Perfection

Senator Obama recently said:

I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today.

Stephen Bainbridge comments:

Setting aside the question of whether the adverbial clause sensibly follows from the main clause, this is one of my pet peeves. I simply do not believe in anyone’s ability to perfect anything. As the NAB puts it, ”all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” Or, in the classic phrasing of the King James, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ....”

If humans are by their very nature imperfect and, moreover, imperfectible, it follows necessarily that human institutions are also inherently imperfect and, moreover, imperfectible. Even the United States of America.

The framers of the American Republic were highly conscious of this basic fact. They knew that fallen mankind was capable of great evil and that tyranny therefore was an ever present threat in human society. . .

. . . all too many people who talk about perfecting a society strive to do so through the vehicle of government. Personally, I do not believe the government can make people, institutions, or societies better—let alone perfect. After all, government is itself comprised of fallen men and women whose imperfections are precisely the reason good government is shackled with checks and balances. Unconstrained, government attempts to create a “Great Society” destroy communities, disintegrate the little platoons that inculcate virtue, atrophy both man’s ability and desire to control their own destiny, and limit choice.

As a Christian, Obama should be aware of the full implications of The Fall. He should know that government is not a vehicle for perfecting humanity or human institutions, but rather a vehicle for ensuring that the baser elements of human nature are restrained. If government does that, it has done all that we can expect of it.

I'm with Mr. Bainbridge on this. One thing people often loose sight of when they consider government and public policy is that government is inherently coercive. I don't believe people can be made better by force. I do think the basic purpose of government should be to use force and coercion in a protective role much as Mr. Bainbridge suggests.

I also have to say that I dislike the way the Senator makes reference to the preamble of the Constitution. The constitutional framers did not say they were trying to make a perfect union of 13 states. Rather, they wrote that the Constitution was an effort to improve upon an existing union of 13 states. The Articles of Confederation were seen by the framers as inadequate, so they meant to improve upon the Articles.

If Senator Obama had said that he thought today we could improve upon our union of 50 states (rather than perfect our union), then I might have agreed with such an assertion. However, I'm sure the Senator and I would disagree significantly in the way we would suggest improving the union. It seems to me we can improve the union by reducing the size of national government and by constraining the Congress and the President in ways that would move the government in the direction of a limited government as envisioned by James Madison.