John H Armstrong

The Problem of Conservatives and Government

We loosely speak of conservatives and liberals when we talk about ideologies and modern politics as it relates to government. Besides the fact that these labels are often anachronistic, and even widely misused, we infrequently take care to see the downside of the views we personally promote. As in all areas we share in a kind of personal and corporate blindness to the weaknesses of the views we so stridently promote. While I might be labeled a conservative, at least on some issues, I am clearly more progressive when it comes to other modern debates over issues. I view the death penalty, and our modern wars and continual military buildup, with considerable suspicion. I also care for the environment in ways that are anything but consistent with the party line views of most political conservatives. I further believe that our personal liberties are being violated by an over-reaction to questions regarding terrorism and security. (I have named only a few issues to simply give you a sense of my problem with the label.) Yet, I am not a modern political liberal either, at least when it comes to promoting entitlement programs and a great deal of state and federal spending. I am profoundly troubled by the liberal partnership between governments and almost all labor unions. This is why I admire Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. (I believe in the right to form unions and to unionize work but the pendulum has swung too far from the middle through massive entitlements.) The long term well-being of the nation is thus threatened by our out-of-control debt problem. Our present spending could well destroy our economy and then alter our way of life in radically unforeseen ways that could wreck the social fabric of our society. For this reason, the rising debt (and everything connected with solving it) is THE issue that moves me profoundly at the present moment. (What we need is a better, and more realistic, centrist argument about the real size and consequence of our debt.) I do not believe this is a left or right issue. I believe both parties need to give on some of their special projects and stop posturing in order to work together to solve this massive problem. Until after November I am not holding my breath for any real solutions and beyond November I am still not sure that we will see the radical changes that we actually need. If this is a form of political cynicism then so be it. 

Some months ago I heard a prominent conservative express my deep doubts about what happens when conservatives hold power. He said that "the tendency of conservatives is to turn government into a private sector bidding war." That nailed it for me. When this happens we have a government by entrepreneurship. While I believe deeply in the power and initiative of the entrepreneurial spirit I do not believe that governments should pursue entrepreneurship. When they do, bad things always happen. Conservatives need to understand this if they are to ever learn to govern wisely and humanely. I am just not sure most of them do at this moment. 

Africa and the Free Market

I’ve engaged more than a few Christians in public forums on the problem of poverty in Africa. No continent has more problems with true poverty and caring for the desperately poor than Africa. It has, up to now, resisted almost every effort to change this situation. But the times are changing, slowly but surely.

A new report from the African Development Bank says that Africa’s middle class will triple to more than one billion people in the next half century. This will not close the huge gap between Africa and Asia but it will bring good news for huge numbers of Africans who presently face a very grim future.

This same report provides a bright outlook on African growth—it predicts the gross national product of Africa will expand by more than 5% per year.

Understand that Africa has never experienced such economic optimism. It has been no more than an afterthought in the global economy until recently. This is now clearly, slowly changing. If the leaders of African nations, and this is the real wild card in this scenario, seize this moment then change could be even deeper and longer lasting. If they revert to past failures and corruption then the people will suffer for generations to come.

There is honest debate about how large Africa’s middle class really is at the present. Some say that it is as low as 2% of the total population. Regardless of what reports you believe their is hope for new African economic growth. Small business is being fostered by investment and micro-loans, something Christians are doing with much success.

China and India have lifted more people into the middle class than any two nations in the world, at least all over the last two decades. The reason this has happened is that both countries have embraced global markets and promoted more economic freedom. China is a long way from being a truly free nation. India is the world’s largest democracy. Both nations have lured global manufacturing but Africa could seize this moment and offer cheaper labor and service than Asia and thereby grow faster. Will it? Time will tell.

A great deal of this growth depends on politics and good leaders. While we give to support the poorest in Africa, which Christians should do, let us also work for expanding the economy of this needy continent. To do so is simply good economics linked with freedom and real compassion.

Attacking Banks Is In

Attacking banks is in these days. Except for stock holders and employees at banks it is easy to bash them. After all the government bailed out several Wall Street banks with TARP money. (We don’t hear much about the fact that this money was returned.) But what followed the bailouts was a spending spree meant to help the economy. There is no evidence it did anything to truly change our economic mess. For this reason the president and his administration have a love-hate relationship with banks in general. While he has expanded government’s role in monitoring banking he has also approved the money needed to rescue the banks. This makes his friends on the left very nervous.

The government’s bank bailout has made them an easy target for angst. I even found myself complaining as I left my own bank a few weeks ago. Why the new fees? Wasn’t this service free in the past? How soon I forgot that the bank has every right to run its business as it pleases. And it runs its business in order to make a legal profit. And I have every right to not use the bank if I choose.

