Carlson on Anti-Family Republicans

In Allan Carlson’s latest article in the Weekly Standard, he takes on the Republicans for their unfriendliness toward families. At one point, Carlson is responding to recent legislation making it harder for people to file for bankruptcy--he's not in favor of the old law so much as critical that at the same time the legislation does nothing whatsoever to rein in the predatory practices of some lenders.

It is common knowledge, for example, that credit card companies intentionally urge financially troubled families to borrow still more money, because they can charge these households exorbitant interest rates. As one Citibank executive has candidly observed, "They are the ones who provide most of our profit."

Whenever the interests of families and big banks collide, guess whom Republicans support? That's Carlson's complaint, and it is not surprising.

Comments

[Christopher]

I too was perplexed at that bankruptcy reform bill. On a personal note, I have a certain family member who took advantage of bankruptcy at least three times to negate consumer credit dept. This person will not (apparently) be able to do this in the future, and I think that is a good thing. So it could be argued this bill IS good for the family and personal responsibility. On the other hand, I could never figure out how any business could think that this person was a good credit risk (let alone afford it). So the credit industry gets an easy out with this bill - or rather an easy profit.

I found Carlson's dream of a Democratic party with the same sex (and I would add even more importantly abortion) monkey off it's back intriguing. However, this still would not be a conservative party. I find a Republican party with the big business and big government (i.e. social security, Medicare, section 8, etc.) monkey off it's back a more realistic if still distant goal.

[Luthien the nasty den mother]

That was a rather scary article...I think I want a time machine now. But seriously, why do so many conservatives keep voting Republican rather than founding a new party? It wouldn't neccesarily mean losing the social conservative voice in politics for too long; the Republican party only began in about 1854, had a serious contender in the 1856 election, and won in 1860. Given that the Democrats are almost certain to win this year and in '08, we now have 6 years until the 2012 races and can surely have a movement together by then. If they could do it when the telegraph was high technology, what's our excuse in the cyberspace age?

[Juli]

Luthien, how would you envision this party and its platform? Who would be its spokespersons? I'm wondering, for example, how you (personally) define "conservative."

[Christopher Hathaway]

The problem with creating a new party is that it hasn't succeeded in a hundred years. When the Republican party emerged the States were far more influential in the political process. Politics is national now from the beginning.

Also, the stakes in the political conflict are so great, because the government's impact on the nation and the individual are so much greater than in 1860, that deliberately choosing a losing option for three or four political cylcles, which is the least that it will take for a third party to emerge as a true competitor, becomes an act of utter desperation.

One feature of conservatism is an elemenmt of pragmatism: being content to achieve a little rather than holding out for the possibility of getting it all and risking losing it all. We have a foothold, sometimes it seems like a toehold, in one of the two parties that can practically win control of the political aparati of our government and get things done. It is much more sensible to work harder to increase our influence within that party than to gamble on a third and give the other party, the one in which conservatism has the least influence, effective dominance for enough time to entrench political measures (and Supreme Court Justices) that will take decades to combat.

Part of political maturity is recognizing that the lesser of two evils is the standard ethical decision in politics until Jesus comes back.

[Sam]

"It is common knowledge, for example, that credit card companies intentionally urge financially troubled families to borrow still more money, because they can charge these households exorbitant interest rates."

Egads! A business "intentionally" urging consumers to take use of its products. What's next? Restaurants offering daily specials? Sales on clothing?

If families are too dumb to figure out how much the money they borrow is going to cost, then they're not going to make it anyway.

Perhaps they need help navigating those predatory grocery stories with all their confusing coupons and double deals? Or those pesky cell phones. Apparently it's the state to rescue. We already have a party for this nanny state handholding, and Democrat is its name.

Thnakfully, bankruptcy laws are being tightened. If they're too easy, it's an invitation to steal. They "buy" the goods, but then stiff their creditors. So much for personal responsibility.

[Luthien the nasty den mother]

Mr. Hathaway, it's always worth trying, and at least considering it is worthwhile. The mental exercise of imagining a perfect party can also help us to have an idea of where we want the epublican party to go.

Juli, my definition of conservativism is a bit eccentric, but I'd define it as (and run my utopian party accordingly)the following:
1) pro-life, i.e. complete ban on abortion, euthanasia, and probably the death penalty as well. Non-aborifacient contraception does remain legal, since contracepion is not murder.
2) pro-family: no gay marriage/adoption, a living family wage, taxation favors traditional families, crackdown on credit card companies, and it will be illegal to advertise infant formula to the detriment of nursing
3)egalitarian: no more affirmative action, college will be accesible to all qualified students, abiliy will be more important than having attended the right schools
4) responsible: a balanced gov't budget, clean environment (if you're encouraging ppl to have children, you'd better leave a nice world for those children!)
5)Taxation will reorganized. Luxury goods, e.g. luxury cars, mink coats, i-pods, etc. will be taxed, because no one really needs them. Neccesities will not be taxed.
6) We will forgive 3rd world countries' debts . We will also help poor countries, and poor regions here, to get back on their feet, rather than simply thowing money at them.
7) discipline will return to schools
i'm sure I forgot things (developing utopia on not enough sleep is a bad idea, but that's all of the big points.

[Bec]

The above comment by Sam sounds like someone who has never found themselves at the horns of the dilemma so many of today's working poor find themselves--what gets paid when there's too many bills, too many mouths, and not enough cash.

While certainly creditors are entitled to their money, and those escaping debts under the cover of bankruptcy should not be doing so just to avoid paying their bills, too many Americans find themselves caught between rising costs and declining or inadequate wages. Then you add in a trip to the emergency room for untreated bronchitis that is turning into pneumonia...

I found myself in such struggles in the past, and was able to get beyond them with the help of family members and really good friends. And I even had a college degree, and a job. Credit was a tough thing NOT to pursue.

Conservatism in this country too often seems to mean "Capitalism as a moral world view" and frankly, that's just absurd. I don't know what the best solution is, and I'm not going to pretend to, but frankly, that bankruptcy bill wasn't it.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Luthien, Trying for perfection is exactly what is the danger I was talking about.

Imagine you meet a nice man. He's not perfect, as you come to find, but you can make him better, (I know you girls think this way :-) ). Do you, seeing his imperfections, take hims as he is and improve him through your feminine wiles, or do you "try" to find a perfect man? I hope you know that the pursuit of the perfect. man is an illusion that will make it hard ever to have a lasting relationship.

Of course a marriage is much more permanent than a political party, so you have to have more rigorous standards of acceptable imperfections. But my point is that trying for perfection has negative consequebnces. You cannot efectively "try for" a better third party without ditching the one you are in. This will have the immediate consequence of damaging the party you are leaving, and empowering the opposing party. While you are trying for something better, you will lose those few good things you had. The political debate and power struggle will not go on hold or take a time out until you can get back on the field with a strong team. And while you are gone many things will change. Are you willing to risk all the good you can do in a flawed party that you could make better by trying to make from scratch another one? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. No pun intended.

Let's put this another way. America isn't perfect by any means. But what should be our responce to such sin and imperfection? Should we leave it for another country, go off to start another? I hope you see the foolishness and rashness of such an approach. You choose to stay and do what you can to make America better. That is exactly why I stay with the Republicans. I can more easily make them better and keep accomplishing some good than I can start another viable party. And even if I created the perfect party, or had it handed to me by God's holy angels, Sin would find its way in the minute we men started to use it.

In faith we must strive for perfection because God is perfect and the perfect is there for us. We must not settle for less sinful: The good is the enemy of the best.

In the affairs of the world we must accept that we will never be free of sin and so must strive to make our world as good as we can without thinking it can be perfect: The best is the enemy of the good.

[Joe Long]

Luthien - I'd vote for your party! (While lobbying for death penalty restoration all the while, of course.)
A caveat: it seems pretty "big government" at points. I don't know that there's a proper Federal role in the breastfeeding department. You posit a bit too much punishment of bad personal choices (though not of bad choices made by third-world governments); luxuries purchased by Americans to be penalized, wastage by foreign kleptocrats to be forgiven...

And no party ever admits they plan on "simply throwing money", they are ALWAYS trying to help peoples or regions to become self-reliant...which somehow always eventually boils down to money-throwing.

Finally, I think most of the country would vote in favor of "Discipline will hereby return to schools!" - a bit like that English king (Alfred, I think?) commanding the tides. I humble suggest you substitute "raze the Department of Education and scatter its ashes to the four winds, and forbid anyone with an 'Education' degree to work for a public school for the next decade" as a reasonable concrete step.

[Sam]

I hope that Luthien isn't serious. Your pro-family fascism -- yes, fascism -- is disgusting. You decide what luxury is. It's not the government's job to tell anyone what is a luxury and what isn't.

