Mike Gerson's 'Heroic Conservatism' (by Jim Wallis)
Due to our common interest in overcoming poverty, I knew Mike Gerson before he became George Bush's speechwriter. I recently had lunch with him to reconnect since he's left the White House, and heard some of the stories he's now written about in his new book, Heroic Conservatism.
This morning's Washington Post has a good news piece on Gerson and his book.
For Michael Gerson, the pattern became discouragingly familiar. A proposal to help the poor or sick would be presented at a White House meeting, but Vice President Cheney's office or the budget team or some other skeptical officials would shoot it down. Too expensive. Wrong priority.
By the time he left the White House as President Bush's senior adviser last year, Gerson by his own account had grown weary of the battle, becoming an irritable colleague disillusioned by the conventions of a political party and a government that seemed indifferent to the plight of the downtrodden.
The article quotes from Gerson's book
"Traditional conservatism has a piece missing - a piece that is shaped like a conscience," he notes in Heroic Conservatism. His ambition, he says, is to help "save conservatism from its worst instincts" and build "a conservatism elevated by a radical concern for human rights and dignity."
Now an op-ed writer for The Post, he has a column today making the same point. He says there are two competing belief systems in the Republican Party – libertarianism and Catholic social teaching, and writes,
The difference between these visions is considerable. Various forms of libertarianism and anti-government conservatism share a belief that justice is defined by the imposition of impartial rules - free markets and the rule of law. If everyone is treated fairly and equally, the state has done its job. But Catholic social thought takes a large step beyond that view. While it affirms the principle of limited government - asserting the existence of a world of families, congregations and community institutions where government should rarely tread - it also asserts that the justice of society is measured by its treatment of the helpless and poor. And this creates a positive obligation to order society in a way that protects and benefits the powerless and suffering.
Gerson is right – how any society treats "the least of these" is God's measure. And by that measure, our society is sorely lacking.
Add to:
Category: Faith and Politics
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
As someone who grew up in a conservative home, I believed that a minimal goverment which emphasized compassion and help for the less fortunate in our world was a cornerstone of American consevatism. The past ten years have revealed an angry and oppressive trend in conservatism, until we find ourselves today lead (if you can call it that) by a mean-spirited President backed by a core of advisors whose primary goal as leaders seems to be power and self-enrichment, and to hell with those who disagree, or are too poor to participate in politics, or are the wrong color, the wrong race, or the wrong religion.
Thank God for Mr. Gerson's refreshing, if disturbing, pronouncements about the Republican party and the conservatives it claims to represent.
I believe that America stands at a point where we must re-assert the values and liberties which guided us through 200 years of freedom, or face a world in which we are increasingly looked upon as oppressors fueled by the twin evils of materialism and quasi-religious fervor.
We are a nation which is more wealthy than any in world history, yet we have replaced the core values of individual freedom to worship the God of our choice with condemnation if "you're not one of us", liberty with intolerance, and confuse patriotism with like-thinking; "If you're not for us tou're against us."
Mr. Gerson not only condemns conservatives for losing their way, but warns that their views are becoming irrelevant in a world where millions are starving, millions suffer persecution for their beliefs, and the environment is crumbling around us as a result of wasteful, rampant consumerism driven largely by the American engine.
Christians have a duty to stand up for the poor and oppressed, regardless of how different they may be than us. Jesus demands that we extend His love through ourselves to ALL mankind...
Pray for Peace, and dare to act in His name!
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | October 31, 2007 8:04 PM
Mike Gerson seems to assume Catholic social teaching is a form of political conservatism. In fact, it doesn't neatly fit the political lines. In several aspects, it is closer to the political left.
It would not be reasonable to expect the Republican Party to embrace Catholic social teaching as a whole. There is a fair amount of it that runs counter to the norm of Republican politics. I don't think there really is a stream of any noticeable size in the Republican Party which embraces Catholic social teaching in general. It would be easier to identify such a stream in the Democratic Party, although it is very small in terms of the power structure of the Party and elected Democrats (it is larger in terms of the constituency).
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 31, 2007 8:23 PM
I appreciated Gerson's piece, but it struck me as a tad naive. If you go back to the beginning of the modern conservative movement, at its heart it was always combative and focused upon (in fact, buttressed by) wealthy elites -- I even saw signs of that when Reagan was in office, and let's not forget that huge anti-Reagan demonstrations took place in many cities. The smear campaign against Clinton happened because the conservatives couldn't accept a non-conservative being in authority. What we're seeing with George W. Bush, in my view, represented the ultimate goal of conservatism -- and apparently also its end.
Posted by: Rick Nowln | November 1, 2007 12:31 AM
Rick - When you say the "modern conservative movement" I assume you mean basically from Goldwater on to now (and not all the way back to Burke and others)...is that correct? You could certainly describe it as combatitive, in that all ideologies that aren't mainstream are combative, but "focused upon wealthy elites"? Was Goldwater really focused on elites or was Bill Buckley? If it is true that "focusing on wealthy elites" is what modern conservatism is about it began certainly more recently, around the mid-90s, but even then much of what drove the dislike of Clinton wasn't his economic policies that harmed the wealthy it was his liberal social policies and personal behavior. It wasn't the wealthy who were offended by that, it was the average American.
I'd agree with Bill that Catholic social teaching has firm ground within the Democrat party, much more so than the Republican party. While there are certainly Republicans who believe that there is a role for government to play in helping the poor and oppressed, it's generally not tied to Catholic social teaching, but more to just basic thoughts about what's good for society.
Posted by: Eric | November 1, 2007 7:48 AM
When you say the "modern conservative movement" I assume you mean basically from Goldwater on to now (and not all the way back to Burke and others)...is that correct? You could certainly describe it as combatitive, in that all ideologies that aren't mainstream are combative, but "focused upon wealthy elites"? Was Goldwater really focused on elites or was Bill Buckley?
