Appealing to the Bible, Gershom Gorenberg earlier this week declared that the Republican Party is the “party of Sodom.” In claiming that “the GOP is rather obviously committed to the quality of Sodom,” he was not referring to a sexual sin (that is more a Christian than a Jewish interpretation of the biblical story), but rather to “economic injustice, selfishness, and refusal to redistribute wealth.” The Talmud pithily encapsulates this quality, he notes, with the phrase, “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours.”
These “selfish economics,” Gorenberg goes on, are espoused by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and shared by Benjamin Netanyahu. In Sodom, apparently, there would have been no problem passing the Paul Ryan budget. (Incidentally, how would the Democrats’ budget have fared? Oh right. Oops.)
Unfortunately for Gorenberg, all he really achieves in his post is yet another demonstration of how liberals profoundly misunderstand conservative thought. Yet, the conservative position is so straightforward that their failure to apprehend it is quite remarkable: government should be small so that society and the individual can be large. This, conservatives believe, encourages true compassion and selflessness: one cares for one’s neighbor oneself or as a community, rather than leave the government to do it, and those receiving aid do their utmost to strive for economic self-sufficiency where possible. It is a society where “redistribution of wealth” is replaced by charity and integrity. Hardly “what’s mine is mine.”
And this isn’t theoretical. The data already shows it: conservatives give staggeringly more than liberals to charitable causes, and Mitt Romney in particular has given more (in absolute and proportional terms) than any other presidential candidate for whom we have a record. Party of Sodom, eh? Now who’s being unjust?
Did you notice that he is cherry picking the mishnah (Avos 5:13)? The mishnah actually says that the one who says "What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours" is the trait of most people, but SOME [emph. mine] say it is the trait of Sodom. n nBut the same Mishnah goes on to says that one who says "What's mine is yours and what’s yours is mine’" is an ignoramus. What does that say about those who want to use government to redistribute the wealth? n nAnd as to those who claim to want "fairness" but then cheat on their own taxes, or channel government funds to enrich themselves, their cronies or their donors, the same mishnah says that the one who says "what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine" is wicked. n n
ahad- actually, it is even worse because "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine' is the philosophy of Obama and the present Democrats, who claim that everything belongs to the government and they will charitably allow you to keep a small part of it…
good point Ahad and Michael. Cherry picking is right. Is Goremberg a clown or is he a jester? Maybe he thinks that nobody else read that whole mishna. Yet the Pirqey Avot is one of the most widely read parts of the Mishna [which is part of the Talmud]. There are several translations into English, as far as I know. Does clownemberg think that everybody else is an amaretz [ignoramus]?
Or that they are all amoratsim [Yiddish plural of Hebrew am ha'aretz] ?
What would happen if we played Mr. Gorenberg's game? If we redistribute all wealth this month, those who earned it will value what remains after redistribution and spend or save it wisely knowing the effort it required. Those who are given the proceeds of redistribution will squander it. Next month they will be "poor" again. The premise of liberal arguements for redistribution assume that wealth is valued equally by all citizens. That would be false as most parents of teenage children can attest from personal experience. Even a cursory look at the results of our national "war on poverty" leads to the same conclusion. The expensive projects of decades past exacerbated the problems they were suppose to fix, adding cultural and social poverty to the existing economic woes. It is sad that some continue to advocate for more of the same.
Read it carefully. Gorenberg wins easily, on all counts, including the additional counts Greenbaum offers above–this is indeed an inhospitable and uncompassionate place, especially if you're a fact. n nice9
I did read it carefully. Go back and read the sources, including Avos. n
I am always mistrustful of the "private charity" canard. A government's sole purpose in providing for the needful is to support its citizens in times of need and to provide them a route back to health and productivity. You can argue that's a "taking," but The common defense is a taking: the poorest beggar and the richest oligarch benefit equally from a strong defense, but conservatives never, ever complain that our military is "a taking." n nPrivate charities exist primarily with alternative goals. Religious charities exist to evangelize, proselytize, convince and, at times, coerce. Alexander Hamilton once wrote, "Control of a man's subsistence is control of his will," and private charities have the power to become regional monopolies that control the subsistence, and the will, of thousands. We can argue all we want about whether or not government has the same power, but the US remains a nominal democracy, and its will is supposed to be ours, not those of the church leadership and its contingent reading of God's. n n