Mishlei and Government - Part Four
How the state has no business being kind to its citizens
This is the fourth in my series exploring Shlomo Hamelech's insights into the nature of government through the thoughts of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch. Part one discussed the importance of transparency in the exercise of authority, part two looked at the relationship between monarchies and Divine authority, and part three explored the value of large populations.
Here we’ll talk about limits to the kinds of public services a government should undertake.
There’s lately been much discussion over whether governments should correct historical biases by overcompensating in their support for population subsets that had faced historical mistreatment. There would seem to be a strong and obvious counter argument: Providing an artificial advantage to one group - no matter how noble the intent - will by force cause new and unnecessary suffering to everyone else.
Mishlei (14:34), in just six words, seems to take the full measure of the issue:
צְדָקָה תְרוֹמֵם גּוֹי
וְחֶסֶד לְאֻמִּים חַטָּאת
“Righteousness elevates a nation, but the kindness of states is sin”
Righteousness (צדקה), explains R’ Hirsch, is our duty to ensure that every individual is afforded full possession of his rights. That is, victims of crime should receive due compensation, no man’s voice is unjustly silenced when deciding communal matters, and no one falling below the threshold of poverty is denied community assistence.
Kindness (חסד), on the other hand, is an expression of the love of one human being for another. It’s the decision to shower blessing on another beyond whatever their legal rights might demand.
In that context, according to R’ Hirsch, these words of Mishei have a lot to say about the role of government. We see how the moral greatness of a nation is, in large part, measured in how well the state - the community - protects the rights of all, especially those who can’t always protect themselves. But their mandate extends only alongside clearly-defined, objective, universal law.
The state, in fact, has no right to act with chesed. After all, R’ Hirsch observes, “state” funds belong equally to every member of society and must, therefore, be spent to everyone’s equal benefit.
At the government level, there’s no room for individual discretion. Rules cannot be broken without betraying the public trust. Or, using the words of Mishlei, without embracing sin.