As a Leftist in the United States, it seems appropriate to disclose the Leftist agenda among Leftists in the United States.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
At the top of the list is to get people to recognize that the Democratic Party is not \u201cLeftist.\u201d It may be to the left of the Republican party, but that\u2019s precisely the point. Liberal and conservative, right and left, are terms of comparison. They don\u2019t designate absolute stances. Whether educational institutions like Wheaton College (the one near Chicago, not the one in Massachusetts) or Fuller Theological Seminary are \u201cliberal\u201d or \u201cconservative\u201d depends very much on whom you ask and where they are viewing it from.<\/p>\n
Most Americans, not having lived elsewhere in the world and paying very little attention to international politics, are simply unaware of the range of political and economic stances that are possible and that exist in most democracies. Often the most extreme parties are excluded since their ideologies are directly opposed to the aims of an inclusive liberal democracy. (Note that liberal democracy does not mean \u201cleft-leaning,\u201d<\/a> a common misunderstanding.<\/p>\n There are, to be sure, individuals in the Democratic party who are on the left side of the spectrum<\/a> on certain issues. One of the many problems with the de facto and unnecessary two party system<\/a> in the United States is that it invites extremists to get under those umbrellas. It also conveys the impression that they are opposites when in fact in the context of any multi-party democracy in Europe<\/a> they would be two right-leaning parties that might well make a coalition in order to keep actual leftists out of power.<\/p>\n If the Democrats as a whole are even slightly on the left side of the spectrum (which I don\u2019t think<\/a> is the case<\/a>, but as I said, it depends on how one views the spectrum<\/a>), they are still very much centrists<\/a>, with little to no interest in radically reinventing the U.S. economy away from its love of unbridled capitalism. At most, the majority of Democrats will leave that system intact and just add more safety nets for those who are detrimentally impacted.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Terms like liberal and conservative, right and left, are also economic and theological terms as well as political terms. There\u2019s thus a lot of confusion. You\u2019ll find progressive Christians who are theologically conservative and economically progressive, and progressive Christians who are theologically progressive and politically conservative.<\/p>\n And so it is also part of my own personal agenda to advocate for clearer labeling. (Writing this was inspired by a commenter<\/a> who used \u201cLeftists\u201d not in an accurate way but in the manner of bullying labels that have become characteristic of so much recent political discourse.)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Hopefully the above has not seemed like the sort of thing you get in YouTube ads and nowadays all too often even recipes, where you are promised something and then read and read or watch and watch and it does not deliver. It was crucial to make clear that I speak here about my own perspective, which is not that of everyone who falls on the political, economic, or religious left, and that here my focus is on my stance on the economy and the political infrastructure that relates to it.<\/p>\n My views on this are not shaped by Marxism, and I\u2019m not a Communist. My views are shaped by the Bible as well as comparison of global approaches in the present day. Of course, the early church experimented with communism, but it isn\u2019t clear that it was a successful experiment. Marx and Engels discussed Christian socialism and communism in their Communist Manifesto<\/em><\/a>, explaining why they were unsatisfied with it and where they disagreed with it.<\/p>\n The Bible doesn\u2019t consistently teach any particular economic system, except in the sense that the Torah mandated leaving the edges of one\u2019s field for the poor (legislated social welfare), a tithe (taxation), and the Jubilee year (periodic debt cancellation once a generation to prevent excessive downward or upward mobility). It isn\u2019t clear that those laws achieved what they aimed to in their ancient context, and they certainly would not if applied directly in our time.<\/p>\n Yet the principles are there consistently throughout, that everyone should have enough, that (to echo John the Baptist) if one person has two coats then one of them should go to someone who doesn\u2019t have even one. That\u2019s redistribution. In their ancient totalitarian context they focused on what individuals do, but the hope for the kingdom of God was for society to be transformed.<\/p>\n Thus in the context of a democracy, those concerns for equality and fairness should be woven into the system and not merely depend on the rich giving charity.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Beyond this broad concern, I leave it entirely to the economists to discuss, experiment, and decide what to recommend. It is definitely worth trying something other than what we have. We are under no obligation practical or ideological to continue with things the way they are. Over the years we have raised and lowered taxes. We have implemented programs like social security. We have created public schooling, and conversely have privatized national telecommunications and utilities companies. The past does impose constraints but they are not absolute. We can make changes, just as we have done before.<\/p>\n Is a basic<\/a> income<\/a> model<\/a> the answer? It wouldn\u2019t be perfect, but what we have is far from perfect, so that\u2019s not a criticism. The only question is whether it might be better, and if so, we should try it.<\/p>\n Perhaps the biggest problem in our society is that expertise is widely denigrated. We would be better off if we elected people to represent us who have studied the areas that they will oversee, such as international relations, the environment, education, and the economy. Unlike most online pundits, I\u2019m not going to say \u201chere is the best economic system.\u201d I can of course (and as a voter must) look at the evidence. But ultimately, just as much as I want a more just economic system, I want a humbler populace where we recognize that we need to trust (as well as hold accountable) doctors, mechanics, and politicians to do things with a higher level of expertise than most of us have.<\/p>\n I\u2019d be fine if we just implemented things like universal healthcare. Most Americans have no idea what it would be like in a European country where healthcare is \u201cfree.\u201d Of course, it isn\u2019t free. We all pay for it. One way or another, it is paid for. If it is paid for through taxation, and those who earn or have more pay more in taxes, then your current income and wealth don\u2019t need to determine whether you\u2019re likely to survive a bout with cancer or be in long-term debt because you had a child.<\/p>\n I\u2019m a Leftist, but not a far leftist. The stance in Europe tends to be labeled \u201csocial democracy.\u201d\u00a0Ultimately, the key thing is that we change our economy to address inequity, and that we do so in a way that is enacted through the collective expression of our democratic will through government. When government is \u201cof the people, by the people, for the people\u201d then \u201cbig government\u201d ceases to be an insult. Let\u2019s do big things together to make our society better. That\u2019s my \u201cLeftist agenda.\u201d If you disagree with it, I\u2019d love to know why.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Here are some things I have written previously about this topic.<\/p>\nLabels Compare, Not Delineate<\/h3>\n
The Bible\u2019s Leftist Agenda<\/h3>\n
Leaving the Details to the Experts<\/h3>\n
For Further Reading<\/h3>\n