Solidarity: the Republican Blind Spot
November 12, 2012
R.R. Reno
The first thing to say is “calm down.” As our friend Steve Barr observes, we tend to over-interpret election results. That’s especially true for those of us paid to have opinions. Nothing sells soap like decisive pronouncements. “End of conservatism!” “New permanent majority.” “Thousand year reign of Democratic Party begins!”
So instead of a summation I’ll make some tentative observations.
We’re winning the argument about the sanctity of life. The voters in Massachusetts declined to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. In the months before the election polling suggested that the referendum would easily pass. But a strong and broad-based opposition campaign in the final months turned public opinion. When voters hear the moral arguments, even in blue state Massachusetts, they realize that nice-sounding slogans such as “death with dignity” disguise an erosion of our proper commitment to the sanctity of life.
We’re losing the argument about marriage. Referenda redefining marriage passed in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. A referendum upholding traditional marriage failed in Minnesota.
Given the polling data this isn’t surprising. Although large majorities oppose gay marriage in a great deal of red state America, the more liberal parts of the country tend the opposite way. In the Washington vote, the vast majority of counties voted against, but Kings County (Seattle) went for it with a huge majority. Amazon nation and empire Microsoft are pro-gay rights. (In fact, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, and Bill Gates gave millions to support the redefinition of marriage in Washington.) Opponents of the referenda report that they were outspent 4-1.
I’ll have more to say about marriage in the January issue of First Things, but here I’d just like to point out that resisting gay marriage is only part of what we need to do to defend marriage. There’s no reason we can’t press for victories on other fronts, even as we lose on gay marriage.
The economic issues? We should not underestimate how many voters in the muddy middle went for Obama because they feel vulnerable and just don’t trust the Republican Party to look out for their interests. Here, Republican operatives and strategists made a big mistake. They rightly saw that our weak economy was the main issue. But they wrongly assumed that crucial swing state voters were primarily concerned about who is to blame, or even who is most likely to promote growth in the long or even medium term.
No, the struggling middle class voters in places like Ohio were primarily concerned to know which candidate and party is most likely to protect them tomorrow.
This is a long-term concern. Globalization has threatened and will continue to threaten the viability of middle class life in America. Both parties whistle past this issue because they haven’t a clue what to do. The Democrats, however, have the old New Deal rhetoric and a long history of founding and funding social programs. Unrealistic, perhaps, given our fiscal crisis, but tangible. The Republicans? They promise jobs in an unshackled economy that encourages entrepreneurial initiative. Nice, but hypothetical.
Warmed over New Deal “solutions” to the economic pressures and suffering caused by globalization won’t work. In fact, they’ll make the situation worse, because market interventions, protectionism, and social spending garble the market signals that we all need to hear in order to make the sorts of decisions necessary to navigate successfully through the process of globalization.
But all that is very academic when you go to the voting booth. If I were a high school-educated male who has recently lost his job at manufacturing plant, I’d roll my eyes at promises about how the free market, if given a chance, will heal itself and resume its job-creating function. Who’s to say those jobs will be in Youngstown, or suitable for me? Social issues aside, I’d vote for Obama.
Yes, yes, his promises are probably empty (green jobs?). But if I’m about to be executed, I’d vote for the guy who promises a stay, even if I suspect that he’s probably not able to deliver. Who knows, he might. The guy who says that we need executions in order to have a vibrant, market-oriented economy? (That’s what “creative destruction” means when we come down from 30,000 feet and actually look at communities and individuals.) Are you kidding?
What I’ve come to see is perhaps a paradox about free market promises. They work best when times are good and we don’t need them all that much, because economic freedom appeals most when we’re confident we can leverage it to our advantage. But the same promises are off-putting during bad times when we need them, because that very same freedom looks scary. We want a safety net.
I’m in favor of economic growth. We need it, and less burdensome regulations and prudently moderate taxes are likely to encourage it. But this election has helped me see that the Republican Party lacks a vocabulary and vision of social solidarity. It’s absurd to suggest, as some did during the election season, that conservatives follow Ayn Rand’s hatred of weakness and disdain for the vulnerable. But we certainly have a blind spot.
Final thought: November 6 saw the highest percentage of non-Hispanic Catholics voting for the Republican candidate in recent memory. This migration into the Republic column is increasingly being encouraged and led by bishops and priests. It is my hope that this trend and the increasing role of Catholics in the leadership of the Republican Party will renew American conservatism by removing that blind spot.
