Years, indeed, decades ago I came to Washington along with Ronald Reagan, in whose campaign I served. I worked for the White House Office of Policy Development, headed by his chief economic aide, Martin Anderson. My title, Special Assistant to the President for Policy Development, suggested a somewhat more exalted status than my responsibilities actually entailed.
As a result, I found myself the target of an assortment of business lobbyists and influence peddlers. Alas, I don’t remember any of them defending an open, liberal economy. Of course, they all insisted that they supported free markets—enthusiastically, indeed fervently—just as they had backed Reagan for president. However, they inevitably followed that declaration with an emphatic “but”: their industry was different, their competitors were unfair, their conditions were unique, their needs were special, their requests were reasonable, their support warranted assistance. The bottom line was always a solemn pitch for some profitable financial subsidy or advantageous regulatory privilege. Often, they insisted, the aid required was only temporary, something that could and of course should be ended once the emergency had passed. In short, they demonstrated that capitalists were very often the greatest enemies of capitalism.
Today the presumably greatest capitalists of all, the gaggle of notorious billionaires, have become veritable hate objects among many people, especially avowed democratic socialists and others on the Left. As usual, California leads the way with a proposed special billionaire tax. A state that has long produced and exalted excess, featuring Hollywood and Silicon Valley, will vote in November on a proposal to essentially cannibalize its own.
The savviest advocates of the billionaire levy camouflage their punitive initiative with generous rhetoric. Argued California Rep. Ro Khanna (who I greatly admire for his foreign policy views): “Those who have made billions of dollars through pluck and ingenuity can afford to give back to a state that allowed them to live their dreams. That is progressive, patriotic capitalism.”
However, the rhetoric of most critics is far darker. Some assume that wealth comes only unfairly. Explained Roxanne Roberts of the Washington Post:
a growing resentment that the richest people and corporations have somehow managed to get richer while most working stiffs are just one or two missed paychecks away from a food bank. It’s not a debate about marginal tax rates or the unregulated free market: It’s a gut feeling that the game is rigged, and the middle class and the poor are losing.
Others apparently believe that the mere possession of so much more than others is wicked, even sinful. Insisted New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo: “To me it seemed self-evidently immoral for anyone to possess a billion American dollars in wealth. We could argue where exactly the line was, but a billion was indefensibly beyond it—it’s far more money than anyone needs, even accounting for life’s most excessive lavishes, and far more than anyone might reasonably claim to deserve, however quickly he can ship you toilet paper.”
What’s a Christian to think about the controversy?
Wealth poses a challenge for believers, especially those living in wealthy Western nations like the United States. Contra “the prosperity Gospel,” a terrible heresy that leads many astray, wealth does not signify God’s favor. Surely it is a blessing for many, and pursuing godly lives in practical ways—think of the lessons of the book of Proverbs—increases the likelihood of worldly success. However, wealth is also a persistent idol that easily leads many astray.
Jesus warned of the rich man in one of his many parables “I’ll say to myself, ‘You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:19-21)
Believers are warned not to treat the rich better than the poor: “My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, ‘Here’s a good seat for you,’ but say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:1-4) That Jesus’ brother felt the need to instruct the church on this issue suggests that it was a serious problem in the new church. It remains a problem for the church today.
The challenge is acute when wealth is accumulated through inappropriate means. In biblical times that usually meant using military force or political influence. Today manipulation of an ever more complex, expansive, and intrusive state often generates substantial wealth. One of the most obvious examples today is the first family, which has earned billions of dollars since Donald Trump’s inauguration last year. Although Elon Musk has proved to be a creative entrepreneur, his boost into trillionaire status with SpaceX may have received a dubious regulatory boost. Even if no formal rules were broken, the ability to take advantage of position and power demonstrates an obvious danger of wealth accumulation.
However, material gain also is often an important, positive sign. Not of moral goodness, but of economic acumen, which is what capitalism rewards. Markets care nothing of your inner character and everything of your economic productivity. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk all got rich by creating something that benefited millions—in the case of Gates and Bezos, perhaps billions—of people. In that way they earned their money.
For Christians, of course, the issue doesn’t stop there. Such gains are both reward and responsibility, since we are but stewards of all that is provided by God. The church should both model and preach godly accountability, especially to those most likely to be tempted by the many opportunities created by wealth.
As for billionaires, the most important issue is how they earn their money. There is a big difference between economic entrepreneurship and political gamesmanship, and much effort is needed to protect the former while preventing the latter. Justice requires ensuring opportunity for all, especially the disabled and disadvantaged. Charity requires aiding those who are unable to take advantage of those opportunities before them. Christians should take the lead in both areas.
What of measures like California’s billionaire tax? The issue is prudential, not moral. Nothing about billionaires warrants punishing or exalting them. The mere fact that they presumably could afford to pay more does not mean they should pay more. However, even if they have gained their money legitimately, they shouldn’t necessarily be shielded from higher exactions. My policy inclination is against penalizing productive people and targeting success with higher levies. However, that is a practical and philosophical preference, not a theological dictate.
James invited us to seek wisdom from God, which “is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” (James 3:17) We all should wish to be filled with such a heavenly elixir, especially when entering today’s bitterly divided political battlefield to debate the status of billionaires and so much more.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics and The Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology.
More from IRD:
Christians for Capitalism archives
No comments yet
Leave a Reply