It wasn't so much either of those two but a number of their backers. The whole enterprise -- think tanks, media etc. -- was bankrolled by a handful of wealthy conservatives, one of which lives in my city.
If it is true that "focusing on wealthy elites" is what modern conservatism is about it began certainly more recently, around the mid-90s, but even then much of what drove the dislike of Clinton wasn't his economic policies that harmed the wealthy it was his liberal social policies and personal behavior. It wasn't the wealthy who were offended by that, it was the average American.
That's not really true. See, about 95 percent of what was said about Clinton turned out to be either blown out of proportion or just plain false but driven by right-wing talk radio and other media, and truth be told they probably feared Hillary more so than Bill even then. (There's the irony -- hating them actually made them more powerful.)
That's said, conservatives smeared just about every "liberal" they could, even in 1980; it became more obvious with most people only when Bill ran and won. (And they knew whom they were dealing with -- I remember that conservative activists even went to a Federal judge in Arkansas in 1992 to have his name taken off the ballot.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 8:04 AM
"It would not be reasonable to expect the Republican Party to embrace Catholic social teaching as a whole. There is a fair amount of it that runs counter to the norm of Republican politics."
So I guess I should infer that Catholic social teaching must change, not the Republican Party.
This sort of identifies part of the problem. Compassionate conservatism, if it is to be found, demands some changes in Republican thinking. If the "invisible hand" is to do its job, there must be many thousands of visible hands doing acts of reasoned compassion. Some of those hands have to enact social programs to prove compassion exists, like SCHIP for instance. There must be some proof that Republicans actually feel kindly and compassionately toward the weak and the poor.
I had hoped to see much more of this from this Administration. They started well but the war side tracked everything. The politics of fear and retribution became the reality of this president. Neither go very well with any concept of compassion but they fit "hand in glove" with greed. The legacy of this President, who talked of compassion when he first ran for the office, has become torture, Guantanamo Bay, war profiteering and Blackwater.
The result is the Republican Party is left with what they had for so many years after WWII, Economic power, and the politics of fear. The economic power can keep them a reality in American politics, but they have lost the heart and confidence of the nation. Therefore, the only chance they will have to lead us will be to convince us of our need to be afraid.
Economic power and fear are the tools of Fascism. We can try to hold to the ideals of our nation and yet fall prey to these. We just have to deny that it is true. We are not racist! We just think poor people of color need to change and work harder. We are not xenophobes, we just think everyone who breaks our laws and has brown skin needs to leave, despite the injustices this act inflicts upon their children. We need to build thousands of miles of walls to keep them out, even though they have been here for decades and we prospered from their work.(To say we didn't is to deny the reason they are here, or does cheap labor not equal more profit?) If building that wall means we do not repair worn out bridges and dams which are inside our borders, don't think it is because we are xenophobes. That would be unamerican, we are, after all, a nation of immigrants, don't you know. We are not war like, we are only spending trillions fighting to protect our way of life. The fact that innocents are hurt is just collateral damage, even if those innocents are our own children who lack health care. We do not condone torture, water boarding is just a way to get our enemies to talk, after all how tortuous can it be if it doesn't leave a scar?. We are not anti environment, we just need to stay economically powerful and competitive. We are not selfish, it is just our obedience to the laws of competition that make us the richest nation in history while the rest of the world provides us with cheap tennis shoes.
The Democratic party may counter this by promoting their own brand of fear mongering. It is this fear that will be our undoing. Fear only seems stronger. Compassion and courage actually work.
Posted by: | November 1, 2007 8:36 AM
"I had hoped to see much more of this from this Administration. They started well but the war side tracked everything. "
I think his administration fell off the tracks long before then.
Prior to 9/11, I recall Bush taking a lot of vacations and using every change (positive or negative) in the economy to push tax cuts despite the fact that his arguments contradicted themselves. His pattern of ineffectiveness was already evident and he was well on his way to becoming a single-term president.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | November 1, 2007 9:06 AM
Dick Cheney is hardly the place to search for good fruits of family life. he has a grandchild with no father. That being said, the Catholic hope for "the existence of a world of families," would end poverty, end abortion for convenience, unwed motherhood, promiscuity, stop the rise of the homosexual lifestyle being equal to a morally sound life, it would stop socialism being portrayed as a decent thing. In actuality Compassionate Conservatism is the answer to the world's greatest evils.
Posted by: Donny | November 1, 2007 9:40 AM
a political party and a government that seemed indifferent to the plight of the downtrodden
I was under the impression (from ONE-leader, Bono) that this administration had done more than any other administration in history to assist in fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
With accounts like this, Gerson is painting with some pretty broad strokes...
Posted by: jefe | November 1, 2007 10:18 AM
I am glad that Gerson acknowledges the rise of libertarianism in the Republican Party. Today, libertarian ideology is used to promote conservative policies much more often than religious ideology. Libertarianism is a false god! Let's call it what it is! It excuses the most extreme selfishness in policy and personal behavior. And let's remember, its intellectual founder, Ayn Rand, was very contemptuous of Christian faith and teaching. Conservative Christians, beware of being taken in!
Posted by: I and I | November 1, 2007 10:21 AM
Donny, a very intelligent and reasoned post. I predict you get studiously ignored, however, because you make too much sense, and you run so counter to the political correctness of the age.
Keep on keeping on.
Posted by: joekc | November 1, 2007 10:36 AM
The idea that Christians should abdicate our responsibility towards the poor and allow the government to usurp that responsibility is abhorrent.
The justice of society is measured by its treatment of the helpless and poor. And this creates a positive obligation to order society in a way that protects and benefits the powerless and suffering.
Why should our secular government "order society" in any way? Explain how and why that is a legitimate role of government. And IF it is a legitimate role of government, who's rules should the government use? Jews? Christians? Moslems? Atheists? If you choose any one of these as a source for rules, you will certainly offend cause problems for the other.
Posted by: Theophile | November 1, 2007 10:37 AM
Posted by: jefe | November 1, 2007 10:18 AM
'With accounts like this, Gerson is painting with some pretty broad strokes...'
