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).
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).
Labels: Christianity, Politics, Poverty, Welfare
posted by Jeff Burton at
3:00 AM
|
0 Comments
Links to this post
