Quoting the Heritage Foundation‘s David Weinberger:
“Consider why shrinking government is moral. The more the federal government provides for people, the more it deprives them not only of their dignity, but of one of the most sacred rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson: the right to pursue happiness. Why? Because fulfilling happiness comes from earned success, not from unearned handouts. Think about the person we all knew growing up whose parents spoiled him or her. Even if that person wasn’t unhappy at the time (though chances are he or she was unhappy), it teaches that individual to expect handouts, which will likely result in an unhappy adulthood. … Private charities are able to make distinctions between people who truly need help and those who do not, as well as between those who need material assistance and those who need moral refocus, personal counseling, relationship repair or spiritual commitment. … Though well-intentioned, leftism’s commitment to government undermines both the individual pursuit of happiness … and private charity of families and communities who can best provide it to those experiencing hardship. Conservatism, on the other hand, is committed to both, and is precisely why moving the country to the right is moral.”
Filed under: Conservative, Culture, Economy, Family, Government, Politics, Secular Progressive, Socialist Left, Taxes, Worldview Tagged: | David Weinberger, Heritage Foundation, Thomas Jefferson
Weinberger’s argument has a gaping hole in it.
He says “leftism’s commitment to government undermines both the individual pursuit of happiness … and private charity of families and communities who can best provide it to those experiencing hardship.”
If these private charities were actually serving their communities, the government (state and federal) wouldn’t have to be involved.
Many churches bemoan the rate of tithers in their congregations. Sources rate the percentage of Christians that tithe anywhere from 3 to 10 percent. This is why government is so big.
Don’t point the finger at government for doing what the church does not do.
And for the record, The Heritage Foundation was the architect of the Affordable Care Act. Funny how that is now considered one of the programs many conservatives consider to be so far left.
Thank you for your thoughts. I disagree with you about why government is so big but it is nice to hear from the author of a “left of center” blog who cites the need for Christians to give generously to the local ministry of the church. FYI: Although liberal families’ incomes average higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household.
That is an interesting statistic. The notion that liberal household incomes are higher than conservative household incomes certainly defies the preconception (i.e. stereotypes) that I had.
If that charity statistic holds true, it is ironic that conservatives advocate for a government that does less for the poor. If conservatives are giving more than liberals, aren’t they just creating the same kind of dependency the Heritage Foundation is demonizing? Are they saying it is okay for the church and charities to create dependency, but not the government?
Thanks for the dialogue.
If the conservatism we are discussing is based on Christian values, charity is an important concern. It is the responsibility of the individual and the church. However, this does not mean that money is handed out here and there with no discernment. For example; 2 Thessalonians 3:10 reminds us that the “willingness” to work is very important. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation is simply acknowledging that the charitable individual and church are usually much closer to evaluate the individual circumstances of need.
The other issue that must be addressed, however, is “Should a government be allowed to tax (force you to give) your income in order to give the money you have earned to a group it has designated as poor?” In the paragraph above, the type of charity discussed is a voluntary charity based on individual values, beliefs, and decisions. There is no issue concerning the freedom of the individual to do with his property as he sees fit.
The argument is not so much about the legitimacy of taxes as it is about the proper role of government. Is it the proper role of government to force you to pay taxes in order for the government to give to the poor? Typically, conservatives consider protection to be the fundamental role of legitimate government. The government is not to be used as an instrument of individual oppression or for the interests of the few. Such a government is limited in power. It cannot take the fruits of the labor of individual citizens for its enrichment or to give away to others. So, this argument will continue as long as conservatives and liberals hold a different view of the role of government.
If you are asking whether the Christian view of giving will perpetuate a needy class of people, I again refer you to Thessalonians 3:10. I note also this attitude that is found throughout the Scriptures: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.” (Colossians 3:23-24, ESV) Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. (Hebrews 13:16, ESV) I will close with this statement penned by the Apostle Paul: “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35, ESV)