The Embarrassment of the Catholic Left
October 15, 2012
R.R. Reno
There they go again. The usual gang of Catholic theology professors has signed a manifesto, “On all of our shoulders: A Catholic Call to Protect the Endangered Common Good.” It claims to warn us of the grave danger posed by Congressman Paul Ryan. The future of America is at stake! The integrity of Catholicism hangs in the balance!
Robert P. George’s recent “On the Square” takes apart what little substance there is in the statement, and he does so with his usual force and precision. There’s no reason for me to do again what George already has done so well, Instead, I want to figure out what it means for American Catholicism that liberals put forward such a partisan document with such shoddy reasoning.
For liberals, Ryan doesn’t so much represent policy options to be argued with. Instead, he’s what postmodern professors call “the Other,” the symbolic negation of all that is good, true, and beautiful.
This reaction of liberal horror, what I’ve called Ryan Outrage Syndrome, equates Paul Ryan with Ayn Rand, which is exactly what “On all of our shoulders” does. In this, it mirrors the extreme right, which equates Barack Obama with Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright, showing (in the minds of those who traffic in this sort of thing) that our President is an anti-American socialist out to destroy the country.
Serious people don’t pass off cheap, partisan rhetoric as substantive analysis. Why, then, would past presidents of the Catholic Theological Society of America hurry to support a manifesto that is largely an emotive exercise in partisan rhetoric?
The answer, at least in part, can be found in the changing character of the American Catholic Church. In the years after the Second Vatican Council, liberals thought that the future was theirs. They saw the way in which the hierarchy acquiesced to dissent in the aftermath of Humane Vitae. Their way of thinking seemed natural, inevitable. But it wasn’t so. During the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the Church slowly solidified around a vision more traditional than trendy. Liberals went from being presumptive heirs to embattled outcasts.
One sees as much in the episcopacy and priesthood. There are no more Hunthausens and Weaklands. The priests under fifty today see their ministry as counter-cultural, and the culture they are countering is the one ministered to by liberalism.
As a result, the academic Catholic establishment, which invested so heavily in liberalism, is now very much on the margins of the Church. Can anyone imagine one of the twenty or so past presidents of the Catholic Theological Society of America serving as trusted advisors for bishops today? Hardly. They’ve reorganized the CTSA into a trade union for dissent.
In this dissent, the liberal Catholic academic establishment has gotten into the habit of issuing hyperbolic, sky-is-falling declarations about the consequences of rather ordinary and appropriate actions by Church authorities. If the Vatican puts out a statement saying that Sister Margaret Farley’s book on sexual morality is not in accord with Catholic teaching, one can count on the usual suspects to tut-tut about “authoritarian tendencies” and the suppression of academic freedom. Moreover, secular political slogans seem to slide in only too easily. The Vatican is waging a “war on women.”
The reliable Hans Kung’s recent interview as reported in the Guardian offers a poignant example of how far this has gone. It’s not enough for him to disagree with the leadership of the Church. He can’t resist playing the Hitler card: “The unconditional obedience demanded of bishops who swear their allegiance to the pope when they make their holy oath is almost as extreme as that of the German generals who were forced to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler.”
It’s this sloppy rhetorical habit that we can see carried over to declarations about secular politics in “On all of our shoulders.” Where Kung sees Pope Benedict as a Hitlerite who is undermining all that is true and good in the Catholic Church, the liberal Catholic academic establishment views Ryan as a Randian Objectivist who fundamentally (and cynically, the manifesto insinuates) betrays the true teachings of the Catholic Church.
I find this sort of thing embarrassing. Opponents of Barack Obama should weigh his policy arguments rather than accuse him being a socialist or post-colonialist out to destroy America. The same holds for Paul Ryan.
During my two decades as a professor of theology I saw how the academic Catholic left reduced itself to repeating easy slogans about the contextual nature of knowledge, the historicity of revelation, and the development of doctrine. All too often it writes off other views as “Catholic fundamentalism,” denounces criticism as oppression, polices academic hires, and otherwise insulates itself from challenges.
This same insular mentality and recourse to cheap slogans is embarrassing us in the public square. We can only cringe when a document announces: “America is at a tipping point where the traditional commitment to our government protecting and advancing the common good is in very real danger of being dismantled for generations.” That’s the sort of thing bloggers write.
I take little pleasure in the self-destruction of liberal Catholicism. We need to serve needs of the poor, strengthen the bonds of social solidarity, and defend the dignity of the human person. I tend to agree with American conservatives about how best to do that. But maybe I’m wrong. We need smart and informed men and women of faith to argue otherwise.
When we argue it’s fine for us to have partisan loyalties. It makes sense to take the side that, however imperfect, however partial, best reflects what we think serves the common good. But passing off the campaign talking points as real contributions to public debate? Please, spare us the spin.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Robert P. George, The Catholic Left’s Unfair Attack on Paul Ryan
R.R. Reno, Ryan Outrage Syndrome
On All Our Shoulders
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.15.2012 | 4:22am
Nancy D. says:
With all due respect, "America is at a tipping point where the traditional commitment to our government protecting and advancing the common good is in very real danger of being dismantled for generations", but not for the reasons cited in the statement, "On All Our Shoulders", but because of those who deny God's intention for Marriage and The Family, by denying the personal and relational essence of the human person, from The Beginning.
"As the family goes, so goes the Nation, and the whole World." - John Paul II
"As the family goes, so goes the Nation, and the whole World." - John Paul II
10.15.2012 | 10:29am
TomCom says:
Another great post on this issue.
Many of us’n unwashed have come to realize that most academics choose to live in an ideological bubble even smaller than that of Pauline Kael’s.
Such criticism gets one called non-intellectual by such ideologues.
So, the approved (irony anyone?) standard for interpretation of things truly Catholic is: the gratuitous insult, a/k/a one-upmanship:
Pretending that those who disagree with some “trendy” interpretation are not only wrong but non-True Catholic (as well as non-intellectual).
This is accomplished by said True Catholics quoting the words of supposedly unimpeachably certified True Catholic works & icons to give the impression to the gullible, the True Catholic’s target audience, (as well as the secular-intellectual audience, of course) that a lesson is needed & to give the appearance that the True Catholics quoting the words of wisdom are also certified truly faithful, True Catholics & the only certified intellectual truly faithful, True Catholics capable of teaching that lesson.
Three cheers for post-Vatican II.
Whatever they think of Political Conservatives, certified truly faithful, True Catholics might come up with a critique that is more than name-calling – “Randian”. But maybe not.
BTW, back in the 70s, James Hitchcock, for one, noted that, for the most part, Catholic Liberals took up the most loony left-wing Liberalism, which he called “McGovernism”, as a way to catch up with the world and leave the Catholic ghetto. In reality, they were exchanging what they saw as an intellect-free ghetto for the gulag of an intellectualoid Liberalism.
Many of us’n unwashed have come to realize that most academics choose to live in an ideological bubble even smaller than that of Pauline Kael’s.
Such criticism gets one called non-intellectual by such ideologues.
So, the approved (irony anyone?) standard for interpretation of things truly Catholic is: the gratuitous insult, a/k/a one-upmanship:
Pretending that those who disagree with some “trendy” interpretation are not only wrong but non-True Catholic (as well as non-intellectual).
This is accomplished by said True Catholics quoting the words of supposedly unimpeachably certified True Catholic works & icons to give the impression to the gullible, the True Catholic’s target audience, (as well as the secular-intellectual audience, of course) that a lesson is needed & to give the appearance that the True Catholics quoting the words of wisdom are also certified truly faithful, True Catholics & the only certified intellectual truly faithful, True Catholics capable of teaching that lesson.
Three cheers for post-Vatican II.
Whatever they think of Political Conservatives, certified truly faithful, True Catholics might come up with a critique that is more than name-calling – “Randian”. But maybe not.
BTW, back in the 70s, James Hitchcock, for one, noted that, for the most part, Catholic Liberals took up the most loony left-wing Liberalism, which he called “McGovernism”, as a way to catch up with the world and leave the Catholic ghetto. In reality, they were exchanging what they saw as an intellect-free ghetto for the gulag of an intellectualoid Liberalism.
10.15.2012 | 10:47am
Adam Baum says:
"In this, it mirrors the extreme right, which equates Barack Obama with Saul Alinsky."
I really hate moral relativism.
Here's the differences:
It's not just the "extreme right" (whatever that is-it's overuse has rendered it meaningless) that equates Obama with Alinsky. Obama attended Alinsky training (courtesy of the Archdiocese of Chicago)
Ryan read Rand as a youth (a time when all of us are susceptible to themes of individualism and heroism, even if they are hyperbolic and distorted) and while Rand wasn't a "nice person", we see now the effects of an all-powerful state that seeks to crush not just the individual, but the other mediating institutions (the family, the Church, voluntary charity).
Rand was wrong on many, many counts, but never dedicated a book to Satan.
As for the "catholic left", let's be quite honest. It's all left, and not Catholic. It is has reached its zenith in Kathleen Sebelius. Do we really need this "smart" and "informed" woman to "argue (dictate) otherwise"?
I really hate moral relativism.
Here's the differences:
It's not just the "extreme right" (whatever that is-it's overuse has rendered it meaningless) that equates Obama with Alinsky. Obama attended Alinsky training (courtesy of the Archdiocese of Chicago)
Ryan read Rand as a youth (a time when all of us are susceptible to themes of individualism and heroism, even if they are hyperbolic and distorted) and while Rand wasn't a "nice person", we see now the effects of an all-powerful state that seeks to crush not just the individual, but the other mediating institutions (the family, the Church, voluntary charity).
Rand was wrong on many, many counts, but never dedicated a book to Satan.
