Compassionate Conservatism
Posted by: tony on 05/12/2008 04:13 PM
Updated by: tony on 05/12/2008 04:15 PM
|
Expires: 06/12/2008 12:00 AM
|
Mark Shea is a fabulous Catholic apologist, but when he strays into politics, he has a tendency to get it wrong sometimes.
Mark writes:
I'm not so persuaded that either of us have any real idea of the (theological) liberal/conservative demographics of those who serve the poor. However, it's not hard to figure out that sympathy for the poor is not a prime value for Limbaugh et al.
Of course not. But comparing Limbaugh to those regular people who identify themselves as conservative, is like comparing Ronald McDonald to those people who work in the restaurant making the hamburgers on a daily basis.
Oh sure, there is the rhetoric about capitalism as the *real* engine of wealth creation (and it's partly true). And there is something in Limbaugh's loathing for liberal politicians who simple use the disadvantaged in order to maintain their own power. But there is also a note of mocking contempt for the homeless and the poor. "Compassion" is a word that Limbaugh finds extraordinarily difficult to say without a sneer in his voice. And he has taught the Right to say it in just that tone.
I don't think Mark listened to the sentence before when he wrote about Limbaugh's "sneering". The "compassion" (those are sneer quotes) that Limbaugh sneers about is the faux compassion of the liberal pandering to their base with more goodies at the taxpayer's expense. This is not compassion by any stretch of the word. It's slavery. It is a very insidious form of slavery in that the slave doesn't understand that he is enslaved.
True compassion can require giving money to someone who's temporarily down on their luck. True compassion can also require giving a job to someone who needs it. However, true compassion can also require a kick in the ass.
In addition to the corporal acts of mercy like feeding the hungry, we also have to remember the spiritual acts of mercy like admonishing the sinner (ie. Sloth).
Without a grounding in the Catholic tradition (and often even with one) I suspect it's difficult for many, if not most, conservatives to view almsgiving (a historic Christian duty--along with prayer and fasting--that is one of the three pillars of piety according to our Lord) as something other than a contemptible "welfare mentality".
The facts really don't bear that out:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
So I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Shea on this. The "welfare mentality" he is referring to is alive and well and is a direct result of throwing money at a problem that requires a more "hands on" approach. Rank and file conservatives understand that all those on welfare do not have the "welfare mentality". Also the "welfare mentality" is a symptom of a greater problem in society. And this problem will not be solved by throwing money at it. It will be solved by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.
|
