The Greek historian Plutarch famously wrote that "Courage consists not in hazarding without fear, but being resolutely minded in a just cause." Today in Washington, The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) leads with such fortitude as they courageously defend the moral nature of America’s free enterprise system. Perched on the top floors of a DC high-rise, some of Washington's greatest thinkers combine extensive research and practical experience in support of these economic principles.
Last weekend at an AEI conference, I had the opportunity to join some 60 students and faculty from Christian colleges nationwide. I knew only a little about AEI’s mission, and the conference’s title of ‘Purpose and Prosperity’ offered just a glimpse into our three days.
What I discovered was AEI’s high degree of scholarship and competency. Their speakers, often with Capitol Hill experience, were extremely proficient in their field. They echoed a common chorus: conservatives need new moral arguments to defend timeless economic principles. This theme resonated with me. The current representative of conservatism —the Republican Party—often offers unmoving rationale for good ideas.
AEI’s President, Arthur Brooks, insisted on a moral argument for free market enterprise. Nowadays, liberals claim fairness through a social democracy that takes from the wealthy to subsidize the poor. However, it is capitalism’s merit-based system that offers true fairness by rewarding hard work. In fact, this system promotes earned success, which provides far greater happiness than government handouts.
Pete Wehner expanded on capitalism’s morality. While he freely admitted the free market’s flaws, he argued that it is the most successful working economic system. In fact, capitalism has often bettered our moral condition by encouraging thrift and penalizing lawlessness. I had never considered these arguments. But as I thought about these claims, I realized that America was built on the hard work of millions. Of course inequality is a problem, but the liberal alternative of penalizing personal success is no solution.
This conference resonated with me because it dealt with the compelling issues of my generation. In fact, Andrew Briggs discussion of Social Security was popular because it addressed a genuine crisis. National debt has risen and entitlement programs like Social Security continue to add to this problem. Briggs clearly exposed a program that does not invest, but transfers payments from one generation to another. He proposed raising the retirement age and disincentivizing retirement to balance the program. This solution wouldn’t be popular, but it embodies Pleutarch’s concept of courage.
Back in my California, conservative views are understandably unpopular. But now that I understand how much these issues matter and how well they can be defended, I’m inspired to become more active in politics. Political unpopularity shouldn’t quell true courage. Before his death at the hand of a mob, Socrates uttered words that should guide me in upholding principle in a liberal climate: “We should not think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what He will say who understands justice and injustice.”
I learned of your blog through The Master's Current Vol 18. I'm a 1990 graduate of TMC. Your trip sounded interesting. I'm very interested in what you are learning.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a conservative, but I don't think I know what I am anymore in light of the debt capitalism has brought us. How do you evaluate the "moral nature" of an economic system that can produce so much debt and in fact is based on debt? When I look at America I see little difference between it and what a person can get using a plastic credit card with a very high credit limit. What is the moral difference between the two? How can one inspire a person to courageously defend it and the other quite clearly inspire one to condemn it?
I'm not trying to pick on you, but I am trying to challenge your new enthusiasm with politics and economics. I'm learning too.
You mentioned Luke and the first thing I thought of was his comment about John the Baptist. I never noticed this until I started looking into politics and economics myself. You know what John told the rich, the soldiers, and the taxmen, but did you notice what Luke understood John to be doing when he instilled such fear in the people that some came to ask him more specifically what they were to do? His assessment of John in light of what he understood of the gospel was that he was preaching the gospel to them. Was Luke speaking as a liberal or a Christian? And then, what do we make of James 5? Talk about 300 year predictions; how about a 2000 year one?
Some interesting principles the Bible brings us that we have to deal with or they will deal with us. Maybe we are demanding from OUR economic systems things God never intended economic systems to do. Same with politics. Just some thoughts. I'd be interested in more of yours.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Robert.
DeleteIt is interesting that you equate capitalism with the debt-heavy nation (I assume you are talking about the national debt, not consumer debt.)
