A few weeks ago I took up a friends suggestion and read Ayn Rand’s Anthem (and at “Free”, it’s worth every penny on Kindle!). The story is short (not exactly a Rand trademark!), accessible, and ultimately obvious. Its main character is part of a futuristic society where everything is controlled by the state, everything is done for the common good. There are no individuals. There is no freedom.
The story intends to portray her vision of radical individualism and service of self as the ethical alternative to any sort of communal identity (especially the communist version of state-controlled cooperation and unity).
Despite the compelling story, the stark either/or between complete egoism and mandated non-self struck me as not only unnuanced but also, ultimately, vacuous.
Enter this month’s Christianity Today, in which Gary Moore recounts how Ayn Rand has influenced American economic policy, how that influence pushed us toward the Great Recession, and how all this is tied up with Rand’s desire to displace God as the center of moral agency.
Rand has had a deep influence on economic policy. Specifically, her idea that government should keep its hand out of everything and let money makers go make their money was part of the engine driving Alan Greenspan’s hands-off leadership of the fed’s posture toward financial markets.
The article invites us to ponder a couple of questions.
How wise is it, really, to trust that unfettered CEOs will manage everyone’s wealth well for the benefit of everyone? We’ve seen over the past couple of years how well that worked out. I’m not saying there are easy answers, but it seems that there is seldom a zero-sum game involved in wealth creation. Should we continue to trust that we’ll be on the positive side of the ledger?
Perhaps more importantly, is governmental minimalism really the ideal that Christians want to aspire to? Wait, where did the “Christian” thing come from?
Moore quotes some of the praise Rand has received, especially in more conservative leaning Christian circles. The idea that freedom is the ultimate good is echoed with a concomitant goal that Christians should seek to limit the power of the government.
It seems that the time is ripe for displacing self-interested, financial bottom lines with bottom lines that take into account sustainability and social responsibility. And Christians, whose ultimate allegiance is not to dollars or even to “freedom”, but to loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, should be at the leading edge of this change.
If we have learned first hand over the past two years that the business practices that led to the profits of the past 30 years did not come without consequences to us, the little people in the U.S., are we ready to step back ask who these same approaches have been costing other people all over the world? What we got the smallest taste of when those whom we piously call “the fat cats on Wallstreet” set all our savings into the crapper two years ago is what the developing world has been experiencing for decades as even the least of us American consumers has increased our standard of living and personal wealth/debt.
It’s time to rethink our economics (somebody with economics wisdom can help us with that, I’m hoping). And it’s also time to rethink our consumption. Fortunately for the latter, we’re starting to get help.
Excellent post!
Wendell Berry is a really good place to start if you’re looking for examination of a Christian economics. Sex, Freedom, The Economy and Community is a good collection. Also, The Art of the Commonplace and The Citizenship Papers.
Daniel, have you had a chance to read this piece, comparing “The Fountainhead” to “It’s A Wonderful Life”? Very profound observations, I thought.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/03/the-fountainhead-of-bedford-falls/
Keep up the good work!
Just leaving a comment so I can follow the discussion via email. I read Anthem, Daniel, earlier this year, and came away with very similar impressions. This is supposed to be one of the great thinkers of the 21st century??
There are a lot of good reasons Christians can have to want to restrict the role of government in the lives of people. Anyone who values rights and democracy wants to restrict the role of government in many ways. Christians do not have to, and should not invoke Ayn Rand when supporting limited government because Objectivism as a philosophy is incompatible with Christianity.
Daniel, interesting post. Here are the problems with your argument, as I see it.
First and foremost, you’re setting up an economic discussion on a reactionary basis, and on false terms. Meaning this . . .
We do not have a free market capitalist economy because we are accountable to Ayn Rand, but because we are accountable to our Constitution and its “history of interpretation” (e.g., Monroe’s “Federalist Papers”).
In other words, the argument, Ayn Rand = Immoral economics vs. (your) (moral) non-minimalist govt, is not a functional argument because it is not accountable to anything beyond an *understandable* resentment for the recent collapse, and a *legitimate* desire for a compassionate society.
Secondly, you seem to be equating the financial collapse with capitalism, when in fact the types of governmental policies and financial practices that led to the collapse are almost the exact antithesis of capitalism.
Thirdly, as for being reactionary, it seems that you’re assuming that there is an economic model consonant with American constitutional governance that involves no risk. Whereas it is the risk inherent in the capitalistic enterprise that has created the prosperity and wealth our nation enjoys, in which *free people* get to choose what they wish to buy, whom they wish to patronize, whom they wish to give charity to, not on the basis of govt mandates/coercion, but because of the superiority of a product, or of congenial customer service, and out of the goodness of their hearts, etc. (I also hasten to add that we have not had true free market capitalism since the Progressive Era, and reemphasize that the “risks” that led to the financial collapse had little to nothing to do with free market capitalism.)
Fourthly, you seem to be assuming that America is not already a moral, compassionate nation that generally looks out for those who are weak/disenfranchised at home and abroad. Whereas in fact America is the most generous nation on the planet, always helping out when national disaster strikes, etc. We can help out *because* we are (or were) free to be prosperous, and it is not always in our immediate interest to do so, though sometimes it is which is not “immoral.”
In short, no matter how you slice it, the philosophical argument is Marxism vs. Capitalism. And, temporarily suspending the question of accountability to the Constitution, in light of any fair reading of the past century–both in America and abroad–I am at a loss with how anyone could go argue for the former. None of which means that regulation of financial markets is unnecessary, or that “greed is good,” but the cumulative evidence of the 20th century points to one undeniable fact: central planning govts simply don’t work, that is, if by “working” one means sustainable, healthy, free economies/societies. (You know, economics aside, minus the slaughter of millions of people for the “collective good,” which if I’m not mistaken forms the [Soviet-Stalinist] experiential backdrop for Rand’s “individualism.”)
So, instead of ignoring the testimony of people who have lived under repressive govts and economic policies, why don’t we give them pride of place when considering both the intended and unintended effects of govts who demonize and control and manipulate business/markets with language of disinterestedness, responsibility, and morality?
My thoughts. Interested to hear your further thoughts. Blessings!
Justin,
Very nice post. Thank you.
@JustinGohl I applaud your knowledge of economics. You do well to point out that the US has not had a true free market economy for some time now. However, your claim, “Whereas in fact America is the most generous nation on the planet, always helping out when national disaster strikes, etc,” is fallacious. As someone who strikes me as having a sound mind for economics I would urge you to consider some numbers before making generalizations and claiming facts. In reality, the blanket statement, the US is the most generous nation on the planet, is not tenable on several levels. First, in terms of individual giving, a recent Gallup Poll (I do not often cite polls that have not polled me, but this is recent and relevant) has the US tied for 5th in terms of individual giving based on a number of areas (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/the-most-generous-countries-on-earth/). Also, in giving per capita, the US at one point ranked 18th out of 20 countries (http://www.aneki.com/most_generous_countries.html). Second, in terms of GNI/GDP comparatively, based on percentages of the total given the US fails miserably, around 0.16% as of 2005. Perhaps you have been misled by the fact that the little that the US does give outweighs the donations of other countries with regard to total money. So, yes, the US may give more money than some countries, even many countries combined, but when considered with the size of the countries’ GNI/GDP, the US is near the bottom of the world’s 22 wealthiest nations (in fact, in 2005, we were next to last out of the 22 wealthiest countries, see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676). Perhaps you would like to qualify your fact? Are you claiming that America is the most generous nation on an individual level, on a corporate level, or on a national/governmental level? Or, is America the most generous simply because America is “…always helping out?” I was also wondering why you perceive America as a morally compassionate country, “… that generally looks out for those who are weak/disenfranchised at home and abroad”? I realize that this may be only tangentially related to your overall point, but the issue is important. I think maybe instead of generalizing generosity in terms of degrees, it is perhaps better to speak of generosity in alternative manners. After all, if America was in fact the most generous nation on the planet, then poverty would not exist would it (or free market capitalism for that matter ; )? I look forward to your response. Cheers, Justin
On the hopeful side, spend an evening playing “Bio Shock” and you will realize that THIS generation will be filled with young people who have seen and felt the effects of an Objectivist Utopia gone amok.
