Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character

[ET]

Great commentary recently by Dennis Prager:
"While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse." The condensed list is below. The full commentary expands a bit on each of those 10 corroding effects of progressive policy.

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another.
2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme.
3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic.
4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work.
5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing.
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. (Keep Junior on your employer's health insurance till he's 26!!!)
9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.
10. The leftist weltanschauung sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality.

One can see most of these effects in our society today and especially in European society. Riots and marches are the norm whenever some politician dares to try to show some financial responsibility. Whether it's curtailing entitlements related to education or retirement or health care, there's a narcissistic, "they owe me" attitude toward making someone else pay for something one wants.

I will note that there is ample evidence in discussions on this very board to prove the bit about "labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse".

But...."None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful."

As an extension on number 10, this commentary by Prager is an interesting topic: .

[Gene Scarborough]

[ET]

Gene, you can stand by your statements, but for the most part they don't have anything to do with the idea that Prager puts forth. The issue is the corroding effect of one popular economic philosophy on the character of a nation. Riches exist in any economic system, so the effect they have on people is independent of the economic system. However, riches act only upon the moral character of the individual/family who possesses them while socialist philosophy acts upon society as a whole.

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed----

I think we are pretty much on the same beam with this.

If we go back to Jesus' famous simple statement: "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" I think we have it as simple as it gets. The Pharisees loved their money and used the Temple stuff to be more comfortable than the average worshiper. The Widow's Mite observations were along these same lines.

When Capitalists love their money far more than the people who help them earn it and work for them, then we have a problem. People can easily fool themselves and the public by appearing to be "great philanthropists" when they are doing their best to starve their workers to death with minimum wages.

If churches did their job of charity and care to those around them, there would be no real need for a Welfare Program to start with. Just throwing money at any issue seldom resolves it. I sat on the decision-making committee down in SC when the first Title XX funds became available in the 70's. I thought at that time, "If a person is so sorry their children and neighbors won't help them with housework they can't physically do, why should the taxpayer provide a housekeeper for them?" Yep, we funded such! Now we have a massive beurocracy providing transportation / food coupons / etc. and a 5th generation of more and more savvy people enjoying the benefits of NOT WORKING.

I would start budget cutting with a massive withdrawal of troops if the Oil Countries won't pay for our services---and a curtailing of Title XX. If the poor have not used their opportunities to exit poverty after all these years and 5 generations, perhaps starvation will motivate them. It may sound cruel, but no one pays my bills even though the economy has my company and income at a 70% reduction of earnings 4 years ago.

No question that we can't afford all the "goodnesses" we have been granting the last 30 years.

[ET]

[Sandy]

Interesting theory. Doesn't seem that there's much evidence to prove it works out in practice though.

[Stephen Fox]

[Sandy]

Prager's thesis is interesting, though there is no evidence offered to prove his assertions. The main flaw in the whole thesis is the idea that human morality is somehow something that can be produced from within, which is a purely humanist view. It is contradictory to the Christian view that true morality is produced by God's indwelling spirit, and that God's standard of perfection can only be attained with a spiritual work of God's own spirit to justify and sanctify the human soul.

If you believe "the book," the world's great battle between good and evil has been won by a victorious Jesus. Therefore, equality is morality, and anything less is nothing more than the result of a sinful and fallen world.