The Political Dance

PEGGY NOONAN, a keen observer of politics, comments on the dance:

"Mrs. Clinton, who will soon go fully national again, shrewdly makes more and more religious references and has taken to wearing a cross on her neck on the campaign trail. Ben Smith of New York's Daily News called it a diamond cross. It looks like one. But diamonds would be an odd thing for a Democratic politician to campaign in. No Democrat or Republican politician has worn expensive jewelry in New York since Mario Cuomo looked at his wealthy opponent in their first debate and purred, 'Nice watch, Lou!'

A hunch. Hillary is just waiting for someone to ask her about the diamond cross so she can shyly respond, 'Lord, it's glass, actually.' Her office will elaborate: It was given to her by a little girl in Poughkeepsie, to remind her of what's important. Hillary promised to wear it every day. Then she promised a dying boy she'd hit a home run for him, while wearing her Yankees hat.

The Clintons, Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. McCain are the exceptions. There's a dance dearth out there. This is surprising, isn't it? The issues are large and deep. Great battles are ennobled by happy warriors. We have two weeks left. If you're bothering to run, get off the grim reading of talking points. Show some roar, show some game. Show some dance. Joylessness is unworthy of a great republic."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

The Virginia Declaration of Rights has an interesting statement about religious freedom which I comment on at Economics & Liberty. Here is the passage from that declaration of rights:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Here is the punchline to my comments posted there:

I don't think that in a free system of political economy one need be terribly concerned about whether a person's views on government and policy are motivated by religious belief or belief in mother nature or belief in Newtonian physics or belief in quantum physics. In a system of government founded on liberty the key issue is really what we think is and is not a legitimate use of force and violence in our daily lives. As George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights it is not legitimate to use force and violence in the service of religious belief. Nor, does it seem to me legitimate to use force and violence in the service of belief in science, or belief in an environmental ethic, or belief in a witch's brew. But, in our system of political economy, there is seldom any real threat that force and violence will be used by government for any such personal beliefs. We each have our personal beliefs and motives for supporting this policy or that policy, and in the end the policy that is chosen is seldom, if ever, the policy that is supported by merely one type of belief. Liberty requires that government leave us free to believe what we will, and this principle even applies to the reasons we have for supporting our personal views of good and bad public policy.

Do you agree or disagree?

Is An Increase In The Minimum Wage Moral?

Recently we have heard a lot of discussion about increasing the minimum wage. Taking a political position in favor of increasing the minimum wage often seems to be good politics, but this may be the case only if the economic results of the minimum wage are overlooked. Anthony Bradley explains that an increase in the minimum wage will hurt teens and minorities:

"The only way to explain Republican bulldozing of the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House of Representatives last week is election year political banditry -- even though it was paired with a cut in estate taxes. Before the Senate debates this bill, it is important to remind ourselves that government-mandated minimum wage helps no one in the long run. Parents of high school students and advocates for the poor should be outraged at the proposed increase because it discourages employers from hiring teenagers and low-skilled minorities.

[. . . .]

Emotionally, the issue is a winner -- who can be against lifting the prospects of the most poorly paid workers among us? But when viewed through economic analysis, the bill appears less rosy. Such an increase actually hurts teens and low-skilled minorities in the long run because minimum wage jobs are usually entry-level positions filled by employees with limited work experience and few job skills. When the government forces employers to pay their workers more than a job’s productivity demands, employers, in order to stay in business, generally respond by hiring fewer hours of low-skill labor. Low-skill workers become too expensive to employ, creating a new army of permanent part-timers.

[. . . .]

University of Connecticut economics professor, Kenneth Couch, estimates that a one-dollar rise in the minimum wage in the current economic environment would further reduce teenage employment opportunities by at least 145,000 -- and possibly as many as 436,000 -- jobs."

Presumably, those interested in increasing the minimum wage are not trying to cause many teenagers to become unemployed. Nor are they intending to reduce the number of low-skilled workers who have jobs. Nor are they intending to reduce the incomes of employers, or increase the prices paid for goods and services. But each of these things will happen, according to economic analysis, if the minimum wage is increased.

Certainly those employees who continue in their jobs will earn more income because of a government forced increase in the wage they receive, but such an increase in their incomes will just as certainly come with a decrease in the incomes of those who become unemployed (or unemployable) because of the increased minimum wage.

I think many people of faith strongly support an increase in the minimum wage, but I suspect they are perhaps unaware of the actual economic effects of such an increase. Perhaps they realize the full range of economic effects, and find some moral justification for government acting to gain these effects. For myself, I cannot find in my Christian faith support for using government's force in this way, because it seems to me to amount to taking from some to give to others. It seems to me that increasing the minimum wage will take income from those who will become unemployed (or become unemployable because they are a teenager), to increase the incomes of those who remain employed. I also see force used by government in a way that means people spend more for goods and services and thus have less real income for use in support of their own livelihoods and the livelihood of their families.

