October 23, 2008

• the economy and the election

  Here are some of my recent thoughts on politics, specifically the economy and the election.  Sorry for the rambling nature of the post.  I doubt it will sway any of you one way or the other, as most people have already made up their minds.  Yet I hope these thoughts will be profitable to you.  As always, I will appreciate hearing your opinions.

  1. The economy... in two words. "debt" and "oil".

  Our national debt of trillions of dollars seems problematic.  Likewise the 'social security' system, with the 'baby boomers' expecting to retire while a smaller number of people are paying into the system.  Meanwhile personal credit card debt averages around $8000 per family (not including mortgages).  As for mortgages, the Carter administration and Clinton administration (and 1992 and 1999 Congresses) apparently urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their 'subprime' mortgage loans to low-income families, which recently caused turmoil as they almost failed and the government chose to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts.

  The issue is: do we allow the consequences of people's poor financial decisions to sting them, or ought the government to step in and provide public money to try to ease or eliminate the consequences?  Which is the most wise and loving thing to do, in the long term?

  Most people in government these days seem to be calling for "more regulation", and bailouts, etc. (http://casey.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999877173.90323.383&gen=1)  If this trend continues, it will likely apply also to the other financial tsunamis looming, such as the national debt, the credit card debt, social security, etc.  The government will spend taxpayer money to try to keep the system afloat, instead of letting those who were in debt go bankrupt.  This will work, until the government runs out of money.  Then hyperinflation will occur.

  I think Alexander Tyler's quote is extremely applicable and prescient:
  "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

  Meanwhile, oil is the trigger that has surfaced these problems again this year (coincidentally right before the election, or maybe not so coincidentally).  I personally think most people still underestimate how dependent the western economy is upon oil... for energy, transportation, and consequently, for food and water.  The holders of the majority of the world's oil (the Middle East, Venuzuela, Russia, Nigeria) are currently not very friendly with the USA. The 1930's depression had the advantage that more people lived within walking distance of food production than they do today. If oil and gas got really expensive, life might drastically change here in America, and it might trigger a large economic depression and possibly chaos until food and water and jobs became more accessible.

  Yet the Bible gives plenty of hope for such times.  Matthew 24, Luke 21... Jesus predicts war, famines, and lots of persecution for Christians.  But He says to 'lift up your eyes, for your redemption draws near."  Habakkuk picks up the same theme:

  Though the fig tree should not blossom
  And there be no fruit on the vines,
  Though the yield of the olive should fail
  And the fields produce no food,
  Though the flock should be cut off from the fold
  And there be no cattle in the stalls,
  Yet I will exult in the LORD,
  I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
  In other words, even if the economy completely fails and anarchy prevails, we who hope in Christ are completely secure - our citizenship and our hope is in heaven.  The situation will be ripe for reaching out with love and with the gospel to our neighbors.  No matter how we die (as we all will), whether by starvation or persecution or mob violence or cancer, we will wake up "in the presence of the Lord", Jesus Christ the Living Word of God.

   

  2. The election - specifically Obama versus McCain.

  Obama seems somehow more a discussion topic than McCain... perhaps McCain is seen as somewhat tamer, as a 'continuation' of Bush's presidency, while Obama is seen as more of a change.  I was interested to read tonight perspectives from Brian McClaren and Randy Alcorn on Obama... I'll comment on them below.  I have friends and family whose sentiments lie on both sides, so it's been interesting to hear the different perspectives.

  From what I've seen, Christians who are voting for Obama give the following main reasons:

  • In foreign policy, Obama emphasizes 'peace and reconciliation', not 'war' (or 'national defense', as the McCain side would say).  I think this means, at the bottom line, that he is more in favor of letting the United Nations handle international affairs, rather than 'unilateral' actions.  War is always horrific, and Obama is emphasizing the need for the United States to extricate itself from the conflicts it is involved in.  Many Christians see Bush as a president who arrogantly went against the world's opinion and thrust the nation into war.  The question of how to deal with Islamic terrorism is not often discussed these days, or at least not as often as it was discussed immediately after 9/11.

   

  • Obama emphasizes helping the poor through government action, i.e. moving in a more socialistic direction, in healthcare, expanding welfare programs, mortgage assistance, etc.  It could be termed "helping the poor and needy among us", or "taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor", or "social justice and equity"... regardless of the terms used, his policies are undeniably more socialistic than McCain's, and to many Christians, this indicates to them that he is more concerned about the poor than is McCain.

   

  • Also, of lesser prominence, Obama more emphasizes the need to protecting the environment, and he promises more changes in fiscal policy (i.e. more "government regulation" of Wall Street, health care, etc) than McCain, and so for those who think the current economic problems are due to Bush's policies, such change is welcomed.

