Townhall.com Dennis Prager
When my older son was about 8 years old, I was putting him to bed one night and asked him what he learned that day in school. Normally he would answer, as nearly all boys do, by saying, “Nothing.” But that night he had an answer.
“I learned I have a yetzer hara,” he told me. As a student at a religious Jewish school, he was using the Hebrew term for the desire to do what is wrong. It is basic Jewish theology that the human being has two innate drives — one for good and one for bad — and that life is a constant battle with the bad drive. While Christian theology uses different terms, such as “sinful nature,” both traditions believe that the greatest battle for a better world is usually with oneself.
This is another significant way in which the Judeo-Christian value system differs from the dominant value system — that of the Left — in the contemporary West. Whether the ideology calls itself radical, leftist or liberal, its primary emphasis is on “social justice,” i.e., making society more just. Now, of course, Judeo-Christian values also seek to create a just society. Any system rooted in the Old Testament prophets and teachings of Jesus is going to be preoccupied with how to make a just society.
The differences lie elsewhere. There are two major ones.
The first is that the Left frequently defines “social justice” differently than Judeo-Christian values do. For most on the Left, “social justice” means social equality and social fairness. It is not fair that some people have more than others. This is why the Left believes that courts should be far more than umpires when adjudicating justice: they should be promoting fairness and equality.
The other difference, the focus of this column, is that leftist ideologies are so preoccupied with “social justice” that they generally ignore personal character development.
Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level.
That is one reason the Left is far more interested than the Right, i.e., religious Jews and Christians and secular conservatives, in passing laws, whether through legislation or through the actions of judges. That is how the Left believes you make a better society. There is, incidentally, a second reason the Left passes so many laws: As the Left breaks down the self-discipline of Judeo-Christian religions, more and more laws are needed simply to keep people from devouring each other.
That the Left is more concerned with social change than individual change and the Right is more concerned with individual than social activism can be seen in many areas.
Many parents, for example, measure their child’s character by the child’s social activism, not by his or her behavior toward fellow students. If the child has walked for AIDS, or marched for breast cancer, or works on “environmental issues,” the child is deemed — and the child deems himself — a fine person. That he or she might mistreat less popular kids in class is not considered.
There are, of course, religious Jews and Christians who do not lead decent lives and there are leftists who do. But leftist ideals, being overwhelmingly macro, will always be more appealing to the less decent who want to feel good about themselves. That helps explain those Hollywood celebrities who lead narcissistic, hedonistic personal lives but nevertheless feel very good about themselves by raising money for “peace” or by demonstrating against global warming.
I first became aware of this vast discrepancy between “social activism” and personal ethical behavior when I saw the personal behavior of the “pro-peace,” anti-war, activists at my graduate school (Columbia University) in the early 1970s. They demonstrated for world peace but led personally narcissistic lives. Their theoretical altruism was all macro. Meanwhile, most of the religious students were preoccupied with personal character issues.
Why? Because Judeo-Christian values have always understood that the world is made better by making people better. On occasion, of course, a great moral cause must be joined. For example, it was religious Christians who led the fight to abolish slavery in Europe and America. But in general, the way to a better society is through the laborious and completely non-glamorous project of making each person more honest, more courageous, more decent, more likely to commit to another person in marriage, more likely to devote more time to raising children, and so on.
That is why all those peace studies institutes and courses are morally meaningless. Only by people learning to fight their yetzer hara will peace reign on earth.
“The first is that the Left frequently defines ‘social justice’ differently than Judeo-Christian values do. For most on the Left, ‘social justice’ means social equality and social fairness. It is not fair that some people have more than others.”
—————————–
“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Acts 2:44-47
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. . . . Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts 4:32,35
The idea of economic equality is part of the Christian tradition. It may not be the whole tradition, but it is definetly a part of the tradition. If that’s leftist, so be it. Maybe the author should read the Bible once in a while. It’s a very informative book. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to hold forth on things Christian.
Jim, voluntary sharing with one another as part of a communion of belief has nothing in common with the drive to force some people to give up a portion of their assets to someone they do not know. What is there about this distinction that is so difficult to grasp. Christian charity is due precisely to the personal metanoia of the Christian life to which we are all called, that struggle with the flesh into which we must enter if we are to realize all the Jesus did for us on the Cross. It is indeed an act in a small way imitative of the voluntary kenotic suffering of our Lord on the Cross.