As for the "catholic left", let's be quite honest. It's all left, and not Catholic. It is has reached its zenith in Kathleen Sebelius. Do we really need this "smart" and "informed" woman to "argue (dictate) otherwise"?
10.15.2012 | 12:16pm
Jane says:
I have had the fortune to meet several young faithful Catholics in recent days who clearly relish taking on the aged Catholic left. My sense is that they perceive them as a corrupt establishment to take down, and they are pretty unafraid. Moreover, they are very joyful in their faith.
But, as Prof. Reno is pointing out, it's not just about joy and courage. It's also about sloppy thinking.
But, as Prof. Reno is pointing out, it's not just about joy and courage. It's also about sloppy thinking.
10.15.2012 | 2:02pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
I don't exactly see myself as part of the "extreme right," but count me as one who believes that Obama's influences growing up, who he associated with, where he went to church for 20s years, etc. is relevant to who he is. What exactly is "extreme" about this? He is a product of a decrepit and corrupt Chicago political milieu. In fact, he is an "extreme" progressive who believes in infinite government benevolence which turns into tyranny and destroys our liberties. The right in our political lexicon means those who want to limit government and maximize liberty. So at what point does one's fealty to these ideas become "extreme"?
It simply is not helpful for someone of the right to claim others on the right are "extreme" because they disagree with them. The media always uses the word "extreme" to describe people and ideas on the right, never on the left. Why play into that notion that "extreme" only exists on the right. Just not a good idea.
It simply is not helpful for someone of the right to claim others on the right are "extreme" because they disagree with them. The media always uses the word "extreme" to describe people and ideas on the right, never on the left. Why play into that notion that "extreme" only exists on the right. Just not a good idea.
10.15.2012 | 3:19pm
TomCom says:
A Baum
I agree with you. Strawman, OOPS Strawperson alert.
I think I agree with Prof. Reno that some Reps/Cons are wont to refer to various, shall we say “Leftisms”, as simply “Marxism”, “Communism”, or “Socialism, which is not really effective. But there's no sense in his calling out Rep/Cons who are concerned with the increase in govermnment over the last 4 years, "extremist". That's why I prefer to avoid getting hit with that, er, sloppy charge by, instead, calling 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.
And when some ask: “What would Jesus Cut?” I reply “Whom would Jesus Indebt?” & "Whom would Jesus make dependent on government?
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.
"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 [or called "extremist Rightwing nutjobs, TomCom]. 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?”
Is Tim Dalrymple Extreme Right?
I agree with you. Strawman, OOPS Strawperson alert.
I think I agree with Prof. Reno that some Reps/Cons are wont to refer to various, shall we say “Leftisms”, as simply “Marxism”, “Communism”, or “Socialism, which is not really effective. But there's no sense in his calling out Rep/Cons who are concerned with the increase in govermnment over the last 4 years, "extremist". That's why I prefer to avoid getting hit with that, er, sloppy charge by, instead, calling 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.
And when some ask: “What would Jesus Cut?” I reply “Whom would Jesus Indebt?” & "Whom would Jesus make dependent on government?
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.
"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 [or called "extremist Rightwing nutjobs, TomCom]. 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?”
Is Tim Dalrymple Extreme Right?
10.15.2012 | 3:38pm
John Hinshaw says:
Being old enough to remember the mockery the Catholic Left always showed to more traditional folk, I can see, in my mind's eye, a grim Nun on a Bus thrusting her finger out and crying "Randian" at the Republicans. The new word for "sinner" and about as effective a tactic.
10.15.2012 | 5:17pm
Gil says:
When the pieces of a puzzle called Liberal ideology don't connect, and the pieces are forced to fit when putting it together, it can't help but look sloppy. This is the inevitable results of abandoning reason when constructing anything.
10.15.2012 | 6:09pm
Patrick says:
There's another excellent example of this in the NCR article on the restrictions to the Angus Dei. The article quotes a liturgist who explains that Rome is attempting to control the liturgy. That's basically his entire argument. Very little attempt is made to explain either why the restrictions are wrong, or why Rome should not have some authority over the Roman Rite.
I can understand why people have fundamental objections to various aspects of the Roman Rite, and also to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy See. What I cannot understand is why such people would want to be considered Roman Catholics.
I would though, be wary of an overly confident, vindictive, or triumphalist tone. Such things have a way of coming back to haunt you.
I can understand why people have fundamental objections to various aspects of the Roman Rite, and also to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy See. What I cannot understand is why such people would want to be considered Roman Catholics.
I would though, be wary of an overly confident, vindictive, or triumphalist tone. Such things have a way of coming back to haunt you.
