-
Crime and the Nanny State
April 10, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Explaining the New Democratic Logo
September 21, 2010 | 95 comments
-
Bernanke Versus the Austrians
December 7, 2009 | 49 comments
-
The Mr. Potato Head Constitution
June 4, 2009 | 18 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Social Muddle
Business, justice, and the Gospel are already social.
The adjective that economist Friedrich Hayek famously called a “weasel word” is alive and well in the feel-good phrases social business, social justice and the social gospel.
In all three of these phrases, the common weasel word sucks some of the essential meaning out of what it modifies by implying that business, justice, and the Christian Gospel are a-social, or even anti-social, until conjoined with a mysterious something else. If only the confusion were of merely academic interest. Unfortunately, the failure to see that business, justice and the Gospel are intrinsically social has led to all kinds of mischief in people’s efforts to organize society — most recently in the Circle of Protection promoted by Jim Wallis and his friends on the left.
First, consider business. This area of human endeavor brings together various people and capital to create goods or services for trade in a marketplace. In a free economy, people enter these relationships voluntarily in pursuit of win-win exchanges.
Now it’s true that greedy, unscrupulous businessmen exist, but this no more contradicts the social nature of business than sinners in a church, square dance, or Rotary Club contradict the social nature of churches, square dances, and Rotary clubs.
The notion of social business adds to all of this a visibly charitable element. If done wisely, these business-charity hybrids serve a positive social good, but it’s important to remember that the charitable element isn’t uniquely social. Both charity as charity and business as business are social. Likewise, both encourage human flourishing if done thoughtfully and ethically, and both damage people and communities if done stupidly or wickedly.
The social gospel is a less trendy term than social business, but it’s still a go-to word for some Christian pastors, as evidenced by a recent column in the Oregonian where United Church of Christ minister Chuck Currie links Occupy America, “the common good of all,” a “new Great Awakening,” and “the fundamental principles of biblical justice” with a call to “preach a Social Gospel.”
I’m all for spiritual renewal and the common good, but the term social gospel leaves the impression that the ordinary Christian Gospel is some sort of Gnostic religion — without a horizontal plane extending through the flesh and blood and toil of human society — until properly incarnated by good-hearted socialists. The notion is odd in the extreme. Christianity played a pivotal role in the birth of political, economic, and religious freedom in the West, and was crucial in establishing institutions like the university and the hospital. At a more obvious level, the Gospel involves a billion or so people getting together every few days in things called churches in anticipation of what’s supposed to culminate in an enormous cosmic wedding feast.
The third term, social justice, is unlike the other two in its having a justifiable raison d’être. It stretches back to 19th century Catholic social thought and was used in the context of nuanced explorations of law, ethics, and justice. Unfortunately, this nuance and precision usually falls away in popular usage, and the term has been co-opted by the left to imply that ordinary justice is a mere tool of the ruling elite, with the real deal being “social justice.”
This impoverished meaning needs to be addressed. If a society extends justice to the rich and well-connected but allows the poor to be bullied and swindled by corrupt players inside and outside of the government, the problem isn’t unsocial justice but a lack of justice. If the poor in many developing nations can’t get access to credit or the courts because they can’t register their businesses, and they can’t register their businesses because they don’t have the bribe money and connections to navigate a byzantine regulatory maze, the problem is injustice, plain and simple. Such a society doesn’t need a social brand of justice any more than a poor neighborhood without stores needs a social grocery store. The neighborhood needs an ordinary grocery store, and the unjust society needs basic justice. Grocery stores and justice are already intrinsically social.
More than accurate semantics is at stake here. Often the popular call for “social justice” boils down to an ill-conceived call for coercive wealth transfers — for instance, getting rich countries to transfer more of their tax revenues to the governments of poor countries as foreign aid. It’d be nice if this approach actually helped the poor, since we’ve been using it for the past 60 years. Unfortunately, the statistical and narrative testimony on this strategy hovers between mixed and scandalous.
The reasons for this are complex but not so complex as to excuse the status quo. Much of the aid money gets quietly funneled into the pockets of corrupt politicians. In other cases the aid money reaches its intended target but, since the aid money is fungible, it still supports bad actors. It does so by freeing a regime of the political necessity of paying for the schools, road projects and emergency relief already covered by the foreign assistance. This, in turn, allows the regimes to spend more of their tax revenues for enhancing their own wealth and power.
Worse, the small fraction of aid money that actually reaches its intended destination often puts indigenous producers out of business, since it’s difficult to compete against free goods from abroad. Haiti’s rice farmers, for instance, once exported rice, but today their livelihoods have been all but wiped out by subsidized U.S. rice dumped on the country as foreign aid.