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.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.12.2012 | 8:56am
Alan says:
The author writes: "This migration into the Republic column is increasingly being encouraged and led by bishops and priests." This is a cause for grave concern, not for rejoicing. When a church becomes identified with a particular political party, it loses its legitimacy for church members who favor the other party. Beyond that, the church that is identified with a particular party is not in a position to call that party to task, to perform its prophetic mission.
11.12.2012 | 9:05am
kirk wynn says:
I thought Romney was a decent cross-over candidate: a Republican former ex-governor of ultra-liberal Mass. Are you kidding me? Unfortunately the Rep party has been hijacked by those with an ultra-right wing social agenda which alienates two thirds of the electorate. They need to tone it down a bit.
11.12.2012 | 9:33am
Richard Jizba says:
I asked my kids why they voted for Obama. One said it was because he has a lot of student loans and Obama was the one seemed to have plan that appealed to him. The other said he was uncomfortable with Romney's desire to exploit the wilderness areas in Alaska. Neither one seemed to have a underlying philosophy about why they voted for Obama or against Romney. However I also suspect that the statements of Murdoch and Akin about rape influenced their sense that the Republicans just aren't very bright or sensitive. So my sense is that the Republicans need to really think about how they present their arguments. It must certainly be possible to explain why one believes in the wilderness and the value of natural places, but still see a role for development of natural resources. It must be possible to explain the dignity of all human life without sounding like a fool on the evils of rape. One problem with the Tea Party backed candidates is that they seem inexperienced and naive. There is a place for professional politicians or perhaps I should say statesmen. I think the Republicans reliance on amateurs really hurt them.
11.12.2012 | 10:35am
Spudnik says:
I think the "culture" war needs to go deeper and get at the roots. The two major parties (and Red and Blue voters) differ on whether we should allow abortion or call same-sex relationships a marriage, but they agree that the most important issue is material wealth (or lack of it.) While that's understandable to one extent, especially when people are out of work and suffering, it also restricts the conversation and proposed solutions.
The conversation at the national level never gets around to asking why concern for one's neighbor is good and Randian social Darwinism is bad. From an atheist or agnostic standpoint, it's a mere will-to-power act in one's own interest to organize or vote for a government that promises you the most handouts. As Christians we have a rational, objective basis to critique not only social Darwinism but collectivist-statist "solutions" as well. But half of Catholics appear to believe that solidarity means voting for government "compassion" toward some (i.e. the fit) while allowing others to be murdered: the materialist bias again. How can the Church offer anything to the world when it is full of division and dissent itself?
As the feast of St. Martin of Tours reminds us, the Gospel is the only force on earth that can reasonably critique social Darwinism (e.g. abortion and endless wars, ancient or modern) and provide a basis beyond mere sentimentality for seeing one's neighbor as another self.
The conversation at the national level never gets around to asking why concern for one's neighbor is good and Randian social Darwinism is bad. From an atheist or agnostic standpoint, it's a mere will-to-power act in one's own interest to organize or vote for a government that promises you the most handouts. As Christians we have a rational, objective basis to critique not only social Darwinism but collectivist-statist "solutions" as well. But half of Catholics appear to believe that solidarity means voting for government "compassion" toward some (i.e. the fit) while allowing others to be murdered: the materialist bias again. How can the Church offer anything to the world when it is full of division and dissent itself?
As the feast of St. Martin of Tours reminds us, the Gospel is the only force on earth that can reasonably critique social Darwinism (e.g. abortion and endless wars, ancient or modern) and provide a basis beyond mere sentimentality for seeing one's neighbor as another self.
11.12.2012 | 11:45am
CKG says:
You're onto something important here, I think. The biggest problem with a radical free-market position is precisely its destructiveness, which ultimately will include social stability. It is becoming rarer and rarer for anyone to live in (even roughly) the same place, within a set of stable friendships, for mor than ten years at a time, much less for one's entire adult life, as was common in my grandparents' day. The social costs of such rootlessness are not as well understood as they ought to be, and (it seems to me), are generally accepted, without a lot of reflection, in the name of the next thousand dollars I stand to get paid if I move. . .
11.12.2012 | 11:48am
randall says:
What you say is true enough: conservatism is not dead; and no, this win does not ensure the Democrats a 1,000 year reign. I also believe that you are right about SSM being a losing battle, but one still worth fighting. And it is from that point of departure where I believe you might be missing the larger picture (at least in this article). I think there is a failure here to recognize the fundamental shift in the country's mien. This election, if anything, showed that we are now a center-left country. So while the GOP will get its candidate elected to the presidency at some point, the candidate will support SSM (which in 4 years might be Federal law and thus a non-issue in many respects), amnesty, reformed drug laws, looser "abortive rights," etc.. In other words, the GOP will resemble what passes for the center-right in Europe. What are we "real" social/political conservatives to do? Little platoons. Little platoons.