Banks generally provide financial contributions to both political parties. Why? It makes sense to cover your bases. But squeezing the profit margins of banks through tougher regulations and price controls is neither good economic policy nor good politics.

Let me state what should be obvious but is clearly not understood by many younger Americans—healthy banks are needed for a long-term recovery of every aspect of our economic life. Yet banks bear the brunt of people’s anger. Who owns these banks? A large portion of the middle class is the real answer! Anyone with savings in a 401(k) plan is invested in equity mutual funds which are connected to banks and have suffered with the banks. Banks have stock holders and these include many more people than the super rich.

Punishing banks and banking because of a few thousand wealthy, greedy Wall Street bankers and traders who intentionally and illegally abused the system during the meltdown is not the way to help America. It hurts ordinary citizens and it hurts the creation of jobs.

Take credit cards as an example. The government decided to interfere in interest pricing and fix a problem. This naturally led to banks raising their costs for service and the rationing of money for loans. If banks lose money in one place they will obviously seek to make it back in another. This is the way business works in a free market. Only someone who is naive or who opposes economic freedom would claim otherwise. One thing is quite clear. Bring down the banks and you will bring down the whole economy. We’ve been there before and it seems that many young people never got that lesson if they got any lesson in basic economics at all.

Peron’s Argentina or Ancient Rome: How Should We Respond to Time’s of Great Unrest?

The more I watch the young idealists (yes, some of them are my age for sure) who occupy Wall Street in protest the more I “listen” to their cobbled together assumptions about life and modern society. This supposedly spontaneous movement, now four-weeks old, continues to grow in other major cities around the world.

One of the striking facts about this movement was recently heralded through its occasionally published newspaper, the Occupied Wall Street Journal. (The irony here is delicious I know.) The paper said, “In the great cathedral of capitalism, the dispossessed have liberated territory from the financial overlords and their police army.” Who are they kidding?

Gordon Crovitz, writing in the Monday (October 16) Wall Street Journal, seriously asks, “How did protestors manage to take over Zuccotti Park, a half-acre plot a few blocks from Wall Street?” (This is where they camp and live.) It seems that this land-use by the protestors came about through old fashioned crony capitalism, not the social media. The occupiers selected a park site that is not New York City land but rather privately owned property. Since Zuccotti is not a city park, with city restrictions on overnight sleeping, protestors remain there. There are about 500 privately owned public spaces in New York that were created by the city as part of zoning deals made with real estate developers. This is why Crovitz says “crony capitalism” provided the space for the protestors. These are, simply put, quasi-public spaces. It remains unclear who is responsible for what. Mayor Bloomberg said, “Kids have come from all over the country for a big party in our park.” Not so fast Mr. Mayor. This park belongs to a private corporation, Bloomfield Properties. Concludes Crovitz, who lives near this park, “Political extortion created Zucotti Park and it [now] allows protestors to remain despite the noise, filth and stink.” I wonder who will clean up when the protest ends? City officials paid by tax-payer money sounds likely to me.

Occupy Wall Street promises an Arab Spring of regime change. What on earth does this mean? The Arab Spring looks less and less promising every day if you follow what is really happening!

Behind the young idealism of the core leaders of this protest movement is a series of assumptions (some were mentioned by my friend Monte Wilson last week) about society and its long-term direction. This movement, which some have taken to calling an “American Autumn,” seems for the life of me to believe that its demands (which are still not entirely clear) are reasonable for one reason—those who protest were born in America. One leader, Sonia Silbert, herself a longtime political activist, said in Washington, DC, “We are not going to make demands. We are not going to become a political party. The second we start making demands, we start splintering and we are no longer the 99%.” Wow, that will create change! There are, in spite of what  the media has told us, considerable differences between this movement and the tea-party movement. The tea-party began with a clear, though not well defined, view of reducing government spending. It then found its big issue in President Obama’s health-care plan. It then organized and actually helped to elect members of Congress.

Marshall Ganz, a longtime civil rights and union organizer, says “we’re sort of in a period here where we’re searching for what the focal point is going to be. Just because it’s not being articulated now doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be one down the road.” Ganz argues that Occupy Wall Street has already shifted the debate to a focus on how to rein in government. He says we have heard from the right on this issue and now the other side is speaking loudly. Really?

What is quite clear to me is that this one month-old movement is rooted in a vague and ill-defined discontent with our present economic situation. And it is more specifically focused at wealthy corporations and Wall Street banks. Can this protest become an influence upon politics? Some Democrats hope so as they slowly test the waters to see if they should embrace this movement. They had best be careful since the potential here is to grab a live wire that could alienate the middle-of-the-road vote that they need to win again.

