The GOP doesn’t need to lose the label of “Party of the Rich”

posted at 5:01 pm on July 27, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

I’m not sure exactly where Ross Douthat was going with this editorial piece in the New York Times this weekend, but it has something to do with how fast both parties should be running away from their association with “the rich” before the next elections. Now, I can understand the dangers and pitfalls of populism in American politics, and no serious party should dismiss them without consideration. Ross is correct in implying that perception on matters of wealth and opportunity and how they intersect with government policy can be a powerful talisman in the hands of a skilled politician. But this still gives me pause.

But if the G.O.P. fully embraces the ideas its younger-generation leaders are pursuing, the Democrats could suddenly find themselves in a difficult spot. Liberals can theoretically outbid a limited-government populism, yes — but given the fiscal picture, they would need to raise taxes significantly to do so, alienating their own donors, the middle class or both. And the immediate liberal critique of Ryan’s new plan — that it’s too paternalistic, too focused on pushing welfare recipients to work — harkened back to debates that the Democratic Party used to lose.

Meanwhile, Obama-era liberalism has grown dangerously comfortable with big business-big government partnerships. It’s a bad sign when even the tribune of left-wing populism, Elizabeth Warren, feels obliged to defend, against libertarian populist attacks, an icon of crony capitalism like the Export-Import Bank.

So there’s a scenario — still unlikely, but much more plausible than a year ago — in which the pattern of 2012 could be reversed: A deepening association with big money and big business could suddenly become an albatross for Democrats, and the Republicans could finally — and deservedly — shake their identity as a party that cares only about the rich.

The message which incorrectly underpins this entire argument is the concept of conservatives and capitalists as people who care only about the rich. That’s a big club which liberals frequently wield with great success against fiscal conservatives, but that represents a victory for clever marketing and plying the fears of uncertain workers rather than a reflection of the truth. I don’t want to go off on some deep dive into Vox-style “explanatory journalism” here, but taking the wrong lesson away from the cautionary tale Douthat tells is a trap, not a solution.

If conservative policy were actually only interested in benefiting rich, corporate benefactors at the expense of the poor and the working class, it would shrivel up and disappear in a single election cycle. Unfortunately, muddled messaging allows populists to paint precisely that picture and run away with some victories. But the underlying truth is a much more appealing story when properly defined and it’s a positive message for people in every economic niche. You see, Republicans should be the party of the rich. But that also includes those who also aspire and work to become rich. The wealthy and successful build the structure for others to participate and follow the ladder upward. The government, by contrast, collects the earned rewards of others and redistributes them while building no structure for others to climb. That’s the message which voters need to be made to understand.

To modify a line from AC/DC… For those about to prosper, we salute you.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You see, Republicans should be the party of the rich. But that also includes those who also aspire and work to become rich. The wealthy and successful build the structure for others to participate and follow the ladder upward.

Too many people in the country believe that the game is rigged against them, that they will never be rich (and aren’t willing to work toward such a goal). Therefore, they’d rather vote for their own largess rather than celebrate anyone else’s prospering.

Alien on July 27, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Rich is a state of mind and an attitude, not the capacity of a bank account or the size of various talismans.

platypus on July 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM

care only about the rich. That’s a big club which liberals frequently wield with great success against fiscal conservatives, but that represents a victory for clever marketing and plying the fears of uncertain workers rather than a reflection of the truth.

So how does amnesty help the average worker? I know how it helps the Chamber Of Commerce. I know it isn’t good for Republican chances at the polls, so why again is the GOP so intent on amnesty?

sharrukin on July 27, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Rich is a state of mind and an attitude, not the capacity of a bank account or the size of various talismans.

platypus on July 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM

I wish you had been my ex-wife’s attorney!!

jake-the-goose on July 27, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Too many people in the country believe that the game is rigged against them, that they will never be rich (and aren’t willing to work toward such a goal). Therefore, they’d rather vote for their own largess rather than celebrate anyone else’s prospering.