11.12.2012 | 12:43pm
Douglas Johnson says:
"We’re losing the argument about marriage. "
We are losing 32-4 in our favor. When, since Roe, were we ever losing the abortion debate so well? As Mr. Reno points out, even in the most liberal states such as Washington it is only in a few urban centers where we lost.
People know in their guts that redefining marriage is wrong (hence 32-4) but they aren't equipped with the arguments to defend the self-evident and they don't like being compared to Jim Crow. If the leading defenders of marriage ever give in inch then everything will collapse for them at once because if the church makes a stand one day and then compromises the next, folks lower down the ladder who just know in their guts this is wrong will suddenly realize that no one has their backs.
I look forward to Rusty Reno's comments in the January issue, but I'm a little worried about what "are losing" portends for that piece.
We are losing 32-4 in our favor. When, since Roe, were we ever losing the abortion debate so well? As Mr. Reno points out, even in the most liberal states such as Washington it is only in a few urban centers where we lost.
People know in their guts that redefining marriage is wrong (hence 32-4) but they aren't equipped with the arguments to defend the self-evident and they don't like being compared to Jim Crow. If the leading defenders of marriage ever give in inch then everything will collapse for them at once because if the church makes a stand one day and then compromises the next, folks lower down the ladder who just know in their guts this is wrong will suddenly realize that no one has their backs.
I look forward to Rusty Reno's comments in the January issue, but I'm a little worried about what "are losing" portends for that piece.
11.12.2012 | 1:02pm
LM says:
Mr. Reno said, "Final thought: November 6 saw the highest percentage of non-Hispanic Catholics voting for the Republican candidate in recent memory."
The problem is that white Catholics, like white evangelicals, are a shrinking demographic. It makes no difference if more white Catholics are voting Republican if their overall percentage of the electorate is shrinking. Obama captured 93 percent of the black vote and roughly 70 percent of the Asian vote, and so far none of the writers on First Things have bothered to postulate about why this occurred. Blacks are the most religious group in the United States, but Republicans have made no effort to court them since the GOP adopted the Southern strategy. There are more than three million black Catholics in this country, more than the entire membership of the Episcopal Church, and I bet the vast majority of them voted for Obama. The effect of the increasing Hispanic population on the election has been well documented over the past week and they are also changing the face of Catholicism and evangelicalism in the United States. Christianity is also widespread among the Vietnamese and Korean American communities. My point is that many, if not most, of the minority voters who voted for Obama were Christian, and probably of a conservative bent at that. The only explanation that white conservatives have offered as to why these Christians of color would vote for Obama is that they "wanted stuff." It it any wonder that minorities don't vote Republican if they're constantly being painted as lazy moochers who want food stamps and subsidized birth control and abortions?
The problem is that white Catholics, like white evangelicals, are a shrinking demographic. It makes no difference if more white Catholics are voting Republican if their overall percentage of the electorate is shrinking. Obama captured 93 percent of the black vote and roughly 70 percent of the Asian vote, and so far none of the writers on First Things have bothered to postulate about why this occurred. Blacks are the most religious group in the United States, but Republicans have made no effort to court them since the GOP adopted the Southern strategy. There are more than three million black Catholics in this country, more than the entire membership of the Episcopal Church, and I bet the vast majority of them voted for Obama. The effect of the increasing Hispanic population on the election has been well documented over the past week and they are also changing the face of Catholicism and evangelicalism in the United States. Christianity is also widespread among the Vietnamese and Korean American communities. My point is that many, if not most, of the minority voters who voted for Obama were Christian, and probably of a conservative bent at that. The only explanation that white conservatives have offered as to why these Christians of color would vote for Obama is that they "wanted stuff." It it any wonder that minorities don't vote Republican if they're constantly being painted as lazy moochers who want food stamps and subsidized birth control and abortions?
