abstract: Even insightful statesmen who support democracy in a general sense recognize its dangers and limitations. The Founding Fathers were not committed to democracy, but to republicanism; and in the decade after the American War for Independence, many of them framed the Constitution to protect against the will of majorities.

Skip Navigation

by Andrew Sandlin

The front page of the September 2, 1999 Stockton Record carried a revealing story. It reported the results of a recent poll showing that by a two-to-one ratio, the Californians polled believe that the need for gun control supersedes the right to keep and bear arms. Remarkably, while over 70 percent of the Democrats supported the majority opinion, the Republicans polled were almost evenly split.

What is most revealing about this poll is not that more and more Americans are accepting the (ir)rationale of gun control. That fact is bad enough. The most disturbing fact is that when given a choice between supporting the United States Constitution and supporting a subversion of the United States Constitution, more and more are choosing the latter. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and the poll cited earlier employed this very language in posing the question. In other words, by a two-to-one ratio, the Californians polled prefer to overturn a chief plank of the Bill of Rights.

Likewise, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, certain conservatives could be heard saying, "I know that the poll numbers indicate that most Americans don't want the President impeached; but the poll questions are misleading, or the right people have not been polled; but if the questions were properly framed, and if a representative segment of true Americans were polled, we would find out that they support impeachment." This is a sad and dangerous delusion. True enough, poll questions and data can be skewed one way or the other. The fact, however, that there was not sufficient broad-based outrage at the President's sins and crimes lends credence to the conviction that the majority of Americans were not in favor of the President's impeachment.

Conservative Populism?

A large sector of theological and political conservatism in this country is populist. In other words, it claims to reflect and defend the views of the majority of "hard working, middle-class Americans." Two or three decades ago this may have been the case (though even this assumption is dubious), but today it is certain that populism does not favor conservatism. "We stand for the people," some conservative preachers and politicians declare in trumpet tones; "Let the people decide." Well, when "the people" decide, they sometimes decide that the Bill of Rights is worthless, and that the Chief Executive of the nation can commit crimes with impunity.

The Majoritarian Error

In the Bible, the majority was often wrong. The majority brought judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. The majority kept Israel out of Canaan. The majority crucified Jesus Christ. The majority threw the apostles out of the synagogue. The Bible does not comfort us with the conviction that the majority is always right.

Even insightful statesmen who support democracy in a general sense recognize its dangers and limitations. The Founding Fathers were not committed to democracy, but to republicanism; and in the decade after the American War for Independence, many of them framed the Constitution to protect against the will of majorities. This, after all, is one main objective of constitutions: they are created not merely to limit the executive and legislature, but also to limit the fickle whims of majority sentiment. Democracies are fickle, and politicians who claim to speak in the name of "the people" are usually tyrants--either inside the closet or out. The United States Constitution, for this reason, is intentionally hard to change--and let us be thankful for this fact, for the majority of Californians with the assistance of their misguided comrades in the other states may otherwise be easily persuaded to abolish the Second Amendment, and probably much else besides.

Not Populism, But Truth

We Christians are called to defend not populism, but the truth of the Sacred Scriptures. For several decades, conservatives have inveighed against the "liberal elite"; and this criticism has usually been right on target. But a frequent inference from this accurate charge is far from on target: that if we just get rid of the liberal elite and allow "the people" to get their way, we will get things back on the right track. This is delusional. It is quite true, as alert conservatives note, that the elite influences the rest of the society in a trickle-down effect. The elite in modern America includes Hollywood, the universities, Washington politicians, and the Eastern Establishment. But the fact is that a majority (perhaps even a large majority) of today's Americans support most of the tenets of the elite: the right to an abortion, tolerance of marital infidelity and homosexuality, restrictions on gun ownership, a narcissistic attitude towards life, a socialistic view of the civil government, and so forth. In other words, the liberal elites have won over the populace. In 1950, there was probably a significant contrast between the spiritual and moral views of the liberal elite, and those of the rest of the country. In 2000, a liberal elite and a liberal populism are one.

"Spiritual Aristocracy"

A leading objective of Bible-believing conservatives must be to work to create a "spiritual aristocracy" all their own. The objective of the Christian is cultural leadership (Gen. 1:26-28); and if he obeys God's law, he can expect just that culturally dominant position (Deut. 28:10, 13). Over time, the distinctively Christian elements of this cultural leadership will trickle down to the wider population, and populism will again be aligned with Christianity. There is always a lag time between the success of a worldview among the cultural leaders and its success in the wider society. This is why the conservatism of populism lasted well into this century, by which time the cultural leadership had wholly succumbed to a sophisticated but depraved secular humanism. It is also why the attempt to first capture the populist flag and only subsequently the leadership of culture is doomed to failure. The logic is simple: cultural leaders are leaders; the wider population follows its cultural leaders.

The great need of the hour is not more outcries by conservative preachers and politicians delusionally claiming to speak for the wider population, but a whole new generation of energetic young Christians (many culled from the homeschool ranks) committed, over time, to taking leadership roles in society: family, church, education, media, technology, arts, and on down the line. Today, the populace is the problem. Energetic Christian cultural leaders are the solution. This is the long-term solution Chalcedon is working toward.

Andrew Sandlin, an ordained minister, is a member of the National Reform Association Board of Directors and executive director of Chalcedon. He is the editor of Chalcedon Report, and the Journal of Christian Reconstruction. He can be reached at Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251.

back to top