Are We Still the People?
Deeply Held Preconceptions and Where They Came From
Cartoons and Family
Perhaps I’m not the only member of DLGP03 who memorized the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States in song form thanks to a Saturday morning television show called Schoolhouse Rock. The interested can find it on YouTube. Three phrases of the preamble have informed my preconceived ideas of what I have considered an “ideal” government or “best” government. They are, 1) we the people, 2) establish justice, and 3) secure the blessings of liberty.
Besides Saturday morning cartoons, my sense of the merits of liberal democracy (though I did not have the terminology until Jesus and the Powers by NT Wright and Michael Bird) was heavily influenced by an aunt who was a primary caregiver while I was in elementary school. I can characterize the mental picture I have of her in the 1970s with the phrase justice warrior. She was involved in local government back then and today remains very politically vocal. From her, I absorbed the belief that Americans are very privileged to live in a democracy and, as citizens, it is our duty to participate in government and to act on behalf of others. Her example, along with ordinary public education, taught me to value liberal democracy because it allows for we the people to participate in government. I learned that democracy is government by the people and for the people. I have further believed that inherent to this form of government is the conception that we the people are sufficiently gifted to participate. Finally, we the people have the right to utilize our voices and be heard regarding who shall govern and by what methods. Although my beliefs are from a distinctly American point of view, I think they are true for other democracies.
Only last semester did I become acquainted with the actual term liberal democracy, thanks to Jesus and the Powers by NT Wright and Michael Bird. Otherwise, my associations with the word “liberal” were as an antonym to what it means to be “conservative.” In Wright I learned that the system of government I was taught to believe was “ideal” had also been considered, at least by some, as “the climax and culmination of the human political evolution.”[1] Even then, I noted how the once global hope for this system of government aligned with my early education, especially following German unification, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the end of apartheid.
Global travel over the last three decades has tended to reinforce my belief that the system of government, which I now know as liberal democracy, is the better form of government. This notion was related to the presence of a middle class in my home country of the United States and personal freedom to travel internally without fear and checkpoints.
Challenging My Beliefs
In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen, a political theorist and professor at Notre Dame University, refers to liberal democracy as a widely used description of the only form of political organization generally considered “legitimate in the West.[2] Although my ‘preconceptions’ section uses the term government rather than political organization, I perceive them as the same idea. What I learned is that under the feel-good sense of best-ness lurks a re-creation of what the liberal democracy’s authors were trying to change.
Money drives it all, and according to Deneen, liberal democracy has created a new aristocracy. Liberal democracy gives people the liberty to pursue economic enrichment. When successful, as has been the case in the United States, the rich become very rich, the middle class I had celebrated is shrinking, and society for the poor is fractured.[3] Contributing to this reality is the pursuit of technology, especially as it impacts natural resources.[4] Another factor is closed systems created by education and relationship dynamics among the already wealthy.[5] The reality of this growing inequality among the people who are supposedly created equal is not particularly new or challenging. What IS challenging is fully realizing the absolute hand-in-handedness of political and economic systems and recognizing that the ‘best’ system has always been so. How else can one explain 350,000 people enslaving 4 million others and starting a war to protect their right to do so based on economic self-interest?[6]
In a brief effort to find better hope, I looked into Deneen’s 2023 book, Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future. Could it illuminate ideas for a more hopeful future? According to one reviewer, the book’s tone and language seem to heavily endorse the regime change we are about to experience.[7] Is the coming change hopeful or terrifying? Back to the money… after months of trying to figure it out, James Carville recently wrote a New York Times opinion piece to explain why the democrats lost the recent presidential election, and his bottom line was simply “the economy.” People worried about money voted a rich man into office because they thought he and his party offered better hope for their own financial improvement. Ironically, the losing candidate spent over 1 billion dollars. This liberal democracy is not looking much like we the (ordinary) people, or justice, or liberty…unless liberty means the rich are free to get richer and the poor are at liberty to become separated by an economic chasm which will never be crossed except by some sort of uprising.