11.12.2012 | 1:59pm
Andrew says:
The failure of many politically "conservative" Catholics to articulate a genuine public witness based in solidarity is intrinsic with the absence of a real and unreduced understanding of subsidiarity. Politically "progressive" Catholics make the same fallacy but in a different manner. The former, political "conservatives," tend to equate subsidiarity with indiscriminate economic decentralization and naively assume that more competition among private firms, in reality mainly large and already entrenched private firms, will automatically empower the "little platoons" and genuine local efforts. Furthermore, while many politically "conservative" Christians rightly note the disruptive effects of State-overreach on familial structure, especially among low-income families, they tend to ignore the disruptive effects of capitalism on familial structure. Pope Benedict XVI, building on his predecessors work, regularly notes the disruptive effects of commercial cultures on family stability. The notion that “life’s a market” begets a commoditized, monetized and utilitarian view of work and even of charity and family life—a true notion of gift and givenness in human work is increasingly absent. Likewise and most importantly, the principle, recently affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, that man is an inherently dependent being revolts many Christians of a politically conservative persuasion, including Catholic ones.
The later, political "progressives,"rhetorically boast of some altruistic notion of dependence and coordination but this essentially translates into dependence on government bodies. Many progressives tend to never consider the possibility that bureaucratic agencies—however “perfect”—might depend on something other than other governing bodies. Solidarity doesn’t mean solidarity among bureaucracies—“solidarity” among government agencies and social workers is never solidarity among the people. State-voluntarism’s odd ideological fusion of utilitarian positivistic-planning and therapeutic identity-politics is an inhuman and wanting for substitute for genuine solidarity among real flesh and blood persons.
The "progressive" notion of subsidiarity essentially views local initiative, the "little platoons," as activist vehicles for policy goals. Although the "progressive" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity prove artificial, sterile, wanting and inhuman in reality, they remain entrenched since something better is absent in political life. Nonetheless, Catholics ought to look to something other than the "conservative" reduction for a better way. The "conservative" and 'progressive" fallacies are simply two, albeit very different, variants of a wanting liberal political philosophy rooted in a voluntarist ontology. Both see freedom actualized in the unimpeded exercise of individual initiative--both are freedoms of indifference that see human liberty in freedoms from rather than freedom for.
The "progressive" and "conservative" reductions essentially differ in their view of the villain--the main impediment to autonomous "freedom." The "progressive" variant sees constitutive and inherited relations the main obstacle to the exercise of freedom. Thus, the State is the hero in the progressive purview--the individual's protector against tyrannical social ties rooted in false hierarchical meta-narratives about human nature. According to the "progressive" narrative, the State is "the thing we most have in common," the source of all real human relations and the entity in which the individual actualizes himself. Thus, as aforementioned, "progressives" welcome local-initiatives as activist vehicles in which individual's can partake in State-centric social-revision of oppressive inherited institutional forms and ties.
In the "conservative" narrative, the State is the villain the main impediment to the individual's autonomous "freedom." The “conservative” variant of liberalism is also rooted in an autonomous ontology, although one that appeals to, at least some semblance of, a constitutive human nature and social ties. Yet, proponents of this ontology tend to view the notion of a constitutive human nature and constitutive human relations in, at least implicitly, a utilitarian matter. That is, human nature and constitutive human relations are useful principles only to the extent that they protect against what conservatives view the real threat to human “freedom”--the State.
In this regard, many social-conservatives' gradual acceptance of revised understandings of human nature is unsurprising. Many conservatives are willing to gradually and "prudentially" accept certain redefinitions of human nature--varying degrees--on the grounds that autonomous choice rather than State coercion is the source of such revision. For example, most conservatives agree that procreation and fidelity are central to marriage, but many have decided that such principles are not that important or less important than retaining the institution's uniquely heterosexual nature (we see concrete evidence of such gradual acceptance of deconstructive revision in any conservatives acceptance acceptance of contraception and divorce, except when the former is coerced onto institutions). Thus, the "conservative" view of natural law is really a narrow, quasi-positivist, purview of human nature. Unsurprisingly then, the "conservative" view toward local-efforts is rooted more in utilitarian concerns of State-overreach rather than a genuine concern for the sanctity of the family. Conservatives view local-ties and the "little platoons" more or less as protections against the State, similar to how progressives view the "little platoons" as vehicles for State-activism against inherited prejudices and hegemony. In effect, both reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity empower both business and government while crowding out true local bodies and efforts.
