Capitalism and Christianity

The Public Religion Policy Institute has come out with a recent poll claiming that more Americans believe Capitalism and Christianity are incompatible (44%) than believe they are compatible (36%). While there are numerous issues to be taken with the methodology of the institute’s polling, it cannot be denied that there are, unfortunately, many Christians who believe their faith and the very system which permits them to practice the charitable aspects of that faith are at odds. Regardless of denomination, believing the two systems are at odds is simply bad theology.

One needn’t delve in to complicated theological tracts or have some profound understanding of the nuances between Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church. Put simply, God’s commandments are individual mandates, not government mandates, and as such are meant to be lived out through individual acts after the individual decisions of individual people. These individuals may come together (and almost always do) within their faith community to help the less fortunate or take on other projects, but these are voluntary associations which in no way dilute the moral clarity of those acting out a Biblical life.

To read more, visit The Americano.

A Case for American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism may just be the most misunderstood concept in contemporary American politics. Liberals seem to have absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever, and unfortunately, I fear a majority of conservatives believe the concept simply amounts to “We are better than them”.American Exceptionalism does not simply amount to bragging rights that we have the largest economy in the world, the most successful military and one of the freest countries yet to grace this earth. These observations are post facto a much larger and far more important premise which forms the foundation of American Exceptionalism: God grants rights directly to individual people, not governments, and does so in equal measure.

Of course, this is not the end of it. The concept is neither American nor exceptional (in that it is not the product of one philosopher or nation). English and French philosophers had argued this point long before George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention. What does make this concept American and exceptional though, from our vantage point as modern people, is the fact that our Founders codified this philosophy in our most important political and governing documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To continue reading, go to Parcbench.com.

Chadwick Ciocci at CPAC

Be sure to check out this speech at CPAC 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzwhfAZPyI0

Follow-up on Partisanship

Last week I wrote about partisanship- why it’s not only good and proper but quite necessary for a healthy democracy. I certainly thought I put myself out on a limb by writing it but writing about it is one thing; practicing it is something entirely different. That same week, President Obama’s excessive and expensive economic “stimulus” bill met staunch and unanimous opposition from every single House Republican (and several Democrats as well). The move was brazen, unexpected and badly needed.

Perhaps what was most beautiful about the Republicans’ unanimous opposition was that it seemed to stem from what I believe is proper partisanship, or partisanship based upon core beliefs, philosophy and bedrock principles- not merely Party affiliation (which is improper partisanship). Republicans saw this bill for what it really is:

• A waist of tax payer money
• An inefficient way to stimulate the economy
• A restriction of American economic and financial liberty
• A total embrace of ill-conceived Keynesian economics and
• Generational thievery

The list of negatives could go on and on, but these seem to me to be the five most important issues with the stimulus package.

Now why do I say that the Republican vote seems to be in line with proper partisanship? Mainly because when their opposition to the stimulus bill is coupled with other votes they have made, it becomes clear that this particular vote was not about Party but about philosophy. The House Republicans have already backed several Democratic/Obama proposals but yet found it impossible to back this horrendous stimulus package. If their partisanship were really based upon Party, then they would also be rejecting every other proposal made by the opposition, but the fact is that they haven’t.

I am keenly aware that the difference between proper partisanship and improper is not always clear, nor should it be though. Ideally, a particular philosophy aligns with a particular Party. In our American case, capitalism, individual freedom, smaller government (conservatism) with the Republicans; increased government spending and regulation, socialism and a greater trust in the role of government (modern American liberalism) with the Democrats. These lines are not always clearly demarcated, but with the election of one of if not the most liberal candidate ever to the White House and the loss of almost every moderate Republican in the House, the two major Parties seem to be more closely aligned with their traditionally associated philosophies than at any time I can remember.

Although proper partisanship itself is good, it is also somewhat scary to see the stark and very real differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The debate is no longer about bigger government or smaller government (an idea put forth by President Obama himself) but about competing economic and social systems. On the one hand we have a President and Congress who believe in “spreading the wealth” (read: a Robin Hood system of taxation) and on the other an opposition Party which finds wisdom in the knowledge and beliefs of our Founding Fathers and therefore our nation’s founding principles. It is perhaps such stark differences that make healthy and robust conservative and Republican partisanship so vitally important to our Republic.

But what is it about this stimulus bill that is so offensive to Republican philosophy? Perhaps it’s the fact that at one point it was proposed that ACORN (the “community organizing” group associated with Obama and under federal investigation) receive billions of tax payer dollars. Or maybe it’s the $200 million allocated to spruce up the national Mall along with the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (this creates jobs how?). Then there’s the $100 million to reduce the threat of lead paint (I’d rather spend that on reducing the threat of Iran) as well as the billions of other dollars that will do nothing to spur economic growth and that will simply have to be paid back with interest by the tax payers (read: you and me) in the future.

I think one of the reasons so many average citizens do not support this stimulus measure is because they realize, correctly so, that it will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Dolling out billions of dollars to special interest groups and projects does nothing but increase our already criminal levels of debt and weaken the United States long term.

