I have read article after article admonishing Christians for voting against certain government programs aimed at reducing poverty. The assumption being that voting against these programs shows a lack of concern for those with fewer means. This concern is generally raised by Christians who are more politically liberal, although I occasionally see the reverse argument. As Christians, we are called to care for the poor, but does that mean voting for a larger government? The answer is no and a statement such as this comes from a place of economic misunderstanding.
Before I explain the premise of two economic positions, there a few things which need to be said about Christian charity. We are all called to be generous with our possessions and our finances. This should naturally be done in prayer and with God's guidance. Anything you earn after taxes is not yours and we are responsible to spend it according to God's will. This is true for every Christian regardless of what they do at the polls. God calls each of us to different levels of financial charity. Further, within the Christian community, we should hold each other accountable for obeying God's command to help those around us. In the church, this should always be a discussion of how to spend our own resources, not how to instruct the government on spending tax resources. That conversation belongs outside of the sanctuary.
So going back to my statement about an economic misunderstanding. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that poverty is a problem. They have different ideas, based on research, on what the most effective solution would entail. I will explain each position briefly and simply. There are many nuances, but my intention is to provide an overview.
Politically Liberal Position: A liberal position is one that asserts the problems should be solved by the government. That is the unifying force within a population. This means more government programs and higher taxes to pay for them. It can also mean more government control of the business market. For example, supporting a higher minimum wage is an example of the government exerting control over the supply and demand of the labor market. People who adhere to this ideology believe that there is evidence that poverty can be decreased by direct government involvement. This could be in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. The idea being that once people have their financial needs fully met then they will have the opportunity to eventually find work that might let them live independently.
Politically Conservative Position: This position is based on the idea that individuals should be enabled to pull themselves out of poverty. This means a smaller government with fewer taxes and a free market system. Some social programs are needed, but they should be short-term programs based on satisfying immediate needs so as not to create an environment of dependence. Programs that do not generate statistically significant gains should be cut, regardless of the good intentions behind them. Proponents of this position argue about the long-term benefits of empowering individuals to be a part of their own poverty solutions.
There are so strong economic arguments as well as social theory argument for both solutions to poverty. Discerning the better of two is a complicated question. Therefore it is entirely inappropriate to accuse someone one of indifference to poverty based solely on their belief for the best economic solution to poverty. Instead, we should work together to devise solutions within our own communities where we can be directly involved.