10.15.2012 | 6:25pm
Richard says:
The Catholic left consistently referred to here is a large group encompassing many diverse people. The Catholic right has become a knee-jerk arm of the Republican Party. One need only to read George Weigle to conclude this. Or this commentator. The most perceptive writer here is Kevin Phillips and his book "American Theocracy." I don't think Phillips is a Catholic, and he used to be a Republican and worked for Richard Nixon. For all I know he still is a Republican. But the book is a broadside shot on three problems in modern America, Oil, debt and religion. The onlookers here should consider Phillips' perceptive insights.
10.15.2012 | 7:02pm
Rick says:
No, all Republicans aren't "Randians," but the right wing of the party has gone disturbingly far in embracing her ideas, with the exception, of course, of her atheism. Consider the recent frenzy of Tea Party activity in promoting the new film version of "Atlas Shrugged." The book was aptly described by Whittaker Chambers in his review:
"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!'"
The creators of the film version commented that they strived to be "faithful to the book." And, so, what can we do with the spectacle of the Tea Party bending over backwards to promote it? The only saving grace is that the movie was as artistically wretched as the book. It was carpet bombed by the reviewers and little will probably be heard of it again.
"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!'"
The creators of the film version commented that they strived to be "faithful to the book." And, so, what can we do with the spectacle of the Tea Party bending over backwards to promote it? The only saving grace is that the movie was as artistically wretched as the book. It was carpet bombed by the reviewers and little will probably be heard of it again.
10.15.2012 | 8:01pm
P. Kenny says:
TomCom asks, rhetorically, "Is Tim Dalrymple Extreme Right?" No, but extremely right! (in the quoted passage).
10.15.2012 | 10:15pm
Christian Peschken says:
The magisterium (and Vatican II) made very clear that life and to defend the dignity of the human person is above anything else. Catholics who do not vote at all, or who vote for a candidate who is Pro Choice act contrary to the teachings of the Church, they disobey. They are the real problem. The enemy from within.
10.16.2012 | 10:32am
TomCom says:
Richard
You write:
"The Catholic left consistently referred to here is a large group encompassing many diverse people. The Catholic right has become a knee-jerk arm of the Republican Party. One need only to read George Weigle (sic) to conclude this."
So much for reasoned debate.
BTW, you might want not to misspell the name of a person you dismiss so cavalierly. That's not just a typo, I suggest (I spelled "government" wrong above) but a confirmation of your, as you would say, "knee-jerk" thinking.
TomCom
You write:
"The Catholic left consistently referred to here is a large group encompassing many diverse people. The Catholic right has become a knee-jerk arm of the Republican Party. One need only to read George Weigle (sic) to conclude this."
So much for reasoned debate.
BTW, you might want not to misspell the name of a person you dismiss so cavalierly. That's not just a typo, I suggest (I spelled "government" wrong above) but a confirmation of your, as you would say, "knee-jerk" thinking.
TomCom
10.16.2012 | 10:35am
Douglas Johnson says:
Mike D'Virgilio,
Let me second that comment of yours. I also partly disagree with Rusty Reno's point that:
Opponents of Barack Obama should weigh his policy arguments rather than accuse him being a socialist or post-colonialist out to destroy America. The same holds for Paul Ryan.
It's actually somewhat hard to disagree with that but I'm weighing it against the following from Thomas Sowell:
The question is not what particular policy or social system is best but rather what is implicitly assumed in advocating one policy or social system over another.
Indeed, Senator Obama had little policy to run on in 2008 vs. a lot of good and bad policy that Sen. McCain had in tow after a few decades in Washington (I realize Mr. Reno said "policy arguments" so I'm being a little off the mark here). I wish more people had taken stock in his association with Ayers, and more especially Bernadine Dorne. I wish more people had weighed what it might mean for the country that he had such a close relationship with Jeremiah Wright. I mean cripes, warning signs?
All this said, I do cringe when I meet a Republican for whom the first thing out of his mouth is that Obama is a socialist that hates America. I imagine his bookshelf filled with Anne Coulter books. You have to win me over with Richard Weaver and Whittaker Chambers before you're allowed to talk like that! Perhaps this is what Rusty Reno means, I don't know. But if it is what he means, then I just don't see how it could apply to us extreme right knuckle-dragging readers of First Things.
BTW, I think Obama loves the America he wants, but I think along with Woodrow Wilson that he abhors the opening of the Declaration of Independence. I'm not sure I had to wait for his specific policy arguments to arrive at that conclusion.
P.S. I feel I should add that I love just about everything Rusty Reno writes, including most of this post.
Let me second that comment of yours. I also partly disagree with Rusty Reno's point that:
Opponents of Barack Obama should weigh his policy arguments rather than accuse him being a socialist or post-colonialist out to destroy America. The same holds for Paul Ryan.
It's actually somewhat hard to disagree with that but I'm weighing it against the following from Thomas Sowell:
The question is not what particular policy or social system is best but rather what is implicitly assumed in advocating one policy or social system over another.
