From Wasilla to the White House?

Jeff: I don't know what you mean by reductionist, Brandon.

Brandon: What I mean by reductionistic is that in your thinking, for government to alleviate human suffering ie. poverty, government should allow for total voluntary choice. Because government doesn’t allow for total voluntary choice that that means that it is simply a matter of wanting to have power and control. While I admit that government at times wants to hold on to power and control in manipulative patterns in which others are dehumanized as I admitted that it does when it tells organizations to check their beliefs at the door and thereby extending a secularist programs, why should I believe that it comes down to only this? Why should I believe that government being in the welfare or social assistance program is government wanting to hold selfishly on to power, manipulation and control? Get it? Could there not be more of a reason for government to be involved in the welfare business? Why should it only come down to selfishly holding on to power? This is essentially no different than what Greg says.

Jeff: I guess my view is basically this: The state typically preserves and encourages a level of order that would not be possible without it. But I also think that what Christ seems to be saying when he says the governments of the gentiles lord over people and are, yet, ironically considered to be benefactors is actually the state of affairs at most times throughout history. The average politician is a cynical, self-interested person. Sure, they have their utilitarian ethics that guide them in a pinch. But I don't agree with utilitarianism in the first place. So I agree with Greg that we ought to do as much as possible voluntarily to rob politicians of their rationale for consolidating power. Because they can't do (and have no intentions of doing) these things as efficiently as we can. They purposely build huge beauracracies to garner votes for cush government jobs.

One of the things that I despise about state philosophy is that they speak as if giving is not an act of mercy in any sense, but only a duty (that's why they compel it at the point of a sword). This is thoroughly un-biblical as far as I can tell. Christ says to shew mercy to RECEIVE mercy. He doesn't deny that there is a kind of justice that renders certain giving true mercy. Socialists, Communists, and all collectivist thinkers deny this, in principle. But amazingly, these same politicians are in no hurry to part with their wealth. No, they want to prey upon the relatively small disposable incomes of middle class folks to deceive the poor and enrich the wealthy who, in turn, pay for their campaigns and otherwise consolidate their power. If seeing this makes me a "reductionist," then so be it.

When Christ told his disciples, "but it shall not be thus with you," I don't think he was saying that they were to be pacifists. I think he was saying that governments, TOO, are only authorized to be ministers unto TRUE good in the manner that God intended for them. If they did this, they would be benefactors in a more positive way instead of the bare, necessary evil mode they seem so characterized by. And those of his disciples who wanted to be at his left and right hand in the very Kingdom of God didn't seem to understand the COST of that authority, that was entailed in the nature of that ministry. For where MUCH is given, MUCH is required. They wanted to be deemed as benefactors in that context without having to do the hard work and suffering of actually BEING benefactors.

In short, I'm not anti-state in the sense that Zach is, but I'm opposed to all state policies that seem, to me, to be conducive to incivility. And IMO, there are plenty of such policies in all extant governments. And that's why the state is typically a mere, necessary evil (by virtue of being a lessor of evils) instead of a robust force for that good that is preserved and promoted by justice.

Brandon: Again Jeff, this is SLIGHTLY reductionist. See, I understand that a lot of people, especially Christians have seen so much abuse of position and power that they tend to think that this is ALL politicians do or ALL government wants--to retain power, control and domination. Do you not find anything problematic with “total voluntary charity?” You seem to have A LOT of faith in market systems. Almost a religious faith if I may say.

Allow me to try to put some things in perspective. What the issues are as I see it. First, social need in a society is probably more than any non-governmental organization can handle. In the past, some theologians and scholars have warned against the ideological spirit that you are conveying when you speak total and complete voluntary charity--of alleviating government and/or the community as a whole of responsibility. As interdependent beings we have communal responsibilities for one another. And when we don’t carry those out? Governmental action is needed. In other words, the state must act more directly in coercing submission to patterns of justice.

Now, let’s look at this. There are three types of power.
1. Exploitive power
2. Defensive power
3. Intervening power

Power is the chance to realize one’s own will in communal action even against the resistance of others. It is how we make actual our possibilities of being which God gives us as a gift designed for our lives. Power is ESSENTIAL to life and is not a result of the Fall as Greg says.

Now, in the Fall, sinful actions against others pervert the intentions of God. That is, the ability to act in accordance with one’s created being exists in the context of persons and forces that would thwart the divine intention. THAT’S exploitive power.

The ability to resist others is a necessary and legitimate means to enable us to be creatures that we perceive God intended us to be. This is DEFENSIVE power. This includes having power over material necessities of life which are also God given. There’s a lot in scripture about this. At times there is a lack of defensive power in which e.g. wealth and property are in the power of the stranger. One scholar says that “exploitive power allows lust to work its will.” Thus, when you have unequal power in structures it leads to exploitation.

Basically, what you are talking about Jeff is exploitive power. There are powerful forces that prey on the weak and human sinfulness RESISTS THE FULL COSTS OF THE COMMUNITY’S OBLIGATION. In other words, individual egoism is heightened in group conflict and sin is disguised and JUSTIFIED AS VICTIMS ARE BLAMED FOR THEIR OWN PLIGHT. I mean you see this right? You can see it with regard to how there are certain barriers of interference that impede people from having chances to be equal in the basic goods of society or to be participating members in the community. These just don’t relate to physical handicaps and disabilities but actually go BEYOND that to significant handicaps to be found in poverty and prejudice. Right?

Well, this is where intervening power comes in. Intervening power is an inherent part of social living that supplements the inadequacies of an individual’s or a groups defensive power. Political and economic relief is accomplished by power. Power produces changes to guarantee basic human needs and to resist the forces that deny them. Intervening power is creative as it establishes the power of being by THWARTING EXPLOITIVE POWER. INTERVENING POWER RESTORES DEFENSIVE POWER BY DEFEATING EXPLOITIVE POWER. Got it? So….

Not only do you find God exemplifying this, but you can see this in the biblical material of the ideal MONARCH (a governmental official) in which partiality to the weak is the most striking characteristic of biblical justice. That is, when we see that the poor are constantly the victims of injustice, God and his followers are to take up the cause of the weak. And we see this throughout the Bible. Rulers and leaders are called on to exercise justice through concern for the weak and powerless.

God can act in direct and extraordinary ways, but the proper situation is when the government and other human institutions are faithful channels of God’s intervening power. Groups which we know biblically and socially to be a part of human existence function to make possible the fulfillment of wider obligations.

And this is the problem I have with what you are saying. Because usually those who advocate complete voluntary charity UNDERSTATE THE NEED for governmental intervention and would rely primarily on the FORCES OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION. Well guess what? There is a certain neglect of the pervasiveness of exploitive power, which is so forcefully portrayed in scripture. This neglect contributes to the advocacy of merely individualistic solutions to social injustice and to a mistaken faith in natural harmonies. Know what I mean? You actually have quite a bit of faith that the stars are going to line up so that the market and market harmonies are going to occur such that we can bring about total voluntary charity whether through individuals or NGO‘s.

The problem is that the market provides insufficient control of greed and allows genuine needs to REMAIN UNMET. For many though their economic needs are supplied by the market--the market’s proper and most essential function. However, the needs and desires, are not efficiently distinguished by the market system. The market responds to wants. Whether or not these wants are genuine needs does not matter to market processes. But what is required for the welfare of the poor may not offer the most available profit, if any to the sellers. So, where basic economic need are not provided for, the community as a whole has a responsibility to modify the market process or to supplement it. Ultimately, government action to assist the poor is necessary. I mean, think about it. Biblical realism about power, it should be pretty obvious, is incompatible with a strategy of strengthening the economic position of the wealthy in the hope of eventual benefit to the poor. Again, think about it in terms of the Biblical narratives. When the prophets made indictments of social injustice, it was when poverty increased IN THE MIDST OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION! The Bible portrays a society with a high degree of conflict between the mighty and the lowly, an image that corresponds with the Bible’s portrayal of human nature. Doesn’t or SHOULDN’T a Christian view of the universal depravity prevent us from having too much reliance on the benevolence of the economically powerful??? Hello?!?! Right?

So, because of human sinfulness, human rights cannot be fulfilled by voluntary actions alone. Listen to Jonathan Edwards. He defended the legal obligation of the TOWNS in his day, “to defend every one who otherwise would be an object charity.” People reduced to extreme poverty should not “…be left to so precarious a source of supply as voluntary charity…It is fit that there should be something sure for them to depend upon. BUT A VOLUNTARY CHARITY IN THIS CORRUPT WORLD IS AN UNCERTAIN THING. Therefore the wisdom of the legislature did not think fit to leave those who are so reduced, upon such a precarious foundation for subsistence.”

Basically, because of Scripture’s view of human nature, scripture sees a peril in the lack of (defensive) power and also in an excess of power (the occasion of exploitive power). And think about this. The argument about the politician as a cynical self-interested person can be turned back on you. Reinhold Niebuhr noted that since social injustice is supported by the self-interest of the powerful, it cannot be overcome by appeals to reason. Power is never completely under the control of reason and conscience. Justice must be politically powerful as well as rationally legitimized. Thus ensuring a just distribution of resources to the needy requires the supporting arm of the government. So. Power in the form of the intervening actions of the state is needed because of sin. Access to material goods essential to life, which should be part of the defensive power of each basic unit, often is insufficient, and other individuals and institutions in the community that have the responsibility to aid are reluctant to make the necessary sacrifices. Government action is then needed.

Jeff:  I think you're misinterpreting me, Brandon. I don't for a minute believe markets alone will solve all problems.

Brandon: I never said in my post that that’s what you said. What I said in my post was that you thought that ALL government wants to do is to hold on to control and power which is why you think they won’t give up that power and let voluntary charities or individuals step up to the plate and do what welfare or social assistance does. What I objected to was that you believe that if government would not tax so much, regulate so much, etc. then people would be more free to give. You said earlier:

Then you said:

So are you saying that you believe the government can help because you don’t believe the markets can “solve all problems” (which is not what I said) or do you believe that the government should stay out because government is power hungry? Seriously, I’m having a little bit of trouble following you. Do you mean by voluntary charity going the “free route” that charities should not ask for ANY governmental funding?

I’m not the one that is saying that individuals and charities should not be involved! Nor am I saying that they can’t do it totally on their own. No one is forcing a charity to accept government funding. What I said is that it is an understatement on the part of those who advocate complete voluntary charity of the pervasiveness of exploitive power in structures such that voluntary charities cannot do it alone. At the base of your belief is that if the government funds a charity then that ipso facto is an extension of the government with all of it bureaucratic nightmares. I don’t believe that. Here we have charities doing charitable work and they ask for government funding. That is not the same as your local welfare office down the street. I hope you can see the difference. What I said was that you think that if the economy is more robust via less taxation, regulation, etc, then people will be more willing to give to charities or give themselves. Again, I didn’t say that you said the “markets will solve all the problems.” But saying what you are saying (having a robust economy will increase the likelihood of charity) is tantamount to believing that people will give to charities or as individuals themselves just because the economy is better. And I’m saying that I don’t believe that. Scripture’s whole warning against social injustice is when there was positive economic expansion! It under estimates the pervasiveness of exploitive powers in the structures of society. See the point?