Of Self-Serving Doctrines       

By Harry T. Cook 

3/8/13

Harry T. Cook

Well do I remember an exchange with a young man -- somewhat successful as a financial adviser -- following a speech he made several years ago to members of a service club. In his talk, he was pleased to quote the late Ronald Reagan to the effect that government is not the solution to America's problem but the problem itself.

"I believe in smaller government," he said again and again. I had to ask him, "Smaller than what?" He could not answer. I asked if he'd like to see the Social Security Administration's budget trimmed even though that might interfere with his aging parents' monthly receipt of their Social Security check.

"Of course, not," he said. What, then, about decreasing the layout for all those air traffic controllers? Maybe people should just take the train. He was horrified. "No, no," he said, "I just believe smaller government."

Finally, I was able to get out of him the fact that the concept of "smaller government" had been a recurrent theme in many classes he had taken during his college years, thus he thought it was the right thing to believe. It turned out that he had graduated from Hillsdale College in Michigan, the Midwestern bulwark of hard-Right conservatism.

Today, a week into the sequestration and the austerity it brings with it, "smaller government" seems to be the much-repeated antiphon. It seems not to matter to those who insisted on the sequester that government-funded food for poor children may be yanked from their mouths or that their early-childhood education may be cut short. The holy grail of politics for these people is to reduce the size of government, however that can be accomplished.

One has to ask why. It's tempting to say that the recalcitrant House Republicans got really hot for smaller government at just about the time a black Democrat became President, but it runs far deeper than that -- as deep as the deepest religious conviction.

A dozen or so years ago, I was teaching a class of would-be ministers how to use the Bible. As we concentrated on a small collection of New Testament passages, I began to acquaint them with the tools of textual criticism and the academically appropriate method of investigating the provenance, the possible purpose of a given text, the lexical meanings of its vocabulary, and what one might say about the Bible at no less than a two-millennia remove from its origins.

"The texts are your data," I told them. "Go where their study takes you, not to where you may want by habit to go." What I meant was, "Forget what you were taught in Sunday school or catechism class about the Bible being the Word of God. Treat the texts before you as an archaeologist would treat shards from a dig: try to determine what parts they may have played in whatever the whole of the thing being excavated may have been. Don't make any assumptions."

For a full third of the way through the term, that was the battle line. Virtually all of my students wanted to begin with the a priori notion that every word on the pages between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 had been, if not actually spoken by God, directly inspired by God, and therefore must be dealt with as such.

One student asked, "I believe the Bible is the Word of God. How can we tell our people to believe what the Bible says if we don't tell them it's the Word of God?"

That student's attitude helped me understand the obdurate nature of the young man in his unwavering belief in smaller government. It was part of the psychological dynamic of what his education had made him.

He believed and probably still believes in the well-nigh sacred doctrine of "smaller government" no matter the facts on the ground, no matter that we are still in a time of economic turmoil -- part of the origins of which can be traced to the lack of an already smaller government's limp regulation of the nation's large financial sector.

On no account could he countenance the proposition that government needs to be whatever size it needs to be to do the work of the People.

He believes in smaller government in the same way my student believes the Bible is the Word of God - not because the veracity of the doctrine can be established, but because the believer has allowed himself to be guided by what authority says is true rather than what can be demonstrated to be true.

Ecclesiastical authority mandates the teaching of theological doctrine as truth to keep control of its flock. Similarly, the wealthy endow favored colleges and departmental chairs in their faculties to ensure that the doctrine of smaller government is faithfully taught.

Why? Because smaller government means less regulation and lower taxes. Thus, in that most convenient belief system there is no god but smaller government, and sequestration is its prophet.

Apropos to the latter point are words W. Somerset Maugham had one of his characters speak: I always thought that there was something pathetic in the founders of religion who made it a condition of salvation that you should believe in them . . . They remind you of those old pagan gods who grew wan and faint if they were not sustained by the burnt offering of the devout.*

*The Razor's Edge. New York, NY. Doubleday, Doran, Inc., 1943. 269

re essay of 3/1/13 Civics Class            

William Holmberg, Utica, MI:

I look forward to reading every one of your essays. This particular essay made me realize how difficult it has become for me to find words to describe how totally disgusted I am with John Boehner and his Republican minions; with the blatant racism that continues towards our president; that there even has to be discussion of any kind about totally banning automatic weapons and mass killer magazines after the Sandy Hook Massacre and the subsequent killings that followed the horror of that day in December 2012. Our government is imploding, and it's heart-sickening.    

Charlotte Webster, Raleigh, NC:

I taught government in a high school for some years, and I put myself in the place of your imaginary civics class teacher. If I were teaching today, I would be sorely tempted to do as he or she did: just tell the truth. In this state, I would have been fired for it. Why can't the politicians tell the truth?

Elaine Waldman, Oak Park, MI:

Just finished reading your 3/1/13 essay and I have to tell what peace of mind it gives knowing that there is a voice of reason in this world.

Billie Clarkson, Quincy, Il:

The claptrap that the Republicans roll out about the horror of spending our tax money borders on the criminally insane. I want my tax money to be spent on air traffic control, Head Start and food stamps. As if any of those naysayers' salaries will be affected. We need to send Congress home without pay for about six months if we want to save our money.

Rusty Hancock, Madison Heights, MI: 

Glad to see our minds are running in the same channels re: the state of politics in the USA right now. The phrase about the inmates running the asylum has long been a favorite of mine (unfortunately, as it is a pretty good description of the situation) and my ears (or eyes) perked right up when I saw it in your lastest essay. These people (Tea Partiers and their hangers-on and fellow travelers) show the worst side of the faith-based community, because their attitude carries over into their political and economic beliefs as well. No matter how often they are showed by history and/or experience that it doesn't work, they are simply unable to accept the evidence of their senses because it conflicts with their belief system, and it would be far too painful to accept that they might have been wrong about something so central to their existence. Unfortunately that's the price of growing up. But I am not holding my breath until it happens. At some point you simply have to stop trying to convince them (wasted effort) and just start organizing and voting against them.

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Thank you for a moving description of the plight of many good teachers. Civics classes at the eighth grade level are rare today. Most students graduate high school with very little knowledge of civics or  U.S. history. I have a son who is a gifted teacher of college level English Literature. He can't get a full-time job. Across the nation colleges and universities now offer part-time jobs to escape having to pay benefits. So my son works as a newspaper reporter and teaches online classes in order to make ends meet. I agree with you that our government has become a "waking nightmare." We have a dysfunctional Congress, a failed President, and a deeply divided Supreme Court. Much of what comes from all three is pure nonsense. The best things President Obama has done are his two appointments to the Supreme Court. However, three women justices and one male justice are a progressive minority easily overruled by the other five justices on the Court. When will we the people rise up and demand meaningful change? Is that even possible in America today? I wonder.

Christine Day, West Bloomfield, MI:

Excellent essay today (as always). Thank you for giving me another reason to look forward to Fridays. I especially like reading what your readers write back to you. "It is people like you that keep bringing these issues up just to stir up more trouble," writes Cathy Petroelje of Zeeland, MI. I look forward to reading what trouble you'll be stirring up next.

Michael Baldwin, Boulder, CO:

I'm a student here but my Dad forwards your essays to me. I in turn forwarded today's article "Civics Class" to a couple of my professors and will let you know what they have to say. Me? I'm p_ _ sed!

Cynthia Chase, Laurel, MD:

Great essay. I am holding my breath after seeing a chart on how the sequester will affect programs in Maryland. Feeding programs for indigent seniors and school kids for starters. Our church has adopted a nearby elementary school, where over 50 percent of the students receive subsidized meals. Since the winter vacation imposes a crisis on about 40 of the school's families, members of our congregation filled grocery bags with turkeys and trimmings for Christmas as well as food to help the families make it through the week when school is out. Next summer, these children will probably lose out again when school is closed. The other night we enrolled our special-needs grandson in a beginning roller skating class at the neighborhood community center. Some of the kids were no longer beginners, but their parents paid the nominal fee so that these "graduates" could enjoy six more hours of skating during the next month and a half. To see these energetic kids (most of whom probably live in nearby apartments) whiz non-stop round and round the periphery of the gym was a joyful sight, but I'm afraid the center is in danger of losing federal funds. Our grandson has made good progress this year in a special program for autistic kids at a nearby public school. I see that programs that serve him are scheduled for termination, along with the aides, "DA's" [dedicated assistants], school psychologists, etc. I suppose some would call him a "taker," but with intervention while he is young, he has a better chance of growing up to make a contribution to society. He would probably be some sort of environmentalist. (Yes, I know. This is not considered a worthy calling by ultra-conservatives.) The sequester is a crisis that did not need to happen. How shortsighted can it be, this pursuit of a willow-the-wisp called a "balanced budget." I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but this tea-party notion that the budget must be balanced year-on-year is ridiculous.

Linda Samelson, West Bloomfield, MI:

Insanity is alive and well in this country and your words provide comfort to many of us.

A lesson in civics presumes civility, which rings about as true as that tired, hollow phrase, "my friends on the other side of the aisle." What few fail to acknowledge or dare utter is that that aisle is a chasm; and that we have long since passed that fork in the road with two different visions for American that are fundamentally incompatible, and their differences irreconcilable in the form of still more half-baked compromises. The diminishing, but recalcitrant conservative base representing the "makers" are taking their last desperate stand against the supposed "takers." Apparently still unbeknownst to the halls of Congress and bastions of power and entitled wealth, we are engaged in a new American 'evolution.' The 'R' is silent.

Sharon Tesner, Macomb, MI:

At the risk of offending someone's religious sensitivity, [to your essay "Civics Class"] I say: Amen!!!     

Charles White, Plymouth, MI: