After the Democrat debates last night in South Carolina, it seems perfectly clear that the real issue is the Democrat way of thinking. Never mind Hussein (may his name be changed) and the abject and denigrating race issue he creates; never mind Hillary and the writhing gender issue she inevitably demands; and never mind the "class struggle" Edwards is accused of dramatizing. Just what exactly is at the root of the modern Democrat philosophy of government? Is this something that we should leave to the professional conservative talk show hosts and their intentional dramatizations? Is this a rhetorical contest, or are their clear, basic principles that must be grasped?

John Edwards in fact, more than the others, crystalizes the principle stereotype of the Democrat party: attention to the poor. Because of his own personal experience, Edwards articulates this more clearly than the others. It isn't out of some half-baked (or micro-waved) Communist ideology like it is in Hillary Clinton. It isn't an academic theory. It's not validated or vindicated by race--in the case of Hussein (may his name be changed) not even legitimate, since his background is not American Negro. Edwards platform is simple, genuine, and maybe even a little naive. He appears innocent in his cause. Not manipulative.

John Edwards, the purist Democrat.

And the cause? The poor. This is surely a legitimate cause. In a Judeo-Christian culture, it cannot be wrong or irrelevant. The issue is how to go about addressing it. Are the Democrats correct in their approach? Is it the government's responsibility to provide everyone a house, a Cadillac, and a college education? Let's look at this objectively.

Said Jesus: "Ye have the poor always with you." (Matthew 26:11.) Of course, He was quoting the Torah, as always. "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore, I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." (Deuteronomy 15:11.) And Solomon remarked: "The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established forever. (Proverbs 29:14.)

First of all, the scripture do not condemn poverty itself. There is nothing immoral or unacceptable, to the Creator, about being poor, in and of itself. Indeed, "The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all." (Proverbs 22:2.) Moreover, in this state of affairs, no one is blamed for poverty, including those that are not poor. "If thy brother be waxen poor," is the condition stated in Leviticus 25:25. No one is responsible. It is a liability of life. There is no promise that poverty shall disappear from society. On the contrary, it is here forever, in this life.

It is abundantly clear, however, that the poor are to be tended to by those who are better off. This is dramatically emphasized in the Torah, and in the New Testament as well. The sociological issue is not poverty, but how poverty is to be dealt with. The Torah (Old Testament) seems to render the responsibility to individual initiative, in principle. (True, Solomon, as king, seems to have suggested that is can be a government function to deal with poverty of the people, though he may have meant this as advice to a king as an individual.)

Certainly, in the New Testament, James faults the rich for oppression of the poor. (James 5:4.) Now, this is something else. The poor would have been poor whether the rich oppressed them or not, but, oppression is indeed an evil. "Behold the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the lord of saboath." It is a matter of wages, essentially. In this sense, the poor are oppressed because they are intentionally under-paid. They are being robbed. We cannot say they were made poor, but only that they are intentionally kept poor. (Now, the Marxist anti-capitalist position is that profit is unpaid labor. But, that materialist-based approach to "equality" only makes the matter one of degrees--degrees which cannot ever be made equal. This is why Communism results in "equal" poverty of the people, and untold wealth of the fewest possible leaders. Communism is a very false, deceptive, and nasty solution, indeed.)

Still, care for the poor is a matter of sociological logistics. There are three dimensions here: 1) the government; 2) the individual; and 3) NGO's, that is, organizations, which would include churches and charities. This appears to be the case in modern America, certainly. Democrats obviously believe the government has the reponsibility to care for the poor. Edwards not only believes that, but targets the corporations as "oppressors." It is difficult to see how the entire Christian population of America is not 100% behind John Edwards on that one. Even so, the Biblical injunction seems to rest on the individual to care for the poor, not the government--no matter who's oppressing the poor.

The interesting sociological phenomenon in our modern American society is the fact that people, rich or poor, can vote. The poor are going to automatically vote for themselves, for relief. "Largess," is it was allegedly called by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, the late 18th century Scottish journalist, historian, and professor, in his alleged work, The Fall of the Athenian Republic:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

(Who cares who wrote this? It's the truth!) And as Frederick Bastiat wrote in The Law (1850),

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

This is apparently what the American Democrat Party means--to share in lawful plunder. The people will vote for whomever promises to protect their right to riches, in the case of those who have riches already, or their right to have more, as in the case of the poor. The poor will vote for whomever will promise to give them "largess," or "legal plunder" from others.

Thus, the very process of political freedom, of elections, of voting itself, is made to serve the greed of the poor, not simply their needs. (The 10th Commandment, Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet" does not exempt the poor.) Voting imperils the government! Voting usurps the rights of the individual to care for the poor, or at least impedes it. Voting obfuscates the relationships between those who have and those who have less. Voting cripples spirituality. Voting displaces the church.

Ah, the church. The church is supposed to care for the poor--at least those within it's communion. The countrymen should care for their own countrymen. And if you're a globalist, then the world should care for itself--all included. And then we're on to one world government--something that even so-called conservative Republicans are not shy about these days.

It seems that the common conservative talk show jargon has missed all this. Their rhetoric about personal responsibiliy and initiative as the remedy for poverty misses both real conservatism and Christianity. Success stories and success forumals are themselves marketed, of course, and many people in America feel they have prospered due to their own initaitives. Not to argue that in the slightest, but we must be honest here. Success stories are irrelevant to the issue of who has reponsibility toward the poor. Clearly, the Bible says those who have are responsible to care for those who have less. Conservatives cripple their cause when they miss, evade, or otherwise deny this issue of the poor. The conservatives, in their dramatic moral rhetoric, blame the poor for being poor. This simply isn't the correct angle. This denies the Biblical declarations.

But, again, the issue is not who, or even what, is responsible for making the poor poor. The issue is how to relate to the poor. They are not to be taken advantage of, not to be oppressed, and not to be sinned against because they are defenseless. (Yes, they can vote, therefore they are a dangerous element--dangerous because they can corrupt and confuse issues.) In the end, it seems more like a spiritual issue, something that is solved in the heart, not at the voting booth. Said Solomon of the poor and their property rights (Proverbs 23:10,11):

Remove not the ancient landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless: For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.

This is the spirit. It is a grand spirit. This is the true foundation of relationships between the strong and the weak. If you take advantage of the weak, you will have God to deal with, in one way or another, sooner or later. Don't defraud the poor, don't steal from them, don't take what's theirs. You're not obligated to make them rich, but you damned sure better not abuse them. This is too simple to be misunderstood.

Our problem is, the beggars can vote! They'll take from you what's yours! That's the Democrat way.