How could a Christian vote for a Republican?

Someone named “Jim Green” posted this question on Mike Rowe’s FB page.

"Why on Earth would ANYONE vote Republican? A reptile has more decency than the Republicans in Congress! Only an odious toad would pass Ryan’s budget or gut Food Stamps—and these depraved snakes made them THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY! If only one child in America goes hungry because of the Republican’s War on Children it explains why---IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN,
A CHALLENGE….will you PLEASE explain to the American people why you vote/are a Republican—because for the life of me I cannot understand WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN! (NO trashing the Prez as a reason—it may make our RACISTS happy—but it is an idiotic explanation/justification.) 
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/photos/a.151342491542569.29994.116999698310182/892525064090971/?type=1&permPage=1)

Here are four responses, each slightly different but address the question "Why would a Christian vote Republican?"

PART 1 – Rationally, it makes no sense to vote Democratic from an economic standpoint.

First, I'll admit that if each Christian read the Democratic Party platform and took Jesus’ command to give to the poor, by itself, then they and everyone else should be Democrats, because the party touts itself as the one that helps the poor, sick and elderly.  Who could be against that?  

Jesus commanded us to serve others and the best way to do that, according to most liberals, is for everyone to pool their money through taxation so that the government can take the primary role ensuring everyone has enough to eat, a place to sleep and a free health clinic.  One could say those “rights” have been extended to free college tuition and cell phones, but the point is the necessities of life should be guaranteed by the government.  This philosophy was embodied in the “Second Bill of Rights” promoted by the Patron Saint of liberals, FDR.  

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights.)

Specifically, there were six “rights” listed:  The right to a useful and remunerative job; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age and unemployment; the right to a good education.

Now I don’t know the definition of “adequate food and clothing” or “a decent home” but I’m sure that can be decided by a central federal agency, since one agency has already determined what is “a good education” (i.e. – “Common Core.”)  Also, the Federal government has already thought about and Michelle Obama has taken the lead in determining what is “adequate food.”  We just need to listen to those who know better to the standards for all Americans.  Trust them.

Since no one should begrudge any person these fruits of America’s bounty, and as the gentleman in the post on Mike Rowe’s FB page said, Republicans are evil and greedy to be against such guarantees.  Putting it that way, then everyone should be Democrats.  It seems to be the most humane and charitable position to take. 

But looking ahead, what will be the result of everyone agreeing the government should act as the charitable arm of society, if it tried to remove all traces of poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, illness, etc?  Well, at first there would be a lot more funds directed to charities, so that the heretofore private clinics, soup kitchens and shelters are fully funded and can serve the most people.  Organizations like Salvation Army and Food for the Poor would be awash in government largess.  But where would the line for charity end?  Wouldn’t it be logical for all charities to line up for government support, even to the point some new ones would be created to serve some need, such as starving Albanian artists in the upper East Side of New York?  I’m sure there are a few and they need money for food and rent to continue their chosen work, so there would be an application from the SAAA (Starving Albanian Artists of America) added to the list of applicants. 

WELL, certainly, logically, the government would have to construct a new building in DC and hire thousands of bureaucrats to take care of all of these applications and requests, and heads of many federal agencies would apply to Congress to double and triple their funding, and there would be cries of lack of support for one group or another, until the Democrats (which is all of Congress at this point) decides the best and most efficient way to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc. is for the government to take over all of the charitable organizations and make them public entities, which would be run more efficiently by a central organization in DC.  

What could be better and more Christ-like than that? 

One organization could better serve all of the hungry people in America than a million soup kitchens and food pantries scattered across many communities.  I contribute each year to the “Irving Cares” food pantry but it finds there are many more people who need help than it can provide, so I’m sure it will benefit from being part of the federal government, with a better employment system under civil service and better work rules under Federal regulations. 

