I read Dickens’ classic A Christmas Carol for the first time the other day (my wife confessed she hadn’t read it before, either). I was struck by several things that liberals and leftists would not like. For example, there is the heavy emphasis on Christmas. If it were written today, that part would no doubt drop out entirely. And then there is the social harmony shown among the poor. They all have happy families, despite their poverty. There is no squabbling among siblings, no drunken parents, no abusive fathers, no innocent children killed by stray bullets from rival gangs battling it out, no worries about being robbed. (The only sleaziness is to be found in the three servants who grab some of Scrooge’s stuff after he dies.) All of this, if it were written today, would have to go, except that much of the point of the story is how the miserly and misanthropic Ebenezer Scrooge is missing out on all that Christmas cheer.
Another point that struck me was that not many people in Scrooge’s position have his personality. How many rich bankers eschew family gatherings? I’m pretty sure that people with Scrooge’s personality can be found at all economic levels, but that it is rare at any level. Yet, he is supposed to be representative of the new bourgeoisie. It’s a wonder that the story hasn’t sunk into obscurity it is so absurd and so far from being true to life.
Most will agree that Scrooge at the end is a better person than Scrooge at the beginning, because he has more humanity, but this is hardly related to left-right politics since recent surveys have shown that conservatives will give more than liberals and leftists; that's because they expect the government to do the giving for them. In addition, Bob Cratchit would benefit from job creation, but that of course is not what the left wants. They want Scrooge to part with his money, maybe even to the point of bankruptcy, which naturally would be enormously helpful to Mr. Cratchit. Heh.
But the most significant point that struck me is that Scrooge is actually like, not conservatives, but many liberals and leftists. That is, Scrooge indicates he has already given to charity by supporting prisons and workhouses through his taxes, and he resists giving any more. This is exactly like those leftists who think that it is permissible to demand that the rich pay taxes that would be redistributed to the poor, but unreasonable to demand that they give voluntarily. Such a position was discussed in G. A. Cohen’s book If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? In that book, there is a chapter on excuses that rich leftists give for not giving away most of their wealth, and this one is on his list. Cohen indicates that this excuse has been given by Thomas Nagel, who provides two reasons in defense of it. (1) It is difficult to make the decisions regarding who is to receive one’s charity. (2) Those who give voluntarily will be put at a disadvantage if others like them don’t contribute voluntarily. [Page 169; quoting Nagel, “Libertarianism without Foundations,” pp. 199-200]
Permit me to say that neither of these seems a bit compelling. Permit me to say that they are just plain pathetic. They are evidence, as I was pointing out the other day, that leftists are not very principled (here).Yes, it can be difficult to make decisions regarding who is to receive one’s charity, but it is not that difficult. (If one needs a guide, then start by giving to the poor in your area. If every rich person gave to the poor in their area, that would go a long way toward alleviating poverty.)
As for the second objection, one could also say that one will be at a disadvantage when one is taxed, since others at one’s income level may be able to find tax loopholes that one can’t. Face it, those who don’t want to contribute will find ways to avoid contributing, no matter what system is in place, so this reason against private charity is just as pathetic as the first reason. But the following is laughable: “If Johnny’s dad buys him a new bicycle, how can Molly’s dad explain why he doesn’t buy one for Molly?” [p. 175] Maybe Molly’s dad can take Molly with him when he gives directly to the poor. Wouldn’t the wonderful feelings spawned by such an experience be an advantage for her that Johnny won’t have? And wouldn’t leftists think that would be much more beneficial to Molly in the long run than any old consumerist bicycle? It will instill habits of great benefit to the poor and to herself. For example, when it comes time to apply for college, Molly will be at an advantage over Johnny since she will be able to talk about the service to the poor that she, and not he, engaged in.
But whether Nagel is right or not, what is most important is that his position is nothing other than Scrooge’s position. It is the position that says that I don’t have to give because it’s the government’s job to give and since I pay taxes to the government, therefore I have already given. If Scrooge is not to be emulated, then why are some liberals and leftists taking up his position?
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.