As they used to sing on Sesame Street...

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which one's not like the others
By the time we finish our song?

That's right! Social justice is a political program, based on economics and government, while the others are religious movements, based on our understanding of how best to worship God.

Now to be fair the same could be said for the religious right and its mixture of Christianity and free-market economics. But then again, that proved to be controversial too and much of Sojo's energy has been spent contesting the blurring of lines done by Robertson et al.

That's not to say that there aren't arguments between liturgical, charismatic, and evangelical Christians, but those arguments ultimately center on scripture and the history of the church, while the arguments between free-market supporters and adherents to social justice are more about economics and political history.

If the fourth spot were taken up by "caring for the poor" then you would have four things that all belong together. As it stands here, Rev. Nathan is engaged in exactly the same sort of base-stealing that the religious right has been guilty of.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 15, 2008 1:37 PM

Wolverine,

A few days ago, Mr Nathan wrote another piece about what justice means for his church. I think when he uses the term social justice he means what one commenter on this blog called Biblical justice. And there is an aspect at least of Biblical justice in the highly politcal social justice. But some Christians may be wary of what is truly Biblical in social justice because of what is not. I like you tag caring for the poor. Labels can be so crappy sometimes.

Posted by: TooLou | April 15, 2008 1:53 PM

"That's right! Social justice is a political program, based on economics and government, while the others are religious movements, based on our understanding of how best to worship God."

It needn't be so, but political entities have co-opted the term (in fairness, they have done the same with "evangelical).

I've seen the four corners presented as Social Justice, Evangelism, Theology and Church building. The tendency among everyone is to favor our own desired corner, when all four are necessary.

Placing guilt squarely at the feet of conservatives might make Mr. Nathan feel better, but misses the real issue. I would also note that many Christians feel they are pursuing social justice. They simply disagree that the Democratic party is a primary vehicle for its execution.

(cue post about how this is all irrelevant because Christians have focused on abortion and gay marriage in 3, 2, 1...)

Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Wolverine,
I think Rich has actually been pretty fair about what "social justice" means so far in his columns. He hasn't said social justice = support for single-payer health care/high taxes/cradle to grave welfare programs/etc. While others here do define social justice as the federal government providing for everyone's material needs, Rich has been careful to avoid that language. Maybe he believes it, but he hasn't said so if he does.

As Kevin said, I think playing the conservative envangelicals as the bad guys in all this is a little simplistic, but social justice isn't something that has to mean more socialism. It can, but it doesn't have to. I can be deeply committed to social justice and oppose higher federal taxes at the same time. Rich has defined it in such a way that allows me to and I appreciate that.

Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 2:48 PM

"Social justice is a political program, based on economics and government, while the others are religious movements, based on our understanding of how best to worship God." Wolvie

Huh? If only you'd been around to inform Micah to save his breath...6:8 "this is what God requires, to do justice..."

Posted by: canucklehead | April 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Richard Foster has addressed this issue in a very thoughtful, nuanced, non-partisan manner in his Book "Streams of Living Water". He identifies six characteristic "streams" of Christian faith and practice

Contemplative: The Prayer-Filled Life,
Holiness: The Virtuous Life,
Charismatic: The Spirit-Empowered Life,
Social Justice: The Compassionate Life,
Evangelical: The Word-Centered Life, and Incarnational: The Sacramental Life

Foster makes the very convincing argument that the mature, robust Christian life will include ALL of these elements, not merely one or two with which we are comfortable or familiar. Indeed, these forms of Christain faith and practice build on and empower each other and are dependent on each other to provide a necessary counter-balance to help each tradition maintain balance and perspective.

I encourage you to check him out at www.renovare.org

Posted by: Sean in Boston | April 15, 2008 3:38 PM

TooLou wrote:

A few days ago, Mr Nathan wrote another piece about what justice means for his church. I think when he uses the term social justice he means what one commenter on this blog called Biblical justice.

So why didn't Rich use the term "Biblical Justice", or better yet, just plain "justice"?

Right now the best defense that can be thrown out for Rev. Nathan's use of "social justice" is that he doesn't mean the same thing that Sojo does when they use the same phrase. Since Rev. Nathan's church is going to be partnering with Sojo on a conference, it would be wise of him to learn what Sojo means, and decide whether or not that's something he actually supports.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 15, 2008 4:07 PM

Lloyd Crump wrote:

Gee, I bet he wouldn't have thought of doing that if you hadn't suggested it. He had probably never heard of Sojo until Wallis approached him about partnering on a conference.

So what you're saying is, Rev. Nathan knows what he's talking about, and knows that he's mixing political controversies with religious ones.

All kidding aside, you're probably right. Which means Rev. Nathan is being disingenuous when he wonders why anyone would object to his blurring the lines between the political agenda of "social justice" and the Christian traditions of charismatic, liturgical, and evangelical churches.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 15, 2008 6:11 PM

I think "social justice" means doing what is right for people. Not just the poor, but also for those coming home from Iraq and finding inadequate and even shoddy health care. Not just the poor, but the lonely, the abused, the marginalized.

While some of this can (and should in the case of veterans who have been promised health care) be addressed by government, much of the justice can be "done" (to paraphrase Micah) better by churches and even individuals--Christian or not.
Visiting shut-ins, inviting lonely people to dinner, providing a ride to the store for someone without transportation are all social justice at its most basic level.

Look, folks, we are all in this together, no matter in which segment of the box we feel most comfortable. This doesn't have to be a liberal/conservative issue.

Posted by: Cat | April 15, 2008 8:30 PM

i agree with gordon. rich is the pastor who is looking for a cause, trying to justify his own thoughts and finding the so called rift between social christians and evangelicals is easy pickins. no new ideas here. this last paragraph is so patronizing, i believe he is looking for donations.
i don't think so tolou. he means he wants to get on the sojo bandwagon because he sees a market there and wants a piece of the action. where is his commitment? that's the point eric.....nathan si playing to what he sees as the profitable thing. ie; social justice. who doesn't want social justice? like al gore's global whatever. there is a market. why? because apparently nathans epople are bored with the "good news".
yes, canucklehead - and you will decide what fits that definition, right?
social justice, "the compassionate life". an individual's effort. no government. no sojo. no million man marches.
comon, you social christians. give me a break. my love of mankind is guided by the holy spirit and you are not him.

nathan needs t get his web site geared up and his tee shirts selling, books listed, conferences listed, and his marketing team fired up. or......sojo will smother him. justice will come, beware.

Posted by: jerry | April 15, 2008 9:41 PM

"Wolverine and Kevin S.: A question - How do you propose to reduce poverty in the world using just the church?"

This is not my position, so I am not going to defend it.

"Government, of course, would have no role whatsoever -- don't know where that would have left Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust Busters"

Can you point me to a study that ties monopolistic business practice to poverty?

"Of course, you'd have to start cutting taxes for the rich so the rest would trickle down. LIke the Rich Man, Lazarus and crumbs from the table."

So the purpose of this parable was to ask the government to redistribute the Rich Man's food? I'm not sure what your point is here.

"In the end, do Conservatives really have a strategy to alleviate poverty,"

Yes.

"especially when it's important to protect one's economic rights and liberties to their money?"

The latter is part and parcel of the former.

"(Don't know where that leaves Ps. 24:1)"

That money belongs to God is not an argument for government controlling it.

"Or do they just believe that it's sufficient to bash those who try."

No, I want to bash those who are trying policies that are going to fail.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 10:16 PM

I also believe that over time the contact will be valuable to poor people in a range of situations: from learning the etiquette that will allow them to work their way through social situations, to job contacts that will help them find work sooner and win promotions faster.

That reminds me of a line from one of my favorite movies, "Cry Freedom," in which a black man in a black township in South Africa is addressing the well-meaning but ignorant white newspaper editor Donald Woods: "The best you want for us is to be allowed to sit at your table, using your silver and your china, and if we learn to use it like you do you will kindly let us stay. We want to wipe the whole table clean -- it's an African table, and we will sit at it in our own right."

In other words, it's an extremely patronizing way to go about things, with one culture making the rules for everybody, and where will that end? Music? Dress? Do you have to be a "certain type of person" to survive? This is why we almost have to have such things as "cultural diversity" seminars, that conservatives often resent.

The one area where money will be most valuable over the long term will be in the form of scholarships that will allow children from poor families to leave often crappy inner-city school systems and attend private (mostly religious) schools with reasonable costs and reliably good teachers. (Yes, there are lots of good teachers in public schools, but there are some horrible ones too.)