@Justin. Thanks for your comment. You’re very generous, but my knowledge of economics as such is not worthy of applause.
Here’s something from the “National Philanthropic Trust” I just found. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropy/philanthropy_stats.asp
In 2008 (a recessionary year), apparently, Americans gave $308 billion in charity, which was 2.2% of GDP. That hardly sounds miserly to me! Is there a reason I should not believe those numbers?
Pending your response to that, I would amend my statement to: America is a generous nation. How’s that? You are also correct that this is a tangential concern in my overall argument.
Aside from that I’m not quite sure how to respond to your point because I’m not sure about the assumptions you are making. Let me say it this way: what is your positive argument? What is the ideal that you are holding America (and presumably everyone else) accountable to? Is there some historical event or some societal condition at home or abroad that Americans have been particularly negligent of? Or is the truth of the matter that “crap happens,” “the poor you will always have among you,” and reality sometimes just “sucks”? (To speak with sophistication . . .) Or have you just resigned yourself to the assumption that America is an oppressive imperial force in the world and you will interpret every situation to that predetermined conclusion?
In other words, what’s the percentage of GDP America needs to give to the rest of the world for her to pass your morality bar? Especially since, as I’m sure you know, our treasury is empty to say the least. (And why that is the case is not a little related to the present discussion!)
Now, I’m all for commitment to transcendent ideals, derived from both my Christian faith and American identity. And every economic system has the potential of abuse, and there *are* currents of individualism and materialism in the US that, from a Christian perspective, stand under the judgment of the gospel. And this includes judgment on a reverse type of Marxist materialism that reduces the gospel to a social agenda (with a curious blending of “church & state”) and treats this life and the material world and socio-economic status as if it were ultimate (all notions that are clearly denounced in the New Testament).
So, if you are arguing from the base point of Marxist ideals/commitments, then of course America will be repugnant to you. But this is because you do not accept America’s ideals, and instead proceed with Marxist definitions such that “capitalism” = “greed.” Can there be greedy capitalists? Of course, but so can there be greedy Marxists (particularly and strangely the ones who end up “redistributing” the wealth of others. Hmm, curious.). The positive American definition of “capitalism” is “freedom”—the notion that I am sufficiently capable and entitled to decide how to best use my resources.
Now, when the gospel is at work among Christians (and hopefully then on a broader societal level), this freedom will be used towards the ends not only of one’s own sustenance and comfortableness, but also towards the assistance of others, e.g., through the ministry of the Church and personal acts of charity.
And there will no doubt be others who use this freedom only to receive the maximum of worldly pleasure and status. This too stands under the judgment of the gospel. However, as American citizens, the solution to this use of freedom is not a central planning govt bureaucracy that legislates a societal morality by transgressing Constitutional bounds and abridging individual freedoms. The solution is heart transformation that comes through the work of the Holy Spirit via the Church.
So, in a sense, there is (calculated) risk in America’s commitment to freedom. I cannot make others use their resources the way I think they should, and others may not share my sense of moral urgency about this or that. We have decided, however, in principle if not always in practice, that it is better in the long run to take that risk rather than to try to manage and coerce others. (And this is where the oft-maligned “self-interest” comes in: capitalism rests on the assumption that when someone has ownership of their own resources they are empowered and personally invested in its best use, and because of this an altruistic spirit will attain in a culture.)
But, again, unless the standard of measure is an unattainable utopian ideal, historically, I think the American people have had a strong sense of “communitas,” of commitment to helping one’s “neighbor” as one is able. If this has waned in recent generations, I would argue it is precisely because we have been trained to look to the govt as the source of solutions for our problems rather than to each other. This kind of psychological shift is exactly what Hayek argued happens with the move to statism and central planning. A people is slowly robbed of freedom and self-awareness of moral agency via a soft cultural fascism that is based on dependence on govt.
