The Dissent of the Governed : A Meditation on Law, Religion, and Loyalty

I have been familiar with Stephen L. Carter mainly through his novels and am only now reading his non-fiction. This is the second of those I've read and find him a truly erudite writer, and very much a deep thinker. Not all will agree with him, and I doubt that anyone will agree with each and every point, but that's not the issue. He makes us think about how the basic way government has been working as if to unify all of us without regard to individual faiths creates civil disobedience. Much is said about the racial issues from the days of slavery up to the present time. Many examples are given of the government causing conflict between one's belief and one's following the law with emphasis put on court decisions, some wise, but many apparantly unwise. The book as a whole doesn't as much propt one to action as it simply makes us aware, and this indeed is worthy.

For a long time now, at least since my wife and I visited the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, I've been thinking about the circumstances that precipitate civil disobedience. In order for civil disobedience to be justified (assuming, of course, that it needs to be), it must appeal to a morality higher than the law of the state. As a Christian that's not a stretch for me, and the civil rights movement (at least as articulated my MLK) found its justification in transcendent Christian principles. In the state's view, however, there sometimes is no law higher than its own. This book squarely addresses that point of conflict, and I find the author's arguments very persuasive. One of Carter's best observations is that many progressives who once championed civil disobedience in response the Vietnam War and segregation now seek to suppress and qualify it as it relates to issues like opposition to current abortion laws. This dynamic can be observed anywhere a self-defined group opposes a mandate of the state, regardless of which component is liberal and which is conservative. The petition of a small but vocal minority is usually considered a nuisance, but the author insists that we must be very careful about how we contend with it if we are to maintain a broad allegiance to our common purpose.

This erudite writer is one of my favorites. Having enjoyed his previous writings, this one is no exception.He argues a salient point that the Declaration of Independence might certainly be more about government by the dissent rather than by consent. In this regard, he cites the section of the Declaration which speaks of repeated replies to dissent by continued injuries and disinterest.He then relates this thesis through the three lenses of: Allegiance, Disobedience, Interpretation.Making good points along the way, he concludes: If instead we celebrate, always, results over people, bureaucracy over democracy, and centralization over community, then, we are saying after all that we have no interest in the "repeated Petitions" of which the Declaration speaks, that we will, as our revolutionary forebears charged against George III, meet the petitions only with ""repeated injury." If that is what constitutionalism has wrought, it is but one more sign that our celebration of the Declaration of Independence--indeed, our claim to democracy itself--is a sham."Only wish is that his theology in places were more Biblical, i.e. that he saw the import of Romans 13 and the true Soverign's role in placing authorities, followed by understanding the two kingdom's functioning.

The Dissent of the Governed edits and expands three lectures which Carter presented at Harvard University in 1995. They found print in 1998, though the book came into general sales only last year. Having followed Carter since The Culture of Disbelief, appreciating him, arguing with him, sometimes disagreeing with him, I opened Dissent with expectation and some trepidation. Would ideas dating from six years ago speak to the America of the twenty-first century? The answer is yes. Carter takes his title from the line in the Declaration of Independence which declares that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Carter argues, persuasively I believe, that a test of whether or not a government is authentic and just is how it handles the dissent of its citizens. The verdict for the United States is mostly negative. The "liberal project" of the twentieth century, symbolized by the New Deal and the Great Society, and given additional energy by the Civil Rights Movement, assumed that a legitimate role of government is to enforce a common set of values in the nation. The preferred method of enforcement is through societal structures, such as the school and the house of worship. Failing that, the government is justified in using law to enforce that common set of values. Carter argues that the project might have derailed, were it not for the Second Civil War (his name for the Civil Rights Movement), which relied on the courts for legitimation. Thus the judiciary became politicized. I read Dissent immediately after the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 election, and I was amazed at Carter's prescience. That intervention, impossible to conceive were the judiciary truly independent of politics, could indeed have been predicted by the track record of the courts. The Right is correct: The courts do indeed make law. The courts are indeed political entities, part of what Carter calls the Sovereign, or ruling power in the land. The courts have become dangerous, though, precisely because they DENY the very role which they obviously play in the life of the nation. With an argument like this, Carter could play into the hands of the most Right of those on the Right, those who advocate not only resistance to the Sovereign but active efforts to overcome that Sovereign. Carter avoids the trap. Instead, he focuses on the power of what he calls "communities of meaning" both to preserve themselves against the power of the Sovereign and to redeem the life of the nation. Carter means religious communities, all the way from the Jewish town of Kiryas Joel to religion-based schools in otherwise secular municipalities. Active dissent to the power of the Sovereign is the responsibility of such communities of meaning because it is the right of parents to provide for the transmission of their values to their children. Such provision includes dissent from a public education system which not only excludes religious expression but i