A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

Collectivism De-bunked

by: R.J. Moeller

“If you work hard in America, you shouldn’t be poor.”
-Barack Obama, February 2008

Whether you have recognized it yet or not, the deceptively alluring forces of collectivism (socialism/Marxism) are gathering at the gates of our beloved “City on a Hill” (America). A strange and alarming way of thinking that is altogether foreign to our historical experience as a nation has surfaced in the 2008 Presidential campaign – most notably from the two Left-leaning candidates of the Democratic Party who are both vying for the White House.

Only because far too many of us have been subtly indoctrinated from grade school with collectivist ideas and maxims can Senators Obama and Clinton go unchallenged using such blatantly Marxist rhetoric. Both are promising economic security and equality to all Americans in return for a fundamental restructuring of the American capitalist economy and government into a neo-socialist state. That perhaps some of you find this potential threat I am describing to be overstated does not justify, or explain away, the words and promises of the Democratic candidates themselves.

As both a vigilant American and a prudent student of history, I find it offensive that Hillary and Barack should so enthusiastically and shamelessly dismiss our proud 232 years of American capitalist traditions and heritage. We have for two and a half centuries prospered as no other nation has because we championed capitalism over collectivism, the individual over the State, and most important of all, liberty over equality. These values lie at the very heart, at the very core of the great American experiment in self-governance.

Both our representative democracy and our free-market capitalism are based squarely on the principle that liberty, freedom, and autonomy (and the protection of all three) are inherently more valuable than strict equality, economic security, and regulated outcomes (particularly of the “central planning” type being unproductively served up in Europe today, and now advocated by our current batch of Democratic presidential hopefuls).

The French, in their somewhat bungled attempt at a revolution in the late 18^th century, recklessly embraced the idea that “equality trumps liberty”; or at least that the latter should be subservient to the former. This subtle decision – to work at making everyone equal rather than making everyone free – is the precise error in judgment that brought economic, cultural, and political failure to France over the last two centuries (as with any other Socialistic nation on earth).

The deeper wisdom of the American Founding Fathers’ was to opt for liberty rather than equality and this has been a fundamental secret of our success for over two hundred years. They rightly believed that liberty does not originate from some intellectual or philosophical fountainhead; no, liberty is a gift from God and God alone. Thus, we have believed no government or political party or system of economics has the right to deprive the American people of what God freely bestowed on all of us – liberty, not even in the name of some arbitrary brand of “equality” that sounds good because the person espousing it has a nice smile and looks handsome in a suit (“pant-“ or otherwise).

It’s bad enough that Clinton and Obama are so wrong in their understanding of our nation’s political and economic history. But for them to then wrap their naïve, simplistic, pie-in-the-sky, un-American, and Constitutionally-challenged statements under the cover of quasi-Christian and ostensibly religious language, in hopes of catering to the simple-minded and weak-willed among us, is, as far as I’m concerned, unconscionable.

For example last fall in South Carolina, Senator Obama stood in the pulpit of a church audience on a Sunday morning, supposedly “the Lord’s Day,” and implored the congregation to “Make me an instrument of God…and usher in a new Kingdom on earth.” Under slightly different circumstances, someone making those same statements in public would be referred to a licensed psychiatrist or therapist for help in exploring such clearly self-proclaimed messianic assertions.

So what will this new “instrument of God” do to usher in the Kingdom? Translation: I’ll give you free health care, allow you to abscond from your mortgage debts, and “usher in” a Nanny-state that will put those heartless Pharisees on the Right (Republicans) to shame once and for all.

Hillary Clinton, not to be further out-shadowed by the dashing, saintly, junior Senator from Illinois, has on countless occasions mis-quoted Scripture verses (that surprisingly sound a lot like a Manifesto I once re(a)d), appeared in numerous Sunday morning church pulpits to stump for votes, and has shrilly vowed that anywhere Obama has been light on collectivism, she will be a sickle to his hammer.

As an aside, it’s fascinating that any discussion that involves the convergence of politics, economics, and religion is one that violates the separation of church and state if it involves a Conservative’s take on the matter. However, as long as we aren’t talking about George W. Bush and his “faith,” even the agnostic and secular members of the Left are comfortable with a candidate who beckons supporters to make him an “instrument of God.”

Despite their religious language and appeal what Obama and Clinton fail to appreciate is that socialism (on a national level) is a both a heresy and proven failure when held up to the illuminating light of human experience, Scripture’s (the Bible’s) testimony, and the Western Church’s history and tradition.

