In an important Wall Street Journal op-ed, Arthur Brooks point out that fairly or not, “over the decades many Americans have become convinced that conservatives care only about the rich and powerful.” This is a problem, according to the American Enterprise Institute president, because:
Citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak. By contrast, moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority—to which conservative politicians often give greater emphasis—resonate deeply with only a minority of the population. Raw money arguments, e.g., about the dire effects of the country’s growing entitlement spending, don’t register morally at all.
Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support—care for the vulnerable—to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.
Mr. Brooks, with whom I co-authored a monograph on the morality of democratic capitalism, lays out the case for how conservatives can make improving the lives of vulnerable people a primary focus. (The main reason to do so, Brooks makes clear, is that it’s the right thing to do.)
As it happens, I’m reading a book by Tim Keller, Generous Justice, in which he makes the case for promoting justice and compassion from the vantage point of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Keller points out that God gives the poor and downtrodden particular attention and has a special place in His heart for them. The Lord has a “zeal for justice” that binds Him to the socially weak, the dispossessed, and those living in the shadows of society.
Dr. Keller focuses on why a just society should care about the poor and reflect God’s concern for justice; he wisely doesn’t interject himself into our contentious political debates. But Keller’s argument does have political implications, since the case for “generous justice” (which includes a commitment to care for the poor) is based on the nature of the human person and their intrinsic worth. And those issues are central to political theory.
I understand that politics involves a balancing act and prioritization. There are obviously many issues that cry out for attention. Still, it seems to me that any political philosophy or party that doesn’t take into account the care and concerns of the weak and marginal is morally desiccated and hardly worthy of one’s allegiance. At the risk of sounding simplistic, what matters to God ought to matter to us, not for reasons having to do with arbitrary and outdated doctrines but with our basic design. The child in inner city Detroit and sub-Saharan Africa have worth because God has bestowed worth on them, as on us; because they and we are created in His image and likeness.
Now precisely how solidarity with the poor works itself out in public policy is a complicated matter involving prudential judgments. But that a society should care about the poor really is not.
Brooks' article makes some good points, and probably is good politics (which is the key), but let's be honest: the notion of who is "vulnerable" in our country is quite relative. Relative to truly poor countries, our "vulnerable" are kings. Relative to our kings, our vulnerable have a lot less money, free time and luxuries, but they probably do have: smart phones, large screen TVs, air conditioned living accomodations, free education for life, way more than enough to eat, free legal services, free health care, and income from the government or some sort of work. n [Continued in next post] n
[continued] nSo I ask Brooks and Wehner: Aren't you the ones being "cynical" (to use Wehner's favorite word). Americans are really pretty well off, even the ones below the "poverty line". Aren't you really saying that the GOP should pander to the moral vanity of upper income voters to make them think they are virtuous for supporting the "vulnerable"? Wouldn't a less "cynical" and more virtuous platform be to say: We want everyone to have as much freedom as possible, consistent with basic morality and American values? We are not a country just to help "the vulnerable". That is, forgive me, a stereotypical Christain idea. It is not why American was founded. I 100% believe GOP ideas are better for "the vulnerable", but that is not why we have this nation.
The problem is framing an argument. It seems no matter what they intend, Republican politicians manage to get tied into defending (for instance, small business owners who create jobs … but who also happen to earn sums of money that make them sound rich, like a couple of hundred thousand). n nNever do I hear a Republican ask (Blacks, for instance) what has Obama and the Democrats done for you? Whose friend is he? The super rich who give him campaign money get guaranteed loans for green energy, then give themselves huge bonuses of millions of dollars and file bankruptcy. But can you afford a gallon of gas? Farmers are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece to raise corn for ethanol … which lowers your gas mileage, destroys your car's engine in short order, and creates more pollution than gasoline — and raises the price of gasoline some more? What do you get out of that? n nRepublicans have got to stop standing up for the job creators and defending classroom capitalism and bring home what the cost of Obamaism is. n nTell them! Unions are not the friends of the working poor. You know that all they want is more for themselves and they don't care where it comes from. Wake up! n
And perhaps a place to start here is to drive home the point that conservatives believe that everyone (yes, including the poor) has intrinsic value and that liberals see the poor as cumbersome to society and mostly as a mouth that needs to be fed (and as a potential vote of course). The Left likes "people," but only in the abstract. The Left isn't much concerned at all with flesh and blood human beings.
The GOP represents entrenched business interests, not free markets. No one represents free markets except Rand Paul and a tiny handful of others.
Good comments–they go much deeper than the article which lacked the historical context you all pointed out. Helping the poor–the legitimate poor and downtrodden has always been a Christian given. r nr nThe true poor seem to get a raw deal. A government program can only do so much; it cannot heal the soul of those truly exploited — that is where faith and true charity from individuals–versus patting oneself on the back for voting for another bureaucratic run government program–show to me who really cares. r nr nHow many bureaucrats and politicians and big government supporters are out in the community caring for the true poor, damaged, and vulnerable??
Unions are legitimate advocates for the interest of their members just as the ABA, AMA, Cahmber of Commerence advocate for the interest of their members. If Republicans can advocate freedom in general that helps the poor i.e. vocher programs that give citizens a choice on how its' resources are used. Republicans-support for freedom in the use of public resources vs Unions support of member interest won in Wisconsin and may win in other states.