A Wobbly Democracy
Much of the news (rightly so) is focused on Project 2025 and Agenda 47, a series of policy proposals that weaken democratic norms and are, to be frank, nothing more than the consolidation of power within the executive branch of the federal government.
With the ongoing dismantling of the important work of federal administrative agencies, the unequal application of human rights from state to state, and the ever-growing threat of Christian Nationalism (expressed in the distressing theocratic tendencies in states like Oklahoma and Louisiana), it is understandable that one might have a reasonable amount of pessimism as we barrel our way towards the November election.
This is not, of course, the first time that a liberal democracy has faced these threats. The waning years of the Weimar Republic give us important insight into the failure of stressed institutional norms and the reality that theoretical notions of how a government should operate are not always democratic in their nature. Carl Schmitt, an early 20th century German political theorist (who later joined the Nazi party), argued that the failure of liberal democracy could only be addressed with the authoritative decision-making power of an executive who could enforce the exception.
Schmitt’s argument harkens back to an ancient time, where the implosion of chaos into daily life, expressed through famine, failures of state, or other features of societal collapse, called for the necessity of divine and royal intervention, often leading to a “sanctioned” violence personified in the vilification of the “other” as a means to reassert stability and order.
While it seems true that we can no longer afford to ignore this history, we must also resist the temptation to think that this is a problem that exists in only “those other” states. Kate McGovern, an instructional faculty member at College Unbound and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Rhode Island, recently wrote a compelling piece illustrating a disturbing lack of democratic norm following here in our own state. McGovern tracks the long and difficult road (15 years now) of enacting common sense payday lending reform -- desperately needed legislation -- that remains in limbo because of the undemocratic concentration of power within our own peculiar political customs and practices.
Payday lending reform, like many of the important issues that we advocate for, are matters of faith for us – so too is the preservation of the separation of church and state and our commitment to healthy democratic practices.
Not only do we need to start paying attention to these broader currents, we must also deepen our relationships across Rhode Island’s faith communities, especially as we struggle through these chaotic and turbulent times.
To that end, I will be offering a deeper analysis on the relationship between certain autocratic tendencies and the rise of Christian Nationalism, especially as it relates to certain religious and political movements that arose in the late 60’s, movements that were initially attempts to preserve racial segregation and the so-called “nuclear” family. The point here is to illustrate that what we face today is not new – it is the chaotic undercurrent of violence that lies underneath the surface.
Our response at this juncture is critical – shall we respond in kind, or do we, as communities of faith, have something different to offer? Do we resign ourselves to the house of fear or seek to cut paths through (and with) the house of love?
Recognizing that such chaotic undercurrents are alive and well here in Rhode Island, politically and religiously, I choose to respond with courage, love, and hope.
One thing I do know is that now is not the time for silence.