The kind of forced redistribution that is so popular with the left indeed has all of the hallmarks of the kind of hypocrisy to which the author makes reference, i.e., a great desire to give away other peoples money. Such actions are a mockery of the Cross of our Lord.
Christian communities need to do all that they can in personal giving and in the promotion of real equality before the law and in society of all people, that includes people of means. One should not assume the worst about people just because they have money, a favorite tactic of the left except for those who are active in the casue.
Lest we forget, from within the same community of believers, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”. We do ourselves and Christianity a grave injustice when we forget the essential antinomical nature of our faith and our life. Christianity cannot be reduced to a series of quotes or implemented in secular law in a way that brings heaven to earth, in fact the attempt to do so is heretical.
The crucible of the Church provides both the container and the catalyst for the transformation of sinful man, to attempt, as the left does, to separate the outcome from the process of and commitment to transformation is impossible. It is merely the other side of the same materialistic coin they so loudly decry.
Oh dear. I am ever thankful not to have been raised in this land where relativism not only kills moral character, but negates reason and argument as well. Everything is blurry in a person’s mind who has been deprived of Christian discipline and traditional societal responsibilities. Thank goodness there’s a few people over here that are still able to present a reasonable discussion.
Personal opinion, or ideology, have very little to do with truth (which is absolute), reason and logical conclusions.
Please forgive my tone, I do not mean this as a personal characterization, but it is rather the outburst of my sadness for what my brothers around me have become. How is one to bring children in this chaos? Chaos of thought, reason, arguments and opinions. Children who suffer of poverty but have values and character, are far richer than the well fed spiritually impoverished youth. (Men, here I am 24 yrs old saying this!)
From a Christian (Orthodox) point of view, which is the only truth I may note, doing a “good deed” for the sake of being nice, or because the law so obliges you, or even to alleviate the other persons suffering, has no value or in fact may be leading to the sin of pride.
Only things done out of obedience and repentance, with a glad heart, and for God’s glory are worthy acts that count as “deposits in Heaven’s bank”. Because where our treasure is, there is our heart also.
Christians change the world by their patient lifting of their Cross whilst giving glory and praise to Christ their God because of humility and obedience. Christians change the world by their personal kindness, giving up their own will, fighting their personal sins and shortfalls, repenting continuously, praying for all unceasingly, forgiving quickly, helping lovingly, and by their suffering to death, giving up their lives, so as not to ever betray the Name of their awesome God.
It hurts, the gate is narrow and the path sorrowful that leads to Life.
Christians by their own will, give up their will (desires), their self, their time, their possessions. For the love and Glory of their Lord Jesus Christ and for the salvation of their souls, as one who wants to have Life will loose it. One of their biggest fears is that they may become too attached to earthly things, be it material or emotional.
They must remember their only transitory and their treasure in the book of life is the only thing that will accompany them in the other world.
Christians also cannot demand that everyone follows their example. They cannot legislate that self-sacrifice is the only way to live.
This is only a personal choice, at the time and to the extent one is ready, and by the guidance of their spiritual father.
It would be of great consolation and encouragement if everyone was leading such exemplary lives.
Rather though, the great deceiver occupies people with talking about “social justice”, rather than allowing them to concentrate on their own soul and how to save it, and by saving it, illuminating the world.
Michael: In the ideal world, perfect, altrusitic people of faith do what needs to be done, without government coercion, so that their neighbors do not suffer. In the real world such altruistic people of faith are a minority in many places, and social values are driven more by the commercical message of materialism and self-indulgence than they are by the message of Christ.
I watched the movie “Wall Street” last week and listened once again to the Gordon Gecko “Greed is Good” speech – a monologue that portrays the moral vision of America’s corporate boardrooms with startling accuracy. Wages in America have stagnated, jobs have been outsourced to low-wage foreign countries and health benefits have continued to erode and disappear all in the midst of an economic recovery.
Forgive me if I don’t share your faith that America is ready at this moment to let go of the handlebars of government and glide by the power of our own individual goodness to a world with no poverty. I sagree with you and Dennis Prager that ideally we build a better world by building better people. I disagree that, not having reached that goal, tolerating poverty and suffering is a lesser evil than supporting government action to reduce it.
Michael writes: “Jim, voluntary sharing with one another as part of a communion of belief has nothing in common with the drive to force some people to give up a portion of their assets to someone they do not know. What is there about this distinction that is so difficult to grasp.”
First of all, all taxation is forced redistribution. In order to have a society you have to have the means to fund it. I am unaware of any society in history that got by on voluntary contributions. The idea of taxation including taxation for public charity and other works goes back to the very origins of civilization; it’s not an idea that was developed by leftists in 1960.
Think of all the many passages in the Old Testament dealing with care for the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc. These were understood as being not just personal obligations, but societal obligations as well. Lapses in these areas were seen not just as personal lapses but national lapses.
The Jewish concern for public care for the poor was expecially strong in the first century, and it was said that an observant Jew could not live in a community that had no public charity. Even in Rome the wealthy were expected to fund various public buildings, entertainments, charities, etc.
This is the social context in which Christianity developed. So it’s a little strange to me to think that in the midst of a society with a long tradition of *social* obligation to the poor, widows, strangers, etc., that a new religion would develop in which those same values are now seen as entirely personal, not social, obligations.
It seems to me that you’re looking at these issues through the lens of libertarianism and individualism. Unlike taxation, this is a very modern concept, and as far as I can tell it’s a concept that has very little to do with Christianity.
As I’ve mentioned before, the whole issue boils down to what kind of society people want to have. We can have dirt streets or paved roads. We can have beautiful public buildings or ugly metal quonset huts. We can drink dirty water and have sewage running in the streets or we can have clean water and sewage treatment plants. Likewise, we can have a society without any social protections, or we can choose to fund programs that help people through the rough times.
“This is the chief and truest advantage of riches; not to use wealth for the particular pleasure of an individual, but for the welfare of many. It is not for one’s own immediate enjoyment, but for justice, which alone does not perish . . . . Nor is it less of a great work of justice to protect orphans and widows who are destitute and stand in need of assistance. Accordingly the divine law prescribes this to all.” — Lactantius.
No one is arguing that government is not necessary. The argument is that some government programs have institutionalized poverty, thereby exacerbating the problems they ostensibly were designed to redress. The Great Society is by and large a failure.
Jim & Dean, I have to apologize for my apparent inability to communicate sucessfully on this topic. I am not saying that there is not a significant and important role for governement in helping the poor, etc. There is. Further, libertarinism is a bad idea. It is a kind of mirror image of communisim that ultimately shares many of the same problems for a Christian, just on the other side of the coin. Most libertarians essentially deny any responsiblity for others and further deny the social consequences of individual acts.
What I was trying to get at and what I believe Mr. Prager was trying to point out was the reasons, the rationale, the philosophy that motivates individuals to act. As T.S. Eliot said in Murder in the Cathedral, “To do the right deed for the wrong reason is surely the greatest treason.”
Taxation as a means of social policy is a valid way of allocating the resources of a society to achieve societal goals. Many times taxation is the only valid and effective way of doing it. I understand and accept that. However, I do not agree with or support the rationale that taxation should punish people for having assets. I do not support the attitude that creates and maintains poverty programs as vote buying schemes rather than a rationally designed and monitored means to a specific end (both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this). The goal is not to alleviate need and free people to be productive it is just the opposite, to ever increase the client base as a built in political constituency. The budget process in which a reduction in the amount of growth for these programs is considered a cut is part of the political gamesmanship that makes effective programs all but impossible.
The idea of the individual is Judeo/Christian in origin. We are each created in the image and likeness of God, we are each judged individually BUT, we are also called and commanded to work out our salvation in community–in communion with others. Nevertheless, we do not surrender our will, our identity, or our responsibility to the community.
I ask you both to think of the anachronism inherent in your willingness to transfer the responsiblities of small, clearly defined, homogenous, theocratic communities to a large, diverse, secular, nation-state. Certainly there are parallells, but not, IMO, to the extent you both imply.
Father: David Brooks had an article recently that described compassionate conservatism as “a positive use of government that is neither big government liberalism nor antigovernment libertarianism.”
(“A Bushian Laboratory”, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp)
As the old saying goes, “Don’t give a man a fish, teach a man to fish”. The problem with big government liberalism was that it was giving, but not teaching, and the problem with antigovernment libertarianism is that it does neither. Both in their own way ignore the root causes of poverty.
Many people would be willing to embrace compassionate conservatism if it was further developed from an abstract concept into a set of substantive policy proposals. I think the challenge for open-minded, moderate Republicans and Democrats willing to upset the status quo in their own parties is to develop those proposals.
Michael writes: “Taxation as a means of social policy is a valid way of allocating the resources of a society to achieve societal goals. Many times taxation is the only valid and effective way of doing it. I understand and accept that. However, I do not agree with or support the rationale that taxation should punish people for having assets.”
The idea is not that people with higher incomes should be punished, but that they can afford to pay more since they most likely have more disposable income. In other words, someone with a million dollar income can afford to pay a higher percentage of income in taxes than someone with a $50,000 income. That does not seem to me to constitute a punishment.
Michael: “I do not support the attitude that creates and maintains poverty programs as vote buying schemes rather than a rationally designed and monitored means to a specific end.”
This happens with any program, but especially with military, transportations, and other similar programs. Frankly, a lot of the people who benefit from social programs don’t vote. And they certainly are not big contributors to political parties.
But this whole tax thing baffles me. For example, here’s some statistics from the State of Oregon Dept. of Human Services budget:
** Health Services: 44% of budget. Includes medical treatment, operation of mental hospitals, public health programs, etc.
** Seniors and people with disabilities: 34% of budget. Group homes, nursing home care, etc.
** Community Human Services: 9% of budget. Includes child welfare and vocational rehabilitation.
** Adults, Children, & Families: 8% of budget. Includes food stamps, adoptions, foster care, etc.
These four categories make up over 90 percent of the state DHS budget.
What I would ask you is where, from a Christian point of view, you would cut funds? In other words, which image and likeness of God are you going to evict from a group home? Which image and likeness of God is going to have his psychiatric care discontinued? Which image and likeness of God is going to be left in an abusive home?
Don’t want to do that? Great, we’ll just eliminate food stamps and all other adult and familiy services. That saves all of 8 percent of the DHS budget, or something like 1 percent of the total state budget. As I recall, that would save me something like $50 bucks a year, or slightly less than what I spend on lunch every week. Unlike many in the state, I am well-fed.
The problem I have with this whole discussion is that it proceeds on the unstated assumption that vast amounts of money — forced redistribution of income — are being squandered on a bunch of mooches and do-nothings. That simply isn’t the case. The big money is spent on the sick, the disabled, and the elderly. If we discontinue funding for these services through taxation and rely instead on private charity, how does that work? It’s one thing to have a church bake sale to raise money for hurricane relief, quite another thing to have a bake sale to fund someone’s chemotherapy.
Michael: “I ask you both to think of the anachronism inherent in your willingness to transfer the responsiblities of small, clearly defined, homogenous, theocratic communities to a large, diverse, secular, nation-state. Certainly there are parallells, but not, IMO, to the extent you both imply.”
It’s how we do it now, and frankly it works. It’s not a matter of transferring responsibility; the church is great at small-scale works of charity, and at large-scale works that also receive outside (often public) funding (universities and hospitals, for example). But in order to address many of the large problems, government programs provide the only reasonable solution. Again, it just depends on what kind of society we want to live in.
Democrats shouldn’t automatically dismiss “compassionate conservatism”, but there are reasons for skepticism when Republicans cynically use it to disguise an agenda of class warfare. It is simply appalling that the Bush administration has suspended the Davis-Bacon act that mandates that laborers on federal contracts must be paid the prevailing wage, in response to Hurricane Katrina, but continues to award lucrative, no-bid contracts to firms like Halliburton with little oversight or accountability. Once again, the allocation of sacrifice seems a little uneven.
Likewise what is “compassionate” about holding down the minimum wage of struggling working people, while repealing the capital gains and estate taxes paid by the fabulously wealthy? Passionate conservatism maybe, but not compassionate.
I’ve never been sure where Christian economic conservatives find scriptural support for their glofification of the interests of owners and hostility toward the interests of workers. Perhaps the truest expression of this disdain for ordinary working people comes from Robert Kiyosaki’s book “Rich Dad, Poor Dad.” In his book, Kiyosaki’s actual father, an honest, hard working, wage-earner who loved him – is the poor dad. A money-making schemer who takes Kiyosaki under his wing and teaches him how to buy and sell real-estate and small businesses for quick profits – is the rich dad.
Christ taught us what we needed to do to be rich or poor in spirit and it had nothing to do whether we belonged to management or labor.
Note 9: I’m not sure if everyone is aware of how the tax tables are structured. EVERYONE pays the same percentage of tax on the same amount of income.
Example: let’s take three people, one makes $25,000, another makes $50,000 and another makes $75,000. I’ve simplified the tax rates for the sake of discussion.
$25,000 at %10 = $2,500
$50,000 at %15 = $2,500 (of the first $25K) + $3,750 = $5,250 (NOT $7,500)
$75,000 at %20 = $2,500 (of the first $25K) + $3,750 (2nd $25K) + $5,000 = $11,250 (NOT $15,000)!!!
The tax rates are not draconian. Millionaires and janitors are taxed at the same rate where their incomes coincide. It’s only the funds in EXCESS of that are taxed differently.
Note 11. “Tax rates are not draconian.” It just may turn out that the only solution for a national debt of $7,929,477,563,566.56 actually IS draconian…
Note 10. Dean, decide whether you want to discuss economics or to moralize, but don’t do both. Your argument appears to discuss economics, but in fact offers little more than petty moralisms to tell us once again that you disapprove of conservative economics. Trust me, we already know that.
Regardless of whether they are religious, I admire people who willingly share what is theirs with others who need help. And I certainly believe that Christ told his followers to do that. However, I’m not sure He told us to extract money from others, under threat of being tossed in jail(which is where people who don’t pay taxes go), in order to support our own charitable impulses. Yet this seems to be what is happening. I must have missed where we are commanded not to steal unless it is done to redistribute wealth, or not to covet our neighbors property unless it is for a progressive cause.
Augie writes: “I must have missed where we are commanded not to steal unless it is done to redistribute wealth, or not to covet our neighbors property unless it is for a progressive cause.”
Not sure what your point is here. If taxation is theft, then taxation for national defense, public health, roads, prisons, courts, etc., is just as much theft as taxation for any other reason. Is taxation to purchase cluster bombs more moral than taxation to care for disabled people?
I keep getting this feeling that a lot of the conservative folks are living in the wrong country. I honestly think a lot of them would be much happier in third world countries where the social programs that we have here don’t exist. In these other countries you have beggars in the streets, people dying of easily treatable illnesses, children picking through garbage dumps, and so on. Personally, I think these are bad things, but perhaps for many conservative Christians these are perceived as good things, opportunities for personal alms-giving and evidence of low taxes.
In recent years I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is slowly dying out in the U.S. Sure, there are people who call themselves Christians, who have the right beliefs, who go to the right church, who trumpet the “Judeo-Christian heritage,” and so on. They may even have a kind of residual sentimental attachment to Jesus and God and the Bible. But their natural sense of compassion seems to have been extinguished. They have overt contempt for public programs that keep many people from falling into the abyss. With the abyss on the one hand and taxation on the other they choose the abyss.
Let me see if I understand this. Liberalism aborts its unborn, but Christians want to see children living in garbage dumps. Liberalism kills Terri Schiavo, but Christians don’t care about the aged. Liberalism keeps the poor in poverty, but the Christian’s “natural sense of compassion is extinguished.”
Good thing we have a hard left to keep us safe from Christians.
Fr. Hans writes: “Let me see if I understand this. Liberalism wants us abort our unborn, but Christians want to see chilren living in garbage dumps.”
Libealism doesn’t “want” anything like that. The liberals I know don’t like abortion but think that it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. In general the liberals I know don’t think that a fertilized ovum is a person.
I don’t think that Christians “want” to see children living in garbage dumps, but I think that given the option of having children in garbage dumps or having tax-supported programs that keep them out of dumps, I think that many Christians would choose the dump. Most Christians would also say that it would be a good think to show up at the dump and hand out alms to the children living there.
I simply don’t know how else to interpret some of the recent comments. Conservative Christians in are favor of private charity, but don’t seem particularly concerned over whether private charity is very effective or not. In other words, the focus is on the virtue and spiritual life of the Christian giving the charity, not on the quality of life of the recipient of charity.
