Apolitical Faith? Objections to Christian Political Engagement, Part 1
Meet the apolitical right
“I’m apolitical,” a pastor friend told me not long ago. His tone and body language communicated disdain for the whole business of candidates, legislation and public policy. The response I did not verbalize was, “Great. Another one.”
This apolitical attitude seems to be on the rise among theologically serious (especially gospel-serious) evangelicals and fundamentalists. An underlying conviction seems to be that the Bible and Christian living have nothing at all to do with any political agenda. Ministry and true discipleship are only hindered by attention to political matters. To the most passionate apoliticals, the correct course is not a matter of balance (moderation in political engagement) or discipline (proper limits on the kind of political engagement). It’s a matter of purity: faith and ministry should not mix themselves in any way with the poison of politics.1
In practice, this means churches should avoid taking positions on matters perceived to be “political issues,” and pastors and teachers should refrain from teaching and preaching on political topics. Above all, believers should not express their political views in any way that might alienate someone with whom they hope to have a gospel witness. Having a mild interest in politics and casting a vote on election day is okay, but going beyond that is heading down the wrong road.
A variety of factors motivate the apoliticals I’ve interacted with. Some simply have temperaments that are deeply averse to the conflict and strife of politics. Others have absorbed some of the thinking of the evangelical left (such as the “Red Letter Christian” fondness for pitting the supposed teaching of Jesus against the rest of Scripture rather than interpreting Jesus in light of the rest of Scripture).2 In almost every case, constituents of the apolitical right see the Moral Majority efforts of the 1980s as a travesty and decry anything today that seems similar.
Whatever the primary motivation, apoliticals offer specific objections to all but the most mild and private forms of political engagement.
1. Changes in public policy don’t save souls.
This objection has the advantage of being absolutely true. Electing a wise leader rather than a foolish one, or adopting a helpful policy rather than a damaging one, brings no one to faith in the gospel. Since the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), only the proclamation of that message has a direct impact on the greatest need of all societies everywhere.
The objection sometimes takes the form of an old and often repeated disjunction: “We should be trying to win the lost, not trying to elect politicians and pass laws!” This way of thinking seems to arise from the best of motives. But this objection fails to account for several realities and falls short of justifying total disengagement from politics.
First, the either-or is a false one. If we have time to read books and also reach the lost, work careers and also to reach the lost, even watch sports on TV or play golf yet also reach the lost, surely we can be politically informed, think through the issues, and maybe put a sign in the yard or take a little time to show up at an event or two once in a while—yet still reach the lost. There is nothing about being politically engaged that prevents us from also spreading the gospel.
Second, many activities we value do not save souls. Whether it’s manufacturing a better window, developing a safer medical procedure or designing a better database, we see value in what helps people and earns an honest living. But none of these things declare the saving message of the gospel to the ears of sinners.
Acts of charity are no different. A sinner without Christ is just as Christless after we feed him, clothe him, bind up his wounds or free him from slavery. Yet Jesus gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry, caused the disabled to walk and speak and hear. Jesus did not have to use these particular signs to authenticate His prophetic office. He could have called fire down from heaven on the Pharisees, turned the Sea of Galilee to blood or caused the sun to stand still for several hours. Instead, He chose signs that helped people. Apparently—other things being equal—it’s okay to do things that just make life better for people.3
And wise policy does make life better for people—usually in large numbers and often for long periods of time. Appointing rulers who are just blesses all under their rule.
Like a roaring lion and a charging bear Is a wicked ruler over poor people. (NKJV, Prov. 28:15)
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. (Prov. 29:2)
2. Capitalism and other political philosophies have nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
What motivates individuals when they make economic decisions? What motivates people when they act collectively as a society? How should individuals and societies relate to possessions? Where does the true value of goods and services lie? Where do crime and poverty come from? What is the purpose of civil government? Are newer ideas about these matters necessarily better than older ideas? Will human beings ever establish the ideal society? What would such a society be like?