And, a final thought, neither should the desire to live a quiet life within one’s means and relative comfortability be demonized. There is nothing immoral about prosperity, nor about, e.g., having a flat screen TV (which I do not), etc. The gospel is not about self-negation through cycles of perpetual guilt that I have been born into the context of 21st century Western society and others have not. So, while life in America poses “risks” to the Christian life, the solution is not the eradication of prosperity via Marxism. That is, the solution is not everyone being equally poor so that there’s no “injustice.”
Be interested in your thoughts, Justin, as this response was sort of a rambling shot in the dark. I would be glad to revisit your point about American “generosity” once we get a few basics and statistics out of the way. But I will say that, whatever the stats are, the argment, “America gives more money than everyone else, but it’s proportionately less vis-a-vis overall size of economy,” is by no means a slam dunk. Again, what giving standard is the basis of judgment? Is America *required* to give anything? And I also wonder about whether for example giving to churches and other faith-based organizations has been figured into the statistics. Does tithing count? If not, why not? I know my family does not have loads of disposable income, and we live pretty simply, so our giving to our church is our charity.
Cheers to you!
Justin, thanks for your response. Also, I am glad that you chose to amend your claim.
I think that a number of things need to become clearer. First, before I infer about your claims, a response to my question would be helpful in deciphering how you interpret the statistic you presented. Namely, are you claiming that America is the most generous nation on an individual level, on a corporate level, or on a national/governmental level? Because there are so many different areas in which this may be measured it is important to determine just what is being measured. The statistics I presented covered a number of the possibilities. Your statistic seems to be, according to the report, an amalgamation of donations, largely by the private sector (individuals,etc.), to various charities including, “Religion, Public-Society Benefit and International Affairs…Arts/Culture/Humanities; Education; Environment/Animals; Health; Human Services; and Foundations” (http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf p.1). These are calculated separate from what the government gives in terms of foreign aid, which a number of statistics I presented involved. Your statistic merely supports a fact that I confirmed, that America, in terms of money has a lot to give, and indeed gives a substantial amount of it. I do not think it will be entirely constructive to go back and forth over statistics. I never disputed that America or Americans were generous to some degree, but that your claim does not hold up under scrutiny (given the various perspectives I cited initially), and I am thankful that you amended your claim.
As for an ideal, I do not have some standard by which to judge generosity. However, on a national level, the US has imposed its own standard, and has fallen short of that standard. As I pointed out, this is just one such instance that could be cited, “The U.S. also gives much less than what the industrialized countries pledged to give at the 1992 Rio Conference, which was 0.7 percent of their GDP. U.S. development aid, at 0.16 percent of GDP, represents less than one-quarter of this promise” (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676)). That is not a standard that I imposed, I am just simply pointing out that the US does not out give other nations, and this point is just one example.
I will respond to this paragraph below.
“Aside from that I’m not quite sure how to respond to your point because I’m not sure about the assumptions you are making. Let me say it this way: what is your positive argument? What is the ideal that you are holding America (and presumably everyone else) accountable to? Is there some historical event or some societal condition at home or abroad that Americans have been particularly negligent of? Or is the truth of the matter that “crap happens,” “the poor you will always have among you,” and reality sometimes just “sucks”? (To speak with sophistication . . .) Or have you just resigned yourself to the assumption that America is an oppressive imperial force in the world and you will interpret every situation to that predetermined conclusion?”
I did not make any assumptions.
I am not holding America, or anyone else, accountable to an ideal.
There are a number of historical events and societal conditions at home and abroad that Americans have been negligent of, but in some cases it can be chalked up to ignorance. So it may be difficult to prove someone negligent that is ignorant of the circumstances. I can give you a number of examples if you would like.
I think all would do well to consider the question, is America an oppressive imperial force in the world? I certainly have an opinion on the matter, if you would like to listen. Some other questions to ask may be, is the US in a permanent war economy? Or, do we have a military-industrial complex? Why is the US constantly at war? I think if one answers those questions fairly and honestly, then the response to the first question, is America an oppressive imperial force may be surprising to some. I would be interested in your response to these questions, and your reasons for maintaining whether or not the US is an oppressive imperial force in the world.
Thanks for the discussion.
Cheers, Justin
I recently read Atlas Shrugged (I had plenty of time on my hands during my six months of unemployment) and I was stunned to see how much of Rand’s ideas have been co-opted by Christians. How have so many Christians failed to hear Jesus’ basic message? (A question I’ve been posing to myself a lot recently.)
By the way, this talk of the world’s economics has reminded me of something else. I appreciated a post of yours on the old Sibboleth blog about the “Parable of the Dishonest Manager” in Luke 16:1-15. That blog is sadly no longer with us, and I was wondering if that old post is available in any form anywhere else. Your new blog is great, but hopefully some old wisdom is not gone forever.
@Peter Martin: What is Jesus’ basic message?
The bible has dozens of statements to the effect that the strong and wealthy need to be merciful and think of the needs of the weak and the poor (and of their own true poverty before God). These statements are heavily concentrated in the prophets (both “major” and “minor”), but they are also found in the pentateuch and in the NT epistles. James comes out swinging against “the rich”, in his epistle, and comes back to it several times before he’s over, and he uses scathing terms, at times. (And, IMO, modern rich people do not get a “free pass”, from James’ judgment, just because 2,000 years have passed.)
There are similarly scathing statements by Jesus (the parable of Lazarus the Beggar and Rich Guy Who is Nameless But Goes To Hell), and positive uplifting stories like Zacchaeus (maybe not so positive to a Rich Guy though), and the story of The Rich Young Ruler (which is routinely spiritualized away, as if it wasn’t part of the same overall narrative as the previously mentioned two stories).
You will find extremely few paeans to the glories of individual freedom, anywhere in the bible. The trashing of government (per se) is also not a widespread concept in the bible, although it is clear (tower of Babel, temptation of Jesus in the desert) that Satan is behind the evils of Empire. I do not believe that the bible teaches Socialism, or Marxism, but it certainly also does not teach McDonalds, Halliburton, ExxonMobile, or Wal*Mart.
I find overlong comments hard to slog through, so I’m going to stop here, but I want to say a thing or two about Ayn Rand, Anthem, and other books by her, in another comment. And a little more about my personal journey with regard to political thinking and biblical/extra-biblical sources on the topic.
-Joel
Joel-
I am very much interested in your thoughts: …but I want to say a thing or two about Ayn Rand, Anthem, and other books by her, in another comment. And a little more about my personal journey with regard to political thinking and biblical/extra-biblical sources on the topic.”
Looking forward.
Ps…ALSO-Thanks everyone for your comments. I find the responses very challenging…so thanks.
Confession,
I read a fair bit of Ayn Rand during and immediately after college. Her effect on me was quite deleterious and I’ve had to work to overcome it.
To me the biggest problem for Christians reading Ayn Rand sympathetically, as I did, is that she encourages us to ask the wrong questions. The question for Christians is not ” which is better: individualism or collectivism?” The questions we have to ask ourselves are: how do we follow Jesus most faithfully here and now; how should we love our neighbors; how do we speak truthfully to and about our societal institutions (governmental or otherwise); how should our family and social lives reflect the gospel; how can we make our churches more faithful, more honest, more loving; etc.
I’ve become convinced that the “big” questions about how a society might best be organized are not nearly so important as I was led to believe when I was younger.
I do want to agree with one point that Mr Gohl makes (or comes close to making). Ayn Rand is merely one expression of the libertarian ideology in our nation’s history. I once heard David Boaz being interviewed on C-SPAN about his book on libertarianism. He was asked to name some prominent libertarians in American history and he simply replied, “everyone.” Individualism is, for better or worse, an integral part of American political thought across the board.
A little bit of context first. I grew up “lefty” (both literally and politlically, although not religiously), and I voted straight Democratic for the first 12 years or so. I first got a glance at libertarianism in the late 90s, when I was 28, and thought, “Hm, that looks kind of smart,” and then my girlfriend at the time freaked out on me and that was that.
Fast forward to March of 2009. I had just voted (unenthusiastically) for Obama. Someone introduced me to the idea of libertarian (or “free market”) *anarchism*, not the Party kind of lib. I got really excited (a little too much so; I take a medicine for that now) and it actually got me motivated to read the bible daily again, after years of not doing so. Of course I saw anarchism everywhere in the Gospels, at first. Long story short, after several months of thinking and reading and thinking some more, about 1 Samuel 8 and Romans 13:1-7 especially, I decided that it is not really possible to be *both* an anarchist *and* a biblically-based Christian.
What I mean by this is that the moment someone says “I am an anarchist.” they violate the spirit of both Romans 13:1-7 *and* “Render unto Caesar”. This may seem over-subtle to some, but it is the *declaration* that is the problem here, not the belief that the Kingdom of God completely blows away the Kingdom of Satan. So, I am not an anarchist, but I also believe that “the Kingdom of Heaven(God) is within you”– not within the human state.
One more thing, then I will end this comment, and post one more with a few observations about Ayn Rand. Part of “Hipster Christianity” (I wear the brand proudly), I think, is the exploration of the full richness of the term “empire”. The important thing for us to remember is that Empire knows no party or ideology; it’s big, it’s violent, it’s full of hubris, the distance from the head to the foot is too far for it to be sustainable. I work for an IT (business) empire called Oracle; we all pay taxes (whether we like it or not) to a (political, military) empire called USA. I have gotten over the “big gov’t vs. no gov’t” thing, and now I just seek organic connection with others, i.e., with people close enough to literally touch.
About Anthem, by Ayn Rand. It is a very different kind of book, than Atlas Shrugged (which I consumed in 2009, mostly audio) and The Fountainhead (haven’t read it). It (Anthem) is so raw and over-the-top and absolute, that I guess you could call it “vacuous”. You could also call the other books vacuous, if you wanted, but they are way denser and she wanted to paint a semi-realistic world through which to communicate her philosophy of the heroic individual, who only relies on facts and evidence and reason.
The hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, is cast as a modern Christ figure, who will bear torture before he recants the belief that makes up his existential core. I found a lot to admire in what Rand says in this novel, but in the end, you realize that while Rand had a vision of heaven, she was in some ways a troubled and broken person. (You don’t get that all from the book, of course; you have to read a bit about her life too.)
Atlas Shrugged is a sort of atheist Left Behind. You could argue that she wasn’t trying to put forward a political strategy, but the fact is that many people read the book and take the plot as a more literal blueprint for the struggle for a Good Society. That is a mistake.
As I said two comments ago, I don’t believe the bible teaches radical individualism, even though it holds up great individual men and women to the light. Christians ought to stop arguing that Acts 2:44-47, Acts 4:32-25, Luke 18:13-23, Luke 19:1-10, etc. etc., don’t apply to us today. So: on the one hand, don’t seek salvation for the poor and oppressed, by leaning on the splintered reed that is Washington D.C., but on the other hand don’t waste your life trying to dismantle imperial Washington and replace with some Randian utopia. Just love the people around you in such a way that makes people glorify God and want to join you.
@Joel: Interesting series of comments!
For my part, I am of course aware of all the biblical themes/contexts you refer to in your first post, and am quite committed to giving them their fair due. I have wrestled, and am still wrestling, with the radical nature of Jesus’ ethic AND Jesus’ gracious call to rest in him. But I’m equally committed to not engaging in a sort of reductionistic biblicism that moves from biblical statements to uncritical, one-to-one application in the present (whether or not that’s what you are doing). Babylon -> Rome -> USA. Wealth -> oppressors -> USA. Poor -> oppressed -> non-USA.
