There isn’t much to like about Bill Maher. I struggle to watch his television show for more than five minutes. So while I normally wouldn’t give him the time of day, his most recent Huffington Post piece deserves at least one response. He spends the entire time assaulting the minds of the American people, using his acerbic style to state repeatedly how stupid Americans are and how the “smart” politicians like Obama should ignore them. Near the end comes this:
And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they’re talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin.
Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that “pure democracy” doesn’t work because ‘there is nothing to check… an obnoxious individual.’”
Yes, Mr. Maher, James Madison and the rest of the Founders abhored pure democracy where rule was only carried out directly by the people. Yet such distrust in the direct rule of the people fails to prove Maher’s prior assertion. It did not mean Madison and the boys wanted a technocracy, the rule of government “experts” like Peter Orszag. Such a view actually denies our nation’s fundamental axiom that all men are created equal by denying the legitimacy of representative government. Instead, the Founders argued for a Republic, where the people rule indirectly through the Constitution and their representatives. Madison trusted the people’s will as molded by the Constitution and its system of goverment far more than Maher’s alternative of appointed technocrats.
If Maher wishes to summon the Founders to call Americans every form of stupid, he should at least understand what they wrote and said.
Adam Carrington After a year at Westminster Theological Seminary, Adam began a PhD program in Political Science at Baylor University in Waco, TX in the Fall of 2009. He received his BA from Ashland University in Ashland, OH, where he studied Political Science, Religion, and English Literature. During his undergrad, he worked on several political campaigns as well as interning with The Claremont Review of Books. He continues to be fascinated by politics, literature, and media’s interaction with theology and the Church. In the spare time he does scratch out, he likes to play guitar, read, and spend late nights debating any and every topic at all-night diners. Adam is married to Emily Carrington. 
But the intention of “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with representative government. I kind of think Bill Maher is an imbecile, but how is representative government (being neither life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness) one of the inalienable rights that points to the equality of all men?
Representative government is not an inalienable right in and of itself. But I would argue that some form of it becomes necessary in light of the belief in the equality of man. Here’s why: If all men are created equal, then no man by nature is born with the right to rule over another man. Some men aren’t born with saddles and others with spurs on their backs, as Jefferson once said. If no man by nature can rule over another, then the only basis for government, which is the ruling of some over others, is that those ruled consent to the governing of those who rule them.
Does such an understanding necessitate the exact system we have now? Certainly not. Though I would say it necessitates some form of government where the citizens give their consent to be ruled. Thus far, I think elections have proven the best way to accomplish such a goal.
My point was that Maher’s way of prefering experts over elected representatives shows a disdain for consent-based government (preferring unelected experts and telling representatives to ignore the voters) and hence, even if unintentionally, for its basis in the equality of man. Maher doesn’t seem to think that a conservative farmer in Iowa is equally entitled to consent to his government as Maher is becaue the farmer who disagrees with Maher is, well, “stupid.”
Thanks for letting me clarify (at least I hope I did).
I should have also noted, Dane, that your question was a very good one. Thanks for asking!
Thanks for your response. I think I see where you’re coming from, but I think I somewhat disagree—while not embracing anything that Maher would probably endorse. (note here: I don’t consider myself especially astute when it comes to matters of political theory as i’m not particularly well-read on such matters.)
As far as consent goes, I think we’d have to posit varying levels of consent. Those living under a monarchy consent to be ruled by the monarchy so long as they do not foment rebellion against the monarchy. Those ruled by a hegemony consent to its rule by simply abiding by its social contract. I consent to be ruled by our democratic republic though I do not believe in democratic republics. Obviously, this is different from the overt kind of consent where I actively declare, “Yes. I will be ruled by you.” But we don’t get that in America anyway. (Or at least I don’t since my candidate never wins.)
We are not asked to swear fealty. It’s assumed.