Of course, someone may want to argue that the economic analysis is not correct. That the minimum wage increase will not decrease the incomes of employers, nor will it increase the prices paid for goods and services, nor will it cause people to loose jobs they would have otherwise had. What I am interested in is, assuming the results described by Mr. Bradley and myself here will occur, how can we see an increase in the minimum wage as moral?

We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident

I've posted on the Declaration of Independence over at Economics and Liberty:

Today we remember and we celebrate July 4, 1776:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . . . .

You might be interested in that post, but here I want to emphasize the view of government I think is expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is a view I hold.

The view of government I find as the framework for the Declaration of Independence is of a government that does not come before the rights of individuals, but rather, is a government that is formed out of the rights of individuals. On this view, government does not grant rights and privileges to individuals, rather, individuals grant to government certain powers (eventually expressly enumerated by Article 1, Section 8 of our constitution) over their individual rights and liberties.

Where do the individual rights come from? Well, some might say individuals have natural rights as individuals. This view seems to be expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but, I think we can note here that there is something more. Thomas Jefferson wrote in this Declaration, and another 55 people agreed by signing this Declaration, that the rights of each individual are thought to be endowned by their Creator. On this view, it seems to me, God has given us liberty (I like to think of this in terms of the scripture in Genesis about God giving us dominion), God has left each of us to choose for ourselves. Many would choose to use their liberty to act in ways that harmed others. Thus, understanding this, the Declaration of Independence notes that we (individually) choose to join together to form a government the purpose of which will be to SECURE our individual "unalienable rights" given to us by God.

I would also note just how great is the reliance on God throughout the Declaration of Independence. I espeically make note that the Declaration's final sentence seems to include a bit of prayer that those 56 people who signed the Declaration were relying on the "Protection of divine Providence," and that they were pledging, not just their honor to each other, but they were pledging their sacred honor to each other.

Of course, I do not see in all this an interest in a theocratic form of government. Government is inherently coercive, and in my view coercion and faith (or religion) do not fit together. We form our government for the purpose of securing our God given "unalienable rights" as individuals against the ways in which others might use their individual liberty to harm or to take from us. We do not form our government to coerce others to follow our God, or to follow the ethics and morals we learn from the teachings of Jesus. We do not form our government to force others to do what is right. God leaves us to our own choices, and as I think the Declaration of Independence suggests, our government should be formed in a way that largely leaves us to our own individual choices as well.

Torture Update

Yesterday I posted on the anti-torture campaign of some religious leaders. Consider now what can be found on THE PAGES OF THE LA TIMES:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday released a heavily redacted version of a military report on detainee abuses by special operations forces in Iraq. The report concludes that a series of sensational allegations by detainees could not be substantiated.

The report, compiled by Army Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica, was completed last year, but a declassified version was not prepared until this month. It says some of the minor accusations — such as that detainees were fed only bread and water for more than two weeks — had merit. But it found there was no evidence for most of the more controversial allegations.

I think it is worth giving some thought to this news, which is found at the end of a fairly long piece. I noted in my earlier post that the group that had placed an add in many papers across the country, seemed to assume that allegations of abuse and torture, even the worse allegations, were true. Upon further review, apparently, of at least some of the allegations the findings are that "there was no evidence for most of the more controversial allegations." This report of no evidence comes at the end of a news article, and I assume many readers simply will not read to the end. I also suspect that there will be few if any headlines in newspapers across the county that look like: NO EVIDENCE OF CONTROVERSIAL ALLEGATIONS OF DETAINEE ABUSE IN IRAQ.

In watching politics over several years I now have seen many examples much like this. An allegation is made, and the news industry prints it up and talks it up. Later, the allegation is proven false, but the news industry often responds in a rather timid way. I can't say this pattern should not be expected, and I have come to expect this to be a very common pattern. Because this is my expectation, I have tried to develop ways of studying and watching politics and political issues to minimize the times I get fooled, and the times I miss seeing this pattern play out. I think an important part of this is that I now assume that it is not very likely I will learn what is true from just the news industry alone.

In thinking about the anti-torture add by religious leaders that I posted on yesterday, perhaps many of those leaders do not share my expectations about the news industry and about the discussions in the public square. So, perhaps in that earlier piece, I was a bit hasty to conclude the anti-torture campaign was pure politics. Perhaps a closer look by many of the signatories to the add would lead to a change in their views. Yet, if you understand that you cannot rely on the news industry to learn what is true and what is not true, then I find it difficult to think you could sign on to the add without choosing to play politics. And, as I wrote yesterday, I hope that bringing my faith to my politics means at least that I seek, long and hard, to bring clarity and truth to political discussion.

Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Ban Torture

AS REPORTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST religious leaders have begun an anti-torture campaign:

"By suggesting that recent abuse of prisoners may not be just an aberration but a reflection of U.S. policy, the statement contains an implicit challenge to the Bush administration, according to some signers.

'I'm not persuaded that this issue has been put to bed yet by the Bush administration,' said David P. Gushee, a philosophy professor at Union University in Tennessee who wrote an influential article against torture this year in Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine. 'I'm worried that we still don't truly know what is going on in all our detention centers around the world.'

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration has 'the utmost respect for all these religious leaders.' But, she said, 'I'll simply repeat what the president has said many times, which is that this government does not torture, and we adhere to the international conventions against torture. That is our policy, and it will remain our policy.'"

You can see a copy of the ad run in the New York Times here. This is the text in the ad:

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved -- policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?

Let America abolish torture now -- without exceptions.

Is it possible that what the White House says is true? What if American statute law, as well as specific policy, is that torture is not used by our government, and that our government adhere's to international conventions against torture? If true, then what can such a statement mean?

I do not think our government should use torture. Yet, I don't think I could sign the statement as it appeared in the ad because the statement is clearly premised on the belief that our government does use torture. If I believed our government did make the use of torture a matter of law and policy today, then I would support changing those laws and policies.

My best assessment at this time comes from reading news reports of allegations of torture, and from reading and hearing interviews of various people on the allegations and on the practices and policies of our government. And, my assessment of course includes what our President has said about torture. My best assessment is that it is neither law, nor policy, to use torture, and further, that any proven allegations (and therefore no longer just allegations) to date that specific individuals in our military have violated law and policy have resulted in those individuals being punished for their violations of law and policy.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the statement of the religious leaders in the ad makes little sense to me. Calling for the Congress and the President to change law and policy, when the change requested already seems to me the law and policy of Congress and the President makes no sense. One implication of all this is that such a nationally publicized statement seems motivated by pure politics rather than by a commitment to a moral view.

Perhaps I am incorrect in these conclusions. Perhaps I am wrong and it is the law and policy of the United States to use torture. Unfortunately, neither the ad, nor the web site of the organization paying for the ad, provides any reference to specific law or policy that would contradict my conclusion, or contradict what the President has said about law and policy.

I'm thinking that if I bring my faith to politics and political discourse there are at least 2 things that I would want to do. I would want to bring clarity and truth to the discussion. It seems to me that these religious leaders have not done that. Am I wrong?

More Estate Tax

WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL:

Americans favor repealing the death tax not because they think it will help them directly. They're more principled than that. Two-thirds of the public wants to repeal it because they think taxing a lifetime of thrift due to the accident of death is unfair, and even immoral. They also understand that the really rich won't pay the tax anyway because they hire lawyers to avoid it.

[. . .]

Edward McCaffery, an estate tax expert at USC Law School, argues that "if breaking up large concentrations of wealth is the intention of the death tax, then it is a miserable failure."

Certainly I am one who thinks our tax system should reward thrift as well as savings and investment, and it should not tax or penalize these sorts of choices. Probably one reason I have for not wanting to tax saving and investment is that I'm an economist, and that means I understand how saving and investment leads to economic prosperity. I've wondered whether my faith might lead me to a different conclusion, and I don't really see any reason to think that it should.

Consider the suggestion that the reason for the estate tax is thought, by at least some people, to be breaking up large concentrations of wealth. Setting aside the observation that the estate tax has not accomplished such a goal, I wonder why large amounts of wealth would be seen as a bad thing? An individual earns an income by being productive, and being productive means being part of the economy that produces and supplies goods and services people want. By being productive a person earns a living, and this is done by helping those who want the goods and services that result. Wealth is created when a person saves out of income instead of consuming all the income that is earned. Wealth results then from the productivity of people, and from their choices to save and invest rather than consume all that is earned. So, I can't really understand anything wrong with wealth, nor with so-called "large concentrations of wealth." It seems to me that the economic choices of people to create wealth for themselves involve choices that benefit others (being productive), and also choices that involve less interest in goods, services and materialist consumption in the present which seem to me choices that all also good choices. I don't see any clear reasons from my study of Jesus and the New Testament that would suggest I have the wrong idea about the creation of wealth.

So, if 2/3 of the American public, as asserted by the WSJ, want the estate tax repealed, I wonder who is supporting the continuation of the estate tax? This is often a useful and informative question to ask when considering proposed public policies: who wants the proposed public policy? Here is the answer the WSJ offers with respect to the estate tax:

By far the largest supporter of preserving the death tax is the life insurance lobby, which could lose billions of dollars from policies written to avoid the tax. The Los Angeles Times reported this week that the insurance industry is the main funder of an anti-repeal outfit known as the Coalition for America's Priorities. . . .

Noting the special interest supporting continuing the estate tax is pretty informative, but consider something else about this support. The reason the life insurance industry wants to keep the tax is really because the life insurance industry makes a profit on figuring out how people can avoid paying the tax. In other words, without government's prior bad policy (i.e. taxing wealth at death), there wouldn't be a special interest in opposition to end government's bad policy today.

I posted earlier on the estate tax noting that this was a public policy that encouraged envy, and the WSJ seems to think so as well:

Voters have been saying clearly and for years that they don't want a tax whose only justification is government greed and envy.

Christians For The Estate Tax

SOJOURNERS:

"If Senate leadership has its way, American inequality is about to take a giant step forward with efforts to repeal or gut the estate tax. Never mind it's been in place for nearly 100 years, is a substantial source of government revenue, and has been a major catalyst to charitable giving. And it only affects the wealthiest half of 1 percent of Americans - most family farms and small businesses are exempt.

A repeal of the estate tax will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars in federal revenue over the next 10 years, substantially increase the deficit, dramatically diminish the resources available to help low-income families escape poverty, and further increase the pressure on the budget from the high cost of war.

Make a call to preserve the common good! Tell your senators to oppose repeal or drastic cuts in the estate tax!"

Perhaps someone can explain the use of "common good" in this political appeal? I would like to define common good to mean that no one is harmed, that all either benefit or at least do not bear a cost because of the government action in question. If you agree with my idea of the common good, then I think you would have to agree that calling to preserve the common good does not fit with continuing the estate (a.k.a. death) tax. Surely there are people who are harmed when government takes some portion of an estate.

Do you agree with my idea about the meaning of "the common good?" Or, would you define this term in some other way?

I posted just below on Galatians 6:1-10 so that I could give some thought to President Clinton's choice of scripture at his first inauguration. That led me to read the rest of Paul's letter, and I think that Galatians 5:16-26 might have some relevance to this appeal by Sojourners. Read the entire passage, but here are the specific words I think might relate to this political appeal:

Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh . . . Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication . . . licentiousness, idolatry . . . enmities, strife, jealousy, anger . . . factions, envy . . . and things like these.

By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, patience, kindness, generosity . . . If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

I think I'm put off by appeals such as this by Sojourners regarding the estate tax because it is a position about a public policy that seems to encourage envy, factions, strife, and competing against one another. It seems to me a position about public policy that is inconsistent with the fruit of the Spirit when I consider the people who would have their estate taken by the coercive power of government. Do you think I'm wrong in this?

Galatians 6:8

I POSTED YESTERDAY that many Presidents have chosen to have the Bible opened to a specific scripture passage for their inauguration. At President Clinton's first inauguration the scripture passage was Galatians 6:8

If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

It might be interesting to consider whether the scripture choices of the Presidents provide much in the way of understanding with respect to faith and politics. Of course, the scripture choices might have little insight regarding politics, and more insight with respect to the personality or the faith of the President, or perhaps the insight would tell use something about the nature of the challenges the President anticipates for his upcoming years.

In President Clinton's choice of scripture there seems to be little direct application to politics or to the choices with respect to public policies. With tongue in cheek, I suppose the passage might be relevant to anticipated challenges while in office.

Perhaps we should look at the larger context within which this passage is located. Here is Galatians 6:1-10

My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves. All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbor's work, will become a cause for pride. For all must carry their own loads.

Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher.

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So, then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.

I suppose we might see some thoughts about faith and government in this entire passage, which is titled, in my Bible, "Bear One Another's Burdens." Perhaps some would suggest support here for bearing the burdens of others through government welfare programs, or other programs that might be said to "share in" the misfortunes of others? Perhaps we should look at "let us work for the good of all" as suggesting we look to government as the means of accomplishing what is good for all? Now my own view of government doesn't tend in these directions, and perhaps that is why I do not see this scripture as suggesting either of these sorts of ideas about government and about my politics.

I see this scripture as saying very little directly relevant to politics and government, and I think this conclusion is emphasized by the final idea in this passage which points to "especially for those of the family of faith." I do not think good government is one that would be "especially" interested in any identifiable group, whether of the family of faith or not.

For me I read in this scripture lessons from Paul about living in ways that are mindful of the gift of the Holy Spirit. He teaches that if we learn of someone who has transgressed, we, who have received the Spirit, should turn to help them, and our help should come from the influence of the Holy Spirit on our lives. In some ways I think the teaching here counsels against materialist and self-interested attitudes, and teaches that we should attend to the counsel of the Spirit in our lives.

