July is three months away, which means it may be a bit premature to start writing about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Fortnight for Freedom” (FFF). However, ongoing events in and outside of Indiana concerning that state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have accelerated interest in the topic of religious freedom and its apparent clash with “gay rights.” After writing several posts on the FFF last year (see here, here, here, here, and here), I resigned myself to the dismal fact that the two-week long event was here to stay. Now that the Supreme Court of the United States appears poised to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide and is likely to uphold the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) against the bill’s last credible legal challenge, is there even a point to staging the FFF this year? Some might still opine that there is for the simple fact that things can always get worse. Perhaps we have not yet reached “Persecution Level” when it comes to American secularism’s assault on religion, specifically the Catholic religion, but it’s not hard to imagine further action being taken in the near future. There are interest groups and individuals holding the reins of power who will not rest until Christians are, by law, forced to change both the nature of their beliefs and, more importantly, the manner in which they live out those beliefs. Granted, it’s not inevitable that the radical secularists will win, but there is very little standing in their way at this moment. Another year of the FFF won’t change that.
A Closing Note on Schumpeter, Corporatism, and Quadragesimo Anno
To close out a series of thoughts which emerged in two earlier posts (here and here), let me start by clarifying something a few readers may have missed, namely that corporatism, as a viable model of socio-economic organization, should only be pursued by Catholics to the extent that it conforms to the dictates of the Church’s social magisterium. There is no one, hard set corporatist model to follow. Both Joseph Schumpeter and Pope Pius XI focus on principles, not machinery. What the two men share in common, however, is a rejection of fascist forms of corporatism. John Pollard, in his book The Papacy in the Age of Totalitarianism: 1914-1958 pg. 247, has this to say on the matter:
More on Schumpeter, Corporatism, and Quadragesimo Anno
Dale Cramer and Charles Leathers’s analysis of economist and social theorist Joseph Schumpeter’s views on corporatism (discussed here) rely heavily on Schumpeter 1945 Montreal speech to a group of Quebec businessmen, “How to Preserve Private Enterprise: The Importance of Professional Organizations.” The speech, delivered originally in French, was translated into English by Michael G. Prime and David R. Henderson and published as “Schumpter on Preserving Private Enterprise,” 7 History of Political Economy 293 (1975). In their brief introduction to the translation, Prime and Henderson express some bafflement concerning Schumpeter’s concrete political views in the 1940s, though they note that “[t]here is little doubt that he regarded utilitarian liberalism as an inadequate basis for a durable social order.” Being that he was a critic of both fascism and bolshevism, the translators estimate that “Schumpeter’s sympathies lay with an aristocratic social order” and that “he thought that social reconstruction along the lines suggested by [Pope Pius XI’s] Quadragesimo Anno (QA), as an alternative to impractical laissez-faire or a totalitarian state, was a possibility worth exploring.”
An Opening Note on Schumpeter, Corporatism, and Quadragesimo Anno
Joseph Schumpeter’s name is not commonly associated with Catholic social teaching, nor is much said about the economist’s views of corporatism, that is, the organization of society around interest groups and their duly appointed representatives. In a 1981 article for the History of Political Economy, “Schumpeter’s Corporatist Views: Links Among His Social Theory, Quadragesimo Anno, and Moral Reform,” Dale Cramer and Charles Leathers tease out Schumpeter’s apparently positive appraisal of corporatism as an alternative to the metamorphoses of capitalism into socialism. In doing so, Cramer and Leathers provide evidence of Schumpeter’s affinities with Pope Pius XI’s landmark encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno (QA), and the Catholic corporatist tradition as a whole. Though Schumpeter never dedicated concentrated attention to the topic, two speeches delivered in the 1940s, including a 1945 address given in (still Catholic) Montreal, reveal Schumpeter’s belief in a corporatist possibility, albeit one predicated upon an ill-defined “moral reform.” As Cramer and Leathers point out, it’s not entirely clear that Schumpter was directly attached to Catholic thought or that his idea of moral reform mapped perfectly well onto the principles enumerated in QA. Even so, Schumpter’s thinking on corporatism reveals an awareness of the ethic component of economic reform, one lost in the minds of many Catholics who, for various reasons, seem to believe that capitalism is both inevitable and desirable.
David Mills on Ethika Politika, Ideological Policing, Dialogue
David Mills, a former editor at First Things and Touchstone, joined Ethika Politika‘s (EP) editorial board last year; now he is assuming the role of editorial director. In a brief but thoughtful article, “Why I Joined,” Mills explains what attracted him to EP in the first place, particularly its diversity. Here are some of Mills’s own words:
Comments on Acton, Zmirak, and Integralism
Yesterday’s online dustup over “friendly fascism” and liberalism involving two champions of Catholic libertarianism—John Zmirak and the Acton Institute—reveals more than just the obvious fact that Catholics disagree strongly on the relationship between the Catholic Church’s principles and concrete socio-economic policy. It also shows the extent to which the libertarian wing of the Church chooses to remain ignorant of their critics. (Before proceeding, let me be clear that despite Acton’s claim to be a non-confessional enterprise, its core leadership is Catholic, and many of its activities have a conscious Catholic bent to them.) For those who have been monitoring the “great debate” concerning Catholicism and liberalism which has again picked up steam over the past decade, none of this is entirely surprising. Acton’s members, for instance, have been subjected to withering criticism for years by a broad base of Catholic (and a few non-Catholic) thinkers, particularly Distributists and others who are concerned with upholding the integrity of the Church’s social magisterium. Acton’s response, at least thus far, has been to either ignore those criticisms or, worse, manipulate the debate by presenting caricatures of its critics. At the Institute’s annual “Acton University” (a misleading name if there ever was one), a “course” on Distributism is regularly offered, albeit one taught by Todd Flanders, an economic liberal who has little-to-no clear sympathy for the Distributist tradition. Having been graciously afforded the opportunity to listen to last year’s lecture, I can say with full confidence that the presentation was imbalanced, superficial, and, at points, lacking in seriousness.
Friendly Fascism, #friendlyfascism, Integralism, and Reality
Update, 3/20/15: The link to Twitter below is incomplete due to John Zmirak deleting his Tweets. A number of them are, thankfully, archived at The Mitrailleuse here.
I am a tad bit embarrassed to say this, but “friendly fascism” — sometimes used on social media as #friendlyfascism — isn’t real. That is to say, it is not an actual tag which can be meaningfully applied to any political, social, or intellectual position that I am familiar with. Although it has been used as a gag expression before, it seems to have entered the stream of Catholic quibbling due to a tongue-in-cheek line I deployed in my Front Porch Republic piece, “Illiberal Catholicism One Year On.” I have also, jokingly, made reference to it here on Opus Publicum. Now comes John Zmirak and Elise Hilton of the Acton Institute to both treat “friendly fascism” as if it were a real thing and then, amusingly, misapply it to Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig. My apologies to Ms. Stoker Bruenig. I think it is safe to say that her brand of Christian socialism is not what I had in mind when I first used the term.
Alan Jacobs, Youth, and the Right
Baylor University Professor and noted author Alan Jacobs has some words of his own concerning Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig’s (ESB) polarizing article on Pope Francis for The New Republic. Jacobs mainly echoes criticisms already leveled against ESB’s overly broad and uncharitable caricature of conservatives (political and religious), before closing with this curious paragraph:
Deneen on Liberalism and Conservatism
Only today did I stumble upon Patrick Deneen’s online seminar, “Liberalism and Conservatism,” over at The American Conservative. This week’s edition examines the (in)famous “Austrian Economist” and social thinker Friedrich Hayek; a full overview of the course, along with a syllabus, is available here. Deneen offers a lot for readers to chew on, including — I hope — whether or not his political taxonomy is adequate. Deneen breaks both liberalism and conservatism up into three parts each, with liberalism represented by Classical Liberalism, Progressive Liberalism, and Libertarianism and conservatism represented by Natural Right Conservatism, Traditional Conservatism, and Radical Catholicism. Although he recognizes that there is some overlap between these groups, there isn’t any explicit acknowledgment that all six groups (including perhaps even Radical Catholicism as well) are part of the liberal tradition.
The seminar isn’t over yet, and so it would be premature to say too much about it at this juncture. It will be interesting to see if Radical Catholicism can be positioned beyond the horizon of liberalism or if it represents just another “option” for negotiating the liberal order. Another way to approach these matters is to start with a piece like Thomas Storck’s “What is the Christian Understanding of the Social Order?” (and its antecedent articles) and then ask if any of the liberals or conservatives Deneen analyzes fit within that understanding at all.
Integralist Paradoxes? A Brief Reply to Shadle
Professor Matthew Shadle over at Political Theology Today has some kind—and critical—words for yours truly concerning “the paradoxes of postmodern integralism.” After surveying the emerging integralism which I have discussed in several places, including The Josias and Front Porch Republic, Shadle comes to the following, arguably premature, conclusion: