And other rarities
Had a conversation with a friend recently. He’s on the opposite side of the spectrum from me on almost every issue. He’s also a perfectly partisan Democrat.
While talking with him, he told me that:
When the economy has done well, it was because the Democrats were helping it.
When the economy has done poorly, it was because the Republicans messed it up.
When the economy has done poorly when Democrats controlled the Executive and Legislative branches, it was because the Republicans filibustered their great ideas.
It was sort of stunning to hear someone so partisan, and so convinced that Democrats in power would solve all the problems. I know such people exist on the Republican side as well. Ones who think that the Republicans have been the cause behind times when the economy was good, and so on.
Of course, the annual national deficit has been $1 trillion+ the past four years, caused in large part by the wars Bush got us into, and Obama hasn’t reversed these deficits. When I asked my friend about that, he said it was the fault of the Republicans. And even when the Dems controlled everything in government, they couldn’t change things because they focused everything on Obamacare and not the deficit.
It was fascinating to talk with him, and listening to his arguments and claims, I could see how he believed them, even though I did not. The partisan blinders are covering his eyes and completely opaque. He eventually asked me what I thought the most important issue was. “The sanctity of life,” I replied.
A funny, confused look came across his face. He mouthed the words, trying to understand what the phrase could mean. So I told him. Which got us onto contraception and abortion. He told me those issues weren’t that important, that he didn’t care about them. I said “you should care about them.” And told him why.
I mentioned that the current administration was trying to force Catholics to violate their consciences. He wasn’t bothered at all.
So I pressed him to tell me when a new human life began. He couldn’t do it. He hand-waved “around two or three months maybe.” I told him science and reason both agree that life begins at conception. He balked and said “no, no, long after that.”
“On what basis?” I asked. He couldn’t answer and just said “there’s tons of factors that go into the question of when a fetus becomes a human being.” Tons of factors, but he didn’t describe what any one of them were.
Nonetheless, he informed me that he “believes strongly in a woman’s right to choose.”
Science and reason are against his belief that life does not begin at conception, that aborting the baby at almost any age of gestation is permissible. But he cannot argue from science or reason, so he hand waved and talked about what he “believes,” regardless of it’s basis in reason. This is how allegedly secular, atheistic thinkers show they can be just as fideistic as the most fundamentalist Christian.
At this time in our country’s history, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. We need to work hard to turn the Republican party toward a consistent pro-life position, against hawkishness, against drone strikes, against kill lists, and eventually to distributism over capitalism. This seems like it is at least a possibility to me. Converting the Democrats to change their platform is a lost cause.
I’m not excited about Romney. On many of the fundamental issues facing our country and world, he’s just as blind as Obama is. And he seems like a political opportunist to me, rather than someone who has bedrock principles from which he acts. But as Dale said, it costs Romney nothing to repeal the HHS mandate, so he will do it if elected. And even if he will be one of the most milquetoast Presidents when it comes to the pro-life cause, at least he won’t be actively trying to twist Catholics’ arms into violating their consciences and beliefs.
So for me, this election wasn’t some difficult choice. Even though:
Both major candidates are blind to the fundamental forces undermining our country and culture.
Both are extremely wealthy men who will be wealthy their entire lives and not have to actually live with the choices they make for our country (e.g., Romney’s children will never have to go to the nearest public school and Obama’s daughters will never have to be on Medicaid and go to Planned Parenthood).
Both seem more intent on political gain, power, and reputation than truly helping our country (e.g. Obama’s inaction at Benghazi then the blatant cover-up and deception that has gone on since. Romney’s chameleon-like stances from his time as governor to now.)
I don’t have the blind trust in capitalism that Romney does. Sure, it worked for him just like hukt on fonix, but it leaves most people out in the dark. Nonetheless, from a Catholic standpoint, he’s the lesser of two evils. If and when he takes office, from day one I will be calling for him to end drone strikes, kill lists, and to stand up for the sanctity of life in a principled way, not in the wishy-washy way he is currently doing.
This country is pretty much toast, that Obama even has a shot at winning after the way he has handled things over the last four years.
And that whole Benghazi affair is totally disgusting.
Not only the lives of the 4 Americans who were left (no help sent) to die, murdered , but also putting in danger the lives of the man that made that scapegoat video that the White House erroneously blamed for the attack, and his family’s lives. Plus the lives of millions around the world who would be targets for radicals who believed the White House’s lies about that video, and calling attention to it needlessly.