Three problems with that. One, it's not so much the schools but the students that populate them are so bad, and that has a lot to do with the families they come from. Two, most parents don't want their children to leave their neighborhoods because they'll be harder to keep track of. Three, those children will certainly face teasing and ostracism in those private schools precisely because they come from the wrong side of the tracks, and truth be told the parents who can already afford to send their kids there would deeply resent the school administration for letting the kids from lesser means. How then will the less-well-off children learn? Remember that the attractiveness of a school is directly proportional to its access -- that is, the harder it is to get into represents much of its appeal.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 16, 2008 1:48 AM

"No, I want to bash those who are trying policies that are going to fail"Posted by: kevin s.

Oh, now I get it. You would bash the people and not their policies that might fail. Thanks for clarifying that. It sounds like a pretty productive strategy to me.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 16, 2008 6:38 AM

Rick Nowlin continues to miss the point:

That reminds me of a line from one of my favorite movies, "Cry Freedom," in which a black man in a black township in South Africa is addressing the well-meaning but ignorant white newspaper editor Donald Woods: "The best you want for us is to be allowed to sit at your table, using your silver and your china, and if we learn to use it like you do you will kindly let us stay. We want to wipe the whole table clean -- it's an African table, and we will sit at it in our own right."

First off the comparison to South Africa, while understandable, is misleading: in South Africa you had a privileged white minority and an oppressed black majority. In America you have, broadly speaking, a largish middle-class and a less numerous underclass. In South Africa you might have had an African table. Here it's an American table. And if the worst oppression you ever face is having to learn which fork you are supposed to use for your salad, you're in pretty good shape.

In other words, it's an extremely patronizing way to go about things, with one culture making the rules for everybody, and where will that end? Music? Dress? Do you have to be a "certain type of person" to survive? This is why we almost have to have such things as "cultural diversity" seminars, that conservatives often resent.

Look, if a poor person wants to escape poverty, he is going to have to learn how to act like a person who is not poor. He is going to need to learn how to earn and manage a significant income, so to some extent it is inevitable that he is going to wind up acting more like a member of the middle class whether he means to or not. He is probably going to need to do business with those who have already succeeded -- in other words the existing middle class -- in order to find work or to get financing and supplies for a business.

How that works out for individuals is going to depend on a lot of things. I'm not talking about forcing poor people into acting a certain way, I'm talking about helping them learn how to get along in a larger society. How they use that knowledge is up to them.

...it's not so much the schools but the students that populate them are so bad, and that has a lot to do with the families they come from.

Which gets to my point about self-control and stable families.

Two, most parents don't want their children to leave their neighborhoods because they'll be harder to keep track of.

Which is why personal contacts are so valuable -- it makes it easier for parents to let go -- something parents all have to do eventually -- because their children are being looked over by people they trust.

Three, those children will certainly face teasing and ostracism in those private schools precisely because they come from the wrong side of the tracks, and truth be told the parents who can already afford to send their kids there would deeply resent the school administration for letting the kids from lesser means.

To the extent that you're right, and I think you're exaggerating the problem, you would rather leave these children in crappy schools where they won't learn but at least won't face teasing?

How then will the less-well-off children learn? Remember that the attractiveness of a school is directly proportional to its access -- that is, the harder it is to get into represents much of its appeal.

That might be true among a certain shallow, grasping sort that are moved by prestige, but the real value of a school is quality of education. Besides, there are are still a fair number of Catholic and Christian schools in inner cities and nearby suburbs. Not all of the students in these schools are wealthy, but they get a better education than is available in most inner-city public schools, and have much better opportunities open to them because of that.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 16, 2008 11:03 AM

Wolverine I fear you continue to miss the point my friend:

I was disagreeing with your rather elitist theory that we "productive job holding middle class church people" just need to teach the poor how to be more like "us" with "middle class social manners and behavior and values" for them to be able to pull themselves up by their boot straps out of the mire of poverty. I think this carries the wrong spirit - like that of the "good" son in the prodigal son story and assumes that people are in poverty because of some character flaw that can be fixed rather than because of unfortunate circumstances. I acknowledge that many people are in fact in poverty because of poor choices, but it is not a character trait inherent to their social class alone. I think it is, in fact, often the shallow, mayonaisey, and trivial of us in the middle class who have a lot to learn from the poor about what is truly important in life and what should be valued. Much like the the story of the widow's mite and the beatitudes that extol the virtues of humility, meekness, temperance, etc.

