Lux Lucet

President Barak Obama addresses the Young Leaders of the Americas Town Hall in Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 23, 2016.   

“So often in the past,” said president Barak Obama to a group of Argentinian youth, “there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate.” The president continued, “Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”

Obama’s remarks have drawn a good deal of fire from conservatives, and rightly so. To downplay the division between communism and capitalism betrays a profound ignorance of economics and of history. Capitalism, the economic system of the Bible with its emphasis on private property, has lifted millions out of poverty and produced relatively free and just societies in the nations where it has been practiced; communism, the collectivist economic system of Karl Marx that places ownership of the means production with the state, has produced untold suffering and death for millions.

But Obama’s failure to sharply distinguish capitalism and communism was not the worst part of what he said. That belonged to two key assumptions that undergirded his statement: 1) anti-intellectualism, and 2) pragmatism. But these assumptions are by no means unique to Obama. Rather, they are shared by nearly all contemporary thinkers, liberal and conservative; Christian and atheist.

As to his anti-intellectualism, this can be seen in his reference to discussions concerning the merits of capitalism versus communism as , “interesting intellectual arguments.” In one sense the president is right, economic discussions certainly can be interesting and they do involve the intellect. But in the context of his remarks, this is not what Obama seemed to mean. By his statement, Obama appeared to imply that while economic discussions are interesting intellectual arguments, they are merely intellectual arguments and as such are really not of any great import.

Obama’s anti-intellectualism called to mind John Robbins’ essay The Trinity Manifesto – A Program for our Time, in which he sharply criticized modern theologians and philosophers for their irrationalism, the idea that man cannot know truth. Rational, systematic thought used to be highly praised. But today, nonsense is king.

“Those who call for Nonsense,” C.S. Lewis once wrote, “will find that it comes.” And that is precisely what happened. The popularity of Eastern mysticism and of drugs is the logical consequences of the irrationalism of the twentieth century (Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto).

This anti-intellectualism is not confined to secular thinkers, it is also the hallmark of the contemporary Christian church.

The trouble with the professing church is not primarily in its practice, but in its theory. Christians do not know, and many do not even care to know, the doctrines of Scripture. Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual. Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they scorn ivory towers. The ivory tower, however, is the control tower of a civilization (Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto).

And Robbins remarks apply not only to the liberal denominations that long ago abandoned the Bible, but to the conservative churches as well. “The irrationalism of the present age is so thoroughgoing and pervasive that even the Remnant – the segment of the professing church that remains faithful – has accepted much of it, frequently without even being aware of what it was accepting” (Robbins).

Regarding Obama’s pragmatism, this comes through in his telling the audience to, “be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.” Since man cannot know truth, there really is no need to bother to think systematically. Just grab random ideas from here and there, never minding whether they actually fit together in any kind of coherent whole, mix them up in a big bowl of hope and change, and voila!, social justice is served.

Of course, this is nonsense. An economic system is just that, a system. It is not a bunch of random ideas thrown together. Even Marx understood this. And to his credit, he attempted to develop a coherent system of socialist economic and political thought. He did not succeed, but at least he understood the importance of being systematic.

Obama’s pragmatism, “Just choose from what works,” goes hand in hand with his deprecation of the intellect. Doing what works may sound simple enough, but a little thought reveals serious problems with this approach. Just how does Obama define “what works”? How does he know his definition of “what works” is the correct definition? Is it even possible to know the correct definition of “what works”? Many 20th century dictators defined “what works” as the liquidation or subjugation of millions of people. Starving the Ukrainians “worked” for Stalin. Gassing the Jews “worked” for the Nazis. It would appear that “just choosing from what works” does not rule out the worst sort of tyranny and genocide. Perhaps a better approach is in order.

As Christians, we must insist on the rational, systematic approach to political economy set forth in the Bible, what John Robbins referred to as “constitutional capitalism.” This is nothing other than the system of limited, republican government and private property that was guaranteed by the US Constitution at the time of the nation’s founding.