As you might notice in this chart of US national debt since its inception (http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0922142599000110-gr1.gif), the national debt has taken its greatest leaps in the past 80 years. This was all kicked off by the Great Depression and NON-capitalistic measures to spend our way out of economic downturn, then spending for WWII, then spending for NON-capitalistic programs in the War on Poverty, and later additions and expansions of entitlement and welfare programs. So, neither AEI nor most conservatives defend the high debt--rather, most conservatives see the debt as one key area which the US must make drastic cuts to (to survive economically for the indefinite future). This was the fundamental issue of the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin--conservative spending cuts and less government free-for-all spending was being opposed by more liberal interest groups.
As for the Scripture passage(s) you reference about John the Baptist (though no specific verses), I assume you are especially thinking of Luke 3:10-14. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A10-14&version=ESV
Jesus similarly asked for economic sacrifice from the rich young ruler (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:16-26&version=ESV). Both John and Jesus were demanding sharing from the excess to those in need (two tunics, give one away), fairness in business dealings (no extortion to the tax collectors and soldiers), and ultimately spiritual treasure (to the rich young ruler; his true focus and desire was on the earthly, not the eternal.)
All these commands, however, (and the James 5) were directed at Christians or potential Christian INDIVIDUALS. These were never part of government's mandate (such as in Romans 13). Undoubtedly, professing Christians must be SACRIFICIAL with their earthly possessions, SERVING with their time, and SHARING of their plenty to those in need. This is Jesus' example and the commands as early as the Old Testament law where the Israelites were commanded to provide for the strangers in their midst.
NEVERTHELESS, the Bible advocates CHRISTIAN principles, neither conservative nor liberal. Scripture is neither a Republican nor a Democrat tract on how to rule government. And even AEI and most conservatives admit that PURE capitalism is far from perfect. This is obviously expected--we live in a fallen earth, and if it were a perfect system, there would hardly be need for economic entry by government or any alternatives.
The issue is that, compared to the other economic systems--especially socialist ones, capitalism is the only one which rewards hard work (as Scripture does) and incentivizes economic productivity. Socialism, especially as demonstrated in the Soviet Union, limited productivity and brought the wealth of all down together. Capitalism may create a gap, but it also often brings even the poorest citizens to further than they could achieve under a socialist system.
But, of course, there must be hybrid or compromise elements to capitalism. It errors in often rewarding corruption or greed as people advance up the 'corporate ladder' or squeeze out competition for their own gain. AEI and others agree that there is a role for government economically to provide for those who do endure a very real hardship.
But added to that, Christians must act individually and churches must act corporately (as they did in the 1st century). The problem is now that most Christians and churches do little to help out.
In any case, capitalism is far from perfect and certain government remedies are part of the ways of 'bandaging' capitalism to cover those flaws. The issue is that capitalism is a better diving board to encourage economic productivity and help people overall, rather than turning to socialism.
“This was the fundamental issue of the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin--conservative spending cuts and less government free-for-all spending was being opposed by more liberal interest groups.”
DeleteWhat I understood about the recall was that it had more to do with Scott Walker’s measure to cripple the bargaining power of the unions. Labor already suffered spending cuts but, it didn’t go to the streets for that. The fundamental issue was labor rights. It was like Poland in 1980.
I don’t trust corporate media’s portrayal of what happened in Wisconsin. They will make the fundamental issue whatever benefits the bottom line. Therefore, I apply the same level of discernment listening to it as I would listening to a Mormon explain how he is a Christian. His explanation can be very misleading especially if I fail to remember fundamental doctrine.
What are the fundamentals of economics and government? My understanding is this. God created man. Man created the Constitution. The Constitution created business (business law). Business created the corporation. Summarized like this…
God > Man > Law > Business
Today, corporations are people. They are eternal, divine, and command their own set of morals that we live by. They don’t serve us. We serve them. Here is a short video that sums that up well. http://robertcoss.com/blog/2011/05/03/esra-and-the-story-of-citizens-united
So today we have…
Business > Law > Man > God
In fact, in my view the world has become so hostile to God that even many of His people are employed in the search for moral principles to account for what exists cf. “conservatives need new moral arguments to defend timeless economic principles.” Many of these “Christians” are nothing more than Mormons on bicycles if I may expand my previous analogy. Such “Christians” need to remember the basics and be much more discerning.