But even without clear focus this movement still spreads, now starting new protests over the weekend in Europe, parts of Canada and even Asia. (In Rome violence broke out.) In America 175 protestors were arrested in Chicago. It was the first mass arrest in the U.S. In Tucson 53 were arrested overnight Saturday and into Sunday morning.

Lee Forsythe, a 26-year old protestor in New York, said he was distressed that the middle class is “just gone” and that corporations wield too much political power. Forsythe left the Air Force a year ago and hasn’t been able to land a steady job, working three irregular ones: pizza delivery, cable installation and disc jockey. (That doesn’t sound incredibly awful to me, except for the “steady” part!) Forsythe said, “I will feel personally successful when you see a global change in the mindset of corruption. Policy will definitely have to be part of it, but it has to be cultural change.”

This last statement is what intrigues me most. Who can’t agree with it? But I suggest that behind Forsythe’s frustration is a deep expectation that our birthright is to live in the middle class if we were born in America. We want to create a society where all you have to do to survive and get good money is to be born in this affluent land.

This being said middle-class America is dying if you are paying any attention to the numbers. The job-market is flat or in decline. College fees are rising and the property market is in the tank. And the new health care legislation has already raised my own monthly costs by nearly 50%. The policies we now have are more restrictive and invasive than we’ve ever known. And more and more of us middle-Americans are noticing what is happening. My grandparents, who ran a family farm, faced a less precarious future than do my grandchildren who will likely get a college education but find out by 2025 that it was worthless.

But poorer Americans have it much, much worse. Their prospects are truly bleak. Consider the statistics for obesity, childhood diabetes and much more. Says columnist Mark Steyn, “Potentially, this is not decline, but a swift devastating downward slide, far beyond what post-war Britain and Europe saw and closer to Peronist Argentina on a Roman scale.”

Ironically, Mark Steyn, a strong political and social conservative, sees the overall problem more clearly than those who are protesting on Wall Street. This led him to write, “There is a strange lack of boldness in most of their proposals.” He concludes that they are stuck in their own sense of entitlement and believe they are owed something because they were born in America.

Is this a Peronist moment? Are we actually on the verge of a social (and economic) collapse that could bring even deeper challenges for all of us, personally and collectively? I have no idea how to answer that question (Steyn is quite sure this is the case) definitively. But there surely is growing evidence of such a culture-wide slide. While I do not read this moment in terms of some kind of biblical apocalypse I do see this time in history as tragic evidence that we are mindlessly falling into a social milieu in which few seem to understand the significance of what is really going on. And most of the solutions are shallow and thoughtless.

As a result of thinking about this growing protest movement I was drawn again to Paul’s counsel to the church in Rome. Please read the whole of this text and pay careful attention to verses 11-14 at the end. Remember, the context of Paul’s counsel was not a modern democracy or some kind of socialist state. He was living in the time when imperial Rome controlled the world around him. This is why I believe this is clearly God’s word to us for this unusual time of social and political upheaval.

Romans 13:1-14 NIV

Submission to Governing Authorities

¹ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ⁴ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Love Fulfills the Law

⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. ⁹ The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The Day Is Near

¹¹ And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. ¹² The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. ¹³Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. ¹⁴ Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

Protesting Wall Street

Today’s post is a guest blog by my friend, Dr. Monte Wilson. Monte might express some of the points that he makes here with more of a sharp polemical edge than I am comfortable with in my own posts but I deeply agree with his central arguments. His humor will not attract you if you believe the answers to our present economic problems lie in taxing business more heavily.

Personally, I do not have the time to compose a response to the marches and public events that are currently unfolding day-to-day in these ill-defined protests against Wall Street so I turn to a good friend and asked him to add his thoughts on my site. Monte is not a heartless capitalist or a hater. He is a man deeply committed to directly attacking poverty and caring for the weakest and most needy people on the planet. He is a man who is tolerant of diversity and counts as friends people across the whole spectrum, just as I do. He is no ivory tower conservative who simply talks about these issues. This brother invests his life in real solutions in some of the most dangerous places I know about in Africa. You should know him and his work. He is a man of deep compassion. But, as you will see, he is a man with a wit and strong views about common sense and the market. 

I suppose that some in this present movement decided to begin an anti-Tea Party demonstration, or so it seems to me. I welcome opposition to the Tea Party since I am not a big fan of this populist movement either. But this new anti-Wall Street movement is anything but a thoughtful and helpful response. Sometimes things this bad should be mocked with a degree of humorous realism. Monte does that in this post. If you are offended that is not my intention in posting it. If you like it then do not use it to laugh at your friends who might believe this movement is to be taken as a serious reform effort. 

