Saturday, March 21, 2009
The New Young Evangelical Left
In his article, “Liberalism Misses the Point of Personal Faith”, Bryan Weynand argues that a new generation of young evangelicals are rebelling against their traditional religious affiliation with republicans and accepting a new liberal out look. This, according to him, is because of their focus on social justice and the Democratic Party’s image as the ‘compassionate party’ versus the republican party which is seen as the one that just doesn’t care about the troubles of those less fortunate (18). He plainly claims that this is false—and that the Republican Party is the one that stills believes in compassion while the Democratic Party “lost faith in it long ago”. He founds his argument on the fact that democrats tend to favor higher taxes, which he equates to “thievery”, taking away the ability for individual citizens to donate to charities on their own. Because liberals favor higher taxes for the collective good, he argues that they have lost faith in the ability of individuals to be good on their own and therefore that a shift in the evangelical electorate is contradictory to their faith—a faith which emphasizes free will and choice. The irony in his argument arises when Weynand seems to rant about the importance of free choice ignoring the fact that the evangelical right seeks to take away the rights of many citizens to choose an abortion or choose to marry someone of the same sex. Their very philosophy is one that seeks to take away choice. So is the new generation of evangelicals (which is quickly becoming more liberal and left-leaning) a good fit for the Democratic Party? (A notion Weynand ferociously combats) I believe the answer depends on one’s perception of the Democratic Party. Is it a party dedicated to instituting compulsory charity through high taxes or it is legitimately a party dedicated to seeking social justice and more equal opportunities for all American citizens—to giving or taking away choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Natalie brings up an interesting point that while Weynand argues that the Democratic party apparently removes choice through its aggressive tax policies, most of the recent limitations of choice have come from the Republican side of things, such as the case with Proposition 8 in California, among other things. But I find another flaw with Weynand's argument that the most appropriate method for social justice is achieved through personal charity. If this is true, wouldn't poverty have been eradicated? If those who have the ability to give do, why do we still have humanitarian concerns?
The answer is complicated, because sometimes it depends on those who have enough not giving, but also noting that sometimes charitable giving is not the proper solution. Simply throwing money at a problem in the hopes that it will go away is a very out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach, and certainly not what most of the situations requiring money need. The government has the capability both to determine the best methods of spending money to effect change and to collect and redistribute the necessary funds, whether they create jobs or programs designed to attack the causes of social injustice rather than the symptoms. With such domestic problems as unemployment and homelessness, simply donating money to a soup kitchen is like putting a Band-Aid over a gaping wound. Yes, the governments' programs, like welfare, may seem ineffective. But when they are combined with a larger process designed to eliminate poverty, they can be successful and also effectively use tax money much better than any other use for it. It does remove some degree of choice in the matter, but when the programs work to the best of their ability, I doubt Weynand or many others will level such criticisms.
I agree with Andrew on the government vs. personal charity issue. It reminds me of the similar discussion that was written about in William Martin's With God on Our Side. In it he quotes an evangelical conservative who says the key to solving social problems is personal charity. The liberal political operative who opposes her does not simply say that governmental action is the only key but insists that both are essential. Personal charity is important but the government can help on a much, much larger scale. So why not do both? What is worse-- sacrificing the choice to handle your own tax dollars or sacrifice the potential help that government welfare offers to millions of people?
Post a Comment