Here are some things that Jesus said that help me. I follow with questions I would like to find out.
Mark 8:15 "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees [religion] and that of Herod [government]." NIV
Would Jesus say something like that today? If so, to who? Would it be based upon the same reasoning He said it to His disciples? What were those reasons?
Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. NASU
Was man made for corporations or corporations for man?
Matt 23:17 Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? NASU
Is there a higher value system than that which derives a profit for corporations and if so where does it show up in our economy? Can the absence of these basic values lead to misjudgments like we see when people look over Wisconsin and see labor disputes and spending cuts and conclude the crucial issue is spending cuts? Can such a value system lead to blindness? Are such people saved? How are they different than the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked?
Matt 23:23-24 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! NASU
In light of these things, I agree with you, conservatives do need new moral arguments to defend timeless economic principles if those principles involve cuts in greed and profit the way Jesus advocated.
I hope to hear more from you on these matters.
I don’t claim the issues are clear and forthright. The issues are cloudy and complex or have been made that way by our reliance upon mass media. But certain things are appearing to be in direct violation of God’s revealed will and as Christians we ought to bring light to these areas.
Robert,
DeleteApologies for the belated reply--I have an incredibly busy summer schedule that has prevented time to reply to your detailed posts. I won't attempt to answer everything, but maybe I can hit up the main points at least.
As for military spending, it hasn't gone up significantly as a percent of GDP. See http://goo.gl/e3La3 for a sneak peak. So it's fun to pull out numbers and say 'huge percent growth' in certain categories but it should be put in perspective. As for the supposed 'occupations' you reference, our President has been pulling out...in some respects. Of course Libya was an exception. But no one suggested 'occupying' these nations, though the timeframes were different. Do you really suggest that the US was going to 'occupy' some nations for tens if not a hundred years, like the USSR with Soviet Bloc Countries? And what about the flaming words that I supposedly support programs that 'hurt and kill [the needy]'? What exactly? I'm not sure what domestic program I supposedly support that kill the needy. And overseas, while it is easy to sit here and play the all-knowing hindsight and decry unsuccessful military conflict as horrendous. Mistakes were made--no one with a clear mind could deny anything else. Maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved in the conflicts, but it's incredible that you would (apparently) think that all these do is 'hurt and kill' "the needy." Instead consider America's newspaper of record of possibly 200,000 Iraqi's killed under Saddam through his own programs, http://goo.gl/Gwcwl not to mention the near million killed during the Iraq-Iran war--and when exactly has America instigated a war that killed that many? Hmm. And let's take data most favorable to your supposed assertion that military apparently 'hurts and kills'. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Estimates of Iraqi deaths are a little over 100,000. So, even if that's the worst casualty count--yes, that's bad. But did it really 'kill' a net number of 'needy' more than what would have happened? The military action could have been entirely misplaced, misguided, and misanthropic, but let's not resort to useless flaming that all programs I, or other conservatives supposedly support just 'hurt and kill.' And this is just Iraq. You know full well that 3000 people died in the 9/11 counts. Was America to blame for that? Or to blame for responding? I really find this whole conversation about the military entirely irrelevant. For sake of argument, I can say that every military combat in the past decade and a half has been not only misguided, but plain WRONG. But that still doesn't make this a killing machine program as you suggest. At best you have a tie. But no where near the programs that 'hurt and kill' "the needy"--assuming that I supported every action that killed or injured civilians during the GWOT, or anything else you were suggesting.
