Why it’s Compassionate to Oppose Government HandoutsAugust 15th, 2013 by Chelsen Vicari
Compassion. Justice. Inequality. These hefty words have been hijacked by Leftists. Christians are struggling to get them back. But we are having a hard time shaking the nasty names being hurled our way in the battle of entitlement programs (a.k.a. government handouts) You know the insults: uncompassionate, heartless, and selfish. Ironic labels, considering Christian conservatives have dedicated their lives to a faith whose golden rule is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” A misnomer to say the least.
Name-calling may seem irrelevant to you bold, unflinching activists out there. This is true. Concerned Women for America (CWA) members know silly insults will never deter us from speaking truth (evidenced by the ridiculous and crude tweets I receive on a regular basis over my blogs). But to the younger generation still trying to crack the code of their ideology, false accusations like “unjust” and “selfish” can be effective — albeit petty — tools used by Liberals to silence us.
The college classroom environment can be especially daunting for conservative students. Trust me. I remember how it stunk to stand up in front of my political science class and call for cut backs in government handouts to the so-called “needy.” A certain liberal student, who hadn’t even read the assignment, proceeded to stand up and tell the entire class that I obviously do not care about the poor, the sick, the elderly and the helpless. How could I retaliate? The liberal student sat down, thoroughly pleased with himself as roaring applause ensued. I even vaguely remember a standing ovation as I, the defeated greedy scrooge-of-a-conservative, slumped back into my seat. Alright, my memory may be exaggerating the standing ovation.
The point is that tackling entitlement reform is a dreaded topic for young conservatives. But all it is going to take for young conservatives to get over this fear and oppose government handouts is to know the truth and explain it simply and accurately.
For example: I have a friend who is an alcoholic. He constantly asks me for Vodka. In an effort to show him compassion, I buy his Vodka every week. But a stranger came along and told me I shouldn’t buy my friend’s Vodka anymore, because it was only causing more harm to my friend. Would you call that stranger uncompassionate? No. You would call him wise. You would, however, call me — the one providing my alcoholic dependent friend with Vodka free of charge — a bad friend.
Liberal activists and politicians are not stupid nor are they more interested in helping the less-fortunate. Building dependency means building a voter base for liberal politicians. They are not concerned with dependency’s impact on the debt crisis.
The Obama Administration and their cronies have perfected the welfare argument. TV commercials and radio ads tell us simple, pitiful stories of helpless individuals who cannot survive without the government’s support. But these are just politicos depending on dependency in order to maintain political power, not to care for the poor. If that were the case, then their priority would be solving the debt crisis through spending cuts and entitlement reform.
Here’s the kicker: Conservatives have proven themselves more generous and “compassionate” than Liberals. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, research shows that conservatives donate 30 percent more to charities than do liberals, even though conservative families typically make less money. In the words of brilliant economist Thomas Sowell, “Being willing to donate the taxpayers’ money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.”