So, saying that the Bible doesn’t teach “the glories of individual freedom,” or “Socialism, or Marxism, [and] certainly also does not teach McDonalds, Halliburton, ExxonMobile, or Wal*Mart,” is an absurd thing to say (as perhaps you intended?). The Bible doesn’t teach the NASA space program either. One would have to give an account of what it means for the Bible to “teach something,” that is, in such a way that is prescriptively and immediately to be put into concrete use.
Clearly, the Bible is not a post-Enlightenment document. But that’s not a criticism. Individual freedom doesn’t need to be “biblical teaching”—although of course it is, in certain ways—in order for it to be both good and to be binding of our civic life as Americans. And this is first and foremost because we are not a theocracy.
I was also intrigued by this comment:
“The important thing for us to remember is that Empire knows no party or ideology; it’s big, it’s violent, it’s full of hubris, the distance from the head to the foot is too far for it to be sustainable. I work for an IT (business) empire called Oracle; we all pay taxes (whether we like it or not) to a (political, military) empire called USA. I have gotten over the “big gov’t vs. no gov’t” thing, and now I just seek organic connection with others, i.e., with people close enough to literally touch.”
Saying “I’ve gotten over the ‘big govt vs. no govt’ thing” is tantamount to saying, I’ve gotten over thinking about how society works (best/better). And that’s your right; no judgment. But using the “Empire” construct *is* to object to big govt. When was the last time a “small” govt oppressed someone, or spent a nation into bankruptcy, or made war? These are direct products of big govt. Which is exactly why America is founded upon the principle of self/representative/small government. The Constitution is anti-Imperial (cf. England, 1700s); it’s progressives (in both parties) who have read Marx more than Madison and have dictator-envy who grow govt, are prideful, power-worshipping, want to control others, etc. These are not “conservative” tendencies. “Conservative” being the contemporary American term for what used to be called “liberal” (in Europe).
So, with all the problems our nation is facing, wouldn’t the first logical question be, Why? Unless of course one thinks America is not worth “restoring/sustaining,” which would of course seem to be the corollary of the “evil empire” construct.
@Paul: Just two thoughts in response.
On your first paragraph, I agree that the “individualism vs. collectivism” question when treated as an abstraction is not overly interesting. However, 1) all the “hows” you list will inevitably lead to concrete questions of individual/corporate responsibility, etc., and 2) as I just tried to suggest to Joel, the “individualism vs. collectivism” question is *never* an abstract question, at least in a historical perspective. Is not the “collectivist” impulse at the root of almost every atrocity in the 20th century? Please show me the “individualist” who slaughtered millions of people, etc., or the atrocity performed in the name of “individual rights.” Maybe there is one I don’t know about?
And secondly, I’d just reframe your comment about individualism as an ideology. There’s a difference between individual*ism* as an ideological expression, and the “self-evident” truth(s) expressed in the Constitution vis-à-vis the rights of the individual. In other words, when it comes to our national, civic life, “the rights of the individual” is not one ideological construct among others that I stand above and pick and choose from or deconstruct. Those who wish to govern me do not have to be “individualists,” but they do have to commit to upholding American ideals in their governance as enshrined in our Constitution. Academics can read all the 19th century German philosophy and Liberation theology they want (I’ve read some myself), but those things are not normative for the shape of our govt and/or civic life. And America is not a laboratory for societal experimentation, either. We are not progressing “beyond freedom” to “responsibility,” as if responsibility for *self* were not already assumed in American accounts of freedom.
Some thoughts, for what they’re worth. Blessings, all.
@Justin: thanks for your response to my thoughts, and the clarifications of your previous points.
I know Christians who come out of a “conservative” (using that term in its modern American meaning) political culture/milieu, and I know Christians who (like myself) come out of a “liberal” (modern American sense) political culture milieu. The former are very good at spotting the abuses of government (i.e., political, legitimized-force, “the state”) when it gets “too big” (i.e., goes beyond the *apparently clear* mandate of Romans 13:1-7). The latter spend a good deal of time talking about the evils of wealth concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals.