Answers to these questions have an inherently religious character. They draw on beliefs about ultimate questions: Who are we? How did we get here? Why do we exist? The Bible speaks clearly to these ultimate questions but also has much to say about the nature of value, property, crime and poverty; human motivations; what government is supposed to do; and the limits to what human beings can achieve.
So the Bible speaks to many of the concerns that are the focus of political philosophies. Whether we like it or not, points of theology and points of political philosophy are intertwined.
The question is not whether capitalism has anything to do with Christian faith, but rather, what political and economic philosophies best align with what Scripture reveals in these areas? Properly understood—and compared with real world alternative philosophies4—free-market conservatism emerges as a view of human nature, society, labor and property that agrees with the teaching of the Bible5 (problems of greed, materialism, dishonesty, etc. are problems of the human condition that permeate all economic systems).
But this objection has an even simpler answer. Is there any area of ethics that should have no importance in the eyes of Christians? Why should we exclude social ethics from our attention and teaching?
3. If Christians believe in the separation of church and state, they ought to keep away from politics.
Several Christian traditions have long upheld various forms of separation between church and state. Baptists uphold the principle as one of their distinctives. But what sort of “separation” do we have in mind?
I’ve argued that there can be no ideological separation between religion and political philosophy. Since all politicians make policy decisions based on their belief systems (however random those systems may be), their beliefs about the ultimate questions inevitably shape their views and actions. Trying to separate religion and politics is like trying to separate math and chemistry—both unwise and impossible.
But institutional power is something else. For many reasons, the decision-making power of churches or denominations and the decision making power of governmental institutions ought to avoid meddling with each other as much as possible. Drawing the lines so that we maintain a good separation is complicated business, but the ideal of separate spheres of power is a wise one.
However, proper separation of church and state does not require that churches and Christian leaders refrain from pointing out how biblical principles apply to matters thought to be “political,” nor does it prohibit believers from being involved in the process of selecting leaders and shaping public policy.
4. There are so many wrong-headed and badly behaved “Christian” conservatives.
It’s true that many political conservatives who claim to be Christian (or just engage in a lot of God-talk) are not good examples of what a Christian should be. Many have not thought through how to relate their faith to their governing roles. Some seem to have a knack for evoking the Bible at all the wrong times.
But it’s important not to overlook the difference between a bad idea and poor implementation of a good one. The solution to policy makers handling their faith badly (or Christians handling their policy making badly) is to get it right, not to toss out the whole idea.
And let’s remember that bad Christian examples are not unique to the right. John Edwards claimed to be a Christian;6 so does Jesse Jackson. Undoubtedly, plenty of flawed human beings can be found among the leaders of the “Christian left.”7
Some conclusions
Several objections remain—some of them quite weighty. Doesn’t capitalism encourage materialism, greed, bigger and bigger corporations and abuse of God-given resources? Doesn’t pursuing morality through public policy just make us look hateful and self-righteous as Christians and harm our gospel witness? Isn’t the church in great danger of being seduced into activities that distract from its primary mission? These and other concerns are the focus of the next article.
(A related article here at SI: Right is Right)
Notes
1 Here, a boundary of the group gets fuzzy. Some who claim to be apolitical are willing to make political statements—even from the pulpit—if the statements are critical of ideas associated with the religious right or conservatism.
2 See http://www.sojo.net/?action=about_us.redletterchristians (accessed, 10/8/2010).
3 An irony here is that some of the most vocal of the apolitical right are quick to promote acts of charity as “incarnational ministry.” Somehow, feeding a hungry sinner is incarnational but helping pass a law that enables a thousand hungry sinners to get jobs is not.
4 Jay W. Richards is brilliant on this point in Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperCollins, 2009, pp. 9-32).
5 Adam Smith, widely viewed as the father of capitalism, was a deist and strongly influenced by Stoic philosophers. However, he believed strongly in God’s moral ordering of the world and in God’s providential ordering of society in such a way that self-interest frequently leads to the benefit of others (and ultimately all) in free markets. He refers to this often in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (e.g., III.I.106).
