Supply-Side Jesus

[stevekehl]

Al has used Jesus as a political tool here, criticising Repulicans and non-socialists as greedy and uncaring. He is erroneous in most of this. Jesus didn’t feed the poor, he did feed two crowds of followers and told people to be generous to the poor, but he said there will always be poor people.
Matt. 26:11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
Mar 14:7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.
Joh 12:8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
Also Jesus mission was not to eradicate disease. He healed out of compassion and to prove His authority.
Matt. 14:14 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
Matt. 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
I think Al unintentionally makes a good point though, the real Jesus will always be rejected by those who crave possessions and prosperity over obedience to God.

 

[ANNE_2]

Thou shall NOT use the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

That includes jokes.

 

[bentcurve]

it is not in vain. It is to make a pointed statement about how Jesus would feel about today’s political climate.

Also, the name of God was lost a long long time ago.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Thou shall NOT use the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

That includes jokes.

Once again Jesus Christ makes an appearance in the end of the cartoon. Supply Side Jesus is meant to be his foil.

 

[Spirithound]

Is this cartoon something, as a matter of social catholic teaching, we can learn from or is it merely propoganda?
bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html

Interesting twist at the end. However, there are too many false dilemmas to base any sort of policy on it. While it is certainly a great idea to employ someone so they can earn their living, this does not negate the need for simple charity.

 

[Jocko_VT]

A brilliant critique of neoliberal American politicians, who invoke Jesus in the name of a form of capitalism that has been criticized by the Church at least since Leo XIII. The cartoon exposes blasphemy–it’s not blasphemy itself.

 

[George_2007]

A brilliant critique of neoliberal American politicians, who invoke Jesus in the name of a form of capitalism that has been criticized by the Church at least since Leo XIII. The cartoon exposes blasphemy–it’s not blasphemy itself.

I don’t think it’s brilliant at all. What’s happening in this cartoon is liberals (meaning the left) trying to paint conservative Christians as hypocrites or as illiterate in their own faith, and it doesn’t work. The premise is that one’s compassion can be measured by how much government spending one thinks should go to programs designed to help the needy. That the state is understood to be the provider of charity.

No one, other than perhaps a highly marginalized fringe, is invoking Jesus in the name of any form of capitalism in American politics. There are simply a lot of conservatives who are also Christians. Fiscal conservatism is in no way counter to Church teaching or to the Gospel. Catholics are free to hold to fiscal conservatism, and can do so with absolutely no contradiction and are not missing the point of the gospel. Same goes for free-market economics.

In fact, the Church’s official teaching is that subsidiarity is to be favored. This means that needs should be met by those closest to the need. This aligns perfectly with the conservative message that a large government that people depend on for basic needs is a bad thing.

The Democrats are simply trying to peel away some Christians who have been voting Republican. No brilliant critique here.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I don’t think it’s brilliant at all.

We disagree on this point.

What’s happening in this cartoon is liberals (meaning the left)

Well, in this cartoon, isn’t it just Al Franken and perhaps a couple of others? Not “liberals” or “the left.”

trying to paint conservative Christians as hypocrites or as illiterate in their own faith, and it doesn’t work. The premise is that one’s compassion can be measured by how much government spending one thinks should go to programs designed to help the needy. That the state is understood to be the provider of charity.

It’s satire. Yes, you can make your argument, and you’re correct, but it misses the point of the cartoon. You wouldn’t criticize *Gulliver’s Travels *because Lilliputians are not real, would you? The premise isn’t that compassion can be measured that way, but that a lack of compassion can be found in neo-con/neoliberal economic policies, which are trumpeted by people close to the Bush administration (when this cartoon was drawn, I assume).

I’d criticize the cartoon more because it ignores the fact that even the American Left is thoroughly neoliberal now. Clinton brought us NAFTA, after all.

No one, other than perhaps a highly marginalized fringe, is invoking Jesus in the name of any form of capitalism in American politics.

I think people, like in the Bush administration, and Newt Gingrich, and plenty of others, simultaneously promote the most cold and heartless form of capitalism while simultaneously invoking God and talking the talk of devout Christianity. That’s the point of the cartoon–the two things don’t really fit together, and when you put them together, it looks ridiculous.

There are simply a lot of conservatives who are also Christians. Fiscal conservatism is in no way counter to Church teaching or to the Gospel. Catholics are free to hold to fiscal conservatism, and can do so with absolutely no contradiction and are not missing the point of the gospel. Same goes for free-market economics.

Depends on what you mean by “fiscal conservatism” and “free-market economics.” From what I read, neoliberalism is completely contrary to the Church’s teachings. Neoliberalism is free market capitalism in its purest form. Can a certain amount of freedom in the market be allowed? Sure. But is a truly free market a good idea? Absolutely not.