Just yesterday I posted a summary of where the lions share of money goes for social programs in the state of Oregon, as an example. It goes for medical care, nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals, foster care, drug treatment, and so on. I showed that you could completely eliminate the food stamp program and it would have an insignificant effect on the state budget. Comes then Augie, still denouncing taxation for social programs as “stealing” and “coveting.” Ok, fair enough. But what does an Augie-world look like after all of these programs, funded by “stolen” tax money, are eliminated? Children living in garbage dumps is certainly part of that.
Fr. Hans: “Liberalism justifies the killing of Terri Schiavo . . .”
Yes.
Fr. Hans: ” . . . but Christians don’t care about the aged.”
Many conservative Christians want a world in which tax money is not used in behalf of the elderly. So you tell me — what does the world look like one month after Medicare is gone, and after all federal and state programs that help the elderly have been eliminated? What does the world look like when public agencies no longer pay to keep elderly people in nursing homes? When subsidized housing is gone?
Fr. Hans: “Liberalism keeps the poor in poverty . . . ”
Yeah, according to Dr. Ebenezer Scrooge, now working at the Anything But Taxes Foundation.
Fr. Hans: “. . . but the Christian’s ‘natural sense of compassion is extinguished,’ Katrina relief notwithstanding.”
Yes, in many Christians the natural sense of compassion has been extinguished and replaced by a particular political ideology. The Katrina situation is interesting. Here’s the conservative Christian ideology applied to Katrina:
“Private charity is fine, but the victims of Katrina should not be helped with tax funds. Taxation to redistribute income is nothing more than a form of theft. While the situation of the people affected by Katrina is unfortunate, that is not a reason why the government should steal money from others in order to give it to them. Furthermore, helping out all these people will foster a sense of dependency — pretty soon people will expect the government to show up with free umbrellas every time it rains. This is nothing more than another liberal scheme to make big government bigger through feeding it with our tax dollars. Liberals say this thinking reflects a lack of compassion on the part of conservative Christians. But I don’t remember where the Bible says that we should steal money from some people to give it to others. And what do liberals know about compassion anyway? They kill the unborn, they starve Terry Schiavo to death, and then presume to lecture conservative Christians about compassion! No, liberal compassion is false compassion. The truly compassionate person will contribute to private charity, just like the Bible says. But beyond that, Katrina relief is best left to the invisible hand of the Free Market.”
Isn’t that how it goes?
Compassion starts with empathy, an ability to say “How would I feel to be in their shoes” or “What would I do in their situation”. Conservatives and liberals answer those questions quite differently, it seems.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, liberals saw a woman who couldn’t speak, eat or move and whose capacity for rational thought was questionable due to possible brain death. I am guessing, but I think that most liberals would have, in such situations, preferred not to continue living in such a dreadful condition for years, if not decades. To witness such a degree of suffering can also cause the most faithful of us to question the concept of a benevolent God and whether the horrors of life really aren’t completely senseless and random. We thus question whether we shouldn’t have some capacity for determining our own ends through advancing technology and medicine and be able to alleviate these pains for ourselves and others. To this extent, liberals are acting out of compassion. They are doing for others what they would want for themselves. Now, to take this thought to its logical conclusion CAN lead to problems, such as if we start raising (or lowering?) the bar of what constitutes “intolerable” living situations.
Conservatives on the other hand, empathize in a very different way. While they, too, seek to alleviate some of the temporal suffering of life and assuredly “feel” for those who suffer, they often operate from the view that there is some greater purpose to why suffering occurs in the first place. Sometimes, suffering is viewed as a means for strengthening one’s character and a mechanism for drawing closer to God. It’s a more “hopeful” way of thinking, if you will, and one I wish I could believe in a little more strongly than I do. The down side is that it can lead to complacency: suffering is viewed to be permitted by God so that people can “pick themselves by their bootstraps”, so to speak, so why take great pains to alleviate it? The poor should simply “acquire skills” or “quit being lazy”. On the more extreme side, we have those Christians who refuse even painkillers or necessary surgery because they view it as obstructing God’s will. Their empathy seems to founded on making some spiritual “good” can come out of bad situations (if not in this life then the next one) rather than removing the bad situation itself.
