Does Christianity Clash With Capitalism?

Laura Dean F. Friedrich/Protestants for the Common Good/Worthy Work, Worthy Wages:

As a nation, we value families, and we value work. We hold dear the notion that people in the U.S. can succeed if they work. Their [minimum wage earners] jobs make it possible for them to take care of their families, guide their children, and contribute to their communities. This vision of a stable, productive—and adequately compensated—work force falls short when it comes to workers who earn the minimum wage. These low-wage earners do not make enough to cover their basic needs, much less afford the extras many of us feel are essential for the good life.

As people of faith, we value all human life, and we believe in the dignity and integrity of all people. Stories about work fill our holy scriptures, beginning with creation itself. God speaks to us through psalm, prophet, and parable, and Christ calls us into relationship with one another and sets forth justice and compassion as integral aspects of our community life. PCG articulates our understanding of God’s claim and Christ’s call in our vision of a beloved community in which all flourish and all contribute.

Susan Brook Thistlethwaite/Washington Post/It's not 'class warfare', it's Christianity:

Capitalism isn’t “God’s Plan,” it’s an economic system that runs on the human desire for more, our own self-interest. This is not necessarily evil. It can actually be a very productive system, but it is not beneficent. In order for there to be good values in our economic life, capitalism needs to be regulated so it does not wreck the whole ship with unfettered greed...

The Christian approach to economics is to be the conscience of the nation and to insist that we regulate capitalism so it does not become reckless and destructive.

Blogging for Protestants for the Common Good, I am well aware of the pragmatic nature of our work.  We are an organization that seeks to create changes in an already given economic and political structure.  You will not find Che Guevara shirts, and Molotov cocktails in our downtown Chicago office.

But as a Christian, reading LDF's call for minimum wage increases and SBT's assessment of the inter-Christian debate over economic policy, I cannot help thinking about where we draw the line.  SBT describes capitalism as a system based on self-interest, and thus in need of regulation in order to fight the evils that come along with pure self-interest.  At what point do the regulations need to stop so that "capitalism" no longer looks like capitalism but more like something else altogether?  LDF describes the economic benefits that come with a higher minimum wage, but this is far from a consensus position amongst our pro-capitalism economists.

There is a level at which the Christian, the Christian who believes in a God who is about love and equality rather than profit and prosperity, has to stop thinking that it is their job to correct a system that fundamentally asks us to look out for ourselves above all other things. 

I want higher wages for workers not because it makes for good capitalism, but because it is how I view God's will.   Class warfare, higher taxes for the rich, call it what you want.  I don't care if its good for capitalism either.  I care if it is aligned with the gospel.  I am pragmatist, a realist, etc. etc.  But really, I long to be a dreamer.

-Tim

The Obama Blame Game

A longer-than-normal post, but an oh so important topic no?

In the Red Corner! (Color not chosen for any symbolic reasons...though it may seem that way)
Drew Westen: When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.  
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.

In the Blue Corner!
Jonathan Chiat: Westen's op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen's telling, every known impediment to legislative progress -- special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion -- are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama's failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.
Westen locates Obama's inexplicable failure to properly use his storytelling power in some deep-rooted aversion to conflict. He fails to explain why every president of the postwar era has compromised, reversed, or endured the total failure of his domestic agenda. 

If you look at progressive circles, Westen's argument seems to be the one people want to believe.  I have seen at least one prominent progressive Christian organization publicizing Westen's article, and have heard a similar line of thought from many I have talked to.  Its an argument that comes from the heart.  But if you read Chiat's rebuttle, its hard not to conclude that sometimes the heart is profoundly mistaken.  

Every "victory" for the progressive agenda thus far has been dampened hugely by the fact that concessions had to be made (the public option in the healthcare debate comes to mind first for me).  But that is the reality of the political system we inherited.  To think that if Obama gave the best speech ever written in the history of mankind about the public option (which he did do a pretty good job of arguing for), we'd have it right now, is a delusion beyond delusions.  Rather, maybe if the White House didn't decide to waste so much time waiting for the Senate's gang of six, we might have a different outcome (I know this stuff was a long time ago but it still stings damnit!)  As Chiat points out, the primary issue to be taken up with Obama is a tactical one. 

I also want to add that the economic crisis we face now is an entirely different animal than the national security crisis Bush was dealt.  With an economic crisis, people are prone to all sorts of ideas about how the economy works because despite what some economists might think, the tangible answers are not as clear as "go and shoot the bad guy."  When we feel like our lives are in danger, we are willing to applaud the president as he lets the rockets fly.  When our jobs our in danger, we become partisan ideologues.  If 9/11 never happened, would Bush have been able to convince the nation to go to war on rhetoric alone?

-Tim

A Step Towards Ending the War on Drugs or Doomed to Failure?

On the Frank/Paul legislation to end federal prohibition of marijuana, making it a states’ rights issue:

The most optimistic view of the bills chances (Reason Magazine):
Previous Frank-Paul partnerships include a 2010 op-ed to reduce military spending and a marijuana decriminalization bill introduced in the House in 2009. In the intervening two years, Arizona and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana, and the Connecticut legislature has moved to decriminalize it. Now former U.S. Attorney John McKay and Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes are organizing to completely legalize marijuana in Washington State. The time is ripe.


Not optimistic but thinks it’s a fun exercise (The Atlantic):
In the era of the Tea Party, when conservative Republicans are insisting that state governments be permitted to reject Obamacare, turn down bailout money, and otherwise flex their muscles, it's a tough moment to insist, "Yes, marijuana is different: the feds should prevail." Of course, the bill is likely to fail anyway. In killing it, however, various hypocrisies will be highlighted. As a result, federal prohibition of marijuana will wind up marginally less tenable than before.


And the one that says you are wasting your time even thinking about this (Washington Post);
The bill has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.
The bill would have to go through the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said his panel would not consider it.
“Marijuana use and distribution is prohibited under federal law because it has a high potential for abuse and does not have an accepted medical use in the U.S.,” Smith said. “The Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease.
“Decriminalizing marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels who fund violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Allowing states to determine their own marijuana policy flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent.”

-Tim