Kristen's Opinion Pieces:
Random Musings About Politics, Religion, and Life in General
December 3, 2002
To preface, I feel compelled to make one thing abundantly clear – I am by no
means a scholar of theology or economics. Therefore, I am highly unqualified
to be writing any such commentary on the moral implications of various
economic systems. I am armed with the philosophical education that secondary
school afforded me, a basic working knowledge of comparative economics and a
thirst for gaining a clearer understanding of the moral law within each
individual and within the system we comprise. I am still a learning being, as
we all are, and as my comprehension of the Scriptures is constantly evolving.
Thus, I come at this question of economic morality with humility and wonder,
in hopes of discerning more certain truths about our society and the spiritual
principles that may serve as a guide.
In examining the writings of C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”, I was
intrigued to discover his application of basic tenets of Christianity to
economics. Examining scriptural warnings against lending money at interest and
even further expanding to the larger core issues of greed, he briefly notes
that much in our current economic system does not fall into accord with
Christian ideals, and deems this as “leftist” thinking. Indeed, much of
what Lewis seems to be proposing would, at first glance, seem like a more
socialist system. He quickly notes that the Bible in Ephesians 4 does not
encourage laziness or the permission of anyone in society to get by without
contributing to the best of their ability, as Paul writes “Let him labor,
producing a good thing with his hands that he may have something to share.”
There is very little doubt that the ideal moral economic system involves all
members of society shirking the vice of sloth and putting forth as much effort
as possible without sacrificing family or spiritual development. Where Lewis
errs, however, is in assuming that the most moral economic system would reside
in a ‘leftist’ economic state. Surely, when we look at laissez-fair
capitalism, or even social welfare capitalism, we see that greed and such run
rampant and leave some eating delicacies while others eat nothing. But is this
a flaw with the actual morality of the system, or is it merely something awry
with the people in it?
To understand the answer to this question, we must look at what socialism can
essentially boiled down to: compulsory charity. In a capitalist system, the
poor are assisted by the selfless charity of those who are fortunate and have
the desire to help. In a socialist system, theoretically, there are no poor
because nobody truly has any money of their own. Regardless of how much you
contribute, your money falls into the governments hands and is distributed
accordingly. Thus in a socialist system, the government works as the one great
charitable organization of the country, exacting mandatory donations from some
and providing guaranteed assistance to others.
But let us take a step back for a moment. Perhaps I will be going a bit fast
in making certain assumptions about free will and the like, but let us take
for granted for a moment that God in fact created us to make choices, and that
we are not merely judged by our actions but rather by our motives. The story
of the poor widow who placed her only two coins in the offering plate shows us
that it is not the amount that we give, but rather the heart that is behind
our gift that matters. Even if someone gives all that they own to charity, if
they do so out of a desire to gain notoriety or if they do so begrudgingly, it
can be assumed that God does not smile as favorably upon them as upon the
person who gives half of what they own with joy and expects nothing in return.
Now then, we establish that an act of charity is moral if it is accompanied by
selflessness and a lack of resentment of having to give in the first place.
Furthermore, God created us to be humans of free will, and He did not make
this decision randomly. We are presented with innumerable choices in our day
to day existence, and are given the option of living a life that pleases Him
or a life that does not. Of course, God could have made us to be pawns, to
have no free will, and to lead lives in absolute respect of the natural rights
of one another, lives without greed, lives of equality, and lives in exact
accordance with His will. But is such a world, could the people be considered
moral? Indeed, if they are not deciding to lead lives of virtue but rather are
forced, then the actions do not come with the correlating motives. The hand is
doing good works, but the heart is not behind it. Thus, God gave us free will
and it is only through making the conscious choice to lead a life of kindness
that we are able to call ourselves “good” or “bad”.
So we have now come to two conclusions. The first is that, for an act of
charity to be moral under Christian terms, it must have a desire to serve God
behind it and nothing more. Second, we see that actions are only seen as moral
in God’s eyes if we have to make a conscious choice to pursue such good
actions. This brings us back to what we established socialism to be before –
a system of mandatory giving. By requiring all citizens to sacrifice the
things they work for in order to establish a society of equality, we are
stripping people of the free will they need, and are indeed fostering the same
begrudging that is seen every April with tax time. While this system may help
the poor, does this make the people in that society on the whole “moral”?