Alien on July 27, 2014 at 5:07 PM

That’s all thanks to “progressive” propaganda.

There are countless stories of people who came here with nothing, worked hard and became successful. “Progressives” are on the verge of taking that all away. The more “progressive” policies instituted, the harder it will be for people to make something of themselves.

The middle class is shrinking, and dependency is growing. Why work hard to make yourself successful when you can survive for free?

A new “progressive” aristocracy is on the horizon … the door to individual success without connections in the new aristocracy is closing.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Now, I can understand the dangers and pitfalls of populism in American politics

But not the strengths nor the desires of the American people for a populist president?

The message which incorrectly underpins this entire argument is the concept of conservatives and capitalists as people who care only about the rich. That’s a big club which liberals frequently wield with great success against fiscal conservatives, but that represents a victory for clever marketing and plying the fears of uncertain workers rather than a reflection of the truth.

Makers vs takers. The 47%. I don’t care about the very poor. That’s not clever marketing by Democrats. Those are self-inflicted wounds by Republicans.

If conservative policy were actually only interested in benefiting rich, corporate benefactors at the expense of the poor and the working class, it would shrivel up and disappear in a single election cycle.

Or it would stick around as a zombie party propped up by corporate backers like the Chamber of Commerce.

Unfortunately, muddled messaging allows populists to paint precisely that picture and run away with some victories.

No, being in touch with the electorate allows populists to win victories. On the left, supporting collective bargaining for unions and raising the minimum wage, and on the right, animosity towards illegal immigration, towards bailouts for banks, and towards the government for mandating that we all directly subsidize health insurance companies through the individual mandate — all of these are powerful, populist themes that are not baseless, but strike a chord with the American people.

see, Republicans should be the party of the rich.

I’d rather see it identify with a broad segment of the American people. I’d rather see it call itself the party of the working man and the party of the middle class. Proudly proclaiming an association with the rich, who are known to look down upon the lower classes and be out of touch with the masses is a bad idea. Furthermore, not all wealth is indicative of success, and not all riches are earned, making the label of “party of the rich” anything but one that’s going to elicit wide admiration.

Stoic Patriot on July 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Yeah, we don’t want to be blatantly the “party of rich.” Insane. Or the party of Chamber of Commerce amnesty shills like Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, who voted for Rubio’s amnesty. Alexander’s primary is on August 7th. Alexander’s opponent, Joe Carr, just this week has gained the support of Sarah Palin, and just before that: Laura Ingraham. Make sure we defeat the climate change pushing amnesty shill: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/23/Tea-Partys-Joe-Carr-Looks-to-Ride-Anti-Amnesty-Wave-Past-Lamar-Alexander

anotherJoe on July 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM

“The party of success” might be a better slogan.

WestVirginiaRebel on July 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM

The idea that the GOP might one day actually stand for something is quite interesting and novel.

Cicero43 on July 27, 2014 at 5:38 PM

So how does amnesty help the average worker? I know how it helps the Chamber Of Commerce. I know it isn’t good for Republican chances at the polls, so why again is the GOP so intent on amnesty?

sharrukin on July 27, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Because all too much they, unlike say the Tea Party, are the party of the rich.

VorDaj on July 27, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Because all too much they, unlike say the Tea Party, are the party of the rich.

VorDaj on July 27, 2014 at 5:38 PM

That does seem to be the most obvious and logical reason for their self-destructive support for amnesty.

sharrukin on July 27, 2014 at 5:40 PM

They don’t need to lose it, but they do need to start going after the Democrats when they say it. I can’t believe the Republicans are allowing Tom Steyer to get away with telling the Democrats if they vote a certain way on an issue, he’ll spend $100 million on their campaigns. Harry Reid attacks the Koch Brothers and it’s crickets from the Republicans. Tom Steyer goes out there flashing money around to influence legislation, crickets from the Republicans. Where is the leadership in the Republican Party?

bflat879 on July 27, 2014 at 5:41 PM

I know this is a slow Sunday afternoon…but really. This has already been litigated. The rich have been co-opted by the left…it is a joint venture now.

