When Social Justice is Counterproductive

Who doesn't support the lofty ideal of "social justice"? It has such a nice high moral tone to it.

But what does it mean in practice? That's much harder to determine, for "social justice" covers a broad range of platitudes. Consider A Social Creed for the 21st Century from the National Council of Churches:

We Churches of the United States have a message of hope for a fearful time.

Just as the churches responded to the harshness of early 20^th Century industrialization with a prophetic “Social Creed” in 1908, so in our era of globalization we offer a vision of a society that shares more and consumes less, seeks compassion over suspicion and equality over domination, and finds security in joined hands rather than massed arms.

Inspired by Isaiah’s vision of a “peaceable kingdom,” we honor the dignity of every person and the intrinsic value of every creature, and pray and work for the day when none “labor in vain or bear children for calamity” (Isaiah 65:23). We do so as disciples of the One who came “that all may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10), and stand in solidarity with Christians and with all who strive for justice around the globe.

In faith, responding to our Creator, we celebrate the full humanity of each woman, man, and child, all created in the divine image as individuals of infinite worth, by working for:

• Full civil, political and economic rights for women and men of all races.

• Abolition of forced labor, human trafficking, and the exploitation of children.

• Employment for all, at a family-sustaining living wage, with equal pay for comparable work.

• The rights of workers to organize, and to share in workplace decisions and productivity growth.

• Protection from dangerous working conditions, with time and benefits to enable full family life.

• A system of criminal rehabilitation, based on restorative justice and an end to the death penalty.
  

In the love incarnate in Jesus, despite the world’s sufferings and evils, we honor the deep connections within our human family and seek to awaken a new spirit of community, by working for:

• Abatement of hunger and poverty, and enactment of policies benefiting the most vulnerable.

• High quality public education for all and universal, affordable and accessible healthcare.

• An effective program of social security during sickness, disability and old age.

• Tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between rich and poor, strengthen democracy, and provide greater opportunity for everyone within the common good.

• Just immigration policies that protect family unity, safeguard workers’ rights, require employer accountability, and foster international cooperation.

• Sustainable communities marked by affordable housing, access to good jobs, and public safety.

• Public service as a high vocation, with real limits on the power of private interests in politics.
  

In hope sustained by the Holy Spirit, we pledge to be peacemakers in the world and stewards of God’s good creation, by working for:

• Adoption of simpler lifestyles for those who have enough; grace over greed in economic life.

• Access for all to clean air and water and healthy food, through wise care of land and technology.

• Sustainable use of earth’s resources, promoting alternative energy sources and public transportation with binding covenants to reduce global warming and protect populations most affected.

• Equitable global trade and aid that protects local economies, cultures and livelihoods.

• Peacemaking through multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral force, the abolition of torture, and a strengthening of the United Nations and the rule of international law.

• Nuclear disarmament and redirection of military spending to more peaceful and productive uses.

• Cooperation and dialogue for peace and environmental justice among the world’s religions.

We—individual Christians and churches—commit ourselves to a culture of peace and freedom that embraces non-violence, nurtures character, treasures the environment, and builds community, rooted in a spirituality of inner growth with outward action. We make this commitment together—as members of Christ’s body, led by the one Spirit—trusting in the God who makes all things new.

Oh, where to begin? Alex LaBrecque writes,

"The founder of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, regarded churches as an ideal vehicle for advancing the Marxist cause."

What's so Marxist about the Social Creed above? The Rev. Mark H. Creech observes:

What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced. Therefore, the image of God in man — his creativity and productivity — is suppressed, while those who are indolent prosper.

What is more, socialistic principles fail to take into account man's depravity — his fall away from God and into sin. The socialist contends if man's environment is changed, he will change. He'll be better to his neighbor. It discounts man's need for redemption in Christ and contends that if all have an equal share, then there is less reason to war and steal, etc. But the fact is socialistic principles change nothing about human nature and only concentrates economic power in the hands of a few sinful individuals who are more able to exploit the public. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps more germain is that the NCC's Social Creed lists lots of "common good" theories that have been miserable failures in practice:

• Employment for all, at a family-sustaining living wage, with equal pay for comparable work.

