WHO ARE THE REACTIONARIES?
JAMES D. BALES

A reply of book length would be necessary to deal with all of the charges and arguments advanced in Dr. Parks’ chapter in Voices of Concern. Since he as well as some of the other writers made a number of charges concerning the conservatism of some of us in the economic and political sphere, and since similar charges were made in the national press during the past few years, we shall concentrate on these charges.

Neanderthal?

Some of us are identified by Parks with “right-wing political propaganda,” and with the “neanderthal wing of politics.” (Voices, p. 72) “Neanderthal” was not defined but it implies that we are reactionaries holding to antiquated positions of the remote past. In a book which the editor said was supposed to manifest compassion, we doubt that this was a loving effort to identify our position!

What “right-wing political propaganda” means depends on the point of reference. If one’s point of reference is Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party, we are far to its right. However, we do not occupy the opposite extreme and thus we are not the far right in contrast with the far left. The far left is totalitarianism—whether Communist or its Fascist cousin—and the exact opposite of the total state would be anarchy; the stateless society. We are not anarchist, for we are for constitutional, and thus limited, government.

If one’s point of reference is the Constitution, we are neither to the right nor the left; but on the center with the Constitution. We hold to the fundamental principles on which this country was built. These are: faith in God; the belief that man is a moral being created by God with responsibility to himself, to others, and to God.

Obviously we are not perfect in our understanding and application of the principles which have made out country great, but this does not justify one in classifying constitutional conservatives as right-wing neanderthalers. Perhaps this charge was made because Dr. Parks was just repeating, without thinking, charges which he had heard; or perhaps it was because the frame of reference has shifted in America in the thinking of many people so that many things once regarded as on the left, when judged by the Constitution, are now considered to be moderate. Whatever may have been the reason, we do not consider the labels which Parks used as conducive to intelligent dialogue. Before Parks wrote his chapter we had replied to similar criticisms made by Communists, Socialists, and the Anti-Defamation League (Jewish) in our book Americanism Under Fire which is available for $2 from the National Education Program in Searcy, Arkansas 72143.

Sinful Love of the World?

Parks misinterprets 1 John 1517 as a Christ-against-culture concept, and we are charged with rejecting this in the “economic sphere and of having come to terms with the world. Capitalism is viewed as a part of God’s law and the business order as the fruition of the divine scheme.” (Voices, pp. 7172) These statements indicate a misunderstanding of John and of certain brethren. First, John did not speak of one’s concern for a system of freedom. He spoke of the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. These lusts manifest themselves in men regardless of the economic and political system under which they live. Second, the church is universal in its scope of operation. It is not to wait, before it penetrates a society, until the society has established a certain kind of economic and political system. It does not depend for its existence on democracy, although it is obvious that a dictatorship would make it difficult for the church to work in freedom, and would drive it underground in many cases. Third, some economic and political systems are more influenced by and more friendly to Christianity than are some others.

For example: (a) Socialism speaks more of one’s rights, and the duties of others toward one, than it does of an individual’s own duties and responsibilities. The free enterprise system places more responsibility on the individual. (1 Tim. 5:8) (b) Socialism places the emphasis on the responsibility of society, implying that the individual has little responsibility for his condition, and that his character will change for the better if we will only change the economic system to one of State control. Free enterprise places more emphasis on the individual changing his own character and conditions. (c) Socialism undermines the principle of private ownership, while free enterprise emphasizes it. (Compare Acts 5:4) (d) Socialism encourages covetousness and says if the other person gets much more than you do, take it away from him through the state and get more of what he has for yourself. Free enterprise states that you should go to work and increase the economic pie; instead of thinking that it is a matter of dividing the pie someone else has. (Compare Eph. 4:28; Acts 20:33-34; 18:3).

(e) Historically the various systems of socialism usually have been associated in varying degrees with the rejection of God, or of divine revelation, or of many of the moral principles of the Bible. Historically in our country free enterprise has been rooted in faith in God, faith in God as the source of man’s rights and duties, individual responsibility, and the moral principles of the Bible. This does not mean that men have not fallen short, but these at least have been the ideals. (f) Free enterprise embraces the principle that if a man will not work it is not the duty of others to support him. (Compare 2 Thess. 3:10-12); while socialism embraces the principle that others should be forced to support those who will not work. (g) Christianity does not condemn the profit motive, although it does condemn the boastfulness of those who leave God out of their plans (Jas. 4:13-16). No system can progress without some form of profit; regardless of whether the profit is taken by the State and distributed according to the will of politicians or the profit is taken by individuals and companies who, among other things, pay taxes to the state. (h) Some have said that we are being materialistic in pointing out that free enterprise has made it possible for more people to have more of the material things of life; but is not an economic system supposed to produce? Furthermore, they contradict themselves by criticizing free enterprise and then asserting that more people will get more of the economic pie if we had some socialistic system! (i) Collectivism tends to undermine regard for individuals, and to regard them as cogs or tools. Free enterprise shows respect for the individual, for it leaves him free to regulate his own life within the bounds of lawful activities. (j) Free enterprise recognizes that men must not be trusted with unlimited power over the lives of others, and thus it asks for freedom within the bounds of constitutional law. Collectivism places more and more power in the hands of a few individuals who are not good enough, or if they are good enough are not wise enough, to be trusted with such power. A liberal, Walter Lippmann, pointed this out in The Good Society.

In being for the free enterprise system, and constitutional government, Parks thought that we had made “peace with the world.” (Voices, pp. 71-72) We are not making peace with the world when we maintain that Christians ought to be interested in that system of government and that economic system which has provided us with the greatest freedoms and the greatest amount of goods to supply our own needs and to help others. If this is making peace with the world, how much more so are our critics, who advocate more and more state intervention, with its police power—for such power always backs its intervention into the lives of the people—to bring about the various changes and goals which they deem good.

We are not making peace with the world when we defend capitalism, not as a perfect system, but as the best devised by imperfect men. And yet, some think that one has become a real Christian in his economic thinking if he advocates state socialism as the solution to most of the problems of today. The same critic who said that for us the church “is no longer at war with the secular economic world,” (Voices, p. 74) wants us, in my opinion, to be in at least comparative peace with some socialistic economic view.

Acts 17:6?

We are accused of hostility “to social reforms, welfare programs, state intervention in the economy, labor unions, racial integration, disturbers of the status quo, and ‘those who have turned the world upside down’ (Acts 17:6).” (Voices, p. 72) Is one against reform because he does not advocate certain ways of trying to bring about the reform? Is a person nonprogressive because he does not automatically turn to Washington for the solution of problems? Government is essential; and thus there is the necessity of some governmental intervention into our lives, but does this mean that there is no limit? Are we neanderthalers because we are convinced that a line must be drawn between the power of the government and the freedom of the individual? Do not all men agree, with the exception of unabashed dictators, that such a line must be drawn? The collectivist automatically turns first to the Federal Government for the solution, while the one who puts freedom first automatically turns to the individual or to voluntary organizations of individuals. He may finally conclude that certain problems have to be solved, or partially so, by the state, but he will first ponder several questions. (a) Is a solution to the problem necessary? (b) If necessary, does it have to be done right now; or must other problems be solved first? (c) Will the proposed solution work? What light does history, common sense, and a knowledge of human nature throw on the answer to this question? (d) Can we afford it? Are we going to pay for it, or are we going to ask oncoming generations to pay for these things which we arc unwilling to pay for ourselves, and which we pass on to them in form of the national debt? Is this really honest? Is not this taxation of future generations without representation? (e) Is it impossible to solve the problem on the local level? President Kennedy said: “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort. There is no magic attached to tax dollars that have been to Washington and back. No expert in the Nation’s Capital knows as much about a community’s local problems and how to meet them as its local business men and officials. Too much government is just as much a threat to our liberties as too little government. There are too many tasks already awaiting public attention without having the Government undertake those that can better be done by private or local effort.”

(As quoted in The General Electric Defense Quarterly, January-March, 1961, pp. 1011. Speech of Oct. 12, 1960)

We are not defenders of the status quo because we believe that progress will be made through following the principles on which this country was founded and which have made her so prosperous and so free.

We wonder what Parks’ reaction would be today if someone did what Paul did when he was accused of turning the world upside down? The context is not that of the intervention of the police power of the state to bring about certain changes in society, but of a disturbance brought on by preaching that Jesus is the Christ. Paul had preached in a Jewish synagogue, had converted some people, and had aroused the jealousy of certain Jews. They stirred up a mob and accused them of turning the world upside down. (Acts 17; 18) We wonder how pleased this critic would be if one conducted a dialogue in a synagogue which resulted in such a disturbance? Christianity also turns the world upside down in its advocacy of certain principles which bring about changes in the hearts of men and thus in their lives and in their dealings with others. It is my conviction that its principles undermine the concepts on which dictatorship, the all-powerful state, is built.

Anti-Labor?

We are charged with being hostile to labor unions. (Voices, p. 72) It is impossible to prove this charge, and the accuser did not try to do so. To it we reply: First, The Washington Post, a liberal publication, stated that the role of unions “is seldom mentioned” in National Education Program pamphlets, speeches and films. (Oct. 4, 1964, p. E3) We mention the NEP because our accuser included us in his accusations. Second, we are for labor, and believe that they should be free. This includes the freedom to form and to be a part of a labor union. It also includes the right to be free from the dictatorship of a monopoly of labor union leaders which some union bosses want to establish. Third, we are for labor in that we are for constitutional government and the free enterprise system which has given the laboring man in America the highest standard of living the world has known. Fourth, we are for labor in that we are against the replacement of the free enterprise system with socialism. Under socialism, labor cannot long be free. When the government is the employer, to strike against the employer is to strike against the government; and the government, if it is so minded, can call this treason. Fifth, we are for labor in that we are against communism. Under communism also the union is an agent of the government. Essential to communism is forced labor in varying degrees up to and including slave labor camps.

Although they may not realize it, socialists are working against the interest of labor for they are endeavoring to build one gigantic political-economic educational communicational-planning monopoly in Washington.

Due to limitation of space we cannot discuss other aspects of Parks’ chapter. While some doubtless will criticize us for having dealt with what we have, we thought it important that this aspect of the book should not go unnoticed. Some of the other matters have been dealt with in our book The Faith Under Fire.

______________________

James D. Bales has for many years been professor at Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas 72143.