US Not Becoming a Theocracy

There’s a lot of debate these days in the US and abroad about the course American society is taking, and the role religion plays in shaping its politics. Despite the expectations and hopes of secularists, the religious life in the US is vigorous, and its electoral politics frequently reflects the demographics.

Despite the expectations and hopes of various religious figures, however, there is no “Christian America” because the pluralistic structure of its constitution forbids it.

There is also the issue of whether liberal constitutionalism requires some kind of Christian ethic to sustain it (i.e., virtues promoting trust, cooperation, sacrifice, etc.), but the specific virtues usually associated with such an ethic tend to be what medieval theologians called “natural” virtues, in contrast with supernatural ones like faith, hope, and charity, meaning they could be practiced by non-Christians.

All of this to place Michael Barone’s recent column into context. He calls on Americans, especially on the secular side, to take a deep breath, and rejects as paranoid fears that America is becoming a theocracy. Just because America hasn’t become fully secular, doesn’t mean it’s going to become a theocracy:

America has not moved in the expected direction. In fact, just the opposite. Economist Robert Fogel’s The Fourth Great Awakening argues that we’ve been in the midst of a religious revival since the 1950s, in which, as in previous revivals, “the evangelical churches represented the leading edge of an ideological and political response to accumulated technological and social changes that undermined the received culture.” In the 2004 presidential exit poll, 74 percent of voters described themselves as churchgoers, 23 percent as evangelical or born-again Protestants, and 10 percent said they had no religion.

That said, American exceptionalism will continue mainly because churchgoers tend to have more children:

Who inherits the future? In free societies each generation makes its own religious choices, but people tend to follow the faith of their parents. Secular Europe, with below-replacement birthrates among non-Muslims, could be headed for a Muslim future, as historian Niall Ferguson suggests. In the United States, as pointed out by Phillip Longman in The Empty Cradle and Ben Wattenberg in Fewer, birthrates are above replacement level largely because of immigrants. But, as Longman notes, religious people have more children than seculars. Those who believe in “family values” are more likely to have families.

This agrees somewhat with Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingelhart, who, in Sacred and Secular, argue that demographics tends to explain the worldwide resurgence of religiosity (that is, outside of Europe and Canada).

So, fears of America becoming a “theocracy” are really an expression of failed expectations on the part of secularists, whose Enlightenment dream of a “rational” society has not taken hold:

This doesn’t mean we’re headed toward a theocracy: America is too diverse and freedom loving for that. But it does mean that we’re probably not headed to the predominantly secular society that liberals predicted half a century ago and that Europe has now embraced.

One clue of where we’re headed may be found in the most recent example secularists cite as the theocratic turn: Senator Bill Frist’s speech at a Family Research Council sponsored even protesting Democratic filibusters, and general rally against secular influence. As the San Francisco Gate observes:

the Senate majority leader neither referred to religious faith nor addressed criticism that the event was inappropriately dragging religion into a partisan dispute.

Instead, he focused on the allegations of Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, that Frist was a radical Republican for participating in the telecast, which was designed to build conservative Christian support for his threat to eliminate the filibuster of presidential nominees — a parliamentary tactic that allows a group of at least 41 senators to reject a nominee by refusing the 60 votes to close debate and call for a vote. Democrats have threatened to virtually halt Senate business if Frist follows through.

“I don’t think it’s radical to ask senators to vote,” Frist said. “Now, if Sen. Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the ‘nuclear option.’ Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.”

In other words, Frist appeared via video (not in person) and spoke about the procedural issues (and their impact on the political views of the nominees) but spoke not once about religious faith as the event’s sponsors had done (and perhaps hoped Frist would as well).

Frist’s appearance is the classic equipoise of a politician seeking a broad base of support. He appears (on video!) to solidify his core support, but doesn’t commit himself to all their views in order to build coalitions with a broader part of the population that does not necessarily include Focus on the Family people.

This seems to be the more likely future course of religion and politics in America: more of the same, as formed by the Constitution with its checks and balances.

Meanwhile, Winfield Myers and Professor Bainbridge and others continue debating whether Democrats exhibit anti-Catholic bigotry in filibustering Bush’s judicial nominees (see my previous post on that subject).