Yes he is. But one needs to realize that if you are a conservative you need to have proof positive about what you are involved with or supporting. A liberal just has to say they care and their job is done.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 1, 2007 11:08 AM
joekc,
"joke" is spelled j-o-k-e, not j-o-e-k.
Immoderatelad, thanks to your daily postings, I don't have to bother with listening to Rush and Savage to hear the low-brow conservative line.
Posted by: buck harper | November 1, 2007 11:37 AM
Today, libertarian ideology is used to promote conservative policies much more often than religious ideology. Libertarianism is a false god! Let's call it what it is! It excuses the most extreme selfishness in policy and personal behavior.
No, not just today. Outside of religious precincts it always was, from the word go.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM
I am a libertarian and Methodist. Am I selfish for giving money and time to charity and other causing. And not forcing my neighbors to do the same?
Posted by: roger | November 1, 2007 12:33 PM
The idea that Christians should abdicate our responsibility towards the poor and allow the government to usurp that responsibility is abhorrent.
Not the point. If there are forces that are keeping them poor, which there are in many cases, then they should be addressed by government. By your mindset, the civil-rights movement would have been illegitimate.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 1:09 PM
I appreciate the kind of posting by J Wallis here.
I do not mind diehard, 100% partisans advocating their positions if we do so with a mutual submission and servant heart to others who belong to Jesus.
Wallis highlighting some of Gerson's comments sets a stage for a dialogue in which we might elevate our public life so that those with Jesus attached to their names would call out the best of the political parties and their constituencies.
In Jesus name, would we, could we speak and live the Shalom of God; and consider we might make the space in which the best instincts of both parties could be realized.
I am most drawn to the candidacies of Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama because I believe they have hearts bent in that direction. I personally believe G Bush did as well. I believe any person stepping into that office steps into a horrendous crucible and deserve to be both accountable and moreso loved/prayed/supported by Christ's people; and that includes persons like Gerson. We all have journeys in which the day-to-day battles cause us to feel our dreams are being extinguished.
Dear friends, could we listen to each other with a faith there is a Love able to conquer all.
I often react against some of J Wallis' actions. But he has not claimed perfection. He has, with perseverance, feet on the ground (whether being watched by the public or not), and in attempted connection with many in the Body--attempted to walk out the Gospel in a very difficult city and context.
Every person posting here ought to have the precious gift of feeling their words will be received with thoughtfulness and grace.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 1, 2007 3:13 PM
"I am a libertarian and Methodist. Am I selfish for giving money and time to charity and other causing. And not forcing my neighbors to do the same?"
No, the fact that you give to charity and good causes 'after taxes' is commendable. It's also good that you and your neighbors (and I) pay tax. And it is a fact of life. Given that we will always have taxes and we will always have government, and that we are blessed to live in a society that allows us a say in how the government is used and the money spent, we ought to use our influence to keep our government just as best we can. And that includes taking care of the poor and vulnerable and not using anti-government rhetoric as an excuse to shirk our collective responsiblities.
Posted by: I and i | November 1, 2007 4:05 PM
"I am a libertarian and Methodist. Am I selfish for giving money and time to charity and other causing. And not forcing my neighbors to do the same?"
No, the fact that you give to charity and good causes 'after taxes' is commendable. It's also good that you and your neighbors (and I) pay tax. And it is a fact of life. Given that we will always have taxes and we will always have government, and that we are blessed to live in a society that allows us a say in how the government is used and the money spent, we ought to use our influence to keep our government just as best we can. And that includes taking care of the poor and vulnerable and not using anti-government rhetoric as an excuse to shirk our collective responsiblities.
Posted by: I and I | November 1, 2007 4:05 PM
"The idea that Christians should abdicate our responsibility towards the poor and allow the government to usurp that responsibility is abhorrent."
who said it's either/or?
Posted by: well, duh | November 1, 2007 4:37 PM
From my perspective the current Administration hijacked the republican party in order to restore the Tory order of the monied elite, with many of the same feudal implications.
Also, I have seen no evidence this administration has adopted any Catholic social teachings of liberation theology.
Posted by: Gene Morton | November 1, 2007 4:57 PM
Bravo, Jim! Well said. Christianity speaks of love. Love and compassion for one's neighbor seems to be missing from Republican thought. I doubt that Dorothy Day or Mother Theresa would have voted in the Republican ranks. Social Justice should be a pillar of all Christian beliefs based on what Jesus taught. What has Dick Cheney done for the poor lately?
Posted by: Larry L | November 1, 2007 5:10 PM
Bravo, Jim! Well said. Christianity speaks of love. Love and compassion for one's neighbor seems to be missing from Republican thought. I doubt that Dorothy Day or Mother Theresa would have voted in the Republican ranks. Social Justice should be a pillar of all Christian beliefs based on what Jesus taught. What has Dick Cheney done for the poor lately?
Posted by: Larry L | November 1, 2007 5:10 PM
I am always burdened by my profession, as an economist, when someone announces that they believe in free markets and then in the same breath imply that somehow means markets, on their own, generate desirable distributions of income or service and product delivery that need no correction. That is nowhere a principle of sophmore or more advanced economics. Market solutions tend toward "efficient" outcomes under certain conditions (like no monopoly or no externalities, etc.). But even under these conditions market outcomes (even in theory) don't satisfy any normative (read justice) objectives -- those must be established by political, spiritual or social value systems. Indeed market systems can deliver an infinitude of "efficient" market solutions, but with vastly different justice characteristics.
It is easy to see, even with substantial mobility in open economies, that outcomes come about due partly to initial endowments, good or bad decisions, good or bad luck and just or unjust systems. There is plenty of room for values to influence all of these factors. Markets can be a valuable medium for individual self initiative, but they are not sufficient to produce just or equitible outcomes however those may be defined from other perspectives. That is the difference between economics and political economy.