OK, on to the next part, that I apparently oppose any programs that 'heal or help the needy.' This is interesting. Which programs were you specifically referring to? Also, as a point of reference, maybe you had the opportunity to look at federal welfare vs. poverty such as... http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/3nap42f03k1iyv9o/images/9-3c2981d8d7.jpg ? (from http://goo.gl/l4nTH )
Interesting too, since the war on poverty, begun in the 1960s...oops, didn't quite wipe out poverty. So, I'm still wondering about this programs that 'help and heal the needy'? Maybe federal spending isn't the savior?
See, by leaving this as just a black/white argument, you completely miss the point that maybe there's a third opportunity out there. And maybe both liberals and conservatives miss the point. Because you have to admit, the liberals take a crack at it--spend lots of money, but not so much good? The conservatives take a crack at it--cut taxes and forget the poor, and not so much good? So maybe there's a deeper issue? Alright, let's move past all your rhetoric that is unfortunately deeply unfounded.
DeleteOn to the verses about blood on the hands--are you referring to...well, maybe you should explain what you're referring to. Interesting if you would refer to the combats over the past few years--yes maybe mistakes, but 'blood on the hands'..on the hands of who, exactly? The soldiers who kill the people? The voters? You and me both as American citizens? Only the politicians? Maybe the terrorists because "they started it"? Maybe President Bush because he "started it"?
Kind of odd how you call Israel some sort of military-industrial 'complex' when...that term wasn't around until 1960. Hmm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) OK. So what about personal greed? Instead of lashing out against some "system" or some "complex", what about looking at the people? As I recall, God condemned PEOPLE for rejecting him, not a generic financial-military-complex.
Also, you decry me for supposedly being against programs that 'help and heal' the needy, yet God commanded the Israelites as INDIVIDUALS to leave some of their crops for the needy... Individuals.
Maybe the problem is deeper than left or right. Maybe it's individuals. Maybe it's your problem. Not the right wing's. Or the left wing's. Maybe it's an individual issue... It's not like government is a person--it's a conglomeration of people, with their shared ideas. So if individuals start changing, maybe they'll change the government or change the 'financial-military' complex to not be so helpful. Maybe it boils down to the individual.
Maybe it doesn't.
Now..isn't it funny that you now use national debt as a percent of GDP, which I totally agree with. Yet military spending was wrapped under the cover of a '40% increase' without any acknowledgment of its proportional nature. Interesting. Also interesting about your graph--you give it without any explanation. So, I first thought 'Aha! It must be because the Republicans had the debt rise more with them.' And then, wait! I saw the last president, a democrat--the debt has strangely risen with him. Hmm. And then I realized that you would not make an argument based off four presidents--far too small a sample size? And even if you did, 3 of the presidents raised the debt (supposedly, as if the POTUS has that much control. Why not plot it by the majorities in Congress at the time?)..anyways out of the 3 who raised the debt, one of those was even a Democrat. So, that's odd.
"Therefore, with “courage and fortitude” I will seek to defend the moral nature of the Church, and the moral nature of Government, and any other God ordained institution." I have no idea what this means? The church is inherently moral? What about the abuses of the Catholic Church? Oh, but maybe that wasn't the 'true' church. Well, can government ever be wrong? Maybe the government in power isn't the 'true' government God wanted...why are they the end-all savior?
To your latest post. Decrying the stripping of collective bargaining from public sector workers--as if this is the labor persecution found in the USSR in Poland. Do you really think modern America is the same as Soviet Poland? I definitely wouldn't switch.
DeleteLet's see, maybe I can pull a quote from ....FDR!
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1UdkHgsqd Interesting.
OK, now to your verses. Wait, what? Equating the sabbath with corporations? That's a monumental twisting of Scripture.
Let's see,
-God made the sabbath. God didn't make corporations.
-The sabbath was an integral part of the creation week when God started the world. Corporations...were not.
-Sabbath was a time that was kept holy and as worship for God. Corporations..are not holy and not used as worship for God.
I won't comment on that Scripture any further.
Enough responding.