Indeed, Senator Obama had little policy to run on in 2008 vs. a lot of good and bad policy that Sen. McCain had in tow after a few decades in Washington (I realize Mr. Reno said "policy arguments" so I'm being a little off the mark here). I wish more people had taken stock in his association with Ayers, and more especially Bernadine Dorne. I wish more people had weighed what it might mean for the country that he had such a close relationship with Jeremiah Wright. I mean cripes, warning signs?
All this said, I do cringe when I meet a Republican for whom the first thing out of his mouth is that Obama is a socialist that hates America. I imagine his bookshelf filled with Anne Coulter books. You have to win me over with Richard Weaver and Whittaker Chambers before you're allowed to talk like that! Perhaps this is what Rusty Reno means, I don't know. But if it is what he means, then I just don't see how it could apply to us extreme right knuckle-dragging readers of First Things.
BTW, I think Obama loves the America he wants, but I think along with Woodrow Wilson that he abhors the opening of the Declaration of Independence. I'm not sure I had to wait for his specific policy arguments to arrive at that conclusion.
P.S. I feel I should add that I love just about everything Rusty Reno writes, including most of this post.
10.16.2012 | 10:45am
Douglas Johnson says:
Rick,
Let me second your comment as well. I'm one of those guys that sees just about everyone to the left of me. I too am concerned by what seems to me as the growing popularity of Ayn Rand on the right. The Left argues that we should pursue policies X,Y,Z to get the economic payoff they are promising. The libertarian Right says no, we should go with policies A,B,C to get the best economic payoff. Wait a second...
I have a file on my Evernote account called "Why All Libertarians are Communists" (I say agreeing with libertarians 80% of the time) and I throw into it various articles that preach pure libertarian materialism. A friend of mine is a libertarian muckety-muck here in Chicago, and he sat on a panel recently with a Communist. He joked at a recent dinner that he was a little concerned how much the communist and him ended up agreeing with each other. "Of course you did," I said. After that the discussion really took off.
For me, the elevation of Libertarians among the Right (or perhaps it's just my impression that they are ascending) is of much greater concern than the guys screaming that Obama is a socialist (and besides, I don't "scream" it, I say it nicely...;))
Let me second your comment as well. I'm one of those guys that sees just about everyone to the left of me. I too am concerned by what seems to me as the growing popularity of Ayn Rand on the right. The Left argues that we should pursue policies X,Y,Z to get the economic payoff they are promising. The libertarian Right says no, we should go with policies A,B,C to get the best economic payoff. Wait a second...
I have a file on my Evernote account called "Why All Libertarians are Communists" (I say agreeing with libertarians 80% of the time) and I throw into it various articles that preach pure libertarian materialism. A friend of mine is a libertarian muckety-muck here in Chicago, and he sat on a panel recently with a Communist. He joked at a recent dinner that he was a little concerned how much the communist and him ended up agreeing with each other. "Of course you did," I said. After that the discussion really took off.
For me, the elevation of Libertarians among the Right (or perhaps it's just my impression that they are ascending) is of much greater concern than the guys screaming that Obama is a socialist (and besides, I don't "scream" it, I say it nicely...;))
10.16.2012 | 10:51am
Douglas Johnson says:
TomCom,
You write:
Rich-People’s Leftism
I like it. Your explanation of what it means reminded me in a way of the more extreme Flannery O'Connor who wrote:
In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness, and tenderness leads to the gas chamber.
You write:
Rich-People’s Leftism
I like it. Your explanation of what it means reminded me in a way of the more extreme Flannery O'Connor who wrote:
In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness, and tenderness leads to the gas chamber.
10.16.2012 | 12:17pm
Adam_Baum says:
No, all Republicans aren't "Randians," but the right wing of the party has gone disturbingly far in embracing her ideas, with the exception, of course, of her atheism. Consider the recent frenzy of Tea Party activity in promoting the new film version of "Atlas Shrugged."
I'm sorry, but the most generous response to this I can make is "poppycock". Rand wasn't the first, or the only critic of the all-powerful state. Philosophers such as Acton and Burke and economists such as Mises and Hayek (the Nobel winner you never heard of) have all noted that the unbounded state is a bad idea. Hitler, Stalin, Castro and the rest of the genocidal maniacs aren't anonomolies-they are the inevitable result of subordinating the individual to the state in total and absolute servitude and investing it with unbridled power. By the way, in spite of the common assertion to the contrary, Hitler was a leftist. Nazi was an acronmeant national SOCIALIST.
I look at Rand as the polar-oppsite reaction to unbounded statism. Her distorted soul was the product of the revolution that was in its early days when she grew up. Since it destroyed the family, the Church and any other mediating institution, she has a choice between the state or the individual-and she chose the latter. I wonder if her pen would have been so shrill if she had not been raised under the soul abuse of the hammer and sickle. If her stories serve a purpose in innoculating people against the erection of the false god of the state, so be it. God has always written straight lines with crooked pencils.
