By Michael Wm. Schick — 11/21/11 10:37 AM ET

Source:  http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/194811-au-revoir-to-noblesse-oblige  The contents of this article are © 2011 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

Noblesse oblige isn’t exactly a household term in America. The literal translation from French means “nobility obligates.” That definition may resonate in nations that perpetuate the bizarre idea of a noble class, but this is America; we don’t classify people according to bloodlines.

Fortunately, the concept of noblesse oblige has a broader meaning in everyday life for everyday people in any country. Simply stated, noblesse oblige means this: those who have should help those who have not. People who have been blessed – and not just the privileged rich, powerful or highly educated – have a responsibility to care for those who are less fortunate.

While the term has also been applied to countries and corporations, the concept of noblesse oblige belongs first and foremost to men and women, for neither a nation nor a company is inherently noble. Acts of generosity, kindness and benevolence are ultimately determined by the humans who lead them.

When the French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that America was great because America was good, he wasn’t referring to our government or our businesses. He was talking about our citizens. Americans are good people. We love to give.

But a different world view is steadily seeping into the consciousness of average Americans, one that threatens to make the virtue of noblesse oblige obsolete. It is a sea change that would cause Monsieur de Tocqueville to reevaluate his glowing assessment of American goodness. I’m talking about a fundamental shift from individual responsibility to government reliance.

Let me illustrate. During a conversation with a family friend about giving to charity, we discussed the biblical concept of tithing, the practice of donating ten percent of one’s income to the church. This man, who enjoyed a six-figure income, told me that he couldn’t afford to pay both high taxes and give to the church. He reasoned that since the government was basically fulfilling the role that churches once held – namely taking care of the poor, widows, children, weak and sick – he felt no need to pay twice for the same service. “Why bother? My gifts already went to the IRS,” he cynically stated.

This abandonment of taking individual responsibility for the well-being of one’s fellow man doesn’t just hurt churches – it hurts all non-profit causes, religious and non-religious, liberal, moderate or conservative. With nearly ten percent of Americans unemployed and struggling to put food on their own tables, charitable organizations are finding it increasingly challenging to meet the seemingly endless needs of hurting and helpless people at home and abroad.

Things may get worse. As elected officials on Capitol Hill desperately search for solutions to reduce America’s unsustainable and intolerable national debt, they are looking for quick and easy ways to increase revenue, including severe limitations on tax deductions for charitable contributions. Charities might call this idea adding insult to injury; others would call it something unsuitable for publication.

If people are already cutting back their charitable giving because they are cash-strapped, or they refuse to give because they “gave at the office” (i.e. paid taxes for the government to provide philanthropic services), then how much more will they jettison their charitable giving if lawmakers take away their tax deductions? If government becomes the ultimate caretaker, then individuals will no longer have the interest, resources or motivation to fulfill their individual responsibilities. They’ll just throw up their hands and say, “Hey, it’s not my job anymore.”

Government usurpation of the job individuals are meant to carry out is mission creep at its worst. Even Jesus noted there was a distinction between giving to government and giving to a higher purpose. When he said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” Jesus was acknowledging an appropriate role for taxes and for charitable donations.

But as lawmakers flirt with ending tax deductions for charitable contributions, they are in serious danger of robbing God or good causes to pay Caesar. In short, the government makes it more difficult for good people to practice noblesse oblige.

The government of the United States should be all about encouraging, not discouraging, individuals to care for needy people. Americans don’t need a bigger government; they need an incentive to be big hearted. The shift from individual responsibility to government reliance is a dangerous and historic evolution, from being “my brother’s keeper” to “Big Brother is the keeper.”

If America’s leaders don’t prevent the government from mucking up the American people’s phenomenal habit of and reputation for philanthropy – either through foolish tax policy or the inappropriate expansion of powers – then it’s au revoir to noblesse oblige. God help us if this comes to pass.

Michael Wm. Schick is a strategic communications consultant and a former fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute in Washington, D.C.