I don’t adhere to the view that people generally operate with nefarious intentions. It’s just that in many situations, if one’s empathy ends with one doing nothing at all, I’m just not sure what good it serves.
RE: No. 13. Father, I will try to be more dispassionate and direct. Your criticisms of the liberal welfare state and specifically, the culture of dependency it created are valid. Anti-government libertarianism, however, is not an appropriate alternative to the modern liberal welfare state, however, because we agree that government does have a role, albiet more limited, in addressing poverty. Government’s role should be to promote self-sufficiency, not dependency.
In this respect, the concept of compassionate conservatism appears to offer a promising “middle-path” towards reducing poverty that steers between the liberal welfare state and anti-government libertarianism and is consistent with Christian moral obligations.
My concerns are that:
1) compassionate conservatism must be more than just a hollow slogan and an abstract concept if it to be provide a foundation for future public policy.
2) compassionate conservatism must stand on it’s own if delivering better results that can be measured and quantitatively demonstated. If we approve more charter schools, or vouchers, for example, it will be because they deliver better test scores and college admission rates, not because we don’t like teacher’s unions, or because public schools don’t fit our ideological predilections.
2) the concept of compassionate conservatism will ultimately be discredited if it is cynically used as a fig leaf for harsh budget cuts by anti-government libertarians masquaerading as “compassionate conservatives” or as an excuse for class warfare by the powerful financial interests who wield so much influence in Washington.
Does that sound fair and reasonable?
Yes, it is fair and reasonable. I especially concur with you expectation of quantifiable results, something that is sorely lacking in present policy because of the confusion between motives and results.
I’m overlooking the loaded terms like “class warfare” for the time being (there are more Democrat millionares in Congress than Republican millionares, for example) since they don’t add any clarity to the concepts. Accountability, if adopted, will take care of the teacher’s unions and other special interest groups as well.
Only a handful of conservatives are libertarian. Jim is using libertarianism as a foil in his arguments for an even greater expansion of the welfare state despite its failures. Your approach is much more reasonable, IMO. After Terri Schiavo, the slavish dedication to abortion, the institutionalization of poverty, the rush toward gay marriage, and the other social maladies I’ve been mentioning, the last group that I want to see making decisions about the lives of others is the hard left.
Your comment upstream about the director of the foodshelf where you volunteer who has shifted his view from purely government funding to a private-public partnership was very forward looking I thought. Katrina certainly revealed the capability and compassionate reserves of American Christians as both first responders and sustainers. I think with an authentic committment to the poor that exists among both Democrats and Republicans, and a sober analysis and application of what really works to help them, significant common ground can be found and some lasting good can be accomplished.
Jim, please. No one is arguing the libertarian view here. I am arguing that the track record of the hard left — Terry Schiavo, abortion (no restrictions, partial birth, etc.), the institutionalization of chronic poverty, — renders the moral appeals that the left has used to justify its policies over the last forty years increasingly hollow.
Are you even aware that the hard left, in its slavish dedication to abortion, is killing its own constituency? Since an appeal to moral virtue can’t change their mind, maybe an appeal to their self-interest will. See: The Roe Effect: The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters, and Quantifying the Roe Effect, and Abortion and Political Realignment.
Why should we take seriously a philosophy that champions the killing of its young? Why would we trust them in crafting social policy for others? Increasingly many people don’t.
Note 19Ideological Predilections? or Deeply Held Principles?
One perseon’s “ideological predilections” are another persons’ “deeply held principles.”
Dean writes in Note 19.
If we approve more charter schools, or vouchers, for example, it will be because they deliver better test scores and college admission rates, not because we donâ??t like teacherâ??s unions, or because public schools donâ??t fit our ideological predilections.
Academic performance? A disgrace.
I am not a parent, but I am involved in efforts to improve science education. I can tell you that American public schools fail miserably in teaching mathematics and science. Very few American youngsters are ready to tackle college level physics and mathematics when they arrive on campus, less than 15%. This is an educational disaster of monumental proportions for our country. It is the cultural Left working through public education which achieved this result. These are the people who believe that there are “cultural ways of knowing.” You can actually encounter a college freshman who will tell you that there is a “woman’s way of knowing.” The educational cultural Left has gone over the deep end and has become anti-scientific and anti-rationalist.
