When my fellow conservatives and Republicans were beating up on President Obama for his “you didn’t build that” remark, representing him as having claimed that business owners didn’t build their own businesses, the government did it, I spoke out in defense of the President. I argued that his artless words should not be seized upon to exaggerate or distort his views on the respective contributions of government and business owners to the success of businesses.
I spoke up for fairness to Barack Obama not because I support his policies or favor his re-election, but despite my deep opposition. It is both wrong in itself and damaging to the spirit of democracy to misrepresent one’s political opponents or interpret their words tendentiously to depict them in the most unfavorable possible light.
Of course, the unfairness I condemned is by no means unique to Republicans or conservatives. One finds plenty of it among Democrats and liberals. Take, for example, the deplorable attack on Paul Ryan issued this week by a group of Catholic scholars professing to be “concerned for our nation and for the integrity of the teachings of the Catholic Church,” under the title “On All of Our Shoulders.”
Implausibly, the signers assert their non-partisanship: “We do not write to oppose Ryan’s candidacy or to argue there are not legitimate reasons for Catholics to vote for him.” In fact, the statement is a highly tendentious assault on Ryan, presenting him and his positions in the most unfavorable possible light, and insinuating that he is someone who seeks to “legitimate forms of social indifference.” It is, in short, the discursive version of the infamous Democratic Party television advertisement showing a Ryan-like figure dumping an elderly lady out of her wheelchair over a cliff.
The whole thing is presented in a cloyingly earnest manner and is laid over with a patina of scholarship. Despite Ryan’s own very public statements of his points of agreement and significant disagreement with the thought of Ayn Rand, and despite the commendations he has received from the bishops who know him and his work best—Bishop Joseph Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York (formerly of Milwaukee)—Ryan is presented as an unreconstructed Randian radical individualist and, as such, a clear opponent of Catholic social teaching.
Instead of a careful, nuanced analysis of Ryan’s thought in light of that teaching, the statement offers a set of Democratic Party talking points festooned with quotations from St. Thomas Aquinas and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is a thoroughly unedifying spectacle designed to discredit Ryan with Catholics in the run up to the Congressman’s debate with Vice President Joe Biden.
The University of Notre Dame’s Richard Garnett, in a polite but devastating critique of “On All of Our Shoulders,” goes straight to the heart of the matter:
The statement, like much of the “Ryan is a Randian!!” business, overstates significantly the extent to which the policies that are being proposed—and certainly the policies that have even a remote chance of being enacted, should Gov. Romney be elected—are, in fact, “libertarian” (let alone Randian). If programs and policies are described tendentiously, and contrasted with rival programs that are described idealistically, they will (no surprise) seem less compatible with Christianity.”
Bingo.
Authentic Catholic social teaching begins from an affirmation of (a) the inherent and equal dignity and fundamental right to life of every member of the human family, including the child in the womb; (b) the centrality and indispensable social significance of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and (c) religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
What do the signers of the statement say about these foundational principles of Catholic teaching and Ryan’s positions on them? Very little. Indeed, they excuse themselves from discussing life issues because on these matters there is, they say, “little or no confusion about the Church’s teaching.” (Evidently, the memo has not yet reached Vice President Biden, House Minority Leader Pelosi, most Catholic Democrats in the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and Caroline Kennedy, whose speech at the recent Democratic convention displayed quite a bit of confusion.)
What do the signers say about the positions of the Obama-Biden administration on life, marriage, and religious freedom? Virtually nothing. This is scandalous in a statement presenting itself as non-partisan and published out of “concern for our nation and for the integrity of the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
It is Obama and Biden, not Ryan (or Romney), whose positions on abortion mirror those of the vehemently pro-abortion Ayn Rand. Obama and Biden have undermined the right to life of the child in the womb in every way they possibly can, working tirelessly to protect the abortion license, expand access to abortion, and eliminate restrictions on killing human embryos for biomedical research. They are the ones “legitimating forms of social indifference.”As Mother Teresa observed during her visit to the United States in 1994, it is the abortion license above all else that is undercutting social solidarity in Western democracies today. And the abortion license has no more loyal and determined defenders and promoters than Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If there is radical individualism to be condemned in this election cycle, it is the radical individualism advanced by the President, Vice President, and others in their party who champion an unrestricted right to kill the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family in the name of individual “autonomy” and “choice.”
