Skin in the Game

This is a phrase and a mindset that REALLY irks me.

It rests in a particular mindset and world view that is most often present in and represented by conservatism but that is a central identity aspect of large swathes of humanity (regardless of ideology). It is the idea that money and property are more valuable than human life—and that possession of money and property is a prerequisite for participation in society and indicative of your worth as a human being.

The idea that your property and money entitle you to a larger voice… or maybe the only voice.

This is a natural attitude—IOW, it is not some weird abberation of human nature to think that way. Indeed, traditional liberal politics is constructed around the concept of property, the protection of property rights as part of personal rights (See Locke’s Second Treatise, particularly chapter V).

What liberal ideology/politics has struggled with at times, particularly in the late 19th century and 20th century—and what Christianity has struggled with—is reconciling property and wealth with the inherent dignity and worth of a human being. Much of Christian scripture is openly anti-wealth and anti-property, placing an emphasis on what we today often refer to as social justice.

Both Christianity and liberalism are ultimately grounded in the belief in the distinctiveness, value, and dignity of human life. IOW, while we might be sinful creatures, we are (because we are human, created in the image of God) worth saving and should be treated humanely by others (love your neighbor, do unto others…. ).

As either a Christian or a (traditional) liberal this is part of your value and ethical systems. If it isn’t, then you aren’t really either of those things.

Going back to ”skin in the game," we can understand and allow that wealth has value—but we also must understand that human life (regardless of what we think of the particular life) has greater value. If you are a Christian, it has immeasurably greater value as it is an eternal image of God.

In that context, the loss of $100 billion dollars by someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is certainly a great loss, in some ways. EXCEPT, while that loss might affect their ego or their ability to wheel-and-deal, it does not threaten their life. The reality is that their lifestyle is unlikely to be altered in any significant way. The loss of Medicare/Medicaid , SNAP, educational funding, any of a host of government social services would have zero direct negative effect on them (or on many other Americans)—it might even benefit them.

So while they have money involved, their lives are not involved, their health is not involved, their educational attainment is not involved.

On the other hand, the loss of those things could be debilitating or even fatal to those that depend upon those services, particularly the elderly, infirm, or children.

So, my question is, of these two groups of people—who has more actual skin in the game? Whose (immeasurably valuable) life is at risk? And if you only even pretend to traditional liberalism or Christianity, then your answer is NOT the Musks and Bezos of the world.

The hypocrisy of the answer of many people to this question, especially of those who loudly proclaim their Christianity, is what truely irks me about their use of the phrase.

A lot of rationalizing and excuse-making occurs in avoiding the actual liberal or Christian answer to the question. A lot of theological bending and twisting, some selective interpretation or outright ignoring of scriptural teaching and injunctions. A lot of if you let us keep and make more money, things will get better for those people, somehow, sometime.

People either need to own what they are or try harder to live up to what they claim to be—and NOT pretend to be something else. Especially when they want to tell other people to follow their rules from their own sense of righteousness and moral superiority.