Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Commentary: So who is our Keeper, Mr. President?
Commentary: So who is our Keeper, Mr. President?
Jan 24, 2026 9:31 PM

In a recent speech, President Obama invoked Scripture to justify his ambitious spending plans. In this week’s Acton Commentary (published May 25), Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg notes that the president said nothing about the role of munities and associations in helping our brothers and sisters in need. What’s more, “our leader hasn’t noticed that even some European governments, many of whom have been handing out as much pork as possible to politically-connected, politically-correct crony-capitalists over the past 15 years, are concluding many of these projects aren’t likely to be economically-viable either now or in the distant future,” Gregg writes.The full text of his essay follows. Subscribe to the free, weekly Acton News & Commentary and other publicationshere.

So who is our Keeper, Mr. President?

bySamuel Gregg

In case you missed it, President Obama visited the People’s Republic of Vermont in late March. It was, as the Presidentremindedhis adoring fans at a rally, the first time a sitting president had visited the land of Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent-Democratic Socialist) since 1995 (when another Democratic president was running for re-election).

To the delight of his audience, POTUS engaged in all the familiar rhetoric about investments in clean energy (Solyndrais, it seems, now an “investment”), the gallant rescue (a.k.a. bailing-out) of the Detroit panies (driven into the ground by an-out-of-control UAW and decades of management acquiescence), and how a second term is asine qua nonfor ever-lasting change. Hidden in the text, however, were a few lines which revealed a great deal about how President Obama understands how we actualize our responsibilities to our neighbor.

Describing his conservative opponents’ position on this subject, the President insisted:

Their philosophy is simple: You are on your own. You’re on your own. If you are out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck, you’re on your own. You don’t have health care, – that’s your problem – you’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own. They believe that’s their — that’s how American [sic] has advanced. That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty. And they are wrong. (Applause.) They are wrong.

With these straw-men of neo-Darwinian advocates of what the President called “you’re-on-your-own economics” firmly established in his audience’s mind, the Commander-in-Chief then claimed that, unlike his dastardly rivals, he and his disciples recognized that “I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.”

But who is the “I” that President Obama has in mind? Looking carefully at his speech, it’s most certainly not the free associations munities that Alexis de Tocqueville thought made nineteenth-century America so different pared to his own already state-centric native France. No: our number-one “keeper,” in our president’s mind, is the federal government.

This much es evident as we look at the ideas for “rebuilding America” listed in the speech. It was all about government investment in things that went far beyond the type of public works that no less than Adam Smith thought governments should undertake. Virtually every proposal involvedmoregovernment expenditures on things like clean energy (again) and that perennial favorite, high-speed rail (sigh).

Even when the President proposed something sensible, such as stopping “taxpayer giveaways to an oil industry that has been rarely more profitable,” he quickly added that now was the time to “double down on clean energy that has never been more promising – solar and wind and biofuels, and energy efficiency, electric batteries.”Apparently, our leader hasn’t noticed that even some European governments, many of whom have been handing out as much pork as possible to politically-connected, politically-correct crony-capitalists over the past 15 years, areconcludingmany of these projects aren’t likely to be economically-viable either now or in the distant future.

Leaving, however, all these blind-spots, it’s especially noticeable that when insisting we must take care of our neighbor the President saidnothingabout the role of volunteer associations – or any non-state formation whatsoever – in addressing social and economic challenges. Nor did he mention anything about the often-selfless work of loving our neighbor undertaken by the same religious organizations whose constitutionally-guaranteed (and natural) liberty to live, act and serve others according to their beliefs is being unreasonably constricted by the more ghoulish segments of his Administration in the name of “choice.”

Like all good Rawlsians, President Obama finds it hard to conceptualize the possibility that munities and associations might often be better at helping our neighbor in need than governments. Instead, his instinct is to search immediately for a political state-focused solution. If the President invested some time in exploring the concept of social justice, he would discover that its earliest articulators – mostly mid-nineteenth century Italian Catholictheologians– thought it should be primarily realized through associations and institutions of civil society with the government playing a supportive, but normally background role.

One of the limits of our President’s moral imagination is that he can’t seem to recognize that his opponents aren’t a bunch of narcissistic Randoids. The vast majority of themdoin fact believe that weareour brother’s keeper. They also recognize that therearesome – even many – problems that markets can’t solve.

But they also don’t think Americans should somehow delegateen massemost of their personal concrete obligations to those in need to elected officials and civil servants. Rather, they understand, as Tocqueville wrote, that “The morals and intelligence of a democratic people would be in as much danger as merce and industry if ever a government wholly usurped the place of free associations.”

