WAVG Interviews Joe On Christian Economics

“WAVG AM FM Talk Radio Interviews
Joe L. Buckett Over His Claim That He’s A Proponent Of Christian Economics”

Al: So I want to welcome all our loyal WAVG talk radio listeners out there in the heartland. This is Al Robinson with a special guest who’s making his second appearance on our show. Please give a warm welcome to America’s first and only virtual candidate for President of The United States, Mr. Joe L. Buckett.

Joe: Thanks Al. As always, it’s a pleasure to be here with you and your listeners.

Al: As usual we’re running short on time Joe so let me jump right to the point. When you claimed recently that your economic plan was and I quote, “Christian economics,” our phones began ringing off the hook and I knew we were going to have to get you back on the program. Now with all the controversy initiated by that comment, I’m now going to give you an opportunity to tell our listening audience exactly what you meant when you uttered the phrase “Christian economics?”

Joe: Well Al, let me first point out that I wasn’t aiming to stir up any controversy with that remark. And I confess that to my knowledge, Christ never uttered the term economics in his life. I mean he was a carpenter, a real live blue collar man of the people who worked with his hands, and then became a little controversial himself by catering to the lower class, and effectively spitting in the face of the guardians of the status quo on numerous occasions.

So without his ever using the term economics, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know which elements of society Christ valued and respected, and which elements he devalued and disrespected. I mean it was Christ who claimed that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, right? Now, what does that say about his economics?

Al: OK Joe, Christ was controversial because he embraced the poor and downtrodden, while he had little use for the guardians of the status quo. How does that play out in the context of your own orientation to economics? I mean you claim to be inclusive, right?

Joe: In our “two table theory of economics” we concentrate all our attention on the cancerous root cause of most of the world’s problems, namely concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few people, at the expense of everybody else, and ESPECIALLY the SYSTEM that actively encourages that concentration to occur. And on one hand our economic program is designed to lift up the poor and the downtrodden, dust them off, and to offer them the same kinds of opportunity that middle class and wealthy Americans enjoy all the time. So we certainly line up with Christ in this regard Al.

Al: But when I hear you make those kinds of comments Joe, I begin to suspect that you’re some kind of modern Robin Hood or El Zorro who wants to run around, steal from the rich and give back to the poor. Now in modern terms that kind of redistributive thinking translates into you being a bleeding heart liberal, a socialist, even a communist doesn’t it?

Joe: Well, if you look at our program only in that way, you’re absolutely right Al. And for that reason many people’s automatic, knee jerk reaction to our plan is that our we are socialistic or communistic, simply because we do address and solve the problem of poverty in a way that’s truly systematic instead of just charitable. On the other hand, any real student of the subject knows that the primary goal of socialism/communism is to ABOLISH ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY. They (the Marxists) claim that private property is the root of all problems, and that abolishing it, makes the problems go away.

In contrast, we are unabashed and unapologetic PROPONENTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN, which makes us the polar opposite of communists, socialists, or Marxists. Our position however is that concentrated wealth and power, whether it’s in the hands of a communistic politburo, a socialistic bureaucracy, or corporate autocrats IS THE REAL ENEMY OF JUSTICE, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, PEACE, PROSPERITY, AND A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

Al: OK Joe, but how does all that translate into a Christian message? I still don’t get it.

Joe: Well, there are several things in this regard that come to my mind Al. First, if I understand him at all, Christ was not a dictator in any way shape or form. He respected people from all walks of life so long as they respected (his term was “love”) others. The golden rule sounds right for this point. He was also a proponent of freedom and would have hated the thought of anyone forcing a religion in his name, down anyone else’s throat. He would have hated the thought of people being frightened out of their wits by hellfire an damnation preaching fundamentalist manipulators.

In my mind, Christ would’ve agreed with the claim that if a religion is not freely chosen by the will of the individual, then it’s absolutely worthless. He would agree with an old acquaintance of mine who used to say, “A leader is not someone who makes you do what he wants you to do. A leader is one who makes you want to do, what he wants you to do.” In other words, religion without free will has nothing to do with my understanding of Christianity. And so our economic support of justice, freedom and democracy is something that Christ would’ve taken to like a duck to water. Does that make sense Al?

Al: Keep on going Joe, it looks to me like you’re on a roll here.

Joe: There is more Al. I’d also contend that Christ was a non materialist, but that doesn’t mean that he accepted the condition where people are given the choice between wage slavery and starvation. As a matter of fact, in my view he was a strong proponent of sharing the wealth, which is best seen in the story about the five fishes and the loaves of bread. You know, the one where a minimal amount of food was passed around in order to feed the masses who had come to hear him speak. And when everyone was finished eating, there was way more food left over than when they’d originally started passing it around in the first place. The moral of the story of course is, share the wealth and there will be plenty for everyone. Hoard it and you actively create poverty. You choose.

Al: So how does this apply to your program Joe? Do you want everyone to share the wealth and create plenty for everyone? Is that it?

Joe: Well, that’s pretty much correct Al. I guess I’d say it a little bit differently. We want to offer individuals across the economic spectrum an opportunity to actively participate on the capital ownership side of the economy, where most of the wealth is being created in the 21st century. This in turn will reduce each individual worker’s need to auction off a significant portion of his life in order to feed himself, his family, and pay his bills. It will free him up to do what some folks like to call “leisure work,” of which the study of religion and philosophy are two of the very best examples. But if you have to spend all your waking hours scratching out a subsistence living from day to day, paycheck to paycheck, you’re actively being deprived of the chance to do leisure work and to make your own life as fulfilling and meaningful as it ought to be.

Al: Let’s dig a little deeper into this concept of leisure work Joe. I’ll bet that our listeners out there would get a kick out of hearing a more detailed explanation of that.

Joe: Sure Al. Leisure work is the work you freely choose to do when you have the discretionary time and opportunity to do so. For most Americans today, that discretionary time to choose your own activity comes on the weekend. Now I’m not talking about laying around watching the NFL on Sunday afternoon, drinking beer and munching chips. That’s primarily a non productive use of your discretionary time and it’s wasting that kind of opportunity that keeps most people behind the eight ball in life.

Leisure work on the other hand, is productive whether it’s an educational pursuit, a recreational pursuit (i.e. active athletic participation as opposed to mere spectatorship), or a charitable pursuit. It is what you would be doing with your hours, days, weeks, months, and years of your life if you didn’t have to auction off a significant portion of it in order to pay the bills. Leisure work in short, is a labor of love.

Al: Tell me again how that translates into economics Joe. I’m still missing something.

Joe: Discretionary time Al is largely dependent on your financial situation. If you find yourself in a situation where you have a family to support, and you own no wealth producing property that you can pay your bills with, then you’re required to auction off the only thing you do own, which is your time and your talent. And the more of that time and talent you have to auction off to the highest bidder, the less of it belongs to you. That is to say, the less time you have to do the things that are most meaningful and fulfilling to you…such as being a good spouse or parent for example, or reading things, or talking to people who can help you to grow and become more human, etc.

On the other hand, if you own plenty of wealth producing property, then you don’t have to concern yourself with paying the bills. It’s a non-issue. You are financially independent. You are FREE to do those things that make your life interesting, meaningful, and fulfilling. And that’s more likely to happen as you own more and more of your own life, and you’re not having to sell it to the highest bidder.

Al: Like last time you were here, we’re running short on time again Joe, and I have one final question for you. Are you a Christian yourself?

Joe: Good question Al and I’d tell you that I consider myself a Christian, but not in the sense of disrespecting anyone else for their religious views. I was raised Methodist in a small town of Burlington, IA. And back in the fifties and sixties in Burlington there were various denominations of Christianity in town from Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics. We even had a Jewish synagogue in town, but no mosques back in those days, although I’m sure they do today.

But back then, none of these groups were declaring themselves absolutely right, and superior to all others, like they do today. And I must admit, I kind of liked it that way. It was mutually respectful, and very Christian according to my interpretation. I mean there were ways that each one of these groups were different from the other, but I don’t recall ever having anyone tell me that their interpretation of God was the only correct interpretation, and that if I disagreed with them, I was going to burn in hell for eternity.

That would have been considered incredibly bigoted in a time when, most people recognized their own natural limitations with regard to empirically knowing what God said and meant in any one passage, or in any one book, be it the Bible or the Koran, etc. Back in the innocent fifties people at least had some sense of humility, and they knew when they didn’t know.

But today I think the problem is that too many people seem to be incapable of recognizing the difference between a belief and an empirical fact. I have an acquaintance from West Texas who used to say “God help them who don’t know that they don’t know.” Today I think it should be, “God save us from those people who don’t know that they don’t know, and who insist on stuffing their own interpretation of religion down other people’s throats.” It’s one of the two primary roots of terrorism…the other being the economic component.

So in answer to your question Al, regardless of the fact that many people who call themselves Christians today would exclude me from their ranks because I interpret things differently from them, I still consider myself a Christian. In other words my own edition of Christianity tends to be inclusive…kind of like Christ was himself. Their edition tends to be exclusive, kind of like the country club full of rich folks. Now you tell me which sounds like the more Christian position to take, and if this sounds like "Christian economics" to you?

Al: We’ve officially run out of time Joe, but I want to thank you for coming in for another WAVG interview, and for answering this controversy as best you can. Please say hello to Ms. Buckett for me, and until next time, this is Al Robinson for WAVG AM FM talk radio saying, we’ll be here again next week, same time, same station.