  Christians who are voting against Obama give the following main reasons:

  • Obama is strongly pro-choice.  In other words, he does not consider the aborted fetuses as human babies unjustly killed by the millions each year, but rather as blobs of tissue without rights, whose life or death should be controlled by the mother's wishes.

   

  • Obama's socialistic leanings are seen as ultimately harmful to the poor, to the economy, etc.  In other words, his plans to give money to the poor are seen in the light of other unsuccessful socialistic experiments of the past century.

   

  • Obama's views on many other topics reflect the Democratic liberal positions, and do not jive with the Bible's teachings (on homosexual marriage, race, and other areas).

  My own thoughts on the issues of the war, socialism, and abortion:

  • The War on Terror (an ill-conceived title because it is unwinnable) - War is horrible - everybody admits this... including Obama, McCain, and me.  However, what is the alternative?  It is easy to criticise an incumbent president, and say "if I was president, I would withdraw from international conflict; I would bring home the troops."  But the actuality is that there are and will be wars, some of which will inevitably involve us.  Consider the 9/11 attacks, or the Saddam Hussein regime kicking out the nuclear inspectors.  How would Obama react to such events?  Unless I hear from him a novel plan, his 'peace' talk sounds like mere armchair quarterbacking.  I am guessing he would emphasize submission to the UN.  Since I do not trust the UN, this smells bad to me.

   

  • Taking money from the rich to give to the poor strikes me as a bad decision for long-term national prosperity.  I personally think that individuals, especially Christians and the Church, should be helping the poor, not the government.  I think the government should step back and get less involved (and shrink itself in general)... drastically reduce welfare, etc.  It seems to me that whenever the government has increased taxes and given more money to low-income people (even back in Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in the 1930's), the subsidy/welfare mentality that has resulted has had long-term detrimental effects on low-income people and families. So when I hear Christians say that we should hold Jesus' emphasis on helping the poor and should thus vote for Obama's socialism, I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.  Government doleouts to the poor, to me, seems less loving, farther from Jesus'/the Bible's recommended approach.  Is McCain any better?  Well, he may be the lesser of two evils...

   

  • Abortion = murder.  Government-sanctioned abortion = government-sanctioned murder.

  I have heard the following question from my friends: Why would you put advocacy for the unborn above advocacy for the poor, and above advocacy for those being killed by US troops in foreign countries?

  My response (openminded, but based on the evidence I have seen so far) is: Government socialistic aid is actually probably not the most loving response to the poor.  War is indeed extremely tragic, but one must weigh whether the carnage from foreign policies of 'appeasement' or inaction might actually be greater than the casualties of 'unilateral regime change', as ugly as that may be.  So advocacy for the unborn is actually the only real advocacy question in this year's election... and there is a clear answer as to whether McCain or Obama is a stronger advocacte for the unborn babies.

   

  Finally, two perspectives worth reading (though I have already commented above on their main points)

  Brian McClaren, four reasons why he is voting for Obama
  http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/why-im-voting-for-obama-and-why.html

  My reaction: On his reason #1, claiming that Jesus' message was one of "reconciliation"... Really???  Reconciliation with whom or what?  How?  The main reconciliation Jesus talked about was between sinners and God.  How does McClaren's post fit with Jesus' emphasis on 'straight and narrow way' leading to life which few find, or "he who is not for me is against me", or Himself as "the way, the truth, and the life... no man comes to the Father but by Me"?  I suspect that McClaren would find the rhetoric of Jesus Himself quite "militant" and "polarizing", were Jesus to be speaking in today's culture.
  Also, McClaren's reason #3, on caring for the poor, I have addressed above by questioning whether socialism really provides more hope for the poor than does capitalism; whether big government is the solution, and indeed whether searching for "a solution" is actually a red herring since "the poor you will always have with you"... and whether instead we ought to focus on individual and church-based generosity and urban transformation...

  Randy Alcorn, on why he is not voting for Obama
  http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-cool-obamas-pro-abortion-stance.html

  Here's a great quote from his post:
  "Please don't tell me abortion isn't the only issue. Of course it isn't. Treatment of the Jews wasn’t the only issue in 1940 Germany. Buying, selling and owning black people wasn’t the only issue in the United States of 1850. Nonetheless, both were the dominant moral issues of their day. Make no mistake about it. In our own day if we support a candidate who defends abortion, who is dedicated to that cause, we are supporting the killing of children. Yes, even if he’s the coolest candidate to come along in decades."

   

   

   

  • 1:22 am
  • 3 Comments