Government for Real People

The only subject on the news these days seems to be the Iowa caucuses... except possibly bad weather and Britney Spears (ugh - the miserable woman needs serious help, not a media circus). In this season of political campaigns, stump speeches, and uncertainty about who will lead the country, I've found myself reexamining the basic fundamentals as taught to children in Christian schools.

The basic presupposition here is that the best government is a small representative one. Religious conservatives believe that humans should be as independent as possible, and that government should use as little of their money as possible to provide a bare-bones set of services -- an army, limited law enforcement and judiciary (limited because the government makes few laws for people to break), the government itself, and infrastructure (like roads, bridges etc. People who advocate small government believe in individual autonomy and also that individuals will make better choices with their money, both for themselves and for others, than a government can.

Being an American, I can certainly understand the attraction of this way of thinking. This glorification of the individual is buried deep in our bone marrow. Like most character traits, this has its benefits and its drawbacks.

I am also a follower of Christ, an identity that is supposed to take priority over my national one. I am trying to figure out how I, as a Christian, can properly reflect God's glory in my participation in our political process. I don't believe that Christians are to think of themselves as autonomous. I understand the Bible to teach mutual interdependence instead -- we're one body made up of many parts that are each necessary and work together.

As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
-1 Corinthians 12:20-21

So, a government system that builds on a sense of community seems to me to be a Biblical one.

I also think a government should be based on a realistic understanding of people's nature. We are not inherently good. Even people who profess to follow Christ, are still in the process of being sanctified. We can see this played out in churches across the country in bitter disputes over everything from carpet to style of music to the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. (Yes, some arguments must take place, and some separations must occur -- over the truly foundational issues. But even those disagreements must be expressed in a godly and respectful manner.)

We also see the sinful nature of people in their giving. I learned last year that in churches, 20% of the members gave 80% of the church's funding per year. These are people who are supposed to be growing in godliness. Would it not seem logical to predict that giving will be the same if not even less common among those without the sanctifying work of God in their lives?

Yet, those who advocate for individual human responsibility and small government base their entire philosophy on the idea that people will step up, wisely select, and privately fund necessary programs if government were to shrink and stop claiming 35-50% of our income to fund programs that help the less fortunate, build infrastructure, educate our children, enforce laws, etc.

I don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else, I'm afraid. I certainly am frustrated with the state of affairs now. Corruption is rampant throughout our government system, but as long as sinful people run things, we will find corruption.

Programs are running out of money, yet the problems they try to solve seem to only increase. Is the solution to throw more money at these programs and problems by taking money from other things or by taking more money from the people by increasing taxes? I personally think it depends on the program -- many are completely misguided and do the opposite of what they were created to do (e.g. No Child Left Behind).

Is it actually possible to reel it all back in, shrink the government, and hand things like education, assisting the poor and the disabled, health care, and maintaining roads/bridges/tunnels back to private citizens? Would our nation's citizens actually use the money they used to pay in taxes to make this work, or would they spend it on themselves?

As I listen to the many candidates for President this month, I'm hearing many different proposed solutions. And I'm listening to everyone. I have not particularly enjoyed the Republicans I've heard, except for Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is too plastic (reminds me of John Kerry and Al Gore), Rudy Guiliani is too abrasive, Fred Thompson seems fake and untrustworthy, and Mike Huckabee is too religious and too much like George W.

I greatly enjoyed the Democratic debate I watched -- it was so novel to listen to the Democratic take on all this and Dennis Kucinich was entertaining. I don't agree with his politics, but he's a funny little oddball and I like him.

I know how odd this is. It's incredibly weird that I can be simultaneously attracted to Barak Obama and to Ron Paul, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum. My guess is that each is attractive because he is entirely different from what we have now. I'm definitely one of those undecided, independent voters out there. I have voted for members of both parties in recent years, and seriously examined third-party candidates in the last presidential election. If I knew better how I felt about things, I'd be better able to make a choice.

One thing I do know: I hate the reality that our two-party system works very hard to keep it just that -- a two-party system. If we really are what we say we are, everyone should have a chance to debate their ideas on a national stage: republican, democrat, libertarian, green, communist, populist, socialist, anarchist. Then I could hear and compare the views of all of them and maybe do better at making up my own mind!