Thank God some members of Congress understand this.

In Defense of Partisanship

With the recent election and inauguration of President Obama, there has been a good deal of talk and misplaced calls for bi-partisanship and “putting our differences aside”. Perhaps what is most interesting about all of this is that the calls have not just come from majority Democrats (whom one could expect this from simply so they don’t have to deal with too much Republican opposition) but from minority Republicans as well. Just this past week Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader, was quoted as saying, “Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every single time.”

I wish I knew what this meant, Senator. Does it mean choosing to back a supposed “stimulus” package that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to while simultaneously dumping your conservative and capitalist values, or does it mean eschewing your responsibility to be the loyal opposition as so far Congressional Republicans have successfully done? The fact is that in the name of bi-partisanship and “coming together”, Congressional Republicans have lost their backbone and are letting far too many Democratic proposals either skate on by with their tacit consent or worse yet, have actively backed them in fairly staunch opposition to the values they supposedly stand for as well as the constituents who elected them.

Perhaps the worst of these cave-ins was President Bush, in the last few weeks of his administration, putting his stamp of approval on Federal bailouts and anti-capitalist policies more reminiscent of liberal Democrats than the conservative Republican he originally ran as. The Republican turncoats have continued with their whimsical approvals of Obama’s cabinet appointees- appointees who include a tax-dodging treasury secretary and a terrorist-associated attorney general. All of this has been done in the name of bipartisanship.

But despite the bad wrap that partisanship gets from critics both left and right, it seems to me that if anything, our nation would be better served with more partisanship, not less. In his farewell address to the House of Representatives, former Congressman and Republican leader Tom Delay made a stirring defense of partisanship. In the speech he said, “…partisanship…properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength…”

He continued, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”

Delay made himself famous for his partisanship, a partisanship based upon two core principles: human freedom and human dignity. There could be no compromise on such fundamental matters, he believed, as “…compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.”

What Delay and other partisans- both right-wing and left-wing- are trying to get at, is that regardless of what one’s politics happen to be, one should and must posses a strongly-held set of core beliefs which dictate subsequent policy and therefore action and upon which one so strongly believes in their rightness and soundness that they form a foundation and bedrock. Without such a foundation, men are prone to fall for anything that comes their way. One day they will vote in favor of bailouts and the next day in favor of balancing the budget. Then they will vote in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act but also lend their support to lifting the Mexico City policy (which bans the use of American dollars being spent on abortions and abortion-supporting activities overseas).

In the past decade or so of American politics there has been a strong demand for a “nicer” politics, one not so marred by the acrimony of partisanship. Many politicians tried to deliver this, and it was mostly these same bi-partisan politicians who lost their Congressional seats this past year and the election before that. Congressmen like Christopher Shays from Connecticut, a long-time member of the House and a man famous for compromise and bi-partisanship, lost his seat after 21 years in office because he could not resist the flood of voters who wanted fundamental change (read: not muddled moderatism, but bold policy).

Certainly Americans want to see their Democratic and Republican leaders work together to solve our nations problems- and it goes without saying that this is what our leaders should be doing- but what staunch liberal wishes to see President Obama cave-in to Republican demands for more tax cuts and what staunch conservative wished to see President Bush throw our capitalist philosophy to the side with the bailouts?

If it so happens that a particular philosophy does not actually solve our problems when it is tested- whether that philosophy be on the left or right side of the political spectrum- then it is not compromise that is needed but a new philosophy. No amount of compromise will fix bad policies or bad philosophy and in fact will actually only cover up the true effects of one policy or another.

In the words of Mr. Delay, “Indeed, whatever role partisanship may have played in my own retirement today or in the unfriendliness heaped upon other leaders in other times, Republican or Democrat, however unjust, all we can say is that partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences—except for all the others.”

Round 1- Capitalism vs. Socialism. FIGHT!

In recent weeks there has been much talk about competing economic systems largely stemming from Joe the Plumber’s now famous question to Barack Obama and Obama’s telling and equally troubling response that we need to “spread the wealth”. Americans have reacted with angst and mistrust, and for good reason. Nations the world over have had little luck with socialist systems and even Europe, a place safer than most for socialism and those who support it, has largely come to see the system’s major failures and is beginning to move toward a freer, more capitalist system.

History has proven that free market systems properly administered with limited and proper regulation create more wealth for more people than highly regulated socialist systems where entrepreneurship and economic industrialism are tempered by removing rewards for hard work through suffocating taxation. Just look at the United States of America which has created far and away the largest and most successful economy on Earth and has done so through one of if not the freest market system amongst all nations. It is not mere coincidence that we both have the freest market system on Earth and are the most successful- our success is the result of our freedom.

Free market systems do better for their participants than socialist ones as unemployment rates remain lower and people are able to create more wealth for themselves by investing their own monies. It says much about the quality of our own system that we desperately fret about a possible 6% unemployment rate and call for the heads of leading politicians should it reach that point. We view 6% unemployment as a failure; many socialist European nations view it as a great success considering 8% plus unemployment is fairly average. The fact is our worst unemployment rate is usually much better than Europe’s best.

It is deeply troubling then that Democrats like Barack Obama and even many people amongst our own generation wish to backslide on a proven system with proven results. First they say they wish to reward hard work, but then when someone works hard and creates a good income for themselves, Democrats propose taxing them at a higher rate. What a great reward for hard work!

The argument in favor of socialist policies like Barack Obama’s is rarely if ever that it will create more wealth for more people. This argument is of course antithetical to the goal of socialism, which is equality, and not freedom. It aims at tearing down the successful until they are equal with the unsuccessful under some absurd proposal that being economically equal is more important than being economically free.

Instead, the argument in favor of socialism almost always rests upon an empathetic notion of altruism that socialists would have manifest itself through a crushing redistributionist taxation policy. It’s the Robin Hood theory of taxation- take from the rich and give to the poor. Why? Because the rich can afford it and the poor deserve it, as if affordability were reason enough for some tax collector to come steal the fruits of your labor.

Let it not be misconstrued though that I don’t believe there is a role for government in the economy and in the lives of our fellow citizens. Government must absolutely set rules that protect consumers against greed, corruption and other negativities of any economic system but that role should not grow larger than that. I also fully recognize that there are some people in our system that simply need help but such help should come in the form of a hand-up, and not a hand-out.

Welfare systems, despite seeming like innocent government programs that merely seek to help those who need it, are often very dangerous. They teach generations of people to rely on the government for their livelihood instead of upon themselves and in doing so make governments far too powerful as the result of citizens’ reliance. It brings to mind the old adage, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”

Our founding fathers understood the concept, Barry Goldwater understood it when he re-annunciated it in his book Conscience of a Conservative and I pray Americans come to a better understanding of it before it’s too late.

Reflections on the 2008 election

If it seemed strange writing about the election last week and the week before with it so quickly approaching, it’s surely even stranger now with it behind us. My candidate obviously did not win, but let me take the moment to say congratulations to all of my friends and fellow politicos on campus who I know worked hard and desperately wanted this win.

You should take pride in the work you did and in the fact that your candidate won. I wish it had turned out quite differently, but such is our democratic system. If we all wish to live in a free society where we are neither ruled by irrational mobs nor by a singular tyrant, then we are forced to take the good with the bad and concede this election.

While Republicans must concede, it is interesting to look back and see if maybe we could have done something differently to alter the outcome. The old adage, “Those who do not study history are bound to repeat it” is most applicable to politics, and Republicans would do well to follow its advice, especially if they hope to make Congressional inroads in two years and take back the White House in 2012.

If there is one fact in this election it is this: John McCain ran a terrible campaign. It wasn’t until the very last debate with Barack Obama that he finally got a message. It is infuriating to think that if perhaps there had been just three or even two more weeks in the election that John McCain might very well have pulled it off. America really grabbed on to his message about Joe the Plumber (as annoying as it eventually became), opposition to higher taxes and Obama’s socialist views. Despite the economy, Americans remain a people who wish to keep the money they earn and don’t necessarily see government as the answer to their problems.

In the two or so weeks before the election, after he had finally found a message, McCain began to climb in the polls to the point where commentators were talking about a second McCain comeback (the first being his primary campaign). Americans became more and more weary of Obama’s policies (as ambiguous and unknown as they really are) and began to find comfort in John McCain who they know and largely trust. My advice to the next Republican Presidential candidate: have a message!

The second glaring issue with the McCain campaign is something that was completely and totally within John McCain’s control: Sarah Palin. I won’t criticize her nearly as much as many other Republicans will because I realize that while she may have hurt my Party with independents and other groups, she rallied our base and brought in much needed donations. I do not know of a way to quantify this, but it seems likely that Palin may have helped us rally our base as much as she did repel other groups and in doing so can not be called a great running mate nor a terrible one.

The problem with Sarah Palin is though that- and I don’t think there is any other way to state this- she simply said stupid things on the campaign trail. Why in the world wasn’t she able to answer Katie Couric as to what newspapers she reads? Why in the world would you say that foreign leaders flying over your state counts as foreign policy experience?

The list could go on, but the point is that Palin needed to be prepped much, much more than she was for her encounters with the press. She was great in her debate with Joe Biden. The McCain campaign should have ensured she performed that good all the time.

But as fascinating as the past is, the future is infinitely more so. It is interesting to note that starting on election night and continuing almost every day since, Obama and his cohorts have steadily been lowering the bar. “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term…” said Obama on election night. “There will be setbacks and false starts.” So much for the optimism of just two weeks ago.

Whereas the Obama campaign was run on a slogan of “Yes we can!”, it seems the new slogan is “Well, maybe we can.” The optimism of campaigning has given way to the realism of actually having to be the President. The turn around in message was almost as quick as Obama first promising he would accept public financing for his campaign and then reversing himself and effectively destroying the public financing system in this country.

I won’t comment on what I believe will happen in an Obama presidency as I have essentially written about that since September, but suffice to say that if Obama’s actions in the White House are as muddled and contradictory as his words on the campaign trail, then America is in for four more years of Jimmy Carter. Here’s to change!