The left simply has no self-awareness. Richard calls the Catholic left "diverse"-ignoring their frightening lack of INTELLECTUAL diversity or reflection. They attach themselves to a wide variety of atheist and misanthropes (Paul Johnson's Intellectuals shows the abject depravity of the left). Yet the left never questions the excesses of its heroes or their moral squalor. Like Rand, Marx engaged in extramarital activity. As far as we know, unlike Rand, he insisted that child be left to die. Perhaps it's understandable why his intellectual heirs are so hostile or indifferent to life issues.
No, all Democrats aren't "Marxists" but the vast majority of the party has gone disturbingly far in embracing his ideas, including, of course, of his atheism. Consider the ongoing frenzy of academic left activity in promoting innumerable conferences and symposia on Marx and revolution.
I'm sorry, but the most generous response to this I can make is "poppycock". Rand wasn't the first, or the only critic of the all-powerful state. Philosophers such as Acton and Burke and economists such as Mises and Hayek (the Nobel winner you never heard of) have all noted that the unbounded state is a bad idea. Hitler, Stalin, Castro and the rest of the genocidal maniacs aren't anonomolies-they are the inevitable result of subordinating the individual to the state in total and absolute servitude and investing it with unbridled power. By the way, in spite of the common assertion to the contrary, Hitler was a leftist. Nazi was an acronmeant national SOCIALIST.
I look at Rand as the polar-oppsite reaction to unbounded statism. Her distorted soul was the product of the revolution that was in its early days when she grew up. Since it destroyed the family, the Church and any other mediating institution, she has a choice between the state or the individual-and she chose the latter. I wonder if her pen would have been so shrill if she had not been raised under the soul abuse of the hammer and sickle. If her stories serve a purpose in innoculating people against the erection of the false god of the state, so be it. God has always written straight lines with crooked pencils.
The left simply has no self-awareness. Richard calls the Catholic left "diverse"-ignoring their frightening lack of INTELLECTUAL diversity or reflection. They attach themselves to a wide variety of atheist and misanthropes (Paul Johnson's Intellectuals shows the abject depravity of the left). Yet the left never questions the excesses of its heroes or their moral squalor. Like Rand, Marx engaged in extramarital activity. As far as we know, unlike Rand, he insisted that child be left to die. Perhaps it's understandable why his intellectual heirs are so hostile or indifferent to life issues.
No, all Democrats aren't "Marxists" but the vast majority of the party has gone disturbingly far in embracing his ideas, including, of course, of his atheism. Consider the ongoing frenzy of academic left activity in promoting innumerable conferences and symposia on Marx and revolution.
10.16.2012 | 12:27pm
Richard says:
Okay, TomCom: I didn't look up George Weigel's name. But your snarky riposte completely ignored my main point which involved reading material that I suspect you don't want to read, and/or consider in piecing together your world view.
10.16.2012 | 12:30pm
Artaban7 says:
"The Catholic right has become a knee-jerk arm of the Republican Party." --Richard
If you really spent some concerted time on this site and others deemed "Catholic right"/conservative (Acton.org), I think you'd be disabused of the above notion. I'm not the only Catholic conservative who's publicly voiced dissatisfaction/distrust with Romney as a candidate and with the Republican party in general.
As I keep telling the R party fundraisers, I won't ever contribute to the party again (first and last time was in 2002) because far too many Republicans are pro-choice (Guiliani, ex-Gov. Terminator, etc.).
And if you've been following the local Republican politics in Missouri (Todd Akin) you know very well there is a passionate battle taking place over the ideology and soul of the party, with downright nastiness between the "Republican Establishment" and the "conservative grassroots".
So I really don't see any factual validity to your claim, Richard.
If you really spent some concerted time on this site and others deemed "Catholic right"/conservative (Acton.org), I think you'd be disabused of the above notion. I'm not the only Catholic conservative who's publicly voiced dissatisfaction/distrust with Romney as a candidate and with the Republican party in general.
As I keep telling the R party fundraisers, I won't ever contribute to the party again (first and last time was in 2002) because far too many Republicans are pro-choice (Guiliani, ex-Gov. Terminator, etc.).
And if you've been following the local Republican politics in Missouri (Todd Akin) you know very well there is a passionate battle taking place over the ideology and soul of the party, with downright nastiness between the "Republican Establishment" and the "conservative grassroots".
So I really don't see any factual validity to your claim, Richard.
10.16.2012 | 2:29pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Adam Baum,
You write:
"I look at Rand as the polar-oppsite reaction to unbounded statism. "
You make a reasonable case in your comment I think, but I have to disagree with you here. As Charles Chaput said, "if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual."
Here's my attempt to draw a picture of the situation:
http://crisisofthehousedivided.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-state-by-douglas-farrow.html
Rand would agree with what you wrote, but she argued for crushing the pillar of religion that is oh so necessary to restrain the power of the state (as for family her novels are without children). In the same tradition, many libertarians today treat the church as something that should never enter the public square. I think they are intellectually innocent of what they are doing, but what they are doing is cutting the chains that restrain the state.
