Matthew Kaemingk and Shadi Hamid argue in their new book, Can Religion Save Democracy?, that our fractious democracy would benefit from a good dose of religion. The more well-intentioned people of faith, they suggest, the more likely it is that we’ll be able to advance the common interest. They suggest that society and governance will both benefit as a result.
Kaemingk and Hamid are authors and academics, and Hamid is also a Washington Post columnist. Hamid is a friend of mine. And while we share very different political views on a range of issues, he has always valued vigorous but respectful debate. Kaemingk, whom I met at an event for the book last week, plainly shares that passion for genuine discourse.
This book is not a preaching screed seeking to herd a lost flock. Well-researched and eloquently argued, this work takes pains not to overburden or talk down to the reader. Instead, it aims to provoke our individual contemplation. As the authors observe in their introduction, “Shadi is a committed Muslim who has no intention of converting to Christianity. Matthew is a committed Christian who has no intention of converting to Islam. Neither of us believe the other’s religion is true. That might seem like a problem, but for us, that deep difference actually provided an opening. By sitting, discussing, and even arguing with each other over the past five years, we have come to see both Christianity and Islam as powerful, untapped reservoirs of political wisdom and insight.”
A foundation of their argument is that which separates them from the most unpleasant of their co-religionists. Namely, the authors’ belief that no Christian or Muslim can possess true certainty as to God’s immaculate will. Discourse necessarily fills the vacuum of knowledge. The pursuit of debate and disagreement is thus a prerequisite of the moral citizen. The authors rightly also ascribe many of these and other fine tenets of faith to Judaism.
The book’s positive interpretation of certain religious scholars and texts will appear generous to some readers. And of course, we cannot forget the crimes of Islamist fanatics such as the Islamic State group and Hamas, and of Christian nationalists such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and Serbian nationalist paramilitaries. Yet, while major wars have often been fought over religious causes, the authors correctly note that modern history offers examples of war motivated by secular ambition — for one, Napoleon Bonaparte’s bloody pursuit of a secular European imperium.
Religious conflict being a real and present concern, however, a vein of optimism and hopefulness threads through these pages. The authors’ affection for the finest tenets of their respective faiths is gratifying. As they identify today’s zero-sum partisanship, the authors credibly suggest how a better future might be forged by referencing religious teachings surrounding the value of each life. Especially important is the authors’ emphasis on how their faiths embrace human fallibility. They offer a persuasive argument that this understanding of fallibility offers the American faithful a backstop to prevent political disagreement and competition from becoming existential.
The authors point to the purest notion of prayer as an example here. They suggest that “before a culture of democratic debate can develop, citizens must desire conversation over control. They must desire peace over power. This is not a matter of the head. It’s one of the heart or even the guts.” The argument here is not that a greater representation of faith in society would obviate our political confrontations, but rather that it might reframe these confrontations more constructively. As they put it, “The wrestling match is inevitable. All human groups and ideologies are participating in some way. What’s important is how you will enter the arena. Will you be tense, tight, ready for fight or flight? Or will you enter loose and limber, ready to be contested, stretched, and grown?”
Some readers will question whether politicians such as Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul el Sayed, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Randy Fine (R-FL) offer convincing examples of the positive role of faith in politics and whether their supporters of faith reflect the book’s more optimistic argument. But in its emphasis on the best traditions of the Abrahamic faiths, Can Religion Save Democracy? is compelling.
PUTIN MAKES TRUMP DANCE AS HIS USEFUL MUPPET
The book leaves us with a legacy of new contemplation. For the authors, it is their religions that guide and support their democratic participation. But the lessons they take from their faiths translate for the secular, also. As Kaemingk and Hamid explain, “When healthy, Christianity and Islam shape and form people in precisely those capacities that democratic life requires: the humility to acknowledge that you might be wrong, the courage to stand up for what you believe is right, the patience to endure political outcomes you didn’t want, and the hope that things can get better even when the evidence is discouraging.”
That’s a philosophy all Americans would do well to hold truer to.