Economic conservatives–people who hoped the Republican Congress would reduce existing government barriers to free enterprise–are down in the dumps. It appears that expectations generated by the November 1994 election were well above the ability of this Congress to perform. From their point of view, after all the battles on taxes, regulations, the budget, and more, nothing really dramatic took place. Even though the good guys, for once, were in charge of the purse strings, from all appearances, it was business as usual in Washington.
Most people are taught to believe free markets are a form of social Darwinism; the theory that everyone fights for what they get and only the strongest survive. In our American system of free markets, cooperation is the key. This means voluntary exchanges are made between consenting parties. You can only do something in a market system that other people want. This maximizes the efficiency of resource use.
During the Middle Ages, children born out of wedlock were often abandoned to the church or left to the streets and the kindness of strangers. In Latin they were termed expositi –the exposed ones. The skyrocketing rate of illegitimate births in America today, unprecedented in human history, has vastly deepened many of our social problems. The kindness of strangers must still be insisted upon, but is no solution. Government subsidy has proven to be an illusory measure as well.
This welfare edition of Religion & Liberty has begun to state clearly the argument that the solutions to the current welfare crisis rest not with government but with communities. Government is compassion’s least able practitioner.
In the movie “Schindler’s List”, Oskar Schindler, a Catholic, quotes an expression his father had often used; and I could imagine my own father saying something rather similar. He would say: “There are really only three people in life that you need depend on: a good doctor, a forgiving priest and a clever accountant.”
Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, was once asked why he robbed banks. He responded by saying, “Because that’s where they keep the money.” Perhaps we can learn something from Mr. Sutton’s response. In one short statement he pinpointed the cause of the national debt and continuing deficits. The popular wisdom today assumes that the federal government can provide an overflowing abundance of goods and services in place of the scarcity that people face in reality.
Think back to the last time you heard someone from the pulpit in your church talk about money, the Bible, and your spiritual life. On those occasions when pastors venture into this area, the focus is often and rightly on matters of the heart and one’s attitude toward money and possessions.
The American public is still being cheated out of a welfare debate that will address in fundamental ways the disintegration of our neighborhoods and of our country.
Many of our current economic problems have their roots in the moral crisis of our day. In these times of moral turmoil many have mistakenly equivocated government sponsored welfare with the virtue of compassion. Compassion is an adjective frequently used to describe state supported social programs. The question needs to be raised: Is State welfare truly compassionate? Are we really serving the human needs of the people with state handouts?
At present an alarming crime wave is engulfing Russia and is threatening to spiral out of control. Professor Mikhail Gelvanovsky of Moscow’s Orthodox Charity Center of Social Protection reflects a widespread fear when he points out, “In the past we had the Iron Curtain; now people need iron doors to protect themselves against the growing number of thieves.” Three to five thousand gangs now control some 40,000 businesses.
By now most readers of this journal are familiar with arguments that the charitable impulse is not well-served by institutions of the modern welfare state. Indeed, many are persuaded that the modern state feeds itself from the fount of charitable feelings that have been created by the Judeo-Christian tradition. The state, by exploiting this ethos, has created a situation in which people feel more like suckers than Samaritans.
In a peculiar ideological twist, some opponents of abortion are opposing cuts in aid to single mothers. Many prolifers including National Right to Life, fear that such reductions in benefits will lead to an increase in abortions. Even Henry Hyde has joined Patricia Shroeder in being skeptical of welfare reform. If this argument persuades, it could weaken ties between the Republican party and the anti-abortion movement.