"Capitalism - Mobility, not Equality"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day 

“Capitalism – Mobility, not Equality”

May 6, 2019

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.

The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

                                                                                                Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

                                                                                                In Parliament, October 1948

Capitalism is under attack. Democrats are fearful that their comfortable Washington lives may become subject to an investigation now that the Mueller investigation expired without a crime. The best defense, it is said, is a good offense, and that is the strategy being pursued by Democrats. One such attack is a renewed focus on income and wealth disparities – the “inherent vice”of capitalism, as Churchill noted. Doing so justifies their predilection for income redistribution. Inequality has become falsely synonymous with capitalism. Even some on the right have become fearful of defending capitalism. No one denies that income and wealth gaps exist. But, are today’s unusual? Most important, do they interfere with social and economic mobility? 

While our two fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say we are created equal and are provided equality under the law, neither says anything about equality of outcomes. The French, though, did in 1789, and they got a reign of terror, the dictatorship of Napoleon and a restoration of the Bourbons, before, eventually, falling into democracy. The Russian Revolution was supposed to bring equality, but it brought one of the harshest governments to which man has ever been subjected, and the Country remains unfree, with inequality higher than in western democracies. Inequality is the natural state of man. You are taller and better looking than me. My imagination may be more fertile, but you are willing and able to work harder. You have ambition; I am satisfied with the status quo. It is not the purpose of liberal societies to effect equal outcomes. Government should help ameliorate capitalism’s worst aspects of inequality, but to kill the goose today is to eliminate the prospect of eggs tomorrow. Equality of outcomes is only a promise of authoritarian regimes. The purpose of a fair and liberal society is to provide equal opportunities and to ease social and economic mobility – principally through education – by which the aspirant and talented can achieve success, whatever their backgrounds. 

Capitalism can only survive within the context of freedom – freedom from unnecessary and unreasonable regulation; freedom to operate under the rule of law, yet within its constraints; freedom to own, buy and sell property in free markets. It is not coincidental that the industrial revolution coincided with political liberalization. We can argue as to which came first, but together they unleashed unprecedented economic growth, which has done more to eradicate poverty than any other system. 

Certainly, capitalism has abuses, but should an alien have looked at the world in the late 18^thCentury, then again in the late 19^thCentury, the changes he would have seen would have been astonishing – steam power, the telegraph, electric batteries, telephones, railroads, photography and autos – products and services that benefitted all people. Changes have been more dramatic since. Creative minds and a willingness to take risk are necessary ingredients for individual and societal advancement. Capitalism is at its heart. 

Joseph Schumpeter taught us that creative destruction is a natural consequence of advances in technology. Old jobs are lost, and new ones gained, but transitions are never smooth. Life is a continuing and changing process. It is the reason why a fundamental education is critical. Our lives are different from those of our parents and grandparents. Our children and grandchildren will enjoy products and services we cannot even imagine. As technology advances, and industry and services change, so must government and the regulatory bodies we rely on. Government must play a role but should not create dependency. People must be free to experiment and take risk, for it is from them that new products and services arise.

Capitalism is, and always will be, a work in process. It is not broken. It is the wave of multiculturalism and its accompanying stepchildren – identity politics, political correctness and relativism – that have shaken the foundation of free markets. Capitalism requires an independent and innovative spirit, not one harnessed by dependency on the state or tied to forces we are fearful of offending. Whether it was political malice or ignorance, something prompted the 29-year-old Congresswoman from New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to tell a Timereporter last month: “An entire generation, which is now one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity. I have never seen that, or experienced it, really, in my adult life.” Was she serious? Did she compare her upbringing to those in other nations, especially those in Socialist countries she admires? Does she not realize that the “Greatest Generation,” those who went to war seventy-eight years ago – with over 400,000 giving their lives – were children and young adults during ten years of Depression? An 18-year-old soldier in 1942 was five years old in 1929 when the stock market crashed, and a depression descended. That was the generation that never saw prosperity as children. 

As this debate rages through the millennial classes, perspective is wanted. Income and wealth disparities are indeed wide, but we should consider the past. Both measurements were greater in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries. The Depression and the Second World War acted as levelers. The 1950s was a time of rebuilding incomes and wealth lost over the prior decade and half. Private sector unions ensured that working Americans, especially those in manufacturing and basic industries, were paid good wages. Combined with exceptionally high tax rates on very high earners, those factors assured more egalitarianism in terms of incomes. A stock market that took twenty-four years to recover meant that wealth, too, was more equal. But, do we want to undergo a ten-year Depression and a world war to again achieve the equality we saw then? And, keep in mind, those years of recovery – the 1950s and ‘60s – culminated in the 1970s, a decade of high inflation, weak economic growth and a stagnant stock market.