Let’s start with church history and tradition. The Reformation, the single most important religious event in the last 1000 years for those in the Protestant tradition, exalted personal freedom and liberty and condemned the centralization of power. Such ideas were embodied in the life and writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Both men fundamentally disagreed with the consolidation of authority (spiritually speaking) in the hands of a few clergymen, regardless of the character or integrity of the church leaders. At the core of their argument against the Church’s chokehold on forgiveness-of-sins and personal piety were the concepts of sin and the depravity of all Mankind. Man is too inherently corrupted, they argued, to be trusted with extraneous power or sway. They argued instead for investing power and authority in the individual or what they called the “Priesthood of all Believers.”

In his treatise, On Christian Liberty, Luther expounds that freedom was found in faith in Christ, but such freedom carried with it a great responsibility to serve God and one’s neighbor tirelessly. John Calvin, in his classic work The Institutes, reminds the follower of Christ that the focus of moral governments (and the moral, religious citizens of them) should be on liberty and equity (justice), not guaranteed or compulsory equality.

Adam Smith of Wealth of Nations fame, the father of the modern free-market capitalism and a devout Christian himself, insisted that the only way his system could work was if the people participating in it were overwhelmingly moral and religious and willing to individually look after the “least” (orphaned, widowed, handicapped, etc.) among them. Thomas Jefferson, the father of American democracy, said that our system of government was made for a God-fearing and religious people, and was “wholly inadequate in the hands of any other.” Voluntary participation, pursuit of self-interest, and a firm belief in a higher power (under Whose standard of morality we are all held accountable) were the cornerstones of both men’s prolifically successful ideas.

The biblical record also rejects the consolidation of power by the few in order to control the many. Going back as far as the misguided attempt to build the Tower of Babel, or to the short-sighted plea by the Israelites for a king (instead of in Yahweh), even to Christ’s admonition to distinguish between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, the Bible clearly denounces collectivism and the centralization of power.

The egalitarian life-style of the early New Testament church in the book of Acts is often cited as the model for American Christians to pattern our government and society after. However, this outlook fails to appreciate both the context of that time and the underlying theme of the passages cited. These early believers shared among each other and helped the poor and needy around them entirely on their own, rather than under the direction of a government or bureaucracy. Early Christians did not turn to Rome or Pilate for help and direction in caring for the poor, the sick, or the elderly. Rather they acted freely and independently as house churches reaching out to the needy in their own local communities.

The need for all Americans, let alone God-fearing ones, to extend help to the less fortunate is not in question. The debate is over which is best equipped to do so: the State or the individual (including faith-based believers and organizations).

What is clear from Scripture is that while God loves everyone equally, He did not grant everyone equal resources or gifts. Consider the Parable of the Talents Jesus told. He begins by explaining that God gives one person a gift of ten talents (a considerable sum of money), while to another five talents (still quite a sizable largesse) while to another He bestows just one talent. The Parable then scandalously explains that God eventually calls each person to account for their faithfulness in investing the talents they were given, rather than their success or ability to redistribute the talents so everyone ends up with the same amount. This is no doubt a real theological conundrum for Hillary and Barack. Indeed, the Parable is an unfortunate setback for those who preach a biblical case for collectivism.

For even the non-religious among us, human experience alone tells us pursuing absolute equality in life just is not a realistic goal. Some of us are born short and some of us are created tall. Some of us become professional basketball players while others develop into wildly talented concert pianists. Some of us are fortunate enough to be born into wealthy, loving homes while others among us are born wretchedly poor and grow up unspeakably abused. Some of us work very hard our whole lives and barely make ends meet, while others stumble upon an invention that allows them to sip drinks with tiny umbrellas in them for the rest of their days.

Ultimately life judges us not so much by the hand we’ve been dealt but how we decided to play it. In fact, some research indicates that an impoverished or difficult beginning can actually serve as the platform for developing extraordinary character and achievement. A popular book entitled Cradles of Eminence released in the mid-twentieth century documented numerous cases of individuals overcoming extraordinarily difficult home environments of such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln. While the furnace of suffering unfortunately consumes some, it at the same time it forges the mettle of others.

The history of Western civilization, the biblical record and common sense all confirm that providing citizens of a nation genuine liberty and opportunity rather than contrived security and equality offers the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.

Collectivism, socialism, and Marxism have been repeatedly tried and have perpetually failed at reaching the goal of “equality.” It's not that their ends are unworthy; it's that their means are totalitarian. Again, the Left isn't evil per se, just wrong.

America has enjoyed a different experience for the last 230 years than much of the rest of the world. Personal responsibility, economic freedom, and a faith in God that engenders true liberty have allowed us to become the most prosperous, generous and caring people on the planet. We have enjoyed something far better than equality, we have enjoyed true freedom.

Remember that outcome this November when you’re tempted to change course in return for the promise of “change” or “hope” from “an instrument of God.”