Take Not "From a Thread to a Shoelatchet"

It was years ago now, but it's something I've never forgotten. In the "heat" of the Cold War, a group representing college students in Great Britain, sent an open letter to the people of the United States of America. They wanted the US to tone down the rhetoric and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their argument was simple, it's better to be a communist than dead. I remember my thinking at the time: "So, give up the hope of a free world for one dominated and dictated by a regime of power-hungry men? A world where the promise of a better life is in the hands the advantaged few? Are you kidding me?" I had no interest in surrendering "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", simply because a group of students feared the mighty power of the Soviet Union. Of course, since then we have found out that the Soviet power was a ruse and that communism really doesn't work. Marx was wrong.

Now, to a BasicGuy, all that seems pretty plain. But here we are, all these years later, and some troubling signs appear in our own land. There is a growing number of individuals who tend to believe in government subsidies or hand-outs. The government should provide health care for everyone, social security for retirement, and prescription drug benefits. The government should keep banks from repossessing the homes of those defaulting on mortgages and other loans. The government should do this and that. It seems to me if we keep going down such a precarious path, we may as well have bowed to the pressure to surrender to the Russians so many years ago, because we're going there anyway.

And what's really interesting is that some of this new "attitude" about government sponsored programs is coming from college age young people in our own country. The attitude being, the government owes me something because I pay taxes. The problem is, if any people become accustomed to paying the government to provide services, in time that government is empowered to take ownership in their life. There was a scene in the movie "Cinderella Man, that moved me. (It was surprising that a liberal leaning Hollywood would allow such an honorable act to remain in the film.) The lead actor, Russell Crowe, was a boxer, but times were hard. He was close to losing his family because he couldn't support them. In a desperate act, he borrowed from the government. In fact, he took welfare. However, he was a decent basic guy, and felt a specific responsibility for his own life and that of his family. Not only did he feel some shame for needing the government hand-out, as soon as he was able, he paid the money back. The government official tried to explain that it wasn't necessary to return to money, but he insisted. That's the attitude I've been raised with. Pay your own way as best you can.

This idea is as old as the Bible. In the days of Abraham, there were several kings in confederate wreaking havoc upon the peoples near where Abraham lived. Sodom and Gomorrah fell pray to this army and Abraham's nephew, Lot, and many others were taken captive along with their possessions. When Abraham heard of it, he amassed his own confederacy and defeated the offending army. He returned Lot, and the people, and their goods to their freedom. When the King of Sodom greeted Abraham, the successful warrior, he said: "Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself" (Genesis 14:21). All this, I suppose, to show gratitude for the deed. But Abraham's response is one to remember. He said, "I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich" (Genesis 14:23).

Now, I'm just a BasicGuy, but that inspires me. It just makes plain sense. I don't want any government to own me. In my way of thinking, Governments job is simply to provide an atmosphere where people are free to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we grant the government too much power to provide for the basics in our lives, we simply deed away the right to determine who we are and who we can become. That's far too much to give up.

So here we are in the 21st century. A unique and historic presidential election is taking place. On the one hand, we have candidates who claim that the government needs to do more, or provide more, or be more of the answer for the people in the United States of America. Are we going to choose or vote our way into the very circumstance that British college students pleaded for us to embrace so many years ago? I hope not.

Basically speaking, we have a simple choice. If a candidate runs on a record or rhetoric that offers government sponsored solutions to life's problems, then find someone else to vote for. If "change" is simply more government entitlements and hand-outs, remember Abraham or the Cinderella Man, and choose the basic life instead. Take not "from a thread even to a shoelatchet"; don't allow any government to claim it made you rich. We'll all regret it.