A liberal God?

Moreover, Wallis complains about “the libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market.”  BP should not be allowed to spew oil into the ocean:  “God’s priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.”

Actually most libertarians—as well as many Tea Party activists, who have criticized the recent tsunami of corporate bailouts—distrust the Chamber of Commerce no less than does Wallis.  After all, the worst enemies of capitalism are usually the capitalists.  Businesses work overtime to get politicians to provide subsidies, block competitors, and turn competitive economies into kleptocratic fiefdoms.  What libertarians understand, in contrast to Wallis, is that the more powerful the government and the more expansive the state authority, the more effort and money business will deploy to win control for its own benefit.

The preferred strategy of the Left is to ignore human nature and search for a gaggle of Vestal Virgins to install in the White House, Congress, and federal regulatory agencies.  People from whom greed, self-interest, arrogance, and other vices have been completely drained.  Then these angelic beings will rule for the benefit of all.

Libertarians have a more realistic idea.  Constrain government power.  Let the state focus on controlling environmental externalities, such as oil spills and air emissions, which result from the lack of property rights in resources like the ocean and air.  But work to shrink the Left’s federal behemoth, which victimizes the public by, for instance, limiting the liability of oil companies for accidents and providing bountiful subsidies to them for energy development.

In fact, the tendency of government to be captured by interest groups belies Wallis’ complaint about “the libertarian preference for the strong over the weak.”  Who does he think controls the political process?  Directs legislative appropriations?  Writes bureaucratic regulations?  The strong or the weak?

The federal government provides $100 billion a year in corporate welfare.  The Export-Import Bank is known as Boeing’s Bank.  Social Security and Medicare are middle class welfare programs.  Trillions of dollars in bailouts after the crash of 2008 went to the corporate, banking, and investment sectors.  The pharmaceutical industry paid off the Obama administration for political protection; in fact, the drugmakers are likely to make even more as a result of health care “reform.”  The best friends of the strong are the enthusiasts for the expansive, expensive welfare state.  In this regard the Obama administration is little different than its predecessor.

Moreover, Wallis disparages the role of private charity, but in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “As you have done to the least of these,” not “As you have forced others to do to the least of these.”  In his second letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul explicitly refused to command his readers to give, for “God loves a cheerful giver.”

Of course, Paul laid a heavy guilt trip on his readers that would be difficult to resist.  Indeed, charity should be a natural outgrowth of Christian faith.  But no one should mistake taxation as compassion.  In this regard Wallis shares much with George W. Bush, who believed that giving away other people’s money turned him into a “compassionate conservative.”  Wallis certainly could argue that coerced welfare transfers are good public policy, despite the destruction of families and communities that has resulted over the years.  But no Scripture suggests that Christians exhibit virtue by seizing the wealth of others to give away, no matter how worthwhile the objective might seem to be.

Finally, if Wallis is searching for racial prejudice, the libertarian movement is an odd place to look.  Classical liberals, as the philosophical forebears of libertarians were known, took the lead in opposing slavery and Jim Crow.  Classical liberals opposed imperialist wars against other peoples, such as the bloody conquest of the Philippines.

Libertarians have consistently opposed the abusive state, which enacted and enforced segregation.  Libertarians have acted on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged by demanding the end of state barriers to economic advancement, such as occupational licensure, and to educational attainment, such as monopoly state schools.  For instance, decades ago the Davis-Bacon Act, which artificially inflates wages for federal projects, was promoted by legislators to protect their white constituents from the competition of poor black laborers:  the words of these real racists have been forever immortalized in the Congressional Record.  And today libertarians oppose a politicized racial spoils system that is manipulated by both black and white elites:  the result is injustice and unfairness that inflames, rather than eliminates, racism.

While the religious right is often accused of confusing its political views with Christian theology, Jim Wallis makes the same mistake.  Jesus ministered outside of politics.  Scripture is heavy on man’s relationship with God and his neighbors, but the Bible says very little about when man should use government to regulate, tax, arrest, imprison, and kill his neighbors.  For these tasks we should heed James’ injunction to ask God for wisdom.  We shouldn’t pretend that God is on our side of the political divide.

Jim Wallis is fully entitled to criticize libertarians and Tea Party activists for their principles and policies.  But he shouldn’t question their faith.  At least they don’t spend most of their time in politics attempting to use the state to pass their personal moral responsibilities off onto everyone else, as do so many of Wallis’ Big Government allies.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.  A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Beyond Good Intentions:  A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).