6 “John Edwards: ‘My Faith Came Roaring Back.’” http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2007/03/John-Edwards-My-Faith-Came-Roaring-Back.aspx#extndVer (accessed 10/12/2010).
7 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left#Notable_Christian_leftists (accessed 10/12/2010).
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 46 views
In this regard, it’s been helpful for me to understand the distinction Abraham Kuyper made between “persuasion” and “coercion.” For Kuyper, persuasion is the Christian’s role and responsibility toward culture here and now-seeking to influence every sphere of society (such as the family, government, education) for Christ and bringing the standards of God’s Word to bear on every dimension of human culture. Coercion, on the other hand, is the role and responsibility of Christ, not Christians. Jesus alone possesses the right and power to “coerce,” or force, culture in a Godward direction, and this is a right he will fully exercise only when he returns to make “all things new” (Revelation 21:5).I just really liked how he put it and it’s relevant to the thread.
(Note: I’m not sure I’d agree with Tullian about everything he’d put in the “coercion” category. I don’t believe passing laws in a representative republic is coercion. You have to get enough people to agree with your proposal so—it’s persuasion. But there are many, many other ways to engage in persuasion and, in the long run, these are at least as important as passing laws.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Sometimes it’s about fighting evil, though, regardless of the degree of likely success or failure. Just because it’s the moral and neighborly thing to do.
Kim… about submission. I’d agree that there is an attitude factor. I don’t really see an emphasis on “joy” in reference to obedience to particular civil laws, though. There is a kind of joy we should take in everything God has told us to do. We are pleased to obey Him. But when we obey civil laws we are obeying Him indirectly since these are human laws. The joy is in the obedience to Him, not in the obedience to ordinance 3022.22.1.b etc.
For example, our village has a leaf burning ban. I don’t get alot of joy out of that, especially this time of year! But I obey it. And it does form a tiny piece of the overall joy of living obediently.
Submission is simply yielding. But if we are resentful and chafing and fussing all the time, we are violating other biblical obligations (“do all things without murmuring and disputing,” for example, Phil.2 somewhere). And arguably, not submitting “within.”
But I think Rom.13 has pretty much abiding by the civil law in view.
But engaging in the public debate to get a law overthrown is not what Phil.3 or any other passage is forbidding. There can be attitude problems in the effort, no doubt. I do see alot of that. But the ugly attitude thing is a separate problem from the question of whether it’s wrong to exert effort to shape public policy.
Admittedly, the lines are fine at times. I can’t really judge for everybody when the attitudes displayed in the political process/protests, etc., are out of line. But it’s enough for my thesis if we can accept that there is a line and that there are legitimate ways to be involved in the public debate.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I believe it’s possible to share or promote one’s insight and opinions without being rebellious, but as you said, this may be easy for some and not for others.
Yes! I hope Aaron gives some practical ways of doing this—this would be really helpful to me, personally!
It is a fine line- that of making our wishes known in an appropriate manner, as part of our citizen gov’t. Our gov’t is unique in that its authority flows from the bottom up, and not always from the top down. That’s where the disconnect comes in when we try to apply Rom. 13 etc to a representative gov’t. IMO.
Susan, can you explain your statement from our “authority flows from the bottom up” vs. where we practically apply Rom. 13 disconnect? I’m not sure I follow. Thanks!
For me, the bottom line is attitude. If I can respectfully present my views, then I can engage in the process in good conscience before God. If I have a bad attitude, then I need to keep my mouth shut until I get my head screwed on straight.
Maybe that’s my problem—my head’s never screwed on straight. :)
I will say that I think it best that men spearhead the involvement of their family in the political process. A wife should be in the supportive role, partnering with her husband and doing what he sees fit for her to do. She shouldn’t be writing letters or watching Fox News if there are piles of laundry lying around and the kids are hanging from the ceiling fan, KWIM?
Definitely! Well said!
@Aaron,
I think one of the issues I might have with your whole proposition of law abiding citizen and living legally within the confines of the law of land all-the-while reconciling that with living obediently to the commands found in Scripture while circumventing the call for every Christian to “submit”. And this is where we might part ways, although, admittedly my drawn line is very dotted at this point. If I follow you correctly, you’re saying that you can obey those passages in Scripture that call Christians to submit, and might even be disobeying God’s word if you don’t ‘voice your opinion’ or have some sort of form “beyond voting” because that’s what the land law requires us to do. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Admittedly, the lines are fine at times. I can’t really judge for everybody when the attitudes displayed in the political process/protests, etc., are out of line. But it’s enough for my thesis if we can accept that there is a line and that there are legitimate ways to be involved in the public debate.
I don’t think you need to draw lines for everyone, but as someone who has a fair amount of influence through writing and your own personal congregation, calling biblical submission an act of (just) yielding seems to tilt a bit away from what the bible always calls believers to do—joyfully submit—not “just” yield or obey. Shouldn’t there be a zeal or passion in all that we do? How does one passionately submit to loving God with everything and loving neighbor with everything without having joy and zeal in submission? Joyful submission is all over the bible—wives to husbands (Eph. 5), church goers to each other (Eph. 5), laymen to elders (Heb. 13), and I believe Christians in relation to government (previous passages) thus the calls to not say evil things against them, trust God with who is ultimately in control, double commands, etc.
I feel like your dismissing “attitude” like a fleck off your shoulder, but I submit :) to you that it starts there. Defining what you think biblical submission is would help mold the article, in my very low-based opinion. The aforementioned “P” group, I believe, would have more agreement with the argument that biblical submission is more about “yielding” and less about “joy” or “zeal.” I believe, humble, joyful submission would readily help discern, wisely, what you can or cannot participate in politics and then for women, I would heartily agree with what Susan said—children hanging from the rafters is never biblical. :)
Also helpful, IMO, would be what I mentioned previously in this post and something I’ll greatly be looking forward to in your subsequent articles. Once your take on submission is defined (without all of my speculations), whatever side of the spectrum you fall on, how do you practically apply the land of the law and what the bible says about government on a lifestyle balance sheet? I’ll be looking forward to that, truly!
In your first paragraph, your non-verbal response to your pastor friend was interesting, to me. I believe it set the tone for how I read through the whole article. Of course, my own prideful biases (and sympathies) for your pastor friend was hard, for me, to filter through to see your article for what it was truly worth.
Thanks, Aaron, for engaging in this. I’m sure for you it’s tiresome, but for me I do gain a great deal of sharpening from it!
Kim :)
[skjnoble] @Susan:The 10th Amendment- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
Susan, can you explain your statement from our “authority flows from the bottom up” vs. where we practically apply Rom. 13 disconnect? I’m not sure I follow. Thanks!
In America, the authority of the citizenry is intertwined with the authority of gov’t. Gov’t derives its power from the people, and exercises its authority in accordance with established laws- the Constitution being the Big Enchilada. Our leaders are appointed by the people, according to the wishes of the majority, and are to represent the interests of the people. Hence the use of the word ‘representatives’… and I think the word ‘senator’ is Latin for ‘old man’. :) If a leader does not fulfill their duties in a way that satisfies their citizens, then they get ‘fired’ at the next election.
This is, IMO, where we can get confused about how we submit to gov’t. Obviously we should submit to any federal, state, or local laws and statutes that are already on the books and that do not violate clear Biblical principle (I don’t know that any such laws exist, I’m just sayin’). But- if there is a law being considered, or even if it is passed and it somehow violates the Constitution, the citizens can and should make it known (respectfully, of course) that the law is unjust according to the highest law of our land. I don’t think this kind of interaction with gov’t can be considered “resisting the power”, because our gov’t operates at the pleasure of the people. But when the gov’t enforces the power it’s been granted, we should submit.
