Category: Government & Politics

26February2021

How Democracies Die

Written By robfaircloth

I’m a little behind on my reading, and just got around to an issue of Modern Reformation from July of 2019.

In it is a review of a book called How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, published in 2018.

The reviewer summarizes what the authors describe as a subversive overthrow of democracy, contrasted with radical overthrows such as the coup d’etats in Argentina, Brazil, and other states.

This subversive overthrow occurs in a series of steps:

  • “the leaders of established parties fail to serve as effective gatekeepers”
  • the subversive candidate “succeeds in rejecting many of the unwritten rules” and transgresses those rules “without consequence”
  • the subversive candidate “denies the legitimacy of their [sic] opponents”
  • the candidate takes over party apparatus and state apparatus
  • “violence is tolerated or encouraged against opponents in order to harden views of opponents as enemies”
  • “civil liberties are curtailed in terms of movement and freedom of the press”
  • “courts are packed with justices who are partisan loyalists”
  • “constitutional restrictions” are used to tilt the field in favor of the candidate”

What occurred to me, and probably to you, as well, is that when you read these descriptions you see these things occurring in the other party’s actions.

Continue Reading “How Democracies Die”

10February2021

“Follow the science!” except to follow something else

Written By robfaircloth

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently decided a case regarding indoor worship services in California. As with many SCOTUS decisions, the justices were divided largely along partisan lines, with the majority ruling generally that California had not given proper deference to the First Amendment when limiting church services.

California argued that the COVID-19 pandemic justified a restriction of church’s activities, and apparently disparate treatment of church life and other activities. The majority disagreed, and the concerns of the dissenting justices are revealing.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, complained that the majority had “displaced the judgment of experts” regarding safety-based church restrictions, and wondered if “the Court does not believe the science, or does it think even the best science must give way?”

One is prompted to wonder what Justice Kagan thinks is the “best science” in this regard.

The “science” regarding COVID-19 has been all over the proverbial laboratory since the virus first appeared: science has advocated “two weeks to flatten the curve”; science has said masks were good, then they weren’t, then one was good, then two was better; science has said that the virus survived long periods on surfaces, until it didn’t; science has said that only a narrow segment of the population is at particular risk, but everyone should be quarantined, tested, masked, and inoculated; science has said everyone should be vaccinated, but vaccinations won’t eliminate masks, distancing, and shutdowns; science has all but ignored the consequences — scientifically deduced — from the now year-long scientific approach, which includes higher rates of domestic violence, drug use, suicide, and economic woes.

Which, “science,” then, is “best”?

That a Supreme Court justice would suggest that the Court’s understanding of constitutional law would defer to science, much less the “best science,” is alarming.

“Science” is all but settled on many significant questions of the day, and further has the potential to negate all reasonable judgment in favor of “experts” who could very well be wrong.

After all, it is modern “science” that contends that lithium mines are “greener” than pipelines, that burning corn in cars is better than people eating it, that unborn babies are “blobs of tissue” or parasites to be excised from the mother’s body at will, and it is “science” that has determined that biological sex is a social construct and that boys competing in girls’ sports are really girls, after all, and you shouldn’t argue with “science,” because, well, “trust the experts.”

As someone once said, “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.”

8February2021

When the Supreme Court is not so Supreme

Written By robfaircloth

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that California could not ban church services indefinitely.

While I agree with the decision as good law (I practiced law for 20 years), I have a couple of issues with it: first, not all justices prioritized application First Amendment (religious liberty) standards, and second, it was decided 6-3.

Back in 2013, I wrote “Why 5-4 Decisions Are Unpatriotic.” Five to four decisions are still unpatriotic, but so are those that are decided 6-3, 7-2 and 8-1, for that matter.

The reason that I think this, and you should, too, is that non-unanimous opinions are usually divided along party lines: justices appointed by Democrats usually part company with justices appointed by Republicans. When this happens, the Supreme Court is not so much applying law as mimicking what Congress did, or what Congress would do if it fulfilled its responsibility to govern.

This is why appointments to the Supreme Court are so hotly contested, because it has come to function as a sort of super-legislature: a much smaller and less accountable congress, as it were. Call me idealistic, but the Supreme Court should decide the law, not politics.

Requiring unanimous decisions (with room for concurring opinions) would correct the power imbalance that currently favors the Court, and would put the actual act of governing back in the hands of Congress, which is all too eager to have unelected justices decide difficult matters so that it can campaign without having to explain its political baggage to voters.

Some will disagree, because the Court is now seen as protector of those liberties that Congress and the States might not guard so closely. But if nine people eminently qualified can’t agree what liberties to guard, and how to guard them, is it really guarding anything? Are we really better off with divided decisions in any real fashion beyond the next vacancy to be filled?