The problem with your points is that everytime you make a good point, like
-Corporations have problems
-The pursuit of money can lead to greed and is not necessarily good
-The needy should be helped
-Conservatives often ignore the needy
Good points. The problem with your arguments is that you swing over and immediately assume it's black/white. 'Well corporations have problems, therefore let's trust in government.' or 'Conservatives hate the needy, so government social programs are the answer.'
Succinctly, you then miss two things.
1) In my blog (from well over a year ago I might add), I said that certain conservative ideas aren't perfect, but we don't have perfect choices here. So of course you'll have problems. Those need to be dealt with.
and 2) You see the world as either liberal or conservative, without a middle ground. Maybe the focus is on the individual. Polar opposites don't always have to be.
You'll notice that I don't go raising the battle cry of 'conservativism' or something in this response. Rather, I just respond to your misplaced faith in liberalism or government. My issue is not that you be a conservative or not--I'm not even conservative on many issues...you shouldn't be easily labeled, but to actually have an ideology that understands that there's more than two options.
As Taco Bell's slogan goes, think outside the bun.
Maybe that would be helpful for both of us. :)
"Apologies for the belated reply..."
DeleteThat is fine. A little conversation, a little thinking, a little expanding of the mind is all I expect from any blog or public statement I engage in. All time restraints seem to dissolve in cyberspace.
I would also like to take a moment to say I appreciate your work at IJM Master's College Chapter (IMAGO). That is a great work you are engaged in there. I'd like to learn more about this.
I hope to reply to your reply to my reply to your reply...in due time.
"As for military spending, it hasn't gone up significantly as a percent of GDP..."
DeleteYou are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel in my humble opinion. Here is why. While spending hasn’t gone up significantly…is true, I think you are missing the point. If I said that profits for human trafficking have not gone up significantly as a percentage of GDP would you see how I would be missing the point?
Is it good that military spending has gone up at all? Why has the military spending gone up? Are we safer for the military spending gone up? Do we need to be spending more now than we did during the Cold War?
There is a point where a growing problem becomes the camel in the room. Eisenhower warned the nation of this problem when he left office and it has become much bigger now. If I am a nut for pointing this out, what was he?
The top ten military spending countries do not add up to the amount we are spending! I believe someone is taking advantage of us. [I believe it is Satan working through conservatives. Jesus said the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy. Should we be on the lookout for warmongers? <-- a little humor there my friend.] US Defense Budget Compared to Other Countries A graph: http://www.commonsensedemocracy.com/2012/03/20/economy/us-defense-budget-compared-to-other-countries/
It wouldn't matter about the human trafficking as a percent of GDP. Look, you live in the most prosperous nation in the world--most of what you purchase comes from international trade...and your consumer products span the world...oil from the Middle East...technology and parts from Asia...fashion from Europe...just to broadly throw some strokes.
DeleteTake away the military and who is stabilizing the regions where all your consumer products are coming from? Sure, it's easy to complain about military spending, until you realize how much you are profiting from it. You can't have your cake and eat it too--name a prosperous nation of any size without a significant military presence. And if you do, why not move there?
Also, to answer you chart...how about examining the top GDP of nations. http://keepamericaatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1-3-2012-6-18-50-AM.png Interestingly, America also has a wide lead over these other countries by total production. So, maybe you now understand why the nation with the greatest GDP by far has a significantly larger military. Kinda makes a little more sense, right? We have a "camel" of a military because we're a "camel" of a nation--not that military decisions have always been well chosen..nor have all appropriations of money for military (or anything else for that matter...as if welfare/Medicare programs are somehow better run??).
I spoke about personal debt in my last reply. May I say a couple of things about our national debt in this one?
ReplyDeleteYou said, “As you might notice…welfare programs.”
First, are you sure about this? What about the expenses of our current wars?
Military Spending: Why the Defense Budget Should Be Cut - TIME - http://tinyurl.com/yjrzglf The U.S. military is now spending more on defense, on average, than it did during the Cold War — even after the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are erased. [Cold war = tens of thousands of warheads pointed at us!] Also see The top 10 national budgets on defense graph http://tinyurl.com/7y2jfdp.