When I said that I agreed with you in that we (the church/Christians) need to be examples, it was meant to be the antithesis of the plan that you had suggested. What you suggest is still a secular solution for a spiritual problem. What I am suggesting is a spiritual solution for a physical and spiritual problem in that the changing that needs to occur is in our hearts and actions toward the poor and only when we see it in that context do we do God's work in bringing about the kingdom. It brings me back to a point I have made before that until we as individuals or as groups see how our often wrongheaded thinking is part of the problem the film will remain over our eyes as to how we can truly be a part of the solution. Or said another way: If we keep asking the wrong questions then we are always going to get the wrong answers. We are focussed on the wrong things. WE are the ones who need to change in order to affect a solution - not them. For in the changing of ourselves the desired outcome that you seek will follow. And it also reinforces my point of how our "American" thinking can be a stumbling block to seeing a more biblical, God centered solution.

Here's how I've come to sum it up of late. It compiles several different verses. For by Grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. But James says that Faith without works is dead. And Paul reminds us that though I give all my goods to the poor and have not love it is just a bunch of noise.

Grace, Faith, Love, Works which leads back to grace. If we can wrap our brains around the gift and internalize that a little bit more so that then we see that following Christ is really a call to BE grace in the world to LIVE compassion to LIVE forgiveness to others then I think we're onto something about how to bring about the kingdom.

Posted by: CKC | April 16, 2008 11:50 AM

First off the comparison to South Africa, while understandable, is misleading: in South Africa you had a privileged white minority and an oppressed black majority.

That's not the point. What you have in both cases is folks who still want to determine policy for everyone without input from the people they say they're trying to "help." That was what the man was getting at. Woods eventually got the message, and so do liberals today. But the conservatives, who seem to oppose any efforts at self-determination on the part of the poor, still complain about "economic redistribution" -- just as South African leaders during apartheid said.

He is probably going to need to do business with those who have already succeeded -- in other words the existing middle class -- in order to find work or to get financing and supplies for a business.

How do you do that when the well-to-do have left the neighborhood?

To the extent that you're right, and I think you're exaggerating the problem, you would rather leave these children in crappy schools where they won't learn but at least won't face teasing?

I wish I were exaggerating. But that was my experience (and I grew up in a "middle-class" neighborhood), and many, many African-American children who do the same are often accused of "acting white." Some years ago ABC News Nightline did a lengthy profile on a kid from the D.C. area who was trying to get into MIT, and you could see that the experience was making him a bit bitter. He ended up attending his senior year at his "crappy" public high school because he couldn't take the social pressure of the prep schools he had previously attended.

You see, you need to look at things from the children's point of view because they're the ones that have to fight through the roadblocks that are put up.

That might be true among a certain shallow, grasping sort that are moved by prestige, but the real value of a school is quality of education. Besides, there are are still a fair number of Catholic and Christian schools in inner cities and nearby suburbs. Not all of the students in these schools are wealthy, but they get a better education than is available in most inner-city public schools, and have much better opportunities open to them because of that.

You miss the point.

Long before I knew her, a former girlfriend of mine and her then-husband inquired about moving into a certain suburban public school district with a strong reputation but decided they couldn't afford the taxes. (That had less to do with salaries but with extremely high property values.)

As far as Christian and Catholic schools in inner cities and inner-ring suburbs go, the former don't exist where I live and many of the latter are closing down because of lack of enrollment -- the only places where they're being built is in the "hot" suburbs. You also need to understand why Catholic schools were started in the first place: To avoid the pro-Protestant bias of the public schools of that day, which is no longer an issue.

That said, most of your best schools still are in the "hot" suburban areas, and trust me when I say that class has everything to do with it. A generation ago a federal judge ordered a merger, creating the suburban district I live in now, and it was clear from the outset that race and class played a significant role in the opposition.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 16, 2008 12:28 PM

"Look, if a poor person wants to escape poverty, he is going to have to learn how to act like a person who is not poor. He is going to need to learn how to earn and manage a significant income, so to some extent it is inevitable that he is going to wind up acting more like a member of the middle class whether he means to or not. He is probably going to need to do business with those who have already succeeded -- in other words the existing middle class -- in order to find work or to get financing and supplies for a business."

