We find the ancient liberal smear that limited government conservatism means un-Christian cruelty. There have been arguments over the social Gospel throughout human history. I side with Thompson against the notion of government as a force for spiritual reformation and mandatory charity. What’s objectionable about Gerson’s piece is the notion that Thompson’s version of Christian politics is not a genuine disagreement but a function of "shallow" theology. Different theology, not shallower. Poulos agrees:
Gerson would seem to have us think that a Christian is defective unless he or she supports the use of every tool at the federal government’s disposal to minimize the risk of new terrorists being created.
Larison is tarter:
It is now "isolationist" to oppose foreign aid for disease prevention on a continent where the United States has negligible interests, because apparently our resources are as infinite as the ever-multiplying "interests" that the Gersons of the world discover for us in every problem around the world. More than that, Gerson tells us, Fred has revealed his lack of "moral seriousness." For Gerson, governing isn’t a matter of making choices and setting priorities in the American interest, but of unburdening his conscience about suffering on the other side of the world with someone else’s money. I can understand why Gerson is annoyed–this kind of foreign aid was one of his favourite administration policies–but the reasoning here is beyond laughable.
The Dish 