When we think about markets with externalities then intervention of some kind is useful for additional reasons. For example, the product of health care insurance involves essentially two comoponents, prepayment and risk sharing (management). The latter component embodies significant externalities - becuause it is meant to share risk across healthy vs. ill, wealthy vs. poor and young vs. old. Persons in all of these groups combined provide a platform for risk sharing/management. However organizing markets for health insurance under a private profit motive will drive wedges between these groups so that one only gets prepayment appropriate for each group, no risk sharing and high profits for insurance companies because customers think they are buying both risk management and prepament - but are only getting the latter. Some justify this result by comparing health insurance to auto insureance where premiums reflect riskiness. However the policy holder's behavior is vastly more important in driving outcomes than in health outcomes, practices for healthy living notwithstanding.
Markets are useful for organizing exchange of producs and services for many products , but they also must bear scrutiny with respect to achieving justice outcomes for some products and services.
Posted by: David Weinschrott | November 1, 2007 5:46 PM
Libertarianism can only work well if it's made up of generous rather than selfish people.
If people's hearts were transformed and we loved one another, ideologies wouldn't make much of a difference.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 5:47 PM
I wish him well, I really do. As one on the political left who, every week on the radio, preaches what Jesus Christ said, I realize that our wonderful God given nation cannot be governed by just one political thought, no matter how wonderful liberalism is and how, I believe, liberal secular government comes closest to what the commandments of Jesus Christ are; "Love your enemies" "Love one another" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Therefore, I pray for a truly honest form of conservatism to take partnership with liberals in righting this (now) foundering ship-of-state. But "Heroic Conservatism" reminds me very much of the very hollow "Compassionate Conservatism" that was designed by a journalism professor to get out the vote for those madmen now in the White House.
May God have mercy, not judgement, upon us.
Love
David Perkins
Posted by: David Perkins | November 1, 2007 6:13 PM
N.M.Rod, you have hit on the "heart" of the matter. All the 'isms' fail when the heart is set against God.
Posted by: stephen | November 1, 2007 6:28 PM
Thank you, Doug & Jan for your initial comment that shows great insight. You have stated the problem which most of the other commenters are ignoring - which they must ignore to justify their view of libertarian conservatism and anti-liberalism.
Thank you David Weinschrott for your lucid discussion of reality. Would I being overstating it to say the perfect example of free-market (unregulated) capitalism is the Mafia? Our corporations using child labor, raping the environment, poisoning our children, etc., will always happen when business is unregulated.
We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves in everything (it's not a suggestion). When we have political power we are commanded to love our neighbors in our politics.
Posted by: JWH | November 1, 2007 6:41 PM
Gerson claims, in the excerpt printed in Newsweek, that the Iraq fiasco should not be taken to mean that US adventures in building "democracy" in Arab countries is necessarily misguided. But it is exactly "Heroic" conservatism's naivete about the social institutions that allow democracy to thrive that is the problem! It took a century of British rule in India to create the institutions that Indian democracy is built on. The world will no longer tolerate imperial adventures of that magnitude, and Americans shouldn't be dreaming or scheming to reproduce that kind of world.
What I'd really like to know is why anyone should take a speechwriter seriously on these issues? What's his expertise? Rhetoric!
Posted by: Carolyn Heinz | November 1, 2007 6:41 PM
I wrote:
The idea that Christians should abdicate our responsibility towards the poor and allow the government to usurp that responsibility is abhorrent.
Rick Nowlin wrote:
Not the point. If there are forces that are keeping them poor, which there are in many cases, then they should be addressed by government. By your mindset, the civil-rights movement would have been illegitimate.
Sorry Rick, but I doubt you know me or my mindset. The old civil-rights movement was legitimate because it sought equal rights for all citizens under the law. That is how it should be - equal rights (and responsibilities) for all.
The point is this - the government only has legitimate concerns in certain areas of life. Taking money from one person against their will and giving it to another (a.k.a. redistribution of wealth) is theft. I don’t care if it is Robin Hood, the IRS, or the Pope. It is up to Christians to help the poor out of our own pockets and not force everyone else to do the same.
Peace.
Posted by: Theophile | November 1, 2007 7:27 PM
The old civil-rights movement was legitimate because it sought equal rights for all citizens under the law. That is how it should be - equal rights (and responsibilities) for all.
You thus missed the meaning of the movement. Actually, it ultimately was about reconciliation, and changing the laws represented only a first step. In fact, it wasn't even really about economics or education because most of the early activists had both on their side -- people wanted to keep theirs at the expense of others, and that's never right. That's necessarily what libertarianism is about, because libertarians mistakenly believe that people are islands.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 7:39 PM
How charming that Jim Wallis and Gerson are lunch partners. Would this be the Gerson who so admired Donald Rumsfeld? The Gerson who fueled Bush's ideology? The Gerson who hogged all the credit as if he were the sole speech-writer? It would be nice to think Wallis is above beltway myopia, but maybe not.
Posted by: Donald Heinz | November 1, 2007 7:58 PM
As a progressive who often sees flaws in relationship between the teachings of Jesus and what the church often has done to it, it has to be pointed out the pro cooperate appointed Bush and Co have nothing to do with true conservatism anyway. I hope that ex Bush-ite gets it. Yes, human rights (which relates to the environment) is the bottom line. Cooperations are not individuals and are becoming little governments answerable to no one. History lesson: 1929. Bust some trusts, try peace making insted of war.
Blessed are the peace makers, unblessed is Bush. Yes, goverment needs to be limited, but what it needs to do what it must do right: healthcare for all, not HMO's, committment to peace (Let the instectors work), protection of the goverment and as best as possilbe helping make sure all have the oppertunity to live in peace and have what they need. Oh, what right does Bush have creating "No Child Left Behind" - conservative ,fooy, insane maybe.
Remember, poverity often teaches people to break the law just as uncontroled trusts do, also the example of war make religion by example seem only warlike. Hense it teahes people to be likewise. The whole picture of Bush is flawed...
