San Antonio Spurs basketball coach Gregg Popovich is angry and frustrated about Donald Trump’s election. He was particularly upset with Trump’s’ rhetoric during the campaign.

I can’t imagine being a Muslim right now or a woman or an African-American, Hispanic, a handicapped person. How disenfranchised they might feel. For anyone in those groups that voted for him, it’s just beyond my comprehension how they ignore all that. Not basically because the Republicans won or anything, but the disgusting tenure and tone and all the comments that have been xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic. I live in that country where half the people ignored all that to elect someone. That’s the scariest part of the whole thing to me.… Everybody wants him [Trump] to be successful, it’s our country, we don’t want it to go down the drain. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, but it does not take away the fact that he used that fearmongering and all the comments from day one. The race-baiting with trying to make Barack Obama our first black president illegitimate. It leaves me wonder where I’ve been living and with whom I’m living…My final conclusion is, my big fear is, we are Rome.[1]

What is the essence of Popovich’s remarks? First, he believes that anyone who voted for Trump was voting for intolerance, bigotry, hatred and distrust of women, and intense hatred and fear of homosexuals. Second, Popovich says that Trump’s opposition to Obama amounted to fearmongering in which he was trying to make the first black president illegitimate.

This fact is that many of the millions that voted for Trump were not necessarily enamored with him or approved of his rhetoric. They voted for Trump because it was a vote against Clinton and her policies which meant it was also a vote against a continuation of the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Party. In spite of all the bitter rhetoric on both sides, the campaign was substantially driven by fundamental differences in the worldviews of those who had to make a choice between the two candidates. This conclusion is easily confirmed by examining the results of thousands of other elections in America. From local and state government elections to the Congressional level, there was a backlash against the Clinton/Obama vision of America which was being driven by an overreaching cabal of governmental, cultural, academic, and media elites that sought to impose a sterile, secular, humanistic worldview on a nation that would not let go of its Judeo-Christian roots.

Popovich and others of the liberal persuasion fail to see that there are two camps, one on each side of the fault line that divides America: those promoting a humanistic secularism and those upholding the Judeo-Christian foundations of the nation. Liberals see themselves as the gatekeepers of what is culturally acceptable and denigrate and marginalize those who dare to disagree, i.e., Christians, conservatives, and those opposed to a growing nanny-state socialism. Liberals believe the culture wars are over and that they won. Because they are now in charge, they will dictate what is truth for the moment and what conduct is unacceptable. However, whether approved by the majority or not, the humanists’ truth is relativistic and has no basis for determining what is right and wrong. Their relativistic answers for what ails both men and culture are based on a false understanding of man and his origins. Their humanistic philosophy is disconnected from reality (truth) and ultimately leads to failure in both individuals and societies.

Even after the election, liberals continue to perpetuate the party line in support of the illusion that Clinton lost the election because Trump’s rhetoric appealed to the baser instincts of less-educated white people who are fundamentally racist, anti-women, and homophobic and which propelled a “white-lash” of votes. This tactic has been used by liberals for many years including Barack Obama. During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama attempted to explain his difficulty in winning working-class voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest because of their frustrations with economic conditions.

And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.[2]

Hilary Clinton used the race and religion tactic in trashing Trump’s supporters at a mid-September campaign fundraiser.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [applause and laughter from the audience.] The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.[3]

Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”[4]

Approximately 120 twenty million Americans voted in the presidential election. Using Ms. Clinton’s calculations, she believes thirty million Trump voters are deplorables, many of whom she considers irredeemable and not reflective of American values. In spite of a half-hearted apology the following day, she continued her assault.

It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people.[5]

For the liberal gatekeepers of a politically correct culture, they believe they are the only ones allowed to judge the views and voices of the people and determine what is hateful and intolerant. Those that have been judged as having violated the humanistic standards of what is acceptable must not be given a national platform to spread their message to millions of other people because they belong in that basket of deplorables. This is operative mindset of liberals and the reason why the voice and influence of Christianity in America has been denigrated, muted, and marginalized for the last several decades as our elite humanist overlords rose to power in every facet of American life.

The issues that divide America are far more important than the winner of a single presidential election. However, the election was exceedingly important in deciding the trajectory of the nation in addressing those issues. Popovich does not address those issues that divide America other than to say that a vote for Trump was a vote for intolerance, bigotry, hatred and distrust of women, and fear of homosexuals. Because of Popovich’s distorted view, he feels America is a crumbling society reminiscent of the Roman Empire. Let’s examine that empire and determine if its decay was the result of a Christian worldview or false pagan and humanistic worldviews.

Roman Practices

The first widespread persecution of Christians under the Romans began under Emperor Nero in A.D. 64. There were many reasons why the Christians were harassed, hated, despised, imprisoned, tortured or killed during the first three hundred years of the church’s history. One of the principal reasons for the persecutions was the church’s beliefs which stood in opposition to Roman culture. Christian morality condemned Roman practices of abortion, infanticide, abandonment of infants, suicide, homosexual acts, and the degradation of women, all fixtures in the culture of the Roman Empire.[6] Which aspects of the culture of the Roman Empire do the humanists and secularists champion in today’s America? Substantially all of them: homosexuality, abortion (and infanticide in some quarters), suicide, and sexual degradation of women. So we see that it is the beliefs, causes, and practices of America’s modern liberals, progressives, and humanists that are similar to the practices of the failed Roman Empire.

Roman gods and the Roman state

The Romans were not anti-religious and dedicated the Pantheon in Rome to all gods. Also, the Roman rulers did not object to Christians worshiping Jesus and were very willing to give the Christian God a place in their pantheon of gods. But those prickly Christians had to insist that they worshiped only Jesus as God and his Father, the infinite, personal God. These beliefs were considered treasonous because they threatened the unity of the state. To make matters worse, the Christians believed their God established the absolute universal standard by which to judge not only one’s personal morals but the actions of the state as well. Because Christians adhere to higher moral standards of behavior, such behavior casts the humanists in a negative light. As a result, Christians are labeled as judgmental, non-progressive, and intolerant.

In the Roman Empire, any group that presumed to judge the actions of the state or question its authority could not be tolerated and were treated as enemies of the state.[7] By modern liberal standards, those early Christians would be labeled as intolerant, non-inclusive, and even bigoted. A similar judgment has been pronounced on many Christians in today’s America. As a result, humanist elites also see Christians as enemies of the state which has resulted in their loss of jobs; massive fines for practicing their faith in their businesses; denial of work in certain professions; enrollment at many universities; and banishment from certain media, cultural, and entertainment venues.
______

The Roman world disintegrated because it was culturally and spiritually impoverished and no longer had a unifying common core of belief. The Christian virtues that had gained stature in the fourth century and offered a worldview built on the reality of divine truth had not time to infuse life into the dying empire. Likewise, the rise of the secular-humanistic worldview and its ascension to the corridors of power in all of America’s institutions have compromised and supplanted the once vibrant Christian character that permeated the nation’s central cultural vision. As a result there is no longer a unifying common core of belief without which American culture will eventually disintegrate. Popovich is correct in believing America is becoming Rome but not for the reasons he thinks.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Spurs’ Popovich on Trump’s election: ‘That disgusting’,” NewsMax, November 12, 2016.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gregg-popovich-san-antonio-spurs-nba-donald-trump/2016/11/11/id/758509/ (accessed November 12, 2016).
[2] Gleanings, “Obama: ‘They cling to guns or religion’,” Christianity Today, April 13, 2008.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2008/april/obama-they-cling-to-guns-or-religion.html (accessed November 12, 2016).
[3] Amy Chozick, “Hilary Clinton calls many Trump backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P pounces,” The New York Times, September 10, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html?_r=0 (accessed November 11, 2016).
[4] Dan Merica and Sophie Tatum, “Clinton expresses regret for saying ‘half’ of Trump’s supporters are ‘deplorables’,” CNN Politics, September 12, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald- trump-basket-of-deplorables/ index.html (accessed November 12, 2016).
[5] Chozick, “Hilary Clinton calls many Trump backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P pounces,” The New York Times.
[6] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001, 2004, pp. 25,
[7] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1976), p. 24.

There are few columnists with which I disagree more on almost all issues than E. J. Dionne (Washington Post Writers Group). In a recent column titled “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Dionne implies that many of the world’s democracies are dysfunctional and unraveling.[1] However, his conclusions as to “why” this is happening and the solutions offered are not only wrong but are oblivious to the real cause of societal dysfunction in democracies.

Dionne points to a 2013 survey in which “…63 percent of Americans said government should be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but 59 percent also believed government had grown bigger because it had become involved in things people should do for themselves.”[2] Dionne believes that the world’s democracies are beset by a peculiar set of contradictions. He states that there is a decline of trust in traditional political parties but also a rise in political partisanship. But the larger picture escapes Dionne as he attempts to gloss over big government’s systemic failures by blaming political parties that engage in divisive partisan politics. A second observation was that people want the government to reduce levels of economic insecurity and expand opportunity while at the same time they do not believe government has the ability to do so.[3] Here, Dionne fails to see that mistrust of government extends far beyond its perceived failure to provide economic security and opportunities as demanded. Rather, in the larger perspective, people have been conditioned to expect the government to accomplish the impossible task of providing an ever expanding array of wants, rights, and wishes while at the same time limiting government involvement in their lives.

How is it that America has arrived at this paradox after almost 250 years of democracy? There are two parts to the answer. One is loss of the concept of limited government. The other is the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom. We shall deal with the loss of the concept of limited government first.

Limited government

Traditional ideas of limited government were part of the American psyche even before the Founders designed the American system of governance. These ideas prevailed until the rise of the humanistic worldview in the early twentieth century and converged with the economic and societal upheavals caused by the Great Depression and World War II. Under the humanistic worldview there was a seismic change in how mankind and justice were viewed. Man was not fallen but basically good. Therefore, all injustice and inequality in society are the result of defective institutions which the government must correct.

