There is a legend that says that Ben Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention what he had helped to create. He is said to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." While the Federalists who crafted and argued for the Constitution were satisfied that the government it established (or reformed) was the best that they were likely to get, they were under no illusion that it was indestructible. Not least among their apprehensions was the fear of self-destruction due to lack of virtue among its citizens.
How Important is Preserving Our Federal Republic?
It is true that there are a significant number of people in every election who talk and possibly act as though the survival of the constitutional system is in immediate danger. There is also a continuing debate over which elections, historically, have most threatened the survival of the republic. It is not even uncommon for people anxious about a particular election to agree on the dire view of its stakes yet disagree on the source of the danger. None of this detracts from the facts that the preservation of the Constitution is a task that falls to every successive generation, or that our nation faces crises from time to time that disproportionately increase the risk to the constitution of a particular election for federal office.
In view of the opinions I have expressed on this election and the last one, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I think we are in one of those times. Although I do not necessarily expect the crisis that I believe I see to progress as rapidly as some expect, nevertheless I do think that action is urgently needed to prevent things from spiralling out of control. This is not a call to panic: panic creates its own dangers. Rather, it is a call to think calmly and clearly about the danger, so that we can devise an effective response.
One of the challenges of political competition in general and partisan polarization in particular is that it is inefficient as a means of bringing about the level of consensus needed for collective action. It can even prevent a consensus from forming on important issues. The good news is that how we think about a candidate or election is generally more important than what we think. More helpful still, the unchanging nature of some of the main dangers to the republic makes it easier for us to apply much of the same reasoning from one election and candidate to the next.
Civic Virtue
Let us turn our attention, then, to the issue of virtue. There has long been a distinction recognized among Christians between civic and religious virtue. The idea is not that religious virtue (read "biblical standards") is unnecessary for a society to survive and thrive, but that certain virtuous traits are both more common and more immediately necessary for a society's temporal success than some of those virtues that are central to life in the church or to preparation for the next life. In fact, thought and talk about civic virtue is sometimes packaged in such a way as to bypass religious objections and appeal to a broad audience. In turn, the thought of non-Christians and non-theists about virtue can be processed through a biblical filter and the good in that thought separated from the bad.
Now, different forms of government require different combinations of traits, or civic virtues, to function. So for instance, there are particular ways of thinking about the kind of virtue required in a monarch or an aristocrat because of their role in government. Likewise, there are corresponding ways of thinking about the virtue needed from those who are living under the government of a monarchy or aristocracy.
In a republic, the distinction between ruler and ruled is less sharp. Thus, the citizens in a republic need the virtues required for effective self-government. This means that the category of civic virtue known as republican virtue (or virtues, in the plural) must be developed in and applied to all areas of life, not only those that are specifically considered political. Put simply, even apart from strictly religious considerations, we must expect a more comprehensive virtue in the life of citizens in a republic than in the life of citizens under a different form of government. There is still a higher standard for government officials even in a republic, but every citizen must be considered a potential government official for the purpose of civic virtue. This virtue ought to be expressed when voting in particular, even if one never holds or is considered for office.
American Republican Virtue
Now, when people hear about republican virtue in a US context, their minds likely go quickly to the currently popular debate over whether the United States was basically a good or bad country when it was started. However, this question is not as important for religion or philosophy as it might appear at first. The ability to think clearly about the virtue a society needs for its circumstances and about how to develop that virtue does not entirely depend on a certain baseline of virtue already existing in individuals. The Roman republic, for example, had been described since Augustine as deeply, fundamentally immoral, although the personal qualities that had led to its military and political successes for half a millennium were carefully and sympathetically studied. The American founders still found Rome's example worthy of imitation, though they had the benefit of hindsight to know that it was capable of improvement.
Whether the American founders followed Rome or Britain too closely or not closely enough is a topic that serious people can debate. What no one can dispute is their rejection of the monarchical system of government that Rome transformed into or that the US left behind upon throwing off British rule. In their thoughts about how to establish and maintain a rule of law on representative principles, then, they had the motivation necessary to meaningfully pursue political outcomes that the vast majority of Americans still want and to avoid outcomes that the vast majority of Americans still do not want. The role that they saw of virtue in maintaining representative government and the rule of law is one that really should not be doubted.
However, in any republic, there will be some difference of opinion on issues of morality. In a nation with no established religion and no religious test for office, opinions on the basis and content of morality can be expected to increasingly diverge. That doesn't mean that a basic consensus on some major issues is impossible, only that it will be complex and difficult to achieve or maintain. The willingness to attempt the work that is needed for consensus is itself a test of character. The success or failure of that project is closely tied to the success or failure of the constitutional system, and with it of many of the liberties and protections it guarantees. When you think of a change of constitutional systems, you should not think in terms of the peaceful transition of power between presidents and congresses: think more of assassinations, revolution, civil war, quite likely genocide. Those are the physical and moral stakes.
How to Care for the Republic
Proper care for our civic culture is the best way to prevent these evils and to mitigate their harm if they do occur. There are at least three ways we should do this:
1. Embrace politics as an arena where moral action is required. It is true that some believe that voting and holding government office are inherently evil. Even some who would not go that far believe that war or capital punishment are inherently immoral. They should be free to hold and express those views, but their views should be challenged.
For those who do not hold such views, however, the case for non-involvement is less tenable. If they can not yet reach intelligent, principled political stands that lead to action, they should at least be reading and studying with that kind of action as a goal. If you can not stand the options that exist, make new ones. If you can not support anyone who is running for office, run yourself.
2. Respect the importance of politics as a tool for moral instruction. Politics is not only an activity for practicing virtue: it is also an activity for learning virtue. Teaching others the moral knowledge you have and seeking moral knowledge even from opponents and those with whom you disagree should be your habits. This is both how moral consensuses form and how policy is made in the absence of a consensus.
3. Accept the moral limits of political activity. Politics is not going to change people's basic character. It is not going to transform their entire views on morality. If it does, that is a bad thing. Politics is separate from religion for a reason, and a politically based religion is the worst kind, in terms of its effect on citizenship and society. Bring morality into politics: don't bring politics into morality.
What happens if these deep differences continue? What happens if, for example, there is not a religious revival that changes the views and lives of a decisive number of citizens? Based on the theory and history of political systems, we can expect republican virtue to decline to the point that republican government is no longer possible. Untrustworthy people will destroy trust in the regime. We can expect that our constitution will cease to influence government and possibly cease to even be its nominal standard. At least, that is what I foresee.
However, political activity and discussion are necessary, if secondary, parts of moral and religious duty that benefit the whole society. We can not control what happens to the commonwealth, but we can control how we treat the commonwealth. The rest is in God's hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment