I ran across an article in the New York Times entitled “The Year We Gave Up on Government.”

Wait, it took us this long to realize it doesn’t work?

Forgive the historian, but haven’t we seen dissatisfaction in government before? What makes this year any different than dozens of others throughout history? Take the Israelites, for example; they complained they wanted a king. Then, of course, their kings often weren’t much to brag about. I won’t list all the kings during the Middle Ages that left their citizens dissatisfied ironically enough, often after nearly bankrupting the country. Sound familiar? More recently, those living behind the Iron Curtain certainly didn’t seem very “satisfied” with their government. I’d say dissatisfaction is nothing new.

In all seriousness, the article observes the growing dissatisfaction around the world in the institution of government. And rightly so. (By the way, it really is a good article, I’d definitely recommend reading it, even though I am poking some fun at it too.) There are few governments right now that look particularly appealing.

The article refers to a Bulgarian political scientist, Ivan Krastev, and economist Albert Hirschman for some answers to the current dissatisfaction with government. Krastev argues that there are two options for people when they are dissatisfied with an institution such as government: exit or voice. Leave the country, or politically oppose it. I found one section particularly interesting:

Mr. Hirschman came up with his theory of exit and voice in the United States, and he believed that exit had been accorded “an extraordinarily privileged position in the American political tradition.” That was partly because the United States was populated by exiters and their descendants — immigrants who chose to leave home rather than reform it — and partly because for much of American history the frontier made it possible to choose exit without even leaving the country.

For Americans, that sort of internal exit is no longer an option. Whatever you may think of the political agenda of the Tea Party, or of its wealthy supporters and media facilitators, it is at heart an ardent grass-roots movement whose angry and engaged participants have chosen voice over exit …

But when you look at what they are using that voice to advocate, you may decide that Mr. Hirschman was right after all about the American national romance with exit. The Tea Party’s engaged citizens aren’t so much trying to reform government as to get rid of it — the only possible version of exit when the frontier is gone and you already live in the best country on earth.

I’ve been particularly fascinated with the tea party movement. Some parts I even like. Most, however, simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended). I think this article summarizes the heart of the movement quite well.

Is the tea party movement the solution to our government woes? No. And I don’t say that for political reasons whatsoever. The tea party assumes that by ousting “bad” politicians, installing new ones, shrinking government, and cutting spending, we can solve the problems of government. This, I’m afraid, does not understand human nature. I read another article recently that seems to conclude just that: “tea party” politicians are still just that, politicians; even in the midst of vowing to reduce federal spending, they have lobbied for “pork” spending that benefits their home districts. Really, their fault isn’t so much the “politician” part as it is the “human” part. In the last election, many–it seemed–looked to Barack Obama as a sort of political savior. The tea party movement, in my opinion, is about the same as supporters of “hope” and ”change” in 2008. Both sought or seek “hope” and “change” through human means, and offer to be a “savior” to the political problems of Washington.

I’m willing to predict that even if the Tea Party is able to accomplish many of its goals in the coming elections, it isn’t going to satisfy the real problem that started the movement in the first place.

My friends, I have news. No politician–Democrat, Republican, Tea Partier, or otherwise–is going to solve our problems. There is no political savior. The only hope we have, the only way to see change, the only movement that will accomplish any satisfaction is saving faith in Jesus Christ; he is the only savior. Every government is a human institution that is bound to have human problems, just like what we see today. Except for one. Christ calls it “the kingdom of heaven.”

Does this mean we shouldn’t “exit” or “voice” when human institutions disappoint us? I don’t think so. But I do think we need to recognize the limitations any human institution will have. And when those institutions fail, whether by corruption, bankruptcy, or whatever the case may be, we shouldn’t be surprised. Let us heed the wise words of Christ: “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”