Scott for Governor!

My good friend Scott Nehring was a speaker at the biggest tea party in Minnesota - in Saint Paul. Here's the video. He rocked the open-area-in-front-of-the-capitol-building. I heartily endorse his message.

Something I'm Proud Of

The sounds of wringing hands over the number of people America locks up is growing louder and louder. Here is a nice corrective, from the left no less.

I am completely unmoved by these concerns. On the contrary, I am proud that my country has seen fit to spare the resources to lock all these people up. It shows a creditable compassion toward actual and potential crime victims. And I think it's worth every penny, because crime is horrifically expensive.

Do I care how we fare in world league tables? Not a bit. Maybe if they emulated us, they would enjoy our lower murder rates.

I'm Fine with Feingold

I very rarely get to say this, but today I am proud of my senator, Russ Feingold. I disagree with just about every one of his votes, but at least I have the consolation of knowing he's a principled man. Now I get to really bask in his principles, because he voted against the confirmation of the tax cheat for head of the IRS (Tim Geithner for those of you not paying attention). For some reason this small episode bothers me a great deal (and the more I delve into the sordid details, the more bothered I become).

Feingold was one of only three Democrats to do the right thing.

The Impossibility of Doing Nothing

Why does everyone agree that we have to have a trillion dollar "stimulus package"? For the same reason you can't have a game like Civilization IV or SimCity in which a winning strategy is to do nothing. There is no such thing as a libertarian RTS game. It's all command and control.

Similarly, that's what everyone at the top is there for: to do something. Anything. Everything. Their entire "raisin de etra"* is to do something. This guy has related thoughts.

* quoting Nathan Arizona here.

Go Thou and Vote Likewise (part 2)

Some Christians want to link Christ's command to help the poor to the left's social welfare ambitions. What is the reasoning here? It's always dangerous to analyze one's opponents' unstated reasoning, but I'll try to be fair*:

If we have an obligation to help the less fortunate, then we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to do so. Private charity is great, but it just doesn't have the reach that our Federal Government does. We could accomplish so much more if the entire nation pitched in and helped.

I believe the nub of this argument is utilitarian in nature. By utilitarian I mean that it compares the outcomes of two approaches and measures the utility (happiness, relief of suffering, however you want to define it) each generates. In this case, harnessing the national government to the task results in more alleviation of poverty than private efforts alone. Therefore, we as Christians had better do all in our power to make it happen. Ergo vote Dem.

The interesting thing about a utilitarian justification is that the favored solution had better deliver the goods. It isn't enough to have good intentions**, the proposal has to work.

So does increased social spending work? Debatable. So debatable, in fact, that many hectares of our arborial friends have been pulped to print the controversy. I say no, for many reasons (moral hazard, generational poverty, harm to marriage, and on and on). But you don't have to believe me - our country recently participated in a gigantic experiement, called Welfare Reform, in which social spending was significantly restricted, with salutary results.

So if it doesn't work, or we can't agree whether it works, why should I, as a Christian, be obligated to support it? It seems the burden of proof should be on those who think this will help, not me.

To sum my first argument: if increased social spending doesn't help the poor, then I don't have to support it. In fact, I might be on the hook as a Christian to oppose it, but that's an argument for another time.

As I stated before, I think my first argument is the weakest of the three, partly because it's hard to get agreement on the efficacy of government social spending, partly because it's not really a Biblical argument. Tomorrow, I will present a much stronger case.

* I'm also going to try to reduce my level of snark in this discussion. This is a serious topic and people on the other side deserve respectful consideration and response.

** Many, especially on the left, would disagree. If the intention is good, the policy result doesn't matter. If that's the case, I'll just gin up some really good intentions as I vote (R).

Go Thou and Vote Likewise (part 1)

During and after the 2004 election, one could detect rumblings of dissatisfaction on the left over the "God gap" between the two parties. This was not only a response to a loss of votes. The self-righteousness that animates much of the left is jealous of any rival claim to virtue.

At first the response was purely negative: religion mixed with politics is bad. And not just a garden variety sort of badness. They meant a constitution-threatening sort of badness*. But this could never be the stopping point. Smart leftists realized how much they could profit from coopting a religious approach to politics. There is tacky marketing side of this ("What Would Jesus Drive", PETA's claim that Christ was a vegetarian, Jesus was a community organizer, etc.). But there is also a more serious and growing effort to insist that Christian teaching is really more consistent with the Democrat's public policy platform. The obvious contradiction between their first reaction and their second has not seemed to trouble anyone on the left, at least that I have been able to find.

The big three policy disputes in which the left thinks it has a spiritual advantage are war, the environment, and poverty. I think their most powerful and compelling argument concerns the last one, poverty and its alleviation. Led by Christians like Jim Wallis, many have pointed to the concern for the poor that is woven through the entire Bible. If Christians think the government should do something about abortion, why should poverty be any different?

It's an excellent question and one I have thought a lot about. I face somewhat of a conflict here for a couple of reasons. First, by temperment and conviction, I am a free-marketeer. I passionately believe that market economies benefit everyone, not just me, or rich people, or owners of capital.** On the other hand, I have submitted my will to Christ's will, so I have to make sure all my thoughts, commitments, and passions are in alignment with his. Second, my attitudes and acts of mercy (few as they are) toward the poor do not measure up to Christ's commands. I have to be careful that my response to the religious left's challenge is not defensive self-justification.

I have distilled my thinking in this area into three ideas. This week, I will be sharing these bullet points, in reverse order of how I estimate their force and importance.

* I meant to link to a bunch of the books I could find written in this vein but when I did a search on Amazon, there were so many I just gave up. Search terms would be "religious right threat."

** When the left charges the right with selfishness, it drives me to distraction, because my opposition to their proposals has nothing to do with my own self-interest.

Rest of series here, here, and here.

Hanna on Huck

Hanna Rosin is an editor at the Atlatntic. She wrote a piece for Slate on the "secret" Huckabee Sermon Tapes. There's not much there except for speculation, but she does manage to get her hands on one sermon (from Ebay). Here she excerpts Huck the pastor:

"How many times do we find ourselves on the surgery table of the Almighty God, who is trying to work His surgery to make us more like Christ, and we say 'God, let me out of here! Lord, don't touch me!' " he thunders towards the end. "It's not that we can't be Christians. The sad fact is most of us don't want to be enough to try our faith to the point of patience and perseverance."

Here is her reaction, which ends her essay:

It's one thing to know a presidential candidate was a pastor; that sounds worthy and leaderlike. But it's quite another to actually hear him work himself up into a lather about committing to Christ and not back it up with a joke.

Purloined Primaries and Confounded Caucuses

I have never voted in Wisconsin primary* in which the results meant anything. I thought this year would be different, but I am disappointed once again.

Now I wonder how much mischief idle Republican voters can make in the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses. Those contests will make a difference. Even if I thought such trickery to be ethical (which I don't), I would be terrified that my machinations might have horrible, unintended consequences. For instance, if I thought Hillary was the weaker candidate and I voted for her in the primary, and she were elected president, could I look at myself in the mirror? Or would it result in a lot of razor nicks on my already scarred face?

*It may be the case that I have never voted in a Wisconsin presidential primary at all. My memory fails me.