Most people surely have heard the aphorism, "If you aren't a liberal by the time you are 20, you don't have a heart....but if you aren't a conservative by the time you are 40, you don't have a brain."I have of course heard the quote about liberals not having a brain. It proves conservatives think they are smart and liberals are stupid. Public debate today is more about declaring yourself to be smart than about actually making good arguments. That is why we get so little charity and so little truth.
My father stated that aphorism to me when I spearheaded the local McGovern campaign effort in 1972, much to my father's chagrin.
The Motley Monk is beginning to wonder if this aphorism will continue to describe the state of nature. With the federal government increasingly extending its reach into the lives of most Americans since the 1960s, dependency upon government "largesse"---Medicare, Medicaid, and other social spending programs---will likely create a larger class of citizens 30+ years of age who won't possess the capital that normally would stimulate thought about capital and its preservation.
What I find interesting about this post is that it admits something that I have long suspected is true. That the change from liberal to conservative has more to do with getting richer and less to do with getting smarter. That having capital stimulates thought about capital and its preservation. That means people care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. until they figure out that such care is costing them a lot. Then they become more focused on themselves. That is when they become conservatives.
Conservatives always claim their politics does not flow from a lack of concern for their fellow man. It is just a coincidence that the policies they favor lower taxes for themselves and less help for the needy in society. Those policies are based on logic and not on greed. The fact that they match up exactly with what a greedy person would do is no reason to question someone's motivation. It is like those people who bought Playboy just for the articles. They would get upset when you suggested their motives might not be pure.
But now we have a conservative predicting that these purely logical arguments will not work on people unless they have enough money. Money stimulates thought. Really? Money certainly stimulates greed and patterns of thinking that go with it. Greed is sin and sin makes you stupid. But does money stimulate noble and rational thinking? I don't see it.
I do think the premise is wrong. There are much deeper reasons why younger people are not working as hard on developing their careers and acquiring wealth. Social spending is a minor factor. I would say the lack of faith and the accompanying lack of motivation to serve God is a bigger factor. Related to that, promiscuity and pornography has made marriage less desirable for men. Women are not looking for men who can be long term providers. So fewer step up to that challenge. That is another topic but it does show how quickly one can connect dots based on conservative assumptions and ignore a bunch of other possibilities.
"Conservatives always claim their politics does not flow from a lack of concern for their fellow man. It is just a coincidence that the policies they favor lower taxes for themselves and less help for the needy in society."
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting comment. I will say that I tend conservative, although truly (I'm not just being defensive here), lately I've become much less sure that our form of government is a good one, let alone the best possible.
But as far as concern for my fell man, for myself, my position is not, let me keep all my money and not give any to the poor. On the contrary, I know that I have an obligation to give to the poor (not to mention that I should give out of charity and not a feeling of obligation).
My opposition to high taxes and largesse to the poor is not based on a desire to keep my money for myself and not help poor people. It's based on the belief that government is an extremely inefficient and untrustworthy way of helping the poor, and that government programs, though possibly well intentioned, have often done more harm than good. My preference would be to give as little as possible through the government, but as much as I can afford through private charities or direct giving.
The arch-conservative himself, Ronald Reagan, never advocated giving nothing to the poor, but only letting people help the poor through private organizations, and not compelling them to do so through government programs.
I think saying that conservative principles "match up exactly with what a greedy person would do" is inaccurate, since those principles only address what government ought to do, and not what private individuals should do with the money that is not paid in taxes.
I had one more thought (I don't seem defensive, do I?):
ReplyDeleteWhen Europe was predominantly Catholic, charity to the needy was not primarily the job of the various governments, but of the Church, whether through religious orders, the local parish, lay organizations, or what have you. I am sure that the vast majority of modern American conservatives would wholeheartedly endorse that kind of situation rather than the modern welfare state.
My opposition to high taxes and largesse to the poor is not based on a desire to keep my money for myself and not help poor people. It's based on the belief that government is an extremely inefficient and untrustworthy way of helping the poor, and that government programs, though possibly well intentioned, have often done more harm than good. My preference would be to give as little as possible through the government, but as much as I can afford through private charities or direct giving.
ReplyDeleteI understand this line. I just don't think it is true for most people. The way the numbers work out the amount of help the government provides is way more. Even after you account for government inefficiencies it is not close. Much of the talk about making private donation instead is just talk. The money does not show up.
It is not a question of social programs or charities. We can and should do both. Private groups can do what governments can't. They can show love. Basic food, shelter, and clothing is not a matter of love. It is a matter of justice. Justice can and should be done through government. But we still need to visit people, show that we value them and believe in them. A government can't hire someone to do that.
As far as Europe goes. I am not sure of what point in time you are referring to. In the last 75 years both protestant and Catholic countries in Europe have embraced the concept of governments helping the needy through social programs. Most church leaders have supported that. Just because they didn't always have them does not mean we should not support them. Slavery was once accepted. Things change.
ReplyDeleteRandy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "I understand this line. I just don't think it is true for most people. The way the numbers work out the amount of help the government provides is way more. Even after you account for government inefficiencies it is not close."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that with the same amount of money the government does more? Or that the government does more because it has way more money? If the latter, then all you're saying is that government provides the vast majority of relief services, which I have never argued with. The question is whether or not that is the best way to do things.
You write, "Much of the talk about making private donation instead is just talk. The money does not show up."
Again I'm not clear what you're saying: What money does not show up? Are you saying people do not give to private charities? Obviously that's not true. If all you're saying is that people do not give as much to private charities as they do to the government, I can't argue with that either. The government has a huge advantage in that it can command people to give, whereas private charities cannot.
But I think that in many cases, people do not choose to give to private charities because they feel they are already giving enough through their taxes which support government programs. I have used that reasoning myself, when it comes to deciding whether or not to give to street vagrants: If they are truly disabled then they are eligible for government benefits and housing; and if they're not, then they should be working. I don't claim that this reasoning is airtight, nevertheless I don't think it's an uncommon line of thought.
If government were not providing so many charitable services then I am sure private charities and churches would take up the slack. They might not spend as much as government currently does, but that doesn't prove that the quantities of money that government spends are well spent.
Randy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "As far as Europe goes. I am not sure of what point in time you are referring to."
I'm referring to the time when Europe was predominantly Catholic. Which would make it pre-Reformation, say, through the 15th Century.
I understand that a lot of church leaders support the idea of government providing relief services. I'm sure they have good reasons for thinking that way. Personally I'm just not convinced, so far anyway.
In any event, I reiterate that saying that conservative principles "match up exactly with what a greedy person would do" is inaccurate, since those principles only address what government ought to do, and not what private individuals should do with their own money. Conservative political principles have nothing to say about private giving, except when they say that services are better provided by private entities than government. Which implies that those entities should be supported by private citizens, which implies that citizens should give to private charities -- which is the opposite of what a greedy person would do.
There's also this: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html
And this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I am saying the government is less efficient but because it has more resources it does more. Do people stop giving because the social programs are there? I am sure they use that excuse. Would they find another excuse if the social program was not there? Much of the time they will. They are just not generous people.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I reiterate that saying that conservative principles "match up exactly with what a greedy person would do" is inaccurate, since those principles only address what government ought to do, and not what private individuals should do with their own money.
But government policy is what is at issue. o it might be more accurate to say conservative government policy matches up exactly with policy based on the principle of greed. That is it gets you to the same place but gives you a much more palatable story to tell. It could be used as a rationalization for simple greed if one was disposed to do so.
As to the giving of liberals and conservatives. The fact is that most religious people are conservative. It comes from abortion and other social issues. There is also from mixing of politics, religion, and patriotism is the minds of many Americans. That being Republican is somehow see as part of being Christian.
The happy truth is that Christians give more than people of no faith. That difference is huge. I am not addressing whether or not to be Christian. Just whether to be a liberal Christian or a conservative Christian. Leaving the social issues out of it, which economic philosophy is more Christian?
Randy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "Leaving the social issues out of it, which economic philosophy is more Christian?"
