Charity: Socialism or Safety Net?

Posted Apr 08, 2023 by Sidney C. Roberts, MD, FACR

After last month’s column on wisdom and discernment (and lies), a conservative friend dared me to write about “the dangers of socialism” – “how it is turning the thinking of so many to believe [they are] entitled to receive without earning.” The dare – like so much of our discourse today – is both provocative and tinged with judgment. Are you with me or against me? Now, this friend of mine honestly had no confrontational intent. I just don’t think they realized that when stating opinion as fact, probably reinforced by a one-sided newsfeed, they left little room for an honest exchange of ideas. I accepted the challenge but warned them to be careful what they asked for.

So, what is socialism? People much smarter than I have difficulty defining it. Jonah Goldberg wrote in 2018, “Socialism is on the march! It’s just that nobody quite knows what it is.”[1] For many of us who grew up on the Right, socialism is like pornography – we think we know it when we see it.[2] However, Gallup polling suggests we can’t agree.[3]

I grew up in conservative West Texas thinking of socialism as the antithesis of the Protestant work ethic. Pioneers traveled across the country to establish farms and towns in truly God-forsaken land (before oil was discovered, mind you). You worked hard. You earned your keep. “God helps those who help themselves.” (That’s not in the Bible, by the way.) Socialists, on the other hand, are fundamentally opposed to capitalism’s ability to reward some people more than others. They think no one should be allowed to get “rich” (another undefined word). It isn’t enough that everyone is getting richer; the “1 percent” are getting too rich. “It’s not fair!” socialists scream. Once I succeeded academically and financially, I sure didn’t want anyone to take away what I earned, what was rightfully mine. Socialism was (and is) that boogeyman.

Our European cousins see another side of the coin. Before he became Prime Minister, Labour Party leader Tony Blair said, in 1995:

“Socialism for me was never about nationalisation or the power of the state, not just about economics or even politics. It is a moral purpose to life, a set of values, a belief in society, in co-operation, in achieving together what we cannot achieve alone. It is how I try to live my life, how you try to live yours – the simple truths – I am worth no more than anyone else, I am my brother’s keeper, I will not walk by on the other side. We are not simply people set in isolation from one another, face to face with eternity, but members of the same family, same community, same human race. This is my socialism and the irony of all our long years in opposition is that those values are shared by the vast majority of the British people.”[4]

Admittedly a bit utopian. In his own way, so was President George W. Bush:

"I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservatism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results. And with this hopeful approach, we will make a real difference in people's lives."[5] Unfortunately, compassionate conservatism was little more than a “bumper sticker slogan.”[6]

My friend’s dare advances a more sinister accusation that the poor have not because they work not (whether at education or labor), and that they are motivated by a combination of laziness and entitlement. What’s more, they prefer to live on the dole. This is myth.[7]

The dare also presumes that we all start with the same opportunities. If we all work equally hard, we will see equal reward. My church shared a compelling video[8] by Jonathan Taylor-Cummings that demonstrated with a race the impact of privilege (another dirty word) and its very real advantages. Every contestant lined up to run. Those with certain advantages – a two-parent household, a private education, food and financial security, etc. – were allowed to take two steps forward for each privilege. Who was given a head start? Who was going to win the race? The reality is, we don’t all run life’s race from the same starting line.

How do we, as a society, address this fundamental issue? Ay, there’s the rub.[9] Maybe you argue it’s not your fault someone is poor and that it is not the government’s role to provide any type of safety net. Politics and mechanics of government charity aside, we must be open to the rational economic argument that these programs can show a return on investment[10] and a benefit to the economy.[11] I noted previously that Texas economist Ray Perryman detailed the economic benefit to Texas of Medicaid expansion.[12]

In the end, I’m not sure I can describe socialism – or social-ism, as Jonah Goldberg likes to call it – very well. I do believe that the capitalism versus socialism, earned versus entitled argument is a false dilemma when it comes to charity. Socialism, based on what Winston Churchill called the “gospel of envy”,[13] is dangerous. On that, my friend and I agree. Equally so is unfettered capitalism, based on another cardinal sin: greed. Puritan preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) spelled out many reasons for both public and private charity (and, characteristically, the hellfire that awaits the greedy who don’t comply).[14]

The better way is to practice the cardinal virtue of justice/charity. Conservative political commentator David French writes, our Constitution “recognizes the inherent dignity of man as human beings created in the image of God” as well as “the unavoidable duty of government to recognize and protect that dignity.”[15] Unfortunately, there is a growing White Christian Nationalist base that wants to enshrine their sect of Christianity in politics and law while ignoring Christianity’s charitable teachings.[16] They rally for prohibitions, but not protections. Sounds rather pharisaical to me.

True justice and charity require both a robust social safety net as well as individual and non-profit action. Compassion demands it. Christ commands it. It’s that whole love your neighbor thing once again.[17]

[1] https://www.commentary.org/articles/jonah-goldberg/socialism-hot-right-now/

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-4558

[3] https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243362/meaning-socialism-americans-today.aspx

[4] http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=201#banner

[5] https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430.html

[6] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/14/trump-populists-compassionate-conservatism-00039136

[7] https://theconversation.com/3-myths-about-the-poor-that-republicans-are-using-to-support-slashing-us-safety-net-89048

[8] https://youtu.be/PJAgPF5FNTQ

[9] https://poets.org/poem/hamlet-act-iii-scene-i-be-or-not-be

[10] https://www.nber.org/digest/sep19/high-returns-government-programs-low-income-children

[11] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

[12] https://www.perrymangroup.com/media/uploads/report/perryman-toward-a-texas-solution-03-14-13.pdf