Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?
Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak!
This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still
worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff
debate.
"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There
are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.
As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically,
it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I
am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and
corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic
policy. So why ask this particular question?
So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.
A Matter of Motivation
The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich.
People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of
someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we
often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along
the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many
Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind
killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life
people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but
both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations
from the motivations of others.
In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I
have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich
one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to
me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing
people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic
stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.
The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because
they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like
that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else
would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a
different group?
It's OK To Have A Little Class
Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and
shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while
the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered
from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know
no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will
acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can
tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would
ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as
exceptions.
So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the
rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are
monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good,
and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity
in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their
class. I believe this to be bigotry.
I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally
lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich
as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally
bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted
as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.
Economic Justice
The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring
justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this
before of course, it is good to address it directly.
I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means
everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same
chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing
as
making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not
all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we
live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and
some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not
unjust or unfair.
Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too
selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher
class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the
classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have
considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have
now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the
government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.
Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't
need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It
is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking
the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class
makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I
said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if
we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still
find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very
creative.
As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness
are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix
the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for
justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to
the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we
find ourselves.
You can read Martin Glynn's blogging at The JC_Freak.
Newtown Shooting SHOULD NOT Be a Political Football
Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude
repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've
happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any
crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the
Second Amendment.
Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:
While
a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of
this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder
has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation.
Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to
commit this crime.
The fact is, while the exact
statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are
committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased
weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of
this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This
town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It
did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens
in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.
Yet
some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their
agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the
Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines
of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually
written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean
it the way it's clearly written.
The bottom line is
this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not
be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is
passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of
law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns.
Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes.
Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.
I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:
 |
| Emphasis Added |
