The Fiscal Cliff: A Moral Issue

According to Jim Wallis (Christian author and CEO of Sojourners) discussions about the Fiscal Cliff pivot on a moral question: Should we compromise the right of those blessed with ample money to keep their earnings? Should we ask the comfortable to take on increased responsibility for the “common” people.

We could treat the "fiscal cliff” deadline as an economic crisis; statistical speculations are bounced back and forth by the debaters. But with economic predictions as anyone’s guess , and with Congress and the President as the practical determiners of what to do, the issue has become a standoff between Republicans and Democrats. “Politics” will decide it. Wallis’ concern is lost in the muddle, even if it was thought worthy by anyone to begin with.

Should not we take our stand on life’s important matters on moral grounds first? Actually, I guess we are doing this whether we know it or not. As we fight over the politics of the fiscal cliff crisis, we are marking our morality, even though we don’t talk in these terms. The politicians will do what they do and the impact will be either moral or immoral. The great moral leader, Jesus, cleared the air on this. As Wallis puts it, “Jesus said how we respond to the least of these is indicative of how we respond to him. That's because the poor and vulnerable are the monitors of how everybody else will ultimately be treated. History shows how quickly and easily human dignity can be compromised by economic and political powers -- and protecting the most vulnerable is the only way to safeguard us all."

The comeback of the “Christian right” seems to be that by helping the helpless we are encouraging helplessness, we are undermining character strength by giving handouts. Jesus did not seem to be worried about this. Was he too gullible and mushy hearted? Let’s get our moral priorities straight first and deal with secondary effects as they arise (politicians are experienced at this kind of fuddling). If we want politics as our lodestar we can niftily confuse the matter by arguing how America is a “Christian” nation, as is shown signally by Jefferson, that fine Christian (?) slaveowner, who spoke of God-given inalienable rights, the most important of which is our right to make money as the fruit of God’s blessing, and keep it untouched by the unentitled.

Amidst the inflamatory talk about what is “fair” in tax assessments we miss the notion that “fair” is not an accurate determiner of what is “moral.” Fairness is not a basic moral principle. Morality goes well beyond that. “Fairness” applied to “individual rights” is a corruptible measuring tool and lures Christians into thinking that it is moral to deny multiple millions affordable health care. How to provide it may be a “political” question; whether to provide it is not. Letting HMOs incessantly gouge consumers, to some may be good Christian capitalism, but it is neither moral nor good responsible economics. The arithmetic of the political discussion over the fiscal cliff has provided no sure enlightenment. As Wallis points out, “Our principles won't survive unless we ‘find the arithmetic’ to protect the poor and include the vulnerable in these crucial decisions about the nation's fiscal soul. And that moral arithmetic must ultimately be presented to the American people in clear moral values choices."

Is Christ-like morality too “progressive” for “Christian” America?

Doug Good

I understand that Wallis has a forthcoming book (early 2013) On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn't Learned about Serving the Common Good.