If I had more time, I would dig deeper into liberalism’s so-called failure in search of seeds of the positivity with which I began this blog. In spite of becoming dispirited during the reading and writing of the second part of the blog, a little hope flame always remains.
[1] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Reflective, 2024), 2.
[2] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 154.
[3] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 138.
[4] Ibid
[5] Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 149.
[6] David W. Blight, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, (Simon and Schuster, 2018).
[7] Jennifer Szalai, review of REGIME CHANGE: Toward a Postliberal Future, by Patrick J. Deneen, The New York Times, June 7, 2023.
About the Author
Julie O'Hara
18 responses to “Are We Still the People?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Julie, I, too, felt a little dispirited after reading Deneen. Like you, I have seen societies around the globe that do not share the same privileges we have in a liberal democracy. However, Deneen’s book left me with a lot of questions. I appreciated your investigation to find a better hope in more of his writings. You conclude your post with the statement, “A little hope flame always remains.” What is that little hope flame for you? Thanks for a great post and for sharing a little about your aunt.
Hi Elysse,
The little flame of hope is always Jesus. As much as humans disappoint both individually and systemically, they can also be agents of hope and change when their hearts are fully submitted to Jesus. This may sound basic, but I am convinced and convicted over and over that one of the most important things I can do is live as consistently as possible with the faith I profess so that others may also find hope. When I was little, she was my “magical auntie”.
Julie,
First off, I want to nominate you for the hot seat so that you can sing the SchoolHouse Rock song. I am not familiar with it but I assure you we would all love to hear it.
Secondly, I echo Elysse’s question about the small glimmer of hope. Can you expand on that idea a bit more?
Hi Adam, You would certainly be crying for me to mute myself after just a few words. To my eternal disappointment, I cannot sing, clap on the beat, play an instrument, dance, read music…or paint or draw or do math. So. Moving on.
More about the hope flame of Jesus – within the system we have, I and others are at liberty to fully embrace identy as Jesus-followers. Should we collectively follow Him into the world and make little Kingdom-communities we have the opportunity to connect people and be a source of healing – even for the self-inflicted wound of hyper-individualism.
Julie, it’s interesting how cartoons were used to indoctrinate the young to a liberal democracy.
When you say that global travel helped to reinforce your belief in a liberal democracy, what signs did you see to affirm this? How might the political worldview of those from other parts of the world be reinforced through travel to North America?
Hi Graham, the cartoons also taught the parts of speech (“Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get your adverbs here”, “Conjunction Junction, what’s your Function?) and multiplication tables, so indoctrination may be a bit strong.
The possibility of random checkpoints by armed people who clearly had all the power to stop, to search, to seize, to extort is a particular thing.
Regarding a few other topics I started to mention, I too easily see parallels in US govt today. They were probably always there, but at the time of travel, I was unaware.
Part two of your question – that would depend greatly on whether one from another system was profiting or oppressed by said system. In profit, one might say, “look at those degenerate North Americans with no sense of community, only bankrupt morals.” For one who is oppressed, they may think, “Look at this wealth and opportunity. Their poor people are wealthy compared to us. I can make something of myself if only I have a chance.”
This is some serious speculation on my part…
Julie, I was being sarcastic by using the word “indoctrination” but I didn’t mean to offend or make light of your illustration. Your blog was fantastic, and I appreciated reading it.
Graham, Thanks for the clarification of sarcasm, I thought you might have been making a ‘quiet-Canadian’ joke. I definitely was not offended either way. Warm regards, Julie
Thanks for sharing your story of your aunt and how her cloesly-held views influenced your experience of your country.
Now that you’ve read Deneen, how might this new perspective influence your ministry and personal experience of democracy going forward?
Hi Debbie,
It frustrates me when I hear folks talk about politics or a candidate or any issue in simple dualistic terms, particularly when making one view right and the other wrong. Besides complexity of any single issue, they also interleave with one another. Now add to that the inward turning of the human heart and even the very best of ideas will be tainted. It seems clear to me that the very best ideas of the human mind can ever and only be theoretically perfect. All of that to say…in ministry, I will double-down on “grace” as topic: prevenient, saving, and sanctifying. As for my view of democracy, I remain committed and recognize the privilege to engage responsibly.