Posted by: Michael Godey | November 1, 2007 8:06 PM
Perhaps Jim Wallis should have read the article outing Michael Gerson in Atlantic Monthly a while back or the op ed piece by Gerson in this week's Newsweek before sitting down and rekindling some common ground. Michael Gerson loved the limelight of writing speeches for George Bush and pushed along along all the misleading and distorted words that came from his mouth. He writes a revisonist history of the Iraq War and cautions us about abandoning a noble cause just because of some mismanagement. He cherry picks history to justify his statments. Now he is pushing a book so that he will be seen in a different light from all the fellow neocons that have caused the world and our country such a disastrous period of pain and suffering and lost opportunity. People like him should go quietly in the night and not be afforded a podium.
Posted by: Bill Tunney | November 1, 2007 9:28 PM
Having read this chain, I can not help but wonder, if the democrats are so oriented toward the poor and love and the republicans so evil and greedy and full of hate, why do the Democrats feel the need to push class envy and class warfare to get elected? Last time a checked there was something about not coveting in the Ten Commandments but maybe I have that all wrong. You will get your socialist result that you all seem to crave. We will all be statistically equal, that equality enforced by the State. And you will all have lost your freedom in the process. Maybe even your freedom to worship as you desire. And then we can all complain about "Evil Hillary" for a while.
Posted by: John Kludt | November 1, 2007 9:40 PM
I was glad to see someone else recognizing the role of Ayn Rand and her disciples in Republican party economics. Go on the Ayn Rand Foundation web site. They advocate atheism. the current head of the Fed (Bernanke) is an avowed atheist and a member of the Ayn rand Foundation, as was Greenspan (who was a personal friend of Rand's), and Friedman, the architect of Reaganomics.
Ann Coulter claims to be Christian, but constantly idolizes the theories of Adam Smith, who was an atheist and of whom Darwin was a disciple.
Beware the wolves in sheeps' clothing. The GOP has hid under the wool of so-called evangelists. I smell Mammon at work.
Posted by: Floyd | November 1, 2007 9:48 PM
Having read this chain, I can not help but wonder, if the democrats are so oriented toward the poor and love and the republicans so evil and greedy and full of hate, why do the Democrats feel the need to push class envy and class warfare to get elected? Last time a checked there was something about not coveting ...
Oh, it's not that at all. If anything, it's just the opposite -- the rich and powerful denying justice to the poor and downtrodden and using "faith" to justify it. Like it or not, there is such a thing called "class warfare" mentioned in the Scripture, and it's always the way I just said. And in fact, the conservatives (which dominate the GOP) often are greedy and full of hate, and most people understand that now. That's one reason why the conservative movement is going into the tank as I write.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 9:56 PM
Donny wrote,
"In actuality Compassionate Conservatism is the answer to the world's greatest evils."
No, Donny. Compassionate Conservatism is not the answer, and if you present it as such, you are making it god, and that is idolatry. The above sentence SHOULD read:
"In actuality, JESUS is the answer to the world's greatest evils."
Politics is the necessary evil to keep the world running--it isn't a true answer to anything.
Posted by: squeaky | November 1, 2007 10:31 PM
I see a lot of name calling about conservatives and how they hate, how Bush this, Chaney that and Republicans the other.
So try this on for size - when you "progressives" will all VOLUNTARILY earn all you can, working 2 or 3 jobs, and give away YOUR money to help the poor - to the point that you and your family are living at the poverty level, then I’ll start listening to you about what I should do with my money. Until then, my contention is that “progressives” are the greediest among us because they want to solve the world’s problems with everybody’s money but are not doing everything they can to solve the problems with their own resources.
Posted by: Theophile | November 1, 2007 10:47 PM
I suggest that the Bush ideology follows that of Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics. If you haven't read Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' Now is the time to read it.
Posted by: Joan Jespersen | November 1, 2007 11:28 PM
So try this on for size - when you "progressives" will all VOLUNTARILY earn all you can, working 2 or 3 jobs, and give away YOUR money to help the poor - to the point that you and your family are living at the poverty level, then I’ll start listening to you about what I should do with my money.
Some of us have actually been there, done that, almost by necessity, and I know people who have done so. We challenge you, however, not to buy that big house or car just because you can (not because you need them) and use them to appear bigger and better than everyone else.
And besides, if you claim to be a Christian your money isn't really yours, anyway; it should be used to further His Kingdom. And I'm not just talking about giving to the poor; I'm talking about using your contacts, etc. to help them out of poverty. Your complaints about "class envy" are thus already old and worn out.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 11:33 PM
This most recent exchange between Theophile and Rick Novlin reveals to me what people tend to forget in this whole right vs. left debate. I agree with Theophile when he writes, "The idea that Christians should abdicate our responsibility towards the poor and allow the government to usurp that responsibility is abhorrent". The reason is that pverity exists because of SIN. Making the poor rich still leaves them to die in SIN and face it's consequences. A secular government, especially in the current time, will never help them with the real problem. When Christians give, they can help them with both the physical and the REAL need they have.
And sin corrupts everything, that is the reason we need government to regulate things like free markets, while at the same time regulate and limit government.
Only the revival brought by the Holy Spirit is able to change the hearts of individuals and families and communities in order to bring justice. We must face the reality of the spiritual condition of our nation and pray for revival. We have seen that neither Democrats or Republicans can really solve the iissues of the heart.
Posted by: DanT | November 2, 2007 1:29 AM
"No, Donny. Compassionate Conservatism is not the answer, and if you present it as such, you are making it god, and that is idolatry. The above sentence SHOULD read:"
Oh come on Squeaky , I have been reading the posts , with Conservatives being called evil , greedy, etc . And you call Donny on idolatry ?
I have not read one policy here since I have been on this blog about how the poor will be lifted out of poverty by the government from the folks who have made Wallis their idol ? EVEN WHEN PUBLIC EDUCATION has been discussed , the status quo is defended .