God set up our world in terms of freedom to choose to turn your life over to
Him. And thus, the morally ideal Christian economic system would be one
embodying that freedom while also embodying principles of selflessness and
charity. We find that socialism fails the first count, but when applied
practically, capitalism often fails on the second. The beauty of capitalism,
however, is that it functions to govern economics in much the same was God
governs our world – we have choices that we may make which will either
render us moral or otherwise.
We find ourselves in a conundrum, however. If capitalism is more in accordance
with Christian moral law than socialism, why is it that capitalism permits
such greed and selfishness? The answer is simple – the problem does not lie
with the system, but rather within those who comprise the society. To say that
capitalism is at fault for the existence of poverty is to say that God is at
fault because people decide to murder and cheat. The key turning point resides
in that free will, in that essence of choice, because there is no doubt that
some will choose one way and some will choose another. It is not until we find
ourselves in a free capitalist system with a population that wishes to give
charitably and to help their neighbors that we will be close to achieving a
societal moral ideal.
By
Kristen Soltis
March
19, 2003
University
of Florida
After being trounced in the November 2002 midterm elections, the Democrats should have gotten the message: the American people don’t buy your senseless whining. Unfortunately, pundits and strategists have not seen the obvious, oh no. Instead of coming to the logical conclusion that Americans simply would rather elect leaders that stand for American security and values, the left wing of the political spectrum seems to think that their losses mean they just aren’t nuts enough. In true Democrat style, rather than actually solving the problem they face, they turn to their favorite tools of the trade: insanity and hyperbole.
Indeed, before the midterms, the Democrats couldn’t find much to stand for. Rather than taking cues from the ballot boxes, however, the new battle plan of the left is to create for itself a distinct identity, and to be even louder in their voicing of poor logic. The only question that remained was when this new Democratic Party facelift would make it’s debut.
Perhaps inspired by the Dixie Chicks to speak out (as liberals do love their celebrities), Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle went on TV after Bush’s rallying address to the nation and provided one of the first manifestations of this Democratic re-invention. Stating that Bush has ‘failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced into war’, Daschle left no doubt where he stands on the conflict (a change from his wishy-washy stance just a few months ago). What the left obviously hasn’t gotten yet is that making your statements tougher sounding doesn’t necessarily make you more right or mean that you have an actual point.
After the Gulf War under Bush Sr., an international agreement was reached in the UN regarding the way Saddam Hussein would be dealt with, with the focus on weapons inspections and the disarmament of Iraq. Almost as soon as the process began, the White House became occupied by everyone’s favorite criminal William Jefferson Clinton, and we got 8 years of ‘diplomacy’ (also known as inaction). In the Clinton era, inspectors were refused entry, Saddam was appeased, and the only toughness shown by the US against Iraqi aggression and defiance were a few short bombing campaigns that happened to coincide with a certain Lewinsky controversy back stateside.
While having 1/4th the time of the Clinton crew, the Bush administration has given a fresh perspective on Iraq (one with a backbone) and has re-focused international attention on the vicious tyrant. And yet, despite spending over a year negotiating in the UN and getting inspectors sent back in, all we’ve found is that weapons inspectors are worthless and that increasingly so too is the Security Council. The diplomacy route was tried, but (surprise) negotiating with a violent madman just doesn’t tend to work.
But Democrats love whining about the fact that Bush hasn’t been able to part the Red Sea and turn water to wine. It doesn’t matter that nobody else would have had any better a shot at getting Saddam to act with reason, the Dems have something to bark about and bark they will, ignoring the real cause of the war and instead deciding to blame Bush’s ‘failed diplomacy’ for it all. Not because it makes sense, but because it’s insanity and hyperbole and there’s nothing they love more.
So if Bush has ‘failed so miserably at diplomacy’, where was Clinton
during his 8 year reign of impotence? The
major difference between these two presidencies in their dealings with Iraq is
simple. Bush dealt with the
problem, Clinton disregarded it. Apparently,
the definition of ‘diplomacy’ is ‘ignoring violent dictators’.
If that’s the case, I’m proud to have a President who is failing at
that type of diplomacy miserably.