The living wage laws that numerous communities have instituted drive up costs but keep the poor poor, according to a study from the Cato Institute.

• The rights of workers to organize, and to share in workplace decisions and productivity growth.

Powerful unions at GM, Ford, and Chrysler haven't prevented layoffs or plant closings - see How Detroit Drove Into a Ditch from this weekend's Wall Street Journal. And let's not forget the effort by unions to have Congress pass card-check legislation which even Sen. McGovern deplores. (You can read more at EmployeeFreedom.org and Bad Labor Law Is a Path to Economic Ruin.)

• High quality public education for all and universal, affordable and accessible healthcare.

• An effective program of social security during sickness, disability and old age.

The Democrats' prescription for universal health insurance is predicted to lead to fully socialized medicine like Canada and Great Britain. Yet we ignore at our peril the examples of US government hospital systems which have been fraught with scandal and poor service for decades. If the Federal Government can't do military hospitals well, why should we expect better results if they're in charge of all health care? As for Social Security, it's a fiscal timebomb waiting to explode if current law isn't changed.

• Tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between rich and poor, strengthen democracy, and provide greater opportunity for everyone within the common good.

Hmmm. To reduce disparities between rich and poor, either we make the poor richer or the rich poorer or both. "Spreading the wealth around", as Senator Obama told Joe the Plumber, usually means redistribution of income, not increasing opportunity for everyone to succeed and become richer. Investor's Business Daily notes:

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama's tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.

This reverses what has always been America's recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Hugh Hewitt predicts, "An Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika will shutter the creation of wealth in the country, though it will do an extremely good job of spreading existing wealth around through massive transfers through the federal government."

• Public service as a high vocation, with real limits on the power of private interests in politics.
  

Do we really want to make the solons in Washington and the state capitols even more detached and arrogant than they already are? If I have a beef with Congress, the First Amendment guarantees that I have a voice, whether I do it myself or band together with others and hire a lobbyist. The McCain-Feingold Act was intended to insulate politicians from the "corrupting" power of big-money donors. Instead, it hinders political speech and pushes the big money donors into the shadows where they're harder to find but just as manipulative of the process.

And then there's the requisite diatribe against prosperity in the Social Creed:

• Adoption of simpler lifestyles for those who have enough; grace over greed in economic life.

I liked what Peter L. Berger had to say in Pennies From Heaven:

Poverty (of sorts) is suddenly in fashion. Politicians and commentators blame the financial crisis on greed, not only by malefactors on Wall Street but also by all the denizens of Main Street who live beyond their means, accumulate useless possessions and despoil the environment. It is not quite clear what a nongreedy Wall Street would look like. But for the rest of us, after due repentance, the solution to our financial woes is held to be a more ascetic life. If it is voluntary, rather than compelled by circumstance, it has the glow of moral superiority. "Green is good," says a latter-day Gandhi as he goes to work by bicycle. But if you are really poor, asceticism does not mean giving up your SUV -- it means eating just one meal a day because it is all you can afford.

Far more attractive to poor people, who are a majority of its adherents, is the "prosperity gospel," a version of Christianity asserting that material benefits will come to those who have faith, live a morally upright life and, not so incidentally, give money to the church. Broadly speaking, this is what Max Weber called the Protestant Ethic, but with much less emphasis on self-denial and more on hard work, planning for the future, family loyalty and educating one's children.

The last four are precepts the Left uses as rationale for economy-busting "carbon" taxes with mis-placed priorities; anti-trade legislation; withdrawal from Iraq in the face of victory; subverting the US Constitution and national sovereignty; and cutting military spending no matter what. (And note that there's evidence the earth may be cooling, not warming.)

