madwriter | Entries tagged with politics

Although God puts fewer restrictions on His requirements than the U.S. federal government does.

Reading over the arguments in the comments of this entry a couple of days ago got me wondering: Why the deep reaction to a stupid joke mocking welfare recipients? Besides, I mean, the fact it's one of the worst kinds of jokes, the kind that demonizes an entire group of people for the bad behavior of a few.

For me the issue of helping the poor comes down in the categories of personal and religious, though both are inextricably tied in with the other. Personal because I believe that when you have advantages you should give back, and religious because...well, it's Biblical.

Personal. Talk show hosts make a big deal about "liberal guilt", but for most people guilt doesn't come into the equation. It's a recognition that if you're given certain advantages and privileges, particularly societal ones, particularly through no doing of your own, then it's the civilized thing to do to give something back now and again.

Some of the advantages I'm thinking of: As bad as a lot of anti-female sentiment is now, it was much worse in 1970, when I was born male. That was also still in the wake of working women to be more than just the traditional "women's" jobs. I was born white in a time when elements in my home state were still trying to fight desegregation. No physical or mental disabilities. A family that was middle class and valued education and reading, so even when I skirted the edge of the poverty line years ago I'd already been taught the tools I needed to get out of it.

And so on. These confer numerous advantages that stare you in the face if you're not intentionally turning away. I don't feel "guilty" about any of it, but I recognize that with advantages comes the responsibility to help others when you're able, be it individuals or the community.

Then there are the religious reasons. The Old Testament has a reputation for being all about the punishment and killings--which isn't undeserved--but it's also full of mercy and commands about helping the poor that fundamentalists tend to overlook. One specific command, which has all the force of the prohibitions so many people love quoting, is pretty explicit:

"If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." (Deuteronomy 15:7)

"You shall give generously to (your poor brother), and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. (Deuteronomy 15:10)

Another one about lending: "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:42)

Of course that's about lending, although the context makes it clear the paying back won't necessarily be exactly what was loaned out--or even back to you personally. Proverbs 19:17: "He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good deed." So what about giving outright?

"Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19:19)

Taken literally or metaphorically, quotes like the one from Leviticus are all over the Bible. Not to mention assurances to the poor and warnings to the wealthy that the poor are God's chosen people too:

"I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor." (Psalm 140:12).

And for those who don't help the poor?

"Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?" (Isaiah 10:1-3).

Or Luke 6:24's warning: "But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full."

Talk about class warfare!

The Bible does talk about laziness often, but not in connection with using that as an excuse to deny helping the poor and needy. In fact it's obvious God doesn't put any restrictions on those being helped--only those doing the helping.

But, you may say, it's not like people were forced to do this by the government in ancient times. Jerusalem didn't have welfare. Putting aside the fact they were "forced" to do this by religious commandment, Jerusalem actually did have an ancient version of welfare. A portion of the tithes and taxes Jerusalem and the Temple collected were turned over to the poor in a dole maintained by the city. Hebrews from anywhere in the land could come to Jerusalem to collect. The difference now is that the checks go out from Washington instead of the welfare recipients traveling to D.C.

The question then becomes how much one follows this themselves. No, I haven't sold off my possessions--and I don't know many who have, admittedly. But neither am I a Biblical literalist. I go for the spirit rather than the letter. Adultery is a sin, but doesn't necessarily require stoning. Likewise, I may not be able to invite poor residents to my supper table for a regular banquet as Jesus commanded, but I can donate canned goods on a regular basis, for instance. There are considerations here based on need: Zacchaeus was blessed in Luke 19 for giving away not all but half of his possessions.

Of course I know that there is abuse, cheating, gaming the system, laziness, and multigenerational recipients. I'm pretty certain God does too. And that eventually they'll settle up one way or another.

In the meantime, I've been working since I was 16, I support myself with a full-time job, I don't hide any of my income offshore or in tax shelters...yet despite all that I still don't like stupid jokes condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few.

Current Mood: Righteous
Current Location: The 10% Or Less Bracket

In my historical novels I tend to write a lot about nature and all varieties of humankind's interactions with it over the generations. So inevitably when I'm doing research for them I run across numerous examples of the way the world was before environmental regulations. Questions about business aside, every new book reinforces my idea that a lot of people calling for massive cuts or outright elimination of environmental regulations feel comfortable doing so because they don't realize how much they've benefited from those regulations.

If you are in favor of broad deregulation, here's an easy question to ask yourself--and answer yourself honestly, now--for you to determine just how deep that desire goes: Would you be willing to eliminate zoning in your own neighborhood to the point where you would invite heavy industry to live next door to you?

There are several shades to this question, not just the literal one.

If there's one thing that keeps making itself clear about the pre-regulatory industrial world (and other countries whose regulations are currently lax), it's that pollution has a long, long reach. Even in this regulated land of ours, living miles away from a polluter is no guarantee of protection from its effects. (Lung cancer doesn't come solely from cigarette smoke, after all, despite what the mainstream media would imply.)

So imagine the pollution multiplied enormously. (Again.) We know that water pollution, especially along rivers and atop groundwater aquifers, can affect people hundreds of miles away from the source. Air pollution can hurt people from one end of a continent to the other. The effects are both direct (like cancer) and indirect (like acid rain damaging or ruining crops and livestock).

