Sargent Shriver and His Times
February 16, 2011
George Weigel
R. Sargent Shriver, who died on Jan. 18, was the last of the classic American Catholic liberals. Advocate of racial justice when that took real courage; founding director of the Peace Corps and inspiration of a generation of Americans dedicated to serving the global poor; director of Lyndon Johnson’s well-intended if ill-conceived domestic War on Poverty; ambassador to France and vice-presidential candidate—Shriver lived one of the richest of public lives, which included his partnership with his equally pro-life wife, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, in the Special Olympics movement.
We last met several years ago when Sarge called me up and invited me to lunch. He had read and liked my Letters to a Young Catholic and wanted me to sign copies for several of the younger members of the Shriver clan, which I was happy to do in his Special Olympics office before we repaired across the street to the Willard Hotel for lunch. While I was signing, he casually and cheerfully mentioned that “Lunch might be interesting, because I can’t remember anything I’ve said 10 minutes after I’ve said it.” The Alzheimer’s that finally killed him was already working its wicked ways, as his friendly warning indicated. Yet he was taking his condition with the equanimity that comes from deep faith—and long experience with those battling various handicaps, physical and mental.
Lunch was utterly charming. I got Sarge to reminisce a bit about being an altar boy for Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, who used to visit the Shriver’s country place when Sarge was in short pants. He then changed the subject and asked me, “Where was I ambassador?” I said I thought his embassy had been to France, which he then described with gusto, remembering several run-ins with Le Grand Charles (de Gaulle). I didn’t ask him about my favorite Shriver story, which involved him trying to be one of the boys at a steelworkers’ bar in Johnstown, Pa., during the 1972 campaign; Sarge blew the gaffe by ordering “A Courvoisier; no, make it a double!” Still, I remember the strange, wonderful sense of being in the presence of a man who had not only made history in his own right but whose first American ancestor, David Shriver, had signed the Maryland Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1776.
Had his potential candidacy not been vetoed by his Kennedy in-laws, Sarge might have been President Johnson’s vice-presidential running mate in 1964, a historical “what if” full of possibility: Shriver, as vice president or, later, president, might have been able to connect the Democratic Party’s civil rights commitments to a robust pro-life commitment, for Sarge knew in his heart that the pro-life cause was the logical, moral extension of the civil rights cause to which he had long dedicated himself. Instead, brother-in-law Ted Kennedy helped lead the Democratic Party into the pro-choice fever swamps from which the party has never extricated itself—and seems unlikely to do so in the future.
Sarge and Eunice fought the good fight, but they never did the most dramatic thing they might have done for the pro-life cause, which was to leave the Democratic Party after the Clintonistas denied pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey an opportunity to speak at the 1992 Democratic national convention. That was the break-point for many of us who had been lifelong, genetically programmed Democrats. That the Shrivers stayed put was a sadness; their departure would have sent shock waves through Democratic circles and might have provided an antidote to Mario Cuomo’s “I’m personally opposed, but . . . .” mantra.
Had Sarge and Eunice Shriver prevailed over Ted Kennedy, the United States might not be heading toward a European-style two party system, with a lifestyle-libertine, secularist party of the left contending against a quasi-Christian Democratic party on the right. America might have had two parties that understood that the right to life from conception until natural death is the first of “pre-political” human rights; indeed, it’s the right whose acknowledgment makes a decent polity possible.
That was not to be. The country is the poorer for it.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
2.16.2011 | 11:53am
ferd says:
Liberal Christians who embrace secular ethics to "progress" Western civilization is almost at the very heart of all our social dysfunction today. Once motivated by the Biblical call to care for the ANAWIM ("the poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger"), Christians morphed this call into concern for the worker and the civil rights movement (swept up in the Social Gospel). The Social Gospel corrupted, however, under Shriver's nose into the "politics of the possible" and an embrace of secular ethics...ie... various "green" fears of human domination of the planet or envy over Wal-Mart's size or Exxon's profits...etc.
