Conservative icon William F. Buckley made popular the obscure expression, “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” an expression he gleaned from political theorist Eric Voegelin. To immanentize the eschaton means to try to bring to pass some imagined glorious moment on earth right before the world’s end. For Buckley and Voegelin it referred to all utopian ideas they opposed such as socialism or communism.
There actually is some religious history to this expression as well and one that relates to Utah’s Mormon heritage. It’s not surprising during the Second Great Awakening, when Joseph Smith gathered people to Mormonism, that an anti-millennial opposition was formed. The Lutheran Church, for example, spoke out against any talk of building heaven on earth. But the whole goal of the early Mormon Church was to build a new Zion – a formal and functioning community of people living God’s laws preparatory to the end times when heaven would literally come down to earth to meet the new Zion. In this way Joseph Smith believed that we really could immanentize the eschaton.
But if the purpose of government is not some utopian ideal, what is it?
Our founding fathers certainly revolted against English rule. But they did not revolt against government. They had that opportunity and didn’t take it. In fact, all but a few founding fathers were quite reluctant revolutionaries. They were, after all, conservatives. But they did change the nature of government forever.
They certainly knew the proper role of government. They meant it to be limited, to establish order and justice. Americans were to govern themselves and, to the degree they didn’t, it was understood that governments would impose order. If Americans wanted to be free, they would have to be virtuous and if virtuous, government would be limited. But this role of government is not its purpose.
When today’s entrepreneurs sketch out a strategic plan for a new business they start with the “why.” They start with their purpose. Why does their new business exist? Our founding fathers did the same thing. They started with why. It was a much-debated topic then as it still is today. Why do we have government?
The best explanation I’ve heard regarding why we have government comes from John Adams – co-author of the Declaration of Independence, George Washington’s vice-president and the second president of the United States. In April 1776, in response to the request from several of his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress, Adams penned his thoughts about republican government. He writes,
“We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best…
“If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?
“The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.”
It’s interesting to me that Adams prefaced those words with a condemnation of “efficient” government. In other words, efficient government is not the goal of a free society. Our goal is not to simply make the trains run on time or even have limited government for limited government’s sake. The purpose of the best government is social happiness, according to John Adams. To which, I agree.
I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.