Totally reckless and immoral, and probably criminal. That’s how I would describe the White House on the Benghazi tragedy.
Steve, it seems that way to me as well. They are covering their own hides to avoid blame and punishment. The fact that it is election time only exacerbates it, as no Democrat wants to hurt the party’s cause this November.
If my party had perpetrated such an evil, I would be ashamed.
But the demonization of conservatives that people receive starting from kindergarten through grad school, and in the movies, and just about everywhere else, has so many people hating Republicans so much, that they are willing to put up with authentic evil and un-Americam ideals from the Democrats.
It’s very sad, but it is a strategy that has worked well for the liberals.
The only issue you discussed in your post that I do not understand is “distributism over capitalism”. I am not familiar. Can you inform about what that entails? Thank you.
I’ve looked it up. (should have done that before posting). Buying organic is about the only thing my family does not do. We get used furniture, used vehicle, recycle trash… etc. But organic food is expensive. If there were more the price could come down with competition. We also need better communication access… and without paying so much to big cable companies. We are being indoctrinated and censored. As I’m sure you already know.
As far as buying organic food, I have come to the conclusion that “you can pay the farmer, or you can pay the doctor.” I have decided to pay the farmer. Anything with high-fructose corn syrup, or corn or soy in general (both almost certainly genetically modified) should be avoided like the plague.
Neither party is right on most of the issues that are important to me. At least the repubs pay lip service, while the dems hate the church and “boo” God.
I hope you are on target about steering the republicans in the right direction. The progressives took over the democrat party a hundred years ago and turned it into the thing it is today. Maybe one hundred years from now when we are a peaceful, pro life, distributist nation, historians will point to this election and say, “that’s where it started.” I hope they will add, “Thank God!”
Love your blog, Devin. Glad I found it!
Devin,
I enjoy your discussions! Where I went to school, I was taught that true Capitalism is simply leaving people alone to pursue their private interests. There is no “system” that could ever work, that is controlled by man. Where you have the most Freedom, Liberty, Respect for Life, Respect for Private Property, Contract Law, this is where you have the best distribution of wealth. Man seeks power, and any “system” gets rigged. We should have a government simply to protect those who are harmed by our fellow man….by bringing the offenders to justice….not by controlling man’s next move. Lean more towards punishment, less towards regulation.
I have no idea what a “distribution system” is, but charity from us Catholics, Protestants, and other well meaning secularists will help those most in need. Centralized bureaucracies are the worst way to fund the healing of the sick and feeding of the poor. I read this weekend that it costs taxpayers $60,000 per year per family for welfare. I believe the benefits they see are about $25,000. This is disgusting math.
Have a great day!
David,
Great to hear from you and hope your family is doing well!
The good news is, distributism is not a distribution system or anything like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
So a Distributist like me agrees with everything you say about the centralized bureaucracies being a bad, bad idea. Note how distributism emphasizes widespread private property ownership. Think: every man owns a few acres from which he can have a trade, a business, a flock of chickens if desires, a big garden, a shop, etc.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the desirability of such an outcome, I do have a problem squaring it with the fundamental right of property ownership (re: economic freedom). If the goal is to spread ownership as wide as possible – how do we prevent the aforementioned “accomplished individuals” from acquiring “too much”. Who defines what “too much” is?
In other words (and I’ve asked you this before): How do you go about promoting such a system while still maintaining economic and political freedom?
David, that is the way I’ve understood capitalism to mean as well. Hope you are right about this election and 100 years from now. We have a long way to go but with God all things are possible. Devin, I appreciate your posts and look forward to seeing how your family gets along with your ‘green’ endeavor. I pray it all goes well for you. I believe Marcus Grodi from EWTN is also ‘green’ with his family. Ahhh, the simple life……..
Capitalism is not perfect. That is the problem with it for the utopians on the left.
But it is the best system yet devised by man for the distribution of goods and services in the most effective way.
The systems that the Dems. are pushing, have been tried and failed (look at Europe) many times. Why they cannot look around them and see these facts is proof that their leftist utopianism is akin to a religious belief.