As well, it should be remembered that it is common, at least in the United States, for those who have achieved extraordinary financial success to give back much of what they have reaped. Their generosity can be seen in our schools, universities, hospitals libraries and museums. We see their names attached to foundations established to help the less fortunate at home and abroad. Without them, the burden on taxpayers would be higher and the quality of our lives would be lower – less art, less music and less theater.

In the late 1990s income inequality peaked, due to the proliferation of option-grants during a decade in which the stock market saw its sharpest increase in history – a heady, technology-driven market that ended in a three-year bear market. Option grants, of little value in a bear market, have been largely discontinued. The credit crisis of 2007-2008, a crisis for which government deserves as much blame as banks, caused a big decline in stocks and a sharp, 18-month recession. The anemic economic recovery that followed did not lift all boats equally. Yachts rose but skiffs stayed moored on a sandbar of dismal economic growth. Unemployment declined, but workforce participation rates remained low, and wage growth for low-and-middle income earners was negligible. Persistent low interest rates helped boost stock prices to record levels. Wealth and income gaps widened during the Obama years.

Recent increases in wage growth and in total employment, especially among low-and-middle income earners,are helping the income situation. Stocks have continued to rise, though have been essentially flat for six months. While income and wealth gaps are wide, they remain substantially below where they were a hundred years ago. Nevertheless, a Pew Research survey taken last fall speaks to disparities that were higher in 2016 than forty-five years earlier. The size of the middle class declined from 61% of households to 52%, between 1971 and 2016. Lower income households increased from 25% to 29%, while upper income households increased from 14% to 19%, indicating that the principal effect has been greater polarization. There was virtually no change in those numbers during the Obama years. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump’s policies of reducing taxes and easing regulation will increase the middle class. Early indications, however, are positive. Annualized GDP growth, during Mr. Trump’s first two years, is fifty percent higher than during Mr. Obama’s eight years – three percent versus two percent. Unemployment is down, workforce participation has increased, and we have seen the best wage growth in a decade. 

Three steps can lead to reduced inequality: Simplify the tax code – complexity benefits the wealthy and multinational corporations. A flat tax would be best, or, at least, as flat as possible.  Second, reduce regulation to the extent possible. I am not a fan of regulations but recognize their importance. John Adams got it right: “…the invisible hand of the market place required the visible hand of government to regulate its inevitable excesses.”[1]But regulations should not be used to empower federal bureaucracies. And third, and most important, expand school choice. Admittedly this means taking on powerful teachers’ unions, but our children are worth it. More should be done with charter schools and voucher programs; for it is only through competitive education options for those in public schools that we can invigorate aspiration, foment respect for others, encourage a willingness to work hard and provide the knowledge necessary to succeed. Wealthy families have the option of expensive private schools. Middle-income and low-income families do not. We should not plow the snow for our children, but we do need to give them the tools to clear the road ahead.

As the fortunate citizens of this great nation, we have equal rights, but we are in no way equal, nor can we ever be. When luck is dispensed it is not done so evenly, any more than is talent, ambition or a work ethic. We should never forget that free market capitalism has done more to reduce poverty and raise living standards than any other system yet devised. Since equality of outcomes is an impossible dream, we should assure that social and economic mobility continue attainable. It has been in the past and is today, as can be seen by the flocks of billionaires from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Mobility is a two-way street. My own history is exhibit ‘A.’ Three of my four sets of great-grandparents were part of the 19^thCentury’s “Gilded Age.” But time, a few bad decisions and the generational multiplier took their toll. I was raised in a fashion quite different even from my artist parents. We were nine children in a four-bedroom, two-bath New Hampshire farmhouse, with no central heat. Yet, we survived happily.  

---

[1]As quoted by Joseph Ellis in his new history, American Dialogue: The Founders and Us.

"Backlash and the 2020 Election"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Backlash and the 2020 Election”

April 19, 2019

“We inhabit a backlash moment in American History of uncertain duration.”

