Posted on

The Federalist on Factions

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Number 10.

Over two centuries ago, the authors of the United States constitution were remarkably prescient in their anticipation of the turmoil that blankets the United States today.

The United States in 2025 is in the clutches of a faction that wants to remake the country into something it imagined existed in a mythical near past. Mounting a diatribe against the faction is tempting, but here I will only discuss why factions are undesirable and how they rise rather than fume over the details current factional fever.

The problem with factions is, as James Madison pointed out in his definition above, is that a faction places the impulses of one group over the rights of other groups and the interests of the wider community. In the eighteenth century, propensity toward factionalism was noted as a flaw in democratic governments and a reason for forming the United States as a republic rather than a democracy.

Here, republic and democracy are used precisely. A town hall that is open to all and gives an equal vote to each attendee is a pure democracy. A city council meeting in which only the elected council members have a vote is a republic. In both cases, the ultimate authority stems from the citizens, but control is less direct in a republic. In historical republics, such as the classic Roman republic, membership in the governing council might be be freely elected but was often limited to people of wealth, land ownership, special families, etc.

Madison’s argument was that factions form with more difficulty in a republic and dissipate more quickly in a large republic. This argument may not have greatly swayed decisions on the U.S. constitution, but we now have what Madison wished for: a large republic of federated states.

I’m not sure that today’s prevailing faction is a majority. In my estimate, although Donald Trump officially won both the popular and the electoral vote, the November 2024 election was too close to confirm his supporters as a majority. Nevertheless, the election has given a faction a tight grasp on the reigns of power in America and the winners intend to do as much as they can to reshape the country to their tastes.

I ask what caused the current faction to prevail, contrary to Madison’s expectation. Before I sail off into speculation, I quote Madison again, simply because he wrote so well:

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

Since the turn of the twenty-first century liberty has reached new levels; we have computer networks that offer almost everyone the liberty of their own platform for broadcasting to the world. In the last decade or so, social media have added the equivalent of anabolic steroids to the computer network: likes and shares on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others. Those pernicious buttons have enabled virality; today, within a few clicks, a catchy post spreads like the measles at an anti-vax birthday party.

Ubiquitous platforms and virality have transformed our American republic to a brood stall for factions. Virality is all about “fast thinking,” the shoot-from-the-hip thoughts that are fight or flight reflexes rather than considered, judged, and reasoned responses; in other words, an aliment which is gasoline to the fires of faction.

Madison expected that a large republic would quickly engulf factions with reason.

Instead, technology has added an accelerant.

Posted on

American Civil Religion And Christian Nationalism

“Today, the U.S. faces both a rise in Christian nationalism and a crisis in civil religion. The two phenomena are related.”

In the 1960s a sociologist, Robert Bellah, coined the term “American civil religion” for a set of beliefs that could be ascribed to almost all Americans and is not limited to the United States. This national religion has no defined legal status, but these beliefs are consistently affirmed and followed in public discourse.

The American civil religion was, and still is, invoked when witnesses take the stand in court and officials are conferred their office. It is not specifically Judeo-Christian but it is consistent with Judeo-Christian beliefs. The core Christian precepts of loving ones neighbor, salvation, and resurrection are not directly present.

In an article published in 1967, Bellah said

 “The whole address [the Kennedy inauguration] can be understood as only the most recent statement of a theme that lies very deep in the American tradition, namely the obligation, both collective and individual, to carry out God’s will on earth.”

Don’t confuse civil religion with Christian nationalism. Civil religion, as observed by Bellah, maintains strict separation of church and state. In America individuals and their churches are obliged to accept the civil religion, but civil religion does not endorse the idiosyncrasies of individuals or the denominational churches they have formed. Christian nationalists want to go beyond civil religion and oblige the state to publicly sanction specific religious symbols and practices. Nationalists are less concerned with common faith than the civil religion.

Pew Research Center studies have revealed that Americans who identify as Christian and attend religious ceremonies has declined from about 90% when Bellah first wrote about civil religion to less than 70% in 2020.

How has the decline in Christian affiliation affected civil religion?

In 2011, reviewing a book by religious and political philosopher Charles Taylor, Bellah wrote

“The deeper question that I, a Durkheimian[1] sociologist, would ask Taylor is whether a post-Durkheimian society is ultimately viable. Without some degree of consensus, without something like a ‘common faith’ … is a coherent society possible? … We have become … a nation whose citizens feel no lasting solidarity beyond themselves and their families. Is that a situation too incoherent to last?”

Bellah raised a serious question.  In the intervening decade, divisions have gotten wider and more intense. Today, even families are often harshly divided over politics.