Three generations after this convergence, many Americans now view government as primarily responsible for dealing with an ever expanding array of societal problems. Politicians became the power brokers for providing solutions to a host of newly found social and political demands. However, funding government and the growing list of wants, rights, and wishes of the populous has become a major hurdle because government cannot do everything for everybody. Samuelson called this “the politics of overpromise…the systematic and routine tendency of government to make more commitments than can reasonably be fulfilled.” For decades the irrationality of the politics of overpromise has been glossed over by a misplaced faith in an ever expanding economy that would provide all the income necessary to meet the growing list of demands.[4]

Government became the provider or guarantor of happiness as opposed to making possible the pursuit thereof. After decades of an ever increasing institutionalization of synthetic rights purported to be due to the great majority of the populous, progressive politicians and bureaucrats must find someone to pay for the costs associated with a benefactor government. Because government cannot do all things for a people, it is held in deep distrust.[5] To maintain governmental power in the face of dwindling resources, there is a steady progression towards socialism.

Dionne attributes much of this mistrust of government to the growth of special interest groups he claims have too much influence on government. He quotes one study by a political scientist who wrote of the rise of negative partisanship among the electorate, “…supporters of each party perceive supporters of the opposing party as very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics and fundamental values.” Dionne states that, “…our current form of partisanship leads us to dislike not only the other side’s politicians but even each other.[6]

Dionne cites Stanley Greenberg who says that this hostility among not only the politicians but the electorate as well is a result of special interest groups having too much hold on government.[7] But Samuelson correctly argues that the growth of special interest groups is merely a result of growth of government.

When government is limited, it can be more easily influenced through elections. Voters can get a sense of where there representatives stand on major issues, and legislators can judge their constituents’ general feelings. As government activities proliferate, this is harder for both voters and legislators.”[8]

In other words, big government begets special interest groups. For years liberal big-government politicians welcomed special interest groups. But now campaign finance reform is always popular with proponents of big government. Until the advent of the Internet, talk radio, and a proliferation of cable TV companies, the proponents of big government weren’t too concerned with campaign funding because by default the bully pulpit was monopolized by the big government-friendly news media, academia, government bureaucracies, big business, and the entertainment industry. But even with the loss of the liberal monopoly over the media to influence public opinion, they are happy to give up campaign funding and go back to the good old days. It is not that the liberal monopoly wants to eliminate special interest groups; it is that such legislation will dry up funds for conservative political action committees, limited-government candidates, and issue-oriented campaigns. Funds for conservatives to access new media outlets are dried up by so-called campaign finance reform, and this leaves the no-cost liberal media monopoly and their government funded emissaries and yes men to spread their big government orthodoxy.

Incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom through big government

The second part of our answer as to the paradox regarding the unraveling of democracy deals with the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom because of the impositions of big government.

Dionne ends his article with a remarkably revealing statement as to what he believes is the first task of politicians in democratic countries—the aggregating of sustainable majorities. He quotes Daniel T. Rodgers’ 2011 book Age of Fracture which proposes that, “…if the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s were a time of political and social ‘consolidation,’ the dominant tendency now is ‘disaggregation’ which is a big problem for self-government.”[9] If Dionne is correct, then our elected representatives are not to be primarily concerned about the opinions and wishes of the electorate but to merely aggregate sustainable majorities. It appears that much of the elected leadership has been following Dionne’s prescription since the 1960s. Could this be the cause of the electorates’ anger and mistrust of government which is “…undermining faith in the public endeavor and unraveling of old loyalties”?[10]

The conflict between big government and limited government as well as the frustrations and anger expressed by the electorate are merely a microcosm of a larger conflict of worldviews in America. On the one hand we have the biblical worldview upon which the nation was founded. The biblical worldviews of its citizens collectively became the central cultural vision of the nation and reigned supreme until the first part of the twentieth century. In a society built upon the biblical worldview, men join together and voluntarily limit their freedom. But the imposition of limits comes from a group of like-minded individuals whose central cultural vision reflects the biblical worldview of freedom (lack of coercion) resonates with the nature of man. By the mid twentieth century, those of the humanistic worldview had risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed (coercion) on a nation whose citizens still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the essence of the culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews.

To answer the “why” of Dionne’s question regarding democracy’s unraveling around the world we must look to John Adams, Founder and second president of the United States.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[11]

In other words, democracy cannot be sustained without a moral populace. Morality in government must flow upward from the morality of its citizens. By morality and religion Adams meant Christian morality. Without a moral citizenry, there is no hope for a sustained moral and just self-government. However, in Dionne’s world, morals are a matter of interpretation and decided by man and not God. Self-government flows downward from the humanist elite or, as C. S. Lewis called them, the “conditioners” of society which are more interested in aggregating sustainable majorities to maintain their power rather than representing the wishes of the people. But such a government eventually erodes into a totalitarian state and a loss of freedom so essential to man’s nature.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] E. J. Dionne, “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Tulsa World, May 2, 2015, A-16.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Robert Samuelson, The Good Life and Its Discontents, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1997), p. 143.
[5] Ibid., p. 188.
[6] Dionne, A-19.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Samuelson, p. 193.
[9] Dionne, A-19.
[10] Ibid.
[11] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: Fame Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 10-11.