Moreover, Obama, Biden, and their political party have committed themselves to abolishing in law the conjugal understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife and replacing it with a conception of marriage as an intimate relationship of two persons of the same or opposite sexes. Given Rand’s views on sexual morality, she would likely find the Obama-Biden position far more congenial than the Romney-Ryan stand.
And there is more. The Obama-Biden administration has imposed odious mandates on Catholics and others, requiring employers, including religious institutions who cannot comply in good conscience, to provide health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives. It has sought to eliminate the ministerial exception, which recognizes religious institutions’ special autonomy in hiring under the First Amendment. They have declined to renew contracts for Catholic providers of excellent social services to victims of human trafficking because those providers do not refer for abortions, abortion counseling, and the like.
Oddly, their statement makes a point of commending Ryan for not being an atheist (Ayn Rand was one) yet does not commend him for his impeccable pro-life record or his support for marriage as the union of husband and wife. Why? Presumably because some of the signers themselves—despite their professed concern for “the integrity of the teachings of the Catholic Church”—reject the Church’s teachings on these foundational issues of Catholic moral and social doctrine. Somehow that doesn’t stop them, though, from criticizing Paul Ryan for alleged deviations from Catholic teachings.
As for the substance of what they say about the content of Catholic social thought, I agree with the principles they articulate, though I’m appalled by their lack of attention to the foundational principles they omit or excuse themselves from discussing in a serious way. And I reject their efforts to depict Ryan as a radical individualist who rejects the social teachings of the Catholic Church in favor of those of Ayn Rand.
Whether in the long run, or for that matter, in the shorter run, Ryan’s policies would better serve poor and middle-class Americans than those more collectivist ones favored by the Democrats (and, I have no doubt, all or most of the signers) is not something that can be determined purely on the basis of the principles of Catholic social teaching. There are Catholic bishops and other good Catholics who are critical of Ryan’s budget proposals and others, sharing the same fundamental principles, who support them. It is a disagreement among reasonable Catholics—and people generally—of goodwill.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
RESOURCES
Joseph Knippenberg, Paul Ryan, the (Bad or Good?) Catholic
R.R. Reno, Ryan Outrage Syndrome
James R. Rogers, Ryan, Social Insurance, and American Conservatism
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
with case after case of malnutrition. There is no apt time to leave Afghanistan. It's a corrupt culture with many poor females trapped inside it but so is North Korea and many other places. Al Qaeda doesn't need it crucially. Just war theory does not support costly therapeutic culture invasions while cutting medicaid at home for low income births and working class nursing home elders.
Vote republican yes. Glorify it no.
This is equally true regarding Ryan's alleged fascination with Ayn Rand. Either his proposals are valid or they aren't and the motivations behind them are irrelevant to that point. The document fails because it cannot sustain its claim that Ryan has violated Catholic Social Teaching by pointing to any particular proposal that does so.
Your last paragraph goes to the real nature of the debate: what policies will work "is not something that can be determined purely on the basis of the principles of Catholic social teaching." The two parties disagree over which policies will work and the Church is silent on that point, a point the authors of the article - and liberals generally - do not recognize.
But this is absurd.
One could support the Ryan Budget from any number of philosophical viewpoints. I could, for example, be a follower of Dorothy Day who sees the growth of the Modern State as hostile to the church and the common good.
Do the signers of the document claim that a person who endorses the Ryan Budget is a fool or a knave? Not quite. I thus conclude that a person may reasonably endorse Ryan's policies in good conscience. And if that's true, what's the fuss then?
Of course this is equally true of Congressman Ryan's enthusiasm for Ayn Rand. Either his specific proposals are justifiable or they are not; the motivation behind them is irrelevant. The paper fails not because it is unfair to Ryan but because it cannot sustain its argument with any example of a proposal he (or the Republican party) has made that violates Catholic Social Teaching. This is hardly surprising as the Church is silent on policy details. She may tell us to heal the sick but she does not tell us we must (or must not) support Obamacare.
Your last paragraph identifies why the paper failed and why it could not have ever succeeded: identifying the best policies "is not something that can be determined purely on the basis of the principles of Catholic social teaching." This is a point the authors of the paper - and liberal Catholics in general - do not recognize.
from the start.
Stipulated that the "On All of Our Shoulders" is a fair critique of how Randian individualism is incompatible with Catholic Social Teaching, and let's also stipulate that Ryan's (past) statements with respect to Randian thought are deplorable (both points which Prof. Garnett and others have made).
Can a Catholic who agrees with the above points STILL come to the conclusion that, on the whole, Ryan's proposals with respect to entitlement reforms, tax reform (with some modifications) and spending (again, with some modifications) are (A) the correct policy proscriptions in the present moment and (B) are within the realm of "acceptable" proscriptions within the broad umbrella of Catholic social teaching?
I think what frustrates many Catholics about this Randian critique of Ryan, and what leads to the conclusion that it is, in fact, partisan, is that it is often used as a self-demonstrating rebuttal of his proposals which are decidedly NOT Randian (indeed if one looks at Ryan's actual voting record in Congress, one would have to conclude that his proof-text against Atlas Shrugged is flawed, to say the least). It's as though it is sufficent to say "He's Randian; policy bad." That seems short-sighted.
So: can a Catholic reject Rand, yet still accept Ryan's proposal with respect to, say, Medicare reform?
What is Camosy's charge here? That Ryan himself espouses first principles at variance with CST? Or that Ryan's proposed policies are in opposition to CST? One is a philosophical question, the other a question about policy and prudence. These are two different criticisms and one cannot conflate them by suggesting, for example, that somebody who supports the latter supports the former.
I have noticed that this scholar is consistently unclear whether he's talking about people, policies or philosophy. The boundaries keep moving until a gerrymandered kind of "agreement" can be established. But that's not scholarship. That's advocacy and ethics-as-public-relations.
No Catholic should be distracted from the fact that the Republican thrust is deliberately designed to exclude the poor, the marginalised, the under-educated, from admission to the polity of opportunity.
What policies are those? Clearly, the Romney-Ryan policy proposals are not policies affirmed by the Democrat National Convention. But that does not make them Randian. As a great theologian once said, "Criticism of one party does not entail support of another."
that also notes that Ryan's proposals cannot be summarily dismissed as wrong on the basis of Catholic social teaching, but represent one prudential approach to how to
The story of "Atlas Shrugged" is the story of a reaction against a state that is a totalitarian kleptocracy. Its principal virtue is that it considers the possibility that individuals will reduce their productive efforts in response to confiscatory taxation and the insecurity of private property. Ryan said he checks his principles against "Atlas Shrugged", not Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy. Quite frankly, it would be a good thing if all politicians stopped to realize that the citizenry isn't just a herd of cows to be milked.
Was Ayn Rand a self-important bombast? Absolutely. Furthermore, I have no love for her enmity for charity or her apparent hedonism. However, the so-called "Catholic left" is eager to dismiss ALL of her arguments using standards that they would never accept against their heroes-for example J.M. Keynes-who was a cultist and a hedonist.
Einstein left his wife, but it seems he was right about the theory of relativity. When it comes right down to it, the Catholic Part of "Catholic Left", is at best a veneer and at worst fraud, since their Catholicity is always viewed through a lens results in statism and collectivism. Its amazing that they never see abortion as much of an absolute as they do higher taxes and continued government spending, no matter how much the evidence suggests the welfare state has destroyed the family and the moral fabric in every country where its prevalent.
I will vote for neither of these men, or their parties. The lesser of two evils is still evil. No thanks.
Joe Biden has defended abortion rights for decades. He is the current Vice President, an office he assumed after voting for, among other things, a couple of wars.
Paul Ryan once proposed a budget that is not a part of any candidate's platform. He is running for Vice President.
And yet Joe Biden has never been targeted by a statement like "On Our Shoulders", whereas the Catholic Left has been obsessed with Paul Ryan's faith since he entered the national stage.
Do I have that right?
The signers ask us instead to see that, with US Government spending now over 40% of GDP, the country faces the distinct possibility of being turned into a Randian paradise.
Do I have that right?
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP726_1wedge_D_20120905181504.jpg
Note the Ryan's plan starts to reduce the US debt. Increasing the debt, per Obama plan, will only make it worse for the poor.
And with the government printing money the way it has, with resultant higher inflation, the payments on the US debt will only get worse. Not to mention the insolvency dates of SS & Medicare have been moving up in recent years. Projected insovency date are 2034 for SS & 2023 for Medicare.
Well, Nancy, Christ did not go to college, so He could not understand God. These scholars DO understand and feel they are called to explain it to the rest of us who did not go to suitable schools.
If I were a Catholic I would be doing the same.
How could any person of faith vote for Romney/Ryan?
And to Laurie: No Catholic should be distracted from the fact that the Republican thrust is deliberately designed to exclude the poor, the marginalised, the under-educated, from admission to the polity of opportunity. Strengthening of marriage and the fruits of that union would greatly benefit the poor, who in single family households often become poorer and less well educated. A culture of death makes a secular population that much more adverse to respecting any life, poor or otherwise.
How could anyone vote for Obama? It is not that Romney is so great it is that Obama is so very bad. His support for abortion is enough fir and rational person to oppose his candidacy.
I often wonder if Obama/Biden is the real problem or is the problem that anyone would actually vote for them. It is alarming that anyone could support such evil policies.
When O/B were elected it was exhilarating to see O express hope and challenge in every speech I saw and heard. This continued on and on. Later, when listening for details I heard the same aspirations. I was reminded of the phrase "Trust me I know what I am doing" and recalled the Russian proverb "Trust but verify".
The first O/R debate suggested to me that O does not grasp principles of sound economic management and that he has disenegaged from details, letting the aspirations of the democratic left rule economic decisions. Hoping that printing money ("quantitative easement") to buy votes ("General Motors is alive") will somehow work to improve confidence in economic renewal. The only B/R debate confirmed for me that Biden also has aspirations not grounded in basic economic behaviour.
It may be that the O/B team has the support of most media outlets. It may be that the R/R team appears awkward in putting their case public. I have little confidence in the courage of O/B to speak and act truthfully under stress. The Libyan Embassy attack narratives following the DNC "Osama is dead" slogans from O and B indicate this to me. I have little confidence the the O/B team has a plan to revitalise the economy. I think the R/R team has a plan to revitalise the economy. My gut feeling about the R/R team is they are more trustworthy than O/B.
These are reasons why Diane.
Some Reps/Cons are wont to call various, shall we say “Leftisms”, things like “Marxism”, “Communism”, or “Socialism, but that’s not really effective. Some have, instead, called Big Government proposals “Rich-People’s Leftism”, because such proven-failure policies, proposals, nostrums, are really designed more to help rich leftists feel good (and sometimes personally benefit) than to help the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Some ask: “What would Jesus Cut?” Others would ask “Whom would Jesus Indebt?”
Think I’m oversimplifying? Let me quote from Tim Dalrymple here:
“It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations. I even believe it’s immoral to feed the government’s spending addiction. Since our political elites have demonstrated such remarkably poor stewardship over our common resources, it would be foolish and wrong to give them more resources to waste.
“The religious left has monopolized the language of morality and justice when it comes to matters of government spending. If we should ask, ‘What would Jesus cut?’, then we should also ask ‘Whom would Jesus indebt?’ and ‘Whom would Jesus make dependent on government?’…
One of the great difficulties of this issue, for Christians, is that the morality of spending and debt has been so thoroughly demagogued that it’s impossible to advocate cuts in government spending without being accused of hatred for the poor and needy. A group calling itself the “Circle of Protection” recently promoted a statement on “Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor.” But we don’t need to protect the programs. We need to protect the poor. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect the poor from the programs. Too many anti-poverty programs are beneficial for the politicians that pass them, and veritable boondoggles for the government bureaucracy that administers them, but they actually serve to rob the poor of their dignity and their initiative, they undermine the family structures that help the poor build prosperous lives, and ultimately mire the poor in poverty for generations. Does anyone actually believe that the welfare state has served the poor well?”
