(Page 2 of 2)
How could a savior who lifted up the poor support tax cuts for the rich? Moreover, writes Wallis, “Jesus says, ‘Be not afraid,’ an attitude that could undermine the entire basis of our current foreign policy.” In Wallis’s view, “most of the important movements for social change in America have been fueled by religion — progressive religion.”
Thus, the political vision that he advances is largely indistinguishable from that of the average Democrat. Not entirely, since Wallis opposes abortion, worries about preserving family values, and does not endorse homosexuality. But most of his policy positions, ranging from Iraq to foreign aid to welfare, conflict very little with Democratic Party orthodoxy. That does not mean Wallis is inherently wrong. But it suggests that he has not developed a new, nonpartisan vision for people of faith in politics. Whether he is right or not in his politics, Christian theology no more demands that result than a conservative result.
WALLIS PRESENTS HIS VISION as a fourth option to conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. In his view it “follows from the prophetic religious tradition.” In sum, “it is traditional or conservative on issues of family values, sexual integrity, and personal responsibility, while being very progressive, populist, or even radical on issues like poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist.”
One can make good prudential policy arguments on behalf of all of these positions. But while God says much about people’s relationship to him and each other, he says very little about when people should coerce each other — that is, what government should do. And this failure to distinguish personal moral imperatives from prudential political concerns places him squarely where he does not want to be: standing between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Perhaps no where is this more evident than Wallis’s reflexive rejection of “tax cuts for the rich.” However, the money is not a “public good” to be spent either on government projects or gifts for the wealthy. Rather, the money has been collected from the very people to whom it is being returned. In fact, the rich pay the vast majority of income taxes: for instance, the top one percent pay more than a third of revenues. So any fair tax cut means that the rich will receive more than will the poor. One can justify progressive taxation and social spending, but one must make the argument, rather than simply denounce “tax cuts for the rich.”
Similarly flawed is Wallis’s discussion of poverty, both domestic and international. No faithful Christian can ignore the enormity of the problem of poverty. But a requirement that one help the poor does not authorize one to force others to help the poor. You will search Scripture long and hard to find such an authorization.
That doesn’t prevent government from creating some form of welfare. But experience has demonstrated that good intentions are not enough. The perverse incentives of government programs did much to destroy families and ultimately communities. Rules such as the minimum wage and licensing destroyed jobs. Indeed, so many of the problems that Wallis seeks to address ultimately grow out of misguided government policies. Wallis worries, for good reason, about inadequate affordable housing. But state and local regulations, through zoning and building codes, have done more than anything else to raise housing costs. He recognizes that “perhaps the greatest scandal of all is the absolutely inferior education that poor children in America are subject to.” Sadly true. Yet there is no mystery on what is necessary to help poor children of color learn — that’s why so many black Baptists end up in inner-city parochial schools. The evidence is overwhelming that the fundamental problem of education is a lack of competition and local accountability, not money.
HE PUSHES HARD FOR foreign aid, debt relief, and “fair” trade. Yet over the last five decades foreign aid has devastated poor nations, strengthening recipient governments that themselves posed the primary barrier to economic growth. There is a logic to debt relief, but only if the beneficiaries adopt necessary reforms and borrow no more money. Moreover, applying first world environmental and labor standards to Third World nations actually protects industries in the former, ensuring that the latter will never grow and ultimately prosper to where they can adopt such standards voluntarily.
Still, Wallis deserves praise for his effort. Today’s political debate is impoverished since Christianity does not mandate conservatism. And a truly prophetic stance by the church would confront all citizens and politicians in their behaviors, attitudes, and policies.
But Wallis is better at issuing a challenge than providing an answer. He closes God’s Politics by arguing that “we are the ones we are waiting for.” The leaders are here. Yes we are. But the right religious-political synthesis has not yet arrived, at least in God’s Politics. Unfortunately, neither the Religious Right nor the Religious Left understands that God is nonpolitical as well as nonpartisan. Instead of giving us policies, he gives us wisdom so we can work together to develop good policies. Using that wisdom is our responsibility.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?