"1. It is based on his perception of the "right's" lack of support for governmental programs -- assuming, a priori, that...

A)that is the only means by which one would express their care for the poor, and accepting, a priori, that...

B)that governmental means is the best means, and...

C)assuming no possibility that one could be, in good faith, perceiving good in both public and private aid -- but determining a different balance of the two as more effective."

None of that seems to me to reflect what Jim Wallis says in that piece, or what I understand to be the standpoint of the Sojourners. Or indeed many, probably most, people I know personally who are on the left, religious or non-religious, who typically are very active indeed in those kind of ways. You find them in the voluntary organisations, the charity shops, the soup runs, alongside people with different political views.

It seems to me, our Jim, that you are setting up an Aunt Sally here, and misreading the nature of the people you are critiicising. No doubt that is a trap people "on both sides" are liable to fall into. (Yes, and there are people who are mean and selfish and irresponsible on both sides as well. I think that more of us should perhaps concentrate more of our attention on challenging such people and such attitudes when they are held by people who are on our own side of the political divide.)