This line of reasoning starts from the assumption that people are poor ONLY because they have not acted in the proper way (probably in the way the writer views himself). It assumes that if poor people would just act differently, they would not be poor. It ignores that fact that there are only so many good paying jobs many of which have disappeared, that some people start out way ahead of others in terms of schools, neighborhoods, and other opportunities. It betrays a total lack of understanding of the real issues out there. In short, it is a position that takes ignorance at its starting point and doesn't get any better from there.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 16, 2008 2:25 PM

Uh, that might have been what Donald Woods wrote, but that's not what I have in mind. What I have in mind is entirely voluntary, there will be dialogue, because nobody will be forced to accept the help that the church offers.

That will never happen unless there is first cultural and political change -- which may mean changing laws. Slavery and segregation, for openers, did not simply die; they had to be killed -- otherwise, what you're proposing will be viewed, and I think correctly, as "political correctness" masquerading as justice.

Depending on the details I can't necessarily blame him, but you leave a lot of questions unanswered. Did he get into MIT? Did the education at the prep school help him or hurt him when the time came to take the standardized tests and apply for college?

He didn't get into MIT -- the story concluded with his plans to enroll at the University of Maryland -- and one reason he didn't was that, even after all his preparation, his test scores still weren't high enough.

Just as important (and I don't know the answer but it's worth asking) might he have gotten along better at the prep school if he had friends from that millieu before he enrolled there?

His studies took him away from what friends he had in the first place; it wouldn't have even been a story had he not been a "special case." That's the reason black students, at least when I was in school in the 1980s, tended to stick together -- they did feel isolated because they had trouble adjusting to that environment.

Actually, I'm trying to approach this from a grown-up point of view, because its as an adult that people have to make careers and start families.

Having "been there, done that," I can tell you that it's a tremendous amount of pressure to be placed on a teen-ager along with all the normal awkwardness of adolescence, and usually too much.

So why is it such a shocking idea that we might equip the poor with the knowledge they need to join the middle class?

As the cliche goes, it's not always what you know but who you know.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 16, 2008 3:41 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

As the cliche goes, it's not always what you know but who you know.

Which, of course, is why personal contact with members of the middle class would be so valuable for poor families.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 16, 2008 4:42 PM

I certainly appreciate the point about the young man's struggle with prep school; it also needs to be said that every kid is different. Two kids from the same family can respond very differently to being plopped in a new school, or being home-schooled or whatever. The same kid may have entered a new school successfully if the mix of students was a little different or with a teacher that handled it a little differently. It's really hard to say. I wouldn't deny someone an opportunity just because some students struggle with it.

I doubt I would have fit in very well with a Prep School, but I would have loved to try. I was fortunate to go to a pretty good school, but that was luck. If the school was bad (like my Jr. High was) my parents wouldn't have moved or anything. Actually, I have only known 1 person who went to an actual prep school. I have to say that it helped her greatly -- she even lists it on her resume and she's about 35 now. She later went to Rice and makes about 80K a year now. Another friend, just a few years older than that, grew up in trailer park, and never went to college. She started in the same company as an Accounting Assistant, but is now making about 70K a year. She took advantage of job postings as they came up, and moved up as she could.

I think what kids need more of is help with the stuff a good high school counselor would tell you. How important a good college is, how to get scholarships, etc. What you can do for a better future if college is not an option. Lots of car salesmen make more than 80K a year. How to get on with a company that offers tuition reimbursement, that kind of stuff.

Posted by: frankie | April 16, 2008 6:03 PM

Which, of course, is why personal contact with members of the middle class would be so valuable for poor families.

Only way that will happen, however, is if the middle-class moved back to the poor neighborhoods -- and that comes with its own set of problems.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 16, 2008 8:09 PM

"On the whole, I think the government is poorly equipped to do the sort of work that needs to be done. I also think that a lot of people in the church who want to help the poor are discouraged; our government spends so much and accomplishes so little it's easy to despair. So let's have the government step back and let the church do its thing. You might be pleasantly surprised."

So, does that also include the military and tax breaks for the rich?

A number of years ago I heard a sermon on The Good Samaritan from a generally conservative Reformed pastor that I'll never forget. He said that the common mantra of society is "what's mine is mine, you can't have it." Jesus' proposal was radically different. It was "what's mine is yours, let's share it." I believe it's radically different because it runs counter to the American mentality of individual rights. The Christian church, by and large, is no different. People who can buy SUVs, large-screen TVs, enormous houses, etc., should also be able to sacrifice.