If that’s not convoluted, then I don’t know what is. :)
I do want to make it clear that I believe we should be grateful for our leaders, even if they are seriously flawed. We should acknowledge that sometimes wicked men/women come into power for various reasons- we are reaping what we’ve sowed, or the Lord is testing, purging, etc… and thus we should all the more bathe them in prayer- for their salvation, first of all. Ultimately we know His will is going to be done- but we are still accountable for the part we play in the grand scheme of things. I think we should oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and moral decay- but our opposition efforts should be focused on evangelizing the lost and discipling growing Christians, because that is where real change will happen. However, this does not leave us unable to voice our disapproval when legislation is proposed that would violate Scripture or the Constitution. That is the very nature of our gov’t- that the people grant the gov’t with the power to govern. That’s bottom up.
Part of the problem is that we equate ‘protest’ with obnoxious behavior, but we are given some guidelines in Scripture for approaching an elder or leader. 1 Tim 5:1, 19-20 come to mind. As long as we conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with Scriptural principles, then we can engage in the political process to whatever extent God grants us the ability and opportunity.
Hmmm…that was a bit of a ramble. No time to edit for brevity or to remove redundancy, so I’m going with it.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the passage preceding Romans 13 is:
Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.Basically, we should submit to laws that don’t violate Biblical principle- but laws allowing abortion are not the same as laws that would force a woman to have an abortion- ie the birth of Moses. I don’t have to ‘submit’ to any abortion laws because I have no intention of having one.
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
[Kim] living obediently to the commands found in Scripture while circumventing the call for every Christian to “submit”. And this is where we might part ways, although, admittedly my drawn line is very dotted at this point.First, there is no circumventing of the call to submit if submission is properly understood.
I think I’ve defined it a couple of times, but in brief, “submit” in Scripture means to yield. In some contexts, it has to do with yielding your interests to those of others (as in when Ephesians says “submit to one another”). In other contexts (most I believe) it’s a matter of yielding our will to another’s authority.
The attitude part is a separate issue. Maybe an analogy helps. If I tell my son to sit down and eat his broccoli and he sits down and eat is, he is submitting. Inwardly, he may be angry, resentful, etc. In this case, he has anger and resentment problems. I would not personally say he has any submission problems. Others might say “he’s not submitting inwardly.” This is true, but it’s a somewhat less precise way of saying he has some anger and resentment/rebellion problems.
[kim] If I follow you correctly, you’re saying that you can obey those passages in Scripture that call Christians to submit, and might even be disobeying God’s word if you don’t ‘voice your opinion’ or have some sort of form “beyond voting” because that’s what the land law requires us to do. Please correct me if I’m wrong.No, that’s not quite what I’m saying. The founding documents (not quite legally binding ones) indicate that the structure of our society depends on vigorous public debate and the more who participate in that, the better.
I do think it’s disobedient to completely ignore our responsibilities as citizens… for reasons I’ve discussed in the article and subsequent posts (because policy effects the well being of our neighbors, our children, and other reasons). So loving neighbor as self does place on us an obligation to be engaged.
But I did explain above somewhere that there are different levels of, and types of, engagement and they are not all for everybody. Only some are called to run for office. A larger number are called to be involved in the debate by writing to legislators or helping a campaign or whatever. A much larger number—like pretty much everybody—are obligated to apply Scripture to core questions of right and wrong and cast votes accordingly.
There is ideological engagement, which has to do with thinking about things. And there is process engagement which has to do with taking action. I think a minimum is that we have to be ideologically engaged and then at least get into the process enough to vote.
