Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Why leftist ideology will NEVER solve our social problems

It's rather ironic that this post is going up today of all days, the day of Jack Layton's funeral in Toronto. But someone left a comment here on the blog today, once again fundamentally misunderstanding my views on helping the less fortunate in our society, and once again calling into question my faith for being a "Conservative".

Anyway, I responded with pretty much what I'm about to say, but then thought that with what's going on today, I'd post it for my general readership too. (plus, it's been a while since I last posted anything of substance, so I figured it's time to stir the pot again)

For all of you out there, my long time readers, long time haters, and those of who who've just stumbled across the blog for the very first time... Did you know that I acutally SUPPORT INCREASING welfare benefits? And did you know that I STRONGLY SUPPORT a strong social saftey net? And I do so based on my firm convictions as a CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE... as I'm a Christian FIRST, and a Conservative SECOND. And the two, despite what many on the left would have you think, are NOT mutually exclusive.

Where I fundamentally disagree with those who are on the left, like the late Jack Layton for example, is they way that most folks on the left envision the solution to these problems. Most of them (and I recognize that I'm making some significant and non-encompassing generalizations, I know) believe that by simply throwing more money at the issues, we'll be able to solve these significant and long-term issues. A large number of them also incorrectly believe that the way to get this money is to over-tax hard working people, thereby "leveling the playing field" as it were.

Personally, I think this is a REPREHENSIBLE philosophy, and only ENCOURAGES more of the same behaviours that are the root cause of SOME (but obviously not all) of the problems we face. In essence, it's a a fundamentally Communist perspective... take away from those who have, in order to give to those who don't. The problem with that perspective is that there are many of those who don't "have", who in fact COULD "HAVE", if they weren't repeatedly making bad choices.

For example, I've worked in front line healthcare, working daily with folks who are on social assistance. Of course, many of them VERY legitimately, who have conditions that prevent them from being able to provide for themselves. (see related ASIDE below) It's really sad to see the generational welfare families, who've figured out how to "work the system", and have taught their children how to do the same... kids who have now grown up with a "sense of entitlement", and have no desire nor inclination whatsoever to get themselves off the system. They look to the state for EVERYTHING, and blame all their problems on society in general, rather than looking to themselves and learning the benefits of hard work to improve their own lives. It's a desperately sad and vicious cycle, one that will be IMPOSSIBLE to break if we just keep throwing more money into the system.

(RELATED ASIDE: I remember one guy who really WANTED to provide for himself but just couldn't... was in a wheelchair, and had numourous conditions that prevented him from holding a job, because his body wouldn't co-operate with any kind of consistant schedule. So what did he do? When he was in good health, he'd spend a lot of time doing voluntary work, like sorting at the local Food Bank, and in general just trying to give back to the society that was supporting him. Had a GREAT attitude, and didn't convey any sense that he felt "entitled" to Government assistance. Now THAT's someone who more than deserves our support!)

So, I've come to the conclusion, as have many other Conservatives, that it's ONLY when we revamp the entire system, and get the "freeloaders" off the system, that we'll then have more money available to actually increase benefits to those who are genuinely in need. You see, I'm focused on the ROOT CAUSES of the problems we see, not the SYMPTOMS... but I percieve that most folks on the left are focused on the symptoms, not the solutions. Of course, most of them will turn around and say that the REAL root cause of our problems is the dreaded evil of "capitalism"... at which point I just roll my eyes, once again.

You see, I wouldn't call myself a "capitalist"... we just live in a capitalist society. AS HAS MOST OF THE WORLD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. You know, the general principal of "If a man shall not work, he shall not eat." Which, interestingly enough, is a Biblical principal too.

Now of course if a man CANNOT work, then OBVIOUSLY we need to support him or her in our society. For the record, I want to HELP solve these issues, to "Do unto others as I'd have them do unto you", as the Lord Jesus taught us. But I have a fundamentally different perspective from those on the left as to HOW we need to go about solving them.

That doesn't make me an evil person... it makes me a "Christian Conservative". I'm just someone who wants to see the lives of ALL his fellow countrymen improved, without having to pay too much in taxes, of course.

Labels: , , ,

18 Comments:

  • At Sat. Aug. 27, 03:23:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Frances said…

    Not to mention that the 'welfare state' comes with a lot of well-paid idealogues who are there to 'help' the underpriveleged. So most of the money isn't going to the needy, but to the bureaucracy.

     
  • At Sat. Aug. 27, 10:06:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Bruce said…

    Howa\ about the concept of shared responsibility, for infrastructure, health care to name 2 areas. Shouldn't everyone whois able pay through taxes for these common benefits and why not tax the wealthier as well as teh middle class and even some of teh less well off in some proportion ?

     
  • At Sat. Aug. 27, 11:57:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nice post.

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 01:28:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Where does forgiveness and giving a second chance fit into Harper's crime agenda?

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 03:51:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    I recall an image of a grid (I think from politicalcompass.org or something like that, where people are asked questions, and then placed on an x/y axis where one axis involved left/right economic views and the other involves left/right social views... and you were in the middle of the left/right axis... but were way at the top of the up/down axis.

    So I believe you when you say what you say about wanting to help the poor etc. I think it's on the other axis where we differ. (I always ended up on the bottom left quadrant of that grid).