A true public witness of subsidiarity and solidarity requires an awareness of the human person's created and dependent nature--a nature rooted in the human person's constitutive relation with God. The human person's relation with God--not the State or the market or the "community" or "society"--constitutes the grandeur, dignity and sanctity of human life; a relation that is the source of human freedom. The "conservative" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity fail because they offer little evidence against the "progressive" denouncement that such inherited notions of human nature and constitutive relations are really a disguised hegemony. Although "progressive" State-voluntarism is its own hegemony, the bourgeois and positivist reductions of human nature and religiosity (specifically Christianity) prove superficial, formalistic, hypercritical and false. The bourgeois reductions of human nature and Christianity are simply ones of convenience and prove flimsy, and even implicitly, invite deconstructive revision. Likewise, proponents of such a reductive ontology forget that power exists at all levels. Monsignor Luigi Giussani affirms that "nothing is more feared in a relationship and in social-relations than true religiosity. Thus, the powerful [at any level--government, societal, economic, familial] are tempted to hate true religiosity, unless they are profoundly religious themselves, because true religiosity challenges possession." Thus, one's relation to God constitutes her human nature and constitutes all of her relations. If anything other than the human person's intrinsically and uniquely human relation to God is the source of human life than power reigns.
Monsignor Giussani's charism Communion and Liberation affirms that "the first order of politics is living." A hegemony only exist if we substitute our freedom for something less than human--if we choose ideology over living. Only seeing ourselves, our human relations and associations in the light of our constitutive relation with God can free us from the temptation to accept hegemonic reductions that falsely promise freedom from life's facts. One who lives with the moment to moment awareness that she is a relation with "Thou who gives life" is aware that her life is defined by something—Someone--greater than the world's inhuman reductions and is thus able to remain in front of the facts with interest and without censure. The "conservative" and "progressive" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity both exists because Catholics--myself very much guilty--attempt to view and live life under pre-packaged ideological lenses rather than with the eyes of Christ. Politics is concerned with the way we order human relations in the public-sphere. The question to Catholics seriously engaged in the pubic-square--at any level in our respective capacities, abilities and talents is clear: what determines the way we live our human relations--God or power? The answer will determine whether we give witness to an inhuman or truly human politics.
The later, political "progressives,"rhetorically boast of some altruistic notion of dependence and coordination but this essentially translates into dependence on government bodies. Many progressives tend to never consider the possibility that bureaucratic agencies—however “perfect”—might depend on something other than other governing bodies. Solidarity doesn’t mean solidarity among bureaucracies—“solidarity” among government agencies and social workers is never solidarity among the people. State-voluntarism’s odd ideological fusion of utilitarian positivistic-planning and therapeutic identity-politics is an inhuman and wanting for substitute for genuine solidarity among real flesh and blood persons.
The "progressive" notion of subsidiarity essentially views local initiative, the "little platoons," as activist vehicles for policy goals. Although the "progressive" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity prove artificial, sterile, wanting and inhuman in reality, they remain entrenched since something better is absent in political life. Nonetheless, Catholics ought to look to something other than the "conservative" reduction for a better way. The "conservative" and 'progressive" fallacies are simply two, albeit very different, variants of a wanting liberal political philosophy rooted in a voluntarist ontology. Both see freedom actualized in the unimpeded exercise of individual initiative--both are freedoms of indifference that see human liberty in freedoms from rather than freedom for.
The "progressive" and "conservative" reductions essentially differ in their view of the villain--the main impediment to autonomous "freedom." The "progressive" variant sees constitutive and inherited relations the main obstacle to the exercise of freedom. Thus, the State is the hero in the progressive purview--the individual's protector against tyrannical social ties rooted in false hierarchical meta-narratives about human nature. According to the "progressive" narrative, the State is "the thing we most have in common," the source of all real human relations and the entity in which the individual actualizes himself. Thus, as aforementioned, "progressives" welcome local-initiatives as activist vehicles in which individual's can partake in State-centric social-revision of oppressive inherited institutional forms and ties.
In the "conservative" narrative, the State is the villain the main impediment to the individual's autonomous "freedom." The “conservative” variant of liberalism is also rooted in an autonomous ontology, although one that appeals to, at least some semblance of, a constitutive human nature and social ties. Yet, proponents of this ontology tend to view the notion of a constitutive human nature and constitutive human relations in, at least implicitly, a utilitarian matter. That is, human nature and constitutive human relations are useful principles only to the extent that they protect against what conservatives view the real threat to human “freedom”--the State.
