Why Are the Politicians I Like So Disappointing?

By Don Johnson | October 1, 2020

I have taken to listening to podcasts on my regular walks. They give me something to do besides just exercise! I have a few friends in the ministry who bless me with their messages and I like to follow various political commentators as well. (And one unique broadcaster from the BBC, too! But his show has nothing to do with this article.)

A recent podcast from the Powerline blog’s Steve Hayward stimulated my thinking about politics. I hesitate to refer to it because of one “issue” I have with the name of the segment. See if you can guess! PODCAST—THE THREE WHISKY HAPPY HOUR: WHAT IS LIBERAL EDUCATION? (PART 1)

In the discussion, Steve Hayward refers to the foundations of Western civilization which, in his mind, is the thing that conservative politics want to “conserve,” that is, “natural law and reason.” Thinking about that sparked some consideration of how I and other Christians approach politics in our day. I often find myself disappointed with the very politicians I tend to support. From what I read, other Christians have the same experience, though it seems that others might deal with that disappointment in different ways than I do.

What is it about politicians that cause Christians so much disappointment? I suppose we must grant the notion that no politician is likely to please anyone 100% of the time. However, I’m not looking for perfection! So what do I mean by disappointing? I mean that quite often the politicians I support will make a move that I never thought they would make, or that I profoundly disagree with. They won’t support something they should support, or they will be too soft on some opponent in some critical situation, or they will propose or support some bill that I strongly oppose, or… the possibilities seem endless.

A clue lies in Steve Hayward’s comment on “natural law and reason.” What does he mean by “natural law?” I did some research on the subject. There are a lot of opinions, and in some ways some conservatives are nervous about the concept of natural law. Nevertheless, there are some things we can say about it that we can then apply to my disappointment with the political scene.

Our friend Brian Collins observes, “The concept of natural law has existed since the earliest days of the church. When Paul wrote of those who “by nature do what the law requires” (2:14), he may have been thinking in terms of natural law.”1 Besides that possible beginning, the doctrine of Natural Law really waited for Thomas Aquinas to articulate the subject. Aquinas saw natural law in two streams of revelation, “divine law revealed in Scripture, and natural law revealed in nature.”2 In particular, it is the natural law revealed in nature that most people think about in relation to political thought and Western civilization.

The concept of natural law seems to lie behind the opening words of the American Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The declaration says that these truths are self-evident, it appeals to no authority, but the nature of the things themselves. These truths by nature are inherent and inalienable, observable to all, and, in effect, supersede any laws men may make to infringe upon them.

That sounds to me like “natural law.” Russell Kirk, writing at the Heritage Foundation, says, “Objectively speaking, natural law, as a term of politics and jurisprudence, may be defined as a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority superior to the state.”3 He goes on to suggest possibly reasons the authority for these laws is superior to the state: the laws are “derived from divine commandment; from the nature of humankind; from abstract Reason; or from long experience of mankind in community.”4 Later, he says, “Natural law is bound up with the concept of the dignity of man, and with the experience of humankind ever since the beginnings of social community.”5

Now, I am not going to hold myself out as an expert on this! A lot of smarter people than me have written a lot of words about natural law and so on. I’m just thinking about the politicians I support in light of natural law theory (what little I’ve read) and how politicians end up being such disappointments.

To develop this further, I’d like to talk about Canadian politics a bit. I am, as a Canadian, much more familiar with it, and I am also probably less likely to inadvertently offend an American reader! In Canada, we had a Conservative government just before the current Liberal regime. (Conservative and Liberal are the names of the two largest political parties in Canada. At the moment, I am a member of the Conservatives, a sort of “on again, off again” relationship.) I liked our previous Prime Minister a lot. Stephen Harper, in my opinion, is possibly the best PM we’ve ever had. When he was PM, about ten years all told, he ruled the Conservative party with a very tight central control. One thing that he was determined to do was to hold off on enacting any social conservative measures. Abortion and same-sex marriage came in before he gained power, they were off the table for him and for the Conservative party throughout his regime. In these ways, he deeply disappointed me. He had a strong majority for several years and could have done at least something about it. (In Canada, we have NO abortion law. Our Supreme Court struck the previous law down, so there is no restriction on abortion in Canada. At all.)

Closer to home, my province, British Columbia, is in the midst of an election campaign right now. Our current Premier (like a State Governor) represents the New Democratic Party, the socialist party in Canada. I’ve known our premier personally for more than twenty years, and like him just fine as a person, but there probably isn’t a single political issue we agree on. Opposing him in this election is the Liberal Party, which is the place that conservative politics happens in our province.6 An issue making headlines is a Liberal candidate who apparently voted against a rainbow-colored crosswalk in her community. (NDP candidate Spencer Chandra Herbert calls on Liberals to fire Langley East candidate Margaret Kunst) Of course this supposedly means that this candidate opposes homosexual “rights.” Maybe so, but you aren’t allowed to say that in public in B.C. To underscore the issue, the leader of the Liberal party (remember, in the province, that’s right wing) said in the linked article, “There is no room in British Columbia, and certainly not in my party, for discrimination based on age or gender, sexual orientation, religion, race. Those things are wrong and they will always be wrong in my party.”

Please note, I’ll probably vote Liberal in this election. I will vote that way because they will provide the most freedom, if elected, but I am sure to be very disappointed in them in many ways. This quote almost guarantees disappointment for me.

What is the issue? Why am I disappointed with politicians?

I think that my disappointment is because it is a world-view issue. Most conservatives in Canada are “fiscal conservatives” but not “social conservatives.” Many conservatives in the USA are likewise motivated by an unbiblical worldview, one that rests on natural law and reason, but not on divine revelation. Since natural law will get some things right, Christians often find “natural law conservatives” congenial allies in political struggles. There are a lot of issues where we will find agreement. However, since their authority is “reason” and “the experience of humankind ever since the beginnings of social community,” we are doomed to disappointment. Many, perhaps most, conservative politicians just don’t see things the way we see them. They also are motivated by the desire for re-election, so are always tempted to jettison values in view of the ballot-box impact.

What are we to do then?

I think that Christians must realize that our hope is not in man. We must recognize that in democratic societies, we do have an opportunity to influence outcomes, but we can easily waste that opportunity. For me, that means looking at the options and making a judgement on who is most likely to support most of the ideas I support. I know I won’t get everything I want, but I am naïve enough to suppose that I might get some of the things I want. So I won’t vote for the “no-chancers” who might agree with me more. I’ll vote for those who have a real chance at government who also tend to support things I support. I know they will disappoint me, but that is life in our world.

And I can pray, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” That’s the perfect political solution, among other things.

Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

  1. Brian Collins, “Natural Law,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018). [↩]
  2. Collins. [↩]
  3. Russell Kirk, “The Case For and Against Natural Law,” The Heritage Foundation, accessed September 28, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-case-and-against-natural-law. [↩]
  4. Kirk. [↩]
  5. Kirk. [↩]
  6. I know. I know, NATIONALLY, the Liberals are bad, on the left; PROVINCIALLY, the Liberals are good, on the right. What can I say, it’s B.C. We once had a premier called “Amor de Cosmos.” Our politics in B.C. is very entertaining, to say the least! [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged , , ,