Republicans Need to Think Through Bill Maher’s Critique of Liberals
Nov 22, 2024 by David Fowler
Commentator-comedian Bill Maher’s post-election condemnation of liberals in the Democrat Party underscores the problem faced today by enlightened intellectuals. Some liberals wonder if he’s going over to the “other side” and some Republicans wonder if he’s moving to their side. But is there a principled difference between any of them, even in Tennessee?
The way we see things and our understanding of how things work or fit together is known academically as cosmology. The French Revolution in 1789 was a complete break from the cosmological thinking in the West until then.
What I will show is how liberals, Bill Maher, and the Republican Party’s leaders are representative of those swallowed by the break.
The Break in Understanding that Created the New “Sides”
I will skip a recitation of the long history leading up to this cosmological break, but this is what happened:
There was a rejection of any revelation of God in word, in nature, and in history as God’s providential direction toward a consummation of time revealed in His Word, which is the recordation of the history of redemption in the first and second coming of the God-man Jesus.
That’s a mouthful, but the reason this rejection is fundamental to everything is that human beings cannot know anything about God apart from some kind and degree of revelation.
When we can’t know anything about God (or “prove” what we think we know is objectively true) God “disappears” from our thinking, including the way we think about our politicking; as Nietzsche put it, God is effectively dead.
Consequently, and for the reasons set forth below, I have come to see that the “sides” today are defined by (A) who embraces a Christian cosmology grounded in what is revealed in creation about the Triune God who is revealed in written revelation and (B) who doesn’t.
Most of my life I unwittingly worked out my politics based on a non-Christian cosmology. I hope the following helps you avoid the fundamental mistake I made.
What Got Lost in This Break that Changed Politics
With the elimination of God from our everyday thinking came the elimination of any God-ordained authority in the form of God-ordained offices. These offices, in some cases, have God-circumscribed qualifications (like elders and deacons, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers), but all have God-ordained duties and a God-ordained authority pertaining to the duties of the office that those in office and those subject to those offices must recognize and submit to.[i]
The elimination of God and these offices and their authority required a new understanding of the basis for authority. This new kind of authority can only be grounded in one of us (monarchy), some of us (aristocracy), or all of us (democracy). But what we must see is that in each case a human-derived authority is substituted for authority in the biblical sense of God-established and defined offices having a certain prescribed authority.
This new form of authority will eventually devolve into nothing more than power because there is no independent authority above, alongside, or beneath the creation or formation of these man-made offices and the authority we give to them. There is no objective basis to say an exercise of power is wrong, apart from the contract (Constitution) that is malleable by its terms.
This new “authority” is determined by (1) human consent in the form of the majority of voters over the minority or (2) one or more of the following which take over: one’s natural abilities (usually genius, which asserts itself over others), money, and/or guns.
The power pertaining to the office is measured out in the same way, and the validity (“lawfulness”) of its exercise is judged the same way.
The New Authority “American Style” and What It Means for Personal Liberty
In our country authority is now viewed as grounded in option 1 above, commonly known as the “social contract” theory. Many in Tennessee agree.[ii] Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains how authority arising from human consent works.
First, by means of the social contract, “the citizen gives his consent to all the laws” as a practical matter.[iii] Otherwise anarchy would reign; every person would be “the law” unto himself or herself.
But where is personal liberty under that model? Rousseau provides the answer:
What he means is that when “each man” votes he “states his opinion on” what he thinks the general will is, “and the general will is found by counting votes.”
Thus, “[w]hen therefore the opinion” of the majority puts a person in the minority, “this proves” the minority voter “was mistaken, and that what [he or she] thought to be the general will was not so.”
According to the social contract theory of authority, this is now the meaning of personal liberty according to Rousseau:
We chafe at that result, but it is natural and logical if offices and authority exist by human consent or a social contract.
Why Maher Was Wrong to Criticize Liberals
With respect to Maher, a God-denying liberal, Fox News reports:
In other words, he doesn’t want those who reject God in his party to carry the logic of their shared principles of authority-by-consent—democracy—too far, meaning don’t go so far as to believe that the absence of any given human meaning means trans is okay.
Notice the reason for his objection. It has nothing to do with the terminus point of the liberal’s logic. It’s because liberals lose power, which is what I said human-derived authority devolves into.
But obviously, Maher was, in Rousseau’s words, “mistaken” about the general will of the liberals in his party. Therefore, he should get with their program. Otherwise, in Christian parlance, he is being a Pharisee.
What About Republicans?
If Republican leaders want to embrace the “American Spirit” they call on in their Platform to lead our nation to greatness, they are mystics. They are professors of an unknowable, impersonal God, and no one should follow those whose God is a figment of their imagination.
Maybe Republicans didn’t mean what they wrote. Maybe they only meant that this Spirit tells them to believe that offices and authority exist by human consent. In that case, they are just like the liberals!
Moreover, they ought not complain when they are “forced to be free,” that is, compelled to conform to the general will when it is expressed by a liberal governing body. They, too, must just be “mistaken.”
Conclusion
If the most liberal Democrat and the most conservative Republican both believe governing authority comes from human consent, they are on the same side of the new cosmological divide. But when Christians live over there with them, it is the great tragedy; their thinking has conformed to the world’s (Romans 12:2).
At least the “crazy” liberals are consistent in what they believe about the new nature of authority and are not half-hearted like Maher, the Republican Party’s leaders, and many professing Christians.
Perhaps when enough of the half-hearted are “forced to be free” while sitting in prison for refusing to conform to the general will, they will think differently.
However, their only alternative is to choose the cosmology revealed in Jesus Christ[iv] by whom, from whom, and to whom belong all human offices and the authority corresponding to them (Romans 11:26, 13:1-2) and before whom all those officers and authorities must and, someday will, bow (Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10, Psalm 2).
*Note: there will be no commentary or podcast for the week of Thanksgiving (November 25-29).
The way we see things and our understanding of how things work or fit together is known academically as cosmology. The French Revolution in 1789 was a complete break from the cosmological thinking in the West until then.
What I will show is how liberals, Bill Maher, and the Republican Party’s leaders are representative of those swallowed by the break.
The Break in Understanding that Created the New “Sides”
I will skip a recitation of the long history leading up to this cosmological break, but this is what happened:
There was a rejection of any revelation of God in word, in nature, and in history as God’s providential direction toward a consummation of time revealed in His Word, which is the recordation of the history of redemption in the first and second coming of the God-man Jesus.
That’s a mouthful, but the reason this rejection is fundamental to everything is that human beings cannot know anything about God apart from some kind and degree of revelation.
When we can’t know anything about God (or “prove” what we think we know is objectively true) God “disappears” from our thinking, including the way we think about our politicking; as Nietzsche put it, God is effectively dead.
Consequently, and for the reasons set forth below, I have come to see that the “sides” today are defined by (A) who embraces a Christian cosmology grounded in what is revealed in creation about the Triune God who is revealed in written revelation and (B) who doesn’t.
Most of my life I unwittingly worked out my politics based on a non-Christian cosmology. I hope the following helps you avoid the fundamental mistake I made.
What Got Lost in This Break that Changed Politics
With the elimination of God from our everyday thinking came the elimination of any God-ordained authority in the form of God-ordained offices. These offices, in some cases, have God-circumscribed qualifications (like elders and deacons, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers), but all have God-ordained duties and a God-ordained authority pertaining to the duties of the office that those in office and those subject to those offices must recognize and submit to.[i]
The elimination of God and these offices and their authority required a new understanding of the basis for authority. This new kind of authority can only be grounded in one of us (monarchy), some of us (aristocracy), or all of us (democracy). But what we must see is that in each case a human-derived authority is substituted for authority in the biblical sense of God-established and defined offices having a certain prescribed authority.
This new form of authority will eventually devolve into nothing more than power because there is no independent authority above, alongside, or beneath the creation or formation of these man-made offices and the authority we give to them. There is no objective basis to say an exercise of power is wrong, apart from the contract (Constitution) that is malleable by its terms.
This new “authority” is determined by (1) human consent in the form of the majority of voters over the minority or (2) one or more of the following which take over: one’s natural abilities (usually genius, which asserts itself over others), money, and/or guns.
The power pertaining to the office is measured out in the same way, and the validity (“lawfulness”) of its exercise is judged the same way.
The New Authority “American Style” and What It Means for Personal Liberty
In our country authority is now viewed as grounded in option 1 above, commonly known as the “social contract” theory. Many in Tennessee agree.[ii] Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains how authority arising from human consent works.
First, by means of the social contract, “the citizen gives his consent to all the laws” as a practical matter.[iii] Otherwise anarchy would reign; every person would be “the law” unto himself or herself.
But where is personal liberty under that model? Rousseau provides the answer:
When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will.
What he means is that when “each man” votes he “states his opinion on” what he thinks the general will is, “and the general will is found by counting votes.”
Thus, “[w]hen therefore the opinion” of the majority puts a person in the minority, “this proves” the minority voter “was mistaken, and that what [he or she] thought to be the general will was not so.”
According to the social contract theory of authority, this is now the meaning of personal liberty according to Rousseau:
Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than he will be forced to be free.
We chafe at that result, but it is natural and logical if offices and authority exist by human consent or a social contract.
Why Maher Was Wrong to Criticize Liberals
With respect to Maher, a God-denying liberal, Fox News reports:
Maher took aim at those in his party who are still looking to defend trans inclusion in women's sports. "Stop screaming at people to get with the program and instead make a program worth getting with. What good is liberalism if you don't win elections?"
In other words, he doesn’t want those who reject God in his party to carry the logic of their shared principles of authority-by-consent—democracy—too far, meaning don’t go so far as to believe that the absence of any given human meaning means trans is okay.
Notice the reason for his objection. It has nothing to do with the terminus point of the liberal’s logic. It’s because liberals lose power, which is what I said human-derived authority devolves into.
But obviously, Maher was, in Rousseau’s words, “mistaken” about the general will of the liberals in his party. Therefore, he should get with their program. Otherwise, in Christian parlance, he is being a Pharisee.
What About Republicans?
If Republican leaders want to embrace the “American Spirit” they call on in their Platform to lead our nation to greatness, they are mystics. They are professors of an unknowable, impersonal God, and no one should follow those whose God is a figment of their imagination.
Maybe Republicans didn’t mean what they wrote. Maybe they only meant that this Spirit tells them to believe that offices and authority exist by human consent. In that case, they are just like the liberals!
Moreover, they ought not complain when they are “forced to be free,” that is, compelled to conform to the general will when it is expressed by a liberal governing body. They, too, must just be “mistaken.”
Conclusion
If the most liberal Democrat and the most conservative Republican both believe governing authority comes from human consent, they are on the same side of the new cosmological divide. But when Christians live over there with them, it is the great tragedy; their thinking has conformed to the world’s (Romans 12:2).
At least the “crazy” liberals are consistent in what they believe about the new nature of authority and are not half-hearted like Maher, the Republican Party’s leaders, and many professing Christians.
Perhaps when enough of the half-hearted are “forced to be free” while sitting in prison for refusing to conform to the general will, they will think differently.
However, their only alternative is to choose the cosmology revealed in Jesus Christ[iv] by whom, from whom, and to whom belong all human offices and the authority corresponding to them (Romans 11:26, 13:1-2) and before whom all those officers and authorities must and, someday will, bow (Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10, Psalm 2).
*Note: there will be no commentary or podcast for the week of Thanksgiving (November 25-29).
[i] If the concept of God-ordained offices, authority, duties, and accountability are new to you, as they once were to me, consider the short book by Kornelis Sietsma, The Golden Key for Life and Leaders—The Idea of Office. In the performance of his office as pastor to a local church in Amsterdam, Sietsma called out Hitler’s abuse of authority. It led to his arrest and eventual death at Dachau. Pastors who understand the true nature of their office understand that in a Biblical cosmology they must speak the truth of God to those who hold other God-ordained offices. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty pertaining to their office. I suspect the failure is a product of dualism by which their cosmology is broken into pieces that don’t touch or relate to the others; they mind their own business, so to speak.
[ii] This understanding of governing authority is promoted by Tennessee Stands through its distribution of the booklet “An Apologetic for Liberty.” “[W]e are not subservient to the claims and demands of co-equal image bearers unless we voluntarily submit,” by which the author means “informed consent.” P. 23 and n. 14 (emphasis supplied). “Liberty cannot be coherently defended on any other basis.” P. 39 (emphasis in the original). The exercise of authority is rightly said to be subject to God, but here is the point: The authority of governing offices is not created by God but by man and consent. This raises several concerns. Given the conception of authority by consent is relatively new in the annals of human history, it would seem that God was unjust in His government of humanity until this method was employed. Moreover, this allows God to be reduced to a proposition no longer logically necessary for the existence of authority to arise. Finally, accountability to voters, not to God, becomes the real constraint on power, which is precisely what Maher lamented was being lost because of true liberals in his Party. I do not mean to demean anyone, because the booklet expresses views close to those I once held. I mean to encourage those who embrace this premise to reconsider it. To that end, I have personally and directly encouraged Tennessee Stand’s president and one of its board members to do so. I hope at some point they will do so.
[iii] This quote and those that follow are from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract.
[iv] This cosmology is outlined in Colossians 1:12-22.
