Why Economic Justice Matters: This Machine Looks at Ratios (Part 3)

DSC02081The Ratio Solution

It’s quite obvious that as CEO pay has gone up, economic advantages have gone down. While we can say that correlation isn’t causation, in this case there’s a distinct cause. While CEO pay has increased, it’s come by cutting into the wages of workers. As pointed out already, this stagnating wages and lack of hope in progression is what’s fertilizing the ground for a growth in fascism. So how do we stop the growth of CEO pay without capping CEO pay?

The problem is ratio; the higher the ratio between Executive pay and Worker pay, the bigger the economic problem. In the 1960s the average CEO (who is typically the highest compensated employee) earned at a 20:1 ratio. That means that it took 20 worker salaries to equal the salary of the CEO. If the average worker earned $7,000 a year, the CEO would earn $140,000 a year. In the modern age, the average salary is about $46,000 (which still accounts for millionaires, yet is still relatively low), with the average CEO earning 200 times what his average worker receives ($9.2 million). Take that $9.2 million and break it down to a 20:1 ratio and the average worker would be paid $460,000 a year; not a shabby income.

Thus, if income inequality is the problem, the solution isn’t to cap CEO pay, but rather tie the company’s effective tax rate to the company’s income ratio. The question, of course, is how do we determine an acceptable income ratio? We want an income ratio that allows the top compensated employee to be a position of wealth, as this provides incentive, but we also want a ratio where the average worker makes a living that doesn’t require survival. Not to mention that the ratio impacts politics – if I earn at a 400:1 ratio to my employees, it would take 400 employees to match what I could donate to a candidate (which would require a lot of cooperation). Thus, the more wealth an individual has, the harder it is for people to gain a voice against his wealth. So whatever ratio we choose it has to not only provide a fair wage to workers and provide an incentive to get better, it also has to be low enough so that no one person obtains enough wealth to overpower the population.

From various views, a 20:1 ratio is the ideal ratio. It’s high enough to provide incentive to work harder, but low enough to prevent our economy from diving into a tailspin. Of course, political realities being what they are and with some differences in companies, we could create an ideal of 20:1 and a maximum of 100:1. Rather than capping CEO pay, the government would instead cap the ratio. Thus, if a CEO earns $10 million, more power to him, but his average worker better earn $100,000 (and the “average” would need to exclude executive pay from the equation).

The negative aspect of government regulation – of capping the ratio – would be on the upper end of 100:1. But I also believe in creating positive reinforcement for companies as it creates more economic freedom. That being said, I’d create the following tax bracket.

70:1 – 100:1: They would pay an effective tax rate of 40%. That means that after deductions, if their rate fell below 40% they’d be penalized until the rate reached 40%. Nothing they do, no moving around in the books, nothing could ever drop them below 40%.

50:1-69:1: They would pay an effective tax rate of 30%. They could take deductions, but could never drop below the 30% mark.

30:1-49:1 Their tax rate would drop to 20%. But notice that this is not an effective tax rate. In this instance, they could take deductions in order to reduce their tax rate, but never below 15% (the bottom effective tax rate).

20:1 – 29:1: This, being the ideal, would receive the best treatment. The maximum they’d pay in taxes would be 15% and there’d be no bottom in terms of their deductions. That is, if their deductions resulted in them paying 0% taxes, then so be it. The fact is, any company that fell in this range would be helping to create a powerful middle class, which would more than make up for any lost revenue from the business.

The only companies this would apply to would be any and all publicly traded companies and companies with 50 or more employees. Small businesses wouldn’t face this law. The reason is smaller businesses tend to have lower ratios by nature of their existence. Likewise, for start ups and other companies that do earn millions, but keep a small staff, the competition of bigger salaries from bigger companies would naturally keep the ratios low.

What’s great about this plan is that it literally costs corporations nothing. They don’t have to find a way to increase revenue (as they do with minimum wage), to increase their profits to make up for a loss, or to take a loss. The only thing it does is give back the wealth that the executives took (remember, executive pay jumped 725% from 1970 to 2015, while worker pay increased 5.6%, so this is a matter of giving economic justice and worker’s dues than it is redistributing unearned wealth). The company merely has to rework their payroll and benefits structure. Things such as stock options and profit sharing that add to the overall compensation of an executive would likewise have to be handed down to the workers until the total compensation of the highest earning employee (typically the CEO) matched the total compensation of the average worker.

