Doomed to Failure

In my seventh decade, I remain an idealist; I haven’t grown out of it, yet. Seven decades have also impressed upon me that I can’t be an idealist all the time. Why? Because I will be out of touch with the realities of human nature and proclivities. Not only, idealism that hasn’t been tempered can also be dangerous; it makes assumptions that can’t be sustained unless by wilful ignorance. To be of value, idealism requires the imposition of caveats for it to be helpful, therefore hopeful. 

It was John the apostle, the disciple who had the most insight into Christ’s divinity, who also saw most clearly man’s fallenness, when he wrote, “Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to the, because he knew all people and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone.” Jesus, for one, wasn’t about to have the wool pulled over his eyes, because he knew the dangers of entrusting himself to people, even good people. Our motives are always mixed, and our means are often questionable. Love us, he does; entrust himself to us, he doesn’t. 

If we fail to consider the tragic reality of human brokenness, however we label it, theological or sociological, we will see the best of ideals turn into the worst of outcomes. The naïve assumption that human nature is essentially good (not occasionally good) invariably ends in the worst of behaviours – not so good.  What sounds kind and humane can as easily turn out unkind and inhumane. An ideal is no guarantee of a good outcome if it is a flawed and unworkable ideal. 

Take, for example, Marxism, which, for all its popularity and possibly good intentions, we are yet to see work without it degenerating into cruel dictatorships: the Soviet Bloc, Communist China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. These countries, fueled by doctrinaire Marxism, have casually slaughtered millions of their own - in the name of the ideal of the perfect social environment. Marxism is a cruel collective that does not see individuals.  

Or take, for example, abortion. If we set aside, for the sake of argument, moral dilemmas and the rights of the unborn, abortion was originally legalized in the USA in 1973 for the sake of safety (backyard abortions) and care for those raped or otherwise disadvantaged by a pregnancy. It never accounted for the absolute boon it would prove to be for men, as it provided them with an excuse to bully females into sex – ‘it’s all right, even if you get pregnant, you can always get an abortion.’ This is stated so casually, so callously.

The ease of abortion has also, inadvertently, devalued children. After all, they are just developed tissue. As birth rates fall, so does the future of those who don’t want children – nobody will be paying taxes to keep them in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. At best this is shortsighted; at worst it is the beginning of the end of Western civilization. Some consider this advantageous, until they will be faced with it, that is. It is easy to throw stones in a glass house. 

Or take, for instance, euthanasia.  It is promoted as a humane way to end life, especially for those who are terminally ill. Seeing your loved ones dying in a painful and dehumanizing way is seen as reason enough to legitimize them ending their life by choice. What will happen, initially, is that the laws will be strict about how this process is agreed upon, but as in the case of abortion, it will inevitably lead to the worst of human behaviours, all disguised as care. Children keen for the inheritance will pressure ailing parents, and they will justify it by saying their parents aren’t living the quality of life that they deserve; therefore, they’d be better dead. This will be said with a straight face and a devious heart. 

People who are not terminally ill will demand, as their human right, access to this form of the end of life. The problem is that many will regret it when it is too late; the syringe will have emptied its lethal dose. Making suicide an option for people going through difficult seasons is to deny them a means of being fully human, in that all suffer and most survive, many of them with a fresh perspective on life and its preciousness. Death doesn’t allow for a change of mind. 

And society may see a value (not sure how it can be called a value) in assisting the infirm to sign away their lives – literally. It may be sold as a fiscal benefit to the living, those that deserve to live.  It is not hard to see what path this will take us down.

Failing to take into account human nature – greedy, self-serving, and callous – is a failure to see the implications of human nature. Human idealism can be deadly. 

Our entire legal structures are premised on the prescient fact that people do wrong, so that without the rule of law, chaos would ensue. Opening jails and defunding the police would cause the opposite of the idealist's vision of civil society. It would no longer be civil, much less a society; society assumes order and accountability.  The law implicitly states that human nature is unreliable and must have strictures surrounding it for the sake of others, for any hope to maintain civility. The law assumes we will foul our nest. 

Therefore, the fact of sin/radical brokenness should modify our expectations. They need to be more realistic, less idealistic. This is not cynical - it is realistic. Realism maintains order and safety. Idealism, with no space for the human problem, ensures that in some of our grandest projects we are doomed to failure.