I have seen posts that support giving support to the poor , but never about policies about lifting them out of poverty .
I am all ears , I think most Americans are . If one tenth of the ideas were about helping the poor instead of redefining what conservatives really beliee , this organization would be hopping instead of being looked upon as a front for the democratic party .
Because that means their will be less poor , not more . Right ? More tax payers , not less right .
Greedy and evil conservatives would see a benefit in that even .
I don't think a person or policy can lift you out of poverty , they can make it easier to handle , which has been THE major problem of past government policies .
You can promote policies that provide opportunity or allow for better opportunity ,
But opportunity only works if someone takes advantage of the opportunity .
So far this sounds like redistribution of wealth , socialism , which brings the bar down for everyone , which is not justice and will do more harm then good as history has shown .
Donny right on , I knew exactly your point was .
It just takes a little understanding and mercy
instead of using the One who gives us so much of that mercy and understanding to US AND USE him TO take a cheap shot at you .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 2, 2007 2:00 AM
One should note that the Canadian health care system is based on Catholic Social Policy since it grew out of the work of Judge Emmett Hall, a strong advocate of Catholic social teaching.
As I read the article and comment of Gerson I was reminded of the words of a hymn by Charles Wesley. He wrote:
...You various groups who all declare
"Lo, Christ is here!" or "Christ is there!"
Your finer proofs devinely give
And show me where the Christians live.
Your claim alas you cannot prove
You lack the needed mark of love...;.
No one has ever said it better than Wesley.
Posted by: Eugene Tate | November 2, 2007 2:05 AM
Rick Nolan wrote –
And besides, if you claim to be a Christian your money isn't really yours, anyway; it should be used to further His Kingdom.
Well then, if it really is not mine, then you should ask God if you can take any of it from me. Wait, let me - I asked Him if you could and He said "NO!" He said that I am a better steward than the government... but thanks for asking. 8-)
BTW - I said nothing about "class envy." My perspective is that our secular government should treat everyone the same regardless of class - equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. Anyone who says one class should be given privilege or should be punished (taxed more) simply by virtue of their net worth is using class warfare.
Rick, your value systems are not the same as everyone else’s. You want to help the poor? So do I. You think certain things are affective. I might completely disagree to the point of thinking that what you want to do will do more harm than good and vice versa. But people are using those differences to throw insults. Shoot – Wallace said that Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP bill was immoral. To me that whole program is immoral – but that does not mean that I want sick kids to go untreated. I believe there are better, and more moral, ways than socialist medicine that should be found in the private sector. If only we had a free market in the US when it comes to medicine...
Peace
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 7:53 AM
Joan Jespersen wrote:
I suggest that the Bush ideology follows that of Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics. If you haven't read Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' Now (sic) is the time to read it.
First: To suggest that Bush has anything to do with Milton Friedman’s ideas is laughable at best. Which of his "free market" policies are you referring to? The prescription drug benefit? The expansion of federal control of the education system? Attempts to limit government programs? Bush has expanded the government, not reigned it in.
Second: Sir Winston Churchill is attributed with the quote It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. I suggest that it is the same with free markets. They are horrible, unless you compare them to anything else.
Peace.
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 8:08 AM
I have been listening to so-called "conservative" political voices in this society since Barry Goldwater, and I have yet to hear one shred of Catholic social teaching. All I have heard is the voice of the the wealthy and powerful saying "you can't get people to work anymore," which is essentially just a reiteration of "arbeit macht frei" in the form of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps". This is hardly surprising given that the one, fundamental, and abiding goal of political conservatism in this society over the last half century has been to conserve the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful in a backlash to FDR's New Dealism. Gerson is self-deceived.
Posted by: Stuart Smith | November 2, 2007 10:33 AM
Theophile,
why do we have government at all? why do we have taxes? why do we need taxpayer-funded police, firemen, judges, highway engineers, etc., etc.?
as a democratic society, we have collectively decided that we need a certain structure that allows us to enjoy the freedoms that we have. this is part of living in a civilized society, and it benefits ALL of society, directly and indirectly. you may not like to pay taxes, and you're well within your rights to oppose taxation for government services to the poor, but you certainly don't have a theological argument against it, just a political one.
as for "free market medicine", i suggest you take a trip to canada.
Posted by: | November 2, 2007 10:40 AM
Theophile said: "My perspective is that our secular government should treat everyone the same regardless of class - equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. Anyone who says one class should be given privilege or should be punished (taxed more) simply by virtue of their net worth is using class warfare."
this perspective completely ignores the fact that we are not all starting from the same initial conditions. it's like my high school basketball team playing against the san antonio spurs. the rules might be applied equally to both teams, but i can tell you before the game even starts who's going to win.
Posted by: | November 2, 2007 10:46 AM
Mick,
So are you saying compassionate conservativism IS the answer and that Jesus ISN'T?
Posted by: Squeaky | November 2, 2007 11:20 AM
i think that most anti-government christian conservatives (most or many of whom i'm sure really do care about the poor) fail to really comprehend how much the poor rely on government programs as a safety net. we're not just talking about welfare and handouts here. we're talking about job training programs, health care programs, anti-addiction and substance abuse programs, family advocacy and family training programs, education programs, in-prison and ex-offender education/advocacy/family re-integration programs, etc. these are massive programs that require a (cue scary music) beaurocracy . well-meaning individuals can do great things with their time and money, but they're not a substitute for the structures that are needed to
confront the massive, societal problems of poverty, drug abuse, crime, racism, health care, etc.
do we want to be satisfied that the government ain't gettin' our hard earned money, or do we want to live in a society in which crime, poverty, absentee parents, and addiction are rare?
the whole point is to bring people to a position where they can be independent. tithing and volunteering at soup kitchens are wonderful things for individuals and churches to do, but they do not make people independent. the vast majority of people WANT to work, they WANT to be productive members of and contributors to society. "bootstraps" stories are nice, but the ratio of people who pulled themselves out of poverty/addiction/poor health/crime/etc. to those who live their entire lives (from generation to generation) under the weight of poverty is pretty darn small.
it's easy to criticize big government when you don't need what it's offering.
