Chad C. Pecknold, a professor at the Catholic University in Washington and signer of the freshly minted Catholic statement against Donald Trump’s candidacy, claimed the following yesterday on Twitter:
@OpusPublicum@Jahaza Limited government is straight out of Augustine. Sorry.
— Chad Pecknold (@ccpecknold) March 7, 2016
This puzzling assertion emerged from my surprise (also expressed on Twitter) that Pecknold appears to be aligning with movement conservatism (sometimes known as “coalition conservatism”), the sort long promoted by the magazine National Review which hosts the anti-Trump statement. Without flatly denying that this was the case, Pecknold did have this to say:
@Jahaza@OpusPublicum My political views based on protection for unborn, marriage, family & Church. “Movement conservatives” allied to this.
— Chad Pecknold (@ccpecknold) March 7, 2016
There is, of course, nothing wrong with any of those stances, though the anti-Trump statement in question lauds a fourth (ostensibly conservative) principle Pecknold — perhaps for reasons of space — left out, namely “re-establishing constitutional and limited government, according to the core Catholic social-ethical principle of subsidiarity.” Anyone with eyes to see knows by now that this commitment to “limited government” is essentially code for a commitment to free-market capitalism with modest (if any) economic intervention on the part of the government. While “limited government” can and often does imply other restraints on centralized coercive power, it is difficult to discern how they square with Catholic social teaching. Libertarians (and their loosely estranged social-liberal brethren) routinely speak of “limited government” with regards to most moral issues held near and dear by Catholics, which is why they take a generally low view of legislation restricting social blights such as abortion, prostitution, and pornography. If the principle of subsidiarity is truly what Catholics are after, why not speak instead of “localized government”? The expression has the benefit of being free from the ideological baggage long associated with “limited government” while pointing to the true meaning of subsidiarity.
Could it be that Pecknold is unaware of the contemporary, liberal definition of “limited government”? Certainly his peers are not. Both George Weigel and Robert P. George — the principal authors of the anti-Trump statement — have long been associated with the “Americanist” strand of Catholicism promoted by outlets such as First Things and, yes, National Review. In analyzing this contingent in 2014 for The American Conservative, Patrick Deneen recognized that their embrace of “limited government” came packaged with “generally accepting of a more laissez-faire economic position” (cf. paragraph 7). Other mainline Catholic proponents of “limited government,” such as Samuel Gregg (author of the libertarian apologia Tea Party Catholic) and his cohorts at the Acton Institute, well recognize that this stand goes hand-in-hand with vigorous support for capitalism (or what its proponents sometimes disingenuously call “the market economy”). Finally, given that Pecknold routinely writes on Christianity and politics, it strains credulity to believe that Pecknold is ignorant of the definition of “limited government,” particularly when it appears in a statement penned by “Americanist” Catholic thinkers in movement-conservative magazine.
As for Pecknold’s assertion that “limited government” is “straight out of [St.] Augustine,” that matter will have to largely wait for another day. However, it is no doubt safe to say that the Bishop of Hippo was neither a free-market capitalist nor an advocate of liberal democracy. But perhaps Pecknold meant something else by the statement. These things are always difficult to discern in the cramped realm of Twitter where dismissiveness and posturing are often rewarded over rigorous, consistent thought.
March 8, 2016
I’m grateful for this: “If the principle of subsidiarity is truly what Catholics are after, why not speak instead of ‘localized government’? The expression has the benefit of being free from the ideological baggage long associated with “limited government” while pointing to the true meaning of subsidiarity.”
This ‘limited government’ bull hockey is the same old same old (liberal) canto. It’s particularly attractive today to Catholic because our government pushes suicidal sex-socialist policy, and limiting it as much as possible seems like the right thing to do. But it is not. If we we were tomorrow to be able to set policy we would, like the old medieval states, put up plenty of restrictions–to prevent monopolies and many kinds of ills, including predatory lending.
But what I am wondering about this morning, as I go out to take the wrappings off the roses, is whether a ‘localized solution’ that the Josias article attributes to Dorothy Day et al is better for us than the solution of FIDESZ. That is, use electoral politics to build a just society on the ruins of an existing nation.
In our altar society meeting, our pastor Saturday went on about the wonderful benefits of competition. Just as if the American heresy had not been already exposed and trashed.
March 8, 2016
Well, I don’t think The Josias supports one one “response” to the problems of secular, liberal democracy. What you find over is fairly diverse, though obviously everyone shares a certain set of anti-liberal commitments.
March 8, 2016
I meant the article posted on March 3.
March 8, 2016
This article has some useful sorts–just came across it, only skimmed it:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/global-economic-political-and-military-configurations/
March 8, 2016
So the writer of this link is an old Marxist, a man named James Petras, but his interesting analysis of the world situation is supported by what we see in the US, where both parties are liberal, only more or less neo-liberal, the WIKI def of which is, a supporter of “Free Markets.” They don’t put the term in quotations. He gives details of country after country where any opposition to neo-liberalism has been silenced.
It does cross one’s mind to stop and to stop others from continually calling the Republican Party ‘conservative.’ It is liberal.
In his line up, the only significant non-left opposition to triumphant neoliberalism around the world is Hungary and more recently Poland. Those are the only parties he calls conservative, although he does not provide a definition. My (unsympathetic) Polish neighbors say the movement in Poland is weak. In Hungary it was incredibly strong. I sure would like to visit and ask my own questions.
March 8, 2016
These are confusing times.
Before Trump’s current run, I could barely stand to look at the man.
But when the Left, the neo-Catholics, the big media, the establishment GOP, and practically the whole upper third of society coalesce to oppose the man, I marvel at him.
You are right that the NR piece was typical unimpressive Americanism. I am concerned that Trump is really pro-abortion, although he says otherwise. But the GOP is so useless, they are almost totally impotent in even those Catholic principles that they do support.
And Trump is a liar. But unlike Obama and the GOP, I think Trump knows that you know he is a liar. It is a shared conceit. But the political class actually thinks you are fooled by their lies.
The NY primary is coming up. Do I vote for the Evangelical who has showed callous disregard for Middle Eastern Christians, or for one of the two mediocre establishment sell-outs, or for one if the quality principled candidates who have dropped out, or Trump, or no one? I really don’t know.
One more advantage of monarchy is that it doesn’t hang these ethical problems of leadership on the populace. I suppose election by lot would also relieve this nonsense.
March 8, 2016
I just tend to refrain from voting.
I have no love of Trump, and I would have deep reservations voting for such a man, but at this point it seems like Catholics, instead of standing strong, are choosing instead to capitulate to movement conservatism or just making the usual litany of excuses for voting Democrat. I am not impressed by either option, truth be told.
March 8, 2016
The usual reply is thus … “But the Catechism and the popes say I have an ethical obligation to vote!”
This always sounds simplistic to me, but I don’t have a good, studied reply.
March 8, 2016
What conservatism? Let’s not call it that if it’s not! If we want a conservative party, we shall have to build one, ourselves.
March 8, 2016
The NY primary is coming up. Do I vote for the Evangelical who has showed callous disregard for Middle Eastern Christians, or for one of the two mediocre establishment sell-outs, or for one if the quality principled candidates who have dropped out, or Trump, or no one? I really don’t know.
You vote for the man most likely to push the whole thing over so the systemic constraints that prevent better options are liquidated. The time when the Courtney-Murrayite compromise with post-WWII democracy was a deal worth making has passed. It has most likely been dead since the Berlin Wall fell.
March 8, 2016
This is kind of a frivolous critique of Dr. Pecknold. He should only be responsible for what he actually said…nothing more.
Sanchez claimed that “#4 is code for free-market capitalism”…and Pecknold responded basically that “#4 says limited government (subsidiarity)…and that goes as far back as Augustine.”
If he doesn’t want to enter into a debate about libertarian economics on Twitter, but prefers to keep comments on-topic to the actual published statement, that’s not disingenuous…that’s reasonable.
March 8, 2016
He put his name on the document, meaning that he endorses its contents and their plain meaning. If he had a reservation to make concerning what the document stated and promoted, he should have asked for a modification to the text, an addendum stating his reservation(s), or simply withheld his name. Instead, he joined a number of other Catholic academics in aligning with movement conservatism and mainline Republican politics, though I won’t speculate on his reasons.
The meaning of “limited government,” as understood and promoted by both the writers of the document and other Catholic (neo)liberals/neocons, is common knowledge. I believe Pecknold is smart enough to realize this and has instead resorted to an old smokescreen tactic, one which is commonly deployed by some of the folks at the Acton Institute. I’m sorry, but that dog don’t hunt.