• Sustainable use of earth’s resources, promoting alternative energy sources and public transportation with binding covenants to reduce global warming and protect populations most affected.

• Equitable global trade and aid that protects local economies, cultures and livelihoods.

• Peacemaking through multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral force, the abolition of torture, and a strengthening of the United Nations and the rule of international law.

• Nuclear disarmament and redirection of military spending to more peaceful and productive uses.

Platitudes, by definition, sound wonderful. But when the policy prescriptions that go with them make a bad situation worse, we need to rethink the assumptions and world-view behind them.


Further reading:

A Reality Check On Obama's Wish List, Michael Barone in IBD Editorials

T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

The Vision Thing

If you focus on what you left behind, you will never be able to see what lies ahead.

- Chef Gusteau, "Ratatouille"

One of the main tenets of The Secret is that in order to attract what you want in life, you must do two things: have a clear vision of what you want to have happen, and make it vivid emotionally so you are passionate about it coming into your life.

The passion is critical, for without it, you simply have wishful thinking.

The Law of Attraction can be used for good or ill, however, just like the dark side of the Force in the Star Wars movies.

These days, we are beset by enemies who are patient in their hatred of our freedoms and Western Civilization in general. Not only radical Islamofascists, but Marxist revolutionaries like William Ayers who are determined to overthrow -- or undermine -- this country, following the methods prescribed by Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky and his disciples preach an anti-gospel of sorts, that focuses on the negative to get people emotionally involved in "change". From Frontpage Magazine:

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.”[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict”[41] and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’”[42] “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44] precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.

Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”[47] He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”[48] [Ed: emphasis added]

Are we in danger of losing our cherished way of life to those who are more passionate about their nihilism than we are about creating a brighter future, building on our many strengths as a nation?

If so, then part of the problem is what we're focusing on and putting our energies into, courtesy of the "if it bleeds it leads" mainstream media. We are focused on our past and our pain, not our future aspirations. Just where the radicals want us.

What we believe about the world around us shapes our actions and behaviors. We limit the options we're willing to consider, the possible futures we can conceive. And our basic attitude of optimism or pessimism further influences how we think the game of life will unfold, for better or for worse.

I think part of the left's antipathy toward Governor Palin is due to her optimism and glad heart. As Beldar noted, "Sarah Palin's campaigning is infused with contagious joy":

I'm watching Sarah Palin address a campaign rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania, live on Fox News, and I can't recall ever seeing a GOP rally like this. The crowd is genuinely pumped, which is rare enough. But what's particularly amazing is watching and listening to Gov. Palin. I can't recall ever seeing a politician who so clearly relishes campaigning. She's animated and enthused. I know she's speaking from a teleprompter, and she's probably delivered large chunks of this same speech before many times, but she's tuned in on every line.

She is simply infused with joy. And it flows off the stage, and it's picked up quite powerfully by the TV cameras.

I propose that it's time for us to help our elected officials define the world we want to live in, locally, state-wide, nationally, and globally. The challenge is to define Utopia in positive terms, not as an absence or negative of something. It's not about "hope" or "change". It's about a crystal clear vision of that shining city on the hill.

However, it's hard to remember you came to drain the swamp when you're fighting the alligators.

For example, say there are pot-holes on your street. If you're like most people, you'd probably complain about them to your family, and commiserate with your neighbor when he pays for an alignment after hitting one with his car. If you're moderately ambitious, you might even call up City Hall and complain to the surly civil servant on the other end of the phone. You focus a lot of energy on the fact of the potholes, and are exquisitely sensitive to how quickly they seem to multiply.

Rather than focus on the pot-holes, imagine your street with new asphalt, clean sidewalks, happy children playing in the yards, friendly neighbors, and a spirit of optimism bathing the neighborhood. Talk to your family, neighbors, and friends about how you'd like the world to be. Take action as the opportunities arise, staying focused on the goal.

Count your blessings, and nurture the seedlings of what's good in your life. You may be surprised at the results!