Posted by: mingus | November 2, 2007 11:52 AM
Mick,
"I have not read one policy here since I have been on this blog about how the poor will be lifted out of poverty by the government from the folks who have made Wallis their idol ?"
Wow... Idol comment aside, methinks your ranting is getting in the way of your listening. I suggest going back through the archives with open eyes and an open mind.
But I'll call your bluff - tell us, how will the free market pull people out of poverty?
Posted by: Oh, come on | November 2, 2007 12:33 PM
An anonymous poster wrote:
why do we have government at all? why do we have taxes? why do we need taxpayer-funded police, firemen, judges, highway engineers, etc., etc.?
Why do we use capital letters? 8-) They are necessary to accomplish certain things and there is a proper role for government. For example, it is better to have a public roads system than a private one. However, the US Federal government should be well defined and live within that small, well-defined box – see the tenth amendment. Yes, this is a political argument not a theological one. The problem is that both the religious left and the religious right want to impose their view of morality on the government. That works to a point. But what are you going to do if and when our demographics change and your brand of morality is in the minority? Do you want the morality of Group X (be they Baal worshipers, golden calf worshipers, or Jedi Knights) and their list of morals forced upon you and your pocketbook? Or is it best to have a secular government that does not let one group impose beliefs and practices on another?
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 1:24 PM
BTW - I said nothing about "class envy."
Excuse me, but you certainly did.
My perspective is that our secular government should treat everyone the same regardless of class - equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. Anyone who says one class should be given privilege or should be punished (taxed more) simply by virtue of their net worth is using class warfare.
In a utopia, this might be the case. But let's be realistic -- the rich often use their financial (and, sometimes, cultural) heft to buy politicians for their own purposes and oppress/neglect the poor in the process. Heck, that's even in the Scriptures! As I mentioned, "class warfare" is mentioned there.
Which of his "free market" policies are you referring to? The prescription drug benefit? The expansion of federal control of the education system? Attempts to limit government programs? Bush has expanded the government, not reigned it in.
So did Ronald Reagan, BTW. Besides, the issue was never "too much government" but "too much goverment in the wrong hands."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 2, 2007 1:29 PM
I wrote:
My perspective is that our secular government should treat everyone the same regardless of class - equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. Anyone who says one class should be given privilege or should be punished (taxed more) simply by virtue of their net worth is using class warfare.
An anonymous poster wrote:
this perspective completely ignores the fact that we are not all starting from the same initial conditions. it's like my high school basketball team playing against the san antonio spurs. the rules might be applied equally to both teams, but i can tell you before the game even starts who's going to win.
You’re right and you’re wrong. We all start the same - as helpless infants. From there, God has made some shorter, some taller, some quicker, some slower! Rejoice in the Lord and in His creativity! This kind of diversity is a good thing!
The idea that you can predict a persons life for them from their starting initial conditions is an interesting idea, but incredibly flawed, arrogant and presumptuous. There are more factors that shape someone’s life than shape the weather. Most meteorologists will tell you that the forecast over 3 or 4 days is accurate, but after that, not so much. So if you can predict everything, in addition to telling me who is going to win the BCS title, the Super Bowl and March Madness, do me a favor and replace my weatherman so you can tell me what the weather will be on each day next year, when the drought will end in Atlanta, when the next hurricane will hit the gulf coast, and when I should plan my vacation.
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 1:42 PM
"From there, God has made some shorter, some taller, some quicker, some slower! Rejoice in the Lord and in His creativity! This kind of diversity is a good thing!"
it absolutely IS a good thing, until human-imposed prejudices and constructs (including your beloved free market economics) undercuts the ability of EVERY individual to contribute to society.
Posted by: | November 2, 2007 4:11 PM
An anonymous poster wrote:
you can't possibly be suggesting that someone born in the slums of west baltimore is equally likely to have a successful (in terms of comfort, happiness, health, and general well being) as someone born to an upper class or even middle class family???
THIS seems to me to be the "flawed, arrogant and presumptuous" opinion.
further, it is completely contrary to the evidence. in actuality, when it comes to poverty, you ABSOLUTELY CAN "predict a persons life for them from their starting initial conditions" - why do you think poverty carries on in a single family from one generation to another? same for prosperity (again, not speaking of poverty/prosperity in spiritual terms, but in quality of life terms)?
Your predictions do not match the facts.
A 1992 Treasury Department study showed that between 1979 and 1988, 86 percent of those in the bottom income quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 35 percent in the top income quintile moved to a lower quintile.
(Income Mobility and the U.S. Economy: Open Society or Caste System? Joint Economic Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., January 1992. Quintiles are calculated by dividing the number of families or people into five groups of equal size and classified by income.)
A 1995 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report showed that almost three-fourths of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were in a higher quintile by 1991, and almost 40 percent in the top quintile moved down to a lower quintile over the same period.
(W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, "By Our Own Bootstraps: Economic Opportunity and the Dynamics of Income Distribution," Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 1995 Annual Report, pp. 2-23.)
A 2000 Economic Policy Institute study showed that almost 60 percent of Americans in the lowest income quintile in 1969 were in a higher quintile in 1996, and over 61 percent in the highest income quintile had moved down into a lower income quintile during the same period
(Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, State of Working America: 2000-01 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), p. 77.)
Need any more evidence that class mobility is still real in America?
Now that is out of the way - you seem to think that the government is responsible to give some equality of outcome. Where is that coming from? Scripture? Marx? Obviously not the US Constitution.
Also, what "human-imposed prejudices" are embedded in free market economics that undercut the ability of individuals to contribute to society?