For goodness sake, we already have 45 million people on food stamps (SNAP) operated by Department of Agriculture, which is certainly a large organization serving the poor and it is run very well indeed.  Except for the office in Clayton County, Georgia, that had a small glitch of some kind in 2012 and failed to distribute money to its SNAP EBT cards (as food stamps.)  The result was dozens of irate poor people showed up at the office because they couldn’t buy groceries that day and their children were “starving.”  (See http://universalfreepress.com/watch-what-happens-when-georgia-citizens-food-stamps-are-cancelled/.)  Or, back in Oct 2013, a glitch seemed to be timed with the government “shut-down,” but it deemed to be a coincidence.  Though people were nearly rioting over a few days without EBT money.
(See http://twitchy.com/2013/10/12/riot-time-food-stamp-users-in-near-panic-over-ebt-card-failures/.)

I’m sure those incidents won’t be repeated ever again because the government will always function perfectly from now on, and it will always have enough money to fund all of the ever-increasing number of EBT recipients.  And besides that, if one day there didn’t happen to be enough money and every single EBT card was at zero, then I’m sure the 45 million people will all understand it is only temporary and they will calmly and serenely go on their way, perhaps conduct one or two peaceful demonstrations, and not loot and burn as we see all the time when certain people don’t get their way. 

A scenario of burning and looting on a widespread scale is the very logical outcome of the Democrats taking up a Christ-like chant “We must help the poor, we must feed the hungry, we must clothe the needy,” eventually getting that power, and then inevitably failing to deliver. 

I have no objections to doing those things for the poor, but on a private basis, and I contribute to organizations I feel do the best job doing so.  If the government takes over doing those jobs to a wide extent, you can be sure it will be done inefficiently, corruptly, and poorly.  FEWER people will be helped than are now.  The government is not a charity and will never be able to function as one as well or as humanely as a private organization.

The best example of this is the first hospital built in America.  From Wikipedia:
       Pennsylvania Hospital today is a private, non-profit, 534-bed teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System.  It was founded on May 11, 1751 by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Bond, it was originally conceived by Dr. Bond as an institution "for the reception and cure of the sick poor . . . free of charge," and it was funded grace to donations of the people of Philadelphia.  On September 2, 1751, Mathias Koplin donated the first plot of ground for the new hospital.  As the hospital received support of the leading families in Philadelphia, its permanence was secured.

Pennsylvania Hospital wasn’t funded by the government because in 1751 the government was nowhere near as large as it is today, sucking up resources from people who could be doing those charitable works, nor would people have trusted the government with that much money or authority.  I believe Benjamin Franklin solicited funds from the wealthier citizens of Philadelphia, and then matched the total.

Organizations like the Salvation Army and Red Cross only succeed because there is accountability.  People will generally not contribute to an organization if it is found to be corrupt and/or inefficient.  There are websites that report the how much of an organization’s solicited funding actually supports the stated purpose.  Overhead and administrative costs are reported so donors see where their donations go.  On the other hand, there is a general lack of accountability in a large public organization like the VA, HHS or IRS, as we’ve seen many times recently.  The public can be outraged about improper or inefficient conduct but there is no recourse.

One other point about large public organizations serving masses of people on a nation-wide scale:  We have track records on the dismal results of governments trying to do this.  It’s already been tried and it has failed every time.  Soviet Russia, Cuba and North Korea guaranteed there would be no hunger or homelessness; it’s right in their constitutions.  But those countries had or have more poverty than most others.  Communism/Socialism can’t guarantee a freedom from want, though they say they do.  Capitalism is the only economic system that has lifted the most people from abject poverty.  It was instituted in Hong Kong and Singapore, for examples, and today those economies thrive and people are much better off for it.

Now liberals will point to European nations with smugness and say the “social democracies” are working well.  But the fallacy is they STARTED as capitalist systems (and maintain some capitalist threads) and added socialist elements which dragged down their economies to a much lower level than would otherwise be enjoyed.  I lived in the Netherlands for two years in the 70’s and saw how the middle class was abused by the tax system so that there was no upward mobility at all.  Once you had a job or a store you just stayed there with few chances for entrepreneurship or business expansion.  There was no economic development unless the government funded it.  It’s probably worse since the 70’s as governments expanded their welfare states.

Personally, I’m fine with the government taking over all programs to help the poor as people give up their jobs and benefit from the handouts and government largess, which is what I’d recommend in order to crash the system as soon as possible and get it over with.  Because the handouts will last only as long as there are taxes coming from the dwindling fraction of citizens who would rather have jobs.

If Republicans don’t maintain a majority in Congress – by showing they can institute reforms that support the capitalist system for the benefit of all -- then surely the Democrats will roar back and in the next wave we will see even more socialist programs.

Socialist systems do work – for a while, . . . . “until the government runs out of other people’s money,” as Margaret Thatcher famously said.   After a socialist system collapses, as they are slowly doing in UK, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, then anarchy will reign, as we saw in Greece when pensions had to be cut for people retiring at age 50 and free college tuition could no longer be offered to teens.  The previous beneficiaries were incensed and rioting ensued. 

I’ve concluded the objective of seeking to serve all people is built on the thinking of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who openly called for deliberately crashing the welfare system we have today.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
For the original presentation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, see the 1966 article reproduced here:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
It had the objective of creating crises in government organizations such that they would be scrapped outright, and out of the mayhem that follows supplanting them with a national income distribution system.  Quoting the article: “The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution.”  It was intended to alleviate the “crushing burden of financial insecurity” for everyone. 

To put this strategy in historical context, the radicals of early 20^th century Europe hoped for an overthrow of the evil capitalist countries by the proletariat, as foretold by Marx, but it hadn’t happened during the first World War or during the economic downturn of the 1930s.  At institutes discussing the societal changes, such as the Frankfurt School, radicals/Marxists came to a conclusion: 

     “With the growth of advanced industrial society during the Cold War era, critical theorists recognized that the path of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial working class no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism.”  (The Wikipedia page goes on and it’s rather weighty reading, what with comparing critical theory vs. traditional theory, analysis of the dialectical method, and discussions of the various philosophies.)

With the proletariat no longer a dependable fuse needed to ignite a world revolution, the radicals changed their tactics from an active rebellion and pursuit of violent overthrow, to a plan of corrupting and overloading the governments with welfare states so large and cumbersome they would collapse from their weight.  These were essentially the same crises as the Cloward-Piven strategy envisioned.  Instead of overthrowing governments from the outside, the leftists would take them over from the inside.  The ultimate result would be the same:  Anarchy, and then institution of more humane and “fair” (socialist/communist) organizations, with Leftists in charge, of course.  

In my estimation, underlying this strategy is the goal of instituting a pure communist system of government to enforce the confiscation of property and reallocation of assets and wealth to realize the utopian dream.

Bottom line:  People who vote Republican do so, not out of lack of charity or compassion, but based on rational thought.  This is not to say those who vote Democrat do not think rationally, but I’m starting to lean that direction.

--------------------------------------------

PART 2 – Here's a different answer: Because it is not Congress’s money to spend in a charitable way.

The VERY best response to those who wish the federal government was more charitable is the (some say fictional) speech by US Representative David ("Davy") Crockett before a vote was taken on a bill bequeathing $10,000 to an admiral’s widow.  His speech is titled "Not Yours to Give" at various web sites.  See:
http://fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2
http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

Legend has it the particular bill was certain to pass before Mr. Crockett’s speech, but the bill failed, according to the Congressional Record of the vote.  (The CR does not record Mr. Crockett's remarks, only that he did speak.)  Simply, Crockett allegedly argued the money was not Congress’s to give to whomever it wished.  The funds were entrusted to Congress to spend on specific items as it has the authority, and that authority from the States and the People is dictated by the Constitution, not based on the whims of the representatives.

We don’t necessarily need more politicians like Davy Crockett, though they would be nice to have around these days, but we DO definitely need more citizens like Horatio Bunce, the farmer David Crockett quotes in his speech.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 3 – The government does not owe you anything just because you pay taxes!

Here is an opinion gleaned from FB commentary, which is always a good source of liberal thought and fallacious arguments:  “Taxpayer funded anything is not a gift to anyone who pays taxes. Their taxes pay in, the government should pay out. The idea that anyone receives anything for free from a tax funded program is ridiculous. Everyone pays for tax payer funded programs, because everyone pays taxes of some kind. Therefore, taxpayer funded programs benefit everyone.”

IMHO, that is a ludicrous stance.  If that was the case, then why is the government running out of money?!  The concept of “nothing is free” is exactly why the government is in trouble; no one thinks the government “costs” anything because the money comes from each taxpayer so it is “his/her” money that each is receiving.  (One problem to that, of course, is many people do NOT contribute so expenditures end up outpacing income.)  