Most people do not know the extent to which mathematics and science has been “dumbed down” over the last 30 years. A local state University that I work with cannot fill its freshman level physics class with more than 50 students per semester (out of a college population of 11,000) because no more than 50 students per semester actually have a grasp of calculus. Calculus is the language of physics and no one can be a serious student of physics without it. This is a profound failure on the past of the local public high schools. No calculus,no physics….. no physics, no engineering…. no engineers, no technological advances… no technological advances and economy stagnants as other countries who actually teach mathematics and science take the lead in the world.
Ideological predilictions? or Deeply Held Principles?
Dean, why should I consent to be taxed to support a system that works against and offends my deeply held principles? If I had a child, I would work three jobs to keep him or her out of public schools.
Educators who now comprise the mainstream membership of NEA believe that they should have the status of professionals whose ideas about educating children take precedence over that of the children’s parents. There have been many, many documented cases of teachers going beyond their role as educators and using their position of access to children to preach their own political or philosophical roles. I would note just one case for the record, that being the father in Massachusetts who recently discovered that his 6 year old was given a book which featured “gay parents” (an oxymoron). Had he been less vigilant, his 6 year old would have been the recipient of some very determined “social programming.” His case is in the courts now.
While I would support quality public education, the lock that that cultural Left has on what is now, rather laughingly called “public education” is nearly complete. Knowing what I do about science education, I could hardly hope for more in the liberal arts.
See Who Killed Homer? The NEA for the most part.
I formerly viewed people who rejected public schooling as slightly kooky. How wrong I was.
May I refer you to an important book called “Who Killed Homer” by Victor Davis Hanson. Prof. Hanson is a classical scholar at a public university in California. He points out that the teaching of Latin was once commonplace in public high schools. Latin was recommended by teachers to college bound students to help them appreciate the classics of Western civilization AND to more completely understand and master the English language. Latin is nearly unknown in public schools today.
Students are fed instead, a curriculum that nearly completely excludes the classics of Western civilization and, in fact, only mentions them to ridicule and defigrate writers of the classical world. At the same local university where I participate in efforts to promote public education, I looked at the world civilization textbook which is used in the basic freshman history course. They devoted exactly 15 pages of a 300 page book to ancient Greece and Rome.
Fewer then 15% of American high school students are numeric.
In past generations, teachers expected average students to be able to master geometry, triogonometry and algebra in the 8th, 9th and 10th grades. I was expected to do so in a midwestern junior high and high school. All of my fellow students took these classes with me, and they were all expected to achieve a minimum mastery of the subjects.
Today, fewer than 15% of all American high school GRADUATES have a mastery of these fundamental mathematical disciplines. This means that 85% of American high school graduates are closed out of any serious study of science at the college level. Thank you NEA.
Fr. Hans writes: “No one is arguing the libertarian view here. I am arguing that the track record of the hard left â�� Terry Schiavo, abortion (no restrictions, partial birth, etc.), the institutionalization of chronic poverty, â�� renders the moral appeals that the left has used to justify its policies over the last forty years increasingly hollow.”
My concern is that many of the programs seen as “progressive” or liberal are in fact successful, but that these programs are frequently left out of the conversation.
Look, no set of programs is ever going to completely successful. Take the military for example. The military spent almost $7 billion developing the DIVAD (division air defense, AKA the Sergeant York system). It was a failure, and was abandoned. Other expensive weapons systems have also been expensive failures. Does that tell the whole story of military weapons development? Of course not. In order to get a full picture we need to look at the totality of expenditures, not just focus on the failures.
Likewise in social programs. Some programs work. Other programs don’t. That doesn’t mean that liberals are stupid or that they don’t care about program effectiveness. Major reforms in the welfare programs were done, led by a Democratic president. No doubt in the years to come we will see yet other reforms. And even programs that are largely successful need to be reformed from time to time.
More importantly, given the totality of social programs under discussion, what I’ve tried to show is that the most expensive programs don’t involve giving welfare mothers cigarette money. They are programs related to medical assistance, mental health, group homes for the disabled, children’s services, and so on. This is a fact that often seems to disappear from the discussion. But it can’t disappear, since this is where most of the money goes. If we cut these programs we literally are going to throw nursing home residents out in the street. That’s not liberal rhetoric; that’s a financial fact.
Good to see you recommend reform. It is sorely needed.