                                                                                                Joseph Ellis (1943-)

                                                                                                Preface

                                                                                                American Dialogue, 2018

Backlash is defined as a strong and adverse reaction or protest by a large number of people, especially to social or political developments. What we saw in the Middle East and North Africa beginning in late 2010 and going into the spring of 2011 and what we see today in Sudan and Algiers are backlashes against authoritarian governments. History does not proceed in straight lines. It is replete with consequential setbacks. Sometimes they are for the better – the English Civil War of 1642, the American Revolution in 1775, the world-wide women’s suffrage movement that began in the 19^thCentury, and the U.S. Civil Rights movement that ran through the 1950s and ‘60s. Sometimes they are for the worse, like the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, following the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. And sometimes the verdict is unclear, like Brexit. In 2016, it was a backlash against elitism and the establishment that catapulted Mr. Trump into the White House.  

In any society there will always be groups that rise up to make a point, highlight a grievance, or correct a wrong. Generally, they are without (or with limited) violence. They manifest a dynamic society and, while temporarily disruptive, they often change things for the better. We think of women’s liberation in the 1960s and the more recent gay-rights movement, positive developments that reflected changing mores. Other backlashes are political, like Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, with the intent to garner power rather than righting a social or cultural wrong. It is how we move forward. They are not unlike creative destruction in economics, a term used by Joseph Schumpeter to describe innovations in manufacturing.

Now, it is the continued enmity toward Mr. Trump that is causing Democrats to push beyond the boundaries of decency and common sense, even disrespecting those non-Trumpians whose conservative ideas and opinions differ from their own. Consider a few non-issue issues that are claimed vital to leftist elites, but are of little concern to middle class voters:

Social Justice:               The concept that society consists of oppressors and victims. Oppressors are whites, Asians, male, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews. Victims are people of color, Muslims, females, bisexuals, homosexuals and transsexuals. Anyone who supports Mr. Trump is either an oppressor or an ignoramus. Elites pride themselves as supporters of victims.

            

Political Correctness:     This occurs when language and policy are excised of any possibility of insult or offense, especially to one considered a “victim.” Taken to extremes, political correctness leads to a dumbed-down electorate incapable of defending him or herself. Anything President Trump says or does, according to these false paragons of virtues, is politically incorrect. 

Identity Politics:            This is the tendency for people to form groups, for political purposes, based on race, religion, sexual preference, or any such outward appearances, which have nothing to do with political ideas or ideologies. In the empty minds of those on the left, one cannot have a political philosophy that differs from what has been sanctioned.

Climate:                       The left has trivialized science to serve their political ends. There is a refusal to debate causes of climate change. The assumption: if you do not agree with us that climate change is caused by man you are a “climate change denier,” an absurd statement, especially for anyone having grown up in New England. 

Multiculturalism:          This is a term that has been hijacked by the left to infer that if one does not agree with their belief that all cultures are equal, one is a xenophobe, homophobe or a misogynist. The term no longer defines a society, such as America’s, which has people from myriad racial and religious backgrounds living together but tethered by the laws of our country and the customs and traditions of our common history. In invoking multiculturalism today, the left assumes a patronizing attitude toward those who believe it was principally the magnetism of liberty that drew immigrants to these shores.

Equality:                       Free-market capitalism has been the principal reason poverty has declined over the past two hundred years. In his 2018 book, The Economics of Poverty, History, Measurement and Policy, Martin Ravillion suggests extreme poverty rates in 1800 were about 85%. Today, Action Against Hunger puts that number at 10.7%, with 90% in Asia and Africa. The lowest rates of poverty are in those countries where democracy and capitalism have flourished. The poorest in countries where Socialism and authoritarianism have thrived. It is equality of opportunity that needs be encouraged and offered. Outcomes are based on aspiration, effort and ability, qualities that differ from one person to the next. A promise of equal outcomes is an empty promise, as it can never be fulfilled without violating the rule of law and impinging on the rights of people.

On all of these issues the left has taken extreme positions, and they are standing fast. Too often, they let blind hatred of Mr. Trump guide their behavior. As well, they have ignored a large swath of the American public, calling them “deplorables.” On issues like immigration and education, the left has taken stance from which they are immune from any negative consequences, because of where they live and where they send their children to school. On others, like climate and political correctness, they ignore the costs, both in terms of dollars spent and/or freedoms lost.                               