Now, I may be wrong. I just started reading this stuff. But from Pope Leo in the late 19th century right up through JP II, capitalism has been heavily criticized by the Church. Reaganomics and the economics of Bush the younger and many other Conservatives is unacceptable.

In fact, the Church’s official teaching is that subsidiarity is to be favored. This means that needs should be met by those closest to the need. This aligns perfectly with the conservative message that a large government that people depend on for basic needs is a bad thing.

Except that the government is to be depended on to regulate the market! Furthermore, subsidiarity would be associated with more local production and consumption, which is *not * on the conservative agenda. You’re discussing politics in this point and forgetting that the original argument concerns economics. The two are inseparable, of course, but don’t confuse small government for economic subsidiarity! American conservatism wants small government and **BIG **multinational business. Subsidiarity in politics, but not in economics. This is very much the problem in the world today–we have ungoverned global economics that lead to horrific consequences for labor and the environment. For their part, American liberals general want big government and big multinational business–not much difference in my opinion.

And for the record, I personally am completely for economic subsidiarity! Bill McKibben wrote an excellent book on it called Deep Economy. Michael Pollan’s *Omnivore’s Dilemma *is consistent with subsidiarity, too.

The Democrats are simply trying to peel away some Christians who have been voting Republican.

“The Democrats” didn’t draw this cartoon. Given how sardonic it is, I don’t think there was any illusion that it would gain votes for democrats!!

No brilliant critique here.

Again, we disagree on this point.

 

[Spirithound]

The premise isn’t that compassion can be measured that way, but that a lack of compassion can be found in neo-con/neoliberal economic policies, which are trumpeted by people close to the Bush administration.

Is it the government’s place to be compassionate? Doesn’t the Church teach that charity is best conducted by the individual?

 

[Paxvobis]

I read the book that was published in years ago.

The cartoon wasn’t meant to poke fun at Jesus, but at those who who see fiscal conservatism as comparable with the message of Christ.

Now you can agree with that or not, but let’s get our facts straight about the purpose of the cartoon.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Is it the government’s place to be compassionate? Doesn’t the Church teach that charity is best conducted by the individual?

I think it is the place of all humans and all social institutions to be compassionate. Thus, yes, it is government’s place to be compassionate.

This is where the subsidiarity idea comes in. When social institutions (like government or the economy) become too large, they extend beyond the scope of individual’s compassion and morality. Most of us think nothing of buying fast food or purchasing a pair of shoes at a store, despite the fact that those behaviors lend themselves to the destruction of the environment and of other people’s lives (because global economics ties our local purchases to labor conditions in the developing world, and because we no longer see how our food is created). Thus, not only does government need to be kept small, but so does the economy. This will allow the economy and the government to be compassionate–or at least to promote compassion amongst individual human beings.

 

[Paxvobis]

Now, I may be wrong. I just started reading this stuff. But from Pope Leo in the late 19th century right up through JP II, capitalism has been heavily criticized by the Church. Reaganomics and the economics of Bush the younger and many other Conservatives is unacceptable.

The Church doesn’t criticize capitalism in and of itself. It supports a capitalism that exists within regulations meant to protect the poor and vulnerable. What the Church opposes is Laissez-faire Capitalism.

Pope John Paul II wrote in 1991:

“If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply “free economy.’”

"But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

Make of that what you will. And don’t tell me that Bl. JPII of all people was a socialist.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The Church doesn’t criticize capitalism in and of itself. It supports a capitalism that exists within regulations meant to protect the poor and vulnerable. What the Church opposes is Laissez-faire Capitalism.

I think it does criticize capitalism, and it does so by arguing for regulation. But I think we’re splitting hairs here. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. Anyway, I meant to be specific that I was talking about neoliberal, ultra-free-market capitalism.

Your quote makes the argument that I’m making. Yes, you can have some capitalism. It must be:
circumscribed within a strong juridical framework…which places it at the service of human freedom…the core of which is ethical.

In other words, it’s not really a free market, but a market kept in its place. Capitalism is used as a tool rather than as a guiding principle. This is a middle ground between capitalism and socialism (or just a separate way all together). It does not describe the small-government capitalism favored by American conservatives, who too often want to eliminate labor unions and environmental protections, etc. It doesn’t describe American liberalism either.

Make of that what you will. And don’t tell me that Bl. JPII of all people was a socialist.

It’s not capitalism OR socialism. Have I suggested anywhere that JPII was socialist? What does JPII say in Sollicitudo rei socialis about capitalism? Did you read all of Centesimus Annus? It’s not exactly a glowing report on capitalism. Yes, you could argue that capitalism, per se, is not the problem, but the fruits of capitalism certainly are.