FWIW, last week the first debate among third-parties took place. Unfortunately, no American media was interested in showing the breath of fresh air that it was. You can check it out at http://youtu.be/5EcaX12h46k
The second third-party debate takes place on November 5 at 8PM CT. Watch it live on honest news channels, like Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/) and Russia Today (https://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air). For more information, see http://bit.ly/RjTZHu
PS: what does it tell you about the state of corruption of the American media when only foreign news channels air an US presidential debate?
Augustine,
3rd parties may be interesting, but they have zero chance of winning so that is why the lack of interest.
3rd parties can be quite dangerous when they split the vote of a particular party.
We got Bill Clinton thanks to Ross Perot. Clinton could have been much worse were it not for a majority of Republicans in his 2nd term.
The only 3rd party guy I like is Ralph Nader. He takes some liberal votes away from their guy.
If the chances of a candidate winning is your criterion, you’ll get what you choose, much like betting at the races: a betrayal of your hopes.
On the other hand, one’s moral obligation is to act according to his conscience. One has the duty to be informed about all the candidates, not only who he’s been told that can win, and, if any matches his values better, he is obliged to vote for him, lest he violate his conscience.
You are not morally called to vote for whom can win or for the lesser evil, but for the greater good, even if good is not popular and has little chance of getting winning a contest.
But, hey, that’s just me.
PS: for those who think that voting for Romney is a pro-life vote, consider this: http://bit.ly/X3ZEs5
I had my dinner ruined yesterday at the bar when an Obama ad came on, and it started an argument. The Democrat’s position was that he was union, had been all his life and he would never vote for “the other guy”. Same monolithic thinking as I have seen growing up in Boston.
I’m no Romney shill, by any means ( my guy, Santorum, a committed Catholic never made it thru the primaries). In fact, I just saw a Romney ad that ruined my dinner again tonight, emphasizing that he is pro Choice for rape and incest, and is in favor of contraception.
Gosh, where do I sign…. :-/
JP2 and Papa Benny have spoken on how a Catholic should approach two sub-optimal candidates: go for the one with the most in line with Catholic values (or s**ks the least in my vernacular), and press for “incremental change” (if/when a better candidate comes along that can build off of what the mediocre has accomplished, upgrade)
Mr. Martin I believe is correct. The issue for me is, not that Romney is ahead in the pols, but after the last 3 1/2 years, 49% of my countrymen would pull the lever for The One today, if given the chance.
You might get a 4 or an 8 year reprieve, but the trajectory is heading in a direction that is inevitable
I’m going to unplug my TV, and re-read A Canticle for Liebowitz, and City of God
Honestly, I understand that partisan because I used to be the same way before I returned to the Church. When I started finding out what the Democratic Party supported, especially once I was comfortable believing in Catholic doctrine, I was shocked and ultimately left. Now I’m an Independent.
As Devin’s nefarious atheist, libertarian co-worker I can attest to my daily run-ins with partisanship. I live in the north east, so I’m surrounded by blue though my immediate locale is more a deep purple. All my relatives are, to varying degrees, progressives. I tend to not engage them in political discourse because they are very close minded and get easily offended if I question their dogma. Every once in a while, I do respond to a particularly partisan post on FB or the like, but usually I try to keep it in immediate family (dad, sister, brother, etc…)
What is so frustrating to me is the complete lack of principles partisans (of both parties) demonstrate. The most obvious and irritating example from the left is, of course, our foreign policy in the mideast. For 7 years, the left was screaming bloody murder about Guantanamo, drone strikes, the Patriot Act, military tribunals, etc… Obama rides into power on Bush’s negative image promising to make it all go away and promptly…. continues almost every single failed policy Bush started. In fact, not only did he continue most of what Bush started, he doubled down on some of the things the left found most egregious about Bush’s policies. He then asserts the most invasive power a government can assert over its citizens – the ability to assassinate a U.S. citizen without accusation or trial. This is enough to scare even the most hawkish among us, and from the left…. deafening silence. At most, I get the acknowledgment that “yeah, he hasn’t been ideal, but I can’t possibly vote for Romney”.
When I press for a rationale for that statement, I get some hand wavy garbage about “war on women” or the 99% or the Mormon church or “Romney will be much worse” or some such.
It honestly boggles my mind how anyone on the left who opposed Bush can possibly feel comfortable supporting Obama for a second term… and we haven’t even gotten to the miserable economic situation yet.
