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?