Hey Julie! Given your perspective of the economic inequalities perpetuated by liberal democracy, what do you believe can help reconcile the ideals of “we the people” and “justice for all”?
Hi Daren,
Your question is incredibly challenging. I seem unable to live up to my own ideals. I make daily choices that negatively impact other people: what I eat or otherwise consume, how I spend or don’t, and so on. Even with a conscious desire to ‘do good’ to others, some of my best choices are simply the ‘least bad.’ Other decisions are motivated by selfish desires. I have written about this a bit before and I remain unreconciled. It seems reasonable to be transparent in ministry about these inner wrestling. Perhaps that can help congregants see that there are no easy answers and that we the people collectively and individually have been called to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly.
As soon as I saw your cartoon image, I was singing “I’m just a bill. ” I hear in your voice the gratitude you have for American democracy, but I can also sense the trepidation you have about the next few years and the changes they may bring.
What aspect of our current system do you think still holds positive value, and how can it be protected or revitalized in the current political climate?
Hi Jennifer, Thank you for responding to my blog and for “getting” the Schoolhouse Rock reference!
I need to be clear that I had trepidation whichever way this election would have turned out. Had things gone the other way, I would have a different set of concerns.
(Nearly) universal suffrage has enormous value and could be revitalized if more people took it seriously. I’m not sure our system of education rightly emphasize the battles which were fought to gain the vote for different groups. Various voting-rights battles in Georgia and other places indicate that politicians believe that votes matter.
I also speculate that local politics has an opportunity to impact the local community. Do you think that people get burned out from over-focus on the “big stage” and don’t pay enough attention to their own backyard?
Julie, your mention of memorizing the preamble reminded me of an episode of “The Andy Griffith Show” where Barney struggles to recall the preamble he claims to have memorized in school years ago. It’s hilarious!
Anyway, reflecting on Deneen’s critique of liberal democracy and its role in perpetuating inequality, how do you reconcile the idealistic vision of “We the People” and justice with the economic and social disparities you mention? Do you see any practical steps through policy or community action that could help liberal democracy better fulfill its promises of equality, justice, and liberty for all, particularly for marginalized groups?
Hi Chad, Barney Fife!
I read/heard recently that the law is to protect rights, not take them away. If citizen’s rights are not protected, then law is needed. I don’t have an example to hand, but it ‘seems’ like those with power to pass law to protect marginalized groups can easily be dissuaded from doing so by wealthy constituents. For this reason, it is incumbent upon the present Kingdom of God to take up the mantle and care for people by whatever means are available to us. Sometimes that is direct action of some kind. Within any local body of Christ are Spirit-given gifts to be used for the community. The practical steps will look different for each group, but until we find them, many churches remain social clubs. Too harsh?
Hi Julie, thanks for your post. I chuckled as I thought about growing up on School House Rock! The money that US presidential candidates spend on elections (on top of AI and its ability to persuade the masses) makes me really question our systems for maintaining liberty.
How do you think about the money that candidates spend and their methods of persuading people to vote for them?
Hi Christy, I thought Schoolhouse Rock was gone before your time. I feel younger now!
At least as late as 1860 it was considered unseemly for presidential candidates to campaign for themselves. For example, Lincoln (and his 3 rivals) did not attend the Republican national convention in Chicago that year. Instead, their friends and associates were there to work on their behalf. In that case a Lincoln who started life as a dirt farmer from Indiana and barely had a year of formal schooling became president instead of wealthy others. Interesting!
It is hard for me to answer how I ‘think’ about the way it is today, but I ‘feel’ disappointed. I also remember that any moment is only part of the unfolding story – no matter how anything ‘feels’ or is perceived by me is likely not the full truth of the matter. The future will see this current time very differently. Just another reason for hope.