In this scenario profits aren’t impacted, stock holders aren’t impacted, companies pay no extra money, and so on. All that happens is that executive pay is greatly reduced while worker pay is greatly increased, at least within a 20:1-100:1 range.

Of course, some might argue that production companies will just take their factories overseas or outsource their labor to overseas labor, that way executives can keep a high pay. They’ll just dump the workers. Here is where certain protections would need to be put into place. But again, those protections don’t have to be necessarily arbitrary, such as saying, “You can’t send your stuff overseas.” After all, globalization isn’t entirely bad and can help some struggling economies if handled correctly. How, then, do we handle it correctly?

We apply the same ratio rule to all overseas labor and, by extension, to all outsourced labor to foreign companies. That means if a technology company wants to outsource the production of their products to Foxconn, they’d have to ensure that the executives at Foxconn don’t earn greater than 100:1 compared to their workers. If a company wants to open an overseas factory, adjusting for inflation the same ratio rules would apply. A company could still send jobs overseas, but the advantage of using near-slave labor would disappear, which would protect multiple jobs in the US and possibly bring some jobs back.

The fact is, we have to do something and this is one possible option. It’s revolutionary, but that’s what we need in this moment. We need a revolution that seeks to change the system for the better by seeking a way to help all, not just a few. Of course, there is another possible way of revolutionizing the system in order to fix our economic woes.

Why Economic Justice Matters: This Machine Provides Solutions (Part 2)

IMG_0031Faced with the onslaught of fascism and nationalism, finding a well fertilized situation in current economic trends, the question arises as to what we should do. Increasing the minimum wage in such a situation seems a bit too little, too late. Increasing the minimum wage would hold the same effect as to throwing a bucket of water onto a home engulfed in flames. Sadly, we do need a revolution to fix the numerous problems in our system. We need an entirely new way of thinking through our economy. We know the problems rest with greedy CEOs increasing their pay while keeping worker wages stagnate. We know the problem is that if the workers threaten to strike or unionize in order to obtain better wages, the jobs will just ship overseas to near-slavery conditions.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy – while necessary – doesn’t promise that we’ll distribute the wages. After all, while increasing taxes in the 1950s worked well the world wasn’t nearly as globalized as it is now. Globalization almost takes away the impact of increasing taxes on the wealthy as jobs can still be sent overseas in order to increase profits, a way to make up for the increase in taxes. Increasing the minimum wage is just ineffective. Capping CEO pay also makes little sense as any cap would be quite arbitrary. Plus, one might be the CEO of a company, but also be the only employee of that company (which can happen if one is a consultant to other companies). So can we really cap that individual’s income? Such an argument makes little sense.

There’s the other issue that while some forms of Democratic-Socialism have shown to lower income inequality, it also creates a high tax burden and does tend to make workers less productive. For instance, Financial Times reported back in 2014 that productivity in the Nordic nations had dropped and that cracks were beginning to show in its welfare state. Part of the problem is that people have such a huge safety net in Nordic nations that there’s little incentive to work harder. It’s why the Nordic nations have some of the highest income inequality in Europe, but also have the strongest middle class – the government essentially props up the middle class with little effort required from businesses. Such a model, while admirable and a good temporary solution, is not sustainable and will eventually need to be revamped.

So what do we do? How do we create a system that averts the problems of nationalism and fascism? How do we improve our economy to the point that people see no need for a revolution or to radicalize? I can see two options. These options presented are by no means comprehensive and are barely an introduction to the two potential solutions. Likewise, these solutions are not mutually exclusive – both could be put in place and I’d recommend both be put in place. They are way outside of the box, but that’s what we need. We need a system meant for the modern era and we have to stop pointing to past solutions for modern problems.

Why Economic Justice Matters: This Machine Kills Fascism (Part 1)

JPEG image-552A266454C7-1It’s a common argument against socialism (or what is perceived as socialism): “We can’t have complete economic equality because it’d remove all incentive to work harder and be innovative.” And to a certain extent, that’s completely true. Why would I work harder to take on a position of more responsibility and risk if I didn’t make more money for it? Certainly there are some out there who’s egos alone would push for such a promotion, but at some point most people would ask why you’d want to be the CEO when you can make the same amount of money as being the janitor.