In this regard, many social-conservatives' gradual acceptance of revised understandings of human nature is unsurprising. Many conservatives are willing to gradually and "prudentially" accept certain redefinitions of human nature--varying degrees--on the grounds that autonomous choice rather than State coercion is the source of such revision. For example, most conservatives agree that procreation and fidelity are central to marriage, but many have decided that such principles are not that important or less important than retaining the institution's uniquely heterosexual nature (we see concrete evidence of such gradual acceptance of deconstructive revision in any conservatives acceptance acceptance of contraception and divorce, except when the former is coerced onto institutions). Thus, the "conservative" view of natural law is really a narrow, quasi-positivist, purview of human nature. Unsurprisingly then, the "conservative" view toward local-efforts is rooted more in utilitarian concerns of State-overreach rather than a genuine concern for the sanctity of the family. Conservatives view local-ties and the "little platoons" more or less as protections against the State, similar to how progressives view the "little platoons" as vehicles for State-activism against inherited prejudices and hegemony. In effect, both reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity empower both business and government while crowding out true local bodies and efforts.
A true public witness of subsidiarity and solidarity requires an awareness of the human person's created and dependent nature--a nature rooted in the human person's constitutive relation with God. The human person's relation with God--not the State or the market or the "community" or "society"--constitutes the grandeur, dignity and sanctity of human life; a relation that is the source of human freedom. The "conservative" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity fail because they offer little evidence against the "progressive" denouncement that such inherited notions of human nature and constitutive relations are really a disguised hegemony. Although "progressive" State-voluntarism is its own hegemony, the bourgeois and positivist reductions of human nature and religiosity (specifically Christianity) prove superficial, formalistic, hypercritical and false. The bourgeois reductions of human nature and Christianity are simply ones of convenience and prove flimsy, and even implicitly, invite deconstructive revision. Likewise, proponents of such a reductive ontology forget that power exists at all levels. Monsignor Luigi Giussani affirms that "nothing is more feared in a relationship and in social-relations than true religiosity. Thus, the powerful [at any level--government, societal, economic, familial] are tempted to hate true religiosity, unless they are profoundly religious themselves, because true religiosity challenges possession." Thus, one's relation to God constitutes her human nature and constitutes all of her relations. If anything other than the human person's intrinsically and uniquely human relation to God is the source of human life than power reigns.
Monsignor Giussani's charism Communion and Liberation affirms that "the first order of politics is living." A hegemony only exist if we substitute our freedom for something less than human--if we choose ideology over living. Only seeing ourselves, our human relations and associations in the light of our constitutive relation with God can free us from the temptation to accept hegemonic reductions that falsely promise freedom from life's facts. One who lives with the moment to moment awareness that she is a relation with "Thou who gives life" is aware that her life is defined by something—Someone--greater than the world's inhuman reductions and is thus able to remain in front of the facts with interest and without censure. The "conservative" and "progressive" reductions of subsidiarity and solidarity both exists because Catholics--myself very much guilty--attempt to view and live life under pre-packaged ideological lenses rather than with the eyes of Christ. Politics is concerned with the way we order human relations in the public-sphere. The question to Catholics seriously engaged in the pubic-square--at any level in our respective capacities, abilities and talents is clear: what determines the way we live our human relations--God or power? The answer will determine whether we give witness to an inhuman or truly human politics.
11.12.2012 | 2:14pm
Ray Ingles says:
Tangential but related: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/
11.12.2012 | 2:19pm
Ray Ingles says:
Douglas Johnson - "We are losing 32-4 in our favor."
The 4 are all recent losses, though, and the trends aren't all that promising of 33+. Nor are the trends even all that long-term. The issue went from a get-out-the-vote issue for conservatives in 2004 to a get-out-the-vote issue for *progressives* in 2012.
All that said, conservatives can take heart from this: http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7512
The 4 are all recent losses, though, and the trends aren't all that promising of 33+. Nor are the trends even all that long-term. The issue went from a get-out-the-vote issue for conservatives in 2004 to a get-out-the-vote issue for *progressives* in 2012.
All that said, conservatives can take heart from this: http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7512
11.12.2012 | 2:35pm
Thomas R says:
From what I'd read at Pew Research Korean American and Vietnamese American Christians are mixed politically, not overwhelmingly Democratic. Asian-Americans who aren't Christian, even if they're socially conservative, are strongly Democratic and a good deal of Asian-Americans are of non-Christian faiths or irreligious. A Muslim or Sikh who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion may feel, for reasons valid or not, that the GOP vaguely hates their religion.
On non-white Christians a big issue seems to be that they don't believe in the idea of small government. I think it makes sense many African-Americans would be skeptical of small-government as in their history the federal government did intervene in a positive way with regards to segregation and to some extent even poverty reduction. American-Indians could maybe be won over on "small-government/localism" considering the federal government was very much not their friend, but A-I are too small to matter and neither party really seems to care much about them at all.
