I believe the real big picture issue of government at stake in this election, or any other over the last 60 years, is based on the purpose of government. Many people are rightly tired of individuals who campaign their vote over one issue. So, I’d like to suspend the sexy conversation of minor issues in government for a few pages to make a disciplined pursuit of the major one. In no way would I say that abortion, or homosexual marriage, or the Iraq War, or guns etc. are minor concerns. But the real question is, “what issues are government issues” and “what is the purpose of government”? Government does thousands of things, spends trillions of dollars, and affects all sorts of communities in alls sorts of ways across this country. Nobody sees the sun and moon shift the world’s oceans, but everyday it does. Rarely, do we see how government is changing America because we can’t see past a few issues. The American government today is becoming increasingly socialist and the next two Democratic candidates want to go faster. On the surface, socialism seems very nice. I concede this appearance. If you judge by the surface of things, I would hope you vote Democratic. The old adage goes, “if you are not a communist when you are young, you have no heart, if you are a communist when you are old, you have no brain.” And for those who aren’t aware, socialism is a few steps away from communism.
Let me start off by entirely conceding that from a perspective of “helping people”, I think the democratic party looks better! What do I mean by helping people? I mean, basically, taking care of people’s personal needs. Giving them welfare services, providing jobs, providing healthcare, Medicaid, social services, after school programs, etc. These services I’m going to call “mercy” services. They help people in ways that these people could potentially have helped themselves. But I want to always ask two questions. Is this the purpose of government and is it effective? I am not saying that these services don’t do some good, nor am I saying they should be eliminated in a day. But to say they do some good is not to say they are best or even right. It might have been Ronald Reagan who said, “the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are, “Hi I’m the government and I’m here to help.” This is relatively my point.
I am sure that my friends are good people trying to do good things for this country and others as they go to vote this year. I have confidence in that. What I don’t have confidence in is that people understand the purpose of government. I think the purpose of government is the real issue that drives all the others. And this is where I want to focus.
Government also does other things like police services, safety services, a judicial system, regulatory services (monopoly prevention, FDA, etc.), and national defense. These are basically “justice” services. They are meant to protect people and make order.
The point is that there is a difference between the purpose of different government services. Some are justice oriented and some are mercy oriented. Can government do both? Should government do both? What does the Bible say?
The Democratic party seeks to use government to “help people” with mercy services in a far greater way than the Republican party. We can also distinguish the two directions as “socialist” and “capitalist”. Basically, socialism in America is the idea that government should be bigger and more involved in taking care of people in society. If you believe this to be a good thing, then you should vote Democratic. Of course, both parties will attempt to help people with a few “mercy” services, but the Democratic party leans more toward a vast array and the Republican party leans away from them (ideally).
Before I give my opinions, let’s look at this another way; in terms of “rights”. America was founded to protect the following rights… life, liberty, an individual’s pursuit of what makes them happy, the right to own property and trade freely, the freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly. These are protection rights. They are rights that have been determined (in America) to be in natural existence. So they need protection. (choosing these rights was indeed based largely on a Biblical worldview from guys like John Locke). With the passing of the second bill of rights in the 1940’s American’s were proposed new rights… The right to a job that earns enough to provide for your family, the right to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care, the right to protection of economic fears of old age, accidents, or unemployment, the right to education. These are economic rights. They are benefits that require human work and creativity to produce. And I admit, they sound like wonderful rights. But these “economic” rights do not exist naturally without work. There are no homes or jobs or medical care growing in the forest. Whereas the right of free speech or to own something does grow on trees, so to speak. So the question becomes, if one is to provide people with “mercy” assistance or “economic rights” then who is going to pay the cost of that work? “If some men are entitled by right to the products of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights.” – Ann Rand. The answer to the question is that you and I and other tax payers are providing for some other people who for some reason are not providing for themselves. For example, it is estimated that 46% of American government spending goes to the elderly in the form of Medicare and Medicaid (all defense and Iraq war spending is 20% for comparison) So from the aspect of rights, it is not “just”, as in “justice”, to guarantee economic rights to anyone. Someone will be forced to work for someone else if economic rights are guaranteed.
Again, I admit, it sounds great to help people in all these economic ways. Right now you are probably saying, why would we not want to help people. Am I just saying “tough” to people who need help? Absolutely not.
Remember, the government provides these services using your money (taxes). So, a simple question is, why can’t we just give our own money to help people?
The Bible leads me to personally help people. The government is supposed to be for justice services and to protect me. My point is going to be that in the immediate and in the long run, we are not helping people as well as we could by looking to government. We should be helping people ourselves. Government should be focusing on the justice issues, not assistance programs.
I know how to more effectively use $5,000 to help the people around me than to pay $5,000 more in taxes and give it to the government. I know a bunch of my local church programs that more directly help and personally care for people that could use my money better than the government. I also know how I could get involved. An after school program is not as good as parents and friends being personally involved with their kids. Having family and friends help you when you are injured is better than a government check when you are injured (especially a government check to those who are not actually injured.) Social Security that allows a senior to receive money for food and housing is not as good as Christ’s words about looking after the needs of your own parents.
The idea that everyone is entitled to aid and no one can fall through the cracks is a very liberal idea. No one is born entitled to the work of others. God calls upon us to support ourselves and personally help those who fall through the cracks. If the world cannot do this it is because 1. the world is “fallen” and an imperfect place to begin with, and 2. people are not moral enough to do so. And the morality that inspires true voluntary compassion and care is a church solution and not a government one. If people are falling through the cracks, no impersonal system is going to somehow make some people work for others except by force. And this has already been tried in failed communist states. It is only a “free-will” choice to do good that will save us and we should stop assuming that government will be able to create a systematic method of forced caring.
Christians need to get back to true Christianity that has them care for their friends in need as opposed to this new liberal idea of Christians campaigning for government to care for their neighbors. Christians need to get back to using the church and the fellowship of believers to serve the mercy needs of the community. Isn’t this what the church is for? Isn’t this where we want people looking for help? Or do we want them looking to government? What kind of a message is this? Why would we ask for government to tax us more so it can run poor quality impersonal programs. Why don’t we keep our money and give it to those in need or put it in offering plates at church. Christians should look to government to be just, and not compassionate. Compassion is our job! Christians should look to their churches to be more compassionate. And it is actually not justice to “take from the rich and give to the poor”. That is called stealing. Justice is to make sure there is opportunity for all. Justice is not to make sure that everyone has the same. It is compassionate to give to the poor. But to establish a system where the rich are forced to give to the poor is not justice, it is stealing. Should the rich help the poor. Yes! But either you believe in a system to force them or you believe in influencing them to help of their own free will through Christianity and the rise of the church just like Jesus did. When did Jesus ever ask people to rely on government to help others? He wanted people to help others personally, and to be involved in the solution. The Biblical profits railed against both government and people. They railed against the government for stealing and corruption. That’s because those are injustice issues. They railed against individuals for not caring to help the poor. Those are mercy issues.
Government has assumed the responsibility of making sure that people are provided for in these numerous “economic” ways. And when you take responsibility you also take authority. Government is authorizing itself to take a lot more from all people. The government is also authorizing itself to take more from some people and give it to others. And the more we ask government to take care of us in terms of “economic” or “mercy” needs, the more government will take from us to do so. I don’t just mean, taxes, but also our liberties. As we know in the most socialist of societies, your choice of education or choice of jobs is not yours.
So let us ask some questions… (and we must bear in mind (for the future of our children), that America has had an annual deficit 30 of the last 32 years and currently has 9.2 trillion dollars of debt. These numbers do matter)
When people ask government to take care of them with new services, do they know that they themselves are paying for these services?
Does government make better use of money than you do?
Does government, as an impersonal institution, really help people effectively?
Understanding that we live in an imperfect world, do you think that governmental organization is the hope of a better society or is it not personal moral change?
Wouldn’t it be better if I payed less taxes and used the money to take care of my own grandparents? (bearing in mind the government is spending money on the elderly it doesn’t have)
In a secular society, no one knows where good morals will come from. They don’t ask it. So when secular societies try to be compassionate and do merciful things, they look to the only institution they know to do it through – government. They make government do both justice issues (police, courts, defense, etc.) and compassion issues. But in a Christian culture, and in the Bible, good morals, mercy, and aid, comes from the community of the church. Government is seen as an institution for the provision of justice issues and the church is the source of helping people in the community. Why would anyone want to give more money to government to bless people when they could give money directly to their friend who is sick, or give it to the local church to help people.
Either we go down the false, inefficient, forced, slippery slope of dependance on an impersonal government system for our compassion and care, or we rely on people, by the help of God, to provide personal care for other people’s needs. If you aren’t aware of non-profit or church projects to help people at a more personal level, then find them, and vote in such a way as to pay less taxes so you can do more with your money to help people.
Barack Obama on a major T.V. interview, in the clear context of government economic policy, recently put it this way… He said, “If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t -- what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness,” Obama said.
To me this is the key point of the election. Sure I can give the waitress money if she needs it? Obama frames the question based on our common understanding. But he hijacks the answer to assume that government is the system to do this. He doesn’t mean at all that we should give her the money. He means we should give the government “her” money, and then somehow the government will redistribute it back to her. In fact, government wants the money for itself. That’s what Obama means and that was specifically his point. And who knows the waitress best? If she is my aunt, I want more of my own money to help her. I know her and her needs. I don’t want to give my money to the government and hope it gets back to her. I JUST WANT TO GIVE IT TO HER. I may know that money is not the real problem and help her in other ways. The government has no relational ability to help her. Government can only aid, it cannot develop individuals.
The democratic candidate in this election is the most socialist leaning thinker in the senate. His voting record as a Senator on particular bills says so. He is posing the question… Will you give him more of your money so he can use government to help people with it? Maybe to some this sounds okay. But as it has been tried in history, over time, it has never worked out. And it seems to me that God’s wisdom on the matter is that we don’t look to government as a tool to help each other. That is not what it is designed for. The Bible warned about getting a King saying that he would take much from the people. We should look to ourselves, as members of the Church to help people. Because, as we all should know, all the money starts in our hands. The government doesn’t have a job.