You write:
"I look at Rand as the polar-oppsite reaction to unbounded statism. "
You make a reasonable case in your comment I think, but I have to disagree with you here. As Charles Chaput said, "if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual."
Here's my attempt to draw a picture of the situation:
http://crisisofthehousedivided.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-state-by-douglas-farrow.html
Rand would agree with what you wrote, but she argued for crushing the pillar of religion that is oh so necessary to restrain the power of the state (as for family her novels are without children). In the same tradition, many libertarians today treat the church as something that should never enter the public square. I think they are intellectually innocent of what they are doing, but what they are doing is cutting the chains that restrain the state.
10.16.2012 | 3:20pm
Rick says:
Douglas Johnson,
Your linking of the materialism of Libertarians, free market zealots, and communists echoes a central point of Chambers' brilliant review of Atlas Shrugged. Here are some excerpts:
"Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism....Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc.... Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world....His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand’s words, “the moral purpose of his life.” Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure, with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence, in part, I presume, her insistence on “man as a heroic being” “with productive achievement as his noblest activity.” For, if Man’s “heroism” (some will prefer to say: “human dignity”) no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche’s anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held “heroic” in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author’s economics and the politics that must arise from them."
Rand's book ends with the final triumph of her capitalist supermen over the "looters." Chambers describes the scene:
"So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book’s last line, that a character traces in the air, “over the desolate earth,” the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the “mysticism of mind” and the “mysticism of muscle”)."
Chambers' review makes nonsense of Ryan's recent assertion that he found Rand's novels to have interesting ideas while he rejects her philosophy. Her novels are no more than ponderous, tendentious screeds for her philosophy.
Your linking of the materialism of Libertarians, free market zealots, and communists echoes a central point of Chambers' brilliant review of Atlas Shrugged. Here are some excerpts:
"Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism....Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc.... Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world....His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand’s words, “the moral purpose of his life.” Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure, with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence, in part, I presume, her insistence on “man as a heroic being” “with productive achievement as his noblest activity.” For, if Man’s “heroism” (some will prefer to say: “human dignity”) no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche’s anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held “heroic” in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author’s economics and the politics that must arise from them."
Rand's book ends with the final triumph of her capitalist supermen over the "looters." Chambers describes the scene:
"So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book’s last line, that a character traces in the air, “over the desolate earth,” the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the “mysticism of mind” and the “mysticism of muscle”)."
Chambers' review makes nonsense of Ryan's recent assertion that he found Rand's novels to have interesting ideas while he rejects her philosophy. Her novels are no more than ponderous, tendentious screeds for her philosophy.
10.16.2012 | 5:10pm
Richard says:
To Artaban7: Good points. In my mind the point I was making referred to the conference of bishops. Even though Dolan gave an invocation to the Democratic convention as well as the Republican, he used his time at the Democratic taking shots at the platform in his comments where he didn't do that in his first job. Recently Archbishop Chaput made comments about Paul Ryan's economics which made it clear he would not take a critical stand on Ryan's positions. And Weigel!!! Nearly everything he writes is supportive of Republicans. Taken as a whole and in considering the "voter guides" promulgated this year as well as in the past, it is not reasonable to take the position that the Church is promoting the Republican Party.
10.16.2012 | 6:34pm
Charles Cassil says:
Adam Baum,
Re the last paragraph of your response at 10:47 yesterday morning: Perhaps this article should have been entitled "The Embarrassment of the Left Catholic."
RJN wrote in this journal that if you take a two-word phrase--I believe his example was "Catholic American"--and reverse the word order, you change the meaning dramatically. The first word--the adjective--is dominant.
Re the last paragraph of your response at 10:47 yesterday morning: Perhaps this article should have been entitled "The Embarrassment of the Left Catholic."
RJN wrote in this journal that if you take a two-word phrase--I believe his example was "Catholic American"--and reverse the word order, you change the meaning dramatically. The first word--the adjective--is dominant.
10.17.2012 | 2:44am
Adam Baum says:
@ Douglas:
You missed my point. Rand experienced the totalitarian state. She never experienced God or the Church (or Synagogue, since her family were irreligious Jews) and seems to have missed the boat on family, for whatever reason. So when she felt the full force of the state, she relied on the smallest segment of the society-the individual.
I have a theory that Rand's paucity of experience contributed to a heresy. She took an essential truth-lost on the statist left-that the individual is important and exaggerated the individual to sufficient-as the the only legitimate subdivision of society-which of course ignores the social nature of the human being.
Rand's writing will never be confused with Shakespeare. Her stories were concocted as a reaction to an all-powerful state. When a grave statist threat emerges (Barack Obama), people discover her writing and see it as a counterargument.
There's an easy way to render "Atlas Shrugged" irrelevant and forgotten. Render statism irrelevant and forgotten.