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 7:53 PM
Rick Nowlin – envy and warfare are the same thing now? I guess that means we had World Envy I and II, an Envy of 1812 and a Revolutionary Envy... and don't forget the American Civil Envy... that one was particularly green. 8-)
But let's be realistic -- the rich often use their financial (and, sometimes, cultural) heft to buy politicians for their own purposes and oppress/neglect the poor in the process.
So right the wrong - get the evidence and throw the crooked politicians in jail. Make it so that kind of crap is not acceptable in our society. Be an agent for positive change! The system is only broken because We The People let it be that way!
Posted by: Theophile | November 2, 2007 8:02 PM
So right the wrong - get the evidence and throw the crooked politicians in jail. Make it so that kind of crap is not acceptable in our society. Be an agent for positive change! The system is only broken because We The People let it be that way!
Why do you think this blog exists? To bring attention to that very thing! But you're in utter denial about the real issue!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 2, 2007 11:07 PM
"Compassionate Conservatism is the answer to the world's greatest evils."
Posted by: Donny | November 1, 2007 9:40 AM
Or perhaps Jesus is.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 3, 2007 12:21 AM
"as for "free market medicine", i suggest you take a trip to canada.
Posted by: | November 2, 2007 10:40 AM"
Actually, now would not be the time for you Yanks to head north. Your dollar closed here at 92.8 cents Cdn today - lowest it's ever been in my lifetime and I'm over 50. Wal-Mart Canada announced today that they're now selling their books at 10% off the U.S. price that's printed on the book.
There's something wrong in the good ol' U.S.A., lads.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 3, 2007 12:37 AM
"you seem to think that the government is responsible to give some equality of outcome. Where is that coming from? Scripture? Marx? Obviously not the US Constitution."theophile
Posted by: | November 3, 2007 1:02 AM
Theophile:
So right the wrong - get the evidence and throw the crooked politicians in jail. Make it so that kind of crap is not acceptable in our society. Be an agent for positive change! The system is only broken because We The People let it be that way!
Me:
That's not entirely accurate. The system is broken because it was designed for brokeness. It's broken from beginning to end. We can change that. I agree w/ you completely but sometimes using the system is the wrong way to go. I would venture that your plan of throwing people in jail is not going to work. Number one it is way too naive. W/ the resources available to prosecute those law breakers they will likely get light sentences or face little to no jail time. I think we need more creative options. Do you have any?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 3, 2007 12:10 PM
Payshun said, " I think we need more creative options. (on punishment of crooked politicians.)Do you have any?"
Yep, start with this: Make a special tax on the Republican Party to repay the American people all the money that's been lost because of the invasion of Iraq and other gigantic mistakes they've made.
The Bush administration came in with a surplus and look where we are today. 9/11 changed things, you say? Not that much. So, no jail time for Bush, et. al. Just get the Republican Party to pay us back.
And while we're at it, how about a special "windfall" tax on all businesses and corporations who profited on our miseries over the past 7 years!
Love
David Perkins
Posted by: David Perkins | November 5, 2007 12:20 PM
First, I very much appreciate the ideas and goals of Sojourners...thanks...
As a devout Catholic, and having attended 16 years of Catholic schooling, the last four part of a Jesuit community, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Gerston's describing part of the Republican party as following Catholic social teachings. VERY MUCH DISAGREE. I do admire his desire to follow the teachings, but just as conservatives use the soundbite "compassionate conservatisam" (which sounds really good--who doesn't want to be considered compassionate)--and SAY these things, you do not see the legislation to support this. We must be responsible to go beyond listening to the "soundbites" of the day--and really research the facts. Since being able to vote since the 1970's, I closely review and analyze the presidential candidates legislation, priorities, etc--and always find the Democratic Party has more closely follows the social teachings of the Catholic Church--ironically the liberal wing. The social teachings frequently conflict with many big business profit machines. Of course there are exceptions. Remember Jesus's Sermon on the Mount-- and His instructions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, etc,.--not always popular economically.
Posted by: Mary B. | November 6, 2007 10:37 AM
Sounds like anyone who wants to mesh their political views with Christian Faith should read Matthew 25,31.
Posted by: sonny c. | November 7, 2007 12:05 PM
Article is very nice. I very much appreciate the ideas and goals of Sojourners...thanks...
As a devout Catholic, and having attended 16 years of Catholic schooling, the last four part of a Jesuit community, I must respectfully disagree with part of the Republican party as following Catholic social teachings. VERY MUCH DISAGREE. "From there, God has made some shorter, some taller, some quicker, some slower! Rejoice in the Lord and in His creativity! This kind of diversity is a good thing!" Those words are really nice.
our link :
http://www.growthpop.com/category/type/courses
Posted by: Self Improvement Courses | November 9, 2007 9:12 AM
But I'll call your bluff - tell us, how will the free market pull people out of poverty?
Posted by: Oh, come on
Are you serious ? What are you advocating for , , medical care , housing, food , clothing all to be from government without those people being able to pay into the sytem that provides it ?
You point makes none , and your reminder to open my mind shows a mind that has no ability to understand what even I assume Wallis wants .
You don't want people being supported by government , we want those in poverty , in minorities to be our bosses , our co workers don't we ? Starting new businesses that provide JOBS How many peoplem of color are NOT our supervisors or starting new businesses because of a lack of opportunity our society has given them ?
. The hope for the poor and people of color to be in positions of earning more money and access to opportunity is not just noble and Christian , it is selfish . If someone knows how to make more products , sell more products , make more profits to increase job growth , is it not even in the interest of the poor and those in need, but the middle class and the wealthy to want people to succed who have the God given ability to do so . To be able to be in positions that can help promote profits and incomes of others .
I suggest to you statistically we are leaving many people out of the picture here that can help us all if given the OPPORTUNITY to succeed.
Opportunity is the name of the game , its America's Dream and what we should all advocate for . Regardless of politics .
Basic ally teaching the person to fish instead of just feeding him the fish . And we seem to have many people satisfied with just giving people fish , to be that is only half of it .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 13, 2007 9:10 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?