February 08, 2004
The Moral Needs of a Democracy
I recently finished The Truth of Catholicism by George Weigel (review to follow), but one passage was especially thought-provoking, particularly in light of the recent judicial decision in Massachusetts. First, Weigel quotes Pope John Paul II from Centesimus Annus:
Authentic democracy is possible only in a state ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct concept of the human person . . . Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. [But] . . . if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.
That’s pretty powerful in itself, but Weigel’s analysis is compelling:
The last word stung. Was the Pope suggesting that the democracies, which had twice defeated twentieth-century totalitarianisms, risked becoming what they had poured out lives and treasure to oppose? That was, in fact, what the Pope was suggesting, but with a crucial difference. John Paul did not fear a new outbreak of fascism, Nazism, or communism; these, he knew, were spent political creeds. The present danger was more subtle.
A new kind of tyranny, all the more dangerous because it wasn’t visible as a Nazi tank or a Soviet missle, was encoded within the notion that democracy is a value-neutral machine that can run by itself – a machine that can do politics and public policy and legislating and judging and all the rest of it without transcendent moral reference points. The danger was a new tyranny of raw power. If a democracy banned any consideration of binding moral norms as a horizon for its public life, on the grounds that moral truth was either illusory or sectarian, then conflicts within that democracy could be resolved only by resort to force.
One group, exercising its will through legislation, judicial fiat, or more coercive means, would impose its judgment on everyone else. The losers, in turn, would think, correctly, that their rights had been violated. The net result would be the breakdown of democratic political community – the civil society that makes democratic self-government possible. Chaos, leading to some form of tyranny, would certainly follow. A democracy without values is self-cannibalizing. Freedom, absent moral truth, becomes its own worst enemy.
Wow. In modern America this gives us pause for thought. The book, by the way, expounds upon some of this in the chapter and I recommend you get a copy. Are we at this point? I would suggest we are: “judicial fiat” is changing America in a way that makes both sides of the political battle feel “their rights had been violated.” What’s next?
I’m interested in your thoughts on this. May God bless our country and our people.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Comments
An Empire has been brought down in the past through the exercise of raw democracy, unmitigated by reference to absolute values. I refer to the Roman empire, who voted themselves bread and circuses and allowed hedonistic despots to pursue their pleasures at the expense of the poeple. We are so close, so close.
Posted by: alicia the midwife at February 8, 2004 08:03 PM
