Words of Wisdom
“When I was hungry, you gave me food; thirsty, you gave me drink; a stranger, you took me in; naked, you clothed me; sick and in prison, you visited me. Just as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it unto me.” (Matt. 25:35-40)
A Review: Ch. 1-V: Restoring America’s Soul
This weekend on Crossroads we are beginning Chapter V of the book entitled Restoring America’s Soul which was written several years ago by then Rita Dunaway, now Rita Peters, and highly recommended by numerous well known national leaders.
However, once again, we’ll start with a quick review of the ground we’ve covered so far and then tackle the big question of whether liberals or conservatives are more effective and more generous in caring for the poor, and also how they compare in other areas.
–– In Chapter One, Rita set out to counter some of the negative perceptions about conservatives in general. To begin, she describes a true conservative as someone who is committed to “conserve” the things from our rich heritage that are worthy of being kept. She also puts greater focus on what conservatives are “FOR” rather than what they are “AGAINST”, and what they have done to honor God rather than to promote ourselves.
— In Chapter Two, she emphasized the importance of tone in their conversations and debates, particularly when they get into hot button issues of politics, religion, and morality. That includes the need to listen carefully to others if they want others to listen to them.
— In Chapter Three, she talked about the importance of promoting virtue in our culture and of making decisions based on what is true and good rather than just on their “feelings”. Therefore, they must all be careful to avoid falling under the spell of catchy phrases like “Just listen to your heart”, and “If it feels good, do it.”
— In Chapter Four, which we covered last week, we took a step back to examine how political conservatism is directly connected to the strong influence the Bible had on our early settlers and Founding Fathers, and which helped shape the limited federal government that is clearly enshrined in our Constitution.
In fact, as we reported last week, a recent study by two political science professors showed that out of more than 15,000 documents written between 1760 and 1805, the Bible was far and away the source that the Founders most often cited or quoted at 34%. That was more than the next three sources combined.
In summary then, this chapter described the Biblical foundation on which America grew and prospered. That prepares us for the second half of her book, which we will begin this weekend, in which she addresses some of the more controversial issues that challenge America today
— In Chapter Five: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Who Really Cares for the Poor?
One of those issues, surprisingly, is the different perceptions that many people have about whether Liberals or Conservatives deal more effectively and generously in caring for the poor and needy among us.
— Liberals: On the one hand, self-identified liberal “progressives” advocate for big government programs that are designed to take care of the poor and make their lives better. In so doing, they portray themselves as the ones who are more caring and “compassionate” than conservatives.
— Conservatives: On the other hand, “conservatives” generally oppose these big government giveaways to avoid creating a socialist culture of government control and dependency. Therefore, these “liberals” like to portray such conservatives as a bunch of greedy, tightfisted, heartless Grinches who would gladly push Granny over a cliff in her wheelchair in order to save a few bucks.
So who really cares for the poor, liberals or conservatives? It looks like an easy call. Or is it?
To help answer that question, Rita turns to a book by Arthur Brooks entitled Who Really Cares for the Poor? What he discovered was quite unexpected.
For example, he reports that households headed by conservatives give on average 30% more money to charity than households headed by liberals – even though conservatives earn an average 6% less. In addition, nearly all the states on the upper end of the giving spectrum during the 2012 and 2016 presidential election year were “red” states who voted for Romney and Trump, respectively.
His conclusion? “It’s very simple. Liberals who accuse conservatives of being greedy or lacking compassion are just dead wrong. It’s the other way around, and the cold, hard data prove it.”
So what makes the difference? Could it be that Christians take very personally Jesus’ call in Matthew 25, as cited above, for His followers to care for the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick, and those in prison? In addition, there is no record that Jesus ever gave this mandate to a big government entity. Rather, He points to the individual and to the church to meet these needs and, in so doing, not only to help the people in need, but also to bring honor and glory to God.
By contrast, liberals seem to prefer that the government take on this responsibility – and thus relieve them of getting personally involved. There are many examples of this, but the one that illustrates this most clearly is the Affordable Care Act, which puts health care into the hands of government rather than of private enterprise, of churches, and of other caring individuals.
To repeat, Liberals look to government to care for the needy despite the fact that the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to assume this responsibility, but rather reserves such power to the individual states and to the people.
— Rita’s “Elevator Speech” on Caring for the Poor
To put all of this into perspective, Rita offers what she refers to as her “elevator speech”, in which she too, like author Arthur Brooks, concludes that the conservative approach is the better of the two, as follows in her words:
“I care deeply about the poor, and I am convinced that we can do better for them on a person basis than to relegate them to a cold, distant, government bureaucracy. Human needs deserve human caring. In addition, community-based help can include not only financial resources, but can also provide a local support network to go along with them.”
“That’s why I want to explore ways for private, community-based organizations to revolutionize the way we help those who really do need help, to enhance human dignity by honoring and promoting work, and to make state and local government safety nets a last resort.”
What Qualifies Rita to take on this Challenge?
That brings us back to the larger question of what qualifies her — or anyone else for that matter — to tackle this monumental challenge of Restoring America’s Soul?”
In case you missed our earlier snapshots, Rita is first of all a constitutional attorney with honors degrees from West Virginia University and the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
She then worked as staff counsel for the Rutherford Institute, as an allied attorney for the nationally respected Alliance Defending Freedom, and now serves as the National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project.
In addition, she has contributed to various academic journals and media outlets such, including a weekly column for the Daily News Record, and has also personally testified and written legal briefs for various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Ohio Supreme court, and she also serves as the host of our weekly Crossroads radio programs.