Consider three simple fixes to how government functions:

  • Require unanimous Supreme Court decisions
  • Eliminate executive orders
  • limit congressional terms.

Think about it.

[Addendum: I would add the additional fix of eliminating, somehow, the current state of government by bureaucracy. Regulatory agencies, like the Supreme Court, are the way that elected officials pass off responsibility and accountability to govern, and to answer to the people for how they govern.]

28January2021

Take it Seriously

Written By robfaircloth

What do you tend to take seriously?

Do you take seriously the total number of COVID-19 deaths? Do you take seriously the danger of unrestrained “executive orders,” whether signed by a Republican or a Democrat? Do you take seriously the gargantuan administrative state? Do you take climate change seriously? Do you take seriously that status of your retirement account, fantasy football standings, or the report of your bathroom scales every morning?

If you claim Jesus Christ, there is something you should take seriously before any of these things. You might even take it more seriously than any of these things.

The Apostle Paul says that believers should “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12-13).

Fear and trembling does not have much cultural cachet these days, because the last thing self-respecting and intentionally-authentic awakened humans desire is to be so regressively un-bold. We are — as the world would have us believe — bold, confident, independent. Fear and trembling is so, well, weak.

But Paul wants us to remember that is not our relative strength or weakness that is important, but the strength of God. In fact, the reason we work (labor, power) is because “God is at work in you, to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Take seriously your salvation, because it is God who has called you to it, and has begun the work (Philippians 1:6). Take it seriously, because God will complete it (Philippians 1:6). Take your sanctification (growth in holiness) by “working it out” because God is at work.

Take seriously your salvation and sanctification, then take a new look at those other “important” things.

20February2016

The Pope and the Bread & Butter Fallacy

Written By robfaircloth

I had already written “How Would Jesus Govern?” (posted here a couple of days ago) when the imbroglio between Pope Francis and Donald Trump temporarily took over the news cycle February 18.

Other matters now figure prominently in the news, yet the Pope’s criticism of Trump’s wall serves to illustrate the point that it is much too easy for politicians and religious figures to play the “Christian’s Can’t” trump card, combining theological categories with political possibilities (pun intended).

Pope Francis, critical of Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to prevent illegal immigration, said that while he gives Trump the “benefit of the doubt,” nevertheless “A person who thinks only of building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

This is the trump of all trump cards, in that the Pope goes much further than saying a Christian should not favor physical barriers on international borders or that the Christian should favor open borders between nations. Instead, he went so far as to say that those who would consider a border wall are not Christian.

In orthodox Christian belief, most would agree that the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is not Christian. The one who denies that Jesus is God is not Christian. The one who denies that Jesus is the only way of salvation is not Christian. The one who denies that Jesus earned righteousness and bore man’s penalty for unrighteousness by dying on the cross is not Christian.

These matters, and a few others, relate to the fundamentals of the faith, where fundamental means an aspect of the faith that is necessary for it to remain the same faith.

However, one will search long in the Bible (our guide to faith and practice) for any hint that one’s perspective on international politics and immigration is necessary to saving faith, or even remotely determinative of whether one inherits eternal life.

Border policy, in terms of theological litmus testing, might just rank below the number of angels who could fit on the head of a pin and the sequence of end times events.

So, what did the Pope mean, and why should Christians — particularly Protestant Christians — care about it?

The Possibility

It is possible that the Pope’s declaration, given a generous interpretation, bears some truth.

In a sense, a spiritual barrier or chasm (“wall”) exists between sinful humans and the holy God. This chasm must be “bridged” by One who is both holy and human, the man Jesus Christ. And those whose way to God has been bridged by Jesus Christ are set on the task of helping others find the bridge, as well.

In fact, a popular evangelistic tract uses this bridge imagery to great effect.

In this sense, then, Christians should be in the business not of building bridges but of declaring the bridge between God and man, and of building not physical bridges but relational bridges between man and man.

The Context

Whatever truth might inhere to the Pope’s statement, though, he offered it in reference to Trump’s border wall policy. Because context is key, his statement must mean something with regard to physical walls and bridges.

The Problem

But if he was not speaking in a purely spiritual sense, which the context suggests, his statement becomes quite incoherent, and eminently impractical.

This is so because we all build or use walls every day, when we enter our homes. Walls designate which is your space and which is mine, and prevent unrestricted and unauthorized travel between them. Walls keep inmates in their cells, convicts in prison, thieves out of Fort Knox, and assassins out of the White House.

Additionally, very few of us have had even a minor hand in building an actual bridge. Is the Pope calling on believers to change vocations?

The Inconsistency

And, as many have pointed out, the Pope himself benefits from a wall around the Vatican, which, like the walls in our homes, prevents unrestricted and unauthorized travel by those outside to the spaces inside.