One last comment. While I am not a defender of capitalism (a term actually coined by Karl Marx), at least as commonly understood by the masses and particularly by the Wall Street protest, I do believe in the free market. A highly-controlled economic market is bad for people and the economy. This is Monte's primary point if you read his words carefully. What role government does have in the market is a subject that requires great care, not political sound bites. But these present protests make a mockery of workable solutions. I expect this movement will soon die out. Time will tell. I thought the Tea Party would soon die out too but it clearly helped to elect a significant number of new members in the 2010 Congress. This reaction could create a new movement that lasts and has a direct impact on politics. Buckle up for 2012. The race is on and both sides will work hard to make points. Politics in America is a contact sport so we had better be prepared or find a way to shut the noise out for the next 13 months or so. 

 

Protesting Wall Street

Monte E. Wilson III

Ah, but the great advantage of mass moronization is that it leaves you too dumb to figure out who to be mad at.

Mark Steyn, American Autumn

Over the last week I have received quite a number of emails asking for my reactions to the “Wall Street Protesters” and their demands. So, I crafted the following over the last few days and was about to post this when I decided to search the Internet and see what others have been saying. Wow. Much of what I have written here has already been stated, and in many cases, far better than my musings. At first, I was tempted to forget the post but then it hit me: isn’t that the nature of reality, the nature of the obvious? I mean, it’s not like the socialistic demands of these protesters have not been asserted and then proven both fallacious and disastrous for well over 2,000 years!

So, in the spirit of Me Too! -- here are my thoughts.

First of all, as I watch and read the news, I can’t help but wonder if the parents of these people are thinking about suing the schools their children attended! If there was ever a perfect example of why we need a complete overhaul of our nation’s system of Public Education, this movement provides it. Whether it is a working knowledge of our nation’s Constitution and the nature of our inalienable rights, the differences between a free market economy and crony capitalism, or a rudimentary understanding of logic, these people appear to be utterly uneducated. (By the way, “inalienable rights” are God-given rights, not Government granted freedoms.)

Second, I am not sure many of these people even know what it is they are protesting, besides hygiene. Big Business? OK, which ones? What constitutes a Big Business? Fortune 100? 400? Any business that makes more than . . . how much? And is everything these businesses are doing evil? And how precisely do they define “evil”? And what about all those iPhones that I keep seeing you guys use: Apple is certainly in the category of Big Business, eh? Do you even feel the slightest bit of hypocrisy?

Anyway, because it doesn’t appear there is a single voice for this movement, it is almost impossible to say, “This is what the movement is demanding.” I say “almost” because there is a list of demands circulating that many of these people either implicitly or explicitly seem to support.

1 Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” through re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market so we can level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations have alrady done that are dumping cheap products onto the American market and have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is to raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour.

As many economists have been pointing out for decades, if we assert that importing goods across international borders is axiomatically a job-killer, then logic demands that we say the same thing about importing goods across state borders. You guys up for California taxing all the fruit that comes into the state from Florida?

And what’s up with the $20 minimum wage? These guys are obviously thinking way to small. Why not have Congress raise the minimum wage to $100! WooHoo!

2 Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to Wall Street investors.

Yeah. That’s the ticket! Give the Fed’s a monopoly on healthcare. After all, it did so well with the Postal Service.

3 Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

And you would choose to work because …? Somebody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? (Please note that I used a perfect imitation of Ben Stein, here.) And exactly where does the money come from to support all these people who will choose to not work?  -- This will be a common refrain throughout the rest of this post. I hate being redundant, but the point obviously needs to be made, over and over again. From where do these people think the money for all their demands is going to come?” Ew, Ew, I know! Taxing the Evil Corporate Bastards." Yeah, that sounds so cool, so like Sticking it the Man. And what do you think Corporations will do to make up for the loss of revenues? They will pass that cost along to their customers . . . or go out of business. (Reference: Bank of America and new monthly charges for using debit cards.)

4 Free college education.

So you don’t want to pay for your education: you want me to pay for it through higher taxes, eh? Sorry, kids, Economics 101: There is no such thing as a Free Lunch.

5 Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Great. No problem. But the problem here is Big Government. When it stops interfering in the market place with its massive regulations, when it gets out of the way of our nation’s entrepreneurs, we will begin to see progress here—and not before.

6 One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Again: this money is going to be provided by whom? The Government? And where does the Government get this money? Besides, spending on infrastructure is right at 2.5 percent of the GDP. That’s the highest it’s been in 60 years.