GOPe still claim to be the Party of Business…which is funny as he!! because Business is happy to support the Left if need be. Regulatory capture is a business strategy after all.

These are silly little stratagems that conservatives bicker about to avoid talking about the massive failure of the GOP to serve the interests of the conservative world view. Facing relentless attacks and ruthless operatives and a monolithic press, the GOP decided some time ago to fold.

I used to think that David Stockman was a crank, and something of a saboteur…sadly, I’ve come to agree with him. The GOP is totally complicit in the leftist takeover of the county

r keller on July 27, 2014 at 5:41 PM

“The party of success” might be a better slogan.

WestVirginiaRebel on July 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM

That’s good.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 5:43 PM

“The party of success” might be a better slogan.

WestVirginiaRebel on July 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM

.
That’s good.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 5:43 PM

.
Dittos.
.
So, how soon do any of us think the GOP will adopt this idea ?

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 5:47 PM

HillBilly is a high-end 1%er. Make the old cow own that title and watch the fireworks.

Ogabe on July 27, 2014 at 5:48 PM

It’s not America’s rich people that make you work a third of the year just to support their lavish spending habits.

RBMN on July 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Who gives a flying rat’s patootie what Douthat thinks?

Adjoran on July 27, 2014 at 6:01 PM

HillBilly is a high-end 1%er. Make the old cow own that title and watch the fireworks.

Ogabe on July 27, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Hillary is much wealthier than the plain old 1%. She’s more like the 1% of the 1%, or the .01% in terms of wealth.

Hillary Clinton Has Made at Least $12 Million Since Leaving the State Department 16 Months Ago

We need to hang that on her like an anchor around her stringy neck. Cackle-cackle.

slickwillie2001 on July 27, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Actually, both are parties of the rich.

The rank and file of the GOP is opposed to amnesty. Yet, Republicans are likely to support it because the donor class (e.g. Sheldon Adelson, Koch Bros., etc.) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want it.

The Chamber of Commerce has spent $23 million to date against conservatives, many of whom opposed amnesty. And, the primary season isn’t over yet.

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 6:04 PM

When have you ever heard the GOP attack Steyer, or better yet George Soros? FNC also is in the game as they have done little. Imagine a documentary on Soros starting with ratting on his fellow Jews to the Nazis as a teen.

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 6:07 PM

The only ones who are richer under obama are the 1%rs, including the obamas.

Occupiers, unite!!!

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 6:07 PM

The people who think being rich is about “winning Life’s lottery” are the ones who keep making bad choices.

formwiz on July 27, 2014 at 6:11 PM

I would love to see some hard-hitting ads painting HillBilly as a 1%er. Start early and make her own it. Do it before the Dimbos use it against whoever the RNC annoints as the next Great White Hope.

Ogabe on July 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Say what you want about Dems. At least they don’t backstab their base, as opposed to the Bush Family, McCain, Ryan, Rubio, Flake, Graham, Cornyn, Barbour, etc.

Of course, the Democrats major donors are aligned with the party rank and file (as opposed to the GOP whose donors’ goals often run counter to the rank and file).

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I would love to see some hard-hitting ads painting HillBilly as a 1%er. Start early and make her own it. Do it before the Dimbos use it against whoever the RNC annoints as the next Great White Hope.

Ogabe on July 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM

And then list her accomplishments … 15 seconds of silence.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 6:20 PM

The reality is that despite the rhetoric and spin, the Dems with their crony capitalism are now the party of big business. The holding down of the entreprenuerial energy of small business start-ups is in the interest of Dems that milk contributions from big businesses and their unions. Big business contributes to the Dems to get regulations and special breaks that prevent competition from small businesses that tend to not have unions. The National Federation of Independent Business has the agenda of the entrepreneur. That is why they are at war with the Dems while big business is not.

The GOP needs to inspire the voters with a desire to have a growing economy that provides real opportunity for themselves and their children. The Dems offer handouts to individuals and favored businesses with no future beyond dependency. The GOP can offer something much better. Personal growth, independence and a real rather than artificial sense of self worth and businesses that do not depend on government subsidies for growth. Those subsidies come with poisonous strings that hamstring our economy.

KW64 on July 27, 2014 at 6:35 PM

“The government, by contrast, collects the earned rewards of others and redistributes them while building no structure for others to climb.”

Very well stated, Noah.

Recon5 on July 27, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Part of the problem is that people define ‘rich’ subjectively.

After all, there’s Zuckerburg ‘rich’, there’s Gates and Buffet ‘rich’, there’s just barely a billionaire ‘rich’, there’s multi-millionaire ‘rich’, barely a millionaire rich, and then what many simply call ‘comfortable’ before we even get to what is generally defined as ‘middle class’ income and wealth accumulation.

Politicians use the subjective nature of the definition to their advantage, whether they’re selling ‘rich’ as a good thing, or casting it as the root of all evil.

thatsafactjack on July 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM

If conservative policy were actually only interested in benefiting rich, corporate benefactors at the expense of the poor and the working class, it would shrivel up and disappear in a single election cycle.

So…Jazz actually believes we should trust election results in a lesser of two evils party system actually proves that the party’s genuinely represent more than the minority who finances their campaigns. While this is dumb on its face, it’s particularly dumb since Jazz, presumably, subscribes to belief in the free market. For example on RTW, Jazz argues that corporations choose states where laws favor them. Since politicians (given their employees and expenditures) operate as corporations, why can’t Jazz et al figure out that they too will follow the money? The evidence is everywhere. They just refuse to accept it.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I’ve never understood why people are so “money is evil!!!” I am not rich, by any means, but I know that my financial situation is solely my responsibility.

The GOP needs to focus on motivating people to get the American Dream with job creation, etc…. And to stop apologizing for being cool with money.

mjk on July 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Politicians use the subjective nature of the definition to their advantage, whether they’re selling ‘rich’ as a good thing, or casting it as the root of all evil.

thatsafactjack on July 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM

250,000, 25 million, 2.5 billion, what’s the difference? They’re all screwing you!!/

thebrokenrattle on July 27, 2014 at 8:47 PM

thatsafactjack on July 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM

+1. And there are people who think anyone with six-figures is rich. A few I know think 75K/year is wealthy, but they are from very poor backgrounds.

DevilishSoda on July 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM

If the numbers about the reduction in household wealth are at all correct, it is a lot harder to be rich these days.

Plus, there are a lot of young people who are simply thinking differently about success, The WWII generation could plot their lives on the size of their homes and the car they drove. A lot of young people don’t see trading up from a Buick to a Caddie as anything they care about.

bobs1196 on July 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

The betrayals of the chamber of commerce etc made a populist backlash unavoidable.

You can either ride the wave or get swept aside.

Karmashock on July 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

You can either ride the wave or get swept aside.

Karmashock on July 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Soaking the rich just gets everyone wet.

thebrokenrattle on July 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Soaking the rich just gets everyone wet.

thebrokenrattle on July 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

It’s not about soaking the rich. Its about ending monopolies, ending subsidies, helping small businesses, deregulation, and providing jobs instead of corporate welfare.

sharrukin on July 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM

The main problem I have with Jazz’ analysis is that the Romney campaign felt as if it focused almost exclusively on small business owners looking to prosper. I don’t want to be a small business man or a businessman at all. So if the GOP aims at those wanting to get rich, it’d better aim the message at people wanting to do well rather than to aim at people with a distinct entrepreneurial spirit. They are important but we must cast our net wider. “I built that, not govt” is good, but “I succeeded in life because govt stopped hampering my life” is better. I don’t want to build a business. Just a career. And I don’t want government taking my hard earned paycheck or putting up roadblocks to advancing. That, I think, is what Jazz means. If he’s thinking of the small business shtick, then I’m with Ross more than Romney.

darii on July 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Republicans should be the party of the rich. But that also includes those who also aspire and work to become rich. The wealthy and successful build the structure for others to participate and follow the ladder upward. The government, by contrast, collects the earned rewards of others and redistributes them while building no structure for others to climb. That’s the message which voters need to be made to understand.