Perhaps in this last idea we have an indirect implication for politics. It is hard for me to avoid thinking that almost all of politics is driven by self-interest. I suppose some politicians and some of those who actively work in support of various public policies are largely motivated by an interest in helping others, but such motivations seem at best a very small part of our politics and of our governments. Politics and government are inherently about using force and coercion in our daily lives. It seems simply inconsistent to me that a personal interest in, and concern for, others would turn to use government as the means of acting on such a concern for others. I don't think concern for others translates into force or coercion toward others, and I note also that Paul teaches that "you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness." It is difficult for me to understand government in terms that sound anything at all like "a spirit of gentleness."

Consider also that "whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all." I tend to the conclusion that there are relatively few instances in which force and coercion can be used in our daily lives to the good of all. Rather, I believe that working for the good of all tends to be associated with cooperation, exchange, and, just in general, interactions and associations with others that are voluntary and freely chosen. A government's coercion and force can be used in many circumstances to guarantee or insure that interactions and associations are freely chosen by all parties, and it is such circumstances that I find to be useful in defining the purpose of government. Unfortunately, most political issues today clearly involve efforts to get government to force outcomes and associations and interactions in the ways some people prefer, and at the expense of other people.

So, it seems to me that Paul's teaching in this scripture is most directly about how an individual approaches his or her own personal life. Indirectly, the scripture says something to me about my faith and my politics. To me it says that if I "sow to the Spirit" I will have little interest in politics and government for achieving self-interested advantages, and little interest in trying to use government to force or coerce others "to get things right."

Presidential Bibles

I discovered something interesting in Jon Meacham's book American Gospel. When a President is sworn into office he places his hand on an open Bible. Apparently, many Presidents have chosen to have the Bible opened to a specific scripture passage. Perhaps it would be interesting to reflect upon those Presidential favorites of scripture:

Proverbs 3:17 -- Martin Van Buren 1837
Proverbs 21 -- Andrew Johnson 1865
Isaiah 11:1-3 -- Ulysses S. Grant 1873
Psalm 118:11-13 -- Rutherford B. Hayes 1877
Proverbs 21:1 -- James A. Garfield 1881
Psalm 31:1-3 -- Chester A. Arthur 1771
Psalm 121:1-6 -- Benjamin Harrison 1889
Psalm 91:12-16 -- Grover Cleveland 1893
Chronicles II 1:10 -- William McKinley 1897
Proverbs 16: -- William McKinley 1901
James 1:22-23 -- Theodore Roosevelt 1905
Kings I 3:9-11 -- William Howard Taft 1909
Psalm 119 -- Woodrow Wilson 1913
Psalm 46 -- Woodrow Wilson 1917
Micah 6:8 -- Warren G. Harding 1921
John 1 -- Calvin Coolidge 1925
Proverbs 29:18 -- Herbert Hoover 1929
Corinthinans 1:13 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945
Matthew 5:3-11 & Exodus 20:3-17 -- Harry S. Truman 1949 (used two open Bibles)
Psalm 127:1 & Chronicles II 7:14 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 (used two open Bibles)
Psalm 33:12 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower 1957
Isaiah 2:4 -- Richard Nixon 1969 and 1973
Proverbs 3:5-6 -- Gerald R. Ford 1974
Micah 6:8 -- Jimmy Carter 1977
Chronicles II 7:14 -- Ronald Reagan 1981 and 1985
Matthew 5 -- George H.W. Bush 1989
Galatians 6:8 -- Bill Clinton 1993
Isaiah 58:12 -- Bill Clinton 1997
Isaiah 40:31 -- George W. Bush 2005

You Always Have The Poor With You

Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor? (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep if for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me." (John 12:3-8)

I am curious about what Jesus means when he says we always have the poor with us. What do you think?

I also cannot help but relate the parenthetical note on Judas keeping the common purse and stealing from it to some aspects of Congressional practices today. The members of Congress have developed the practice of budget earmarks by which individual members of Congress are allowed to pick specific projects and specific recipients to receive federal monies. The practice has even developed where a member of Congress designates specific funds to a specific recipient or a specific project and that designation or assignment of funds is not even specifically written down in the bill that Congress votes on. There is more, members of Congress often make such personal budget earmarks without even being identified as the member of Congress making the earmark. Do you see any parallels in the ethics of Judas and the ethics of earmarks?

Some Christian Politics

HEATHER WILHELM writes about some recent forays by Christians into politics:

"Take the Evangelical Climate Initiative, endorsed by Mr. Cizik, which has 'put global warming on the evangelical agenda,' according to the NAE's Washington Insight newsletter. The initiative pushes the government to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. It has been supported by Christian leaders from across the spectrum, including Rick Warren, the author of 'The Purpose Driven Life'; Peter Borgdorff, the executive director of the conservative Christian Reformed Church; and Jim Wallis, the editor of the liberal Sojourners magazine."

