LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE

    

   

Illustration used by permission www.greenberg-art.com

    Did you know that a fiscal conservative and an economic liberal are the same things? I did not either until I started doing some research. An elder in one of the congregations I served in the 80s once challenged me after worship. He said, "In light of that sermon it is obvious you have never read an economics book." I responded, holding up my Bible, "Oh, I have, but it is a different one than you are referring to." 

    I do not remember what the sermon was about. It probably had something to do with Jesus' social ethic which included the rich being responsible to alleviate the suffering of the poor. I would not be surprised if it dealt with the Lazarus and Dives story. (Luke 16:19-31) Regardless, it was obvious to him that I was a social liberal and not an economic liberal. 

    Writing on the site www.quora.com, Michael Danielson states, "Fiscal conservatism generally means 'being as responsible as possible with your money,' including passing balanced budgets, paying off your debt, and not engaging in deficit spending. ... Economic liberalism, similarly, generally means 'allowing economic decisions to be made at the individual level, rather than at the group level.'" Fiscal Conservatism and Economic Liberalism More than the locus of economic decisions, economic liberalism says, "You can have whatever you can afford. If you cannot afford it, society is not responsible for providing it for you (with certain exceptions like national defense)." 

    Since the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled that corporations are individuals, by extension they are solely responsible to and for themselves. It is in their interest to keep costs, including wages, down so profit will be even higher. The concept of social responsibility plays a very, very small role in corporate ethics. "Laborers, if you want retirement income you save for it; if you want medical coverage, you pay for it; if you want a living wage, forget it." The rich get richer. The middle class vanishes. The poor barely subsist. 

    I do not know about you, but to me, that sounds like the old feudal system. Roy Orbison, in 1962, recorded the song Working for the Man. In common parlance "working for the man" means working for the government or other entity in authority in menial, oppressive conditions. It could be a slave working on a plantation, as a miner, as one laying rails, working in a sweatshop, working on a penal chain gang, or any other job providing little if any, of an opportunity for advancement. 

    Encumbered with debt, stuck in dead-end jobs, static or declining wages, increasing taxes, those in the lower and middle economic groupings have a depth of rage. Any promise of things being made better is grasped, even when not based in reality. In the mid-Appalachian region where steel mills and coal mines have all but disappeared, a promise to bring back coal rings in ears dying to hear such empty promises as something to "take to the bank." 

    The Church must call the gluttonous greed of "the man" sin of the first degree. The Church must emphasize communal, social responsibility, of caring for the "least of these." The Church must call upon the lords of government, finance and supersized corporations to improve the lives of those in the lowest rungs of the social ladder. The Church must be a conscience in a secular society. If we take Scripture seriously we must remember that in Hebrew and Greek the word righteous means justice. The demand for justice must be our clarion call