The Man of Lawlessness

A Meditation On Human Depravity and the Prospects of Democracy

Last week I ended a post reflecting upon our current political moment by asking aloud this provocative question:

"Was it utopian of us to believe that the Constitution of the United States, this democratic experiment, could forever resist and conquer human depravity?"

I want to unpack this question a bit in relation to the "man of lawlessness" described in 2 Thessalonians.

One of the reasons Marxism failed as a political project was because it was premised upon a false anthropology. Marx got people wrong, and because he got people wrong his political and economic vision went awry. By "getting people wrong" I mean how Marx made a fundamental error concerning human motivation. Humans are not solely driven by materialist concerns. Nor do people have an innate altruistic motivation to work for the common good. Lastly, humans do not readily let go of power and wealth. Rather, we are greedy and power-hungry. Simply put, Marx failed to account for human sin and depravity. Marx's overly optimistic and utopian view of human nature doomed communism to failure.

In the question I asked last week--Was it utopian of us to believe that the Constitution of the United States, this democratic experiment, could forever resist and conquer human depravity?--I am asking if democracy will also fail, like Marxism, due to an overly optimistic and utopian anthropology.

Democracy has lasted longer than communism because, as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, it is based upon a more realistic and pessimistic view of humanity. The Constitution assumes people are self-interested and power-hungry. It also assumes the American electorate is a bit mad. Given this realistic view, the Constitution sets up a variety of firewalls and its famous "checks and balances." Presidents can only serve two terms. The coolness of the Senate balances the firebrands of the House, tempering the feverish volatility of the American electorate. Supreme Court justices serve life terms, detaching them from the electorate. Congress holds the power of the purse. The Supreme Court has judicial review. People are protected from governmental harm by the Bill of Rights. Etc, etc. We can also throw in non-governmental protections, like freedom of the press.

All of this has been put into place to protect us from evil. Power is distributed so that human malevolence cannot overtake the state. This distribution of power is maddeningly inefficient, but the inefficiency provides protection. And even with all this in place, the protection provided is wildly uneven and regularly fails to protect the populace from corruption, exploitation, and oppression, especially the poor and vulnerable.

And yet, to return to my question, could it be that the Constitution’s view of human nature—pessimistic as it is—is still too utopian and optimistic? Is it possible that, by failing to account for the full malignity of human nature, democracies will, like Marxism, eventually succumb?

True, by having a more realistic account of human depravity, democracies will have a longer shelf life than communism. Democracies will last longer because they possess capacities that limit, check, and reject malevolence. But those walls and barriers can erode over time and eventually crumble. For example, the Roman Empire lasted for over 2,000 years (from the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople). America is just now approaching 250 years. Can we hold on for another 1,750 years? I'm not betting on it. I think the human brokenness we're witnessing in the electorate and in our politics is showing the first cracks of an eventual disintegration. As I suggested, I think it was very utopian of us to think that democracy could save us from human depravity.

Here's what I mean. And political cards on the table. First, I have dear friends who voted for Trump. I love them and understand their reasons for that support. But I'm not a fan of the President. And while I'm slow to throw around the word "fascism," there are things Trump has done and said that make me think we are starting to see some cracks in the foundation of our democracy. Personally, I think the walls will hold this time around. I'm not sounding an alarm. But again, extrapolate out 1,750 years. The fractures forming today may be micro-fractures, but the micro-fractures will grow and expand over time.

What do I mean by cracks in our democracy? The January 6th riot and Trump asking Pence to overturn the election. Trump refusing to comply with judicial orders and Vance openly declaring that the executive branch can ignore the courts. But the trigger for me recently was Trump openly talking about various ways to run for a third term.

And listen, to any Trump-supporting readers, I think the Democrats need to do better on many of the issues you care about. I think the Democrats are a disaster and the swing state losses in this last election should be a wake up call for them. But bracket good-faith differences on policy issues for a moment. I think a reasonable person can see that Trump and his devoted followers, most of whom are Christians, are a stress test for democratic norms. And to play fair, I'll put on the table the fascism of what Rod Dreher calls the "soft totalitarianism" of the Woke and liberal elites. So there's plenty of fascists to go around. And everyone feels victimized.

I get all that. I'm just here to confess that, when Trump started ruminating aloud last week about how "there are methods" for running for a third term, the image of the "man of lawlessness" from 2 Thessalonians popped into my head. Because that's how it starts, it seems to me. That is how the long fuse gets lit.

A man of lawlessness looks across the protective fence of the Constitution and starts to think, "There are methods."