Republicans and Positive Non-intervention

As someone who has a cynical view regarding the motivations of most politicians I usually don't say much about politics. No doubt there are people all across the political spectrum with less than honorable motivations for the positions they hold. However, When it comes to fighting poverty I think there are people on all sides who genuinely want to help. The question then becomes how to help.

This is where we start hearing about big government vs small government. Most Democrats believe that the best way to help the impoverished is to develop or expand government programs to aid people in poverty. The Republicans, on the other hand, are often seen as people who believe that the best way to help poor people is to leave them to fend for themselves and give incentives to people who do well. And though there may be people who believe this, it isn't really the foundation of their approach.

At its foundation, the Republican model of helping the poor is based on the positive non-intervention principles as applied by the minister of finance of Hong Kong, John Cowperthwaite. During his tenure an extremely high percentage of the population moved out of poverty and into the middle class. At one point the average income in Hong Kong surpassed that of England. This was done mainly by Cowperthwaite's fierce insistence on positive non-interventionism. His most famous quote is, "In the long run, the aggregate decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

It may seem harsh on poor people but Cowperthwaite believed that the best way to help poor people was to have an economy that provided jobs. But he was also very insistent that the government wasn't going to subsidize business either. Some businessmen wanted the government to build a tunnel across Hong Kong Harbor but he wouldn't do it because he felt that if it was really a good thing business would find a way to pay for it. They did.

So that is why you see some Republicans insisting that we need a smaller government. It is also why some of the same were against the bailout of the auto-industry. (At present, a high percentage of people think that was a good thing but we will see in the long run.) These Republicans aren't pulling the ideas out of left field. There is a history to it that has had remarkable success.

Of course one of the failures of the Republican party has been its reluctance to do enough of the positive part of positive non-intervention. Positive steps must be taken to keep businesses from using harmful practices. The financial sector was allowed to operate in unethical ways when they should have been stopped.

I write this because I get tired of hearing that unless you spend a lot of money on a government program to help poor people you aren't doing what Jesus would want you to do. The fact of the matter is that there are people all across the spectrum who are sincere followers of Jesus who sincerely want to help poor people. It's not really always about a cash grab for the rich. Just because some do doesn't mean you completely abandon the principles. You just take positive steps to fix it.