This, it appears, is something that progressivists will never understand.

This articlefirst appearedon National Review Online.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Marine Le Pen’s economics unite populist Right and far-Left
Emmanuel Macron may have won the first round of the French presidential elections on Sunday, but Marine Le Pen won a political victory of her own. The statist undercurrent running through her nationalist and populist policies successfully bridged the gap between France’s “far-Right” and socialist Left, according to Marco Respinti in a new essay for Religion & Liberty Transatlantic. Mainstream French politicians have sought bine disparate ideological strands since at least Charles de Gaulle, who presented his foreign policy as...
Samuel Gregg on the fracturing of France
With the first round of the French election results in, and no major candidates even managing to get a quarter of the total votes, two candidates remain: Marine Le Pen of the National Front, a populist and nationalist party, and Emmanuel Macron, the center-Left candidate of the “En Marche!” (“On Our Way”) political party. Samuel Gregg covers the current politically disjointed state of Francein a new article for First Things. He maintains an attitude of skepticism and uncertainty towards France’s...
Audio: Victor Claar on whether Trump’s budget is un-Christian
Victor Claar speaks at Acton University On Saturday, Victor Claar, Professor of Economics at Henderson State University and Affiliate Scholar at the Acton Institute, joins host Julie Roys and Jenny Eaton Dyer of Hope Through Healing Hands on Moody Radio’sUp For Debateto discuss how Christians should respond to President Trump’s first budget proposal, especially as it relates to proposed cuts in US foreign aid. Dyer argues that Christians should be deeply concerned about the proposed cuts, while Claar argues that...
Price Controls and Communism
Note: This is post #30 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. What happens when price controls are used munist countries? As Alex Tabarrok explains, all of the effects of price controls e amplified: there are even more shortages or surpluses of goods, lower product quality, longer lines and more search costs, more losses in gains from trade, and more misallocation of resources. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d mend watching them at 1.5...
Acton books distributed to schools by Theological Book Network
The Acton Institute recently donated a number of titles on faith, work, and economics to the Theological Book Network which will distribute them to its partner institutions in what it calls the ‘Majority World’ (‘Majority World’ is a term coined to replace earlier sometimes anachronistic or misleading terms like ‘Third World’ or ‘Developing World’). The Theological Book Network is a Grand Rapids based non-profit, mitted to the creation and development of Majority World leaders by providing access to educational resources...
More than compassion needed for Europe’s refugees
“Irrespective of the political forces at play,” says Trey Dimsdale in this week’s Acton Commentary, “there is no arguing with the fact that such a large number of displaced immigrants presents a monumental humanitarian crisis in which survival es the initial, but not final, concern.” Prior to 2014, fewer than 300,000 refugees and migrants arrived in the European Union each year. Due to war and unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, that relatively slow trickle more than quadrupled...
Remembering Kate O’Beirne
Longtime Acton Institute friend and supporter Kate O’Beirne passed away this past weekend. Below are Father Robert Sirico’s thoughts on this plished woman: I feel like I have always known Kate O’Beirne, so the passing of this woman of keen intellect, sharp wit and fearless rhetoric in confronting the nostrums of our day leaves me feeling very, very sad. It is painfully sad to think that the occasions of sharing National Review cruises or panel discussions with her or having...
Why J.D. Vance is bringing venture capital to the Rust Belt
As Americans continue to face the disruptive effects of economic change, whether from technology, trade, or globalization, many have wondered how we might preserve or revivethe regions that have suffered most. For progressives and populists alike, the solutions are predictably focused on a menu of government interventions, from trade barriers to wage minimums to salary caps to a range of regulatory constraints. For conservatives and libertarians, the debate has less to do with policy and more to do with the...
Humans care about economic fairness, not economic inequality
A new study published in the science journal Nature Human Behaviour finds that in most situation people are unconcerned about economic inequality as long as distributions of wealth are fair: There is immense concern about economic inequality, both among the munity and in the general public, and many insist that equality is an important social goal. However, when people are asked about the ideal distribution of wealth in their country, they actually prefer unequal societies. We suggest that these two...
Taxes on unhealthy food do nothing but hurt the poor
Throughout history, societies have found peculiar ways to reinforce social hierarchies and class-based discrimination. mon way is to prohibit certain social classes from being able to purchase a good. These types of laws that regulate permitted consumption of particular goods and services are known as sumptuary laws. A prime example is the 16th-century French law that banned anyone but princes from wearing velvet. Modern America is mitted to the appearance of egalitarianism to make laws that directly ban poor people...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved