Rant # 14 - The Great Contradiction: Compelled Compassion?

I have found it amusing that the same ideologues who insist that “open-mindedness” and the questioning of authority are the duties of every American also insist that the Federal Government is the best agent of change and the ordained executor of force upon those who would resist this “compelled compassion".

In a recent conversation with a friend, I began to see why this apparent contradiction permeates among moderate and left-of center politicos. He believes that – by default – the government IS the people, therefore it must be that the will of the government is the will of the people. The logical conclusion is that government has the right to regulate, because this regulation is essentially self-imposed and as a result, involvement in the details of our lives cannot be questioned.

Programs like elderly welfare (Social Security), health care subsidization (Medicare), rental compensation for societal squatters (Section 8)… these are all elements that are intended (read: “sold”) as a means to help the poor, but end up enslaving multitudes of unsuspecting and open-handed young people who grow up never knowing the harsh realities of a life unlived. I don’t even question the basis of Government’s right to intervene if that is what the “people” call for, but I do question the fact that it will ever succeed. The entire 20th century was a monument to proving that these “well-intentioned” battles against poverty merely remove the responsibility and the consequences of decision from the individual and place them on a wandering “collective” that is neither equipped, nor capable of addressing needs on an individual basis. The system is so easy to abuse and we end up replacing one problem with another. Over time, the only resulting "compassion" is to those who have the the most influence on the weaker.

As Christians, my friend and I agree that we have a Biblical duty to see to the needs of the poor, the widows and orphans. The Church is charged with this duty, the Government is not. We are pathetically more interested in buying an HD flat-screen or saving for our futures more than helping our neighbors. We have marginalized “compassion” and charitable giving to being another expense in our budget, expendable when our waists are tightened. While we would be willing to sacrifice everything to provide for our family and protect them from failure and harm, we are unwilling to do the same for our fellowman; “love your neighbor as yourself” assumes we already love ourselves and has nothing to do with “loving yourself” first.

But now… we have allowed apathy to breed a passive attitude to liberal government philosophy, and it no longer thrives only in classrooms and universities, it has become the philosophy of Joe American. Because of the Church’s failure to serve, and the Christian’s selfish policies of economic “protectionism”, we have concluded that maybe the Federal Government IS a reasonable vehicle of change. After all, SOMEONE has to help the disenfranchised, right? The argument appeals to the best of human nature, to help someone in need. But giving this power to a centralized Government with endless lines of credit and little accountability allows the lesser side of human nature to take control and abuse the system for their OWN benefit. And this has occurred time and time again, even right here in America. On the other hand, when Americans are encouraged either indirectly through policy or directly by public pronouncement and example, the needs of the poor are met appropriately through the means of Biblical love and compassion.

Last year, Americans donated more than $150 billion to charitable causes in education, housing and sustenance programs. The Federal Government spent nearly $900 billion on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in the same year. How much more would we as a community embrace each other in need with the power of more economic freedom if we simply trusted ourselves to do the same? Instead, we somehow have lied to ourselves for so long that we now believe the Government system is more trustworthy than we are on a local level.

The Great Contradiction has been borne out of our moral nature to help the underprivileged and down-trodden, but has been polluted by the wake of destruction left behind by countless failed policies and socialist agendas. Capitalism and representative republicanism thrives because it harnesses the worst of human nature (greed, individualism) and assures it is funneled back into the mutual benefit of the community (open market), providing employment, charitable practice and most of all the freedom to pursue dreams and learn from our personal mistakes quickly.

Studies by the Heritage Foundation (1, 2) and the Cato Institute (1, 2) have proven the case that when taxes and regulation are scaled back, charitable giving and common decency fills the void. And this result is entirely more efficient and accountable than a Government program raising voting blocks full of “entitled” lemmings, wouldn't you suppose?

Rave #8 - Romney Gives Memorable Speech as He Drops Out of Presidential Race at CPAC

In a speech that embued the best of conservative philosophy and being "Presidential", Mitt Romney saved his best speech until last. As he bows out of the race, he indirectly endorses McCain and underlines the importance of protecting America from the dangerous policies of the left.

This speech will be referenced and studied for years, as we have Reagan on so many occasions, to communicate what conservatism is and should be. I was a doubter of Romney's true "conversion" while in office, but these words are very obviously coming from the heart of a man who believes every single word.

Watch it, savor it, and spread it around to those who are spreading the lies that the Conservative Movement is dead.

BlogBlurb - Cut it out, Conservatives!

ABC News asks survey takers “do you think that Mitt Romney would be a good or a bad President?” and people respond by saying he’s “too corporate”. John McCain’s various compatriots throw out news bait questioning Romney’s ability to manage government because he hasn’t had enough time in the system. Online bloggers suggest that Romney’s “flip-flopping” makes him untrustworthy.

While Huckabee insists on staying in a race that only the delusional believe he has a chance of winning, the conservative vote is split between the only two men that hold a perception of being conservative. Romney is not a tried and true conservative in the mold many Republicans have been hoping for, but it seems that is not his biggest liability. Instead, countless evangelical and other protestant Christians have no intention of supporting a candidate who is not only a Mormon, but even held a leadership position within his church. Their most serious charge is that Mormonism is a “cult” and they just don’t trust a “cultist” to be President. But as a member of a very conservative Pentecostal denomination I have also had charges of “cult” hurled at me countless times by the moderate and agnostic.

The definition of a “cult” by the Random House Dictionary:
A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers.
A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

To all of my fellow evangelical die-hards, listen to me: while we believe that our faith and doctrine are the only correct interpretation of scripture, we are no more OR less a “cult” than Mormonism! Somehow it doesn’t bother these same detractors that 17 of our 43 presidents were Masons, as well as Ben Franklin, Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole, who are, at heart worshippers of humanity and Mother Nature. I don’t understand the aversion of some fellow Christians to voting for a man who has a spotless record of character, has been married happily for 38 years, loves his wife and children and has never had a single slimy scandal in his life simply because he believes another faith other than traditional Christianity? I personally believe Mormonism is false, but so is the faith of playboy and maverick John McCain. McCain on the other hand was such a rebel that he lost his first wife, was known for frequenting strip bars and drag races, dating models and exotic dancers and has done more harm to the largest of conservative causes in the last 10 years than any other high-profile Republican member of Congress.

It remains to be said that every other major candidate in this race is a career politician and has no real experience running a business with the principles of efficiency and high customer service. On the contrary, Mitt Romney has a leadership ability that attracts the right people, motivates the cynical and transforms mediocrity to levels of greatness. While I do not agree with every decision he made as Governor of Massachusetts, he is by far the most conservative candidate remaining in this primary race. Huckabee is at best a moderate in governmental and fiscal policy, and McCain is the definition of an opportunist that has literally lied about previous positions and votes, believing the media will simply overlook his "inaccuracies" out of allegiance for his "independent" spirit and flair.

Christians need to stop haranguing Romney for his faith, independents need to start seeing the pandering and legacy-hunting character of Playboy McCain, and they need to begin paying attention to the dynamic of this race with three dramatically polarizing candidates and vote with responsibility. Mitt Romney is not God’s gift to conservatism, but he’s the closest representation we have to choose from, and American conservatives will be miserable with 4 years of John McCain if voters continue looking for the perfect candidate. Mitt Romney is a strict insightful businessman who understands efficiency and creativity and knows how to keep his hands clean. Something we haven’t been able to say about our President in a long time.