Actually, I argued that the Tea Party is a social justice movement only according to the General definition, which alleges that a social justice movement (in the versions of Michael Novak and Jim Wallis, respectively) is a collective action for the common good, or “standing up for the poor.” Yet the way in which Tea Partiers pursue the good of our society, including the poor, is not by advocating moderate social services but the humbler, less indebted, more streamlined government that they believe will better serve us all.
Progressives tend to believe that advocating the common good, or the good of the poor, must take certain forms, such as increased government services or wealth redistribution and so on. Yet Tea Party conservatives do not believe that increased government services are ultimately in the interest of the poor. The increased expenditures and deepened deficit, the formation of a culture of long-term dependency, the expansion of government with all the inefficiencies and potential for corruption it presents, would neither help the poor nor anyone else. In the conservative vision, then, it would be better for government to grow smaller than it presently is, to leave more money in the hands of those who can invest and innovate and create jobs, to create the space for private enterprise to replace government bureaucracy, and to provoke more self-dependence and initiative.
[His opponent] may disagree with that ideology. Yet whether he or I agree with it is not the point. The point is that this is a difference not of who cares for the poor and who does not, but of different ways of envisioning and pursuing the common good. In other words, just because [his opponent] does not agree that a smaller government would better serve the good does not mean that he cannot acknowledge the similar motivations, and even the intrinsic rationality, of those who do so believe.
We met through Dr Christpher Wolfe about five years ago in Washington DC. Also, I was in attendance at the fellowship for Catholic Scholars Conference two weeks ago in late September. Chris and I were sitting in the front row together as you delivered your talk. I share your view and appreciate you articulating it so well for me. I find it most curious that we, who aspire to live in conformity with the magisterium, are viewed as immoral by those, many of whom are catholics, who stand in direct opposition to the teachings of the magisterium and of our faith, and by implication they view themselves as morally superior. It is upside down. This issue needs to be better explored, illuminated and written about. See Bill McGurn's WSJ opinion piece 'Ryan's Heresy'. which appeared about 4-6weeks ago. Patrick Hart
Could you imagine a combat general announcing to his subordinates on the eve of battle that he had spent the previous evening reading Atlas Shrugged, had had a conversion experience, and wanted the word passed down the line that no soldier would henceforth be obliged to obey the commands of a senior officer if those commands conflicted with his own estimation of his personal best interests?
To the best of my knowledge, Ryan never sought to renounce Rand's philosophy or distance himself from his previous support of her until he became the vice-presidential nominee. Of course, he has to distance himself. In the full glare of national publicity, his handlers have undoubtedly made it crystal clear that he now has no choice but to do so.
However, he now has something in common with Romney. Romney has done some of the most amazingly acrobatic policy reversals in recent political history. Only recently, he was a steadfast supporter of gay rights and abortion rights. Astute business analyst that he is, he does the marketing analysis and taylors his positions accordingly. When he made the famous 47% statement, he was in the midst of wealthy Republican donors. So, he generated comments suitable for smug, self-satisfied millionaires at a country club, lamenting the degenerate state of the rabble.
What if I DID like the Romney-Ryan platform? What if I WERE scared pea-green by the public debt? Could I be sure what I would get if I voted for them? For all Obama shortcomings, and they are legion, he has certainly been more consistent.
Diane...how does a Good Samaritan justify the killing of babies in the womb? For all Catholics there is NO common ground on this issue. You either favor killing babies in the womb or you condemn killing babies in the womb.
If you want to vote for Obama and Biden then at least have the integrity to leave the Catholic Church.
In 2005 Ryan gave a talk to the Rand Society in which he says he checks his principles against Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps he's had a sincere conversion to Thomas Aquinas, but as the statement shows in some detail, his policy proposals do not reflect this.
Criticism of one party does not entail support of another. Some may wish to dismiss the substance of the statement by telling presumptive stories about what the signatories think about abortion, but the statement is clear on that issue in ways that those who make this critique simply ignore. The statement says that the first principle of CST is the dignity of the human person from conception. It says that Catholic voters are "appropriately reminded" by the Bishops when Catholic politicians dissent from Catholic Social Doctrine on abortion. Sadly, there is less clarity about the five doctrinal principles laid out in the "On All of Our Shoulders" statement.