I haven’t decided if Obama is actively pursuing the Cloward-Piven strategy or if he honestly believes expanding the government in general and the welfare state in particular is good for the economy. The generic rebuttal of “we do some things better together” is vapid. Of course we do some things better together, but government isn’t the only way (and is actually the worst way possible IMO) to “do things together”. We are presented with pictures of pundits standing by Hoover dam or Golden Gate bridge explaining to us rubes how “only government can bring us achievements like this”. But we just spent 1 trillion dollars and I ask – how many Hoover dams and/or Golden Gate bridges did we get for mortgaging our great-grandchildren’s future away even more? I count zero…
To me, a vote for Obama, is tacit approval for continued government growth, for the assertion that but for nearly $4 TRILLION in annual government spending, the country would grind to a halt. This is complete nonsense. To the partisan leftist, all government spending is acceptable and even desirable when a Democrat is at the helm. And before you accuse me of setting up a straw man – doesn’t a vote for Obama say exactly that? What makes anyone believe that just because we vote for the people that steal and spend all that money, that it will be spent more “virtuously” or effectively than if it was allocated as private capital? To quote my very favorite economist of all time “Is political self-interest nobler somehow, than economic self-interest?”
In the end, my response to the partisans I encounter (when I dare to offer it up) is this:
“Really, honestly take stock in what you believe. Try to distill down the things you really care about with respect to national policy making. Then ask yourself how ‘your guy’ has performed in the context of your care abouts. If he fails at most of them, as I’ll wager he does, how can you justify voting for him?”
But, it’s largely pointless. I agree with one of the previous posters that the current situation is very disheartening. If the election is even close, I have very little hope for our future. Sorry to end on a sour note. Here’s a smiley face
Spot on, James. Pres. Obama has been a failure and disaster on almost every single aspect of governance. But when the blinders are on, they are on.
Are those binders full of blinders?
Still not sure I understand the Distributive system. Lets say we create such a system tomorrow, whereby everybody gets two acres of land, and that land has equal amounts of natural resources on it, temperate weather, etc. (first of all, who gets to decide whether the land they got was equal to their fellow countrymen’s lot?). Ok, lets say it was all equal. Would we have to keep the Donald Trumps of the world from trading the crops he grew next year, to his neighbors, in exchange for half of their properties? Are we going to outlaw trade? In other words, isn’t this kind of a new type of slavery?
Its all about the differences in people. Some people use their “lot in life” to consume it, and live a tranquil, non competitive life, working a few hours per day. They may be 1. satisfied, or they may become: 2. jealous of others who have acquired wealth. On the other hand, some are industrious, competitive, inventive, creative, work 18 hours per day. More often than not, those of the latter become more financially successful than the former, and eventually, returning the society into the 80/20 rule, whereby 80% of the wealth will again, reside in the hands of 20% of the people.
In the noble quest of a wider distribution of wealth and property ownership, how does one peacefully get there without violating the property rights of those who acquired great wealth by being truly industrious? Is it quite possible that a majority of those who have not acquired wealth, are in this position (much more often than not) due to their own, minute by minute choices? And, does God really care who is rich, and who is poor? I believe he only cares about how the BOTH the rich and the poor use their time and resources, individually.
Ever since I read Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” book I have had a much easier time discussing politics with people I disagree with. It is one of those books that I wish more people would read.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351786091&sr=1-1&keywords=basic+economics
A great read! I was taught by econ professors just like him….30 years ago. Christian econ professors! What a concept. My favorite is/was Larry Reed. He taught at Northwood University (my alma mater) from ’79 – 82. He’s now the president of the Foundation for Economic Education. go to http://www.fee.org
Had a guest lecturer one day in ’81….Walter Williams.
To all who haven’t heard about the social and economic theory of Distributism, please do some research. It is not what you think. It follows the teachings of the Magisterium, and rejects socialism. It does not call for the redistribution of wealth and property. It dies reject the system that we have come to call “capitalism”, but this is because (in the words of Chesterton), too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists. It means too few capitalists!
Here are some links to check out. I understand that it is hard to put down the NY Times or turn down the Sean Hannity show and actually question your own secularist dogma. It was tough for me to do, too!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Servile_State
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0971828601
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/161017027X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
http://distributistreview.com/mag/
http://www.chesterton.org/
Sorry about all the links, but these are the best to get an idea about the system. It is not perfect, because mortal man is not perfect, but it is an honest attempt to create a just, fair and Catholic system.