One of the topics getting a lot of attention today is the upcoming loss of Coors/Miller beer sales in MN. I don’t know if the remaining brands could pick the slack, being the Coors/Miller market share is near 40% in the state. If remaining brands can’t, much higher prices, and even a shortage of beer seems around the corner.
There also exists an element of moral outrage by some, that the needs of the vulnerable in the state are a lower priority than folks getting their beer. A few commentators have suggested that the lack of beer may be the impetus needed for the government to solve the budget issue.
I’m not quite sure what to think of this.
Amongst many pastor types of both parties and a multitude of denominations is a statement that a society is judged by how it takes care of the least of these. In the NT, we have the admonition of Jesus in Matthew to individuals that failure to feed and cloth the poor will not end well. In the OT, we have cities being vaporized for society seemingly having an out of sight, out of mind view of the poor.
In MN, we may have no beer.
A very honest socially conservative Christian laid out his views as concerns Jesus words in the NT quite well.
It’s a sobering warning, and I fear that I’m typical. For the most part I think about myself: my needs, my interests, my desires. And when I break out of my cocoon of self-interest, it’s usually because I’m thinking about my family or my friends, which is still a kind of self-interest. The poor? Sure, I feel a sense of responsibility, but they’re remote and more hypothetical than real: objects of a thin, distant moral concern that tends to be overwhelmed by the immediate demands of my life. As I said, I’m afraid I’m typical.
As a liberal, it would be easy to point fingers at this thinking, perhaps even tieing it directly to last weeks lectionary, where wealth and concerns of the world choke out the word of God in the parable of the sower. To some extent, when I see folks going “tsk, tsk, beer is more important than keeping grandma alive”, many parallels do exist with the thorny ground thing.
The thing is, other factors do enter in. Well meaning folks can disagree as to how to best take care of the poor. The above fellow goes on:
Some say the best way to meet these needs involves adopting tax policies designed to stimulate economic growth, along with redoubled efforts of private charity. Others emphasize public programs and increased government intervention. It’s an argument worth having, of course, and to a great degree our contemporary political debates turn on these issues. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there is a unifying consensus: The moral character of a nation is measured to a large degree by its concern for the poor.
He then presents an answer, likely shared by many social conservatives.
On this point I agree with many friends on the left who argue that America doesn’t have a proper concern for the poor. Our failure, however, is not merely economic. In fact, it’s not even mostly economic.
I think such is where much of the difference of opinion ultimately lies. No wonder we had MN Republican legislators messing around with societal legislation, rather than working on the budget. They likely feel if they can legislate their version of morality, poverty will self correct a bit, such that less services will be needed. In a related vein, many liberals believe if the environment is properly cared for, public health costs are likely to decrease.
Ultimately, I don’t understand how grandma’s oxygen needs, and the costs of atmospheric separation, labor, transportation and overhead is all of a sudden going to drop in cost out of the willingness of folks hearts. Perhaps in the longer term, it could happen as society might shift more altruistic, but grandma, and perhaps a generation or two, might be long gone before that happens. I could be too cynical in this, but if a surgeon is $350K in debt… I don’t think anyone, even a social conservative, expects them to work for little or no pay.
The fellow then goes on with the following:
Progressives talk about “social responsibility.” It is an apt term, but it surely means husbanding social capital just as much as—indeed, more than—providing financial resources. In our society a preferential option for the poor must rebuild the social capital squandered by rich baby boomers, and that means social conservatism. The bohemian fantasy works against this clear imperative, because it promises us that we can attend to the poor without paying any attention to our own manner of living. Appeals to aid the less fortunate, however urgent, make few demands on our day-to-day lives. We are called to awareness, perhaps, or activism, but not to anything that would cut against the liberations of recent decades and limit our own desires.
I think he nails it with the last sentence. In a lot of ways, this parallels the angst many have with short term mission trips, outsourcing services to the poor, and in general not wanting to self/family sacrifice.
Beer shortages impact daily living for the average Joe. The homeless lady w/o a prescription can jump govt hoops if she fits the right demographic, otherwise she must do without. Her poverty has little to no effect on the average Joes daily living… but if you know her, such is likely different.
There is no question, money must play a huge role, as one cant create grandmas oxygen or gene therapy drugs via individualistic “moral” living, no matter how much one ones to spin it. Likewise, the toddler who needs a special diet via a feeding tube can’t very well survive via a food bank.
By the same token, simply throwing money at an issue, all the while refusing to invest social capital, ie refusing to get ones own / families hands dirty is not an answer either. Such opens the door to skimming, and a multitude of unintended consequences such as government over-reach, state-church co-mingling, misplaced incentives, and mandated moral hazards, all of which are counter to the issue at hand. Real approaches to caring for the least of these, require both financial, and social capital.