Add to all of this international “social justice” the devastating cultural effects of America’s welfare state. The neighborhoods flooded with 50 years of this domestic “social justice” now face far higher levels of criminal injustice and anti-social behavior than before the justice arrived.
Much of the problem stems from welfare’s effect on the institution of the family. The percentage of children being raised by both of their biological parents in America’s poorest neighborhoods used to be low and fairly comparable to what was found in middle and upper class neighborhoods, but the Great Society programs of the 1960s changed that.
As George Gilder put it in Wealth and Poverty, the underclass husband and father was “cuckolded by the compassionate state,” a violation which has incited “that very combination of resignation and rage, escapism and violence, short horizons and promiscuous sexuality that characterizes everywhere the life of the poor.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jonathan Witt
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/02/social-muddle
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- The Mole in Don Draper
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 12.2.11 @ 7:16AM
A must-read for anyone who believes their compassion can conveniently stop at the IRS. Well put, Mr. Witt!
If there were only a magic formula for empowering the downtrodden; a step-by-step manual fostering happiness from within...this alone would be enough to bring this government monstrosity to its knees-the first major step in a long road back to Constitutionalism.
Brian Mc| 12.2.11 @ 7:21AM
Of course, most of my empowerment (that constantly needs tweeking) and inner happiness (something I struggle with on a daily basis) comes from one source, The Holy Bible, but, that's just me.
THKrupp| 12.2.11 @ 11:17AM
While Im not especially religious. The book of Proverbs is an excellent place to start for a manual for success. Confucious and other philosophers have some good things to say as well but Proverbs lays it out plain and simple.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.11 @ 7:24AM
Mr. Witt,
well spoken.
potkas7| 12.2.11 @ 9:06AM
Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (New Things) composed in 1891 at the dawn of the so-called "Progressive Age," and still the foundation of Catholic Social Doctrine, wrote what could pass for Rush Limbaugh's opening monologue:
"Therefore let if be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate to the contrary, but all struggling against nature is in vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities are all the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect of these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual [private] property holdings...If [any] promise the poor in their misery a life free from all sorrow and vexation and filled with repose and perpetual pleasures, they actually impose on these people and perpetuate a fraud which will ultimately lead to evils greater than the present...It is a capital evil with respect to the question we are discussing to take for granted that one class of society is of itself hostile to the other, as if nature had set rich and poor against each other to fight fiercely in implacable war..."
Watching scenes from the Occupy Movement I am reminded that while historical events may change, human nature is changeless.
Petronius| 12.2.11 @ 10:10AM
In very truth p7. But Wallis and co. will tell you: God is a Liberal now. And those who demand and will command "social justice" represent the Almighty.
Anastasia Mather| 12.2.11 @ 10:40AM
I worked as a typesetter/graphics designer for a small nonprofit publishing company that was concerned with immigrant issues.
I grew to despise the academic stupidity and snobbery of the whole thing. The director of the place was always using "social justice" as a toast or prayer. I would stand there and shake my head, wondering if he knew anything about it.
Thank you for this very timely, well written article. Thank you P7 for that quote from the good Pope who would have spanked the director of the Catholic-run institute publishing such obvious bovine manure.
C Smith| 12.2.11 @ 11:55AM
The "social gospel" is "another gospel" that uses God and His Scriptures for its own ends, with a "statistical and narrative testimony" that professor Witt so aptly describes as "mixed and scandalous" e.g., the gospel of Black Liberation that is a common thread in virtually every black church today.
More relevant however is what the God of Scripture has said regarding "other gospels"
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8-9).
"... the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. (2Th 1:7-9).
Franco| 12.2.11 @ 12:49PM
You can see the intellectual dishonesty--by declaring that there is such a thing as "social justice" (whatever the hell that means) there automatically must be a thing called "antisocial justice". Whatever, again, the hell that means. Oh, wait--if it's the sort of "justice" that furthers your ideological goals regardless of its legality, that must surely be justice of the "social" type. But, if it's the sort of justice that doesn't give you whatever you want, then, surely it must be of the "antisocial" sort, requiring the seeker of justice to speak truth to power, blame whitey, and all that crap.
I am a social worker (a rather heavily armed one, residing in a great Northeast metropolis, but I digress). Can I be an antisocial worker?
Bob K.| 12.4.11 @ 11:36PM
I think that the opposite of "social justice" would be, in the minds of those who advocate it, "anti social injustice."
