Summertime and the livin’ is easy, but the parable of the Good Samaritan, coming as it does in summertime, reminds us that there is no vacation from life’s obligations.
But what is the parable about? What is its central message—and to what extent can it, or should it, guide our politics? Is the parable about charity and the obligation to perform charitable works? And what on earth do William Blake and the wicked state have to do with the parable?
The parable is told in answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” The answer, for those who slept in on Good Samaritan Sunday, is: everyone is your neighbor. Okay. But then what?
What is your obligation to your neighbor? And is it possible that that obligation is different in the modern industrial state from what it was in biblical times?
William Blake (1757–1827), an English poet and seminal figure of Romantic Age poetry and visual art, famously said, “He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars; General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer.”
Maybe. But maybe not.
The Heritage Foundation reports that “[u]nquestionably, the free-market system that is rooted in the principles of economic freedom—empowerment of the individual, nondiscrimination, and open competition—has fueled unprecedented economic growth around the world. As the global economy has moved toward greater economic freedom, world GDP has nearly doubled. This progress has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and cut the global poverty rate by two-thirds.”
But how did that happen? How and why did the global economy move toward greater economic freedom? Did people simply wake up one morning and say, “Okay, let’s move to an economic system with more freedom?” Please.
It happened because dozens of think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, promoted free-market ideas, ideas that were then picked up and promoted by far-seeing (and brave) politicians like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
In 1981, the first year of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation’s budget was $8 million. Where did that money come from? We don’t know exactly. A good guess is that in 1981, small donors (those giving less than $1,000) likely accounted for perhaps 25 percent of total revenue. But that’s not nothing. Perhaps 2,000 people gave $1,000 each. And as the Reagan years rolled on, more small donors contributed.
What did those contributors accomplish? They played a role in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty—and that ain’t beanbag.
It also isn’t the “minute particulars” that Blake required. It turns out there’s more than one way to help your neighbor.
A typical sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan often segues into a plea to the congregation to help operate the parish’s soup kitchen. That’s okay, but—there are only so many hours in a day and only so much wealth in a bank account, and the question is, how should those be deployed most efficiently?
A cop-out is to say, “Give a portion to the Heritage Foundation (or a similar charity of your choice) and a portion to the soup kitchen.” But that has the ring of Solomon’s offer to split the baby in half (see 1 Kings 3:16–28).
Who goes to soup kitchens anyway? A reasonable estimate is that roughly 30 to 50 percent of homeless individuals struggle with some form of substance abuse disorder. That is awful! But we must not ignore the culpability of the several states and cities in that wicked awfulness. San Francisco, California, is drug-addict heaven (not capitalized, because it is, of course, actually Hell—capitalized because it is a place, and a place legislators who vote to legalize drugs should at least have to visit before they are allowed elsewhere).
In recent years, cities and towns have taken to legalizing marijuana. Why? Why do you think? As the saying goes in Washington, D.C., “Follow the money.”
What can be done? Simple. Support politicians who oppose legalizing drugs. What could be more neighborly than reducing the availability of drugs to your most vulnerable neighbors?
But if you support those politicians, will you have anything left over to support your parish’s soup kitchen? Maybe not. You can split the baby, of course. But isn’t that copping out?
Yes, the drug addicts who come to your church’s soup kitchen are your neighbors. They’re all our neighbors. But the non-baby-splitting choice is either to feed them—and feed them forever, because they will never get off drugs till they die—or give to organizations and politicians who oppose legalizing the drugs whose primary effects are turning human beings into incompetents and zombies, and often criminals.
One thing we should do is support organizations that help people become, if not rich, at least wealthy enough to have funds left over to give to the poor (if that’s their choice), remembering what Prime Minister Thatcher said: “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions. He had money as well.”
If you do choose to give only to organizations whose mission is to help people become rich, the rector or pastor of your church may not be happy with that choice, but he may get a good sermon out of the issue when next year rolls around and he must once again preach on the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Daniel Oliver is Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the Education and Research Institute and a Director of Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, he was Executive Editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.
Email Daniel Oliver at Daniel.Oliver@TheCandidAmerican.com.