Here’s the thing: there’s strong support for both criticisms, in the bible. Here’s another thing: is not Oracle Corporation “a government”? And, were there not situations in the past, and situations now, where the U.S. military has acted as the enforcers of the interests of a U.S. businessman (or a relatively small group of businessmen), outside of sovereign U.S. territory? (Think: U.S. troops attacking Central American peasants working on “American owned” banana plantations, in the late 19th century.) It’s just not as clean cut as “government: good” or “government: bad”.
I believe that small government, restrained government, is good. Government that “does what God intended”. I also believe that it is good when wealthy businessmen “do what God intended”. The bible may not teach Marxism, or a socialist form of government, but it unequivocally does teach that having more than you need, when people who have less than they need are in your view (and the wealthiest businessmen have the entire globe “in their view”), and not giving some of your extra to them, without expecting repayment, will get you into hell.
But it also unequivocally teaches that people who are able to work, and who refuse to work, should not eat.
Soooo… When I said “I’ve gotten over the ‘big govt vs. no govt’ thing”, I really meant that I have decided not to “do” electoral politics, in the sense that I believe it is bad stewardship of my resources to play the game that is currently set before us, i.e. our two-party, genteel gang warfare system. Cop-out? Perhaps. But it’s where I am right now, as I try to stay stable and healthy.
You can join one the gangs (“party”, “corporation”, whatever they’re calling themselves) and “try to effect change from within”. But I find the small-gov’t, libertarian, “tea party” political types (Christian or not) are often blind to the idea of “systemic evil”, just as the other side (Christian or not) is a bit too enamored of creating systems that might bring heaven on earth. Or to put it yet another way: I think the political idolatry of our time blinds us (or can blind us) to the need to do the slow and boring (and often painful) work of knitting people together on a small scale.
I think this will be my last word on this, in this particular post. If anyone is interested in some of my written thoughts as I transitioned from center-left Democrat to “Christian Anarchist” back to “just Joel, elder on session at a gawky, struggling little Presbyterian church [n.b. Daniel: not Woodland], father of one, fielder of insurance software problem reports”, from April through October of 2009, see my blog here:
Spreading the Word
Joel, I think you’re making good libertarian arguments. I, too, have little interest in the two-party system for its own sake. That’s a huge part of our problem: questions of truth and accountability have been sacrificed to party politics and ideology. On the other hand, it’s not even a question as to which party is generally more in-line with Constitutional governance.
I am not naive with regard to systemic evil, and again suggest that it is to that very thing that the Constitution was addressed. I resist your insinuation that the “tea-party” people are engaging in political idolatry; desiring the freedom ensured us under the Constitution is not “idolatry.” The “tea-party” are normal people who get it; the only reason they’re “political” is that they represent a threat to the current “ruling class” (in both parties) who have created the mess we’re in. So your characterization strikes me as a reductionistic move simply for you to keep yourself from having to commit to anything.
And I agree it’s not a matter of stark “good vs. bad” with govt; rather, it’s a question of roles. But then the question is, to what are we accountable in identifying these roles?
I will admit to, due to a lack of experience, having some naivete about the corporate world. But in terms of principle, in terms of what makes a society/economy function better/best, I–nay, the Constitution–would rather have a free market with people motivated by profit, to provide jobs, to provide opportunity, to lift people out of poverty, rather than a redistributionist govt that punishes all of those things, meanwhile enriching itself and bankrupting the nation. Which is what we currently have.
In other words, while I’m willing to listen to and take seriously corporate abuses, there is no equivalent between a few people having a lot of *earned* wealth, who then can invest that wealth and create more prosperity (of course while getting richer themselves, and thus more opportunity for charity, and for buying stuff, i.e., “stimulus”), and a govt that makes every one poor.
Moreover, one cannot talk about abuses in corporate America without recognizing the central place of *unions* in our current fiscal crisis. Unions are example par excellence of systemic evil!
All the best!