When you mentioned WWII spending, I was surprised when I came to the end of your list of expenses that you did not include our current war and occupation costs. Generally, we speak what is on our mind; does your failure to mention these massive financial expenses (which come with a much higher moral cost) mean that you justify these wars and occupations and therefore consider the financial expenses off limits to cuts?
It is my understanding of Christianity that makes me raise this concern. As it appears, you seem to oppose programs that would help and heal the needy and support programs that would hurt and kill them. If that is not what you mean, then please clarify.
This troublesome mindset pervades evangelical Christianity today. I sometimes wonder if that angel of light, who sends out ministers of righteousness (some into the Church, many into government), has somehow led God’s people again to become like those Corinthians that stood up to say, “Jesus is accursed.” (1 Cor 12:3, 2 Cor 11:14-15)
Or maybe we are more like God’s people in Isaiah that with clear conscience stood to worship and pray to God with unholy hearts and hands.
Isa 1:15 "So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. NASU
And this indictment by God wasn’t limited to those that did the killing, but also included those that offered no resistance to the killing.
Ezek 35:6 …since you have not hated bloodshed, therefore bloodshed will pursue you.
Are there any lessons we can learn from these experiences? In terms of what God created government to be, how did the government we see in the Book of Isaiah fail? In what way were the “Christians of that day” have hands covered with blood? Or, digging deeper, are we trying to recreate the same kind of leadership in government that made sure programs like the Year of Jubilee would never be implemented?
It is my conviction that we are recreating the same blatant gap between the mind and heart of God and the mind and heart of man that appears so widespread in the Old Testament. The world has definitely seen this if we haven’t.
Moreover, may I add, it wasn’t just for bloody hands that God rejected His people. They had adopted a value system foreign to His. I thought of this when I first read the Master’s Current article. Almost symbolically, I saw you go to Washington to get wisdom to deal with “compelling issues” of our generation. I’m not condemning you or the trip, just what might have taken place there.
We must not forget the warnings of such statements like…
Isa 2:6-7 For you have rejected your people, the house of Jacob, because they are full of things from the east and of fortune-tellers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of foreigners. 7 Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots. ESV
When I read this passage, it makes me wonder how the financial military industrial complex of Isaiah’s day was able to infiltrate, pervade, control, and destroy the people’s relationship with God. They must have underestimated the power of greed, injustice, and hatred, since Isaiah repeatedly spells out those particular sins.
Secondly, you said, "So, neither AEI nor most conservatives defend the high debt--rather, most conservatives see the debt as one key area which the US must make drastic cuts to (to survive economically for the indefinite future)."
ReplyDeleteIs this really so?
You are familiar with 1 John 1 are you not? The “if we sayers” and the “if we doers” as John MacArthur calls them. Those that say one thing but do another. The if we sayers are condemned and called liars despite any sincerity. We understand this in Christianity, but is it not equally so in politics or life in general?
I looked at your chart and then a different chart on the national debt that to me is more informative and pertinent to the issues we face. Maybe you will agree. Take a look at the National Debt Graph by President. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
A short but good defense for looking at debt in this way is given here Why Graph Debt as a Percent of GDP? http://zfacts.com/node/384
Now, with this information in mind, AEI and most conservatives may not be defending high debt as you think. They may be following a different doctrine altogether. See Why Supply Siders Like a rising Debt. http://zfacts.com/node/106
If what happened to the nation of Israel is any indication of how God might judge the nations then the truth or falsehood of what is being done is worth investigating. We are warned repeatedly by God on these subjects I raise today.
Ps 5:6 You destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit. NASU
Ps 55:23 But You, O God, will bring them down to the pit of destruction; Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days. NASU
Therefore, with “courage and fortitude” I will seek to defend the moral nature of the Church, and the moral nature of Government, and any other God ordained institution. Of course I have more to say about the rest of your posts, but that will have to wait for another time.
God bless you and I hope to hear from you.