Joe Carter deals very nicely with Jesse Jackson's Sun-Times article. La Shawn adds her own contribution to the effort.

Their responses are adequate enough but I could not resist pointing out my favorite assertion from Jackson's article:

Christ wasn't a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn't require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn't push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative.

I guess that using that criteria, the Apostle Paul would find himself on the conservative side, along with Herod, Pharaoh, HMOs and Drug Companies. Here is the evidence:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
  2 Thessalonians 3:10

Truly there is great folly in trying to apply today's political labels to historical figures. I do not believe that either side has a monopoly on the solution to poverty. I understand that conservatives believe that tax cuts stimulate economic growth which helps all participants in the economy. In direct contrast, liberals prefer an increased burden on the rich to provide welfare and low-cost housing for the poor. Both sides have legitimate arguments why their solution best serves the poor. The true solution is probably somewhere in between the two concepts.

I once had a friend accuse me of hating the poor. I asked him why he felt that way and he said that conservative policies demonstrated hatred of the poor. I responded by demonstrating how I felt he was incorrect in his assessment of some conservative ideas. I also pointed out the problems I have with many liberal programs and how they may do more damage than good in the long term. The final verdict is that there are no simple answers to these kinds of problems.

This also means that simple labels do little in finding true solutions.