Now, Mr. Wiegel brings up the path of abortion in society as perhaps pivoting off of Shiver and Ted Kennedy and some critical political moves. I respectfully disagree. The social acceptance of abortion is rooted in a complex secularization of the judiciary caused by the wide spread acceptance of secularism (secular ethics) in the universities long ago. Secular ethics, such as SURVIVAL ETHICS, were deemed a "safer", less ideologically likely to lead to war, path for Western society after WWI and II. Perhaps Shiver could have slowed the dehumanizing wave...but the wave of secular dehumanization was coming anyway.
For example: our current President, Barack Obama, claims the mantle of the old Social Gospel and will probably be considered one of the all-time greatest proponents of abortion in USA history.
Now, Mr. Wiegel brings up the path of abortion in society as perhaps pivoting off of Shiver and Ted Kennedy and some critical political moves. I respectfully disagree. The social acceptance of abortion is rooted in a complex secularization of the judiciary caused by the wide spread acceptance of secularism (secular ethics) in the universities long ago. Secular ethics, such as SURVIVAL ETHICS, were deemed a "safer", less ideologically likely to lead to war, path for Western society after WWI and II. Perhaps Shiver could have slowed the dehumanizing wave...but the wave of secular dehumanization was coming anyway.
For example: our current President, Barack Obama, claims the mantle of the old Social Gospel and will probably be considered one of the all-time greatest proponents of abortion in USA history.
2.16.2011 | 11:53am
Richard says:
Ahhh yes, this was a good man but......... Once again we see the single issue politics that is completely blind to the veritable score of politicians and public people that have switched their allegiance on this one issue for political and power gain. Jesse Jackson, George H. W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romny, the list goes on.
The author has certainly hinted at his own importance by dropping this name. Then as if to suggest that he alone is fit to judge this man's life, retreats into his mantra which I suspect in the end forms the very foundation of his income.
The author has certainly hinted at his own importance by dropping this name. Then as if to suggest that he alone is fit to judge this man's life, retreats into his mantra which I suspect in the end forms the very foundation of his income.
2.16.2011 | 12:14pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Richard,
Let's not forget Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California, the nation's most populous state then as now, signed into the law one of the most, if not the most, liberal abortion statute in the nation years before Roe v. Wade mandated legalization, but who later became vocally pro-life. As with Sargent Shriver, I will not presume to judge Ronald Reagan's conversion on this issue.
Let's not forget Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California, the nation's most populous state then as now, signed into the law one of the most, if not the most, liberal abortion statute in the nation years before Roe v. Wade mandated legalization, but who later became vocally pro-life. As with Sargent Shriver, I will not presume to judge Ronald Reagan's conversion on this issue.
2.16.2011 | 1:12pm
Stephen M. barr says:
Wow, Richard, That is one of the more ad hominem and uncharitable posts I have read on the FT website in a while. So Weigel wrote this article to make himself look important? And he writes about the prolife cause because its a way of making an income? How cynical can one get?
To the first point, I would note that George Weigel wouldn't get much mileage from "dropping" Shriver's name because Weigel is already very well known in his own right, and Shriver has been out of the public eye for so long that probably few people under 40 have even heard of him. One reason for George Weigel's mentioning his personal relationship with Shriver, is that it shows the reader that he has a particularly strong evidentiary basis for the (positive) things he says about Shriver's views and character. Unlike you, who somehow know Weigel's soul without knowing him at all. Or do you know him? If so, by telling us how you will at most become guilty of name-dropping, but will at least show that you know what you are talking about
Second, as St. Paul said, "the laborer is worthy of his hire". Ministers, priests, rabbis, theologians, philosophers, scientists, and novelists nearly all get their daily bread by working at their vocation. That doesn't mean they just do it for the money.
I hold no brief for Jesse Jackson or Teddy Kennedy, but who gave you a window into these men's souls so that you know that they changed their views for the sake of power? It is possible, maybe it is even likely. But we must have more than probabilities before we make definite accusations against specific people. It is cynical to suppose that every change of philosophy by a politician is based on hunger for power. There are many examples of politicians whose political philosophies changed radically and honestly over their careers.