Perhaps one approach to considering my faith-my politics would be to review and evaluate these sorts of policy positions promoted by various Christian groups. I would note at this point that it seems the policy positions that are taken by people such as those mentioned above are specifically suggesting that their Christian faith leads them to these policy positions.

Let me make note of a few other policy positions that are mentioned in the commentary by Healther Wilhelm.

". . . . In its April 2000 issue, Christianity Today named Mr. Sider's "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger" (1977) one of the most influential books of the 20th century. Recently rereleased and touted at pulpits across the country--the Presbyterian Church USA encourages its 11,000 congregations to use it--the book rails against the "ghastly injustice" of the free market."

". . . . The group recently recruited Mr. Sider to co-chair the committee drafting its latest public-policy statement: "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." It's an ambitious document, proposing more government regulation of health care, an expansion of welfare benefits, more protections for the environment and various efforts to correct "unfair socioeconomic systems." It also rests on one central assumption: the government can solve all of our problems."

In bulletins from four different Chicago-area churches, parishioners are being asked to write their senators, not a personal check. Groups representing more than 40 denominations have signed on to the public declaration of the so-called ONE campaign, whose mission is to dedicate 1% of the U.S. budget to foreign aid each year. ONE boasts the support of George Clooney, Naomi Watts and, of course, Bono . . . ."

I have concerns about each of the policy positions suggested above. My concerns really are not about whether I should be concerned about the direct goals the policies would purport to achieve. Rather, I can't sign on to support the policy positions noted here largely because I don't think the goals will be achieved. Actually I think the proposed policies would move in exactly the opposite direction.

Consider the idea of requiring that 1% of the U.S. government budget be devoted to foreign aid for developing countries. Let me point to the work of just 3 economists, among many, whose research shows that foreign aid does not work to help developing economies become prosperous economies: William Easterly, Hernando De Soto, and Mancur Olson. Mancur Olson explains that there are three necessary conditions for economic prosperity: strict enforcement of property rights, strict enforcement of contracts, and the absence of economic predation. This brings me to the idea suggested above regarding the "ghastly injustice" of the free market. People who embrace the free market tend to be big supporters of government policy that provides these very necessary conditions for economic prosperity. In my view it is not the embrace of free markets that tend to lead to unfair socioeconomic systems, but rather, just the opposite.

I too am concerned about damage to the environment and the natural world. I too am concerned about the poor. Yet, I cannot embrace any of the policies suggested above, and precisely because I've come to understand that most of the world's poor and most of the world's damage to the environment are to be found in those countries without economic prosperity. It is economic prosperity (remember Olson's necessary conditions) that reduces the number of those who are poor while improving the qualitative nature of poverty, and it is economic prosperity that means people have sufficient income and wealth to spend resources to protect the environment.

And, to conclude this post, here is an interesting perspective from someone at the Acton Institute:

". . . .Why are these people punting to the federal government?" asks Jay Richards, an evangelical and a research fellow at the Michigan-based Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. "You can't be compassionate with other people's money. Even worse, they're not thinking about the consequences of these policies. They're too busy feeling warm and fuzzy and absorbing liberal ideas."

I'm a big fan of The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty.

Politics & the Poor

Politics and policy issues often involve questions about the role of government in aiding "the poor." Of course, such issues seem to be a natural area of concern or interest for Christians. It seems to me that before we can go very far with making political choices in these policy areas we really need to have a good understanding of what is real with respect to being "poor" in the United States today.

Thomas Sowell's essay "The Mirage of Equality" in his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice offers some of this understanding:

In short, neither the rich nor the poor match the classic picture of a class into which people are born, live, and die -- and in which they maintain a lifestyle born of that permanence. The persistently rich and persistently poor, put together, are not a major segment of the American population, though political issues are often framed as if they were. . . .only 3 percent of Americans remain in the bottom 20 percent for as long as eight years. Only 3.5 percent of the American population have a net worth of one million dollars or more, even though net worth literally includes the kitchen sink, as well as other household assets, clothing, pension fund equity, and other assets that could not be turned into ready cash. Nevertheless, even with this generous definition, both the rich and the poor -- put together -- add up to less than 7 percent of the American population. Nevertheless, great political and ideological battles are often fought as if these were the central groups in the society, rather than the other 93 percent who are in no meaningful sense either rich or poor.

A major factor in both income and wealth is age. Those who have worked for many years tend to have advanced in their careers to higher-paying positions and to have accumulated more assets, whether in the form of money in the bank or a pension fund, or equity in their homes. People in their sixties have persistently had higher incomes than people in their twenties and much higher net worths. In short, membership in various income brackets tends to be transient, in the American economy at least, due both to age and to the ordinary ups and downs of individuals' careers and of the surrounding economy. Yet that fact has had very little effect on visions, crusades, or the rhetoric attacking 'inequality.'" (pp. 56-57)

Does this ring true to you?

