On Saturday March 31 my wife Jen, and I attended our first event for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. It was a gathering of 20 people at the office of two supporters who volunteered to host the event. We gathered to watch Obama answer questions in a town-hall type setting in Iowa. The event was webcasted live over the internet. Despite a few lags and a few minor technical delays it was wonderful to hear Obama answer people’s questions and outline his priorities for national government. Even more importantly however, this event provided us with the opportunity to meet and speak to other early Obama supporters. We found them to be very interesting and genuinely concerned people. Many of them were obviously quite wealthy professionals – but none of them put on airs. We found them to be well educated but modest and down to earth. They represented some of the best examples of wealthy liberals – those who are aware of their place of privilege and desire to give back to their communities and improve the lot of those who do not share the same privileges as themselves. For most of those in attendance, this campaign was the first to really get them motivated and involved in politics especially at such an early stage. One of the hosts described himself as a “life-long libertarian” whose faith in politics and government had moved from the cynical to the nihilistic under the Bush administration. Obama he said was the first person who spoke like himself, who seemed to understand how things work and how interconnected the world truly is. He went on say that he recently registered as a Democrat for the first time in order to vote for Obama in the primaries.
Barack Obama is truly a candidate who is inspiring many people and that explains his success in raising money and his broad support so early on in this election cycle. I think that his ability to raise that kind of excitement and enthusiasm should speak loudly to Democrats when they decide to vote in the primaries. For truly I believe that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will be our next president. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I am sure that we will have yet another Republican in the White House. She is just too divisive and polarizing. After 6 years of an extremely polarizing administration, we need a real uniter not another divider.
Please examine Barack Obama and his plans for America (and the world’s) future. He is a great man who would make an excellent President.
7 comments:
Hi Matt,
I hope you don’t mind the dialogue. If you do please just let me know.
"They represented some of the best examples of wealthy liberals – those who are aware of their place of privilege and desire to give back to their communities and improve the lot of those who do not share the same privileges as themselves."
My question is, why don't they JUST GO DO IT then?
Why don't they walk down to the soup kitchen and "give back"?
Why don't they walk down to the shelter and "improve the lot" of those they find there by offering education or job opportunities?
Why do they have to put up the false persona of caring without actually doing anything about it other than establishing themselves as a political base to take wealth from others and lord their false compassion over us?
Why must I have to give less charitable contributions because my taxes are going to go up and I’m going to have a harder time providing for myself?
Why would we want the federal government to manage another social program when every government managed social entitlement program is going broke, do we really think they can manage new ones any better? Or should they fix (better yet eliminate) the current programs first?
I have been in my home town’s shelters, kitchens, and charitable organizations because I really do care and really do want to give back. I don't need the governments help. “Conservatives give 30 percent more of their income to charity than liberals, despite, on average, making slightly less money” (qtd. in Bauer).
Now, I do not wish to make a false judgment. I do not know of who you speak. But these are my questions concerning the general liberal vs. conservative mentality of charity. My conservative and Biblical understanding is that I am commanded to go and help the orphans and widows, not establish a political framework so that other people can go spend other people’s money to do so while never having to ‘dirty’ myself in the process.
Jesus touched and healed the lepers; he didn’t form a committee, impose a tax, take a cut off the top, and send someone else to do the dirty work.
Peace and Love,
Mick
Gary Bauer. “Who Gives More? Dr. Arthur Brooks’ new book about charitable giving ‘Who Really Cares’”. American Family Values End of Day Report. Emailed: December 8, 2006
Customer Review of “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism”:
“Professor Brooks is a liberal, raised by liberals, who for many years accepted without question the almost universal belief among liberals that conservatives are stingy while they are generous. Then he actually studied the question and was STUNNED by the results he found. Maybe you'd expect conservatives to contribute more than liberals to religious charities, but for conservatives to contribute more than liberals to SECULAR charities? THAT surprised him, as did the fact that conservatives are more generous than liberals any way you measure it and at every income level. To his credit professor Brooks didn't argue with the facts but rather set out to find out WHY. This book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism is the result.”
Hi Mick,
Whay do you assume that these people didn't / aren't helping others in a more direct way as well? You say you do not want to make a false judgement - but how am I to understand such statements? I will just assume you are using a popluar stereotype.
In the small group that had gathered, we had people who had been in the Peace Corps, Ameri Corps, and poeple who worked as volunteers in many capacities. It's terrible that you judge these people and accuse us of having a false persona. I can truly attest that most liberals I know are liberals BECAUSE they care about others.
I admire all of those who are able to "just go and do it". It takes real courage to act in such a way.
However, most liberals do not see going down and giving spare change to the homeless and handing out free meals to be a viable solution to poverty or the rest of society's ills.
It is the liberal ideal of government that you should be arguing against - not these wonderful people who are trying to improve society for everyone. The liberal idea of government admits that there are societal problems and aims to fix or at least lessen thier impact upon as many people as possible. The liberal ideal of government argues that government has a role to play in this process. After all if government is to represent the will of the people, and it is the will of the people to help the most disadvantaged improve thier position, should something not be done?
Charities are wonderful - many people benefit from them. However they are simply not a long-term solution to poverty or many of society's problems. They are a social band-aid. Fujrthermore, charities tend to have more programs and services availbale in urban areas where people can have easy access. Charities do not have to size, money or (in many cases) the mandate to help everyone. Why not use the power of the largest, most powerful and wealthiest insitutuion on the planet to help those in our nation and others? The U.S. governemnt has the resources to accomplish such a task should we decide to do so.
Why should you give your taxes to such a system rather than a charity. I only ask you - what would be more effective? SHould you decide to give 2% to Hurricane Katrina victims, 3% to the Red Cross, 10% to a local homelss shelter, and 2% to AIDS research? If everone did that a lot of good would be done - don't get me wrong. But when times are tough, the money might not be there. Its not reliable. Plus in a sense, it is arbitary. Why should the charities with the slick marketing proposals get all the money? Perhaps a few noble indivuals might spend all thier free time researching which charity is more desrving than another, but that requires a social model - a goal of dirrection - something that may determine one's contibutions but would certainly be unique to the individual.
The true criterion for a social program would be its effectiveness to help people. I've outlined an argument why charities alone can't be the only part of the solution.
A far as social programs going broke - we actujally were going to have a social security surplus - until W anf 9/11 "changed everything". The U.S. has access to trillions of dollars. If there was a will there would be no problem. Yes, I'm sure there is some inefficency - but that is another problem that can be delt with by creative thinking, oversight and the will to do so.
Your last statement is interesting.
"Jesus touched and healed the lepers; he didn’t form a committee, impose a tax, take a cut off the top, and send someone else to do the dirty work."
You make a good point - we all could do more and help others dirrectly. But, Jesus had the apposles, they went out and did the "dirty work" too. Didn't Christ form the Church?
My point in conclusion is that 1. We all should help our fellows improive themselves. 2. We are more effective working together toward a common goal than we are alone. 3. The goverment (at least should) represent the will of the people. 4. The resources of the government are vast and its reach is total. We should harness that power and use it for good.
Hi Matt,
"My point in conclusion is that 1. We all should help our fellows improive themselves. 2. We are more effective working together toward a common goal than we are alone. 3. The goverment (at least should) represent the will of the people. 4. The resources of the government are vast and its reach is total. We should harness that power and use it for good."
Hmmm, so it's ok to impose YOUR morality on the people, even against their will because you know what is best??? Because you say the exact opposite where the protection of the unborn is concerned. Where is my freedom of choice? I would like to choose not to be stolen from and to manage my money as God directs me, not as man directs!
"But, Jesus had the apposles, they went out and did the "dirty work" too. Didn't Christ form the Church?"
Exactly! Christ formed the Church. Its the Church's work, not a socialist atheist government. The government gets in the way.
"However, most liberals do not see going down and giving spare change to the homeless and handing out free meals to be a viable solution to poverty or the rest of society's ills."
Sounds like the welfare (or whatever its current name is: wic, stateaid, etc...) program to me. None of the tough love accountability found in private and religious charities.
I guess it just depends on which moral injuction you feel more passionately about. Are you so passionate about raising everyone to an equal status of affluence that you would force others to pay tribute (steal)? Or so passionately about a womans right to choose that millions of children will never be given a chance to live? And if individual rights are that important, how can you justify forcing someone to pay tribute to your social program against their will?
I will agree that there is no easy answer.
"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a lurch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now, the baby went completely limp...
Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest can lament the court's ruling, but they shouldn't feel too bad – after all, they are still left with abortion." (Massie, Mychal. “Killing ‘tissue’ gently)
"Approximately 75% of all monies allocated to fight poverty ends up feeding the huge bureaucracy set up to fight poverty. It isn’t that the U.S. government hasn’t spent enough money; it’s that the money has been spent counterproductively. Ronald Nash and Thomas Sowell insist that we could raise every poor person in the U.S. out of poverty in one week and reduce the budget for the programs by 75 percent simply by eliminating the huge bureaucracy that stands between the poor and the federal treasury. . . to combat social evil one’s greatest weapon is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which gives human beings dignity as created in the image of God, and which gives us truth, morality and purpose in life." (Noebel, David A. “The Marxist Delusion and a Christian Evangelist”.)