On non-white Christians a big issue seems to be that they don't believe in the idea of small government. I think it makes sense many African-Americans would be skeptical of small-government as in their history the federal government did intervene in a positive way with regards to segregation and to some extent even poverty reduction. American-Indians could maybe be won over on "small-government/localism" considering the federal government was very much not their friend, but A-I are too small to matter and neither party really seems to care much about them at all.
11.12.2012 | 2:38pm
Adam Baum says:
@Alan:
"This migration into the Republic column is increasingly being encouraged and led by bishops and priests." This is a cause for grave concern, not for rejoicing.
Whose rejoicing?
There's a couple of problems with this statement. Was it a "problem" when voting D was something of an eighth sacrament for some Catholics? I have a cousin who was actually admonished for wearing a "Nixon" political button by a teaching nun in his school in 1960. In those days, Democrat politicians regarded Catholics as wholly owned subsidiaries.
When the left became hostile to Catholicism, the nominally Catholic politicians "compartmentalized". In any case, I think the author overstates the case. You can't undo decades of enculturation in a few months or more precisely "a fortnight". If Catholics are breaking to the other party, it's overdue, autogeneous and because of the the realization that years of Democrat indifference and indifference is now open hostility. What is cause for concern is the Democrats antipathy to religion and the religiously informed conscience.
@Kirk Wynn
"Unfortunately the Rep party has been hijacked by those with an ultra-right wing social agenda which alienates two thirds of the electorate. "
How is it that it is never said that the Democrat party has been "hijacked" by those with an "ultra-left" agenda which alienates [insert proportion here] or do you consider state direction of one-sixth of the economy, publicly financed abortion and contraception on demand, the encouragement of illegitimacy and sexual libertinism and the demolition of the concept that marriage required a man and a woman to be middle-of-the-road values? Politics is a lot like physics, a lot of what you see depends on your frame of reference.
@ R R Reno:
Why the concern with Ayn Rand? I'm not defending her philosophy, but she was right about one thing: grown without limits, the state will displace, suffocate and dispose of the individual. (It will do the same with religion, other voluntary free associations and the family)
Like most heresies, her assertions took a basic truth (the individual matters) and exaggerated it to the point where it was monstrous and deformed (the individual is all that matters). There's even something of an overlap with Maslow's "self actualization", that enjoys acclaim. In any case, it's important to know how she arrived at her worldview.
Ayn Rand is the diametric opposition of the Marxist-Leninism that she grew up with in the nascent USSR-and of course the latter was without truth-and that's why tens of millions of graves are a testament to it's innate evil, so let's "dig where there's taters".
Those who seem eager to disinfect the body politic of any influence of Rand, exaggerate her influence on politics-it's virtually null (She's the Linux of politics, advocated by cats who claim she's the key to successful herding but influential only with a small and uninfluential group of disaffected devotees).
Where is a reciprocal disdain for Marx or Alinsky
and rest of the more dominant and noxious philosophical influences of the past few centuries, whose handiwork enjoys widespread acclaim in the academy, arts and government and whose legacy is tens of millions of graves.
The best way to get rid of Rand, would be to get rid of Marx and there rest of the statists. She only makes sense when people grasp for a counter philosophy against the diminution of the individual or when you are passing through the self-obsessed teen years. The best antidote to Rand, is freedom, maturity and children.
I could only way believe that solidarity is absent from the right, if I believe the central state is the only or perhaps the indispensable expression of it. Studies show that "red" areas are far more charitable than "blue".
On the other hand the complete evisceration of subsidiarity in the far left agenda that now dominates the Democrats (don't believe me, believe the head of the CPUSA) is a far more profound and disordering problem in our polity.
"This migration into the Republic column is increasingly being encouraged and led by bishops and priests." This is a cause for grave concern, not for rejoicing.
Whose rejoicing?
There's a couple of problems with this statement. Was it a "problem" when voting D was something of an eighth sacrament for some Catholics? I have a cousin who was actually admonished for wearing a "Nixon" political button by a teaching nun in his school in 1960. In those days, Democrat politicians regarded Catholics as wholly owned subsidiaries.
When the left became hostile to Catholicism, the nominally Catholic politicians "compartmentalized". In any case, I think the author overstates the case. You can't undo decades of enculturation in a few months or more precisely "a fortnight". If Catholics are breaking to the other party, it's overdue, autogeneous and because of the the realization that years of Democrat indifference and indifference is now open hostility. What is cause for concern is the Democrats antipathy to religion and the religiously informed conscience.