THKrupp| 12.2.11 @ 1:05PM
The idea that the teachings of Jesus are some how political is compltely missing the point. Jesus was indeed a flaming liberal during the time he was on earth. His message wasnt about wealth or lack there of. His was a message of personal salvation. It was a message for everyone. I doubt he would come down on the side of anyone in this day and age. To the wealthy he would say to give away everything they owned and follow him. To the OWS protester he would tell them to get a job and live according to his will. God is A-political. He could care less what kind of government that you have and that you should follow the dictates of the government that he has provided you with until they ask you to do something that goes against his word. He healed the sick and fed the poor. There are numorous instances of him teaching compassion and chairity for the poor. He ate with tax collectors, prostitutes and others from the lowest end of society. He preached about the dangers of greed and sloth. There was not one segment of society that gets a stamp of approval from him except the humble believer. He is way more concerned with our eternal souls than our politics. In heaven there will be people of every race, political and social class. Hell will have a similiar make up. To try to spin Jesus's teachings right or left is completely missing the whole point.
Brian Mc| 12.2.11 @ 1:35PM
Well said, TH but, let me interject if I may. I will venture that any government that forces a religion on its citizenry is evil at its core. This would go with socialist dogma as well as Islam, or even Christianity, for that matter. What true conservatives believe in this country anyway, is the government adhering to the Constitution and if this can be labeled a 'religion' then, I am guilty as charged.
If you sniffed out something earlier that focused your attention above and that I missed, my apologies. I believe the Bible also, is more in favor of self-determination and self-imposed compassion rather than state imposed results, would you not agree?
Appleby| 12.5.11 @ 7:51AM
Jesus did NOT tell ALL wealthy people to sell what they have and give the proceeds to the Poor. Read it again. He told ONE rich man, whose riches meant more to him than his religion, to do so -- and his meaning was: Get rid of ANYTHING that stands between you and God. That not only means your wealth, but also your baseball card collection, your mink coat, your MP3 player and your SmartPhone. Jesus would have told the Occupiers to sell their Binkies and give the money to the Poor; and I have no doubt that He would have said (as He has been quoted elsewhere) *Drunkards and prostitutes [and some members of the so-called 1%] are entering Heaven before you.*
If you are going to quote Jesus, at least quote Him accurately.
THKrupp| 12.2.11 @ 3:27PM
Brian, personally I agree with you. Religion is not a responsibility of the state. I also dont claim to have any special insight into how God thinks. I have my opinions and they are largely shaped by a rigid Missouri Synod Lutheran upbringing. Not that I agree completely with the LCMS, but it has definately shaped my thought process.
Everyone that believes in God wants him on their side or at least it appears to them that he is. Jesus left no instrutions on how to organize believers after he was gone. He didnt really have a whole lot to say about governments either. Give to Cesar what is Cesar's kinda sums it all up. Theres probably some other verses Im forgetting. Social Justice folks always want to make out that Jesus came here to even things out for the poor. That would make Jesus much less than what he actually is. He basically said, take care of the poor because theres always going to be some. Hes not a social worker. He doesnt care if you are poor or rich. He really only cares about one thing and thats if you believe in him. If you want to help the poor in a collective fashion or individually it all comes down to intent. Are you trying to create a system to help the poor so that you can manage it and pay yourself a huge salary? Im guessing hes not going to be too fond of that. Are you creating a system of helping the poor so that you can just shuffel them off to some place so that you personally dont have to deal or look at them? Probably not going to be keen on that either. Do you set up a system to help and then a homeless person asks you for change and you take him to the shelter to make sure he gets the help he needs? Im sure he would look on that with favor. On a cold day do you see a poor person and you hand them a coat with a $100 bill in one of the pockets? Again, thats a probably a good thing. What the person does with the money once they get it is their responsibility. Again, I dont claim any special insight, so I could be completely wrong. I would say that anytime a person humbly and with pure heart trys to help someone in need, either collectively or individually, makes God happy. If a system ends up encouraging people to have children out of wedlock and live off the state....personaly I dont like it but how is that seen through Gods eyes? I dont know that he cares. In the end we are only responsible for our individual sins. Society doesnt make people do things, everyone makes individual choices. So the sin is on the individual making the choice not the system that allows or encourages it to happen. If you live in a communist society that forbids his teachings..hes probably not going to smile on that government. If you live in a communist society where His word can be preached freely...I truely cannot make an arguement that He cares one way or the other. Jesus true message was that of forgivness no matter what our station or situation in life for the individual. It was about individual responsiblity for your own sin. The only way to erase that sin is to believe in him.
We are only here a short time compared to eternity. How we choose to organize a society probably has little or no value when looked at through Gods eyes. Its important to us because the potential 70 or 80 years that we are alive are all we really know. Concepts like freedom, justice and property rights are important to us because it affects the here and now. If you were a slave, God would have you be the best slave you could be and serve your master well. If you were a master, God would have you be a good master and to treat your slaves as fellow children of God. If you live in a society that abhors slavery thats cool too, but live as God would have you live no matter what.
Sorry my response is long and rambling.
THKrupp| 12.2.11 @ 3:43PM
I do want to say that from a personal standpoint I agree with a lot of what the author has to say. I do not want a government run as a social justice theocracy. Giving countries a bunch of excess rice corn or cash usually dosnt help them in the long term. It always comes down to the adage of teaching a man to fish to help long term.
Brian Mc| 12.2.11 @ 6:45PM
Long and Rambling? Only heart-felt, my friend. Well said and thanks for sharing your insight. I found myself nodding all the way through.
POST American| 12.2.11 @ 9:36PM
----AS full-spectrum police state 'SIR--veil--ANTS'
and 'SEES---yours' are, even as we
write, being 'S--stab--lished'---consider:
"The money system, fractional reserve
lending, the issuance of FAKE money,
which is itself, again, nothing more than
the psychopathic CON of USURY --IS
the very heart, root and source of the
problem. Eliminate the PRIVATE, usury
driven, 'TRADER--US' set up and, overnight,
90% of the wars and problems will disappear."
"And note too, whenever you hear about
people with advanced degrees, and are
high level 'E--CON--o--MISTS' realize
you ARE being conned. Economics is
nothing but arithematic. Beyond that it's
a CON. You know something's up. You
KNOW you are being 'swine-delled' and
'BEE---trade'."
------NOW YOU KNOW.
---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------
Brent | 12.3.11 @ 6:30AM
I agree that to add the term "social" to these things probably cheapens the disciplines themselves, but I understand the trend. Each of these groups wants to signify that they are not operating the way the public thinks of as normal.
Businesses that are built for impact instead of profits, and Christians that care about the poor should be the norm, but whether they are or not, they are not perceived that way.
Maybe better terms would be "businesses that do more good than most" or "Christians that hold serving the poor as a central tenant of the faith" would be more accurate, but they're unlikely to catch on.
Well written and thought provoking.
Merlin| 12.3.11 @ 7:41AM
Great article.
Next to last paragraph on the first page. high instead of "low"?
bebe| 12.3.11 @ 12:22PM
The fact that GW Bush put "compassionate" before conservative was a big giveaway that today's conservative philosophy is more about competition than cooperation, about the belief that successful people are good people and the poor only have themselves to blame, so I say, "Conservatives: Stop the semantic rationalizations. You don't understand the meaning of cooperation or the instability caused by economic inequality. So pick up your caveman club, take all the money you can and own your inner barbarian. Next you'll be attacking moderation.
Ken MacAlister Jr.| 12.3.11 @ 5:16PM
Michael Smerconish, is that really you?
Mike Hawk | 12.4.11 @ 4:07PM
Sure does sound like 'The Smerc'. His legal practicing is now affiliated with..... Tada.....Snarlin' Arlen Specter. I knew something was wrong with this guy when it became evident his two political buds were Fast Eddy Spendell and Specter.
Bob K.| 12.4.11 @ 11:42PM
Yep, "The Smerc," this generations talk show version of Phil Donohue!
Gary B| 12.5.11 @ 6:01AM
Social business, social justice and social gospel are soft sell words for social-ism, which itself is a sell word for, "Gimme that!"
wedding dresses | 12.6.11 @ 3:33AM
What utter short-sightedness, what utter foolery that they can't even see it. Their utter selfishness, stupidity and hatred blinding them so horribly, that all they could see was that Herman Cain wasn't their man~ so they destroy him, or take part in destroying him.
ctd| 12.7.11 @ 7:49PM
The writer misses the point. "Social" was added to these terms because Enlightenment thinkers, then certain economists, and then Rand types, took out the social dimension that was previously thought intrinsic to those ideas.
All three, business, justice, and the Christian gospel, became distorted by the notion of individualism. Business transactions became viewed not as social, but as solely an interaction between individuals. Justice became solely about individual rights, and the gospel became about individual salvation and individual revelation.
In reaction to that truncated view, people added "social" to the terms in attempt to gain back the social dimension that was lost.
The fact that some have taken to using "social" to go even further does not mean that all use of the term is bad or not warranted. Until the other side of the political spectrum is willing to shed the extreme individualism and embrace the true meaning of those ideas, you should not fault those who have grafted "social" on them in an attempt to restore what was.
John| 12.8.11 @ 9:46AM
Someone at Sojourners has written a response to Witt's article. I'd be interested in hearing Witt's response:
http://blog.sojo.net/blogs/201.....-salvation