TVs and cars were once luxuries for the rich; then they became available through the market to even the officially poor. Are you going to ban TVs, cars? What about indoor plumbing and air conditioning? After all, those are luxuries by an historical or world standards. Should we ban them?

The nipple nazism is beyond laughable. It's not the state's business to decide between infant formula and breast-feeding. Perhaps the state should endorse vegetarianism or maybe promote homosexuality in the schools to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Your arguments are the very same that gay rights groups use to keep the Catholic Church out of the adoption business. After all, they know what's best to make things fair and right and the state will make it so. Similarly, you're giving the state its marching orders and you seem to think other people's lives, property, and desires are the state's to move around like pieces on a chess board. They're not yours and their not the state's. Hands off.

As if we haven't helped poor countries, my gosh, the challenges of poverty in the Third World haven't been met by dumping tons of money into corrupt regimes where the rule of law and the transfer of property rights and civil society are non-existent.

And, to an earlier poster, How do you know what straits I've been in? Or not been in? Simply because there's a problem doesn't mean it's time for the government to come to the rescue. And when the government comes to the rescue it means that another section of the public becomes the slaves of the segment getting the "help."

It's rather amazing if God ran the world like Luthien proposes Adam and Eve would never have sinned. After all, Eden would have been so much better regulated, in a pro-family way of course.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Hey, don't be so hard on Luthien. She is earnest and means well. I like her ideals and proposed world (most of it). But she is young and needs to learn that such a world is appropriate for angels. Unfortuneately, we do not have angels to run the government and discern what is best. Even if they did, their wisdom would prevent them from imposing absolute righteousness upon us as this is not God's way. He wants us to learn it.

It is a great trait of the young to be earnest and enthusiastic, not jaded and cynacal. Yet there is wisdom with age, the wisdom to know the difference between what is desirable and what is possible.

I thank God for Luthien's zeal. And I pray that she learns, as many of us have, how zeal must be tempered with humility.

[Clark Coleman]

The Republican party is a mixture of "conservatism" and "corporatism." The problem with starting a new party is that corporate campaign donations will take over the new party, which will then be as much a corporatist party as it is a conservative party.

We don't need a new party. We need conservative voters to take over the GOP. Simply vote for conservative Republican candidates whenever you get the chance, and vote for third party conservatives (e.g. the Constitution Party) when the GOP cannot send you conservative candidates.

In order for this to work, you have to persuade conservative voters to think long-term and stop voting for the "minutely lesser of two evils." THAT will be a huge job of persuasion. The country might have to fall apart before we can overcome the inertia of "I can't waste my vote!"

[Scott Walker]

Sam, I wonder if you have ever given any thought to the incompatibility of Christian faith with the hard libertarianism you seem to be espousing. And you seem to very free with the epithets: dumb, disgusting, fascist...maybe you might consider growing a little empathy for Lent? I, too, see the coercive elements of Luthien's dream party, but the lady seems miles away from donning a brown shirt.

[Dan Crawford]

Would Sam's ideal party be Social Darwinism with a Christian veneer? It certainly seems so.

[Juli]

It's not the state's business to decide between infant formula and breast-feeding.

Why not? If it's the state's business to endorse and support heterosexual marriage, esp for the sake of children, why would it be wrong to endorse and support breast-feeding? The secular and religious motives are similar - it's better for children, and it's obviously part of God's plan for the family.

[Joe Long]

Hey, when I was Luthien's age, my perfect political party would have been FAR, far worse in a number of directions! In fact, were she about to inherit the Throne of America, we'd be in pretty good shape, benevolent-monarch-wise.

Juli, I think the line is between "endorse and support" and "coerce". What the state can legitimately do to encourage breastfeeding, ought to be done - simply as a public health measure if nothing else. Or an education measure - a few more IQ points for every child in the nation is nothing to sneer at. (Of course it's far more appropriate for the individual state governments to do this, if we pay any attention to that old "Constitution" thing. Unlike marriage laws, where one state's affects every other's and the Feds are left balancing things.)

[Juli]

7) discipline will return to schools

I'm reminded of a prayer in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy that always strikes me as an resembling one of those expansive catch-all wishes you'd presumably wish if you were granted just *one*:

For all things good and profitable for our souls, and peace for the world ...

