Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/05/2010 6:04:48 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Jim Wallis announced last week his desire to start a “dialogue” on this question: “Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement—and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it?”
Of course, Wallis isn’t suggesting that the movement be judged by whether it is explicitly Christian, but rather, by how it measures up to what Wallis refers to as “biblical ethics.”
This is a perfectly reasonable question for a Christian to ask of any political movement. And as it happens, I agree with some of Wallis’s points. Still, Wallis’s attempt at an answer doesn’t inspire confidence that he’s thinking clearly about the relevant issues.
The problem begins immediately. He says he wants to talk about the Tea Party movement, but he identifies it with “Libertarianism,” and even spends a couple of paragraphs talking about Republican Senate Candidate Rand Paul. But Libertarianism, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party movement aren’t all the same things. In fact, strictly speaking, the capital “L” refers to the Libertarian Party rather than the broader philosophy of libertarianism. In any case, the Tea Party movement is a broad, spontaneous movement of citizens concerned about out-of-control spending and lust for power by the federal government. Sure, there are libertarians of various stripes involved in it. But of the half dozen people I know who have attended Tea Party events, not one is a straight-up libertarian. And even casual observation suggests that Tea Parties are not a philosophically homogeneous gathering of Libertarian Party members or philosophical libertarians.
As becomes clear in his piece, however, Wallis is interested in tarring Tea Partiers, so focusing on one libertarian thinker wouldn’t have served his rhetorical purpose. So he constructs an extreme libertarian caricature, attacks that, and then applies it to Tea Parties.
At least he does provide a (tendentious) definition of Libertarianism:
So. How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism according to this definition? Not very, according to Jim Wallis.
Now I’m not a libertarian, and I am a critic of aspects of the thought of Ayn Rand, but Wallis has so poorly executed his critique that I feel compelled to offer a few words of clarification, if not quite a defense of libertarians.
Wallis lists five fundamental faults with libertarians. Let’s take them one at a time.
First, he says:
This is Wallis’s strongest point. True. Individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. But so what? The relevant question is, what principle or principles ought to shape our political and economic life? If defense of individual rights is one of those principles, then it might still have many of the consequences that Libertarians defend.
Moreover, only the most cartoonish Libertarian would argue that individual rights violate the common good. They could just as well argue that the best way to promote the common good is with a rule of law that steadfastly protects individual rights.
Second, he observes:
Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast—a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se—to see government as the central problem in society—is simply not a biblical position.
Wallis’s points about Romans 13 and Revelation 13 are spot-on. The Christian view of government (to generalize) is that it has legitimate but limited powers, and that it can become a totalitarian beast. But again, it would be easy for a Libertarian and even easier for a Tea Partier to agree with these points. One can think that the federal government, which has grown exponentially in size and power in the last few decades, is out-of-control, without being opposed to government per se.
Third, he claims:
It is here that Wallis’s argument really falls apart. The universality of human sin is one of the best arguments in favor of a free market, which is one of the best checks on extreme concentrations of power and is perhaps the best way we’ve discovered of channeling human sinfulness into socially beneficial outcomes. Every one of Wallis’s suggestions for “correcting” the market involves increasing the power of the federal government, which is already one of the most powerful entities (if not the most powerful entity) on the planet. Do federal employees get an exemption from the Fall in Wallis’s theology?
Fourth, he says:
This is the weirdest of Wallis’s complaints. The whole drift of Libertarianism is to maximize the freedom and rights of individuals, to resist and prevent centralizations of power, in government especially, but also in big business, which tends to collude with the government and mobs, which can do violence to individuals and minorities of all sorts. As David Boaz explains it, libertarianism is committed to the non-aggression ethic: “No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else.” One could raise criticisms against this idea, but it’s beyond me how Wallis could refer to this as a preference for the strong over the weak.
And fifth, he claims:
Here we reach the nadir of Wallis’s argument. It’s also the point where an editor at Sojourners should have intervened. Wallis has been talking about Libertarianism as he defines it. Now he tells us that because there are lots of white people at these Tea Parties, therefore “an undercurrent of white resentment” is “part of the Tea Party ethos.” And this is the result, apparently, of racist backlash against a black man now occupying the White House.
What evidence does Wallis cite for these claims? None. What logical connection is there between Libertarian ideas and the shade of the skin of the person defending the ideas? None. (Although I hate even to raise the point, Wallis is apparently unfamiliar with two of the most prominent defenders of broadly libertarian ideas—Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.)
Although it’s often difficult to apply what Wallis calls a “biblical ethic” to specific policy issues, there’s one thing of which I am quite certain. Neither logical non sequiturs nor baseless attacks on the motives of others is part of that ethic.
Jim Wallis is a heretic.
Ping-a-ling
Amen.
Jim Wallis only cares about social justice.
"Social Justice" = It's perfectly moral to steal Other People's Money, as long as you vote to do it!!
Jim Wallis is a marxist as surely as Obama.
Christ’s call to help our neighbors, to feed the poor, to aid the suffering, to care for widows and orphans, to love one another, etc. was NEVER addressed to governments, but rather to INDIVIDUALS.
Read his words in context.
Christianity is a call to personal faith and behavior.
Christ was pointedly apolitical. His disciples were from radically opposing political viewpoints — a tax collector for the occupying Romans, a radical Zealot, etc.
These continuing calls for Washington to fulfill our spiritual duties is absurd and sickening.
Perhaps instead of starting with “how Christian” the Tea Party is we can start with how Christian the democrat platform is. Wallis wouldn’t know a Christian if he stepped on one.
Alinsky Rule #4...
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Excellent disassembly. Thanks for the ping!
Jim isn't interested in honest answers.
The only answers he's interested in are: Yes, and No.
government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes.
true of the great imitator also:
government also plays a role in Satan’s plan and purposes.
Crap like this why I really ignore theologians, churches, etc that step outside their area of expertise.
Well, as liberals (and way too many Christians) see it, anything that is not actively weakening the self-motivated (and therefore, selfish) individual is an act of favoritism toward them.
Uh...Jim wallis?
Isnt he Obama’s “spiritual advisor”?
Gee...what would obama’s spiritual advisor be doing bearing false witness???
And as a chrisitan.....This is pure BS...
You ARE NOT your brothers keeper....free will is paramount and a GIFT from God you are supposed to use it once and a while.
I have no right to impose on my brother against his free will.
Christianity isnt collectivism or communism as the leftists would have you believe...
rite on
thank you - well said
This is the weirdest of Wallis’s complaints. The whole drift of Libertarianism is to maximize the freedom and rights of individuals, to resist and prevent centralizations of power, in government especially, but also in big business, which tends to collude with the government and mobs, which can do violence to individuals and minorities of all sorts. As David Boaz explains it, libertarianism is committed to the non-aggression ethic: “No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else.” One could raise criticisms against this idea, but it’s beyond me how Wallis could refer to this as a preference for the strong over the weak.The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.
Journalism is inherently critical. "If it bleeds, it leads."Journalism is propaganda power, and in a system of government which has democratic principles, propaganda power is power, period.
People who love power either become journalists or politicians whose principles are limited to going along and getting along with journalists.
Calling the politically weak "strong" is the easiest way to use your propaganda power to exploit them.
And that is the sum of what Wallis is doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.