Conservatives rightfully ponder whether there’s any upward limit to the growth of the welfare state or government intrusion, regulation, and expansion; that is, whether there is any point where the liberal mindset would be satisfied and willing to rest from further agitation against traditional values and fundamental processes; i.e. to disassociate from a ill-advised mindset that Marvin Olasky has variously labeled promiscuous material distribution, the subsidizing of disaffiliation, universalizing depersonalizers, a culture of delegated compassion, and false comfort (for the giver and the receiver). Each of his descriptors peels away and exposes additional layers of liberal falsehood and deceit as associated with their politically correct labeled programs. I don’t believe there is a point where leftists will say, “Entitlements and/or government are too big” or, “They are not working.” I hold the following five reasons as support for my position.
First, welfare spending is a simple-sounding solution. It sits right at the top of the stack of quickie fixes and is easy to grab and run with, especially since that would be safely traveling incognito and in the same direction as the rest of the pack. Conservative solutions require thorough thinking, research, and implementation planning with post-execution monitoring, and doing so causes one to stand out, perhaps alone. Because these contrary solutions are opposed and ridiculed by the pack, even to the point of personal slander, advocates must be exceptionally brave and are therefore few in number. Second, it’s a practical and proven Machiavellian method to secure the support of the masses for purposes of gaining and retaining political power. Fabian George Bernard Shaw says, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Third, liberals believe problems like poverty or education are solved just by throwing money at them; they don’t know that solutions require depth and time (see the first reason above). Liberal thinking is: see the problem, throw money at it; still see the problem, throw more money at it. If the problem remains, it must be because conservatives are preventing them from throwing enough money at it. Factually, the money often becomes a major part of the problem. Fourth, they haven’t dealt with the three underlying issues. One is personal sin, like resentment, rebellion, and envy; sin on the part of those allocating the supporting funds and on those receiving them. The second is their genuine guilt (rooted personal sin and overriding rebellion toward God); they falsely assume that this guilt can be avoided or alleviated by mindless funding of issues related to the poor. Until these two factors are recognized and addressed, they remain surreptitious negative influences. Effective remedying of sin and guilt requires responses that promote the healing of their relationships with God and man. The last of the three underlying issues is their erroneous belief in the essential goodness of mankind. A brief review of just the twentieth century should be convincing proof to the contrary. Fifth, giving tax money to the poor is an outlet for liberals to feel self-righteous. Leftists live outside of a truly righteous relationship with God and they are not motivated by biblical principles. Therefore, tax-based giving inoculates them from having to deal with the underlying truths they seek to avoid. After all, big government is their god, so let their god give; that’s what gods are for.
Olasky writes: “Cultures build systems of charity in the image of the god they worship” and “It seems that our ideas about poverty always reflect our ideas about the nature of man, which in turn are tied to ideas about the nature of God.” He goes on to say that in early America, when a theistic God of mercy and justice was the center of our policymaking, our compassion could be described as “hard-headed but warm-hearted”. To tax-and-spend, big government believers, the Christian God is like the conservative citizen: supposedly stingy or unconcerned. Recipients and proponents of everything-for-nothing politics, regulations, beliefs, and lifestyles often wrap themselves in a deceptive cloak they call social justice. It would be more difficult to sell their true objectives if they nakedly called them what they are: Communism, or one of its many insidious sister forms: Socialism, Fabianism, ultra-liberalism, Marxism (including neo-Marxism and cultural Marxism), Frankfort School Philosophy, corporate fascism, and progressivism. All these social change theories and -isms have the same underlying motivations: envy and resentment, as well as rebellion against traditional biblical standards. Claiming to promote an ambiguous and ethereal fairness, the leaders are purveyors of class and race division. Their violent reactions to fabricated hate crimes are the true, overt acts of hatred, thus removing their benign outer sheep coverings to display the ravenous wolves within. Their varying belief systems are slightly different paths to the same destination: a life filled with abiding attitude of ingratitude. Many advocates infiltrated the church, education, and legal professions during and after the 1960s, some disguising themselves as Christians and preferring to appropriate and misuse spiritual and pastoral titles such as Reverend to gain credibility – applying them far more extensively for political purpose and personal gain than for spiritual practice.
Those religious leaders endorsed by the liberal media should go unheeded by true adherents to Christianity – if not outright opposed. Genuine spiritual leadership is sourced in a personal, covenantal relationship with our Creator and its societal expression is pastoral in nature; it’s not a radical political position, a program to solely benefit a factional group, a personal fund-raising platform, nor a fleece-the-rich economic practice. These people are proponents of self-centered, contrived faith, to which they bestow coded labels like the social gospel and libertarian theology, and which they primarily apply to tangential community issues like race or class relations and welfare programs. These are perverted forms of Christianity fashioned into their own worldly image for personal gains in income, popularity, and power. It grossly distorts Jesus’ purpose by claiming, in essence, that He was a Robin Hood-like historical figure who advocated that His disciples take from, and subdue, the rich while giving to those in need, thus making Him an income redistributor just like them. It ameliorates the commandment referencing not to covet the neighbors’ goods. Jeane Kirkpatrick states: “I conclude that it is a fundamental mistake to think that salvation, justice, or virtue come through merely human institutions.” The social gospel is a precursor to Communism, and Communism is always intimately linked to atheism; it is a world system that not only ignores God, but actively hates God and opposes the body of Christ on earth. Psalm 83:2-3 warns: For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones.
The practice of true Christianity is the best expression of, and most effective means of, relevant charity. It requires caring for the needy, both spiritually and physically, by letting God work His purposes through us as we agree with Him and yield to Him – including our purses and wallets. To accomplish these ends, Jesus promoted charitably giving out of our own blessings, time, and production; not forcibly taking from our neighbor and then giving or keeping what is not ours. That isn’t godly no matter what label it’s been accorded; and it certainly isn’t noble or wise. Such methods are neither self-sustaining nor effective. Taking from others without their approval is theft, not charity. John Timmer’s Dutch parents hid Jews in their house during the Holocaust. He wondered what motivated his parents to take such risks with six of their biological children in the home. John concluded that God shows compassion (aka charity, care, or welfare) to us, so we are expected to show the same to others. In taking such actions, he says, “rescuers make themselves the equal of the rescued because both are equally dependent on the compassion of God”.
Olasky writes that making contributions because they’re tax deductible is not nearly as involved, direct, or effective as offering a room in your house to a homeless person or to a pregnant, abandoned woman. Gilt-edged liberals remotely operate their charitable practices hands-off from an insulated safe distance, assuring that they suffer no personal cost or inconvenience while smugly basking in the reflection cast by their very public humanitarian gestures. Someone must, however, pay the real costs caused by their fallacious generosity, and it’s usually the working/giving/caring middle class. Peggy Noonan writes in “How the Elites Forsake Their Countrymen” that those in power positions who enact these programs and policies see their countrymen not as countrymen but as aliens who must be anticipated and managed so that those non-elite others remain responsible for getting their hands dirty with implementation and payment of the ultimate costs. She says “affluence detaches, power adds distance to experience….there is a distance between the leaders and the led.” (For clarification, the elitists to whom Peggy and I refer are those at the pinnacle of influence in their fields who directly form public policy and opinion from places and positions like Washington D.C., Hollywood, the mainstream news media, Wall Street, the courts, and the universities – clearly not those in the middle classes who carry the entitlements load or those in the lower classes who are the beneficiaries of it.)