7 One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Let’s see, now. The EPA is spending around 10 billion a year, so this means he wants 100 years of spending over a period of . . . how long? And where is this money going to come from? And if we get rid of dams and nuclear power plants, this will mean we have to rely more heavily on coal and natural gas: how does this square with Number 5? Think people, think!

8 Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

See what I mean? Go read the 14^th Amendment, son.

9 Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” your terrorists, and your diseased yearning to bring this nation down. Whoa!

10 Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

OK. No problem here, except I think all he needed to demand was honest vote counts. Computers can do this, unless he just has a thing against technology.

11 Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This is a great strategy for doing away with lending altogether.  These people are not only ignorant of the laws of economics; they are clueless as to the nature of human beings.

12 Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Sure. The credit agencies were major players in the housing bubble, but the only way they could get away with lying to their customers was the fact that Big Government protected them from the laws of supply and demand but did not protect customers from fraud. This is crony capitalism at its “best.”

13 Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

How about the Government requiring secret ballots where neither management nor unions can place undo pressure on workers to go with either group? This way, they can do what they believe is in their best self-interest without fear of being smacked down by management or the unions. 

If any of you know someone all caught up in this mob, send him or her some early Christmas gifts:

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Ludwig Von Mises

The Law, Frederic Bastiat (You can get a free online copy of this book)

Words of Wisdom for Labor Day

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was born in Brooklyn, New York. He was a prolific public intellectual, and an American Nobel Laureate economist, something we need a lot more of these days. He made major contributions to both economics and statistics. In 1976 Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. Simply put, Milton Friedman was the best known advocate of economic freedom in recent American history.

According to The Economist, which is not a pro-Friedman magazine, Milton Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century . . . possibly of all of it.” Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan stated, "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people." I agree with Alan Greenspan’s analysis. This does not mean that I agree with everything Friedman wrote but in general I believe his thinking about freedom, economics and markets is sound and (generally) irrefutable.

Last week I came across one of the best Friedman’s quotes I have ever found: "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

If you think about it this sounds counterintuitive at first glance. Surely we should strive for equality in a nation that is fundamentally committed to freedom (“all men are created equal”). But equality under the law is not the same thing as the equality of results. Yes, the law should be color blind but people are not and cannot be forced to embrace results based on this law. And yes, we should strive to protect the freedom of all people, regardless of race, creed, religion or gender. But, and this is hugely important, freedom does not mean that everyone will have the same economic results. This is a false deduction. Thus true freedom comes first and with true freedom people will have the opportunity to better themselves in an open society of laws. This is why Friedman also said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” I believe he is right. This is why I believe in economic freedom – I believe in freedom!

Friedman expressed the same type of sound thinking when he wrote: "I think that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual’s natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they’re responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of."

One of the most engaging and thought-provoking Friedman statements that I recently came across was made in reference to one of the most memorable lines in a presidential speech in my lifetime.

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.’ It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, ‘what you can do for your country’ implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive” (italics mine).

But doesn’t the government have a role in creating business and jobs? We hear a great deal about this role during the present recession. The wisdom of Friedman is again remarkably precise because he provides a profound measure of necessary wisdom for us in this difficult time. The government is a bad creator of jobs in almost every instance. Why? Because the government is not designed for creating jobs. When it tries it often makes things much worse, contrary to popular opinion. Here is a funny Friedmanism about what government often does: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."

"There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” (italics mine). Note that he says business must stay within the rules of the game. This did not happen with AIG and its related practices on Wall Street. This did have an impact on bringing about our present economic problem. White collar crime is serious and it clearly tilts the table against freedom.

But what about the government’s role in providing jobs? Almost everything we hear these days is one argument after another about the growing danger of a “jobless recovery.” This is followed by an appeal to the role of Washington, or your state capitol, to provide more jobs. I would argue that the government is not in the business of business; i.e., that it should not provide jobs. The best thing it can do for jobs is to protect true freedom so the market creates jobs. This will happen if the government plays a limited role in the process and allows real freedom to work. Said Milton Friedman:

"For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume."

Some may read this as a license of consumerism, something I’ve written against many times. I do not read this statement in that way. Good jobs provide real goods and services for real people to consume (use) for real needs and imagined needs. It is the imagined needs that are created by consumerism, a by-product of freedom that we can personally resist without trying to manage other people’s lives in the process. Again, the central purpose of government is to protect our freedom and besides the freedom of religion and the right to vote no freedom is more vital to our day-to-day well-being than economic freedom. Friedman, a mild libertarian from what I can tell, understood that quite clearly. This was basis for his opposition to government’s intervention in the use of marijuana as well. This was the basis of this one final quote I share:

"This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes ‘on suspicion’ can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations."