Pope John Paul II taught that moral acts are not collective but personal. In his Apostolic Exhortation "Reconciliation and Penance", 1984 (abbrev RP) he writes, "The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals. A situation -- or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself -- is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad." (RP, 16)
"As above (II:3), one can only predicate moral good or evil of a human act -- which proceeds from the will with a knowledge of the end. In common speech, we might talk of a 'bad car', a 'bad book,' or a 'bad 5-iron' but those are not moral statements. Similarly, some speak that way of the 4 'Ss': sinful situation, sinful system, sinful society and sinful structures. But, the Pope correctly reminds us that a 'situation' is not in itself the subject of moral acts." (http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01311.htm)
You seem to be saying that it's more "Christian" for me as an individual to prefer having the government take my taxes involuntarily and use them to provide social services, than for me -- as an individual moral agent -- to have the option of giving my money to private charities. I don't see how one is preferable to the other from a Christian moral perspective, since in either case I am giving money for charitable purposes. However the latter option seems more Christian in at least one sense, in that I would be giving money out of the "goodness of my heart", rather than being compelled to give by force of law.
I might agree with you that government-provided charity could be equally (not to say "more") Christian, if people were given the option of giving money to the government for charitable purposes *voluntarily*. But I don't see what is particularly Christian about *compelling* people to give to charitable causes.
---
Basically your argument is this: You said that conservatives use conservative philosophy because of greed; that they use conservative doctrine to mask their personal greediness. You also say that liberal political philosophy is more Christian -- presumably meaning that it's more generous and charitable. If conservatives choose conservatism because of greed, then presumably liberals choose liberalism because of generosity.
The natural conclusion is that conservatives tend to be greedier and liberals tend to be more generous.
Yet I have presented you with data showing that the opposite is true: Conservatives, though they tend to make less money, tend to give more; whereas liberals, though they make more money, tend to give less.
Judging by the facts then, who are more greedy? And who, judging by the facts, are more likely using their political philosophy to mask their personal greediness?
[I had to split this due to Blogger's comment size limit:]
ReplyDeleteThe argument that people use their political philosophy to mask their personal stinginess, can cut both ways.
As George Will put it (in the second link I provided, above), "While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. ... In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore 'gave at the office.' By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."
I can understand why liberal doctrines seem to you, on their face, to be more Christian (after all, I used to be a liberal myself): Liberals want to pay more taxes and use more tax money to help people; whereas conservatives want to pay less in taxes and use less tax money to help people. Therefore liberals are generous and helpful, whereas conservatives are stingy and unhelpful.
But things are not always as they appear on their face. Your conclusion is justified only if you assume that government giving and government help are the only kinds available to us, therefore refusing to give to the government is refusing to give at all. But in fact, there are other ways of giving and helping. And conservatives, in addition to paying taxes, give in other ways as well, apparently more so than liberals.
You seem to be on the either/or thing again. It is not. We need to do both. We need to decide to live in a society that provides for it's less fortunate members. We also need to be generous with our personal wealth. You argue that it is rare to choose both. Maybe it is. So what? I still think that is God's will for our lives.
ReplyDeleteI do think this article is interesting. The idea that charity to the deserving is not charity but justice. Justice is a natural virtue while true charity is a supernatural or theological virtue. So we can achieve a just society but we can never achieve a society that loves the undeserving. That will always be the exclusive domain of Christians. Think Matt 25.
Randy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "You seem to be on the either/or thing again. It is not. We need to do both."
I don't know about either/or. What I'm focused on is refuting your insinuation that conservatives espouse conservative doctrine for the purpose of justifying their personal stinginess.
If all you're saying is that we are bound by Christian charity to happily give to the government as well as to private charities, well, I might argue with that as well, however that's another topic.
You write, "The idea that charity to the deserving is not charity but justice. ... So we can achieve a just society but we can never achieve a society that loves the undeserving. That will always be the exclusive domain of Christians."
I doubt very much that we can achieve a "just society" -- if defined as a society where injustice does not occur -- on earth. I don't even see that happening within the Church militant (the earthly Church). However I wholeheartedly agree that we have an obligation to give to the poor, and that charity is the domain of individual Christians.
