Christian Conservatives, Liberals, and Big Government

by walterm on November 18, 2012

One thing that I think liberals least understand about Christian conservatives is our motivation for being against big government. What I have consistently heard from my liberal friends and family members is that only the federal government, with its vast reach and power, can ensure that everyone is fed, housed, clothed, and has access to healthcare (which, of course, is incredibly bad and lazy thinking). This sounds compassionate and loving until you think a bit more deeply about what they are saying. This view is wrong because first, they don’t acknowledge that making sure everyone has these things is not and has never been the function of the federal government regardless of what it has actually done. The states do have the necessary resources by way of private citizens and government, and let’s not forget that every penny the federal government gets comes from each of our 50 states, last time I checked. So to say only the federal government can do this, or to say that there is only one correct way (theirs, of course), is preposterous. People in each state have different needs, so it is odd to me why liberals feel that what they want should be forced on everyone. That is hardly compassionate, and I hardly see how it results in more liberty. Yet they feel the federal government needs to just keep growing, instead of just allowing the states to solve their own problems. My point is there is no need to grow the federal government for it to do what it has no business doing in the first place.

The function of the federal government is to establish a monetary system, keep our nation from harm, regulate commerce between the states, and protect our liberties. Taking care of the poor and infirm is the job of the family, local churches, local charities and local governments, who are close to the point of need and can be efficient about how people who are in need are helped. Certainly some things might go up to the state level and do, but when it comes to charitable activity the more local the better because the further you go up the chain the more inefficiency that exists and the more politics play a role. Politicians will always look for an opportunity to distinguish themselves by what they can take from one person and give to another by force of law, which only gets worse the higher in governmental bureaucracy you go. That is precisely why our founders gave the bulk of the power to the states, because they knew that a big federal government would promise more than it could possibly deliver, and that in the end there would be tyranny because it would invariably take on more and more power unto itself as it meddled more and more into the lives of its citizens. And that is precisely what we are seeing now. I actually had a liberal friend say that he feels MORE freedom as the federal government takes on more and more to help the poor and middle class. And this is the very problem. Instead of simply creating more opportunity so people can lift themselves up, he wants the federal government to do the heavy lifting instead. Lord, help us.

And this is where the philosophy of my liberal friends comes in, never ceasing to amaze me. Though they sound righteous (which is self-defeating for people who are moral relativists anyway), I see few of them advocating or involved in helping those in need in their local communities through churches or private charities, or holding others accountable at the local level for helping those in need. They seem to feel it is morally superior to constantly argue for what the federal government should do, while Christians feel no such moral superiority, but feel it is simply our duty to help those in need ourselves within our local communities. You will never hear us crying for what the federal government should be doing since we know that charity begins at home, and we’re either volunteering or giving to local charities so our fellow citizens in need can get the help they need. You simply cannot get around this, and to keep arguing for more federal spending is a sure path to bankruptcy as we have seen in Greece, Spain, and Italy since the federal government will make false promises and spend without restraint until it can’t any longer. The only way we will have a successful society is if charity is contained at the state level and the federal government gets out of the business of getting involved in what it has no business and can’t do well anyway. This simple message is entirely lost on liberals, even though it is the most empowering by focusing on strong, local communities.

What my liberal friends should be doing is fighting their battles at the state level or lower, which is the proper response. Why they don’t see what is common sense is beyond me. Many liberals voted for Obama because they agree with his liberal policies on abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage. They didn’t consider Romney because Obama convinced them that Romney was against them on these issues, which is ridiculous. All of these are either non-issues or state issues. In the case of abortion, no woman is going to lose their right to abortion, period. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would just go back to the states. Roe v. Wade is law and there is nothing Romney could do about it even if he wanted. What Romney was arguing was that the federal government should not fund abortion. Now what is the horror in a woman paying for her own abortion? Doesn’t the woman have to accept ANY responsibility for her own actions? And how in the world has the day come where the position that we should protect unborn life be seen as extremist? Shouldn’t those what want the mother to abort her child even up to the point of birth be seen as extreme? Just sayin’.

On contraception, Obama has people believing that Romney would have taken away their access to contraception. Anyone who would believe this is just plain foolish. The only thing Romney or any conservative Christian was arguing against was that the federal government should not be able to coerce a private institution to provide FREE contraception. So this is a non-issue, and women have the freedom to purchase their own contraception. Again, if a woman wants to have sex, can’t she and her partner accept responsibility for their own birth control? Again, just sayin’. On same-sex marriage, it is a state matter because it is states that issue marriage licenses. Whether a state recognizes a same-sex marriage in another state is for the states to decide. This is none of the federal government’s business, and same-sex marriage is NOT a right. It is a desire, and “marriage equality” doesn’t make any sense because two men and two women are not equal to what a heterosexual couple can naturally produce, which is children. That’s why marriage is simply defined as between a man and a woman, because it represents a specific union that can produce a family and continue our species (presuming we last much longer as the stupidity in our society is becoming legion). As long as gays are afforded the same civil and contract rights as all other citizens, for which we have laws, same-sex marriage is something for society to decide on at the state level, as a few states have done. There really is no such thing as “gay rights.” We all have the same natural rights afforded to all people and there is no distinction for those who are gay.


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: