I'M MORE AND MORE CONVINCED that the difference between the values of the average conservative and average liberal are not so great as we are led to believe.

The example that comes to hand is yet another propaganda email. This one contains a quote from the late Adrian Rogers, a Baptist pastor and leader of the religious right:

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom

by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.



What one person receives without working for,

another person must work for without receiving.



The government cannot give to anybody anything

that the government does not first take from somebody else.



When half of the people get the idea that

they do not have to work

because the other half is going to take care of them,

and when the other half gets the idea that

it does no good to work

because somebody else is going to get what they work for,



that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth

by dividing it.

On the surface this may just appear to be standard right-wing propaganda, but on a deeper level it resonates with all of the most cherished liberal values.

Let's unpack it one line at a time.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom

by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

I don't think anyone, conservative or liberal, would disagree with that. In fact, it's a very liberal sentiment. Freedom must be universal, or it doesn't exist for anyone.

That's why the ACLU defends Nazis and KKK members and Rush Limbaugh as readily as it defends liberals and Sunday school teachers. Freedom must be protected for all, rich and poor alike, or it's protected for no one.

What one person receives without working for,

another person must work for without receiving.

This, too, seems to be true. Most of what we have comes from someone's labor, and so either we have worked for it or someone else has. The author has actually put his finger on one of the great injustices of our society—people who live well at the cost of other's labor.

Rogers is speaking, of course, of the very wealthy. He was, after all, a Baptist pastor, and was well aware of the attitude that Jesus took toward wealth.

You don't obtain great wealth through your own labor. You either inherit it or you get it by arranging to profit from the labor of others. Does anyone really believe that Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, have, by their own labor, produced the kind of wealth they control?

Of course not.

They, and all the other wealthy people in this country, have prospered from the labor of the poor and middle class.

They have made billions by building, and investing in, businesses which hold back profits from thousands of other people's hard work and creativity, and give that wealth to the owners, who often don't lift a finger, except to purchase stock.

Some argue, of course, that without the owners there would be no work. Perhaps. But is that an excuse for the owners to take more than the share of the profits which can be justified by their actual labor?

Rogers (and Jesus) are quite right. The wealthy are parasites—feeding on the labors of the working poor and middle class.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else, though. As Rogers said above, rights should be equal for all.

Next line:

The government cannot give to anybody anything

that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Again, I find myself in complete agreement.

On the one hand, we need to provide health care for people who can't afford it—because the wealthy are not paying them what their work is worth, or have drained all the money out of their communities.

We need to take care of widows, and of children whose parents can't get work because of the recession, and of veterans who can't work because of damage sustained defending the rights of both the rich and the poor.

Once again, conservative, Christian, and liberal values are in agreement.

But on the other hand, money doesn't grow on trees.

So where are we going to get this money?

From all those middle-class and poor people who have already been robbed of the money their work earned?

Or from the extremely wealthy, who have tons of money they never earned at all?

Rogers' conclusion is obvious.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work

because the other half is going to take care of them,

and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work

because somebody else is going to get what they work for...

What liberal could paint a more accurate picture of the growing gap between the wealthy and the middle class in this county, or the psychological results of that gap?

True, Rogers exaggerates the number of wealthy people who are living off the work of the rest—perhaps he's thinking more of the division of the money. A relatively small number of wealthy people in this country do have more than half the wealth.

In any case, his broader point is absolutely true.

The ordinary working person does begin to feel that there's hardly any point working day in and day out, just to make the owner richer.

...that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

Again, dead on.

It's particularly the end of any democracy, since wealth is also power, and the money the rich have stolen from the rest of us gives them the political clout to control the government.

It's hard to see any division between Rogers and almost any liberal on this point.

And, finally:

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

How true, especially when our current tax laws make the division so completely unfair. The richest 5% of the populace own half of all the wealth, while those who created the wealth struggle to make ends meet every day.

This quote is probably one of the most concise and compelling arguments for increased government services and a steeply progressive tax system I've ever read.

And it comes from a former leader of the religious right.

It just goes to show...

We're not as far apart as we think.