So if you deregulate, you're figuratively inviting a factory into your neighborhood. If you're OK with that, then fine--your support for deregulation is across the board. If you're not OK with that, then ask yourself why you're willing to put others at risk but not yourself.

And then there's still the literal answer to my question. Environmental rules aren't the only big factor keeping business down; local zoning regulations are just as great an issue.

If you're for deregulation but you wouldn't be willing to eliminate local zoning, then why not? I won't argue that there would be economic benefits to deregulation, but sooner or later there would be inevitable personal negatives too. You can't have one without the other, and if you're not willing to risk the negatives for yourself and your family, then you're not really in favor of deregulation.

Current Mood: chipper
Current Location: A Little Coal Slurry With Your Groundwater? Land
Current Music: "Hard Times" ala After Jack

The American Conservative discovers that it cannot fear and loathe Elizabeth Warren.

Actually, when you get right down to it, I don't have a problem with executive bonuses or avoiding salary caps. Let the companies pay their CEOs a billion dollars if they want. But the caveat to this is that in exchange, your company will never, ever get help from the Federal government if you do. No bailouts. No corporate welfare, or subsidies of any kind.

If you say you believe in capitalism, then act like it. Don't be a capitalist in the fat years and a socialist in the lean ones.

--Danny, who admittedly wonders why CEOs must be paid as much as possible to "attract the best people", while teachers, police, and firefighters must be paid as little as possible to "attract the best people".

Current Mood: Grouchy
Current Location: Early Morning Blues Land
Current Music: "Luisa's Bones" by Crooked Finger

In fits and snatches between research for Arizona I've been reading Fareed Zakaria's newly revised The Post-American World (subtitled Release 2.0) and finding it not only intriguing but possibly prophetic. It's clear to me that people who accuse the book of being anti-American haven't actually read it; Zakaria is pro-American (offering advice on how America could maintain economic prominence in the world, for instance), as well as pro-democracy and pro-capitalism.

What he is charting--with facts rather than editorializing, though this doesn't seem to matter to the unreading naysayers--is the rise of "the rest", Second and even Third World countries which are steadily gaining greater economic prosperity and in many cases deeper democracy (though he also discusses places like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia as well). He demonstrates that these countries are using capitalist and more often than not democratic models as initially used by the United States--but increasingly figuring out different ways on their own since the Great Recession started--along with increasing nationalism to lift themselves to a greater economic status, and with it greater political power.

One passage that particularly struck me stood out because, admittedly, it's something I've been thinking for the last three years now:

"The irony is that the rise of the rest is a consequence of American ideas and actions. For sixty years, American politicians and diplomats have traveled around the world pushing countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. We have urged peoples in distant lands to take up the challenge of competing in the global economy, freeing up their currencies, and developing new industries. We counseled them to be unafraid of change and learn the secrets of our success. And it worked: the natives have gotten good at capitalism. But now we are becoming suspicious of the very things we have long celebrated--free markets, trade, immigration, and technological change. And all this is happening when the tide is going our way. Just as the world is opening up, America is closing down."

I think this summarizes the core of America's problems right now. Fear: Fear-mongering from politicians, from the media (mainstream and otherwise), from corporations, and a variety of other sources. The more we fear the more insular we become, while (and Zakaria provides numerous examples of this) the world outside the U.S., Britain, and the E.U. is booming economically because it's becoming less insulated. And for multinational corporations it's turning into a feedback loop. He points out that while the U.S. economy is seeing 2-3% annual growth much of the rest of the newly interconnected world is plugging away at 10-15%, so that, as an example, "the quintessentially American" Coca-Cola now makes 80% of its revenue overseas.

While he doles out blame to both Obama (for adding $4 trillion to the already $10 trillion debt) and G.W. Bush (for "chest-thumping machismo"), he lays the primary fault at the feet of an "irresponsible national political culture", which also includes the rampantly irresponsible behavior of Wall Street and investment banks who believed in perpetual growth and ever-mounting debt, while people across the country are simultaneously becoming more out of touch with the rest of the world.

His solution? Simple-sounding but surprisingly hard to enact because of the short term pain it would cause in a country whose government and corporations have taught themselves to focus on short term gain: Just go back to American principles. The free market, democracy, embracing innovation. This can mean lower taxes and more deregulation,while also encouraging things like more immigration. He means loosening the vise we've placed on ourselves and tried placing on other countries.

Zakaria concedes that one way or another, some of our economic dominance is going to slip if only because so many other countries are much more economically successful now than they used to be. The choice facing us at this point is whether the superpower slips a little bit or utterly crashes.

"America has succeeded," Zakaria writes, "not because of the ingenuity of its government programs but because of the vigor of its society. It has thrived because it has kept itself open to the world--to goods and services, to ideas and inventions, and, above all, to people and cultures. The openness has allowed us to respond quickly and flexibly to new economic times, to manage change and diversity with remarkable ease, and to push forward the boundaries of individual freedom and autonomy. It has allowed America to create the first universal nation, a place where people from all over the world can work, mingle, mix, and share in a comon dream and a common destiny."

So there you go. Shouldn't be that hard, should it? Let's start by ignoring the fear-mongers, wherever they may crop up, and have an open-eyed look at what's going on all around us.

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Location: The Mountain East
Current Music: Theme from "Lonesome Dove"