It would appear, if you’ve read this blog for any length of time, or happened across some of the more commented on posts, that many of my views place me into a particular political category. I think one of the sad reason I and others get pigeon hold into a political party is because of the polarization of the issues and the parties. As soon as you start to talk about certain issues (environment or health care), you get written off as democrat, placed in that category by people on both sides of the divide and your left by and large, unable to make your own decision on the matter or the issues.
I want to be honest and forthcoming about my political loss of innocence and any political background that brought me to where I am today. We’ve got to start somewhere so here we go…
Prior to my freshman year of college I could not have told you what democrat or republican, red or blue, meant as it relates to politics. I didn’t know which was which or what issues they stood on or why.
Now, I wasn’t completely naive, I had been told Bush was a christian and remember praying for him during the 2000 elections while at YWAM Denver. I went to a large church in Madison, WI in high school where politics came up very little but I knew abortion and homosexuality were wrong. I couldn’t have told you what political party Bill Clinton was, only that he was a morally repulsive man because of his affair and that it most certainly affected his ability to run the free world and that he should be impeached.
—
Then came that life-defining moment in history for many of us, 9/11. Actually, it was 9/12/01 when I officially lost my political innocence. Picking up a paper the following day and reading the words of our ‘christian’ president: “The Day Our Nation Saw Evil” plastered across the front of every newspaper in the country. To put it plainly: it seemed like the most theologically incorrect statement he could have made. Wasn’t this guy supposed to be a Christian?
I should rewind a little bit because something had changed for me right in between those last two paragraphs. I had started reading my Bible. I read through the gospels that summer, then I went ahead and read the whole thing, skipping around a little bit, but making sure I read every word, cover to cover. Jesus seemed entirely different. And I began trying to figure out what happened politically that the guy I thought we’d prayed into office looked nothing like the Jesus he and I claim to follow.
This next part you’ll have to take my word on. I didn’t pick up a liberal propaganda textbook, didn’t join the campus democrat brainwashing club, or even subscribe to some Christian-bashing news paper. I simply continued to read scripture and dialog with friends. Particularly, we discussed the issue of war, as our attack on afghanistan and subsequent building toward war with Iraq was at the forefront of the news and our conversations.
And now, a few years later, I find my self somewhat pigeon holed into an ambigious label, and I don’t like it. I never really had a chance to explore the political parties completely, simply said what I thought on the issues and was pointed toward the party to affiliate with. Recently, I’ve been learning a tiny bit more and trying to figure out if I might not be far left, but rather very very far right.
You see, with the government taking loads of tax dollars and spending it on stuff, I’m in support of it being spent on social services, education, health care and more, thus labeling me a democrat. However, I’m only for big government as an alternative or a balance to the military industrial complex.
Here’s the radical right idea I’ve been toying with, that might lend some insight into where I stand now… I would vote for the option of doing away with all social services, as long as we also did away with all military spending. Maybe even police too, I’m not sure. And, yes this is a hypothetical that doesn’t seem to be even a remote possibility, but like I said, it might give some insight into where I stand politically. It’s sort of libertarian leaning, however I don’t think they want to do away with the military so I’m definitely not in agreement with that. Maybe it’s anarchist party (which I don’t think exist around here).
I would love to talk to you sometime about this. Very interesting stuff.
What about the Green party?
There is more I could comment on, but for now, this:
Are you serious that you think it would be either good or bibical to have no organized protection in the form of a military force against countries or groups who would like to invade or conquer our country? Do you seriously think it would be smart or biblical to have no organized protection in the form of the police to protect you against those in your town who would like to steal from you, harass, torture, rape, or kill you?
I am just trying to get my head around what you are saying here. I know that you know that there are people who do bad things, so I am wondering whether you think they should just be allowed to do their thing. I can only figure that you are thinking of “turning the other cheek” and “walking the extra mile”.
I personally see having a military and police force as a means of protecting the innocents, which I think is biblical (citations to follow when I get a chance). Whether they always only do that, or do it well is a separate discussion.
This is actually not libertarian thinking at all – they believe generally that one of the only proper functions of government is to protect the citizenry from bad people. What you are describing is pacifism.
One other quick thing – I am not sure I understood your turning point on the “Our nation saw evil” thing. Wasn’t what the hijackers did evil, and did we not see it? I’m sincerely confused.
OK, time for one more question:
You say “I’m in support of it [tax money] being spent on social services, education, health care and more.”
As I said in my post from a couple of days ago, I understand believing that doing good things to help people is good, which is the result that you are talking about there.
What I don’t get is how you make the leap from “doing good things is good, and biblical” to “taking money from people who may not want to give it in order to pay for doing good things is good or biblical”.
If the ends justify the means for involuntary taking of money through taxes to pay for social services, then why would any method you use to raise money not be ok, so long as what you are spending it on is “good”.
Seems to me you could make the same argument for, having the government run meth factories, or brothels, or even murder-for-hire services, all for a fee, out of which they would pay for social services.
These examples may sound silly to you, but think about it. Where does the taking end? What means of raising the money to pay for the “good” services can be wrong? If taxes are o so long as you are paying for “good” with them, then why not other forms of taking? Why not take over whole industries and use the profits for “good”? Why not, say physically seize doctors and make them treat poor people for free? Providing health care to the poor and helpless is good, so making doctors provide it must be good as well. I could go on.
And, by the way, where would the services end? If single payer [i.e. government run] healthcare is good, why not single payer housing, or food, or anything else?
Tanden, let’s talk.
Jamie, definitely voted Green before.
Aaron, your two comments seem to come from arguments on opposite ends of the spectrum. Though some of my opinion on the military is motivated by my view of scripture (more on that tomorrow), a lot of it is following the same argument you gave above (your second comment). If you hold to the second argument, which I think you do, then what justifies “involuntary taking of money through taxes to pay for social services” (like the military)?
You are correct that if you grant that taxation is involuntary taking, then you need a good reason. I am not saying that taxation is always wrong. In fact, more than necessarily positing anyting in my comments todat, I am rather asking you to explain where you are coming from.
Now, although I asked you first, I’ll briefly answer your question to my question: police and military power, properly used, is something that only concerted group effort can achieve. It is also justified because it is necessary for protection from those who would otherwise eat us alive, whether they are criminals or unfriendly countries. In addition to that, both police and military activities are explicitly Constitutional. (Social programs are not, by the way. And the military and police are not social programs in the way that caring for the poor, or providing healthcare for all, etc. are.)
So, do tell:
Do you not think we would be toast if there were no police or military? I can’t imagine you would have any other expectation. Clearly if we had no cops and no military, we would last a week, maybe, and that would be true for any country. Do you think that is ok because Jesus said to “turn the other cheek”?
If taking money by force is ok because the use of the money is good, then what’s wrong with government meth, prositutes, hitmen, or forced service to achieve the same good?
And if single payer healthcare is good, then why not single-payer everything else?
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to get you to think about your positions. If what you are suggesting is in fact reasonable or biblical or both, then you can deal with these questions.
BTW, to all you constitutional lawyers out there reading this, what I mean about constitutionality is that military and police powers are explicitly provided for in the Constitution. School lunch programs, for example, are not. Some programs may or may not be constitutional in a broad sense. They may or may not be reasonable or smart or well-run. I may or may not be in favor of them. My point is not to take a stand against all government programs or spending. My point is to ask what basis or argument or justification you have of those of you who would like to see more and more programs and more and more money raised from taxes spent on those programs.
Just saying that people need the services is not enough of a justification for taking tax money to pay for it. If it were, then you should take all you could in every way and use it for the common good. That is basically the definition of communism and socialism.
Some people are straight up communists and socialists and proudly so. I appreciate their candor and self-awareness. So, what separates those of you who believe in the goodness or effectiveness or justness of expansive government services from the philosophy of the communists or socialists who believe that individual citizens should not be trusted with personal property or the means of production lest they accumulate too much wealth for themselves, or oppress those who work for them? If some taking of property for some services is good, then why not more taking for more services?
I am absolutely not yelling “Commie!” at anyone. I am asking a sincere question about what you think about this. Maybe in thinking about this you will decide that “yes, socialism is for me”. Or, maybe you will decide that we should be very careful in how much we allow the government to take and how much we ask it to provide, lest we reach a tipping point that we don’t want to pass.
Aaron,
Thanks for humoring me a bit. This is something I am still working through, so my thoughts are still in progress, at best.
I’m not quite satisfied with your answers, mainly, I’m not sure why police and military fall into a different category than health care and others. But, you gave me a response, and that’s better then I’ve given you so far.
Do you not think we would be toast if there were no police or military?
We, the USA, maybe. We’ve definitely upset enough individuals, nations, and people to expect it (regardless of whether you think our actions were right or not). But in general I don’t think any country without a military would be ‘toast.’ Like I said, I suggested this somewhat as a hypothetical, because that’s all we can possibly go on. You think we’d hypothetically be toast, I could create a hypothetical where we slowly disband our military and destroy our weapons and filter all that money and resources to providing healthcare nationally and internationally, providing schools for all internationally, ending world hunger and more. And everyone would be so happy no one would ‘toast’ us.
I’m of the opinion that we as a society can make collective decisions on what collective services we can and should provide to our community. I think Libraries are a great public service. So far I’m happy with the postal service, though some say it’d be better to privatize. The road system has been a good public service, so have state parks. Personally, I think we’ve grossly abused the public service of military spending. I’m thinking meth labs and prostitutes might not be the best use of our collective resources, though some might disagree.
The way you paint the picture of involuntary forced giving is a picture I feel like I could agree with in our military spending, but not necessarily in our individual spending. To quote some dude from British Parliment:
“If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people”
I knew you would say something to the effect that it is the fault of the US that people would want to hurt us. I almost said so in anticipation, but I was tired of typing. Yes, some would say that some ppl hate us because of our foreign policy, etc. Even if that were not an issue, we’d still be toast, as would any other people.
Look, history and common sense tell us that there are bad people who want to kill, steal, and destroy. It is frankly naiive or something along those lines to think that if we are just nice to those people and do them no harm that they will leave us alone, whether that goes for people around the corner or around the world. Tell the Rwandans that they don’t need protection from bad people. Tell the Africans and Native Americans of 400 years ago that no one will bother them if they just mind their own business.
My point is that if there is no protection, there will be no safety.
As for why protection is in a different category from things like welfare, a couple of points:
First, protection is for everyone, not just a chosen few. We all need it, we all use it, and we all should pay for it (though most do not, because they have been taken off the tax rolls by politicians, which leads me to my next point).
Secondly, the problem with government-, and therefore politician-run benevolence is that it quickly becomes a situation where politicians use benefits to buy votes. I’ll note now, as I should have with the other, that I know that some say that politicians buy votes with favors to corporations or the wealthy. Think about this though – who can buy more votes from more people? The politician who delivers the goods for a few fatcats, or the politicians who delivers the goods for the millions of “poor” people in the country? If you just listen to politicians who are in favor of more govermnent benevolence, the rhetoric is all about how much they will give you, or do for you, or what problems they will solve for you, and about how they are going to make the rich “pay their fair share”, etc. They cut taxes on the lowest income earners, but give them more services. That makes it looks like the stuff really is free, and they dig it. Meanwhile, the tax burden gets shifted to the wealthier folks who think that it is bogus that they pay all this money for services that they do not use. It creates class-based envy, which divides us.
Look man, people like you who get down and dirty helping individuals are the people who do it because you mean it. People like politicians who want to give help and provide services do so because they want power. Why would you want to trust them to do “good”?
I’ll answer your quote with another:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison, spoken disapprovingly in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/constitution.html
I have been musing some more here. You say I am coming at this from two sides, above. Well, what about your argument? You say you be willing to see gov’t benevolence go away if military spending goes away. But then say that if we just “[provided healthcare] nationally and internationally, provid[ed] schools for all internationally, end[ed] world hunger and more” then everyone would be happy and we would need no military. Which is it? You’d be ok with no benevolence if there were no military and police, or we should have benevolence instead of military and police?
Hey, also, what about “if single payer healthcare is good, then why not single-payer everything else?” I really want someone to tell me why, if gov’t run healthcare would be so good, that we don’t want gov’t run everything?
Aaron,
Again, I was presenting a hypothetical to your hypothetical. I’ll alter it a bit, instead of the government providing all those things, that money would go back to the taxpayers and all the Republican leaning Christian who say it’s the churches job not the governments would provide for all those global needs. Better?
As to why gov’t run healthcare and not other things, I guess I just think we are in a position in our society, that everyone should have health care, and, from what it seems, privatized health care is either inefficient or incapable of making health care a common good in our society. Sorry I don’t have time for a longer answer.
In my journey with Christ…I went from Radical Leftist leanings[think rebellious youth]then on to Republican Voting[because Christians are supposed to vote that way I thought] but with radical leftist leanings on some issues[think Rage Against the Machine] to Independent and am now a Christian Anarchist..I sort of see some of my own political journey in your own story