Logically, though, it’s simple to turn around the above statement to show the fallacy:  If it was true “everyone pays for taxpayer funded programs” so “taxpayer funded programs benefit everyone,” then wouldn’t it be better for everyone to keep their own money, save and invest as they deem fit, and thereby have much more money for their own financial security, rather than the government collecting and redistributing it? 

(Aside:  That exactly what I found when I was given the option of saving FICA contributions to a private 401k account, with my employer contributing also, just as it would under FICA, so that after 12 years I had amassed much more money than the government had credited me in the previous 28 years of work.)

The answer by liberals to the above suggestion (which is essentially privatizing Social Security) is always “No!” because they think
(1) the government can distribute money more “fairly” when the rich contribute their “fair share” and thereby help the poor (see the fallacy of government acting as a charity, above),
(2) investments are always rigged for the rich so that the middle class will never benefit from investments to the degree necessary that will enable a return sufficient to provide financial security (which isn’t true if a long-term investment strategy is in place), and finally
(3) the government can better secure the funds for the particular retiree -- except it can’t and it won’t.  

The government actually spends all of the funds it receives from whatever retirement program it enacts, and it issues Treasury bonds for funds meant to be saved for future benefits.  The SSA has been cashing the collected T-bills at the US Treasury, but soon those instruments will run out, and only raising taxes or reducing benefits are available options.  

The SSA has been acting as a giant Ponzi Scheme that uses “new” money to replace “old” (spent) money.  Millennials should be particularly vehement about this scheme because the system will fail and be out of money just about the time they receive their first Social Security check.  Raising FICA tax rates seems unlikely so Millennials should plan on receiving only 50% of their benefits.  Or perhaps nothing at all.

---------------------------------------------------------

PART 4 – The Republican Party is not the one that has demonstrated itself to be evil.

Turning the question around: “Why would a Christian ever vote Democrat?” 

Here are a few reasons:

• The 13th Amendment (Abolished Slavery) had 100% Republican Support vs 23% Democratic Support
• The 14th Amendment (Citizenship for Freed Slaves) had 94% Republican Support vs 0 Democrat votes
• The 15th Amendment (Right to vote for all) had 100% Republican Support vs 0 Democratic votes.
• Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratic state legislatures in the South.
• The KKK was a Democratic-supported organization. 
• The film “Birth of a Nation” promoted the KKK and it was shown in the White House to Woodrow Wilson (D) who praised it.
• The president who sent federal troops to Little Rock High School in support of the first blacks to attend school there and who faced down Arkansas Governor Faubus (D) over school integration was Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.
• The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was created under Attorney-General William P. Rogers, a Republican. 
• The Senate Majority Leader who stonewalled and watered down the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1957 was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, while President Eisenhower pushed for passage.  After Johnson became president on death of JFK, Sen Mike McCormick (D-MI) became Majority Leader and ushered the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 past the Judiciary Committee (whose Democratic chairman choked off the CRA of 1957) and brought the bill to the floor.  
• The CRA was filibustered by Southern Democrats for 57 days, then a vote taken on a substitute bill that passed 73-27 (20 Democrats opposed,) and President Johnson signed it in to law.

In short, the Democrats have a history of prejudice, racism and bigotry.  Republicans have historically stood for civil rights and freedom for all.

Any claims that Republicans are gutting programs, like cutting funds for school lunches or food stamps and the like, are not based in fact.  Sometimes certain Representatives and Senators will try to cut the rate of increase in a program but it is not the same as cutting actual dollars from it.  Instead of a 5% increase, the increase will be only 3%, which might save many billions of dollars.  That is NOT a "cut" and it is NOT "gutting” a program!

Republicans aren’t evil and greedy, just trying to be prudent with the taxpayers’ money.  The problem is Congress is now spending our children’s money and our grandchildren’s money.  We can’t afford to be charitable if it means mortgaging the future of the next several generations.  Bankrupting the nation by being overly charitable isn’t going to help anyone in the long run.

I would look at the Democrat Party's platform and compare that to a definition of "charity" to see if government programs are really what Jesus described and if paying taxes is really a Christian act.