Today there is an article in the American Thinker by M. Catherine Evans in which she strenuously objected to Glenn Beck, Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Louie Gohmert, and, especially, Dana Loesch being charitable human beings. In her rhetorical screed, which will lend further credence to the liberal caricature of conservatives hating brown people, Evans accuses Loesch, and those who helped provide food, clothing, and other amenities, of partnering righteousness with lawlessness.
Let’s unpack this idiotic rhetoric in the face of private charitable actions.
After a brief lede in from Evans that compares Sen. Cruz to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but before she notes that Dana Loesch was once a liberal, Evans lays out her primary complaint against personal acts of charity directed towards those currently held at facilities along our southern border.
it does not seem to bother them that the rest of us are being forced to pay for transportation, medical care, legal assistance, and housing for the recent surge of illegal aliens coming in droves.
Setting aside for the moment that this was already the case before Loesch, Beck and the others decided to pull out their own checkbooks, I understand the concern about detention costs. But the actions we saw through private charity will more than likely subsidize that cost, saving tax payers dollars rather than increasing the cost through a paternalistic government aid sprung forth from the pen and phone of President Obama.
It would seem that there is something more to this than just the economic concern, otherwise why would you object to private funds, not seized by the force of government, providing for the care of these illegal immigrants?
Two obvious issues that seep from the writing of Evans’ post today and from last week, are a hostility to “do-gooders on our side making public displays of their “Christ-like” behavior towards people who are breaking the law while telling us to walk in love“, and people who have worked hard and managed to become “rich”, such as Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck.
Maybe I need to turn in my TrueCon card, I thought jealousy over other people’s paychecks was a liberal trait. Additionally, I thought it was Christian hypocrisy that we disliked, not a sincere adherence to faith, which often requires action, not just epic levels of navel investigation online for all to see.
Unfortunately, Evans’ economic jealousies and anger at Christians living their faith isn’t the worst of it.
As is often the case with the hardest of hard liners on immigration, Evans doesn’t see those whom Beck, Loesch, and others seek to help as real people. They are illegals, criminals, they are less than and therefore don’t deserve your charity.
The illegal surge, disguised as a “humanitarian crisis,” is affecting real people in real towns across the nation.
Notice the scare quotes around humanitarian crisis. You see, it can’t be a humanitarian crisis because they aren’t real people. They apparently don’t meet the qualifications put forth by Evans to be classified as humans.
Though I wish it had, it doesn’t stop there. In her post last week Evans compared illegal immigrants to the English vanquished by Joan of Arc as justification to oppose any charitable acts towards them.
Compassion for the down-and-out is fine, but invading a nation by the tens of thousands is an act of war. Even Joan of Arc understood the need to fight for her country’s sovereignty and St Joan was a million times more Christ-like than Beck
Somehow I doubt we’ll see a posthumous canonization of M. Catherine Evans.
This sort of rhetoric does nothing but empower the left on immigration. Evans hurts her own cause by her treatment of human beings as nothing but political fodder, or worse, a class of people to be killed if they don’t leave immediately.
As a conservative who would like to see less government programs, I am happy to see private charities step up in times of need. One of my ancestors, President Grover Cleveland, who was also a Democrat, once said the following on the subject of private charity and federal aid:
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
When Evans attempts to delegitimize private charity, whether due to bigotry, jealousy, or abject stupidity, she toils the ground for the next act of government compassion in its absence. And while Evans may note that Cleveland referred to charity given to “fellow citizens”, the concept that nature abhors a vacuum stands. Where individuals fail to act independently of the government, the government naturally steps in to act.
Evans advocates a retreat from the battlefield and an acquiescence to a big government solution, even if she doesn’t realize it. But apparently Evans is ok with a big government as long as it keeps the brown people at bay.