#55906 On being a liberal or conservative in the Church

[vorpal blade]

1. I consider myself a conservative, for the most part, so I figured that your arguments would be similar to mine, so I didn't feel a need to ask.
2. I didn't criticize you; I just gave a name to what you were accusing the Black Sheep of. For knowledge's sake, only.
3. What the heck. I'll bite. What do you think a real conservative would say, Vorpal?

1. I'd be interested in hearing if the comments I make in this post reflect the same kind of arguments you would have made.
2. I appreciate it. My comment was directed at Imogen.

3.Thanks for asking, Damasta. You know, it is one thing to have in the back of your mind an idea of why conservatives oppose some government programs, but it is another to actually put them down in words. Thanks for challenging me.

I’m not sure of how to proceed, but I thought I might take the Black Sheep’s arguments of what she thinks conservatives believe and show how this is similar to a stronger argument we actually believe. When I say stronger I mean an argument for which we think it is more difficult for non-conservatives to counter. We know that they have their own arguments, and will attempt to shoot down ours. We just find their arguments less compelling. Opinions do vary. I’m not trying to refute the Black Sheep, just provide better arguments for the conservatives.

First, the section of the Black Sheep’s answer that I am addressing in this post:

Poverty: All the biggest issues as far as I’m concerned have to do with severely disenfranchised people, mainly people in poverty, the mentally ill, the uninsured, the homeless, and the disabled. It just isn’t moral to not provide some sort of a safety net for these kinds of people. I believe in loving my neighbor as myself, and I just can’t imagine not providing something for those who cannot do it themselves. Some people believe it isn’t the responsibility of the government to handle this kind of thing, but they don't accept this argument in matters like abortion or gay marriage because they believe that morality should prevail. Some people say that charity would be better suited at meeting this need, but I call bullcrap. Fact is that nothing else is big enough to deal with these sorts of problems other than government. People wouldn’t contribute enough to enough different charities to address the problem in even the shoddy way it is being addressed now. I mean, if charity alone were a viable solution, we wouldn't be having this problem because charity would be making a much larger impact than it is. Some people feel that government shouldn’t deal with these problems because government screws up everything. I agree with the screwing up part, but that just means we need better politicians and better ideas. It doesn’t let us off the hook. I’m all about the idea of self reliance, but just because you came from a white middle class background and you probably have a huge, white middle class family and you have a church behind you that will help you out of a tight spot if you ever need it doesn’t mean that everyone does. Some people take advantage of the system, and that stinks, but the majority of people that welfare and Medicaid go out to are battered women and their children, the seriously mentally ill and their children, people who cannot work due to injury or disease and their children. (Even in cases where it goes to people who take advantage of the system, it also hopefully goes out to their children, who are too young to have been lazy or to have made bad decisions and who shouldn't be made to suffer any more than they have to.) It just isn’t moral to let these people suffer and ask them to impossibly pick themselves up. If you take away these types of programs and important regulations that protect workers, you’re in the 20s staring down The Jungle. And that’s IMMORAL.

And now for the conservative opinion remarks.

Some people believe it isn’t the responsibility of the government to handle this kind of thing, but they don't accept this argument in matters like abortion or gay marriage because they believe that morality should prevail.

Rather than say it is not the responsibility of the government, a conservative might say that the government has no moral or constitutional right to hand out money to poor individuals, just because they are poor. We believe the government does have a moral and constitutional right to deal with matters of the general welfare, such as abortion and a definition of marriage, but it is not because we believe that “morality should prevail.” Maybe you think it is a small difference, but I think it eliminates the idea that somehow conservatives are being inconsistent in the matter. Starting with the watered-down “the responsibility of the government” would help the Black Sheep’s argument.

Some people say that charity would be better suited at meeting this need, but I call bullcrap.

“Better suited” is too weak a phrase. Conservatives believe meeting the needs of the poor through any other means than charity (or the poor helping themselves, of course) is immoral. It is immoral for several reasons. Consider the analogy of your neighbors getting together and voting, over your protest, to take forcibly your property and give it to another individual, just because that individual doesn’t have as much wealth as you do. I suppose the neighbors mean well, but it doesn’t stop this from being immoral. Granted, your neighbors may have the legal right, depending on the covenants or agreements of your neighborhood’s rules or constitution, to take some of your property for certain specific purposes for the general welfare of the neighborhood, which purposes could not or should not be done by individuals, and which you agreed to when you joined the neighborhood. Something may be legal, but still immoral.

Another immoral aspect of government enforced charity is that for many people it pushes off to another entity what they can and should do as individuals to help the poor. It is immoral to take away from our children and grandchildren their right to decide whether or not they wish to contribute to helping the poor. It is immoral to create a false secular religion where the people look to government--as an expression of the general will in the sense of the French Revolution--for salvation rather than to God.

It is immoral to “encourage poverty” by encouraging “more and more people to move into the ranks of those being taken care of by the government,” as Senator Barry Goldwater predicted would happen with President Johnson’s “war on poverty.” (Charles Mohr, “’Viva Goldwater’ Greets Senator,” New York Times, February 16, 1964, p. 47.) History has shown that Barry Goldwater was right. At first large amounts of government funding did lift many people above the official poverty line, but it did not take them out of government dependency. Eventually even this artifical reduction in poverty changed, and a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964, when the “war on poverty” began. (U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports Series P60-185, p.ix. Note that the percentage of poor in the population was not higher, just the absolute number of people in poverty.) In the decade prior to the start of the “war on poverty” the number of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line had been declining. (James T. Patterson, America’s Struggle Against Poverty, pp. 64-65.)

When you believe that it is immoral to have government efforts to assist individual poor people you see that it doesn’t matter if charity isn’t adequate or “big enough” to do the job. You cannot expect success using immoral methods to achieve your ends. The Black Sheep’s argument would be an excellent argument if the conservative argument were only a matter of “better suited at meeting the need.” The whole idea of charity, the Lord’s method, being inadequate reminds me of Satan’s promise to redeem all mankind using force, because God’s method was inadequate to redeem some who feared they would become disenfranchised people.

Some people feel that government shouldn’t deal with these problems because government screws up everything.

The conservative says that government shouldn’t deal with these problems because government does not have the power to change an individual’s human nature, only God has that power, and he only uses it when he has our active consent. It isn’t about better politicians or better ideas.. It is about the “nature of man, the nature of the world, and the nature of causation, knowledge, power, and justice.” (Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy, 1995, p. 104.)

I’m all about the idea of self reliance, but just because you came from a white middle class background and you probably have a huge, white middle class family and you have a church behind you that will help you out of a tight spot if you ever need it doesn’t mean that everyone does.

The conservative puts a high value on self reliance, and also on our individual responsibility to reach out and help the less fortunate.

It just isn’t moral to let these people suffer and ask them to impossibly pick themselves up.

The conservative doesn’t say that we should let people suffer and expect them to do things for themselves that they cannot do. The conservative says that it just isn’t moral to make people suffer and make it harder for them to pick themselves up as government programs do which foster a dependency on the government, and provide a power base for certain politicians to continue these failed programs. Furthermore the conservative voluntarily contributes to helping the people who are in need, at the same time asking the needy to do whatever they can do for themselves.