[Bec]

Hey, Sam...I didn't say I knew what straits you had been in, I said you sounded like someone. But anyway, addressing your point, I also don't think I called for government to come to the rescue. However it is inappropriate, and disingenuous for credit card companies to be crying foul when they get bit by the very situation they created. THEY are the ones asking the government to step in, which the capitalist Republicans, rather than the conservative Republicans, so willingly obliged.

Yep, it looks like Social Darwinism to me. How heartwarming!

[Sam]

Some thoughts from the Social Darwinist:

Pray tell, where might the authority come from for the things Luthien and others of you on this threat want?

The credit card companies charge higher interest because they're offering a quick source of credit. Naturally, there's going to be higher price for quick money.

Interesting; calls for personal responsibility bring charges of Social Darwinism. I remember someone saying that if they don't work, they don't eat. Who was that? I think we ought to ban him.

I'm starting to think "pro-family" means "social engineering" certain Christians approve of.

I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a state that had as much power as Luthien and others imagines.

Perhaps Touchstone should be taxed for this luxury of a web site. It certainly isn't necessary. Seems a bit more than some sandals and a staff.

Breast-feeding is natural. Yes, well, so is death by age 30 from diseaes that can be prevented by unnatural medicine.

If breast feeding is so good for kids (and I'm not saying it isn't; it's great) that the state should knock the great Satan Simlac around, why, what's to stop the state from deciding that it would be better if familiies making over $200,000 a year had $150,000 of their income redistributed to the needy. Perhaps the state will decide that homeschooling is bad for children because it spreads homophobia, racism, sexim and bad dental health, so it should, in the interests of the children of course, be banned.

In the hopes of federally-mandated breast-feeding, I remain as always your friendly Social Darwinist,

Sam.

P.S. Get back to work.

[Sam]

First line of my post should read:

"Pray tell, where might the authority come from for the things Luthien and others of you on this thread want?" Thread, not threat.

Sorry about that.

Must be that survival of the fittest mentality creeping in. :)

[Christopher]

I think Clark is right on with his suggestions. In the last national election I voted for the Constitution party for president. If I remember correctly I was one of about 1300 people who did in my state :) I did vote for then seemingly conservative Republican senator David Vitter as I was in Louisiana at the time. He now seems to be part of the voices crying "send us massive quantiles of cash please" down there since Katrina, but he at least has been supporting real accountability for how the money will be spent. Thankfully, the rest of the congress has been less than eager to through money down the hole that is Louisiana.

I for one will be glad when the Bush family rides off into the sunset. Bush's support of Spector against Pat Toomey in PA, combined with his prescription drug giveaway (to the "richest" demographic in our country - those on Medicare) revealed his true colors. Whatever Bush is, he is not a conservative. That really can be applied to the Republican congressional contingent as well. If it were not for abortion/courts, they would have lost every last serious conservative several years ago...

[Scott Walker]

The feeding of the multitude according to the Gospel of St. Sam: Jesus said, "I have no compassion for the multitude, because if they were going to be here for three days, they should have exercised personal responsibility and brought some food with them. Andrew, send them on their way, and if they faint along the road, too bad. They'll plan ahead next time."
The cleansing of the Temple according to the Gospel of St. Sam: Jesus said, "My Father's house is to be a house of prayer for all people, and I'm glad to see that you creative businessmen have found a need and are serving it. After all, the people knew they were going to be offering a sacrifice before they came here; if they don't want to pay you for the pigeons, they should plan ahead next time. Carry on with my blessing."
The widow's mite, according to the Gospel of St. Sam: Jesus said, "Do you see that woman over there? She's giving away all the money she has! Now she won't be able to take care of herself, and she'll either starve or come begging for a handout. Peter, go over there and tell her to be more prudent, and exercise some personal responsibility."
Call me a crazed statist, but I think I'll stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

[Sam]

The feeding of the multitude according to the Gospel of St. Scott Walker:

"I have compassion on the multitude, and so you will go and confiscate the wealth of the nearby city under the authority of the Department of Feeding Multitudes. Simply demand first, but if they choose not to give, take it by swordpoint. A percentage of the tax revenues then will be transferred to the Department of Bread Provisions, which establishes the type and number of crops that farmers must raise and the price levels for grain ... And lo and behold the multitudes went away hungry for lack of bread. The burreaucrats ate heartliy of the bread and the wine and the anchovies and the sardines and the walunts ..."