Hey Matt,
An additional thought about your point number "4. The resources of the government are vast and its reach is total. We should harness that power and use it for good."
I have to say that I completly disagree.
1. The government has no 'resources'!
When you talk about government resources you have to understand that you're talking about other peoples money. Other peoples pay checks and food on their families tables.
It is very presumptious to think that you (or the 'government' or a political party, or anyone other than me) knows how best to spend my money!
2. Government can not be the standard of good!
In other words, 'good' in a relativistic ethical model found in postmodern secularism, is not the same as God's absolute standard.
In other words, public tax dollar funding of abortions is NOT good!
Hello Again Mick,
Please calm down. I am not attacking you or your convictions. I am simply making my side of the argument.
You said “Hmmm, so it's ok to impose YOUR morality on the people, even against their will because you know what is best???” You should see that I do not believe in imposing my will upon other people. Please see my 3rd point “The government (at least should) represent the will of the people.” Morality cannot be imposed.
You then say” None of the tough love accountability found in private and religious charities.” Yes, that’s correct. I believe that people should be given basic food, clothing, shelter, and access to medical care and education as a mater of course. Of course if people work hard, they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor – I am not a communist. However, I believe that there needs to be a social safety net to protect people from falling so low that they have little hope of bettering themselves.
You ask “Are you so passionate about raising everyone to an equal status of affluence that you would force others to pay tribute (steal)?” Again see my point #3. taxes are not stealing. Every form of government uses them. “Give unto Caesar….?” But we are talking about a democratic system. At least in theory, the taxes and their uses are determined by the will of the people. One cannot steal from oneself. One could make the argument that the administration is not acting in accord with the will of the people – but there are (again in theory) mechanisms to check that – elections, impeachment etc. After all I am opposed to the war in Iraq, but I did not stop paying my taxes.
You then say “Or so passionately about a woman’s right to choose that millions of children will never be given a chance to live?” Look, as I have said over and over, I am opposed to abortion. BUT, one must tread very carefully or we could create a situation that might be just as bad as the evil we are trying to prevent. Most polls I have seen suggest that the majority of Americans support access to abortions. So, I would suggest that the route we should take would be to educate the public on what abortion is and argue from a legal and scientific standpoint (so that it can have legal weight not just the emotional impact of a religious argument). We should try to circumvent the will of the majority buy appointing conservative “activist judges” to twist the will of the people or the meaning of the law, but rather to work toward a common goal – the preservation and sanctity of life. I don’t think morality can be imposed.
On to your second posting. You say that the government has no resources. Not true. The government is a collective entity. It has what we chose to give it. Really, think about this point carefully. If one really does not think that the government does not (at least in theory) represent the will of the people – then what is the point of a democracy? All governments tax – but not all governments give the taxpayers a say in how their money is spent. Ours (in theory) does so. If you disagree about how it is spent, talk to others, write congress, vote for a different person. Also, remember my second point “We are more effective working together toward a common goal than we are alone.” Ever try to build a car yourself? From mining the metals to building the chassis and engine? The same goes for social ills. I may be able to help one person feed themselves for a day. (As a Christian, I believe it is my duty to do so.) But as a citizen of a democracy, I want to live in a county where no one is starving. So, I happily contribute my money and let the economics of scale work to everyone’s advantage to ensure that poor people are fed. It a loving system feeding them? No. But our intentions and actions for creating such a system can be an act of Christian love.
Your second point is “2. Government can not be the standard of good!
In other words, 'good' in a relativistic ethical model found in postmodern secularism, is not the same as God's absolute standard.” Very true – I am far from being a relativist, though I do think an examination of other people’s perspectives can be very important. I do believe in absolute standards, but not at the expense of other absolute standards. We should not (as Plato’s Socrates would have put it) divide virtue. To take one virtue (such as courage to extremes is to undermine other import virtues (such as generosity, temperance, wisdom and ultimately the virtue in question itself.)
In a democracy the actions of a government are not those of a single person, but rather represent the collective “standards of good” given to it by the people. Government’s values are given to it by the people. If we disagree with those values, we need to make our case in a rational manner for others in our country.
"Ronald Nash and Thomas Sowell insist that we could raise every poor person in the U.S. out of poverty in one week and reduce the budget for the programs by 75 percent simply by eliminating the huge bureaucracy that stands between the poor and the federal treasury"
Ok what's their plan?
You know, I could afford to move into a bigger apartment if only I didn't have to pay my rent...
I've tagged you with:
as a thinking blogger
Post a Comment