Beyond that, it’s an individual thing. I would never fault anyone for not being a plumber unless God was leading him to be a plumber and he refused. Similarly, engagement beyond thinking/applying biblical principles and voting is an individual thing as the Lord providentially leads.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address]…A government of the people, by the people and for the people…Our founding Fathers were well aware of Romans 13:1 when writing the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents of our nation. Has there been a change our source of power since 1791? When did power start to flow only in a downward direction? Is not this nation a participatory democratic (as opposed to an oligarchic ala Venice) republic?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
This is, IMO, where we can get confused about how we submit to gov’t. Obviously we should submit to any federal, state, or local laws and statutes that are already on the books and that do not violate clear Biblical principle (I don’t know that any such laws exist, I’m just sayin’). But- if there is a law being considered, or even if it is passed and it somehow violates the Constitution, the citizens can and should make it known (respectfully, of course) that the law is unjust according to the highest law of our land. I don’t think this kind of interaction with gov’t can be considered “resisting the power”, because our gov’t operates at the pleasure of the people. But when the gov’t enforces the power it’s been granted, we should submit.
Susan, thanks for this—this actually helped me quite a bit. Thanks for taking the time.
Part of the problem is that we equate ‘protest’ with obnoxious behavior, but we are given some guidelines in Scripture for approaching an elder or leader. 1 Tim 5:1, 19-20 come to mind. As long as we conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with Scriptural principles, then we can engage in the political process to whatever extent God grants us the ability and opportunity.
Yes! This is maybe where I get my biases. You’ve offered something for me to think through—thanks!
Hi Aaron,
I really appreciate you engaging in this—it has helped me in more ways than one.
The attitude part is a separate issue. Maybe an analogy helps. If I tell my son to sit down and eat his broccoli and he sits down and eat is, he is submitting. Inwardly, he may be angry, resentful, etc. In this case, he has anger and resentment problems. I would not personally say he has any submission problems. Others might say “he’s not submitting inwardly.” This is true, but it’s a somewhat less precise way of saying he has some anger and resentment/rebellion problems.
This is interesting to me. I think it’s interesting that you separate attitudes from the activity of obedience. Thanks for clarifying for me, where you draw some of the lines, even in definitions.
But I did explain above somewhere that there are different levels of, and types of, engagement and they are not all for everybody.
Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about that until you brought this up again. I appreciate it.
Taken from your opening post in the article:
His tone and body language communicated disdain for the whole business of candidates, legislation and public policy. The response I did not verbalize was, “Great. Another one.”
Adding this into your article, for me, set the tone of how you viewed people who are not engaged. But some of us, not all, I realize, feel like we’re actively involved in politics by submitting to the current laws of the land and actively engaged by encouraging other Christians to not bad-mouth and submit and obey, as well, although I’ll admit to actively breaking the speed limit law, so I’m already a hypocrite. :)
But not bad-mouthing, even among Christians, is very counter-cultural and I agree with Susan that there probably is a valid way of protesting while biblically submitting with the right attitude, I just haven’t found out how to do it for myself. I also agree with you that there probably is a line drawn although we might disagree about how really varied it is. I think the Bible really draws it for all professing believers.
Thanks for correcting my mis-assumptions in the previous post, too.
Aaron, I look forward to your next article(s) about this and particularly any practical counsel on how Christians can practically reconcile between the bible and political engagement. This fact will be of great interest to me.
Hi Rob,
I don’t know the answers to your questions. I think I should be more informed on this topic.
Kim :)
[Rob Fall] summed up the polity we as Christians find our selves in these United StatesLincoln emphasized democracy more than several of founding fathers would have liked (had they been around to hear him). Jefferson was the agrarian idealist and envisioned a very decentralized nation full of farmer philosophers who would get together once in a while to vote on a law or two. So I think he would have said “Bravo” to Lincoln’s summary.[Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address]…A government of the people, by the people and for the people…Our founding Fathers were well aware of Romans 13:1 when writing the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents of our nation. Has there been a change our source of power since 1791? When did power start to flow only in a downward direction? Is not this nation a participatory democratic (as opposed to an oligarchic ala Venice) republic?
Some of the other founders were much bigger on the idea of a strong federal government and leaders who had some specialized skill in governing. This was the more conservative idea… though still with lots of checks and balances and enough democracy to keep leaders accountable.
But they all agreed on rule of law and the active participation of the governed in public debate.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion