Catholic Social Thought - Opus Publicum

March 11, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Economics

Distributism or the Democratic Party?

In the past month The Distributist Review has published two pieces which, inter alia, take aim at the incomplete (if not inept) pro-life platform of the Republican Party: Arturo Ortiz’s “Towards a Pro-Life and Pro-Family Economy” and John Medaille’s “Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion?” (I previously discussed Medaille’s article here.) Unfortunately, neither offer up equally excoriating remarks for the Democratic Party despite the fact it continues to lead the political charge in America for wider access to abortions. Consider this passage from Ortiz’s article:

While most Republican candidates tend to be nominally pro-life, their platform has little to offer that is truly pro-life and pro-family. Influenced by the principles that promote radical individualism and low wage dependence, the Republican Platform makes it difficult, if not altogether impossible, for expectant mothers to support their children post birth. Even if abortion is made illegal, if Roe v. Wade is overturned (both of which would be good things), an economic philosophy that makes abortions desirable and resolves to have charity provide for those who take the courageous decision to keep their children, is hardly pro-life.

How do the Democrats fare any better here? Although the average Democrat is more likely to support entitlement programs and transfer payments than the average Republican, the Democratic Party is by no means anti-capitalist nor anti-individualist. Moreover, Ortiz’s low view of the role charity can and ought to play in assisting “those who take the courageous decision [“right decision”?] to keep their children” betrays a lack of knowledge of what the Church’s social magisterium actually teaches. In a first-best world, local charities, with the cooperation of Church and state, ought to be providing assistance to those in need, including single pregnant women who cannot afford to properly care for themselves and their unborn child. While it is true that we have to face the second-best reality that charities alone are likely not enough to provide all of the support these women and their children require, looking to a large, centralized, and bureaucratic distributional scheme is not necessarily the answer either.

Granted, neither Ortiz nor Medaille come right and proclaim that the Democratic Party is the answer, but there appears to be an underlying implication in both articles that attacking poverty through entitlement programs and transfer payments will reduce abortion rates in the United States. The empirical evidence for such claims is thin at best, and it is far from clear that the Democrats, should they take the reins of governance in Washington in November, will deviate from its pro-abortionist platform. While no distributist worth his salt should cast anything other than a scornful glance toward the Republicans, it does not follow that the Democrats — or, for that matter, the modern administrative state — will set things straight. In fact, there is good reason to believe they will simply make matters worse.

March 9, 2016 Catholic Social Thought, Politics

Dreher on Trump and Catholics

Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher has some thoughts on the furor that has erupted over a handful of Catholic academics and writers rallying behind George Weigel and Robert P. George’s public statement against Donald Trump. (I have written a bit on the matter here.) Dreher wonders aloud if this isn’t the end of “neoconservative Catholicism,” that is, the marriage between conservative Catholics and once-mainline Republican Party politics that was inaugurated in large part by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and the magazine he helped found, First Things. Here is Dreher:

This is an astonishing political and cultural moment on the Right. When grassroots orthodox Catholics no longer believe that their leaders, both ecclesial and lay, speak and lead in their interests, the world as we conservatives have known it for at least the last 30 years begins to fall apart. Personally, I don’t fault these Catholic leaders (some of whom are friends of mine) for taking a stand on an issue that they feel strongly about, especially one as critically important as the American presidency. But I also understand why these conservative Catholic readers interpret the statement as an attempt to shore up a party establishment that has failed, even on Catholic terms.

I’m reminded of something a friend of mine, a well-known journalist, told me about a conversation he had during the run-up to the Iraq War with a prominent conservative Catholic. The journalist, a secular liberal, said he challenged the conservative on why he and his Catholic ideological confreres were standing in favor of the Iraq War, and against their hero, Pope John Paul II. He said that the conservative Catholic told him that yes, he had more misgivings than he was letting on publicly, but it was important to maintain solidarity on the Right. If we (meaning social conservatives) want to see progress on the issues we care about, the conservative reportedly said, then we have to give on these other issues.

Even war.

The whole situation reveals one of the critical flaws in contemporary (American) Catholicism, namely the belief that liberal democracy can still provide the pathway to a better future. It won’t. Although I will be the last man in Michigan to mourn the death of neoconservative Catholic politics, I am fine with elbowing my way to the front of the line to declare that no Catholic in good conscience should support Donald Trump or any of the other disappointing choices on offer this election cycle. Conservative-to-traditional Catholics who support Trump are no less seduced by Americanist ideology than those who commonly (and perhaps thoughtlessly) pull the lever for Democrats on the belief that the latter rigorously uphold Catholic social teaching. Instead of taking this moment in American history as a sign that we have no earthly political home (at the moment), Catholics are at war with one another over which earthly messiah will save us. Better, I think, to recognize our post-political situation and prepare for the storm on the horizon rather than squabble over which brand of liberalism will best satiate our basest longings.

February 23, 2016 Catholic Social Thought

Medaille on the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion Distinction

Over at The Distributist Review John Medaille has a thoughtful article which largely discusses the distinction between being merely anti-abortion as opposed to thoroughly pro-life. Someone who is pro-life, according to Medaille, should also be pro-family wage, pro-natalist, pro-just war, and so forth. Unfortunately Medaille veers a bit off course toward the end with a diatribe against the Republican Party for its limp-wristed approach to pro-life issues, as if the Democratic Party warrants a free pass. While it is true that Republicans have come up painfully short in delivering on their promise to end (or at least curtail) legal access to abortion, let no one forget that Democrats (i.e., contemporary American political liberals) have worked tirelessly for decades to promote abortion in not only the United States, but around the world. The fact that Democrats, by and large, support centralized entitlement programs, transfer payments, and thicker market regulations than Republicans in no way, shape, or form exonerates them from helping to perpetuate one of the greatest horrors in human history.

Although Medaille does not come right out and say it, it is not difficult to read his piece as lending a tacit endorsement for the contestable claim that Democratic policies by and large align with the tenets of Catholic social teaching (CST). (Whether or not Medaille personally holds such a view is not altogether clear, however.) But where in CST does one find direct support for the bloated administrative state and the centralization of power in the federal government? Granted, the Republicans do not do much better on this front, and the more libertarian wings of the party often directly oppose principles of CST such as a just wage and solidarity in the name of “freedom of contract.” At the close of business, it has to be admitted that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans carry the principles of CST deep in their hearts, preferring instead to march to the bloody beat of late-modern secular liberalism.

None of this is to say that Medaille’s instincts are not in the right place. With the election cycle well underway, no doubt many Catholic (and other Christian) voters will be tempted to follow the elephant in the (long) hope of gaining back some of the ground lost in the “culture wars” of the past decade or so. Battling back that temptation, however, should not come at the grave price of supporting a party that has fought vigorously for decades against the most basic tenets of the natural law. Now is the time for all Christians to seriously reflect upon the fact that when it comes to present-day America, we have no political home.