Very true.

sohumm on July 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM

You can either ride the wave or get swept aside.

Karmashock on July 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

What most Americans likely object to is the notion of calcified wealth or a permanent class structure in America which does seem to be happening and is a continuing hallmark of the Great Recession. Social mobility depends on mobile and changing capital wealth. As long as Republicans are the party of fiscal sanity and wealth creation they should have no problem being associated with wealthy people. If they are perceived as having policies which are seen as exclusively promoting more wealth for those already wealthy, they will have problems.

There is no single wave as you suggest. There are many waves from different sides and thus far they have canceled each other out. Frankly, the role money plays in US politics ensures that the wealthy will not face your wave and anyway… they own the high ground in the economy. Any populist wave will likely harm ordinary people rather than the ‘target’ class.

lexhamfox on July 28, 2014 at 12:29 AM

darii on July 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM

It was a counterreaction to Obama’s reaction to Warren’s fiery populist speech in her home. Both reactions were wrong. Americans benefit from having the chance to build our own businesses but not everyone can do that, obviously. People can get rich by working and using thrift. Another road to wealth is, as you said, gov’t getting out of the paycheck and the workplace. Regular people will appreciate the long-term appeal of improving their lot rather than pitting workers vs management or the goofy percentage class warfare things (99%, 47%).

thebrokenrattle on July 28, 2014 at 12:40 AM

The wealthy and successful build the structure for others to participate and follow the ladder upward.

Yeah, until those who built the structure buy out their competitors or use their connections in government to destroy their competition….so much for the “ladder”. This part of Capitalism is the part that destroys free enterprise competition. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s just the way it is.

We on the right tend to be highly impressed by wealth. To me, it’s important to know how they got there. Al Capone and John Gotti were rich, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

To those who are wealthy, it doesn’t matter one bit how they got there. All that counts is the wealth.

I don’t think free enterprise Capitalism is really working as either a political ideology or as some kind of religious belief.

Wealth is part real deal innovation and hard work, part Ponzi schemes, part cronyism, and part theft.

The only reason Socialism is still around is because of the crooks who have ruined free enterprise Capitalism-it wasn’t Socialism that ruined it…but it’s probably Socialism that will be all we have left down the road.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

I don’t think free enterprise Capitalism is really working as either a political ideology or as some kind of religious belief.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

That touches on a major problem that the right’s pundits are having. They’re engaged in the open worship of wealth and the wealthy. Although I’m an atheist, there is a Biblical verse that’s instructive here:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

Stoic Patriot on July 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

It is the love of money as an object that is evil.

Money is just the means to keep track of how much value is being created and when more money is added in than their is wealth, there is a devaluation of wealth via money: politics seeks to destroy actual wealth via devaluation of the means of keeping track of it.

To create wealth means finding something that people need, making it at a competitive price, taking the value added via the production and utilizing it to expand production so that you can offer more necessary goods to more people at a lower cost, thus making wealth flexible at the LOW END so that the poor are better able to get along in life.

When those who objectify money want to tell us what to do with our wealth, then I have a problem especially if government is the means to do it as government is only a necessary evil. When you give it both carrot and stick to apply to society it becomes a true evil. Those who objectify money and want to ‘spread the wealth around’ utilize government to do that and, by definition, are perpetrators of evil.

I don’t want the wealth spread around as that is impossible to do amongst free men. By subjective application of valuation there will always be an unequal distribution of wealth and money, yet the wealth of a poor man to lead a good life is subjectively as good to the poor man as the greatest of mansions to those who objectify money. Both lead a good life, what does it matter how much money they have?

