Legalized Looting of the Less Fortunate is Never the Best Option

The government of Denmark is currently debating the controversial proposal to confiscate valuables from all asylum seeking refugees attempting to enter their country as an ad hoc form of payment for services that the Government is predicting that they will provide at an equal or higher cost.  There are several ethical problems with this proposed solution, and we must address the most obvious first.  On a base and completely amoral level, confiscation prior to any service being provided to them is misguided as a free market principle.  What services are being offered?  What guarantee will there be that these do indeed equal the value of the property seized?  A big issue relating to this is the reality that everyone will possess items of varied intrinsic value.  While some may have a cell phone and a wedding ring, others may have a case of reserve cash, precious metals, or a valuable watch.  At its heart, this socialist principle that takes everything from all to provide for the whole will only lead to corruption and distrust. 

Secondly, what hope do you have in a government for giving refuges a better life in their future if they strip them bare of anything that might have helped them get started on the road to prosperity in their new life?  This is placing the entire responsibility of their success in the hands of government officials and truly dropping everyone to the lowest common denominator rather than looking to embrace those who might contribute to society in a positive way much sooner if they had private assets with which to buy goods and services that they deem necessary.  But of course, the government would have to tell them what was necessary if they get their way.

Now we get to the heart of the issue.  This is not an effort to recover costs.  This is truly a deterrent masquerading as a tariff on humanity.  While those in America that called out for a ban on refugees were often misguided and angry, all who spoke out were vilified.  The EU has given little space for dissenters as well, so this action allows for a de facto ban on refugees that will be self imposed, all the while saving face with those who require them to keep their borders open.  If passed, this will become a big issue only if refugee quotas are enforced, and all of a sudden, thousands of refugees are assigned to go to Denmark without a choice of their own and they are robbed blind at the border.

We have seen where this leads.  History has shown us in the form of stolen artwork from Jewish homes across Europe and mountains of gold fillings in concentration camps.  This legalized covetousness will only lead to an increase in the social divide between ethnic minorities and those in power.  Ban all refugees or accept them with open arms, but do not make them purchase your salvation by stripping them of the last vestiges of their lifelong possessions.  Thievery does not become us as humans - we waste far more in political adds everyday than what you would ever hope to gain by robbing the needy.

Robin Hood was Not a Socialist: How a Story of Justice has been Transformed into Marxism

The story has always been one of my favorites: the nobleman of a bygone era fights to right the injustices enacted upon his people by the newly arrived foreign occupiers who were exploiting every avenue to abuse their new subjects.  The beauty of the story is its simplicity (and the epic sword fights).  The message of the classic story is good versus evil; no complex characters to speak of.  The characters were either good or they were bad, and we as spectators never felt compassion or empathy for the bad guys, nor did we feel that they had earned their great wealth.  We saw the wealthy and opulent Norman rulers of England for what they were (in the story).  That is, conquerors living off of the backs of those they had conquered.

Recently, I was reading while my children watched a modern retelling of the story of Robin Hood in a daily children’s show on PBS.  I was paying little attention except for the occasional glance until the plot thickened.  In their version, a princess was carrying so many potatoes that she was unable to lift them while a poor character had only a few potatoes that were going to be too few to feed her.  Both characters complained about their situation.  One naturally decried her lack of food, while the other bemoaned having too much.  As I looked up from my reading to see how they would handle this travesty against human logic, I noted that Robin’s task at this point was not one of ‘robbing the rich’ so to speak, but rather helping the afterwards thankful wealthy character redistribute her burdensome abundance to her poor compatriot.  Everyone left happy – except me.

This retelling of the classic tail decries the basic flaws in the thinking of many today.  The first issue is the obvious misunderstanding of the issue at the root of the original Robin Hood tale.  At its heart, the story is not about an economic system at all.  In 1066, William the Conqueror ushered in a new era in England when he led his Norman army to victory in the Battle of Hastings.  In the years that followed, many French speaking Normans seeking fortune and status poured across the Slightly-Less-English Channel to take a place in the newly expanded kingdom.  The real history is more complicated, but in the Robin Hood story, they never earn their wealth in England.  They did not work hard to achieve it, but they did enjoy it.  In fact, they put down every challenge that attempted to take this wealth and status from them.  In short, we did not sympathize with them as capitalists because they had not earned their wealth – they had taken it. 