BTW: That's one thing I have not heard many conservatives say in recent history: The need for people to sacrifice. That runs counter to the prevailing philosophy of "it's mine." I realize it's always been a hard concept, but everything DOES belong to God.

Posted by: ando | April 16, 2008 10:31 PM

jerry -- Every time you write something you prove me right. I do have answers, but since they don't jibe with your agenda you can't hear them.

In the past you have skewered me for displaying "superior knowledge." It's not so much that I have it but that I've always sought it out, and I somewhat understand the issues that need to be addressed. My goal is and always has been reconciliation, that we all work together for the common good -- but that may mean that you, too, have some responsibility to help out. And, to be honest, I don't see that desire on your part.

The Christian life, remember, is far more than personal morality and church attendance down here and the "afterlife"; God demands so much more of His people because He wants to establish His testimony. I'm convinced that he wants to eliminate class warfare, which includes racism, because He has people in each of them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 12:28 AM

What a lot of Christians have a problem with is having anywhere between 20-40 percent percent of their income taken by the federal government and wasted on things that have absolutely nothing to do with helping those in need.

Except that, depending on where they live, their communities get that money back -- and sometimes more (in "grants," also known as "pork"). How do you think these guys continue to remain elected?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 17, 2008 10:12 AM

"So....what is it?"

Are you pretending that conservatives do not have a fiscal policy? It would take a considerable amount of time to outline conservative economic theory in its entirety.

Generally, as it relates to policy, the conservative perspective is that government endeavors to alleviate poverty have precisely the opposite result. As such, our solution is non-governmental. It also takes as a given that poverty will always exist to some degree.

Regarding poverty in Africa, the conservative approach would be to recognize that major leadership changes are necessary before American intervention can do any good. We can't invade every country in Africa (get your obligatory Iraq comment out of the way here) and Europe seems equally disinterested in ameliorating the situation.

So yeah, poverty in Africa is going to be hard to alleviate and will certainly always exist.

"Meanwhile, we have Americans who don't want to do anything but to protect their individual and economic rights."

You are conflating conservative domestic policy with American foreign policy.

"The resources can't sustain our addiction to materialism and individualism,"

What is your remedy for this addiction?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 6:36 PM

"Are you pretending that conservatives do not have a fiscal policy? It would take a considerable amount of time to outline conservative economic theory in its entirety."

You mean the trickle-down theory, where you cut taxes for the rich so that their large hearts will allow for large sums of money to transfer to the poor. Really, conservative economic theory is nothing more than libertarianism, where each individual -- depraved as we all are -- will in their hearts become Good Samaritans and look after the needs of others before himself. So let's not have any taxes, accept for the military -- and, of course, extra corporate incentives -- so that Americans will act in the best interests of their neighbor. That worked well in the 80s, when we saw the federal deficit balloon into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

As for Africa, or any other high-poverty areas of the world, I doubt that you know what it is like for the victims. Anyone who has travelled to those areas of the world -- not as American tourists, but as people looking to get a better perspective -- cannot be anything but changed. Like David Kuo travelling to Uganda. So don't give me your smug "blame it on the leaders." That's just another American cop-out.

As for the remedy to our addiction to materialism, it's a no brainer. Live more simply. Spend money on others less fortunate. Get to know the poor. Live like Jesus.

Posted by: ando | April 17, 2008 10:22 PM

"You mean the trickle-down theory,"

That was never a good name for it.

"where you cut taxes for the rich so that their large hearts will allow for large sums of money to transfer to the poor."

Is this really what you think conservative fiscal policy is? If so, that tells me you haven't even bothered to learn about it. For one thing, conservative support tax cuts for everyone.

"Really, conservative economic theory is nothing more than libertarianism,"

Libertarianism is less codified. Many libertarians oppose funding for police departments, for example. It is true that conservatives see a nominal role for governmental intervention in curing nationwide economic maladies.

"where each individual -- depraved as we all are -- will in their hearts become Good Samaritans"

No, that isn't it at all. But neither do we believe that a collective group of national leaders possess the heart of the good Samaritan. Do you know what pork spending is?

"So let's not have any taxes, accept for the military"

Are you suggesting that conservatives only support taxes on the military? I don't know what this means.

"-- and, of course, extra corporate incentives --"

Conservatives oppose corporate welfare.

"That worked well in the 80s, when we saw the federal deficit balloon into the hundreds of billions of dollars."

Many conservatives see a problem with excess spending that drives us into debt.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 11:50 PM