                                    

At its essence, the difference between the right and the left on these issues has to do with our expectation for government. What is its role and what is its purpose? The preamble to the Constitution says it is to “…establish Justice, to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” Does the welfare for ourselves and our posterity include the redistribution of taxes collected? Or has government become so intrusive that it impedes our rights as individuals? These are questions over which reasonable people will disagree. The Founders left some of these terms vague, knowing interpretation will change to reflect new societal norms. But they did emphasize the rights of the individual, and I doubt they expected the adamancy, nastiness and partiality so prevalent today. 

When passions rule reason, reactions occur and often not the ones intended. Hatred for Mr. Trump can be seen in the refusal to accept the findings of the Mueller report, an investigation initiated and supported by the left. This is not a defense of Mr. Trump’s manners and etiquette. They leave much to be desired. But he doesn’t deserve the blind disdain he has received. His tax and deregulatory policies have helped economic growth and especially minorities. He has faced down those who, while misusing government agencies like the IRS and the FBI, would wrench away his Presidency. Would those conservatives who played by the Queensbury Rules have fared as well? From the perspective of this unrepentant conservative, the upside to the emotional display of Trump-hatred and the concomitant disarray among Democrats is that a backlash against the supercilious, arrogant elites now in charge of their Party might well lead to the re-election of Donald J. Trump in 2020. That is not the outcome those creating the backlash would prefer.

"Words and Phrases - Fake or Twisted?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Words and Phrases – Fake or Twisted?”

July 9, 2018

“But no one was interested in the facts. They preferred the invention,

Because this invention expressed their hates and fears so perfectly.”

                                                         James Baldwin

                                                                         Notes of a Native Son, 1955

“The media are less a window on reality, than a stage on which

officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.”

                                                                                                Thomas Sowell

The Vision of the Anointed: Self    Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy

1995

As the two rubrics show, the concept of“fake” or“twisted” news is not new. The media has long been used for purposes of disinformation, propaganda and deceit. Aesop’s fable of the boy who cried wolf tells a story of deception gone wrong. The Federalist Paperswas written to persuade the undecided to support the Constitution. Lenin argued that capitalists bought up newspapers to control what was printed. Hitler employed Joseph Goebbels as his minister for propaganda. Using words to coax and prod others is the province of politicians, columnists, bloggers and essayists, including yours truly. What is distressing today is that editorializing has seeped into the news room, so that news is comingled with opinions. That does not mean we should be a nation of cynics, but skepticism is healthy. For whom or for what is the writer or speaker an advocate? 

One example: The front-page, top right-hand column of the July 2, 2018 New York Timeswas headlined, “Curbs on Unions Likely to Starve Activist Groups.” The article by Noam Scheiber, in reference to Janus v. AFSCME, read: “The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees forgovernment workers was not only a blow to unions…” Why did Mr. Scheiber use the word “for”? The fees are not forworkers; they are paid byworkers. They are for union leaders, certainly not for workers who disagree as to how money is spent. The editors of The New York Timeare scrupulous in words they choose; the use of “for” had to have been deliberate. One subtle example of editorializing on the front page.

Another example is the hue and cry over abortion, in regard to the replacement of Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Reality tells us that the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade is remote. It was handed down forty-five years ago. It is embedded in law and social norms. Besides, conservatives’ respect precedent. Nevertheless, the law should not be confused with culture. Culture comprises the milieu. Law defines the boundaries. Law is – or should be – created through legislative bodies, affirmed by courts and executed by the Executive. Culture is a construct of religion, tradition, values and learning. It responds to whimsical winds of change. Yet, whenever a Republican President nominates a candidate for the nation’s highest Court, the cry goes forth – Republicans want to ban abortions. We are provided the specter of returning to back-alley doctors, dirty operating rooms and metal coat hangers.

Reactions by the Left to the prospect of a “conservative” Court have been eviscerating. They include the twisting of history and the substituting of fear for facts. Thirty-one years ago (before the “borking” of Robert Bork), Justice Kennedy was subjected to the same accusations when he was nominated by President Reagan. In 1986, Antonin Scalia demurred when asked by Senator Ted Kennedy if he would vote to overturn Roe: “I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question.” Justice Scalia lamented the Roe decision, not because of its finding, but because the decision was based on a few Justices imposing their cultural values and not a result of a vote by state legislators. Could a nominee to the Court today be as forthcoming as Justice Scalia? No candidate for the Court should be asked to opine about cases that may or may not come before them. Such questions, in a vacuum, cannot be answered sincerely. Have we so politicized the process that straight-forward honesty is no longer possible? Should not wisdom and equanimity, along with knowledge of and respect for the Constitution – its declarations, amendments, precedents and limits – be the characteristics we should want in a Supreme Court Justice?

“Diversity” is a word whose definition focuses on what is politically correct – race, religion and sexual orientation – and ignores ideas that are deemed unacceptable. Consider a recentNew York Timesarticle about the reaction of summer residents in Martha’s Vineyard – an exclusive enclave of the liberal rich – to Alan Dershowitz, former professor at Harvard Law School. Because his defense of the Constitution has meant, at times, defending President Trump, he has become persona non grata on, “an island that prides itself on civility and diversity,” to quote the Times. The irony embedded in that sentence appeared lost to the reporter. For there was nothing civil about the treatment of Mr. Dershowitz, when his conditioned support for Mr. Trump did not conform to what was considered socially acceptable. When they are accused of being neither fair nor civil, nobody hates with the intensity and venality of the Left. 

“Equality” has lost its meaning. Are we speaking of opportunities or results? We are not equal and never can be. Is it fair that I am not equal to my neighbor in terms of wealth? Was it fair that when I was in high school the tall, blond football player ended up with the best-looking girls? We possess different abilities and bear different aspirations. We are individuals. We have different tolerances for risk. We will never be equal in aptitude, education or wealth. But we are, and we should be, equal as citizens under the law. Each individual should have equal opportunities to succeed? We should each strive to do our best and take responsibility for our deeds and words. We should acknowledge and celebrate our differences, not lament what cannot be. We should be civil and respectful of others, not use inequality as a political sledgehammer. 

“Victimization” is a word whose meaning has become diluted by overuse. It is used by universities to countenance “safe (segregated) places,” and by politicians to justify compartmentalizing (segregating) voters into easily accessible units. 

Ironically, it has been Donald Trump, often portrayed as linguistically-challenged, who has proved to be a master of words. He intentionally enflames his antagonists. He knows what he is doing when he exasperates “Never Trumpers,” “Trump Haters” and “Resisters.” His opponents, like Maxine Waters, snap at the bait. They sound and react like extremists. They suggest he is a Nazi or a fascist. They call for impeachment and even his assassination. If he were a true threat to democracy, such actions might be excusable. But, the consequences of his actions – not his words – have been to limit the reach of government, not expand it, through cuts in regulations and reductions in taxes. It is the Left that desires a more powerful executive, an enervated Congress and a compliant Judiciary. It was they who politicized the IRS and the FBI.

It is too much to ask in this age of social media, but it would be nice if we could receive our news from unbiased sources – with facts laid out, without opinion or nuance – allowing the reader or viewer to develop his or her own opinion. But we can’t, or we won’t. So, we must endure the Twittering, blogging, biased reporting, and late-night TV comedians and hosts. To counter this wealth of propaganda, we must therefore read as widely as possible, to become as informed as we can and to then make decisions that suit our own, educated interpretation of events. 

                                    

"Government, Compassion & Charity"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Government, Compassion & Charity”

January 15, 2018

“Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”

                                                                                                            Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Year-end is when requests arrive to support myriad causes. Some are of no interest or are fraudulent, but most are from organizations we want to help. Most of us have to make decisions, as our pockets are not bottomless. Nevertheless, the exercise is cathartic and feelings of altruism add to a sense of well-being.

For more than eighty years, safety nets have been a structural part of federal budgets. Now, they dominate spending. According to Pew Research, entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits, unemployment compensation, etc., accounted for 67% of 2016’s $4 trillion budget. We are a compassionate people, and politicians are especially so when it comes to other-people’s money. The dispensing of largesse is a popular way to win votes, and nobody is more expert at this than Washington politicians. But, as Margaret Thatcher once warned, we risk running out of “other-people’s” money. Removing the cookie jar (or making it more difficult to access) – what adults must do – is unpopular. Those who have grown dependent on government – and millions have – lend credence to a modern-day interpretation of that post-World War I song: “How Ya Gonna Keep ‘em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)” It is right to be compassionate. It is not charitable to foster dependency.

President George W. Bush once said, “I call my philosophy and approach compassionate conservativism. It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results.” The first part of Mr. Bush’s explanation is agreed to by all. The second is ignored.

What happens when compassion becomes charity? Government should mirror its people. But it is devoid of feeling. Its purpose and responsibility is to create, administer and adjudicate laws, ensure the rights and property of its citizens, provide defense against enemies at home and abroad, and to ease commerce via treaties and through the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and ports. It should provide youth a basic education. It should ensure a safety net under those who because of age or infirmity are unable to care for themselves. Compassion is healthy, as it reflects the people, but federal deficits, a crumbling infrastructure and a depleted military suggest politically-motivated hearts are bigger than fiscally-responsible heads. Charity is distinct, and best left to individuals and to private, non-profit organizations.

This is not to be critical of Mr. Bush. His post-Presidency has shown him to be a decent, empathetic man, especially in his treatment of soldiers wounded in wars to which he committed them. I look at his book, Portraits of Courage, and marvel at how he captured despair and bravery, sadness and joy, grief and relief. He wrote in his introduction: “I painted these men and women as a way to honor their service to the country and to show my respect for their sacrifice and courage.” What greater devotion to his country can a former President express?

There are those who argue we are a nation of equals, and we are, before the law and in our rights as citizens. But that notion becomes convoluted by those who feel compassion requires outcomes to be equal, despite inherent and unalterable differences. We have myriad talents and aspirations. Some are more intelligent, more dedicated, with greater ambitions. Some more athletic, and others willing to work smarter and harder. A few are born with limited skills and opportunities. A free society allows people to achieve what they can, within the law and with deference to civil behavior. A compassionate society ensures that those unable to care for themselves will not be forsaken. But we should not encourage recipients of government largesse to become dependent. Throughout history, inequality becomes exaggerated during times of rapid innovation, as happened during the industrial revolution and as is happening now, with innovative new technologies. However, over time, these “creatively destructive” changes benefit all society. In the U.S., we partially compensate for different outcomes through the provision of services to aid the needy, aged, infirm, and those born with conditions that prevent the realization of dreams. We fund those costs with an income tax that is the most progressive in the world. But, we are not the same, nor can we ever be.

At his son’s graduation from the 9^th grade at Cardigan Mountain School in New Hampshire last June, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke: “From time to time, in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice…I wish you bad luck, again from time to time, so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life, and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.” Roberts words might have been taken from the Gospel according to Luke: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” He was right about justice and the role luck plays in our lives.

He was speaking to a people who are the most magnanimous on earth – not because of government entitlement programs, but because of the nature of its people. As a percent of national income, no nation comes close to the U.S. in the generosity of its citizens. According to the IRS, Americans gave away $373 billion in 2016, to 1.5 million registered non-profits. That amount does not include hundreds of millions in cash contributions that millions give to the homeless on city streets, or the millions placed in collection plates in houses of worship. It does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars in non-itemized donations. It does not include volunteerism, Kickstarter, or Go-Fund-Me. According to the latter’s web site, $5 billion has been raised in contributions from 50 million people. Other countries have more lavish welfare programs, but our citizens’ generosity is unique in the annals of nations. We take pride in self-sufficiency, and we recognize the dignity that is attributed to work and the independence that self-sufficiency brings. Nevertheless, in a world tilting toward selfies, the Chief Justice’s wisdom was refreshing.

A Chinese proverb that has pertinence says: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”  We cannot feed all in the world who are hungry. We cannot provide sanctuary for all who have been forced to emigrate. We cannot protect every person against the ravages of nature, or the bestiality of mankind. We cannot protect every forest, river and stream, nor clean up every ocean and pond. Like individuals, options must be weighed. We can help educate people. We can show the advantages of democracy and liberty through the example of our lives and our government – of how freedom, which can never be taken for granted, is illusive and worth defending. We can call out those who repress their citizens, and support those who revolt against tyranny. But we must acknowledge that behind the empathy we offer is a free people and the free-market capitalism that allows us to be charitable. We should be compassionate, but we must measure economic costs, less we become a nation and people in need.

The Left must understand that charity is individually driven, and that making people dependent is not charity. The Right must recognize that government reflects the compassion of its citizens. Both sides must realize the necessity for economic growth. Both must know where compassion ends and charity begins. In 1 Corinthians, in the King James version, the Apostle Paul speaks: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” He wasn’t addressing the Roman Senate (or the U.S. Congress); he was speaking to the people.

.