A second issue raised by this flaccid reinvention of the story is the assumption that ‘plenty’ is a burden to those who experience it.  While I am sure there are a precious few individuals out there who feel undue pressure because of having too much, the vast majority of people who do well in any area of society are in fact pleased rather than tortured by the experience.  This does not have to be limited to our understanding of wealth alone.  For example, if a farmer has a much better than average yield, they are excited – even if it will not all fit in the barn.  They are excited because this influx means new opportunities for them as well as signaling and affirming their successful use of farming methods and hard work to get to this point.  If they do chose to give to their neighbor, it is then done out of generosity and benevolence, not out of a desire to throw their precious cargo overboard.  In a capitalist system, if someone works hard to gain something, they are very upset if that is taken from them.  In fact, the legal system regards this as theft unless it is due to taxation.

In the classic Robin Hood story, the Normans understood this ethical conundrum and usurped it by qualifying every illegal seizure as taxation.  This gave them the legal high ground, despite simultaneously holding court in the moral gutter.  A modern understanding of the issue fails to see the element of injustice as the driving force in what motivated the fictional Robin Hood and many other actual historical heroes to leave lives of safety and security to fight for the rights of the downtrodden.  Historically, no one risks death, loss of all status and property, and lack of access to their soul mate on a daily basis to redistribute wealth.  In the real story, and the real world, everyone does not want to do the right thing, and injustices have to be righted – be it by fictional vigilantes or by the justice system. 

So, Robin Hood was not, nor should he ever be a socialist.  He was never interested in helping the rich relocate their assets to those around them that were in need.  They stole it, he took it back, and they hated him for it.  In the PBS version, both parties thanked Robin Hood after a successful utilization of Solomonic wisdom.  Our society is selling an attitude that does not exist in real life, logical humans.  A socialist society has no need for a hero, but glorifies the collective instead.  My question for the children’s television show is: who grew the potatoes?  It was never addressed, and I am afraid we as a society have lost our interest in asking this question in real life as well.  

Who grew the potatoes?  No one cares anymore.   

Should a Christian Defend American Exceptionalism?

King Louis XVI lost his head to the French Revolution on 21 January 1793, primarily because of the root notion that he was born great.   His over-zealous constituents failed to share his self-admiration, and constructed a devise that would attempt to sever this very concept of Divine Right not only from his body (which it did quite handily by all accounts) but also from every elitist-thinking mind on earth.

As America flirts with disaster around the world and tries to climb out of the foreign policy tar pit she wandered into over the past several years, her citizens are faced with the opportunity and often responsibility to truly defend their core ideology of freedom for the first time in their lives.  Are we really a blight on the world stage?  Was there ever anything special about the United States?  Many American Christians struggle with how to address these questions.  On one hand, they feel they should defend their patriotism with a resounding ‘yes’ to all of the above.  But on the other, they feel the weight of the shared condition of humanity and have tasted too much of the grace offered by a loving Messiah to look past their own sin and claim to be anything greater than the rest of the world.  After all, what is a true Christian except someone who first understands their extreme need for salvation because of their own depravity?   Is there even space for anyone to be exceptional in Christian theology?  One of the founding fathers actually addressed this same paradox.  Benjamin Franklin alongside Silas Deane wrote this note while in Paris in 1777 during the height of the American Revolution:[1]

Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world, that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty, gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind […] We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.  Glorious is it for the Americans to be called by Providence to this post of honor.[2]

There is a difference between being inherently great and being called to do great things.  For the American Christian, God has granted an immeasurable occasion for being about the business of greatness.  To answer one’s calling and to do it well is never a mark of shame.  A good Biblical example comes in Exodus 31 when God mentions to Moses that he has “called by name Bezalel” and his fellow craftsman Oholiab to spearhead much of the detail work on the Tabernacle – the house of worship that would be replaced by the Temple generations later.  The text continues: “And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you.”  God called these men out of obscurity, equipped them with knowledge, and placed them in the setting for doing great things.

Sitting in pre-Revolution Paris on diplomatic business, Franklin certainly understood the complexities of favoring the American system of freedom over those of other nations.  Perhaps he could have gained more political points with his would-be allies if he had claimed that the French monarchy had its merits too.  But he unashamedly called America an asylum from the tyranny that plagued the rest of the world. 

This same tyranny still survives across so much of the world today, and Christians in America must realize that to understand American Exceptionalism is to understand the concept of calling.  They should agree with Franklin that Americans did not make themselves great, but rather, they simply answered the call to greatness.  I would urge all American Christians to put aside any sense of entitlement or arrogance that they may hold on to lest we become a nation waiting in line for our own cultural guillotine.  Instead, they should unashamedly remind others of those great individuals upon whose shoulders we stand that answered their own call and answered it well.  And they must never forget that excuses do not work when you are called.  For America to continue to be a great nation, exceptional individuals must continue to rise up and offer hope of a better future to those walking in darkness both at home and abroad.  Thus American Exceptionalism is a Providential gift that should never become past tense in the heart of American Christians.

---

[1] Silas Deane was an on-again-off-again supporter of American Independence.  He died shortly after returning from a visit to France only a few years before the Revolution there.

[2] As quoted in Paul A. Varg’s Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers (Michigan State University Press, 1963), page 3.

McCarthy has Left the Building

    In light of the recent shift in US/Cuba policy, I had to ask myself: ‘what changed?’  While I was busy worrying about Ebola, mid-term elections, and government shutdowns, did the Castro boys skip town?  Were the lack of diplomatic relations with Cuba just a forgotten holdover from the United States’ Cold War policy, or was there something different with the island nation in December of 2014?  What changed last week to cause President Obama’s announcement?  The answer: very little.

    In the 1990s, the United States began to normalize relations with Russia and the former Soviet nations, and some people have drawn a comparison between the current action and that as if the US had simply forgotten to end the Cold War with its closer neighbor in the Caribbean.  The reality is quite different.  Russia underwent a massive shift in leadership, direction, and policy in response to western pressure.  Big changes took place – then the policy shift occurred.  Meanwhile, the Castro Bros. and their status quo remains in full swing 90 miles south of the border.

    However, I do not believe that this foreign policy shift is unique to this administration.  In fact, there is a definitive and traceable pattern developing.  What we are seeing is transference of the (arguably) failed Middle East policy into Latin America.  I.E. if we play nice, give them a seat at the table, we will gain ground.  Whether you like the honey over vinegar approach or not, it has clearly not proven to be tenable currency in the world of Islamic extremism.   Perhaps it will work better in Cuba.  After all, a case can be made that this is similar to the model we followed with China as it erupted into the world economy a few decades ago. 

    The biggest change did not happen last week, but actually took place over the last decade.  The American people simply are not scared of Communism anymore.  With Islamic terrorists as public enemy number one, McCarthy has left the building without so much as a raised eyebrow.

    Like it or not, America is on track to spend at least the next two years attempting “restorative justice.”  I’m sure some of our other antagonists are watching the situation very closely.  Sadly, sometimes being the ‘bigger person’ just makes you a larger target.

The Crimean Trail of Tears

   An entire ethnicity uprooted and forced to march across hundreds of miles of rough terrain.  Possibly 46% of the total population dies along the way to their new “homeland.”  While this sounds like the United States’ relocation of the Native American nations in the 1830s, it is actually the story of the Crimean Tatars from the Crimean Peninsula as the USSR orchestrated its own Trail of Tears in 1944. 

   The buildup to deportation included a decades-long pattern of [Russian] government induced starvation of the regional population, but the final excuse for removal came after the Second World War.  The Tatars were collectively blamed for collaborating with Nazi Germany and relocated into camps and then dispersed to other Russian controlled territories to the east such as Uzbekistan for their alleged treason. 

   But the purge went beyond deportation.  A massive effort was made to completely erase them from the history of the region.[1]  Everything written or translated to their language was burnt and grave markers were destroyed.  Even Tatars who fought in the Russian army during WWII were deported upon their return home while others who had been captured as POWs by the Nazis rarely escaped work camps or execution at the hand of those who should have been their liberators.

   Be it their Islamic roots, their history of antagonism towards Russia and Europe over centuries of raiding and capturing slaves, or the Nazi collaboration of a few, Soviet leaders were happy to be rid of the entire population and quickly bequeathed the entire peninsula to their trusted Soviet Socialist member state: Ukraine in 1954. It would be over 30 years before significant efforts were made to bring this people group back to their homeland.  Today, the Crimean Tatars struggle to champion civil rights and the interests of their people in the region and to reestablish their history, brutally erased in the name of ethnic cleansing.    

---

[1] Allen W. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars (Hoover Press, 1978), page 172.

Crimea 2.0

Don’t have a clue about the Crimean Peninsula that everyone on the news is talking about?  Read on, because ignorance is not bliss.

   This is not the first time that the Crimean region has been fought over.  Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s famous poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade” (that all you homeschoolers almost certainly memorized – or maybe it was just me) immortalized the events of an ill-fated charge into almost certain defeat ordered by poor military leaders during the Crimean War.[1]  The conflict was plagued by terrible leadership and planning all around.  Between 1853 and 1856, Russia fought against an unusual alliance of the Ottoman Empire and France, England, and other European nations over (1) who had access to the Holy Land and (2) Russian territorial expansion.  Russia favored the Orthodox Church while France and the others pushed for Catholic supremacy.  (Rabbit to chase: Thus Russian Expansionism is not new or somehow tied to communism.  Communist leaders simply used nationalism to fuel public opinion since expansion was already part of their collective heritage.)

   Eventually, Russia lost the war, and the territory reverted back to Ottoman Control for a brief time after going back and forth over the century before. 

   The Crimean War bears horrifying similarity to the growing tension today, and longtime Columbia professor Shepard Bancroft Clough’s (d.1990) prophetic words capture the situation best even though they were published in 1969: “The Crimean War, which cost the lives of half a million men, was not the result of a calculated plan, nor even of hasty last-minute decisions made under stress. It was the consequence of more than two years of fatal blundering in slow-motion by inept statesmen who had months to reflect upon the actions they took.”[2]  Let’s hope that while the last half of his statement has most certainly happened, the massive loss of life can be prevented before it is too late in 2014.

---

[1] The opening stanza really foreshadows the end result: 

“Half a league half a league, Half a league onward, All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred: 'Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns' he said: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.”  Read the whole poem: http://www.nationalcenter.org/ChargeoftheLightBrigade.html#sthash.ykp0Ojd7.dpuf

[2] Shepard Bancroft Clough, A History of the Western World, vol 2 (D.C. Heath and Company,1969), page 1010.

(1) Why was Russia culturally and politically isolated?

Map of the Break-up of the Ottoman Empire
(Years in the green areas show when territory transferred to Russia).
From William R. Shepherd's Atlas of Medieval and Modern History (Henry Holt: London, 1932).

If you watched US coverage of the opening ceremony of the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia, you might have caught the fact that Peter the Great (Tsar of Russia from 1682-1721), made a real effort to westernize his nation.  So what happened in the last 293 years?  Why did Russian history travel its own path as an isolated and anti-Western country?  If your answer was that it began with communism or the Russian Revolution, think again.

Peter the Great died on 28 January 1725 leaving his wife Catherine I to rule in his place, but her poor health did not allow her much time on the throne (she died in 1727).[1]  However, she used this time to continue to bolster foreign alliances including The Treaty of 1726 with the Austrian Empire that insured mutual military aid if the Turks attacked either nation (Sochi was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire at this time). 

But in the chaos following the death of Catherine I, we begin to already glimpse the push back of the nobility to keep the West out.[2]  Many favored moving the capital away from St. Petersburg and instead to Moscow in an effort to set their own path independent of the tsars.  While the family was able to right the autocratic ship in the years to come, these ideas of toppling the elite (who were synonymous with their elite family members ruling in the rest of Europe) kept growing and finally were consummated with the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917.

The bottom line: Most of the interaction ordinary Russians had with the West came about because of the ruling elite, so when they pushed back against them, they were indirectly pushing back against Western ideas. 

---

[1] Walter Keating Kelly, The History of Russia (Henry G. Bohn: London, 1854), page 400.

[2] Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Power: 1715-1789 (Rivingtons: London, 1963), pages 114-115.