If Democracy is Good, Why Does It Feel So Bad?

Thoughts on the American Experiment, Part 4

Reinhold Niebuhr’s views about the ultimate inadequacy of all human attempts at goodness were the catalyst for this series. Niebuhr argued that, at our best, we are never immune from error or corruption. No system in which we participate can achieve perfection.

The American founders were convinced that protecting rights for both the community and the individual was of paramount importance, in view of our neighbors’ natural inclination to oppress us for their own benefit – and our inclination to oppress our neighbors. The essential function of government is to ensure we actually enjoy the rights we ought to have. And yet, if government is to protect this right and enforce these duties without becoming an oppressive instrument itself, there need to be limits on its power.

In one of his most interesting books, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Niebuhr wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination for injustice makes democracy necessary.”^[i] This statement nicely frames the tension between striving for high ideals and acknowledging the limits on what our striving can achieve.

The right of self-determination and the freedom to choose our leaders is another of the high ideals that sustains our democratic system. In practice, though, the difficulty of reaching consensus, the messy squabbling that seems always to attend the process, and the unending temptations to circumvent the rules for one’s own advantage seem to set a low ceiling over what our system can accomplish. It’s hard to discern many glimpses of the noble, beautiful, and true when we look out over the political landscape.

When Christians seek to obtain a hearing for the voice of faith in the public square, it is their faith’s ideals that they have in mind. Niebuhr acknowledges the value of integrating the moral idealism which holds a concern for the ‘other’ on a par with our natural concern for ourselves.

However, the pursuit of ideals carries its own danger to the community. Niebuhr writes, “some of the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest in their professed ideals.”^[ii]

This seems paradoxical. How can pursuit of the highest and best become a danger to the community?

First, even those who champion noble ideals cannot escape the alloy of selfish motives. Ironically, the most idealistic among us are most vulnerable here, perhaps because the passion with which they cherish their ideals blind them to their own corruption. After all, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).

A correlated problem emerges when ideals are embodied in policies and programs that attempt to solve problems and resolve injustice. It is very easy to make things worse; very hard to make them better. But when support of a policy becomes a moral test – do you share a commitment to goodness or not? – it is deemed a betrayal to question the efficacy of policies. This has produced tragic outcomes over the past half-century, as government policies have systematically made things worse for many of the people they were designed to help. And yet, with all the benefit of experience, many still champion the same failed policies, misplacing their admirable loyalty to the ideals that lie behind them.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

Have you ever reflected that the great tyrannies of our time were born from beautiful ideas? The horrific ravages of Communism were born in a dream of true equality; even the dark evil of the Nazi regime grew out of a desire to vindicate a German civilization and culture that had been trampled in a lost war. It carried sick distortions from the outset, yes, but we need to recognize that all of us carry the seeds of such distortion along with us.

In contrast, the besetting failing of conservatives is moral complacency. They excel at pointing out the failure of policies aimed at ameliorating harsh social conditions. And yet, the harsh conditions remain; is nothing to be done, or even attempted? Have we no moral obligation to our neighbors?

Both sides are right in some ways; both are wrong in others. And both sides take the points where they are certainly right much further than their limited insights warrant. Niebuhr argues that ironically, the more idealistic we are, the greater the danger that this will happen, particularly the danger we will persist in an unwise crusade. I wonder if he would have the same view – that idealists are potentially more dangerous to democracy than the more cynical conservatives – if he could survey the current political scene.

In any case, healthy democratic life “requires a spirit of tolerant compromise.”^[iii] Rather than perpetually battling to see whose ideals will prevail, the progressives and conservatives who contest today’s political scene have something to teach each other. Conservatives need to be prodded by progressives to see our social problems as they are, and take on the moral challenge of making our community a place where all can flourish. Progressives need to realize that ideals help no one unless they are translated into constructive action, that this is difficult and usually requires much experimentation and course-correction, and therefore that pointing out the need to reform or even terminate a failing program is good and necessary if the common goal is to be reached.

Christians have much to contribute to this process, but I think our contribution may look different than we commonly assume. Next week, to close the series, I want to share some thoughts on how each of us can constructively engage.

---

^[i] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. xiii.

^[ii] Niebuhr, p. 150.

^[iii] Niebuhr, p. 151.