My Struggle with The GOP’s Hard Stance on Social Services

The Republican Party opposes the continual escalation of government with a passion. (The consistency of this stance is debatable historically but I’m not addressing this matter in this particular post.) How will we stop the ever rising debt that we have created and save our federal government from financial collapse? The answer, if we are honest, is anyone’s guess. Both parties have delayed for so long that the dangers are profoundly real. They will not go away this week or next. One scenario has us bailing out on our debt. Others have towns and cities, even states, going into bankruptcy. What this will do is almost beyond imagination. I personally stand to lose my small pension and be very adversely impacted.

Having said this I cannot agree with the irresponsible way many in the GOP speak about cutting certain social services for the poor. Let me explain.

About 60% of the elderly in nursing care rely on Medicaid to pay for their services. And at the beginning of life about one-third of all births are covered by Medicaid. I have a forthcoming blog, in a few days, about the concerns of a consistent pro-life position. Somehow I cannot grasp how cutting this needed support will help to save lives! To defend pro-life and cut essential services for the poorest Americans seems inconsistent to my mind.

When I listen to some conservatives talk about cutting government spending I wonder if some of them actually know any really poor people. What about those who need help to feed their children and food stamps are a lifeline? And what about special-needs kids who have a divorced mom who cares for them? They could not make it without the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition assistance the government provides. These people are our neighbors. A society that allows them to fall into deeper poverty, and their children to not get basic assistance, is one that cares very little about justice or mercy. I personally do not want to live in such a society.

When the GOP talks about cutting government programs I urge you to ask, “How many of these important programs are involved in these cuts?” Yes, the economic reality of the moment is grim. And one in seven Americans is living in poverty. Religious and other charities are in deep trouble and cannot do the whole work that is needed. Food banks report as much as a 50% shortage right now.

In a recent appeal to deal with the present budget crisis Rep. Paul Ryan (R. WI), who is a Catholic, suggested that we cut food stamps by 20%, which some estimate would turn away as many as 450,000 poor women and children from WIC nutrition assistance. The plans offered over the past few weeks by various GOP leaders would also cut as much as $1.5 trillion from Medicaid payments, again based on some reports. The same plans speak strongly about tax-cuts that would include as much as $3 trillion for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Look, I am well aware that we need real economic stimulus and this means helping business. (I especially want to help small-business, which is till the backbone of our economy!) I am thus opposed to almost all additional taxation, again for reasons that relate to how you can actually improve an economy. I am persuaded that President Obama’s forms of stimulus have done little or nothing to help us recover. But must we solve our current problems by hurting the most needy among us? Listening to some of my most conservative friends this sounds exactly like what they do believe.

The standard conservative line is that government aid programs trap people in a poverty cycle and this will not provide them what they truly need – a good job. On a certain level I agree, if the person can be trained and helped to get a job. But on another level I think we dare not solve the bigger problems that we face by hurting the poor even more in the process. Somehow we must see that this doesn’t serve the best interests of the weakest people in our country.

The church preaches a message of love. Love is caritas, or sacrifice. The question here is simple and complex: How does caritas inform government and social services? Some seem to think that it has nothing to do with it at all. I am not among them even though I am such a strong advocate of the “free market” and deeply oppose socialism as an economic model.

Clearly, we must address the national debt. We have put this off for too long. But I am deeply suspicious of both parties at this point. We had some outstanding ideas offered from a non-partisan committee that both parties rejected months ago. (I wrote about this at the time too.) I do not see either party really serious about the problems we currently face. They both seem intent on winning the next election so they posture accordingly.

My point, however, is that it is wrong to use this present crisis to destroy the public safety nets that are already in place to assist the genuinely poor. Could some wealthier citizens forego new/old tax breaks to help those who have almost nothing? Could we seriously trim the breaks that we afford to many in the upper 2% of our society? At risk moms and children deserve more from those who call themselves Christians, regardless of their party affiliation.

Stephen Schneck, the director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, urges Catholics to write letters to Congress to remind our legislators of three things:

1. Budgets must protect human life and dignity.

2. Needs of the hungry and homeless, those without work or poor, should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families struggling to live in dignity in difficult times.

I find those three appeals a simple basic expression of caritas. Can Christians argue otherwise and not compromise the very nature of what they profess in public?

Dealing with Consumerism Through Biblical Asceticism

Let’s face it – there is a growing personal freedom that comes by living in a culture deeply rooted in materialism and consumerism. If I have enough money, and the desire to spend it, I can buy a new car, a bigger home or a new iPhone or iPad. In fact, I can have all of this stuff and never even pay for it, or at least not for several years anyway. This is not all bad. But this particular kind of consumerism feeds into two major problems – individualism and hedonism. And these two problems create devastating moral consequences in our society. This explains, I believe, why so many well-intentioned Christians link free markets with consumerism and them reject them both in the process. I tried to show yesterday why this connection was false.