As far as equality goes, I think “all men being created equal” can have numerous interpretations. Scripturally, I think we can discern some principle of equality throughout (though differing depending on one’s otherworldly citizenship). We are each created with certain inalienable rights as possessors of the imago dei. And yet, without overt consent the Israelites were given three governmental systems, each ordained by God and none were representative. And yet, humanity was still considered to be equal. So at least in one valid system, equality had nothing to do with the right of rule.
A further example: the military. Though each member of the U.S. military is a citizen and created equal under God, privates have know authority to choose their sergeants (much less their colonels). The ideal presumption is that these leaders are chosen for their ability to lead and to lead well. It’s also presumed that privates don’t have the wherewithal to adequately choose who their leaders are. The U.S. military functions as a microcosm of a political engine and yet we don’t hear a lot of complaints demanding reform based on mankind’s equality under God.
I think one can read representational government (or even democracy) into the idea of equality at creation, but I don’t think its a necessary reading. And I’m not even sure its one of the most obvious.
p.s. didn’t Alexander Hamilton support a meritocracy?
Well, Dane, if you haven’t read much in political theory, you could have fooled me. You’re reply is thoughtful. I think if I tried to respond to everything I’d bore you with a poor treatise, so let me just say a few things.
Consent in a republic is difficult to fully articulate and you have hit a really deeply and long debated spot. I would say that consent in a republic is based less on whether your guy wins and more on whether you are willing to play the game. I didn’t vote for Barack Obama but he absolutely is still my President. Why? Because I consented to the political process of our country both by my willing residence here and my participation in the political process. By willingly residing here and voting I consented to abide by the results of the election. When I play a basketball game and lose (as often happens), I didn’t consent to the result but did consent to play and abide by the results whether good or bad for me.
I know that many people do not vote, though I would say they can be understood to consent by their non-participation in elections. After all, if they thought things were terrible, they would be fighting for change or leaving the country altogether. Indolence, while it can be harmful in a republic, sometimes shows that people are ultimately satisfied enough.
As for Israel, that has always been a tough one for me to understand. What is beyond dispute is that God is the legislator for the Hebrews; He makes the laws. Yet as far as executing the laws, Moses establishes a regime not at God’s command but at his father-in-law Jethro’s advice (see Exodus 18). Later, the people clamor for a king against the declared will of God. While the law remains the same and certainly comes from God, these manner of executing the law appear more the creation of man than God.
As for consent in these biblical cases, that is not clear, either. Exodus 18 makes it look as though Moses chooses the head of 100s, 50s, etc. while Deut. 1 indicates that the people or some portion of the people did so. Further, the making of kings has been a subject of great debate through the centuries. It seems that God appointed men to be kings, yet they did not become kings until made so by the people or the elders of Israel (David, who was annointed by Samuel only becomes king long after when “the tribes of Israel” come to him asking him to be king and he makes a covenant with the elders of Israel). It thus seems that some form of consent is included with the appointment of God.
As for Hamilton’s views, I’ll have to check on him specifically. I do know that Jefferson and Madison didn’t think a meritocracy was incompatible with a republic. The opposition to meritocracy stemmed from a despising of having restricting social classes like nobles and commoners as England did (hence there were never allowed to be lords or dukes in America). The elimination of stratified, immovable social classes allowed for the possibility that the best would rise to the top regardless of station (and Hamilton’s was quite lowly). The hope was that a republic would elect the best to rule, at least that it would do so in a better fashion than the hereditary Kingship and House of Lords in England.
Forgive my long reply. But I think your questions merited a longer response. If you still want to continue the conversation I’d like to ask you something: what do you think, Biblically or not, is the basis of good government? I’m selfishly asking because it really goes near the heart of my graduate studies.
SMACK! Well said brother. God bless you for trying to listen to/read Bill Maher. I can’t stomach him and it’s for exactly the issues you have brought forward. Now if he’d only bring someone on his show who could articulate such a well phrased disagreement.