To the first point, I would note that George Weigel wouldn't get much mileage from "dropping" Shriver's name because Weigel is already very well known in his own right, and Shriver has been out of the public eye for so long that probably few people under 40 have even heard of him. One reason for George Weigel's mentioning his personal relationship with Shriver, is that it shows the reader that he has a particularly strong evidentiary basis for the (positive) things he says about Shriver's views and character. Unlike you, who somehow know Weigel's soul without knowing him at all. Or do you know him? If so, by telling us how you will at most become guilty of name-dropping, but will at least show that you know what you are talking about
Second, as St. Paul said, "the laborer is worthy of his hire". Ministers, priests, rabbis, theologians, philosophers, scientists, and novelists nearly all get their daily bread by working at their vocation. That doesn't mean they just do it for the money.
I hold no brief for Jesse Jackson or Teddy Kennedy, but who gave you a window into these men's souls so that you know that they changed their views for the sake of power? It is possible, maybe it is even likely. But we must have more than probabilities before we make definite accusations against specific people. It is cynical to suppose that every change of philosophy by a politician is based on hunger for power. There are many examples of politicians whose political philosophies changed radically and honestly over their careers.
2.16.2011 | 1:17pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
One more thing: Weigel does not say that Shriver changes his views on pro-life issues. Indeed his article makes clear that Shriver was consistently pro-life to the end. And it is also obvious that Weigel's purpose was not to attack Shriver for staying with the Democratic Party. It was to show that the current state of that party was not an inevitability, and to hold up to it an example of its own better past and nobler traditions. This article is not an attack on Shriver, but a celebration of him, and a lament that we may not see his like again.
2.16.2011 | 1:40pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@Stephen M. Barr,
I would tend to agree with most of your two post, but when you write, " And it is also obvious that Weigel's purpose was not to attack Shriver for staying with the Democratic Party," I must disagree. It seemed evident to me that Mr. Weigel believes that the Shrivers should have switched party, observing "they never did the most dramatic thing they might have done for the pro-life cause, which was to leave the Democratic Party" and calling their failure to do so "a sadness". On this point, I must agree with ferd that there is no evidence that a Shriver switch would have stopped the trend.
While I admire Mr. Weigel's work a great deal, I must say, his statement here reflects an attitude that I find troubling and all too common among social conservatives, that the Republican party offers the solution for what ails society. Again, while I am a lifelong Republican from a long line of Republicans going all the way back to Lincoln (to whom I am related on my mother's side), today's Republican party has pursued economic policies over the past three decades which have been every bit as harmful to traditional family life as the social policies pursued by the Democrats. It is not as if the Shivers had a choice between a party that was pure evil and a party that was pure good. Too many social conservatives appear to believe that is the case and that is the choice. And while I also believe that the War on Poverty was ill-conceived and disastrously executed, the Shrivers undoubtedly considered the Randian economic policies pursued by the Republicans even more ill-conceived and disastrously executed.
In short, I sense a sort of triumphalism in Mr. Weigel's "sadness" and not a small amount of condescension toward a man (and his wife) who was among the most consistent in applying orthodox Christian doctrine to public policy (even if at times misguided) of any man in 20th century America. Mr. Shriver's was a remarkable public life and he left behind a body of accomplishments that matches and, in most cases, indeed exceeds that of any public service in either of America's two primary parties. I am sad that Mr. Shriver's views on abortion did not prevail in his own party, but I am not so blinded by partisanship that I believe that I know better than he what party he should have called his own.
I would tend to agree with most of your two post, but when you write, " And it is also obvious that Weigel's purpose was not to attack Shriver for staying with the Democratic Party," I must disagree. It seemed evident to me that Mr. Weigel believes that the Shrivers should have switched party, observing "they never did the most dramatic thing they might have done for the pro-life cause, which was to leave the Democratic Party" and calling their failure to do so "a sadness". On this point, I must agree with ferd that there is no evidence that a Shriver switch would have stopped the trend.
While I admire Mr. Weigel's work a great deal, I must say, his statement here reflects an attitude that I find troubling and all too common among social conservatives, that the Republican party offers the solution for what ails society. Again, while I am a lifelong Republican from a long line of Republicans going all the way back to Lincoln (to whom I am related on my mother's side), today's Republican party has pursued economic policies over the past three decades which have been every bit as harmful to traditional family life as the social policies pursued by the Democrats. It is not as if the Shivers had a choice between a party that was pure evil and a party that was pure good. Too many social conservatives appear to believe that is the case and that is the choice. And while I also believe that the War on Poverty was ill-conceived and disastrously executed, the Shrivers undoubtedly considered the Randian economic policies pursued by the Republicans even more ill-conceived and disastrously executed.
In short, I sense a sort of triumphalism in Mr. Weigel's "sadness" and not a small amount of condescension toward a man (and his wife) who was among the most consistent in applying orthodox Christian doctrine to public policy (even if at times misguided) of any man in 20th century America. Mr. Shriver's was a remarkable public life and he left behind a body of accomplishments that matches and, in most cases, indeed exceeds that of any public service in either of America's two primary parties. I am sad that Mr. Shriver's views on abortion did not prevail in his own party, but I am not so blinded by partisanship that I believe that I know better than he what party he should have called his own.
2.16.2011 | 2:10pm
Itstheorientation says:
Shriver was the first Catholic to run on a pro-abortion ticket. McGovern could get no-one else to run w/him and had no chance of winning. He was known as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion and acid", but "pro-life" "Catholic" Shriver put ambition first & God last. As the "powers that be" saw that Catholics, led by their ambitious politicians and greedy hierarchy, would go along, the Supreme Court handed down Roe & Doe Jan 22 1973 - two days after Shriver would have been inaugurated. From then on (starting in 1976 - it was defeated in 1972 w/McGovern's help), "right to abortion" has been part of Democratic party platform.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n1T9e3E8F6IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972+1972+abortion+shriver&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=6JkFLkZo1XcC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=1972+shriver+daly+abortion&source=bl&ots=NNMrrvwN9b&sig=dTKdJ9lHLM57gKAFJzDahqdCUls&hl=en&ei=iRpcTfjoKoaBlAe5-NnjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n1T9e3E8F6IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972+1972+abortion+shriver&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=6JkFLkZo1XcC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=1972+shriver+daly+abortion&source=bl&ots=NNMrrvwN9b&sig=dTKdJ9lHLM57gKAFJzDahqdCUls&hl=en&ei=iRpcTfjoKoaBlAe5-NnjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
2.16.2011 | 2:12pm
Richard says:
Yea, my comments were probably lacking in Christian charity. But I cannot begin to chronicle how often the conservative bishops engage in cruel and unnecessary judgments about people and their tragic lives all in the name of strict Catholic morality and theology.
So here's a development recently that I believe really shows up Weigel and his consistent Republican mantra and defense of the bishops. This past week the director of Focus on the Family, no stranger to conservative, pro-life politics in the trenches, actually reached out to Planned Parenthood (supposedly the most prolific of abortion providers) to see if there is some common ground to reduce the tragic number of abortions in the world. Now there is an action that really shows character and hearts in the right place. The president has tried to move in this direction only to be labeled the most pro-abortion president in history or some such tripe. I'm surprised if the conservatives and "birthers" haven't tried to prove Obama is out there performing abortions himself.
But I suppose it is more soul-satisfying to loudly vilify and rant than it is to quietly move in the right direction.
So here's a development recently that I believe really shows up Weigel and his consistent Republican mantra and defense of the bishops. This past week the director of Focus on the Family, no stranger to conservative, pro-life politics in the trenches, actually reached out to Planned Parenthood (supposedly the most prolific of abortion providers) to see if there is some common ground to reduce the tragic number of abortions in the world. Now there is an action that really shows character and hearts in the right place. The president has tried to move in this direction only to be labeled the most pro-abortion president in history or some such tripe. I'm surprised if the conservatives and "birthers" haven't tried to prove Obama is out there performing abortions himself.
But I suppose it is more soul-satisfying to loudly vilify and rant than it is to quietly move in the right direction.
2.16.2011 | 3:35pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
(a) What evidence is there that the president has moved in this direction? The kind of thing that has earned President Obama a reputation as "pro choice" is this from the website About.com (not a conservative or Republican site: it is owned by the New York Times):
"On his second day in office, Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy" that prohibited the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from contributing money to international family planning agencies that offered abortions or abortion counseling."
President Obama has been attacked from the left on MANY issues, but I am unaware that anyone has attacked him for not being pro-choice enough.
(b) You are surprised that conservatives and "birthers" (apparently the same thing in your universe) haven't accused the president of actually performing abortions. But accusing the president of that would be insane. So you are basically saying that conservatives are insane. I guess that is better than saying they are hypocrites in it for the money --- being crazy is not as bad as
being a hypocrite.
It bothers many people who agree with the Democratic party on most issues
that the national Democratic Party is castigated for being "pro-choice". But it IS pro-choice. If the shoe fits wear it. It is not the fault of George Weigel, the GOP, conservatives, "birthers" or anyone else that you evidently despise that the national Democratic Party is solidly in the pro-choice camp. That was their choice. It has hurt the Democratic Party and hurt the country.
"On his second day in office, Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy" that prohibited the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from contributing money to international family planning agencies that offered abortions or abortion counseling."
President Obama has been attacked from the left on MANY issues, but I am unaware that anyone has attacked him for not being pro-choice enough.
(b) You are surprised that conservatives and "birthers" (apparently the same thing in your universe) haven't accused the president of actually performing abortions. But accusing the president of that would be insane. So you are basically saying that conservatives are insane. I guess that is better than saying they are hypocrites in it for the money --- being crazy is not as bad as
being a hypocrite.
It bothers many people who agree with the Democratic party on most issues
that the national Democratic Party is castigated for being "pro-choice". But it IS pro-choice. If the shoe fits wear it. It is not the fault of George Weigel, the GOP, conservatives, "birthers" or anyone else that you evidently despise that the national Democratic Party is solidly in the pro-choice camp. That was their choice. It has hurt the Democratic Party and hurt the country.
2.16.2011 | 3:37pm
Don Roberto says:
Oh, Richard, as if Planned Parenthood knows not which side its bread is buttered on. Quietly moving in the right direction won't cut it: abortion is not merely "tragic"; it is a great evil.
†
†
2.16.2011 | 3:59pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
As far as the "cruel" Catholic bishops judging people, what the bishops have done is simply consistently say that abortion is morally wrong. It either is or it isn't. They have an obligation to say that it is. I challenge you to find me ONE statement by a bishop that judges "people and their tragic lives". You say you "cannot begin to chronicle it". Yes you can. You can begin by citing just one instance. Give me a direct quote of an American bishop judging not the intrinsic morality of the act of abortion, but the woman who has one. You sound like you might be a Catholic: the Catholic Church has always distinguished between the objective rightness and wrongness of ACTs, and "subjective imputability", i.e. how responsible and guilty the PERSON is. This is fundamental to Catholic morality. We are to condemn wrong acts as wrong, but not to judge the souls of people. Only God can judge the heart. Whereas you seem freely to make statements about the hearts of others, I have never heard a statement by a Catholic bishop judging the hearts of women who have had abortions.
The trouble with failing to distinguish the objective wrongness of acts and the subjective guilt of those who perform them is two-fold: It tends to lead one to demonize opponents, and it inhibits one from speaking out against the wrongness of acts. It leads one to say, "I think conservatives stand for bad things, so they must be cruel", and it leads one to say "Women who have abortions are not necessarily evil people, but are desperate people in tragic circumstances, so we may not say that abortion is objectively an immoral act for that would be to condemn these women." The very same things can be said about the bishop's condemnation of homosexual acts, while expressing charity toward homosexuals themselves.
The trouble with failing to distinguish the objective wrongness of acts and the subjective guilt of those who perform them is two-fold: It tends to lead one to demonize opponents, and it inhibits one from speaking out against the wrongness of acts. It leads one to say, "I think conservatives stand for bad things, so they must be cruel", and it leads one to say "Women who have abortions are not necessarily evil people, but are desperate people in tragic circumstances, so we may not say that abortion is objectively an immoral act for that would be to condemn these women." The very same things can be said about the bishop's condemnation of homosexual acts, while expressing charity toward homosexuals themselves.
2.16.2011 | 7:13pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@Itstheorientation
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed posts I have ever read. Sargent Shriver was publicly pro-life his entire life. He attended daily mass regularly. He contributed his time, talent, money and name advocating against abortion and in favor of life. In doing so, he and his wife defied her very powerful and wealthy family. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed posts I have ever read. Sargent Shriver was publicly pro-life his entire life. He attended daily mass regularly. He contributed his time, talent, money and name advocating against abortion and in favor of life. In doing so, he and his wife defied her very powerful and wealthy family. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
2.18.2011 | 3:49pm
Bob G says:
I'm trying to get a handle on what Mr. Laughlin thinks. He condemns the Republican Party for being too "libertine" in economics. So what should it be, sir: more statist, like the Democratic Party? Does free market = libertine? And the libertine Republican party has destroyed the US family? Now there's an original view.
At the risk of being called ignorant and ill-informed, I would like to know how the Republic Party can reform itself from being too libertine.
At the risk of being called ignorant and ill-informed, I would like to know how the Republic Party can reform itself from being too libertine.
2.19.2011 | 2:45am
Rick says:
I will always feel indebted to Sarge Shriver because of his foundational influence in creating the Peace Corps. How else could a poor boy like me, from a working class family, have managed to live for two years in a medieval Islamic society and reaped the indescribable education that that experience gave me? Thanks to Shriver and others who built the Peace Corps, I can read postings on First Things like the one recently that wrote off the people of the Middle East as benighted savages suitable only for brutal dictatorships, due, supposedly, to "the culture of the region", and laugh heartely with genuine humor. "The culture"--singular. Unbelievable! I lived in a veritable stew of cultures: Sunni, Shia, Berber, Sufi, Safardic Jewish, African animist, and all overlain with a modernist, secular French colonialism. I befriended and was offered incredible hospitality by desert nomads and doctoral candidates alike. God bless Shriver for helping to give me such a profound blessing in my life!
2.19.2011 | 8:48am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Bob,
It should be more like its Whig ancestors and like its early Republican ancestors. Like its Whig ancestors and the early Republicans, it should support trade policies that favor American industry over their foreign competitors and favor industry based in the U.S. rather than overseas, thus favoring American workers as well as American capitalists. Like its Whig ancestors and the early Republicans (Republicans as recent as Eisenhower), it should favor more public investment in infrastructure -- roads, bridges, and other public maintained or subsidized public transportation where it makes sense. Like early Republicans, it should support strong and strongly enforce anti-trust laws (Republicans like Ohio U.S. Senator John Sherman, for whom the Sherman Anti-trust Act is named, and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who vigorously enforced it). Like its Republican ancestors who, while in control of Congress in 1948, overrode the veto of Democratic President Harry Truman to rewrite the tax code to explicitly use it to provide support for and incentive for traditional family life by providing very large dependency exemptions, exemptions that made possible the baby boom.
On the other hand, it should abandon Randian policies that make selfishness a virtue by holding capitalists to Scriptural precepts of economic behavior just as some Republicans seek to hold all individuals to Scriptural precepts of sexual and familial behavior. The same Scriptures that forbid incest, adultery and fornication in general also forbid exploiting labor, mistreating immigrants, not engaging in usury, and providing opportunities for the poor by not making profit maximization the greatest good but leaving room for the poor who are willing to work to eek out a living in a manner that gives them dignity.
Anyone who actually bothers to study the Old Testament Law will see that it regulated economic life just as it regulated sexual and familial life. Scriptural teaches principals as antithetical to the writings and work of Ayn Rand as they are to the writing and work of Margaret Sanger. A free market is not libertine so long as it has in place laws that require fairness and justice by market participants. But just as freedom in sexual and familial relations must have limits or it crosses into being libertine, so does freedom in economic relations. Hamilton recognized this; the Whigs recognized this; the early Republicans recognized it. It is time for today's Republicans to return to it.
It should be more like its Whig ancestors and like its early Republican ancestors. Like its Whig ancestors and the early Republicans, it should support trade policies that favor American industry over their foreign competitors and favor industry based in the U.S. rather than overseas, thus favoring American workers as well as American capitalists. Like its Whig ancestors and the early Republicans (Republicans as recent as Eisenhower), it should favor more public investment in infrastructure -- roads, bridges, and other public maintained or subsidized public transportation where it makes sense. Like early Republicans, it should support strong and strongly enforce anti-trust laws (Republicans like Ohio U.S. Senator John Sherman, for whom the Sherman Anti-trust Act is named, and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who vigorously enforced it). Like its Republican ancestors who, while in control of Congress in 1948, overrode the veto of Democratic President Harry Truman to rewrite the tax code to explicitly use it to provide support for and incentive for traditional family life by providing very large dependency exemptions, exemptions that made possible the baby boom.
On the other hand, it should abandon Randian policies that make selfishness a virtue by holding capitalists to Scriptural precepts of economic behavior just as some Republicans seek to hold all individuals to Scriptural precepts of sexual and familial behavior. The same Scriptures that forbid incest, adultery and fornication in general also forbid exploiting labor, mistreating immigrants, not engaging in usury, and providing opportunities for the poor by not making profit maximization the greatest good but leaving room for the poor who are willing to work to eek out a living in a manner that gives them dignity.
Anyone who actually bothers to study the Old Testament Law will see that it regulated economic life just as it regulated sexual and familial life. Scriptural teaches principals as antithetical to the writings and work of Ayn Rand as they are to the writing and work of Margaret Sanger. A free market is not libertine so long as it has in place laws that require fairness and justice by market participants. But just as freedom in sexual and familial relations must have limits or it crosses into being libertine, so does freedom in economic relations. Hamilton recognized this; the Whigs recognized this; the early Republicans recognized it. It is time for today's Republicans to return to it.
3.14.2011 | 3:44am
Norem Malissa says:
As far as the "cruel" Catholic bishops judging people, what the bishops have done is simply consistently say that abortion is morally wrong. It either is or it isn't. They have an obligation to say that it is. I challenge you to find me ONE statement by a bishop that judges "people and their tragic lives". You say you "cannot begin to chronicle it". Yes you can. You can begin by citing just one instance. Give me a direct quote of an American bishop judging not the intrinsic morality of the act of abortion, but the woman who has one. You sound like you might be a Catholic: the Catholic Church has always distinguished between the objective rightness and wrongness of ACTs, and "subjective imputability", i.e. how responsible and guilty the PERSON is. This is fundamental to Catholic morality. We are to condemn wrong acts as wrong, but not to judge the souls of people. Only God can judge the heart. Whereas you seem freely to make statements about the hearts of others, I have never heard a statement by a Catholic bishop judging the hearts of women who have had abortions. I will always feel indebted to Sarge Shriver because of his foundational influence in creating the Peace Corps. How else could a poor boy like me, from a working class family, have managed to live for two years in a medieval Islamic society and reaped the indescribable education that that experience gave me? Thanks to Shriver and others who built the Peace Corps, I can read postings on First Things like the one recently that wrote off the people of the Middle East as benighted savages suitable only for brutal dictatorships, due, supposedly, to "the culture of the region", and laugh heartely with genuine humor. "The culture"--singular. Unbelievable! I lived in a veritable stew of cultures: Sunni, Shia, Berber, Sufi, Safardic Jewish, African animist, and all overlain with a modernist, secular French colonialism. I befriended and was offered incredible hospitality by desert nomads and doctoral candidates alike. God bless Shriver for helping to give me such a profound blessing in my life!
5.18.2011 | 11:03am
Keylon Pest says:
Only God can judge the heart. Whereas you seem freely to make statements about the hearts of others, I have never heard a statement by a Catholic bishop judging the hearts of women who have had abortions. I will always feel indebted to Sarge Shriver because of his foundational influence in creating the Peace Corps. How else could a poor boy like me, from a working class family, have managed to live for two years in a medieval Islamic society and reaped the indescribable education that that experience gave me? Thanks to Shriver and others who built the Peace Corps, I can read postings on First Things like the one recently that wrote off the people of the Middle East as benighted savages suitable only for brutal dictatorships, due, supposedly, to "the culture of the region", and laugh heartely with genuine humor. "The culture"--singular. Unbelievable! I lived in a veritable stew of cultures: Sunni, Shia, Berber, Sufi, Safardic Jewish, African animist, and all overlain with a modernist, secular French colonialism..
Perhaps the Shrivers thought they could do more good by staying Democrat and being lone voices crying in the wilderness than to compromise on other issues that also mattered to them. I'm more concerned about how God will judge me for my votes for a party whose economic policies are destroying traditional family life and which diverge greatly from Biblical principals than I am about judging other devout pro-life Christians party affiliations.
I