionism, has led to Israel being in almost constant conflict since it was established. (I am not making any value judgement concerning Israel's statehood. I am only pointing out the result of drastic changes in territorial lines.) If war is sometimes just, then there could be situations in which a war to gain territory could also be justified, if the existing allotment of territory is sufficiently unjust. Therefore, there are times in which the status quo should be changed.

All this is really to say that the idea of a government having sovereignty over a particular piece of land is a rather strange idea. The relationship between a government and a nation is also a strange thing. The same nation can have a series of radically different governments, but it is still viewed as the same nation. However, a government is the thing that binds a group of people and an area of land together to make a nation. Without a government, there is no one to determine who is a citizen or legal resident and where the borders lie.

It seems that the only ways to rationally explain nationhood is that either it is a totally artificial construct held together by force or it was instituted by God. The first possibility is one in which might makes right and there can be no moral judgements about the actions of any state. This may be an accurate model of history, but it is not one that many people would like. The United States could police the world as we saw fit, but we would be in the same moral position as Nazi Germany as they sought to conquer the world. It would also mean that states are no different from any other organization. Al Qaeda, Microsoft, the United States, the UN, the NRA, Enron, and the Boy Scouts of America would only differ in degree and style of influence. Two warring nations would be the same as two feuding families murdering each other.

If nations and governments do fit into unique categories, those categories have to be created by God. If God did not establish nations and governments, then there can be no moral obligation for a citizen to obey the government, even if that government is a democracy because even a democracy is artificial and coerces the minority by force. Of course, God does legitimize governments. He commands us to obey (and pray for) those in authority and to pay our taxes. He says he has established all authority. The Bible does not say much about territorial issues or what makes a nation, however. The general idea is how to live in whatever situation one finds oneself, and there is not much about how to behave in a situation where one has a voice in government, or what the role of government ought to be. I have tried to develop a Biblical political philosophy, but I have not completed it. If I ever finish it, it will be included in To Attempt. Of course the Bible does directly discuss certain issues of government in the Old Testament as they relate to the theocratic monarchy, but it is unwise to use such examples as guides for any government that does not have God directly speaking to guide it. This is not a definite implication of Romans 13:1; but it seems if God has established authorities, and those under them are to obey them, then other authorities should not interfere with their ability to govern by attacking them or invading their territory. Perhaps the Bible does endorse a general policy of noninterventionism and maintaining the status quo.

I suppose the application of all of this is to keep God's commands to obey authority in mind, to remember that He is the source of government, and to realize the foolishness of all the humanist rhetoric that is spouted concerning nationhood. Without God's establishment of government, there would be no earthly authority, only anarchy. In a materialistic world, nationhood is bizarre; with God, it's really pretty simple.

...liberty and justice for all.

Ben highlighted how many cords of life intersect, inform, and influence each other. My first post at Cerberus is not quite religious, although the conclusions are hopefully from an increasing application of Scripture to my worldview, namely the distinction between Creator and creature, and the idea that all human beings are crafted in our Creator's image.

Last night, Republican nomination hopeful Ron Paul appeared on The Colbert Report, unlike several other candidates warned to stay away from the program. Stephen Colbert, who does his best to satirize and emulate Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly (whom Colbert affectionately calls "Papa Bear"), grilled the Texas congressman with the same battery of questions raised against anyone questioning Bush II's "War on Terror." Colbert insisted that traditional American freedoms should only be defended when Americans were free from terrorist threats. "I don't want to be free and dead!" Colbert argued.

Congressman Paul countered, "I want to be alive and free, and I think we can do that," and earned roaring applause from the audience.

Benjamin Franklin warned that "those who surrender their freedom for security deserve neither." I first encountered this statement in high school, before the September 11 attacks. After the War on Terror was underway, and the hideous PATRIOT Act was passed, not many dared to question whether the Bush regime had impaired American freedoms to protect them.

What Ron Paul hopes to do as a President is lead citizens into national security by taking seriously these crucial freedoms. He does not draw that imaginary circle around Americans and suggest that the truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to only citizens of the U.S., but to all other human beings. At the core of his platform, and of the libertarian philosophy of government, is the idea that peace is best preserved by using our rights such as free speech and self-determination and by respecting those same exact rights of other nations and and other peoples.

The United States, particularly in the Middle East, is guilty of abusing these sovereign principles of other nations. Paul recognizes that the interventionist policies of the last half-century have put our nation in a dangerous situation. At the center of most of these policies is a twisted self-interest that denies the same rights to others which we seek to protect for ourselves. The solution to these problems is not more of the same, but a return to the classic ideals of our founding fathers who recognized these truths.

In the early 1950s, Iran nationalized the various oil corporations in the country. Naturally, Great Britain and the United States were opposed, and in 1953 through a pair of coups, one failed and one successful, installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Iranian monarch, the Shah. The official rhetoric for the coups was not economic, however, and Eisenhower continued Truman's ideas of "containment." The new Shah would be a safeguard against communism in that region. To ensure democracy, Pahlavi establish single-party rule and established government tests for any Muslim scholars hoping to become mullahs. The United States also collaborated with Pahlavi to aid him in developing nuclear weapons, thus expanding the anti-communist arsenal.

When the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979-80, which was understandably hostile towards the former Shah and ousted him, Pahlavi fled to several countries. President Jimmy Carter ignored the Iranian demands for justice by providing him brief asylum and medical aid. In a completely unjustifiable, but understandable, move, Iranians took American hostages. The tortured Americans had their own freedoms violated by a nation which had endured nearly three decades of quisling governments denying rights of self-determination.

When Ronald Reagan became President in the 1980s, he did not change the fundamental tune of American foreign policy in the Middle East, but instead turned to a new ally, Saddam Hussein. The Reagan administration encouraged Iraq to go to war against Iran, which it did with help from the United States, including arms and the ability to manufacture more potent, unorthodox weapons. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were allowed to tour advanced weapons production sites.

It should be noted that most of the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein was committed during the presidencies of both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, or the twelve years from 1980 to 1992. The crime for which Hussein was executed, the gassing of 154 Kurds, occurred in 1982. In 1982, the Reagan administration dropped Iraq from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states so that American finances could work their magic. Sean Hannity, when he cross-examined Ron Paul about his negative comments about the Iraq war, at the same time suggested that the war was fought to bring a genocidal maniac to justice, that this maniac worked alone, and that he certainly worked against the interests of the United States government.

Only when Saddam invaded Kuwait and international pressure escalated did the United States turn against their former ally.

After September 11th, the United States invaded Iraq for reasons that are numerous and misleading, and all of which probably reveal that the current War in Iraq is unjust. That will be discussed perhaps later, perhaps not.

The past decades of political theater and statecraft have left one nation in shambles and our own nation disillusioned. In such times it is almost impossible to look towards an honest and hopeful future. But in such cases we should remember some of our favorite truths of the past. It is best for the safety of the United States and the liberty of its people that elected officials mind our nation's business and not meddle in the affairs of vastly different cultures and political situations. As you think about candidates for the 2008 Presidential race, see whether opportunist candidates would continue these bizarre foreign policies of intervention or the wisdom of peace.