A Running Commentary

Pixilated postulates on politics, pop-culture, and the pursuit of happiness.

A Running Commentary header image 2

On Jesus, Liberalism, and National Governments

May 11th, 2008 · 3 Comments

A good friend of mine recently made an observation in defense of modern liberalism (a.k.a. the Progressivism I detest). His comments went something like this:

I find it really disturbing to hear religious people throw out the “Liberal” term as if it’s a curse word. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus’ say ‘give your possessions to the poor and follow me?’”

Here are my thoughts in response:

I have no issue with Liberalism as a way of life – loving your neighbor and having the attitude of servant is what Jesus taught and what people like Mother Theresa lived out in recent times. The major issue I have is when that concept is integrated into GOVERNMENT, particularly concentrated power in a national government, which is what progressivism, modern liberalism, a.k.a. “nice” fascism advocates. That is, the use of government to regulate everyday life and create heaven on earth. In the ludicrous words of the Obamas’, using government to “fix our souls“. Jesus NEVER advocated governmental involvement. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s but give to God what is God’s (Matt. 22:15-22). Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the rulers of that time who tried to connect religion and government together (the Pharisees) who received Jesus’ stiffest rebukes?

The problem is not the idea; the idea sounds really great. “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” The West Wing Hollywood-TV show idea that government is this wonderful place where good people work together to make the world a better place. The whole thing SOUNDS terrific. But the reality is that national governments are not up to the task.

As Thomas Jefferson said, ”The natural progress of things is for government to increase and liberty to decrease.” That is what governments do naturally. They naturally feed themselves and grow unmanageably large. Every bureau, agency, and commission created by the Federal government to do some good thing instantly becomes another chunk of institution with a mind of it’s own. Governments are thus incredibly susceptible to self-interest, corruption, pork barrel spending, etc. And the more power that is taken from the individual and local government and concentrated in Washington, the worse it gets. The Federal government is like a bureaucratic bull in a china shop - never efficient and never nearly effective as private individuals and groups can be and consistently are.

A perfect example is Africa. Many people both from Africa and heavily involved with charitable works there will tell you what a debacle the US government’s involvement is compared to private groups. Every $1 given directly to a well organized church or similar private entity doing good on the ground there is worth at least $10 spent by the US Federal government. One of the more poignant anecdotes I’ve heard about this are the giant gleaming USAid buildings that dot the continent but don’t really know what or how to do anything. Virtually all of their funds are spent building lavish facilities, maintaining bureaucratic systems, and generating red tape with no practical idea on how to help people. Meanwhile privately driven groups are actually helping people and making a difference.

Another example of government ineffectiveness is the current food crisis which, though being felt everywhere, is hitting the 3rd world countries the hardest. But what is the source of the problem? Certainly not farmers or conditions. There is no massive global drought. Farmers have more than enough land and capability to grow what is needed. Know what the problem is? National governments! National governments in America and Europe have deliberately thrown off the natural economic markets that direct and motivate farmers to grow what the world needs. In typically inept government style, the U.S. Congress and its foreign counterparts have introduced numerous legislative efforts and subsidies to artificially promote the development of ethanol and other uses for agricultural resources.

Thus farmers are motivated to grow corn (known as maize to much of the world) instead of say wheat or rice. That corn is then used to make the horribly inefficient product ethanol to please those green Liberals out there who think that government is fixing something. Government isn’t. It’s making matters worse. Ethanol is horrible for the environment. It actually requires more oil to make a gallon of ethanol that it would to just make the gasoline. The amount of corn it takes to fill the tank of a Chevy flex-fuel SUVs tank ONCE is roughly equal to what it would take to feed a third world family FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

So if being “liberal” means seeing to the needs of others in need I’m all for it. Find a church in Africa building wells for needy villages and support them. Heck, pack a shovel and get on a plane. Just please, for everyone’s sake, don’t trust Barack Obama and the national government to fix any of it. He and his fellow Liberals will just expand the government and hike the tax burden. At 10-to-1 I think the money is better off in our hands than in the US Treasury, don’t you? Government should be involved only when it is absolutely necessary, recognized as the necessary evil that is.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: Believable Politics · I Was Asked...

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Crian // May 15, 2008 at 5:54 am

    I think the Senator has the right idea, and it is something I believe as well that Government has a discernable role to play in the modern socio-economic environment but there has to be a fine balance between giving the people everything and regulating everything between the government stepping in where is necessary. The current GOP policies as far as business and social programs have not worked, maybe it is time to try something else?

  • 2 Nate // Jul 3, 2008 at 6:39 am

    Excellent points all around but one quick correction. The Pharisees did not try to “connect government and religion.” That would be the Sadducees. It was the Sadducees who were in bed with the Roman officials and worked closely with them to maintain “order” by turning over any Jewish rebels or troublemakers. The Pharisees’ focus was on bringing Judaism out of the hands of the Sadducees (whose main focus was Temple ritual) and make it more available to the everyday Jew outside of the Temple. Now you can argue all you want on how sincere some of them might have been with this goal but my point here is that they did not want to connect government and religion. If that was their goal they would have died out with the destruction of the Temple and the Roman collaborators instead of fathering Rabbinic Judaism.

  • 3 A Running Commentary // Jul 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Thanks for the comment – I agree, the Sadducees were the more elite ruling class. I’m speaking more generally in the sense that the Pharisees (a) the name generally remembered as the the religious leaders who plotted against Jesus, and (b) were clearly portrayed in the New Testament as a group who wanted to impose their brand of religion on the people to the point that they could not tolerate an alternative view (Jesus) and therefore both actively sought his death and attempted to similarly silence his followers thereafter.

Leave a Comment