    But I digress.

    You wrote: "'If a man shall not work, he shall not eat.' Which, interestingly enough, is a Biblical principal too."

    I'd like to know where in the bible this is. I ask this fully expecting (and hoping for) a specific answer. I started flipping through my bible (well, one of them, that I use and highlight frequently) but realized it might be faster to just ask you.

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 09:29:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Robert McClelland said…

    and I recognize that I'm making some significant and non-encompassing generalizations, I know

    You're not making a generalization, you're making up silly nonsense. The left believes that the solution to many societal problems is with higher wages. Seriously, haven't you noticed how apeshit we go over any effort from corporations and the right to reducing wages and benefits.

    As far as taxation goes, we believe in less taxes for those who work hard for their money and more taxes for those who do little or nothing for their money.

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 02:30:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Dollops said…

    I am old enough to remember when it was shameful to be on welfare and when people bust their axes to avoid winding up on the "poor farm" in their final days. Opprobrium and ridicule were very effective motivators in every age except these no-fault times. As you say, Christian compassion requires us to help where help is needed but it does not offer a blank cheque.

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 09:22:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Anon1152, it's 2 Thessalonians 3:10. ;-)

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 11:00:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    CC: Thank you. I knew I could count on you. I have found it in my bible and marked it for future reference. (I have this fear that some day, while doing this, I'll come across a passage that says 'thou shalt not highlighteth nor underlineth nor doggyeareth these pages').

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 11:10:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Usually, when I hear reference to a biblical passage, I try to find it (if I can). And one benefit is that I usually come across other interesting passages that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. So I just want to point out verse 15: "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

     
  • At Sun. Aug. 28, 11:42:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    "In essence, it's a a fundamentally Communist perspective... take away from those who have, in order to give to those who don't."

    I think this mischaracterizes a passage in Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Program" that [I think] you are alluding to: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

    But that principle of distribution doesn't seem at all incompatible with a plausible interpretation of the New Testament. For example: "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (from Luke 12:48) or "And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last" (Luke 13:30). Though Luke 19, especially 24-26 seems to say the opposite... So I don't want to say, with absolute certainty, that Jesus was a socialist or communist. But I think it's quite plausible that he would be in favour of principles like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as well as a principle of taxation that focused on ability to pay (which would be in tune with what at least used to be standard capitalist economic orthodoxy about "marginal utility").

     
  • At Mon. Aug. 29, 08:26:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    very well said I agree with you
    we must all chip in to help those that need help
    Give a man a FISH he eats for one day
    TEACH a man to catch fish he provides for himself and his community my words taken from an old proverb
    we need to encourage people to want more and to want to do more to get what they want
    if we do not then everyone will decide taxes are too high and stop working eventually no one will be RICH and everyone will be POOR
    we see this in Greece etc.
    fh

     
  • At Tue. Feb. 28, 07:50:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Since you are a stalwart champion for Good, I'm just wondering how you feel about tampering with elections? You know, just little cheats here and there. Maybe using automatic dialers with bogus messages broadcast by someone impersonating someone else intending to confuse or mislead voters. If this kind of behaviour isn't born of one's REPREHENSIBLE philosophy, then pray tell how it can be justified by you and your good buddy JC. Oh maybe the REPREHENSIBLE philosophy in this case is DEMOCRACY.

     
  • At Tue. Feb. 28, 08:21:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    FEB 2012 - To the Anonymous commentor... I don't support ANY electoral fraud. Full stop, end of quote.

     
  • At Tue. Feb. 28, 11:18:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Wait...
    Which anonymous Commenter?
    Is it me?

    (I'm not exactly anonymous... I'm Anon1152...)

    Based on what I have observed over the last few years here, I very much doubt you would support electoral fraud in any way. And I say this as someone who disagrees with you often when it comes to policy issues. This was the first Blog I ever commented on. And I was drawn here because I disagree with you about many/most things, AND because I think you have integrity.

     
  • At Tue. Feb. 28, 11:18:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Wait...
    Which anonymous Commenter?
    Is it me?

    (I'm not exactly anonymous... I'm Anon1152...)

    Based on what I have observed over the last few years here, I very much doubt you would support electoral fraud in any way. And I say this as someone who disagrees with you often when it comes to policy issues. This was the first Blog I ever commented on. And I was drawn here because I disagree with you about many/most things, AND because I think you have integrity.

     
  • At Tue. Feb. 28, 11:37:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    Adding to the comment I left a few minutes ago: I would like to affirm the nonanonymousness of my Anon1152.

    I'm pseudonymous. And in a sense, you 'pseudo]named me, and I gladly accepted: http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-verge-of-changing-game.html#c8694056745655151678

    Something I have acknowledged:
    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/04/17/stephen-harper-of-the-regular-canadians-class/



    *

    I know that you may not be responding to me specifically. And that this thread is fairly old. The age of this thread is why I am not sure why you are mentioning accusations of electoral fraud here...

    So I'm only using this opportunity to affirm (or reaffirm?) my own belief that you haven't (and wouldn't) support electoral fraud.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 29, 11:31:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Hey Anon1152, some other anonymous person left a comment on this post slandering me in relation to the current media stories about me. Not you. ;-)

     

Post a Comment

<< Home