Yet, a similar argument that’s rarely brought up is that low wages have the exact same effect. After all, if people on the “fry line” or “flipping hamburgers” sees their managers, even general managers, struggle to pay bills, sees them on government support, sees them struggling paycheck to paycheck, then why work harder to take on that responsibility? If you tell someone who struggles to put food on the table that with 5-10 years of real hard work they can finally break through to the lower-middle class, what incentive is there in working harder? The more the middle class shrinks and the less meaning there is to being middle class (in that it doesn’t really provide as high a standard of living as its used to), the less incentive there is to work harder or be innovative.

Thus, it seems there’s a happy medium to be had, one where wages are staggered enough to provide enough incentive to work harder and be innovative, but pay well enough to provide enough incentive to get to that new position.

And that, kids, is why the minimum wage debate is so pointless. We’re debating over the minimum a person earns, which impacts about 3.9% of the population. Not that I’m against raising the minimum wage – we need to – but that in the best case scenario, raising it will give us one to two years of economic growth. After that, we’re back to debating on raising the wage again. And raising the minimum wage would inevitably send some jobs overseas (jobs that would have gone eventually, but an increase in minimum wage would be the tipping point). It wouldn’t be the doomsday scenario of conservative talkshow hosts, but it also wouldn’t be the economic utopia of liberal think-tanks. Raising the minimum wage, while necessary and overall good (even with some negative consequences), is focusing on the wrong problem.

See, our economic problem isn’t that our minimum wage is too low, it’s that our median wage is too low. Now, ultimately, our problem is greed, but you can’t legislate people to be virtuous and to give up their greed. You can, however, create an environment where they can’t practice their greed, or where you can limit their pursuits in the name of greed. After all, I can’t legislate someone from hating another person, but I can legislate stopping them from acting on that hate. Likewise, while I can’t prevent people having an attitude of greed, I can prevent them from acting on that greed. The reason our median wage is so low is because we’ve allowed people to act on their greed, and it’s time to stop.

When we allow economic inequality to continue, when we allow the poor to become poorer, when we allow the middle class to disappear quicker than the polar bears, we create an environment that inevitably leads to a revolution of sorts. The times we face are hardly unique to world history. Economic inequality preceded many horrible events in history, such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution. In both cases income inequality erupted into violence. But we often forget that income inequality and its crippling effect on a nation preceded the election of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Both Italy and Germany suffered from high income inequality prior to the rise of fascism, and Germany suffered from a national inferiority complex due to losing WWI (which radicalized their fascists into Nazis, a more extreme version of fascism). A combination of national pride, blaming of the “other,” and workers not making enough to live led to the eventual conquest of fascism.

Fast forward to the modern era and we’re on the brink of seeing a revival in fascism, both in Europe and the United States. In Europe the far-right parties such as UKIP (United Kingdom), Front National (France), Law and Justice (Poland), Danish People’s Party (Denmark), and many other nations are experiencing an increase in nationalistic movements. These movements typically focus on the struggle of the working class, but tend to blame immigrants rather than the ruling elite (though the ruling elite are still blamed, the vitriol is saved for immigrants). Within the United States we have Donald Trump on the verge of victory in the Republican Party and a legitimate shot at winning it all. Fascism is alive and well, but it doesn’t appear ex nihilo. Rational people who lead comfortable lives don’t just wake up one day and go, “You know what, I hate immigrants, the poor, and want a revolution.” Fascism can only find berth in a revolution, and a revolution only arises out of discontent. The breeding ground for fascism – lack of economic growth, stagnation in the real economy, lack of motivation to move ahead, a loss of hope – are real issues. Failing to adequately address and fix those issues will almost always lead to horrible results.

We’ve had 30 years of globalization policies that have all but destroyed our economy (as well as many other economies). There’s a popular video going around about a Disney worker losing his job and having to train foreign workers to take over his job, workers hired by Disney because they’ll work at a cheaper rate. Manufacturing jobs lost in the 80s and 90s due to recession went overseas and will never return. Wages have stagnated and fallen. We have an entire generation today that is worse off upon graduating high school and/or college than generations before them, which is a first in American history. A populist backlash – and make no mistake, fascism is populist, as is socialism – was inevitable. That backlash has taken on the form of Trump in the United States, but resembles different leaders and candidates in other nations.

