For 400 years, the “devil’s advocate” was a lawyer appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to argue against promoting a candidate to sainthood, like a pro bono attorney for the prosecution instead of the defense. The devil’s advocate argued, even if he didn’t believe it, that the alleged miracles didn’t actually happen or happened in a non-miraculous way, or that the evidence was phony or weak or suspect. In other words, the devil’s advocate personified due diligence.

How well did it work? Even though the devil’s advocate was only pretending to object, the mere fact that there was someone there to object at all kept the number of saints appointed to a total of 143 in the 396 years from the time the position was created in 1588 until the time the position was abolished in 1983—a rate of about one saint every three years.

What was the effect of removing this small hurdle of a single skeptic?

The floodgates opened. Nearly 500 people became saints in the two and a half decades since then, a rate of about 20 saints per year.

Have we really been fortunate enough to live in the most miraculous time of all, an era that, by this measure, is 60 times as miraculous as usual?

Or perhaps this illustrates the power of even a single doubting Thomas.

The original doubting Thomas and the source of the term was Thomas the Apostle. He doubted the resurrection of Jesus and demanded to feel his wounds firsthand. When he felt them and became convinced, he became known as Thomas the Believer. Thus, the original doubting Thomas ironically became the best eyewitness to the defining miracle of Christianity, which hinges on Jesus not having a corpse.

Two weeks ago, Titanic director James Cameron announced he found the tomb of Jesus.

Perhaps Thomas didn’t doubt enough.

But at least he doubted.

How many legislators either in Connecticut or Washington, D.C. are willing to play the role of devil’s advocate? How many are willing to argue that a particular bill is unconstitutional, or that the proposed cure would be worse than the disease, or even that the topic is something that should be decided voluntarily by people and not by law?

By rights, each legislator should act as the devil’s advocate. When they are inaugurated, they swear to uphold the constitution. Unfortunately in most cases that seems to be the last time they mention the document.

Governor M. Jodi Rell has created a new $75,000 post in government: the Business Advocate. Oh, if only this were akin to the devil’s advocate. If only this were a position to be filled by a person who would argue against every single bill, finding flaws, loopholes, errors, and downright unconstitutionality on which to defeat it. If the effect of such a post were to limit laws as effectively as the original devil’s advocate limited sainthood, it would be money very well spent.

But no. Our new Business Advocate is not a position for someone who even pretends to dislike government. It is a position for someone who loves government.

And it has been filled by someone who adores government.

Rell announced last week her appointment to the post of Rob Simmons, the former second district Congressman who lost his re-election bid last November to Joe Courtney, by less than a hundred votes. According to Rell’s press release, the Republican Simmons has “spent his entire career in public service.”

Yet he is now responsible for “advocating” the interests of business.

As Business Advocate, he is responsible for “providing information on public and private programs to assist businesses, and for targeting specific small and micro businesses for growth and providing them with programs, services, technical assistance, job training and financial assistance.”

Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment, since apparently no one else will.

Number 1: there should not be any public programs to assist business. Any such programs simply take money from taxpayers by force and give it to politically favored companies. By definition, businesses are supposed to operate in the free market, providing goods and services to people who are willing to pay for them. They are not supposed to be branches of government, supported by forced extraction of money from the populace.

Number 2: it should not be the government’s role to provide information about private programs to assist businesses. If I run a program that assists businesses, why should you be forced to pay for my marketing budget through your taxes?

Number 3: the government should not be targeting any businesses of any size, small, micro, macro, or large. Not for any purpose, certainly not in order to provide them with “programs, services, etc.” Businesses are supposed to fend for themselves, not suckle on a government breast filled with the milk of taxpayers.

Perhaps that’s too pleasant an image for a devil’s advocate.

Or perhaps what we libertarians advocate isn’t the devil’s work at all, but the most heavenly trait of all: freedom.

phil@maymin.com
This article originally appeared in the Fairfield County Weekly on March 8, 2007.