Jesus and Bernie Sanders

This one is going to be a doozy, so strap yourselves in if you want to take this ride.

I've seen multiple articles surface in the last few weeks attempting to explore the theological angles of economic redistribution, often couched within the framing question, "Was Jesus a Socialist?"  In some cases, these articles are explicitly aimed at Bernie Sanders and seem intended to provide a religious framework to justify Republican disdain for social safety nets.  After reading the third one today and being slapped in the face by fallacy after fallacy, I've reached the breaking point and I'm now obliged to explain why all of these "Jesus wasn't a socialist" articles are totally misguided.

First, the Argument: It's couched in many different scriptural references depending on which particular author you read, but it boils down to this:

1. Socialism, as an organizing principles for governments, intends to abolish private property and redistribute wealth until everyone is "equal".  Like all governments, socialist governments will accomplish this through forceful coercion.
2. Jesus wants to help the less fortunate willingly, out of the goodness of our hearts, not at gunpoint or under threat of sanction.

And... that's it.  In each of the arguments I've read, that's as far as it goes.  Besides a few glaring internal contradictions to the argument itself, the whole thing is nonsensical because of a tremendous disconnect between its first and second premise.

The main problem is that while it's true that Jesus doesn't ever say in the Bible that governments should redistribute wealth to help the poor, he doesn't say ANYTHING about what governments should or shouldn't do.  Jesus doesn't say governments should punish murderers or thieves or rapists.  Does that mean we should oppose laws designed to deter rape and murder because we should just not do those things out of the goodness of our hearts, rather than being coerced?  I don't know how Jesus might feel about that, but I, for one, don't want to live in that country.

If we look deeper into the context of this discussion, the Biblical argument further unravels.  For one thing, take a look at the first premise of the argument - it conflates certain totalistic interpretations of socialism (which, in fact, should be understood as a transitional state towards communism, and NOT a state with zero private property, but I digress) with social safety net programs in the United States.  It doesn't even make sense to imagine a world where private property doesn't exist and at the same time is re-distributed.  If private property is abolished, then no one has private property.  There's no re-distributing, because that would imply that people could receive and then take ownership of those distributions, which would require the existence of private property.

More importantly, there is no one on the political stage in the United States, including Bernie Sanders, who is advocating for the abolition of private property - at least not any more so than we already accept.  Bernie would probably raise taxes on certain segments of society to pay for more robust social safety nets - but this isn't an ideologically new proposal.  Bernie's not a socialist in the sense that these articles imply any more than any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates.  None of them is interested in abolishing taxation, nor the collective ownership of certain aspects of society, like public lands, roads, certain infrastructure, and so on.  These anti-socialist polemics couched in religious language set up a Straw Man.  You will see multiple scriptural references supporting the existence of private property, contracts, and so on.  That's all fine.  It has nothing to do with social safety nets (unless, again, you embrace the absolute position the private property is an absolute right, in which case, you're an anarchist, literally).

If you're looking for Biblical guidance on the role of government and how it relates to the individual ethical decisions of the people, here's a passage from Romans 13:

"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

I'm no Biblical scholar, but the only reasonable interpretation I can see to the passage above is that, while we can hope that each individual will make proper moral decisions, government is necessary to intervene when people don't make moral decisions.  We can hope that people who possess much will do the right thing and give charitably to the poor, but the role government is to step in and punish when that doesn't happen.

If you prefer an Old Testament rationale, look the the story of the subjugation of the Hebrews by the Babylonians.  Why were God's chosen people subjected to this tyranny?  Because they didn't follow the word of God.  If we can't live as a national community that fulfills the aspirations of Christian Ethics, we need a coercive state to make that happen.

Stay tuned tomorrow for Part II: An analysis of the social and psychological origins of the "Jesus isn't a socialist" lines of argument.