Whether you answer yes or no, if you assume Sowell is accurate in his analysis, what might be the implications for the role of government with respect to "the poor?" Doesn't his analysis suggest that the political attention given to "the poor" is way out of proportion? If most of those counted in the group of "the poor" in any given year in the United States are counted there because they are young, doesn't this suggest that no matter what public policy is chosen government will be unable to significantly change the number who are counted as poor?

Is It Greed?

John Stossel:

"If pursuing profit is greed, economist Walter Williams told me, then greed is good, because it drives us to do many good things. 'Those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with: supermarkets, computers, FedEx.' By contrast, areas 'where people say we're motivated by 'caring'' -- public education, public housing etc. -- 'are the areas of disaster in our country. . . . How much would get done,' Williams wondered, 'if it all depended on human love and kindness?'

Greed gets people to cooperate. If you want to benefit from other greedy people, you have to make sure they benefit from you. Consider one of the wonders of our age, the supermarket. There are thousands of products on the shelves. How'd they get there?"

I suspect the issue of "greed" often comes up in many political issues, especially issues involving government regulation of economic activities. While I'm in agreement with what Stossel writes here about the meaning of these economic activities, I don't think it fits to talk about these things as "greed." It seems to me simply self-interest that motivates people to behave in all the ways that result in "one of the wonders of our age, the supermarket."

Further I don't think it is "greed" to be self-interested and to make personal efforts to do better for yourself and your family. It seems to me that "greed" must involve an excess in a negative personality trait, and one that leads a person to specifically pursue money as the primary personal goal in life and even at the expense of relationships with others, and perhaps it may even involve explicit efforts to take advantage of others for personal gain.

In general, the economic activities of people benefit many others and not just each person individually. In general, economic activities are not characterized by greed, but by a multitude of ways by which people help themselves while helping others.

America: Rich & Greedy

Gregory Boyd has written a series of short essays on faith and politics in the United States. The essays offer many issues to discuss and I plan to take up a few. Here is something found in one of those essays:

"I love America. I can think of no other country I would want to make my home. I enjoy the freedom to write this comment in this blog. There are, however, things about America that I detest. There are things about America that are quite contrary to the Kingdom of God. America is rich. America is greedy. America is materialistic. America exploits the poor. If Revelation had been written in our day, the city of Babylon would not be Rome; it would be America (among many other nations that oppose Kingdom-values). Washington is the Babylon of Rev. 18 in the same way that Rome was. Many of the values of America are a direct contradiction to the Kingdom of God. Despite George W's claims that America is 'the light of the world,' it is not. The light of the world is Jesus; I serve a King. There is no 'president' on the throne of God's Kingdom."

I think the assertions here about America are simply false. For example, I do not see that "America exploits the poor." There are many reasons to see my conclusion, not the least of which is in the news these days. The policy issues surrounding illegal immigrants involve many who are poor illegally entering this country. It simply would seem odd to me to conclude that "America exploits the poor" while seeing so many poor every day come to America to be "exploited." The poor aren't risking so much to illegally come here just to come be exploited.

I suspect the very idea of "America exploits the poor" is based upon a flawed analysis of how economies, and especially personal economies, work.

I also have difficulty accepting an indictment of our system of political economy in some aggregate sense. It is not the system that is materialistic. Rather, it seems to me that being materialistic is an attribute of an individual. Our system of political economy does not require materialistic attitudes to be successful. Furthermore, there surely are many people in our economy who are not relatively materialistic, and I suspect not just a few of these are Christians. I am always suspicious of claims about groups or aggregates, especially when the claims seem to attribute human attributes of preference and choice to such aggregates.

Note that I am not suggesting in this specific post that the United States is a "Christian nation," whatever that might mean. Rather I am suggesting that the implicit and explicit critique of the United States I've quoted above is at least of little use for understanding, if not simply wrong. Materialistic attitudes come from personal choices, it seems to me, and each individual is ultimately responsible for their personal choices.

Global Warming

Evangelical Climate Initiative:

"While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

• Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).

• Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).

• Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).

Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action."

I'm not sure I understand some of this. Consider the idea that Christians MUST care about climate change because we love God. I think I don't react well to this suggestion because it seems to tell me how I am supposed to love God, and I suspect love is a rather personal matter. I wonder if I would react more openly to concern for climate change if the idea was expressed in a different way? What if the idea here sounded like the following: "As Christians, the undersigned express some part of our love for God by a personal commitment to work for government policy that can reduce the extent to which economic activities in our country increase global climate change." Perhaps I would be more open to consider choosing to see such political action as an expression of my love for God. I know I do not react openly to a statement that seems to choose for me how I will love God.