The U.S. faces both a rise in Christian nationalism and a crisis in civil religion. The two phenomena are related. The current president appears to have jettisoned the sanctity of his oath of office in a profound rejection of the civil religion, a set of beliefs that have prevailed from the origins of the country in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The current president’s election was endorsed by the proponents of Christian nationalism and their attitudes have buoyed up the rejection of our civil religion. The Christian nationalists, many of whom seldom attend church services and frequently are not church members, think that public government endorsement of Christianity will restore greatness to America, but don’t mind a president who publicly despises the American civil religion, which many thinkers and historians assert is the motivation behind the two century success story of the United States.

It is easy to confuse causation and correlation, especially when the ground is shifting under our feet. Has decreased participation in church services caused a decline in civil religion? Or the other way around? Or does declining civil religion cause empty pews?

Or is an enormous paradigm shift changing us it ways we don’t understand?

[1] Emile Durkheim was a founder of modern sociology in the early 20th century who argued that governments were essentially religious in origin and justification.

Posted on

Moderation

“To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail.” As I get older and more burdened with experience, I see more people who forget that carrying only one tool in your nail belt limits your capacity to build.

“… moderation is avoiding extremes and choosing the right tools and materials for a task.”

My first clear lesson in carrying tools came when I left academics and became a construction carpenter for a decade. I was raised on a farm and I thought I knew hammers, saws, and the tools of the building trades but I quickly discovered how unskilled, uninformed, and clumsy I was. Experienced carpenters drive nails smoothly with a few swings of the hammer, sometimes sinking a thorn, as they call a smallish nail, with a tap and a single blow.

Not me.

My first day, I saw the lead carpenter staring at me with his hands on his hips, shaking his head, as I flailed away, missing and bending nails. I’m certain he would have sent me home before lunch if I hadn’t been hired by my cousin to help build his house and was paid only pocket money, not a real wage. I stuck with it for nearly a decade and eventually became a certified journeyman carpenter. A hammer became a natural extension of my hand.

I discovered that for seasoned carpenters, driving nails with their hammers was only an opener. Need to loosen a frozen nut and bolt– careful hammer taps will free it faster with less damage than reaving on it with a wrench. Forget the key to the padlock on the gang box? Grab a come-along, run a cable through the hasp, and put a strain on the lock; tap the lock body with your hammer and pop it open in a jiff.

A less obvious carpentry skill is the chef’s “mise en place.” Carpenters are expected to gather up all the tools and materials they need and take them to the task. Taking the wrong tools, dragging along extra tools, or the wrong materials all get a frown from the foreman.

Which brings me to my subject: moderation is avoiding extremes and choosing the right tools and materials for a task.

Rather than ease into it, I’ll dive straight into the mudhole: capitalism in 2025.

In a previous post, I mentioned that Steve Thomason, dean of St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle, brought up Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts in a discussion group. His question was whether we are on the verge, or in the midst, of a shift? Given current events and moods, the question is apt. The dean mentioned the possibility of a shift away from corporate capitalism.

When I speak against American corporate capitalism, I am a blazing hypocrite. I live off the returns of investments in stocks and bonds. Before I retired, I attended monthly corporate stock analyst briefings, trying to convince them that my employer was worthy of a “buy” rating instead of a neutral “hold” or the dread “sell.” The quality and profitability of our software products were irrelevant if they did not lead to a “buy” rating for the month.

My employer was likely extreme, but reading the business and tech news, I seldom see anything that contradicts my former employer’s model for corporate America.

But I will risk hypocrisy and speak out. Capitalism– the pursuit of profit through the ownership of private property, organized work, and free markets– is the hammer in the American tool belt. The capitalist hammer can accomplish many things and it would be foolish to throw it away. Woe to the carpenters who enter the jobsite without their hammers, but equally benighted is a sliver-picker who tries to cut a rafter with a hammer instead of a skilsaw.

The murder of Heathcare United’s CEO in December and the scores of false alibis that appeared on Facebook is an example of what happens with the wrong tool. The assassin’s point was valid: a for-profit corporation that lives and dies on its share price is the wrong tool for choosing who receives lifesaving drugs and who does not. Share buy and sell orders do not justify innocent death in any morality.

Nevertheless, corporate capitalism is exactly the right tool for efficiently manufacturing consumer products like automobiles and washing machines with desirable features and low prices.

Moderation, choosing tools carefully, is a far better way for a nation to thrive than thrashing away with the wrong tools. The secret is finding the right tool for the job. That is a challenge for every trade and profession. Moderate choices offer better results for all, but blindly sticking to one tool leads to destructive outcomes.