The one limiting possibility the new elites cannot admit in the world-affirming immanentism of their ‘value’ conventions is that of a divine creator and his promised redemptive acts before whom and beside which there is nothing that means anything; absolutely nothing . . . . [As for the non-elites:] ‘The people’ have resisted and resented Christian faith the more as both science and sociology have promised them release from any and all theologies of truth transcending their immediate worlds and wishes as they would have them fulfilled in a waking dream of life mastered and themselves pleasured. There is the real revolution: a culture in which interpretations are applied one after another, so long as none are facets of transcendent truths that exclude untruths.
–Philip Rieff, My Life Among the Deathworks. University of Virginia Press, 2006, p. 58.
It is very easy to become distracted by the manifest truth-hatred of the cultural elite, forgetting the strong prejudice of “the people” against Christian faith and behavior. There is no good reason, for example, to place faith in the decent values and good sense of the American people as a whole, who are responsible for nominating and retaining an ungodly elite in influence and power with actions as small as purchasing fan magazines at the supermarket and as large as casting a vote. Rieff puts his finger on the utopian reason: their desire (and, if we are not careful, our desire) to live in a waking dream of life mastered and themselves pleasured–even, I will add, if life is “mastered” by leveling the non-elite, and the pleasuring is accomplished largely by fantasy.
Our collective intuitions here are, I think, very much the same as Rieff’s, and that is why, while we comment on politics from time to time, we are not a political magazine–for politics, whether liberal or conservative, has to do with the power of secular states, which concerns us only so far as it touches upon the affairs of a “promised redemptive act before which and beside which there is nothing that means anything; absolutely nothing.” Sticking to first things requires that we not become distracted–and it is easy to do–into thinking that secular affairs, the affairs of the people and their chosen elites, have any meaning whatever apart from their application to the Infinitely Greater, which shall swallow them up as Ozymandias was lost in the sands.
My husband and I recently debated what I guess one might call the chosenness of democracy. His point was that our form of government seemed quite evidently God-inspired and God-approved in the early days of our country. My instinct is that it worked primarily because of the pervasive Christian demeanor of the democratic constituency of that day, and that it has no innate trustworthiness (or even durability) beyond that.
Last night I read, in Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, “In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves–the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state.” He goes on to define tradition as democracy extended through time. “It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record.”
Part of what bothers me, perhaps because I’m less Catholic than Chesterton, is that I see no strong record of, or even foreshadowing of, democracy in scripture. The one democratic vote that comes to mind had to do with Jesus and Barabbas. If there are indeed few that find the narrow way, why should we glibly trust our earthly well-being to the deluded masses? Or am I missing something?
“The one limiting possibility the new elites cannot admit in the world-affirming immanentism of their ‘value’ conventions is that of a divine creator and his promised redemptive acts before whom and beside which there is nothing that means anything; absolutely nothing.”
This has to be incorrect. Without Christ, and Him crucified, it is true that nothing means anything. But with the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection even the smallest action becomes massively important. Because of Christ even gardening can be a communion with the God who is.
John W: Precisely. God shines His light upon all our actions, and redeems the worthy ones. That is why we were “saved by grace through faith for the good works that God has prepared for us to do” (Eph. 2:8-10).
Steve,
Thank you. Very timely as I am just now reading Weaver’s, “Ideas Have Consequences”.
Kamilla
Diane,
If you mean that the Lord is not up for reelection, that is for sure. On the other hand, one can provocatively pick scriptures, here and there, that might be said to “foreshadow” democracy.
Moses’ father-in-law Jethro instructed Moses to put twelve heads of tribes under him. Each head was to be elected by consent of his tribe.
The Proverbs make clear many times over that “the hand of the diligent will rule,” meaning apparently that rule will not be and ought not to be a matter of birth, or of arbitrary appointment.
Most especially perhaps, the divine title, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, implies that the powers of kings are lords are “checked,” as we say. The democratic government takes just this idea one step further, and adds man-made checks and balances into the mix.
The writngs of Phillip Rief would be a very worthy subject for Touchstone. Maybe if there is librarian in the group he could introduce readers to this seminal non Christian thinker.
Kamilla, I’ve just finished Weaver’s “Visions of Order” and Whittaker Chambers’ “Witness,” both of which have quite a few resonances with Steve’s post. Both are must reads, I’d say, especially given the direction our culture is heading.
There is a long review of the book I have quoted here in Touchstone’s works. Rieff was a Jew, but many Christians have made him their master by careless thinking about the implications of the faith they profess.
Democracy is a mixture of clay and iron, but it is still an impediment to the worst sorts of tyrannies in that it makes it more difficult for truly evil men to attain power, or if they attain it to keep it. As to whether to trust the wisdom of the common people over that of the elites in prudential matters the essential component is the moral state of the people involved. Having said that it seems that people who must work hard in order to support their families will often have a wisdom informed by practical morality that eludes the privileged whose wealth generally insulates them from the consequences of their folly.