It is suggested that Christians should see sufficient reason to respond with moral passion and concrete action. Perhaps so. But, what concrete action is promoted by this group? Is it concrete action to encourage elected representatives to use government to force others to respond with concrete action? Or is it concrete action to get others to join voluntarily with their own personal and organized efforts to be good stewards of specific parts of this world?

UPDATE: I posted on another site about politics and global warming science. It seems to me that one of the things we should consider when choosing a policy position on global warming is the way in which science interacts with politics. I suspect that when science becomes part of politics, it becomes very difficult for us to know what is true and what is false regarding what science knows. If this is the case, then how should we account for this when choosing a personal policy position regarding global warming?

Progressive Evangelicals

Tony Campolo:

"The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics. Believing that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, we want to unite Christians who are concerned about what is happening in America. We are evangelicals who are troubled by what is happening to poor people in America; who are disturbed over environmental policies that are contributing to global warming; who are dismayed over the increasing arrogance of power shown in our country’s militarism; who are outraged because government funding is being reduced for schools where students, often from impoverished and dysfunctional homes, are testing poorly; who are upset with the fact that of the 22 industrialized nations America is next to last in the proportion of its national budget (less than two-tenths of 1 percent) that is designated to help the poor of third-world countries; and who are broken-hearted over discrimination against women, people of color, and those who suffer because of their sexual orientation. "

I agree that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but I can't help but take a skeptical view of what I read here. Why? Because, when I read this list, I wonder why it is that there seems to only be issues mentioned that sound like what is to be found in the platforms of Democrat politicians.

I'm also skeptical because this statement seems to point not just to concerns, but also to answers, and to answers that seem to me likely to be exactly the wrong answers. I have two examples to suggest in this regard. First, I believe I share the concern expressed here for those who live in undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. But having our government devote more of its budget to the poor of such countries will result in little real impact on such people for a myriad of reasons that many understand today. Economic prosperity results from good government, and this means government that enforces property rights and contracts and that allows relatively little predation. Poor countries in the world have governments that are opposite in character, and often the governments in such countries are the greatest predators. Second, while the statement doesn't make a policy prescription explicit, my guess is that the policy prescription for failing schools would involve spending more government money on a public school industry, which is a monopoly that is dominated by a labor union that has both great political power as well as great economic power. Spending more money on such a monopoly is, in my view, likely to accomplish little, if any thing, of what would be hoped for. It is my conclusion that the best policy to improve failing schools is to reform our public school system to rely on a system of individual education vouchers. Note, I too am quite concerned about our failing public school system. I join the "progressive evangelicals" in that concern. I suspect the means I've come to believe will respond to this concern, will not be the means the "progressive evangelicals" will choose to support. I may be wrong in this. I'll wait and see.

1 Peter

Scot McKnight:

"Here is how I see 1 Peter working: Peter is trying to figure out, and pass on to his readers, how to follow Jesus when the State has sufficient power to inflict suffering on folks just for believing and behaving as they do (as Christians).

Peter’s emerging response has to be seen for what it is: it the wisdom of the story of Israel and Jesus brought to bear on a new situation. Persecution; suffering; church; social powerlessness. How to live? is Peter’s question. His response is four-fold (one could find other points, but this is enough for now):

1. New birth establishes them as God’s people and grants them hope and eternity.
2. They are to devote their lives to holiness, which I defined as uncontaminated devotion to Jesus.
3. They are to devote their lives to loving others as a community of faith.
4. The above three is the way to transform society (more of this later in the book).

If you are not familiar with Peter, this might surprise you; but if you are, you will know that this is exactly what Peter brings up in his central thematic statement in 1 Peter 2:11-12: be holy, be good, love others.

It would not be hard to imagine other strategies that Peter finds unattractive. But, Peter eschews violence as a tactic; he avoids manipulating the system; he rejects appealing to rights; he never mentions meeting with the politicians; he doesn’t even bring up Roman law.

Peter’s strategy, as a response to the conditions emerges, is sectarian and communal: live as the people of God, completely devoted to what is right, and love one another."

This is interesting, and perhaps relevant to today. The relevance may be rather more indirect than direct.

He writes that the issue is how to live when government has sufficient power to inflict suffering on people for their religious beliefs. It strikes me that government has always had such power. That government, by definition, has this coercive power over our lives.

He notes that Peter does not invoke rights. I wonder if this sends us down a path that is not part of our world today? It seems to me that the innovation of belief in "certain unalienable rights" that all are endowed with by the Creator (who grants us dominion) is a remarkable answer to government's power to inflict suffering on people for their beliefs. It is the idea of "certain unalienable rights" that not only allows us to conceptually explain why government inflicting such suffering is abusing power and is oppresive, but it also provides the mechanism in a system of political economy to constrain government from using power in such oppresive ways.