Make no mistake about this -- the dangers here are very real. In fact, a great deal of modern evangelistic practice has fallen into a consumerist trap. We seek to fill a personal niche by appealing to consumer needs and desires. We tell consumers (the non-Christians we are evangelizing) that they need the message of the gospel more than they realize. We then package and market the gospel (?) in a way that helps them see just how much they need it. The problem with this approach is that it gets really close to embodying a view of God that makes him as the author of our personal satisfaction. The real answer to this should be found in Christian churches and communities where alternative Christian virtues are actually taught and nurtured.

I believe Christians further err when they turn everything into one of two categories – a blessing or a curse. When this happens we apply this blessing/curse thinking to wealth and the personal freedom we have to build and grow a business. I wish I could count how many times I’ve heard Christians say that great wealth will destroy America, thus assuming that great wealth is a huge curse. On the other hand I almost never hear people say it would be a great blessing if we became a very poor nation. Why? Because poverty brings its own problems and these also destroy both growth and personal faith.

What should we do about the confusion that we’ve created about economic freedom, wealth and consumerism? First, we need to be clear about the difference between capitalism and consumerism. Capitalism, at least as an understanding of how economies work, is not taught in the New Testament. What is taught is how Christ sets us free. And this freedom extends to all areas of life – public and private. This includes the freedom to buy and sell, to build one’s own business, to possess wealth and to save money and give it away.

Monasticism is a distinct calling for some. But we are not all called to be monks who renounce material wealth. But, and I believe this is a missing link here, there is a proper ascetic discipline that we all need. This means that we all need the kind of Christian discipline that checks consumerism in a major way.

Asceticism, from the Greek áskēsis, refers to "exercise" or "training.” In the Christian sense asceticism describes a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from various (legitimate) worldly pleasures. Like an athlete that “works out” in order to win we “work out” in order to attain our Christ-like goals. Our mistake is to think that we have sacrificed deeply because we do not steal or kill. This behavior is expected of all people, redeemed or not. For the Christian real sacrifice means to give up what we could have kept for ourselves in order to attain a higher purpose. A proper asceticism will always stress pursuing Christ-centered spiritual goals by giving up what is permitted so that we can become more like Jesus. If we engage in this kind of biblical asceticism we will come face-to-face with Western consumerism and thus find the proper means to address its seductive power in our lives and churches. But if we confuse economic freedom with consumerism we will fall for solutions to this problem that will only create unforeseen consequences that are dangerous to our personal well-being and culture.

Does Economic Freedom Lead to Consumerism?

A number of false conclusions are drawn by focusing only on outcomes. A common one focuses on the dangers of free markets and an open economy. Critics, especially earnest Christian critics, often attack economic freedom and capitalism based upon the very real dangers of consumerism. This association between markets and consumerism is so common that it often goes unchallenged. I hear it almost daily. But is the connection between free market capitalism and consumerism correct? Does opposition to consumerism, which is clearly a rampant problem in the church in the West, obligate one to oppose markets and growing a (global) business? Keep in mind, before you leap into this debate, that you should always ask a few questions before you leap.

The first question should be obvious? What exactly is consumerism? So far as I can tell the term "consumerism" was first used in 1915 to refer to the "advocacy of the rights and interests of consumers" (Oxford English Dictionary). But this is not the common way most modern writers use the term.  Consumerism refers rather to the sense that was first used in 1960 when the word referred to an "emphasis on or preoccupation with the acquisition of consumer goods" (Oxford English Dictionary). In the light of the following texts I think we should oppose consumerism, or preoccupation with goods:

“Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; your life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15).

“Try to be content with essential food and clothing. If you are attached to riches, you can be trapped by senseless desires” (1 Timothy 6:8-10).

Jesus enjoyed the good things of life such as friendship, food, wine and even a cushion under his head. He lived a non-possessive (simple) life. He was unusually detached from family, friends and material things. But the reasons are deeply rooted in who he was and why he came to live and die.

At the same time it seems apparent that more than a few of the faithful, in both the Old and New Testament, were wealthy. The point here is that you can be wealthy and detached from stuff at the same time, though Jesus clearly says it is very difficult. This is why you must “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed” (Luke 12:15). The sin is not in having things but in being owned and controlled by the things you possess. This gets very close to what consumerism really is when our definition is clear. A consumer, as the more recent definition says, is preoccupied with acquisition! You can have wealth but not be preoccupied with it. In fact, some of the finest Christian benefactors in history have been extremely wealthy. Monasteries, colleges and hospitals have all been built because of Christian wealth.