The above are all very real problems. It’s a problem that a job can be sent overseas to near-slave labor (which doesn’t benefit the worker in that country or the worker in the US). The wage gap in America is a massive problem, allowing the super-rich undue influence in politics, which secures their position while lessening the position of the average voter. By ignoring economic justice, by removing our economic policies away from doing what is right, we’ve created a very dangerous situation, a breeding ground for one of the worst political ideologies to come out of the Enlightenment.

What, then, are we to do?

This is Your Place in the Universe: The Tiniest of Kings and Queens

Source: NASA

Source: NASA

It’s popular on social media, notably Twitter and Facebook, to post videos that show how infinitesimally small the earth is when compared to objects inside our universe. They then draw some conclusion of, “See how insignificant we are?” or “So when your problems seem overwhelming, just look at how big the universe is and realize how small your problems are.” Such messages, I guess, are suppose to be inspiring, but ultimately they’re quite nihilistic. It’s like one of those Lisa Frank paintings with nihilistic messages:


It looks kind, cuddly, and just pukes sentimentality, but the message is pretty dark. And that’s how these videos on the universe are; yes, we’re small, we’re tiny compared to other physical objects in the universe, but does that really mean our problems are insignificant? Just say, “Cry into the night sky, but understand that your sound goes into a void that will not answer back and will not hear you.” It’s atheistic existentialism without the acknowledgement of angst or absurdity, it’s optimistic nihilism, which is to say it’s neither optimistic nor nihilist, but just a logical contradiction.

How non sequitur is it to say, “But the universe is vast and large and we are insignificant” when someone comes to you with a problem? More importantly, why would the size of the earth play into our significance? While the magnitude of a problem experiences some subjectivity – to a three year old, dropping an ice cream cone is an act of supreme evil – it doesn’t mean our problems or even our lives are insignificant. We can’t look at the crisis in the Middle East, the number of orphans, widows, and rampant genocide, we can’t look at the rapes, the theft, the wanton loss of life and go, “Yeah, but VY Canis Majoris is 5,000 light years from earth and dwarfs our own sun! So really, how big can our problems be?” That response is properly received as cold and callous, and that’s because it is, because human lives are significant regardless of their size.

See, while VY Canis Majoris might dwarf our sun, or while the whole of North America might look like a smudge when compared to the size of Jupiter, human lives dwarf absolutely everything else in this universe, including the universe itself. We are the kings and queens of creation, placed as stewards over all that we observe, even if what we observe is bigger than ourselves. Much to the chagrin of atheists or the non-religious, though evolved we are still made in the image of God. And since God is infinite, within that image there is infinity, and infinity shall always remain greater than the finite. And the universe, no matter how vast it is, is still finite. The problems we face, the evil we cause, the good we enjoy, the love we create, and every aspect of our existential lives are not insignificant or small just because the universe is large; these elements echo in eternity and will surpass even the universe itself.

And for those who aren’t religious or are atheists and prefer not to believe that we are in God’s image, I can respect that, but I can’t respect the devaluation of human life. For even the atheist existentialists would embrace the absurdity of treating human life with dignity because, after all, it’s the only intelligent form of life of which we know As small as we are, our intelligence makes us of far greater value than some distant star of mass quantities.

So yes, in terms of physical limitations humans are insignificant. We’re nothing compared to other animals on this planet, if we’re only looking to physicality. But if we’re looking to more, if we’re looking to the intangible, immaterial aspect of our existence (for love, knowledge, and the like cannot be measured and though immaterial, are a vital part of our existence and are what makes us human), then nothing in the observable universe comes close to our own significance.


Why Millennials Want Bernie Sanders or, How America Could Have Stopped Socialism

N6YQRW1Bernie Sanders offers free stuff and makes socialism look cool. After all, all the rad kids are down with Democratic-Socialism. I hear tons of 20-somethings are totally dressing as the late Michael Harrington (a famous Democratic-Socialist thinker for you squares out there) this Halloween. What these young whippersnappers need to remember and learn is that they’re not entitled to anything and there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Just because they can #FeelTheBern for free and legal marijuana and Xboxes doesn’t mean socialism suddenly makes sense.

Of course, when we remove ourselves from the rhetoric of Baby Boomers and even Generation X (the last generation to have a shot at the American Dream), the support for Bernie Sanders among millennials does make sense, even if it’s misguided. What people fail to understand is that the world for someone who is 20-something years old isn’t the same world for a 20-something year old 20, 30, or 40 years ago. 40 years ago students could work a full time job at minimum wage and pay for a college education while also paying for rent at an apartment. Back then minimum wage was $2.30 an hour, or about $9 by today’s standards. That’d earn a minimum wage worker $4,784 (give or take) for the year. Going to school full time would have run a tab of about $2,600, or half their income. So even for those who couldn’t squeeze that full amount, a small loan could take care of their education and, even in a worst case scenario, they’d be able to pay it back relatively quickly after graduation. Of course, earning a college education back in 1976 would have guaranteed a middle class job with a middle class income. And the average rent in a big city ran around $220.

Compare that to today’s standards. If a student works full time while going to college at minimum wage, she’ll earn $15,080 a year (give or take). The average four-year degree at a public institution will run $17,500 a year, which is more than her income. Also, the average rent in a big city has jumped to well over $1,500 a month (assuming she’s not in government housing). And all this for a degree that won’t necessarily guarantee a much higher income. And I know, we can say, “Well go get a trade school degree,” aside from ignoring implicit idea of creating a servant class, trade degrees are very susceptible to new technological advances or even market saturation: If everyone has a trade degree, then the value of having a trade degree drops. The overall point is that the economy today for those entering college, leaving college, or who have been out of college since 2000 is in a dire situation.

What’s more is that there’s no hope for millennials. The trend we’re seeing in the economy right now is that as Baby Boomers retire, rather than younger people taking the vacant positions, the positions are either being eliminated, rolled into another position, or shipped overseas. Even those lucky few who do get to take the positions are typically treated to significantly lower wages than their predecessor, because of “experience.” While not typical in all situations – especially in upper management – it’s very true for the average worker. Ideally, as Baby Boomers retire it should create a job vacuum, which would naturally increase wages and decrease unemployment and underemployment. But instead, we’re seeing absolutely no increase in wages or progress for those under the age of 30.

What the above means is as follows: As Baby Boomers retire, the younger generations are not inheriting better jobs and better wages. In fact, already we’re at a point where the majority of Americans are no longer in the middle class. Since 2000, even though Baby Boomers have begun to retire, we’ve seen no real progress in wages and no high demand to fill those jobs. That means over the next 10-15 years, as the last of the Baby Boomers begin to enter into retirement, we’ll watch the complete disappearance of the middle class. People will either be rich, or they’ll struggle. There will be no one who just lives comfortably, who while not rich or wealthy, can still put money into savings and retirement. What that also means is that in the next 10-15 years, the US tax-base is going to shrink considerably. Even if we taxed the top 10% income earners at a 90% rate – which is almost too heavy a burden for most people even in the top 10% of income earners –  that still wouldn’t be enough to fund our government. Historically in the 20th century the United States was able to grow, create highways, run mostly efficient projects because of the large US tax-base. After all, it’s better to collect hundreds to thousands of dollars from hundreds of millions of people than millions of dollars from hundreds to thousands of people.

As it is, we’re looking at a situation where within 20 years the United States is going to struggle to pay for some pretty basic things. Already we’re watching our infrastructure completely crumble because there’s not enough revenue being pumped into necessary projects. Many police departments are underfunded, leading to legalized corruption in civil forfeiture. In the states, most schools – especially low-income schools – are significantly underfunded. Imagine how these things will work 20 years from now. Most government money will likely go to wealthy areas of the country, while the rest of the country is ignored or remains underfunded. As it is, 1 out of 5 Americans is on some form of government assistance, or welfare to use the pejorative term (medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance). You can’t just mismanage funds to get on those programs as they’re based on your income, not how you use your income. That means21% of the country earns somewhere around or below the poverty rate. When compared to other industrialized nations, it’s pathetic. If we increase the number to include social security, veterans’ benefits, unemployment, and other social services, that number increases to 49%.

We’re heading towards a nation that, within 10-15 years, more people will be taking money from the government than putting money into the government. Not because they’re lazy, not because they’re “moochers,” but because that’s how we’ve set up our economy to function. Such a government simply isn’t sustainable, so cuts will be made, meaning benefits will be cut. That always leads to unrest and can harm a nation.

So the above is exactly what millennials have to look forward to. And along comes a crazy-eyed, wild-haired, tough-talking guy pointing to other nations using Democratic-Socialism, pointing out how it’s succeeding, pointing out how it works, pointing to a brighter future, and you wonder why millennials are drawn to him? I know enough about the Nordic system to know that what Sanders says it is and what it actually is are two different things. I know enough to know that his plans are really a bastardized version of the Nordic system. And I know enough to know that his plans, while significantly flawed, are still better than our current system. The dark future that awaits us is why millennials are willing to look at Sanders and hold out hope. Personally, I like what Sanders offers and will probably vote for him, not out of hope, but out of, “Well, our current path leads to doom and some of his ideas have worked elsewhere, so let’s try it.”

What’s worse is that all of this could have been prevented. A person who earns a livable wage, who can save up money, who has good healthcare, who has a secure retirement plan, and who knows that they’ll continue to be promoted and advanced with hard work doesn’t want to pay higher taxes, doesn’t want multiple government programs to solve for poverty, and doesn’t want socialism. It’s why Baby Boomers – who have spent most of their lives in the middle class – are so opposed to Bernie Sanders. It’s why millennials – who will never be in the middle class – like Sanders. Not because he’s cool, different, or hip, but because he sees the problem and offers a solution. But if the problem didn’t exist, then they wouldn’t need Sanders’ solution. The problem does exist, and it’s caused by greed.

Contra Gordon Gecko, greed is no good. Greed is a cancer, but worse than cancer. Cancer is random and not celebrated, so everyone fights it. Greed, however, is intentional, chosen, and celebrated, so it spreads and consumed everything in its path. Millennials don’t care that millionaires exist or that corporations have made massive profits; what they care about is that these profits haven’t been dispersed to the people who earned them, the workers.

US-corporate-profits-after-tax-1990-to-2013 (1)

US corporate profits after tax have increased dramatically since the early 90s. But when we look at income…


Income has failed to match corporate profits. Which, to a certain extent, who cares if a CEO earns millions of dollars a year? I certainly don’t. If I can pay for the necessary things in life and lead a comfortable middle class lifestyle, not worry about my future, know that one day I can retire, why do I care that the CEO makes millions? But when his millions come at the expense of my paycheck? Well, now I care.

See, millennials don’t care that there are rich people, what they care about is that greed has essentially collapsed our society and economy. We’re just waiting on the other shoe to drop from 2008. If you want to know why millennials are turning to a self-avowed socialist, it’s not because they actually want socialism so much as it is they hate greed and what greed has done to our system. Greed is a horrible thing, a destroyer, and it’s causing the collapse of our nation.

Millennials, right or wrong, support Sanders because no one has supported millennials. Because we’ve allowed greed to run rampant, because we’ve celebrated greed, because we’ve created a system where the greediest people reap all the rewards, we’re looking at the decomposing flesh of what could have been a great nation. Greed is killing our nation and the masses are growing restless. This can either be settled through the wealthy giving up their greed and sharing their wealth voluntarily (ideal situation), or it can be given up through a political revolution by electing a far-left candidate (not ideal). Or, if the political revolution is stopped, one can only wonder when people will become so desperate that they’re willing to take to the streets in massive protests and riots (really not ideal). We came close in 2008, so it’s not difficult to imagine another shake up causing a more violent response.

So stop with the belief that millennials want free stuff. They don’t care about stuff. They just want a future. And if the wealthy business owners and CEOs don’t see fit to give them that future, they’ll vote for anyone who can promise it to them.

The Walsh Awakens: Matt Walsh Stares into the Trump and the Trump Stares Back

trump sewer.jpg

Matt Walsh stares into the abyss, only to find Donald Trump staring back

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. Not because I agree with him – I find his views to be quite dangerous – but because he’s so absurd, so willing to take his thoughts to their conclusions, and there’s that perverse part of me that enjoys watching a crazy man shout in the streets. Nietzsche is to philosophy what Gary Busey is to television; both have staying power even though no one really knows why, both pump out Tweets (or “sayings” for Nietzsche, but they were Tweets before Twitter) that look deep, but are just asinine, yet I’ll be damned if it’s not the most entertaining thing you’ll see.

Which brings me to a very famous and oft misunderstood quote by Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

The point being, the longer you fight against a thing, the more likely you are to become that thing (or like it) or realize you already are like that thing. We sometimes hate something not because we’re actually opposed to it, but because it exposes us for what we are.

And the mentioning of Gary Busey brings me to another point…Donald Trump. Trump, much like Ron Burgundy, is kind of a big deal, especially if you ask him. He’s the bull and the United States is his china shop. What ought to worry most people is that Donald Trump, as of January 2016, has a legitimate chance to become the next president of the United States. One conservative who is worried, shockingly enough, is shock jock Blaze columnist Matt Walsh.