You missed my point. Rand experienced the totalitarian state. She never experienced God or the Church (or Synagogue, since her family were irreligious Jews) and seems to have missed the boat on family, for whatever reason. So when she felt the full force of the state, she relied on the smallest segment of the society-the individual.
I have a theory that Rand's paucity of experience contributed to a heresy. She took an essential truth-lost on the statist left-that the individual is important and exaggerated the individual to sufficient-as the the only legitimate subdivision of society-which of course ignores the social nature of the human being.
Rand's writing will never be confused with Shakespeare. Her stories were concocted as a reaction to an all-powerful state. When a grave statist threat emerges (Barack Obama), people discover her writing and see it as a counterargument.
There's an easy way to render "Atlas Shrugged" irrelevant and forgotten. Render statism irrelevant and forgotten.
10.17.2012 | 9:37am
Tom Com says:
Richard
You dismiss the Church’s positions as simply promoting the Republican Party & simply gloss over the fact that the Catholic Left is promoting the Dem Party.
And you simply dismiss (with three exclamation points no less) the great Weigel's incisive writings as simply supportive of the Republicans.
So much for reasoned discourse.
You dismiss the Church’s positions as simply promoting the Republican Party & simply gloss over the fact that the Catholic Left is promoting the Dem Party.
And you simply dismiss (with three exclamation points no less) the great Weigel's incisive writings as simply supportive of the Republicans.
So much for reasoned discourse.
10.17.2012 | 9:50am
Michael PS says:
It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person's relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract,” and from it is derived the notion that the only obligations are those voluntarily assumed.
For the ancients, of course, like Plato and Aristotle, to consider the individual in isolation from the polis, or community, was like talking about a foot or an eye, without reference to the body, as a whole. That is why Yves Simon says that "in this state [of abstraction], man is “no longer unequivocally real.” To clarify, Simon then adds: “Human communities are the highest attainment of nature for they are virtually unlimited with regard to diversity of perfections, and are virtually immortal.”
For the ancients, of course, like Plato and Aristotle, to consider the individual in isolation from the polis, or community, was like talking about a foot or an eye, without reference to the body, as a whole. That is why Yves Simon says that "in this state [of abstraction], man is “no longer unequivocally real.” To clarify, Simon then adds: “Human communities are the highest attainment of nature for they are virtually unlimited with regard to diversity of perfections, and are virtually immortal.”
I am a Christian but not Catholic. I will be voting for R/R.
The document posted on 9 Oct before was written befor the VP B/R debate of 11 Oct. The linking of Paul Ryan with Ayn Rand is based on this:
Address by Paul Ryan to Atlas Society "Celebration of Ayn Rand," 2005. (Published transcript is incomplete. Quotes are taken from audio file.) http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again.
I understand PR has renounced any guiding insights from Ayn Rand. There is traction gained in the OnOurShoulders document by binding Ryan to Rand and no indication that any sponsor asked Ryan about his current feelings for Rand's writings.
The "tipping point" comment should be enought to alert one that we have here, not a team interested in the implemantation of Catholic Social teaching, but a left leaning team wanting to harpoon what I consider to be a wiser fiscal policy path. Look for the hot words ... tea party, proponents of small government, private, profit, libertarians ... in the paragraph.
"America is at a tipping point where the traditional commitment of our government to protecting and advancing the common good is in very real danger of being dismantled for generations. Members of the "Tea Party," libertarians, Ayn Rand followers and other proponents of small government have brought libertarian views of government into the mainstream; legitimating forms of social indifference. After decades of anti-government rhetoric and "starve the beast" tax cuts, some even appear to exploit predictable fiscal problems to establish a privatized, libertarian order that reduces society to a collection of individuals and shrinks the common good to fit the outcomes achievable by private, for profit firms."
Wisely the writer(s) give PR credit for being Catholic and give him several positive affirmations. As kind teachers they inform him ... "We do not question the sincerity of his convictions, but must note that a shift from the social philosophy of Ayn Rand to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church is a radical change indeed. Such a conversion would take much time and reflection. Congressman Ryan's policies have remained unchanged through this shift."
I'd be willing to bet a coffee that few of the sponsors have had to engage in fund raising or struggled with a budget to keep an enterprise alive and well. They make a brief mention of rising endebtedness of the US state. what the R/R team has been saying is the ability of the US to susutain its basic operations, including social safety nets, is in jeporday because of out-of-control government spending.
The document's sponsors should have paid attention to Joe Biden's "I am Catholic" comments from the VP debate. One the one hand Joe accepts that life begins at conception but will not impose his view on a woman who he said should be free to determine her own health. See the point? while the fetus is a life or a person like us the mother and her doctors are give permission to kill the person.
We can recover from hard economic times. We cannot recover from being aborted. We can learn from our fiscal mistakes. We cannot recover from the mistake of being aborted.
I'm voting for R/R for economic reasons and I trust the R/R team over the O/B team by a wide margin.