A columnist draws a connection between the war on Christmas and our economic decline.

Like everyone else, I pen my share of pieces about politics. Yet it’s not my favorite topic, as I have an issue with weighty matters. But it’s not that I tend toward frivolity – it’s that politics just isn’t important enough. 

In fact, it could be said that when seeking to understand the world’s problems, great minds ponder spirituality, average minds ponder culture, small minds ponder politics. For politics is merely the manifestation of spiritual differences in government. 

Treating the philosophical underpinnings of our societal malaise is usually a lonely endeavor, but occasionally someone, somewhere echoes my cry in the wilderness. An example is Daniel Henninger, who associated the moral decay represented by the attack on Christmas with our economic woes, writing:

This year we celebrate the desacralized ‘holidays’ amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin – fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say ‘Merry Christmas’ is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.

Not surprisingly, leftist blogs reacted condescendingly. For instance, in the piece “Retarded Person Has Economic Theory,” the Wonkette mockingly characterized Henninger’s thesis, writing, “[Our problems were] actually caused by somebody not saying 'Merry Christmas' at the mall!”

The title and short sentence above well-represent the substance of the critique which, in typical leftist style, was nothing but sarcasm and ad hominem attacks (and a little profanity, too). So let’s add some depth.

This obviously is not only an anti-Christian reaction but also an anti-intellectual one. To illustrate the latter point, what if I said that our problems are due to avarice, the Ronald Reagan-Gordon Gecko “greed is good” values spawned in the roarin’ ‘80s? Or what if I simply said it was the greed of our Wall Street robber barons? There’s no question the same kvetching leftists would greet such an analysis with three cheers and hear-hears. In fact, they make such moral pronouncements all the time. Yet what is really the difference between my leftist analysis and Henninger’s?

First, I used “values,” a term reflecting moral relativism, as opposed to “morality,” which implies a standard reflecting Absolute Truth. Second, I didn’t implicate secular forces in the moral decay but instead some of leftists’ favorite boogeymen, Reagan, Gecko (and I juxtaposed these two, as liberals gleefully might) and rich executives. To top it off, I mentioned the one deadly sin leftists can’t talk enough about, greed (it’s something they have close acquaintance with).

Now I’ll pick up where Henninger left off. Why will even moral relativists often speak of “morality” when addressing our problems? After all, even Karl Marx did, claiming capitalists were immoral. The answer is tautological: all man-made problems – every single one – are a function of morality. Even leftists instinctively realize this; they just throw a hissy-fit when someone proposes that Christianity might be the solution. They can abide vague talk about values but not specific talk about virtues that could spoil their fun.  

Virtue, or lack thereof, lies at the heart of most everything. As an example, consider that every communicable disease, from AIDS to the common cold, is behaviorally spread, and behavior is determined by moral state. With AIDS the reason is obvious, but why the cold? Well, if people washed their hands frequently when ill and after touching many other people and/or things, and also refrained from shaking hands when sick, the chances of contracting and spreading disease would be greatly reduced. 

But we only thus behave when we have knowledge of such practices’ importance and then choose to apply it. And prerequisites for knowledgeableness, prudent decision-making and taking non-self-centered actions are conscientiousness and consideration, which are moral qualities.

Likewise, a major cause of the great number of infections in hospitals is the same lack of conscientiousness. And why are epidemics far more common in the Third World? Partially for the same reason why they were prevalent in Black Plague era Europe; quite frankly, the region’s hygiene stinks. Maybe this is why cleanliness is next to godliness.   

Now for economics. Whether you blame our financial meltdown on the private sector, the government or both, it still boils down to morality. If politicians secure a system in which unqualified people are given loans, they do it either because they want to buy votes or are philosophically bankrupt. If the former, they are corrupt, and what of the latter? 

It’s a complicated matter, but if they believe you can trump market forces with “good intentions” or that financial irresponsibility should be facilitated, they have corrupted judgment. And if this isn’t the result of eyes blinded by sin, it’s in the least caused by a failure to conscientiously search for truth regarding governance and economics.

As for private individuals, insofar as any lender might make unwise loans, it’s born of greed and/or a lack of, once again, conscientiousness. Likewise with borrowers: if people get in over their heads, it’s often a result of greed, materialism and irresponsibility. A moral person lives within his means.

Then there is the immorality evident in how the current crisis is successfully being used as a pretext to further visit socialism upon us. We hear the lie about how we have a “laissez-faire” system and not enough regulation, and another lie about how that system created the problem. 

And why do propagandists demonize Wall Street executives? Sure, being human, some of them are greedy, but that’s not the reason. The purpose is to play the class warfare card, thereby exploiting the greed and envy of malleable Main Street sheeple and galvanizing support for statist reforms.

This is why John Adams said in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Oh, by the way, that means it was not made for leftists.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Pat Henry said:

	Caesar is not lord Philosophy underlies all, of course. A recent post showing Statism as the problem for both "right" and left": http://www.ligonier.org/tablet...91_Statism He mentions Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto, examines the theme through history.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 27, 2008
Votes: +1

Hilary Smith said:

	Class Matters It isn't class warfare so long as the rich are winning.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 28, 2008
Votes: +0