The problem here needs sharper and clearer definition if the followers of Christ are to live well in the West. Consumerism has become a dominant ideology in Western culture. Seeking and having more is a reason to live for many, many people. “Born to shop” creates a few smiles but it is a terrible thing to admit!

The aim of Christian teaching is to help the followers of Christ think through an issue like this one critically. What is the relationship between the church and culture at this point? This leads to a number of other pertinent questions:

1. Does the church build and develop along consumerist lines?

2. Do we imitate consumerism in the way we present the gospel?

3. Have we been clear about the discipleship of all of life or just about private, spiritual concerns?

4. What public policy best serves the true enrichment of our neighbors? (This is one for considerable debate and Christians can legitimately disagree about this and should keep talking and listening.)

I believe we moved, especially in the post-World War II era, from a more healthy form of capitalism to a morally uncontrolled consumerism. Because of this shift in our culture arguments are made today for consumerism that should be challenged. But in the process we should not attack economic freedom through good intentions that are wrongly based.

 

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: A Bad Thinker Produces a Bad Man

Actions are generally the result of thoughts, both good and bad. As we think so we act. Carlyle once said, “God help the world when he lets loose a bad thinker.” In the case of Vladimir Lenin we have a man of many noble and positive qualities who learned how to channel his good qualities into a revolution that he followed in Russia because of a very bad thinker, Karl Marx (photo left).

It is generally believed, in modern liberal society, that ideas do not have serious consequences. What matters is how we act not what we think. But just a little knowledge of history will dispossess you of this idea rather quickly. Ideas often have immense consequences. The idea is first; the deed follows. The famous American Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote (1957): “Ideas do not long remain within the two covers of a textbook, nor within the four walls of a classroom; they are planted as seeds and later on grow as either cockle or wheat.”

Vladimir Lenin may have brutally killed as many people as any dictator in the 20th century. He was one of the worst of all men in history. But he was neither creative nor original. His most unique ability was to take the ideology of Karl Marx and turn it into a revolution. And Marx’s ideas were an absolute dogmatic faith system. Bishop Sheen rightly said, “The idea of Marx came first, then the Revolution of Lenin. As in Christianity, ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,’ so in Communism: ‘In the beginning was Marx and Marx became Lenin and the revolution dwelt among us.’”

Vladimir Lenin could be a very decent and kind man. On a social character scale one would like him as a neighbor. He was intelligent, kind to his wife and generally well regarded. But he was politically cruel. Why? The ideology of Karl Marx. This is much like what we hear when a wife says of her murderous husband, “But at home he was such a kind man and a good husband. I do not believe he did this crime.”

The truly bad idea that Lenin took from Marx was the false principle that evil is social, not personal. All the injuries and wickedness in a society are the result of economic methods used against the people. Evil, argued Marx, resided in class, not in conscience. And the two basic classes who cause evil are property owners and people of deep religious faith. Property alienates a person from himself by making him a slave of an exploiter; religion alienates a man from himself by making a slave of something that does not exist (God); hence religion is the “opiate of the people.”

The solution, according to Marx, was to get rid of all private property.

The second principle Vladimir Lenin learned from Karl Marx was that persons, or individuals, of and by themselves, are worthless. This is a radical form of evolution wrapped in the idea that the strongest species must survive. But biblically each person matters. The danger of radical individualism, which I often speak against on this blog, is not what I have in mind here. What Marx opposed was personal freedom; the right of private ownership, the freedom to pursue your dreams, etc. For Marx the person has no value except as part of a class. The herd is what matters, the revolutionary class. Marx believed the Christian idea of the intrinsic worth of the human person, rooted in the doctrine of an immortal soul, was nothing more than silly dogma. 

The great cruelty of Lenin was thus ideological. It was his dogma; dogma rooted in the metaphysical. Whatever the character of the man in private, or otherwise, the principle that he embraced made him act in immoral and evil ways. Lenin may have been a pleasant enough fellow to his friends and family but his actions were some of the most evil in the last century.

In 1905 Lenin said, “A revolutionary army is needed because great historical questions can be solved only by violence and the organization of violence in a modern struggle is a military organization.” He believed a small minority could govern any majority if they possessed three things: (1) An army; (2) The police; (3) A myth or an official legend that controls the press and the means of communication.

Bishop Sheen contrasts Lenin’s choice of ideology, rooted in class hatred, with that of St. Francis. Francis was a “revolutionary” who loved the poor but he loved them in Christian charity. Lenin cared about the poor, but only as a reaction to his intense ideological hatred for those classes of people that he saw as standing in opposition to his ideology of revolution. What a huge difference ideology makes!