Please skip ahead a bit, Brother Walker.

Ah, yes, the widow's mite: "Do you see that woman over there? She's given away all the money she has. Do please escort her to the nearest Department of Widows Giving Away Their Last Mite And Thus In Need of Reeducation. If she refuses, please alert the police and they'll have her removed to the department. It is for her own good. After a complete psychological and physical examination, she can be transferred to the Palestine Public Housing Authority for an apartment and then to Palestine Job Training and Lifelong Learning Authority, which can provide her with the skills and training necessary to fill out the paperwork to receive the assitance she so richly deserves."

Here endth the Gospel of St. Scott Walker the Compassionate.

[Bec]

Ah, Sam...nothing like a little hyperbole among friends. I would like to know who should take care of the weak--those who are unable to care for themselves because of medical conditions or mental conditions--for the elderly who have worked hard all their lives to have their pensions raided by corporate greed, or for those who work hard for a minimum wage that has not kept pace with the rising cost of living and cannot improve their station because they cannot afford adequate child care, further their education, or a decent car to get a job interview.

In theory, the Church would step up and fill her role and provide for the needs of the poor around her, but absent that, I am willing to spend some tax dollars to help.

[Gene Godbold]

I think Sam got the better of this last exchange. He was actually quoting Paul while Br. Walker saw fit to start altering the words of scripture.

For what it's worth, I don't think labeling folks before you can adequately assess their views is at all helpful. This "social darwinist" language is really quite tendentious and I don't think that anything that Sam said warranted this description. I don't think you can even say he's a libertarian from what little he has contributed. I think Sam reacted a bit hastily to Luthien's description of her ideal government--fascist might be viewed as a fighting word--but he might not have known she was a teenager. (Homeschooling has rendered her more literate than many adults. :-)

There are always going to be tensions between Christians regarding government. I think part of this ambiguity is God's good plan for us. The influence of the Body of Christ on history is partly exercised through the types of government we develop. If we're going to be in the position of judging angels, we can darn well figure out a way to govern ourselves.

Our real ruler is the Lord Jesus Christ and we're going to be judged by how we treat this allegiance. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are the only places I can see that lay out our duties to our rulers and the state's duties to those it rules. It's pretty sparse, though it does say the state has responsibilities to: 1) punish evildoers and 2) praise those who do well. Government is thus authorized to punish vice and reward virtue. (Not that I don't think that we all know laws in which this calculus is inverted.)

[Bec]

When exactly was Sam quoting St. Paul?

[Gene Godbold]

Sam: "I remember someone saying that if they don't work, they don't eat. Who was that? I think we ought to ban him."

2 Thessalonians 3:10-15 (KJV) For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

[Bec]

Ah, that. But of course, context is extremely important, and we know that St. Paul was directly referring to the relationships and structure of the community of believers there in Thessaloniki, rather than a pattern for governance outside the church.

And this of course would be completely reasonable, and necessary. But we also know that the early Church was characterized by its love and charity to those outside its community, those who found little or no assistance in the often hostile community of the Roman Empire.

I hold to my original position--if the Church was performing as required by the teachings of her Lord and as demonstrated by the writings, practices, and teachings of her Holy Fathers, we'd be ok. But since it's not doing that all so well (and I would argue in part that it is because of this oft-held notion that God is actually a big giant capitalist), someone or something needs to look out for those among us who are falling behind, in a matter that is respectful and recognizes the fact that they are all created in the image of God and capable of great success, regardless of what challenges they may be facing or what obstacles they have to overcome.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Bec,
God isn't a big, giant capitalist. But a case can be made that capitalism is a fundamentally Christian invention. In fact, the case has already been made by Rodney Stark in his latest (2005) book The Victory of Reason.

I know it may sound surprising, but capitalism is actually the most merciful system of economics. The Catholic philosopher Michael Novak has written on this at length as well as the late Pope. As long as people are considered as ends in themselves and not means, capitalism is the most efficient means of spreading the specialization of the few to the great good of the many. I'm not a libertarian for many reasons, but one of them is because it is all too easy to see how a corporation can abuse the system by trying to rig it in their favor or by treating humans as means to an end (usually, their own enrichment). The government has a role both in discouraging these vicious practices and in promoting the success of those who "play by the rules". But I agree with many of the points that Sam raises about government. Those with power need to keep a proper view of the limits of their authority under God. Unmoored from a divine worldview, the natural tendency of those in government is to accumulate power.

I think that Paul is making the point that able-bodied people have a responsibility to contribute to the just system as their gifts allow them to do so. If they don't contribute, they shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits. As it was, certain citizens of Thessalonica appeared to be frittering away their time sowing dissension.

[Gene Godbold]

...as opposed to frittering away their time posting to Mere Comments. I need to take Sam's advice.

[Bec]

What I am saying is that there are many in the Republican party who behave, and argue, that capitalism is the most inherently Christian of all the structures. And frankly, I just don't see it as "inherently." I think it functions nearly the best, but the problem with ANY structure is that humans are involved, and, well, we tend to disorder. Right now, it seems, in our economy humans ARE perceived as the means to the ends, and many are getting crunched between the cogs grinding out the profit margins. And right now, it appears that government is not discouraging that "vicious practice."

And I would agree that those who are able-bodied should contribute, however, we have to someway of helping those who aren't. It seemed like Sam's posts were geared toward not helping anyone b/c by golly, let us all pick ourselves up by our bootstraps.

[Scott Walker]

G.K. Chesterton. Distributivism. Check it out. Look, folks, I get where Sam is coming from, and I mostly agree with him about where unbridled statism leads. But you have to have some restraints on the unfettered market. Since it is made up of sinful human beings, greed and exploitation are to be expected. And Gene, I have the highest respect for the text of Scripture. I was trying to make a point. You may have noted that my opponent, Sam, did the very same thing in responding to me. I accept his "seeing fit to alter the word of Scripture" as a legitimate rhetorical device. After all, none of us who frequent this site are members of Ebenezer "Lutheran" Church in San Francisco :-) (They ought to rename it "Ichabod") Moderately capitalist blessings to all.

[Scott Walker]

Oh, and Go Gonzaga!

[Christopher]

Bec,

I think I have two concerns with the direction you seem to be taking. First, as you put it:

"In theory, the Church would step up and fill her role and provide for the needs of the poor around her, but absent that, I am willing to spend some tax dollars to help."

What I don't see is why you think the government, compelling me by the point of the sword to contribute the labor of my hands to this "help", is a substitute for the church. What makes the government in theory able to fill the role for a deficient church? Do you have any theological basis that Christianly the government is the correct institution to substitute for the church when the church is not "doing its job", so to speak? Given the fact of Christian freedom, what theological basis is there that when this freedom fails to some extant, the state steps in and forces charity to ones neighbor (by threat of punishment to those who do not participate - by this I mean that I go to jail if I don't pay my taxes)?

The second problem I see is more practical. Let's grant that 'in theory' that Christianity supports a role of "love" for the government, how does this work out in actual practice? Having lived in New Orleans for a bit before being blown out by Katrina, I was privileged to see "the safety net" in action over a large scale. My evaluation: It's a complete and utter disaster. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, disability, Section 8, food stamps, "community action programs", "free" public hospitals, all worked in unison to create a culture of utter decadence and despair. It propped up vice, it did not alleviate or soften it. I thank God for Katrina in that it dispersed many of these stricken souls to other parts of the country where I pray they receive much less "charity" from the government. Unfortunately, most of them are expert at working the system, so they still have much temptation to overcome. To those who support this monster called the "safety net", any criticism of it's actual performance seems to only bring calls for more, more, more of the same. The only practical criticism based in what actually happens to the people who are "helped", seems to come from Republicans...

[Bec]

You go to jail because you don't pay your taxes not just because you are failing to provide for the poor through the social services system, but because you are not paying for the roads on which you drive, the police which protect your streets, and the army which secures your borders. It's payment, to some degree, for services rendered.

I am not saying the government is an adequate or even appropriate substitute for the help which should be provided by the Church, however, I will, along with my offerings at my church, willingly pay a portion of my taxes to provide reasonable and compassionate care to those who have not had access to all the benefits I have been afforded.

I have been quite clear that I have no theoretical solution to the problem which exists. And I do not think we necessarily need much more of a "theological basis" for the role of government than "render unto Caesar" and "whatever you do to the least of these" (it does not say how we do this).

Re: places like New Orleans. While it is naive to assume that throwing money at people is an adequate way to help them, it is also naive to assume that that situation was created in large part due to the socialized systems in place. We are just about one generation away from certain segments of our society being given the right to vote, 50 years from school desegregation, and even less time away from officially un-institutionalized racism. I'm willing to say that we have not yet figured out a way to balance the need for offering a hand up to those who struggle, for whatever reason, and the need to protect against creating a culture of dependency.

[Gene Godbold]

Okay, I'll bite, what segment of the population was given the right to vote in ~1985? (That's the year I graduated from high school so I suppose I should have been paying more attention... :-)

In a state where most of the people are Christians, I think there is a role for government-run social welfare programs that help those who cannot help themselves.

I also think there is a role for government-run social welfare programs for those that suffer bad fortune but who have some means of helping themselves. These sorts of programs must be of limited duration with incentives (positive and negative) for both government case-workers and recipients to limit the period of aid. (The renewal of the 1995 welfare law seems to have these in as much as I understand from the news.)

I think Christopher is absolutely right about how government largesse contributed to the culture of out-of-wedlock births and the culture of no-husband-households in welfare recipients through a perverse incentive program that began in the 1960s. Thus government reversed its proper role and became anti-government in encouraging vice. Did the popular culture help ruin families, too? Of course it did, but the effects were more subtle.

When one receives help from a member of the Body of Christ, one doesn't just receive material help but also godly admonition and, by God's grace, a view of the biggest and most important thing in the world. When one receives help from the government, all you can count on is the check.

[Bec]

Come on, you know exactly what I am talking about.

And I agree that there is certainly a limit to social programs, and I am strongly advocating an assistance that empowers, rather than just puts a check in a hand. All I am saying is we can't do away with all social programs because what we have is not working well. We need an honest discussion about the social, economic, psychological, and spiritual factors that contribute to a culture of dependence. And we also need to approach this in a "humanistic" way--the way in which the uniqueness of each human being, the image of God within them, is acknowledged and nurtured. Yes, that includes most definitely a spiritual component. I am all for any help along that line, regardless of where it is coming from. Ideally that SHOULD be the Church.

[Gene Godbold]

Actually, Bec, I don't. What segment of the population received the right to vote a generation (20 years) ago? I admit I'm not the greatest on American political history. Anybody want to help me out here?

[Gene Godbold]

Okay, I just spent some time on wikipedia (the best thing since sliced bread).

The voting rights act of 1965 prohibits literacy tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 "outlawed state laws requiring segregation" I didn't get the impression that it allowed anybody to vote, though it probably had a positive effect on African American turnout in certain areas of the south.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_law

The fifteenth amendment to the constitution "guarantees voting rights regardless of race." This was ratified in 1870.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Women appear to have gotten the right to vote in 1920 in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

I'm trusting that wikipedia is correct on these things, but I could be wrong. At the least, it doesn't look like anybody new has got the right to vote in 86 years.

[Bec]

Ah, a smart alec among us. Let me define generation, as I used it. My parents are Baby Boomers, and it was during their lifetimes that IN PRACTICE the disenfranchised voters of a different race were given a shot at the polls, without someone being beaten up for trying. And we all know, without having to be big American history buffs that it took a while for those laws to trickle down in a way that was meaninful for those trying to use the rights afforded to them by them.

And just the Civil Rights Act of 1964--did that come with a magic wand to waive away the injustice and the oppression created by the system in existence at its creation? I didn't read that in my history books...

[Christopher]

"I will, along with my offerings at my church, willingly pay a portion of my taxes to provide reasonable and compassionate care to those who have not had access to all the benefits I have been afforded."

Which is exactly where the rub is. On the one hand, you seem to admit that the existing "compassionate care" the government bestows up the "less fortunate" is broken to put it mildly, yet you seem willing to continue the same out of sort of (seemingly emotional yet justified with spiritual/scriptural reasoning's) desperation - a lack of a clear idea as to what to do. The historical wrongs have been righted, and are jealously guarded (voting, institutional racism, etc.). Yet, yet, this is STILL somehow related to "access to all the benefits I have been afforded". Again, it's only conservatives pointing out that in many (probably most) city centers the school systems are a disaster and real reform (like vouchers) is needed to shake things up. It is the "liberals" who support the status quo in an almost vicious way. Finally, it is Bec who is inserting into "render unto Caesar" the command that the government shall "love" it's people. Indeed, in the city centers government is "loving" it's people to death and hell.

Probably the real point of disagreement is the role of "socialized systems" in this mess. The conservatives admit the past, and the present. Liberals seem to simply wallow in the past, and almost completely mis-diagnose the present...