A Fundamental Difference

I recently had an exchange on Facebook with a friend of mine. She is a good friend, a very kind lady and a pretty hardcore Democrat. This exchange was very enlightening and worthy of further consideration. She referenced the recording of Mitt Romney at a private fund-raiser, that created a kerfuffle a few weeks ago:

My friend: "received an email this morning that I thought was spot-on!:

'Oh Mitt, what did you say? - Mitt said about the 47% of people who think that the government is supposed to support them. He might be right, and I'm sure some of those people feel that way. But what he didn't say verbally is the contrast of his actual statement is that 100% of the wealthy don't want to help (anybody who doesn't) pay taxes. He clearly stands for the rich and has no compassion for the poor.'"

Me: "I have to disagree... He believes that the help should come, where possible, from other sources than the government. He has spoken specifically about maintaining the safety net of Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc. What he doesn't want is it to become a permanent state except for those who REALLY need it."

My friend: "We will have to agree to disagree, my friend. I feel strongly that, although he is a member of our church, he has forgotten the poor. It is our responsibility, as Christians, to take care of those who are less fortunate. That includes people on assistance. It isn't our place to judge them for where they are in life. Please read what a friend of mine, and a Christian, Steve Paulson wrote regarding Mr. Romney's statement: 'He is wrong on just about every count. I pay taxes. I don't believe the government owes me anything more than I have earned. I WILL vote democratic because I DO care about people who are working two jobs just to take care of their family. I care about people whose entire lives are destroyed by the cost of health care.'"

Me: "I agree we will have to disagree, but in a friendly way! =) I have absolutely no problem helping out those who simply cannot help themselves. But I think they are a relatively small percentage of our society. If you look at the things Mitt Romney has done as an individual, you will find that he is a very compassionate person. I hope that the only measure of compassion is not whether or not help is delivered through the government. I see government aid as a temporary solution. The more permanent solution is to improve the economy for everyone, create more jobs with higher wages and allow them to provide for themselves. Have a great day!"

Happily we were able to have this exchange and still be respectful and remain friends. However, her comments have really stuck with me. As I have contemplated this conversation it has solidified in my mind one of the biggest challenges we face in our nation's future. We often generalize one another's political positions as the following: Democrats want the government to solve everyone's problems and Republicans are the greedy rich who only care about their money. Not only are both these perceptions inaccurate, they drive a wedge between good people of both parties when we get caught up in those narrow definitions.

In my church, we are taught that government assistance is a last resort and a necessary evil. We are taught that when things are difficult we look first to ourselves, then seek help from our families, our church, our community and the government--in that order. This inspired policy does not come out of stubbornness, lack of compassion or refusal to seek help. It comes from an understanding of both human nature and the nature of our souls.

One of the great focal points of Jesus' ministry on earth was caring for the poor, needy and suffering. Any of us who are Christians and who have studied the New Testament know that our participation in the same is essential to our Salvation. They also know that Jesus never taught us to send money to the government to then help the poor. True acts of charity like those performed by the Savior bless both the giver and the receiver. That principle is eternal in its scope and wisdom. As we each make individual decisions to help the poor and needy and follow the example of the Savior, we are able to bless the lives of those who are suffering. 

The beauty of this kind of service, as I stated before, is that both the giver and the receiver are blessed. Volumes have been and will be written on the subject. Suffice it to say here, that the giver is uplifted, gains empathy and avoids living in a selfish world unaware of the suffering around them. The receiver is also blessed in multiple ways: obvious needs are met and they receive the assurance that they are not unloved or alone. Furthermore, a special kind of love is developed between the giver and the receiver that is never forgotten. The giver can never forget how they felt at that moment and in most cases demonstrate a lifetime concern for the people they have served. The receiver recognizes that something has been done for them that represents a sacrifice on the giver's behalf. That does not mean that it always has to be a painful sacrifice, sometimes it is, but there is recognition that the giver gave up something in order for them to receive. The resultant feelings from a gift freely given, under normal circumstances, is gratitude and love towards the giver. The receiver can also never forget the feeling of that moment, the generosity and the kindness. I believe that most conservatives view the suffering around us as I have described it and see it as a need to be met through personal sacrifice, churches and communities.

On the other side, we have many kind-hearted, well-meaning liberals who see suffering and have a great desire to see the injustices of life corrected; a sentiment that anyone with a heart can certainly agree with. Many of these good people do a lot to serve the less fortunate on a personal level. However, in many cases they see the government as the first line of defense in aiding those who suffer. I respect and admire their concern for those who are less fortunate, and frankly I could do a lot better in that regard. Unfortunately, government aid creates more problems than it solves. When the government forcibly takes money from us to be spent as bureaucrats see fit, all the blessings of true service are eliminated. A gift that is not freely given, benefits no-one in the long term. Gifts become hand-outs from a nameless, faceless government. Neither the giver nor the receiver are blessed. The recipients may have a temporary need met, but their attitude can become significantly twisted over time. When you are given something for "free", very few of us choose to pause and recognize that someone, somewhere paid for the "free stuff". Without recognizing the source of our help, it is easy for us as the weak humans that we are, to ask for more and more and more. Now obviously I am generalizing and painting with broad brushstrokes here. Of course there are people who are appreciative of the government assistance they receive. But far too many see it as an opportunity to get what is "owed" them and get their "share." That often leads to the attitude of entitlement and a lack of gratitude. And when the government provides just enough money to allow for a room, food and a TV, most people are satisfied enough to stay where they are. Their survival instincts are eliminated and they decide that they are well enough off without working, so why should they?

This attitude of entitlement breeds a whole different set of issues such as chronic poverty, lack of confidence and self-respect, poor attitudes towards work and education, crime and drug use, children out of wedlock, and particularly the dismissal of the need for a father in the home. Government dependency has been one of the most degrading factors to the moral fabric of American society.

We conservatives have a job to do. We must teach our children, our friends, our neighbors and our fellow-parishioners that we do and must care for the poor. But we must also teach the difference between true service and sincere charity versus its fraudulent brother, government aid. The poor and needy will always be among us. We are our brother's keeper. But that is a divine mandate, not a Constitutional one. We must teach others that we care about the suffering just as much as any Democrat, but don't want to shift that responsibility to the government. That responsibility shift can lead to a callous and careless attitude towards the needy when we think that "someone" or some agency will take care of it. It can eliminate the need we may feel to help and the accompanying guilt when we don't. On the other hand, if we have more of our own money, meaning the money that we send to Washington to be wasted through the filters of red tape and corruption, we have more flexibility and responsibility to help those around us. It is imperative that we put a face back on that help and spend time both giving men fish for a day and feeding them for life by teaching them how to do it for themselves. The small percentage of those who will be permanently in need due to disability or other circumstances are not begrudged help by Democrats OR Republicans. We as conservatives, do not talk about that enough. I don't feel that I will judged someday by how much money I paid in taxes. I do think I will be judged by what I did to help those in need. As I said in my Facebook post, if the only measure of my compassion is how much government aid I will support, then I am in big trouble.