The rich who objectify money get into politics as they understand their lack of morals and ethics, and hold a dim view of others as they have a dim view of themselves. They project upon all mankind their greed and think it is good to take wealth from those who are just a little better off and hand it to those less well off, while suffering nearly none of the consequences themselves as they protect themselves via politics and government from the onerous duties they impose on others.

It is time for this ‘rich’ class of elites to get cut off from the controls of government not by making laws, but by reducing the size, scope and power of government so that men can learn to value their own lives and seek their happiness without the ‘help’ of evil to force them to pay to government or to devalue the hard won work of the poor to make their own headway in life.

You want to make the rich less powerful in the Nation? Reduce the size of government and put a high tax on PAID lobbyists who reflect the interest of those who have a money fetish and wish to make government their servant. Regular individuals and groups formed voluntarily can’t be taxed as they are not paying for the privilege of continually addressing government and only want grievances redressed by same.

Those seeking to chisel money out of the people to win favor and gain via legislation… they can pay for the privilege… probably north of 90% in taxation. Now if the companies and money chasers just want to gather on their own and not pay OTHERS to lobby FOR THEM, then I am absolutely fine with that. Speak up on your own, you don’t need some agency to do it for you. That is what America is all about, after all, redressing government on your own and with your fellow man freely and not using the power of mere money to try and craft government to YOUR liking at the EXPENSE of OTHERS.

Mind you getting the cronies our of the system is the hard part. Make it so government can’t suit their needs and only does the very little it is given to do, and then they have little reason to lobby government at the federal level. They can concentrate on screwing up their States, instead, just as it should be so that people take a local interest in just how badly their government is trying not to work for the people.

ajacksonian on July 28, 2014 at 7:20 AM

Two things the conservatives (GOP???) need to pound:

1. The freaking PRICES at the freaking GROCERY stores..

2. The “business-friendly” zones that NYS is advertising. We should call them “REPUBLICAN business zones”. The Dems are admitting that the republican lower tax philosophy is what makes business prosper.

And yet, the GOP is too busy fighting the Tea Party. way to go.

stenwin77 on July 28, 2014 at 7:51 AM

So…Jazz actually believes we should trust election results in a lesser of two evils party system actually proves that the party’s genuinely represent more than the minority who finances their campaigns.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I’m Sorry…I just couldn’t get beyond the ‘English as a Third Language’ syntax and punctuation.

Ricard on July 28, 2014 at 9:09 AM

They’re engaged in the open worship of wealth and the wealthy. Although I’m an atheist, there is a Biblical verse that’s instructive here:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

Stoic Patriot on July 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

..so…why was Jesus so upset with what was going on here?

Ricard on July 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

..so…why was Jesus so upset with what was going on here?

Ricard on July 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

By elevating money above God, they replaced the focus of their worship, and in so doing, defiled the temple. Rather than it being a place for venerating God, they instead made it a marketplace where they could pursue their own material interests.

Stoic Patriot on July 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM

..so…why was Jesus so upset with what was going on here?

Ricard on July 28, 2014 at 9:12 AM

By elevating money above God, they replaced the focus of their worship, and in so doing, defiled the temple. Rather than it being a place for venerating God, they instead made it a marketplace where they could pursue their own material interests.

Stoic Patriot on July 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM

You’re quite correct, but what was it they were doing that elevated money above God? The operators of the temple were actively cheating those who came to worship by creating a corrupt government monopoly system that charged extreme fees and exchange rates to those who simply were trying to do what they were supposed to do. I.e., those in control of the rules (the governing) were exploiting those who had to follow the rules (the governed) to their own power and benefit.

For our own secular purposes this demonstrates why government power must be limited and divided, and ‘We the People’ cannot depend on governing officials to act unselfishly, but must continually press for limited government. Unfortunately, we have not been requiring that of our elected representatives much.

Ricard on July 28, 2014 at 9:37 AM