A Christmas Carol will never be the same

I admit that I spend time reading and thinking about ideas that many may consider out of the ordinary. For example, this afternoon I read a well written defense of Ebenezer Scrooge from Dicken’s beloved story, A Christmas Carol. The author defends Ebenezer as if in a court of law.

What is the bill of particulars with which my client is charged? Pay close attention to Mr. Dickens's allegations. His case comes down to just two points:

1. my client has managed to become very rich, and,

2. he insists on keeping his money for himself.

That's it! That is the essence of his alleged wrongdoing.

I realize that one of the morals of the Dicken’s classic is the seeming transformation of a seemingly unhappy soul to one that is full of joy because of selfless giving. However, there’s a lot more in Dicken’s story that is anti-capitalistic, socialistic, and portrays Cratchitt as the victim. The author then goes on to, yes, attack the Cratchitts (I know, Heaven forbid!). I think that his arguments are well worth considering. For example,

One of the offenses with which my client has been charged was that he had not paid Bob Cratchit a large-enough salary. Cratchit has worked for an allegedly substandard level of pay — whatever that may mean — for my client for many years. Why? Why did he not quit? Why didn't he go to work for some other employer — perhaps one of the politically correct businessmen who periodically show up at Scrooge's office to solicit and browbeat charitable contributions from my client?

And later,

To anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics, two things should be clear: [1] if, as has been alleged, my client is a tight-fisted, selfish man, he surely would not have paid Bob Cratchit a shilling more than his marginal productivity was worth to Scrooge's firm, and [2] if Bob Cratchit was being woefully underpaid by my client, there must have been all kinds of alternative employment available to this man at higher salaries. If Cratchit cannot find more remunerative work, and if my client is paying him the maximum that he is marginally worth to his business, then Cratchit must be worth precisely what my client is paying him!.

And later,

Perhaps there are employers out there prepared to pay him a higher wage than he is receiving from my client. If this is so, then we must ask ourselves: did Bob Cratchit simply lack the ambition to seek higher-paying employment? It would appear so. At no time do we see this man exhibiting any interest in trying to better his and his family's lot.

Not even when the aforementioned businessmen arrive for their annual shakedown of my client, does Cratchit so much as suggest to them: "gentlemen, I have a son who is afflicted with a life-threatening condition, and if you would be so inclined to look upon him as one of the objects of your charitable purposes, I would be greatly appreciative." He can't rise from his self-pitying position long enough to even speak up for Tiny Tim at a time when any responsible and loving parent would have jumped at the opportunity to plead his son's case. If Cratchit is such an unfocused sluggard that he is unable to generate the slightest motivation to speak up on behalf of his son when provided with the opportunity to do so, why should my client suffer the moral opprobrium of a community of readers who presume that he should be more greatly motivated on behalf of Tiny Tim than was Tim's own father?

Anyway, the article is quite lengthy and goes through a long deposition in defense of Mr. Scrooge that I found rather palpable. I recommend reading the entire article, even though you may never view the story in the same way again. As for me, I shall forever now recognize the socialist agenda that A Christmas Carol portrays.