Walsh is baffled (BAFFLED!) that evangelical Christians could possibly support Donald Trump as president. Walsh appropriately points out that Trump is the antithesis of Christian values. I happen to agree with Walsh here as Trump’s positions do contradict everything within Christianity. Of course, that’s not what Walsh meant. Walsh, instead, points to Trump’s personal life and the fact that he’s apparently not “God-fearing” as the reason he’s anti-Trump. In other words, Walsh’s problems are with the guy’s behavior and not his beliefs, and that’s a problem.

It’s inconsistent for Walsh to actually take a stand against Trump because the two are almost eye-to-eye on the policy level. Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal immigrants and ban them from entering the country, just as Matt Walsh wants to deport all illegal immigrants. Donald Trump wants to stop the refugees from entering the country, just like Matt Walsh wants to stop them.  Donald Trump wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth,” which, as you guessed, Matt Walsh wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth.” Donald Trump likes a low minimum wage, as does Matt Walsh. Both agree that we don’t have a police abuse problem in America, and that African Americans aren’t suffering from it, but rather that the African American community is the problem (of course, without putting it in those terms).

And the list really does go on. I tried to find one major area of major disagreement and I came up with nothing. If you take the person of Donald Trump out of the equation and just look at the issues, then Donald Trump is the ideal candidate for Matt Walsh. So why isn’t Walsh wanting to #TrumpTheVote? Because he doesn’t like Trump as a person and he can’t understand why people, evangelical Christians, his readers, like Trump so much.

What Matt Walsh doesn’t realize, or perhaps he realizes and fears, is that Donald J. Trump is the personification of Matt Walsh’s – and by extension the far right’s – beliefs, and they don’t like what they see. After all, he accurately calls Trump “Godless,” and even an atheist would have to agree that Trump is pretty godless. Or, to quote Matt Walsh,

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare [sic] Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Ignoring the idea that not a single president has ever been “God-fearing” (how does one fear God, but not enough to free one’s slaves?), all of this argues against the person of Donald Trump, but not the policies of Donald Trump. But other than the fact that Donald Trump is a disgusting excuse for a human being, what policy differences does he supposedly have with Trump? What values and principles does Trump have that are antithetical to conservatives, but still somehow leads to (allegedly) conservative policy beliefs? How can two antithetical – that is, contradictory – beliefs result in the same policy decisions across the board? It’s one thing to have some overlap (Bernie Sanders, who begins from a non-Christian belief, still holds some policy decisions that overlap old Christian political beliefs), but to have a 1:1 match goes beyond a bit of overlap.

While Communism is the logical conclusion of Capitalism, at their core the two are antithetical, meaning that at a policy level one will have to give way to the other. Christianity and atheism are antithetical beliefs, meaning that if one derives one’s political beliefs from one’s metaphysical beliefs, there will be some differences in the political beliefs. Higher order beliefs will always impact lower order beliefs, meaning anything contradictory at a higher order will lead to contradictory policy beliefs (if consistency exists).

While Matt Walsh serves as a good whipping boy, the fact is there are many evangelical Christians who hold the same policy beliefs as Trump, but are somehow baffled by Trump’s success and abhor him as a person. In essence, they’ve stared into the abyss and found Donald Trump staring back. They’re left with some very unsettling conclusions:

  1. If a godless man such as Donald Trump comes to the same policy beliefs that they, the God-fearing evangelical conservatives have, then perhaps Trump isn’t godless, or perhaps being God-fearing doesn’t really matter in picking the “right” policy. Apparently one can be God-fearing, godless, or anything in between and still come to the correct conclusions in terms of policies
  2. If a godless man such as Donald Trumps holds the same policy beliefs as God-fearing evangelical conservatives, then maybe those policy beliefs don’t actually stem from a Christ-centered belief structure

Either option isn’t fun.

Christians have seemingly ignored the warnings of Francis Schaeffer, who rather than being the cause of the Religious Right (a famous, but absurdly inaccurate belief) actually warned against the rise of the Religious Right. In both A Christian Manifesto and The Great Evangelical Disaster, Schaeffer warns Christians to never become allies with the political process or political parties, to always act as co-belligerents on areas of agreement. Schaeffer was, of course, referencing the issue of abortion, arguing that Christians shouldn’t ally with Republicans in fighting abortion, but should instead stand as co-belligerents on this one issue.

Instead, today we have a form of Christianity that is almost entirely a co-opted wing of the Republican Party. Rather than evangelicals influencing Republicans, the conservatives, or the far right, we have the far right influencing evangelicals (and even some Catholics and Orthodox). Of course, not all conservative evangelicals are enamored with Trump and unlike Matt Walsh, they can stand against Trump with consistency. Dr. Russell Moore has not really argued against the person of Trump, so much as he’s argued against the ideas and policies of Trump, something Matt Walsh and other far right conservatives cannot do without a hint of irony.

Ultimately, to play off the idea of Russell Moore, conservative evangelicals have adopted a golden calf (not that liberal evangelicals are any better). But that golden calf isn’t Donald Trump, it’s the heartless and godless beliefs that are behind Trump. The anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-refugee, pro-nationalistic, pro-authoritarianism beliefs are not Christian and have never been Christian. While Christians have co-opted the world’s beliefs, they’ve done so by damaging the Gospel, not enhancing it. The golden calf in modern America, for conservatives, is conservatism itself. It’s the modern conservatism that comes with an implicit “America First” belief. It’s a political belief that looks to the nation before looking to the world or, more importantly, looking to Christ.

Christianity is a global religion with global ramifications. As a Christian I am called to help all, regardless of the consequences. In the far right there are caveats or complete blocks to who I can help. Donald Trump isn’t a compatible candidate because his personal life is a cesspool of human waste; he’s not a compatible candidate because his beliefs and policies attack the very heart of the Gospel. If your beliefs align with his, even if you hate him, perhaps rather than condemning the darkness of Trump’s heart it’s best to gaze into the abyss of your own. But be warned, the abyss might gaze back.

On Refugees and Justice

Source: The Independent

Source: The Independent

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” – Ezekiel 16:49

How fickle and mutable is the public opinion concerning refugees and those in need. Just a few short months ago, the world stood witness to the body of a little boy, given up by the sea as his family attempted to flee a horrible situation. The sentiment towards helping refugees grew and the Western world seemed willing to spring into action. Faced with one of the greatest crises since WWII and with an enemy just as evil as the Third Reich, the Western world looked ready to unite and help those looking for a life away from constant danger.

And then Paris happened.

Suddenly, nations closed their borders, people abruptly lost their compassion, and the United States – historically a beacon for the sick, the tired, the poor – had 27 governors overstep their authority and say they wouldn’t allow refugees into their states. Never mind that of all the known attackers, every single one (with exception to one) was a French national, not a refugee. Of the one where little is known, he used a fake Syrian passport, meaning we don’t know his status, but most likely wasn’t a refugee.

But fear never lets facts get in the way.

Prudence requires an increase in screenings, in doing all we can to weed out potential terrorists as well as help refugees acclimate to the United States (so as to prevent disruption, resentment, and a reason to join a terrorist group). Justice requires us to seek a way to permanently fix this situation so the refugees can return home without worry of losing their lives. But mercy requires us to bring them away from danger and to a land of relative peace and safety.

Taking in refugees certainly is a complicated matter. After all, the average refugee will undergo some form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (especially for those who came from areas of heavy fighting), has lost family members, and is coming to a part of the world with an entirely different culture, climate, language, and majority religion. Such a scenario will naturally breed a tense situation that, if not handled properly, could cause problems. If we add to it that representatives of local governments (such as governors) are openly hostile to refugees, we have a volatile situation.

As with most things in life, love can overcome hate. It’s amazing how far a smile, simple directions, or just learning how to say “hello” in someone’s language will go. It’s the government’s job to vet the refugees and find places for them to live, but it’s up to us to make them feel welcome. People who feel welcome, who feel like guests or, even better, feel like neighbors are less likely to radicalize or listen to fundamentalists. Imagine the refugee who comes to the US or who is even turned away from the US, with the words of ISIS coming to mind; “They will reject you, they will mistreat you, only under an Islamic Caliphate can you find true happiness and freedom.” Such words begin to ring true when we actually do mistreat and reject refugees. If, however, we welcome them, treat them as neighbors, and do what we can to love them, then the words of ISIS ring hollow and false.

The future of these refugees really does fall on how we, as a community, treat them. If we are open and welcoming then chances are we will gain great citizens and neighbors. If we instead make the mistake of so many before us and reject them, then we will have nothing but trouble in our future.