That is a good, but tough question—the difficulty of which is compounded not by my familiarity with Scripture but with my lack in the realm of political theory. That said, here are some thoughts:
1) Scripture, concerned as it is with the rule of the heavenly kingdom rather than the politics of the earthly (at least this is the case post-Mosaic covenant), does not offer us any overt advice as to what kind of governmental system is best or wisest.
2) Scripture may not even advise us in such respects covertly. It may be possible to model one’s earthly government after Scripture’s model for the governing of the church (taking the form of some kind of rule by elites). Still, such an idea seems an abuse of the distinct role the church has from the role of the government.
3) My conclusion, therefore, is that Scripture does not advise us on the best form of government. So then, we are left to wisdom and intelligence to suss out the best political philosophies and governmental forms.
4) I am opposed to democracy because for political power to even brush the hands of the masses is a terrifying thing. That people who listen to Britney Spears, drive Hummers, believe that CNN or Fox provide anything resembling news, paid to see Transformers and then paid to see its sequel, or have ever carried a sign in a protest are allowed to decide who will lead us chills me to the bone.
Look, I’m more intelligent, better informed, more well-read, and better looking than the average American. And I am not qualified to make decisions that will contribute to America’s international and domestic policies. If I am not, then at least half of America is not. The only reason I voted at all in the last election was because I feared a vice president who didn’t appear to be even half as smart or informed as I am. And I still can’t say whether my decision was wise.
Rule by democracy is rule by the lowest common denominator. Rule by a democratic republic is rule by whoever the lowest common denominator likes the best.
5) If we can go outside the American system, I like the idea of rule by a collective of philosopher kings (five? seven?). Of cultural and intellectual elites (as opposed to economic or social elites). And perhaps a collective of philosopher kings with set term durations and some sort of term limitation wherein only one (or some other small number) from the current regime can be chosen to continue into the next (allowing for some continuity but as well the churning of fresh blood).
Once established, I imagine the collective would choose its successors, but really, I have no idea how such a dynasty would begin. I think Washington blew his shot in the beginning. If he had been established as king, he could have worked with Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton (the Jefferson and Hamilton apparently loathed each other) to create a more perfect union than the one we’ve inherited.
6) I’m in a tough spot because while I fear the power of despots, I know that there is no more despotic a ruler than the unwashed masses. The public does not have its best interest at heart and its a fickle, nationalistic beast.
7) I support, conceptually, a one-world government. But I know that such a thing would be impossible to produce in the next hundred years (we’d have to breed out the cultural pollutions of racism and nationalism and I don’t even know that such a thing would be possible so long as parents are allowed to influence their children—I do support parents influencing their children, in case you were worried).
Dane, well said, and I hope I wasn’t pressing you with my question beyond where you wanted to go. I’ll just make a couple replies:
1)I agree the Bible does not explicitely approve of any form of government. The Judges as well as Kingship both seemed to not work well. I would say that the Bible, though not very explicit on form of government, does tell us some things about how a state should function. Passages such as the locus classicus of Romans 13 do say that the role of government is the people’s good in punishing evil and rewarding good. In essence, bringing justice. What is justice? That is a question too deep to get off on here.
2) the problem of the “masses” is certainly a difficult one. Pure democracy is a terrible form of government because you rightly stated that 51% of the people can be just as tyrannical as one evil man. That is why many of the Founders who were not Christians still supported Christianity. They knew a Republic needs virtuous citizens and that the people would normally not have the time or in some cases the capacity to figure out how to be virtuous on their own. Therefore even to Jefferson Christianity was useful to inculcate virtue. I still support republican government. But we have a deficit of virtue in ours currently and the structural means of our regime that keep us going in spite of our problems can’t hold out forever.
3) An enlightened aristocracy is of course tempting even as far back as Plato, whose Republic argued for Philosopher kings. But it runs into problems of what safeguards would be upon it to fight off tyranny of the few. The human heart is such an idol factory regardless of who rules.
I’ll leave it at that so I don’t blather on too long. But plenty to think about, for sure.