The Christian Case for Capitalism
By Jay Haug
While watching Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge interview with Claire Berlinski concerning Margaret Thatcher's success, (http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ZTkyNTQ1ZjcwZDUxODBhYTg2YmQ5OThlZmU4NmM0ODU=) Berlinski argues that Thatcher's case for returning Britain to a capitalism-based economy in the 1980's was primarily moral, not economic. So what is the simple Christian case for capitalism today? Why is it being ignored? Why is it far more morally compelling than so much of what we hear from European socialists on both sides of the Atlantic?
First, both history and the Bible teach us that any government controlled economic system is destined to both fail and tend toward immorality. Governments from Egypt to Rome to the modern Soviet Union have demonstrated strong tendencies to both keep wealth for the powerful and fail to distribute it down to the needy. None has produced a thriving middle class and the overall economic pie has shrunk dramatically over time, eventually along with other factors, producing the end of these dominating political regimes. Furthermore, contrary to the religious left, the Bible never equates government programs with Judeo-Christian morality. More on this later. Admittedly, the prophets rail against corrupt kings and societal selfishness in Israel, to wit:
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Isaiah 58:6-7
However, these admonitions are addressed to the whole nation, not to government bureaucrats with bloated budgets looking to set priorities and distribute favors to constituency groups. When Jesus uttered one of his few statements on the role of government "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar and to God the things that are God's," (Mk 12:17) he was upholding a legitimate, though limited, claim of government to control people's lives. It is Christianity itself, which though it teaches obedience to governing authorities (Romans 13), also warns against government's tendency toward encroaching tyranny, leading to its ultimate demise. (Revelation) Here are some guidelines to judge the morality of government.
Principle One: A moral government is a limited government. This is a far cry from where we appear to be headed. After two centuries attempting to establish limits on government, the rights of states according to federalism, and the protection of the individual from the state embodied in the bill of rights, we have apparently now granted unenumerated powers to the federal government backed up by courts determined to undertake social engineering devoid of constitutional provision. The question remains to be determined whether the federal government can require a citizen to buy a product, i.e. health insurance. The courts are taking this up now. As one person said, it is as if the federal government has decided to run all aspects of our lives, healthcare, education, the kinds of cars we drive, and what we eat and so on. In return, they will give us an allowance (whatever remains untaxed) to do as we wish. This very apparent policy will not only reduce the freedom articulated in Scripture. It will reduce the overall size of the economic pie, devastating the middle class. It already has. This is the verdict of history. Therefore, morality itself calls upon us to reverse it and soon.
Principle Two: A moral government must support economic growth. Why? Can't we all simply be content with less? If necessary, yes we can. But this is not the point, much as leaders in Washington want to engineer America's decline. Jesus told the parable of the talents and the unjust steward, sometimes called the shrewd manager, to illustrate God's desire for productivity in our lives. Why? Because God expects a return on his investment. Now this return may come in many forms, spiritual and material, but a return is expected nonetheless. On the other hand, the religious and political left see economics as a zero sum game. When one individual or country wins, the other loses. But this has been proven wrong. The total economic pie around the world has exploded since World War II and there is no reason to expect it to cease, as long as people are free to develop their talents, ideas, businesses and relationships in a manner that is both free and rewards their efforts. An additional benefit is that charitable contributions of both time and money explode when economic growth is the norm. They contract when governments grab a larger share of the pie. If politicians really cared for the poor, they would want robust economic growth which funds most of the charity here in America.
Principle Three: Wall Street has become more crony capitalism than free enterprise. Governments that promise to "reign in Wall Street" were supported with campaign contributions from the very same Wall Street they claim to now oppose. The truth is there is a well worn path from Wall Street to the Capitol and back. The same people move back and forth, lobby one another, set up institutions that claim to regulate themselves or each other, and end up bailing each other out. The classic conflict of interest in this area is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which have spent most of their time acting like Wall Street firms one day and government entities the next. This is not free enterprise if it ever was. The real story of free enterprise is the suffering entrepreneurs and small business people who desperately need available credit, lower tax policy and a freer regulatory environment in which to prosper. With the new healthcare bill, they have gotten exactly the opposite. Wall Street has now been reduced and regulated. We cannot afford the same for entrepreneurial America. When people talk about "free markets" today, they don't mean "Wall Street", they mean competitive businesses that operate outside the reach of government bailouts. The economic future of America lies with them.
Principle Four: Governments provide safety nets. Private entities provide charity. There is a lot in Scripture about charity, caring, providing for the poor, the outcast, the lonely, the sick and the needy. Both the prophets and Jesus teach this as a command, not an option. But how do modern societies properly respond to this command? At the safety net level, it is both efficient and fair (an overused and distorted word) for governments to provide pensions and health insurance as a minimum benefit for all. However, the problem today is the public perception that the federal government is massively misusing its resources for their benefit and our detriment. Politicians continue to take big pay increases and pension benefits. Government employees now far outstrip the private sector in both salary and benefits. Public employee unions refuse to take pay cuts or pay for their health insurance. Mismanagement of federal budgets has led to massive and explosive borrowing and the use of public funds has been invested poorly, raided and squandered. The Tea Party has risen up to protest and remove the "ruling class" in Washington for precisely these reasons. This reaches beyond party lines. Finally, the plain truth is this:
Principle Five: The only solution to helping the poor is an expanding private sector. By expanding government we are simply limiting what we all can do for the needy in the future. It is time we replaced diminishing government revenues with expanding private wealth. Not only is this the only hope for helping the needy. It is also our only hope for getting our children and grandchildren out of debt. And that is the right thing to do.
---Jay Haug is a free lance writer living in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. He is a member of Redeemer Anglican Church. You may email him at cjcwguy@gmail.com