What I'm focused on is refuting your insinuation that conservatives espouse conservative doctrine for the purpose of justifying their personal stinginess.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that about all conservatives. I just suggest that for many that might be the main appeal. Hard to say though. I have trouble being honest about my own motives. I can't expect to figure out everyone else.
There is a notion that statements against interests are more believable. So pointing out that conservative arguments are in the short term financial interests makes their case less believable. They object that they are above being biased. I just don't see that at all.
I doubt very much that we can achieve a "just society" -- if defined as a society where injustice does not occur -- on earth
This is completely beside the point. We try and achieve justice. We do what we can about murder because it is unjust. We do what we can about starving children because that is unjust. Can we eliminate either? No. But we should try.
As Christians we should have a high view of justice. That means we should want society to be more active in addressing injustices. We should hold that every human person has great dignity. That includes the poor, the sick, the prisoners, the orphans, etc. That they deserve the basics. Food, clothing, medical care, etc.
I don't get that from the Christian right. They should be a strong moral force withing the Republican party and they just aren't. They do well on the abortion and gay marriage issues but they seem to have made a deal not to criticize on money issues. The same can be said about foreign policy, the environment, immigration, etc. Like Jesus only cares about abortion and gay marriage.
Randy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, '[quoting me] "What I'm focused on is refuting your insinuation that conservatives espouse conservative doctrine for the purpose of justifying their personal stinginess." I didn't say that about all conservatives. I just suggest that for many that might be the main appeal. Hard to say though. I have trouble being honest about my own motives. I can't expect to figure out everyone else.'
I don't know. You wrote, "Conservatives *always* claim their politics does not flow from a lack of concern for their fellow man. It is just a coincidence that the policies they favor lower taxes for themselves and less help for the needy in society. Those policies are based on logic and not on greed. The fact that they match up exactly with what a greedy person would do is no reason to question someone's motivation. It is like those people who bought Playboy just for the articles. They would get upset when you suggested their motives might not be pure."
Clearly this is largely sarcastic so it's hard to know precisely what you mean. But it does seem like a general indictment of conservatives and conservatism. However if you say you didn't mean to judge conservatives in general, I take your word for it.
You write, "There is a notion that statements against interests are more believable. So pointing out that conservative arguments are in the short term financial interests makes their case less believable."
I'm sorry but I can't seem to grasp your meaning here. I think there may be a grammatical issue.
You write, '[quoting me] "I doubt very much that we can achieve a "just society" -- if defined as a society where injustice does not occur -- on earth" This is completely beside the point. We try and achieve justice."
You made the statement that "we can achieve a just society". I was only responding to your words.
You write, "As Christians we should have a high view of justice. That means we should want society to be more active in addressing injustices."
Where I get stuck is in your statements that "society" should be just, and "more active in addressing injustices". Because if "society" can be just, then it can also be unjust. Yet John Paul II taught that "A situation-or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself-is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation [or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself] cannot in itself be good or bad" (see link below).
Since the only moral agents are individual human beings, and not collections thereof, I find it much more logical to say that *people* should be more active in addressing injustices. The more individual people are active in that respect, the more society as a whole will be affected for the better.
[continued from prior comment]
ReplyDeleteJP2 also wrote, "The synod ... wished to recognize and proclaim the fact that there can be no union among people without an internal change in each individual. Personal conversion is the necessary path to harmony between individuals." RP, section 4.
And, "At the heart of every situation of sin are always to be found sinful people. So true is this that even when such a situation can be changed in its structural and institutional aspects by the force of law or-as unfortunately more often happens by the law of force, the change in fact proves to be incomplete, of short duration and ultimately vain and ineffective-not to say counterproductive if the people directly or indirectly responsible for that situation are not converted." RP, section 16.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html
In accord with this teaching, I believe that personal conversion is the key, and that personal conversion leads to personal action; the more people are personally converted and begin to personally act, the more injustices will be addressed; and that trying to impose "justice" on society from above -- without the personal conversion of the majority of individuals -- ultimately will not work.
Social welfare problems undoubtedly have done a lot of good, but to my mind, they have also undoubtedly done a lot of harm. Whether they have done more good than harm, on balance, I honestly don't know. But I do know that private assistance programs have done worlds of good. Alcoholics Anonymous springs to mind: hundreds of thousands have been saved from the ravages of alcoholism through its program (some of whom I know personally) -- yet it's one that the government could never institute or operate on a continual basis, since it expressly relies on God's grace for its success.
In fact in my view, all government programs (in the U.S., I mean) are run without reference to the most important considerations in life. When evaluating whether someone has a genuine need or is genuinely deserving, no reference is made to the person's moral character or the morality of his behavior. In diagnosing mental or emotional health, no consideration is given to the effects of faith or lack thereof. In providing medical services, no one considers whether or not such services might constitute an objective moral evil. Can we really expect more good than harm from the dispensing of services and the handing out of money left and right, without reference to God, objective good and evil, and the ultimate goal and purpose of life?
Which makes me realize, that if ours were a Catholic country, in which those who govern us were bound in some way to obey, or at least give deference to, the teachings of the Magisterium, then I might have much less objection to the idea of tax-funded, government-run charity. When our government is explicitly atheistic -- or at least is forced to act that way by the courts -- it's much more difficult for me to trust that my money will be well spent.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many conservatives are having their thinking biased by their short term financial concerns. Maybe they are all really holy and don't give temporal issues like money and concern. Political scientists talk about people voting their wallet. Conservatives might be above that. You can believe they are. I have my doubts.
ReplyDeleteI think you confuse John Paul's comments. He is not saying societies can't be good or bad. He experienced Nazi's and communists. What he is saying is that individuals are the building blocks either for good or for evil. In a democracy individuals vote. Individuals hold office. Each moral choice must be made at that level. That does not means there cannot be a vision of a just society that people can accept or reject. But the choice of what kind of society we choose to live in is one we each have to answer for as individuals. What did we do to make it better or worse. Voting plays a role. So does volunteering.
Social programs are limited. But they can do some things very well. Providing across the board basic services is one thing they do well. Talking about God is something they do not do well. Such talk should not be banned but it should not be the goal of any government program either.
Randy:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "Political scientists talk about people voting their wallet. Conservatives might be above that. You can believe they are. I have my doubts."
We're talking about two different things now: Conservative philosophy and the voting of individual conservatives. Certainly conservatives are capable of voting for something or someone, specifically because they expect it to benefit them financially. (What, and liberals aren't?) Nobody said they weren't fallen human beings like everyone else.
What I was defending was not the voting choices of individuals but conservative economic philosophy itself, from the charge of being un-Christian.
You write, "I think you confuse John Paul's comments. He is not saying societies can't be good or bad."
I'll let JP2's words speak for themselves.
What I was defending was not the voting choices of individuals but conservative economic philosophy itself, from the charge of being un-Christian.
ReplyDeleteThe two are related. If it is unchristian it is so precisely because it lacks the Christian heart for the poor. Conservative claim having a heart for the poor is something your outgrow or outsmart. I don't think that is Christian.
I'll let JP2's words speak for themselves.
Let ALL his words speak. If you do you will realize he is quite liberal.
You write, "Conservative claim having a heart for the poor is something your outgrow or outsmart."
ReplyDeleteHold on, let's get something straight here: No one said that you outgrow concern for the poor. What was said was that you outgrow *liberalism*.
You seem to be trying to win the argument by simply defining "liberalism" as "concern for the poor", such that anything opposing it necessarily opposes the poor.
What I have been trying to express -- apparently unsuccessfully -- is that there might be more than one way to care for the poor; that government care for the poor is not the only way, nor is it necessarily what's best for the poor, or for anyone for that matter.
Opposing government care for the poor is not synonymous with opposing care for the poor.
We can certainly discuss whether government care for the poor is the best kind available. But surely you are not arguing that it's the only kind that exists.
You write, "Let ALL his words speak. If you do you will realize he is quite liberal."
ReplyDeleteIn that case I can say, "See, even a liberal like JP2 teaches that society 'cannot in itself be good or bad'." ; )