Populist Reactionaries Descend on Washington with Sharpies and Screen Printers

If you have watched the news at all in the past few days, you have surely seen numerous images of protesters at the National Mall in Washington, DC. You might recall that these protests were promoted by Glenn Beck on his popular evening show on Fox News, and in general expressed reactionary sentiments opposing the Obama Administration. Good. Yes, for the very fact that they were protesting, I commend them. One of the things I lament about the United States is that it has a weak tradition of spontaneous democratic demonstrations. It is a rarity in America to seen people demonstrating at all, in contrast to some European societies, where protest is a normal mechanism of the democratic process.

The multiplicity of political ideologies represented at the 9/12 protests was remarkable. From the borderline anarchists, to the radical libertarians ("Ayn Rand was right!"), to vaguely apocalyptic Christians ("Only God Can Save Us Now”), the protest represented a thorough cross section of the right half of American polity. A good many of the protesters had something approximately constructive to say. They were making an argument, and proposed some sort of solution, albeit in a polemical, bumper-sticker sort of way.

What was saddening, however, was the large proportion of signage at the protest that could be best described as “hate mongering.” The favored devices of this group were vulgarized Obama campaign portraits and malapropism of the political vernacular. For example, it seems that roughly half of the protesters believed Obama to be a socialist, while an equal proportion deemed him a fascist, despite the oppositional locations of these two ideologies on the political spectrum. I realize that this is confusing, especially since Mussolini began his career as a socialist journalist, and Hitler's party was poorly named the National Socialist German Worker's Party, but nonetheless, the use of fascism and socialism as interchangeable terminology is an indicator of the cheap populism drove many of these protesters to Washington and an ineloquent expression of the urgency of the current situation in the eyes of right wing radicals.

Overwhelmingly, the protesters identified Obama as unamerican, or foreign. Predictably, the media's use of the term "Czar" to refer to Obama's personal advisors has been a stumbling block for many in the Beck camp. It seems that some have believed this term to be referring to a new administrative post in the style of 19th century Russian absolute monarchy. Attempts to associate Obama with Muslim radicals ("ali Bama"), or to question his very nationality ("Where's the birth certificate?") were also widespread at the 9/12 protests. The strict Manichean divide between what is seen to be Good and Evil, Obama and “True America,” is frightening. True America is one that is capitalist, rural, white and patriarchal. It will rewrite history to prove its authenticity, and it will allow no middle ground in its struggle to protect an illusory status quo. This no-compromise attitude is what propelled the French Revolution into chaos and brought German crowds to a frenzy on the Night of Broken Glass. This line of thought is what should be making people nervous, not the moderate social democratic policies of the administration.

I'd really like to help the poor, but...

I recently heard another Christian making a statement about government policy towards the poor that began with “I'd really like to help the poor,” but abruptly terminated with a qualification that brushed away any real obligation to provide assistance for the poor. It struck me that I have heard the words “I'd really like to help the poor” come from the mouths of Christians many times before, but almost always that phrase prefaces a rant about people taking advantage of the government, perverse economic incentives, the destruction of the family, etc. I have rarely heard many Christians start a sentence with “I'd like to help the poor” and have anything constructive to say after it. Therefore, I would like to challenge a few of the arguments that Christians often use to assuage our buring consciences in regard to the poor, especially those that deal with the role of the government.

1. I only want to help those who deserve to be helped, not those who exploit the system.

This statement presupposes an erroneous distinction between so-called “deserving poor” and those who, for one reason or another, should not be helped. The general definition for the undeserving poor is those who sit at home and watch TV while drawing support from welfare programs. And, granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system. (Although I think their numbers are probably very low compared to those of single mothers working two jobs and trying to raise fatherless children.) However, there is no biblical grounds for letting some “undeserving” poor live in squalor while the “deserving” poor are helped. This idea seems more akin to Social Darwinism, or Benthamite utilitarian social theory, or some perversion of the Puritan work ethic than to a Christian conception of grace. The Bible demands that we help all the poor, without an expectation of a response on their part. Grace does not, thankfully, differentiate between those who deserve it and those who do not.

2. The government should not help poor people, Christians should do it themselves.

This argument is, first of all, impractical. We know very well that Christians do not have the will to help the poor as much as they should, to begin with, and we also know that Christians do not have the resources, or the centralized authority, to effectively fight poverty. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the government is an agent of God, deputized to carry out his will. Paul calls the government God's servant in Romans 13. So it is not somehow “secular” or “non-Christian” for the government to work toward Christian social goals. That is, in fact, what the government is there for.

Objections to the expanded role of the government usually come from a libertarian impulse, very strong in America, that stems from the Enlightenment obsession with individualism and liberty, or from a strong suspicion of government that comes from Anabaptist tradition. The kind of freedom that libertarians advocate is one that must be rejected by Christians, who know that freedom does not come from a mere absence of coercion from outside sources. Christian freedom is direction and purpose and a correct ordering of our desires. And the Anabaptist suspicion of government, while at times valuable in defeating Constantinian alliances between Church and State, can overlook the possibility that government, like the rest of Creation, must be redeemed and utilized by Christians.

There is much more that could be said, but I think I have stirred enough controversy already. There are very many people who will not agree with anything that I wrote here, but I think we must think hard about the kinds of ideas that Christians have bought into when it comes to social policy. Do they come from scripture and an ardent and honest desire to help the poor, or from myths that superficially jive with Christian culture, but do nothing to bring about the social goals of the God who “has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly...filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty”?