Democracy, Idealism, and Messianism
By Andrew Baker

Democracy is that which has taught us that truth is what the majority vote for. After all, how could hundreds of millions of people be wrong? The "will" of the people is what really matters. As if this entity called "the people" actually exists and has being. "The people" in actuality are made up of individuals and each of them has their own individual will. If each persons "will" can be directed for a specific goal, then whomever can manipulate those individual wills in that direction can harness the power it creates, and in a democracy, can produce and sustain "truth."

The current situation of America, after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has revealed that the powers that rule have done just this. All of the poles show that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States want retaliation. The majority of the people believe that not only is this the "right" thing to do, but that it is the only way to protect our nation from further attacks: to show those who would attack us that we will kill them. This then is "truth" in America today. The people have willed it.

The people have not just willed this though. The media, blasting images of explosions, crumbling buildings, people jumping out of skyscrapers, and a band of Palestinians celebrating have helped manipulate that will. The speeches of government officials, the slogans they are producing, the polarizing of any who might not like America as "evil" and the USA as "good, and the outright refusal to look at anything the USA may have done to help bring these things upon the nation, have also helped to shape those individual wills.

Democracy is a cycle. The people vote in their leaders and the leaders shape the people. The people cannot will anything other than what the leaders will, and the leaders cannot will anything other than that of the people. Democracy is truth for Americans. How can hundreds of millions of voters be wrong?

Conversely, how can any person who dissents from that majority be right? Those of us who see that the plan to retaliate will not deter terrorists but will most likely create more of it are characterized by those who help create public opinion as naïve…or in other words we are abnormal.

For instance, Ruth Simmons, of Brown University, was a guest on ABC News on September 20. She was asked by Peter Jennings to describe how the President's call for war would fare in the universities. She said that some students would be upset by this talk of war, and said that this was because they are young, inexperienced and probably just plain afraid.

The message is clear: if you do not support what the rest of America supports, you are naive, not yet fully developed intellectually (or quite insane), and probably a coward. Democracy in America can and does allow those dissenters to speak at times. But make no mistake about it, American democracy does not allow such dissent because it believes in "freedom of speech" or some other ten commandment of the religion found in the Constitution. It allows such dissent merely to show that most Americans are "normal" and are intellectually sound in their cries for retaliation and are "brave." We dissenters are "exceptions that prove the rule." We have been co-opted to show what "insane" talk looks like in the face of such terrible evil. Insane talk looks like this: asking for politicians and Americans to step back and look at the ways in which the USA has caused men to hate the US so much that they would kill themselves in order to strike our heel; asking politicians to look at other alternatives than bombing and killing others; asking that retaliation not be a factor in US policy but to look for ways to make peace instead.

It is not the time to look at US policy they say. That would undermine the unity Americans have, and would grant that the terrorists have some legitimacy in their killings. To grant this would only invite more terrorism and that is insanity. Peaceful solutions are far to trusting in the good will of those who have made themselves our enemies. Peaceful solutions are said to invite those who might tyrannize over us to come and do so because we will not hit them back.

These are just a few of the ways in which the majority have allowed us to show our insanity so that they can feel good about their normalcy.

As ones who have been shaped and directed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, we cannot allow public opinion to tell us truth. We cannot allow democracy to dictate to us what is real and what is brave. Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end of truth for us. There is nothing outside of him that can be true or more real. Jesus' call for us to love our enemies, and to not resist an evil person are the most serious and truthful claims he has made on our lives. Because it is God's way with the world, we are to have this way. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. He has now chosen "insanity" to bring about sanity; and has chosen the naive to bring about wisdom.

We are the despised of the world. We are the ones they call naïve, cowardly, traitors. It is us who follow Jesus Christ whom the wise of the world will call stupid and ignorant. We are dreamers and not living in "the real world."

But does the world not also use arguments that are far from the reality they claim exists also? Has our preparations for war actually brought peace? Has retaliation in Sudan, Iraq and in Afghanistan (by Clinton) deterred the terrorists?

Does the world not also propose alternatives in military actions that are equally trusting in their military leaders? Does it not also make assumptions as to the righteousness of the leaders of the USA, their ability to resist temptations to abuse power, and their ability to control the violence they unleash? Does not military action also invite death?

Does not the world propose solutions that have not been proven to work also? The stronger might of the USA has not been proven to deter war against us. Nor has it proven that it can capture those who terrorize without becoming terrorizing itself.

And what if our nonviolence fails us? What if we are taken over and our country? Nonviolence is not likely to be effective against a seriously totalitarian regime such as that of the Taliban. But then is not war and violence the least effective when our enemy is the most brutal and ready to kill and die? Does not a more brutal enemy mean that neither violence nor nonviolence will deter them? And military strategies cannot prove that they can rid the world of evildoers…to do so seems to invite self-annihilation also.

And as to the specifically Christian nonviolence, that Jesus has called us to be disciples, does not the world also appeal to messiah's? Is not the USA claiming to be the savior of the world at this moment?

We must resist all attempts by our culture to force us to assent to its messianic claims and equally unrealistic calls for violence through it's propaganda telling us that we are insane and naïve. We must always remember that even Jesus' own family thought he was crazy. So shall we expect different?
_________________
Andrew Baker currently works with the mentally disabled in New York City. He is a Mennonite and is active in his local congregation. He has a BA in theology from Wheaton College and is currently considering seminary studies.