I’d say–though I still have much reading to do–that the Church, from Leo to Benedict, has vehemently made the argument that economics should be embedded in moral human relationships rather than humans being embedded in the economy. This is an argument made by Karl Polanyi (I’m not saying anyone borrowed from anyone, just that the argument is the same). Humans come first. This is not what we’ve seen in capitalism or socialism over the past two centuries.

 

[Spirithound]

I think it is the place of all humans and all social institutions to be compassionate. Thus, yes, it is government’s place to be compassionate.

This is where the subsidiarity idea comes in. When social institutions (like government or the economy) become too large, they extend beyond the scope of individual’s compassion and morality. Most of us think nothing of buying fast food or purchasing a pair of shoes at a store, despite the fact that those behaviors lend themselves to the destruction of the environment and of other people’s lives (because global economics ties our local purchases to labor conditions in the developing world, and because we no longer see how our food is created). Thus, not only does government need to be kept small, but so does the economy. This will allow the economy and the government to be compassionate–or at least to promote compassion amongst individual human beings.

Thank you for helping me out. Can you tell me what you mean by a “small economy”?

 

[PeterGStanley]

I liked it - its poking fun at what some people actually believe - it shows how the message has been twisted by some people so they can feel comfortable with how they live - pretty funny

 

[Jocko_VT]

Thank you for helping me out.

’

I appreciate your graciousness!

Can you tell me what you mean by a “small economy”?

What I mean is that we need to know the origins of the goods we consume and the destinations of the goods we produce. This includes the byproducts of consumption and production (like trash and pollution, and the labor conditions of the producers of the goods we consume). In practical terms, we need to eat local food, and we need to wear locally produced clothing, etc.

Yes, this will mean that we’ll have to give up a lot of luxuries, and we probably won’t be able to eat fresh broccoli and blueberries year round, but that’s not much of a cost if it secures social justice and and a healthy environment.

 

[Faithdancer]

Well, it clearly speaks to hypocrisy, and it did make me think and reflect on my own vocation: am I willing to live a life of simplicity, poverty, and chastity, as Jesus and Saint Francis taught?

 

[Paxvobis]

I think it does criticize capitalism, and it does so by arguing for regulation. But I think we’re splitting hairs here. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. Anyway, I meant to be specific that I was talking about neoliberal, ultra-free-market capitalism.

Your quote makes the argument that I’m making. Yes, you can have some capitalism. It must be:
circumscribed within a strong juridical framework…which places it at the service of human freedom…the core of which is ethical.

In other words, it’s not really a free market, but a market kept in its place. Capitalism is used as a tool rather than as a guiding principle. This is a middle ground between capitalism and socialism (or just a separate way all together). It does not describe the small-government capitalism favored by American conservatives, who too often want to eliminate labor unions and environmental protections, etc. It doesn’t describe American liberalism either.

Yes, I’d agree with that.

It’s not capitalism OR socialism. Have I suggested anywhere that JPII was socialist? What does JPII say in Sollicitudo rei socialis about capitalism? Did you read all of Centesimus Annus? It’s not exactly a glowing report on capitalism. Yes, you could argue that capitalism, per se, is not the problem, but the fruits of capitalism certainly are.

I’d say–though I still have much reading to do–that the Church, from Leo to Benedict, has vehemently made the argument that economics should be embedded in moral human relationships rather than humans being embedded in the economy. This is an argument made by Karl Polanyi (I’m not saying anyone borrowed from anyone, just that the argument is the same). Humans come first. This is not what we’ve seen in capitalism or socialism over the past two centuries.

Oops. I didn’t in any way mean that you were insinuating that JPII was a socialist.

I was just meaning to say that some conservatives might, upon reading the Holy Father’s remarks in Centesimus Annus may say that he was espousing socialism. Doing so would be - to be frank - stupid considering that he spent much time and effort fighting against socialism. Many conservatives in my experience, particularly those who identify with the tea party, can’t tell the difference between the authentic Catholic teaching on economics and socialism despite the huge chasm that exists between them. Many a time, I’ve been called a socialist and a communist for espousing precisely the Church’s unfiltered teaching. It’s really a crying shame that rather than be in line with the Church - you know, the Body of Christ - people just try to get the Church to fit within their preconceived opinions as if the Truth of Christ was a political party platform that could either be accepted or rejected. It’s far more deep than that (as I’m sure you know).

 

[vz71]

Straw man.

And like any such presented as an argument, it should be dismembered, the parts thrown about, and then set on fire.