The Conclusion

Was the Pope, then, being intentionally vague? He did seem to relish the opportunity to show himself a “political animal.” We expect politicians to make statements that lend themselves to favorable interpretations by all constituents, much like the message in our fortune cookie or daily horoscope can fit virtually any situation.

But we should not expect such imprecision from as prominent a religious figure as the Pope.

Pope Francis has committed what I like to call the “Bread & Butter Fallacy,” in which a statement from the Bible, or spiritual truth, is offered as proof that one must support a certain conclusion related to civic life, just as directly as one would spread a pat of butter right on a slice of bread.

The Pope equated building a border wall with building a spiritual wall, and equated building a spiritual bridge with removing (or not building) a border wall.

Here are a few additional examples of the Bread & Butter Fallacy: Jesus said “turn the other cheek,” therefore, we should all be pacifists; God said “love your neighbor as yourself”, therefore, we should provide free college education; “God loves a cheerful giver”, therefore, tax rates should be high.

In these examples, the conclusion is deemed self-evident from the premise, but errors are made because crucial steps of reasoned application are omitted especially failing to recognize the difference between personal and governmental application. (This type of reasoning might also commit the faulty appeal to authority, apples-to-oranges, and non sequitur fallacies).

Biblical truth might occasionally support the civic conclusions reached by those who propose them, but Christians should avoid the Bread & Butter Fallacy, and should be able to detect when others are making it.

19July2013

Which Economics Failed Detroit?

Written By robfaircloth

It is tragic that the city of Detroit is filing bankruptcy. What is interesting at this point is that a state court has ordered the governor to withdraw the bankruptcy petition on the grounds that it violates the rights of pension holders.

As I recall, when General Motors went bankrupt, the argument that the priority preference violated the rights of bondholders was dismissed out of hand. The rights of union bosses and employees was considered superior.

The similarity in the two is that the rights of those two have contributed money and retain investments in a company or, as the case may be, a city, are considered inferior to those who are drawing money from that business for city.

This is not the recipe for economic prosperity, but instead, is the sure path to economic ruin, as the sad case of the city of Detroit proves

3July2013

Why 5-4 Court Decisions are un-Patriotic

Written By robfaircloth

American citizens and those interested in the operation of good government should take advantage of the fact that the Supreme Court times the release of its spring opinions in June, just before the country celebrates its independence from the tyrannical rule of men.

English: West face of the United States Suprem...
English: West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Español: Edificio de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you happen to be one of those patriots who reads — aloud, when appropriate — the U.S. Constitution and George Washington’s inaugural address to celebrate Independence Day this July 4, then the advantage to you doubles. But, even if you are not of so virulent a strain of patriotism as that, it is to your advantage to recall the reasons that Washington and his compatriots risked life, liberty and property in order secure liberty for their posterity, and to notice the stark contrast of that civic service with what the U.S. Supreme Court is currently doing.Last week the Court issued opinions on significant matters involving national oversight of state voting practices left over from the 1960s as well as the definition of marriage via the decade-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Washington’s (D.C.) supervision of state voting practices extended so far into the nitty-gritty that supposedly the decision to relocate a polling place from the Baptist church to the Methodist one across the street required the approval of some faceless bureaucrat (or a whole agency full of them), so one can see the wisdom of the Court’s decision to end much of this practice.

However, not all citizens were pleased, and the greatest indicator of the level of opprobrium with which one viewed the voting decision is political affiliation. Those from the left, the progressives, the liberals, the Democrats took issue with the narrow majority the “conservative” justices cobbled together in order to reach the decision.

Only a few days later, however, the tables were turned when the “liberal” end of the Supreme Court bench declared key portions of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

Increasingly, the entire population of the United States is being governed by the vote of one Supreme Court Justice, in 5 to 4 decisions that have dramatic impact on a populace galvanized in its support or opposition of that vote. This is not as it should be.

There will certainly be some ideological loyalty reflected in the majorities the Justices form and in the opinions that they write. When each President has the ability to appoint Justices, this is to be expected. But the Court fails us when it so apparently divides along political lines, appearing in many cases to be a smaller, more closely divided version of the Senate or House of Representatives.

When the Congress had recently voted to extend (again) the Voting Rights Act for twenty-five years, what good is a 5-4 decision that runs counter to that legislative act? And when overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress passed DOMA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, what good is a 5-4 decision that voids such an act?

I agree with the Court’s voting decision, but would have preferred that the Justices agree 9-0, basing their decision on the law rather than on political affiliation. Conversely, I disagree with the DOMA decision, but again, would prefer that the Court be unanimous on such monumental issues.

Citizens will be dissatisfied with the Court’s recent close calls, for different reasons related to the outcomes of them. But we should all be dissatisfied with the politicization of Court, and should demand more from the President who appoints Justices, and from the Congress that approves them.