@Kirk Wynn
"Unfortunately the Rep party has been hijacked by those with an ultra-right wing social agenda which alienates two thirds of the electorate. "
How is it that it is never said that the Democrat party has been "hijacked" by those with an "ultra-left" agenda which alienates [insert proportion here] or do you consider state direction of one-sixth of the economy, publicly financed abortion and contraception on demand, the encouragement of illegitimacy and sexual libertinism and the demolition of the concept that marriage required a man and a woman to be middle-of-the-road values? Politics is a lot like physics, a lot of what you see depends on your frame of reference.
@ R R Reno:
Why the concern with Ayn Rand? I'm not defending her philosophy, but she was right about one thing: grown without limits, the state will displace, suffocate and dispose of the individual. (It will do the same with religion, other voluntary free associations and the family)
Like most heresies, her assertions took a basic truth (the individual matters) and exaggerated it to the point where it was monstrous and deformed (the individual is all that matters). There's even something of an overlap with Maslow's "self actualization", that enjoys acclaim. In any case, it's important to know how she arrived at her worldview.
Ayn Rand is the diametric opposition of the Marxist-Leninism that she grew up with in the nascent USSR-and of course the latter was without truth-and that's why tens of millions of graves are a testament to it's innate evil, so let's "dig where there's taters".
Those who seem eager to disinfect the body politic of any influence of Rand, exaggerate her influence on politics-it's virtually null (She's the Linux of politics, advocated by cats who claim she's the key to successful herding but influential only with a small and uninfluential group of disaffected devotees).
Where is a reciprocal disdain for Marx or Alinsky
and rest of the more dominant and noxious philosophical influences of the past few centuries, whose handiwork enjoys widespread acclaim in the academy, arts and government and whose legacy is tens of millions of graves.
The best way to get rid of Rand, would be to get rid of Marx and there rest of the statists. She only makes sense when people grasp for a counter philosophy against the diminution of the individual or when you are passing through the self-obsessed teen years. The best antidote to Rand, is freedom, maturity and children.
I could only way believe that solidarity is absent from the right, if I believe the central state is the only or perhaps the indispensable expression of it. Studies show that "red" areas are far more charitable than "blue".
On the other hand the complete evisceration of subsidiarity in the far left agenda that now dominates the Democrats (don't believe me, believe the head of the CPUSA) is a far more profound and disordering problem in our polity.
11.12.2012 | 2:38pm
JB in CA says:
"It’s absurd to suggest, as some did during the election season, that conservatives follow Ayn Rand’s hatred of weakness and disdain for the vulnerable."
No doubt true. But I do think conservatives are increasingly following Ayn Rand's glorification of libertarian individualism at the expense of communitarian solidarity. And that approach is not likely to attract the weak and vulnerable.
No doubt true. But I do think conservatives are increasingly following Ayn Rand's glorification of libertarian individualism at the expense of communitarian solidarity. And that approach is not likely to attract the weak and vulnerable.
11.12.2012 | 3:02pm
Rick says:
A very insightful piece concerning the ravages of globalization on the American economic, employment, and wage structures. And you are quite right that neither party has any idea what to do about it.
However, I will have to disagree that "It’s absurd to suggest, as some did during the election season, that conservatives follow Ayn Rand’s hatred of weakness and disdain for the vulnerable." Although in many cases it may be conservatives unwittingly jumping on the Rand bandwagon, there has been an inordinate amount of Republican endorsement of her and her philosophy recently. Senator Rand Paul from my own state of Kentucky stated, "I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand. I've read all her books." And the Tea Party raised and spend considerable funds to promote the recent movie version of Atlas Shrugged.
The danger is that the Republicans, in their zeal to embrace anti-statism, are being pulled towards a naive radicalism of the right. The first thing any Republican should do before making these sorts of public endorsements of Rand is to read Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged from the National Review. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback) The most fascinating thing in Chambers' piece is how he immediately recognized in her thinking the same radical intolerance and latent totalitarianism that he had fled when he left the Communist Party.
However, I will have to disagree that "It’s absurd to suggest, as some did during the election season, that conservatives follow Ayn Rand’s hatred of weakness and disdain for the vulnerable." Although in many cases it may be conservatives unwittingly jumping on the Rand bandwagon, there has been an inordinate amount of Republican endorsement of her and her philosophy recently. Senator Rand Paul from my own state of Kentucky stated, "I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand. I've read all her books." And the Tea Party raised and spend considerable funds to promote the recent movie version of Atlas Shrugged.
The danger is that the Republicans, in their zeal to embrace anti-statism, are being pulled towards a naive radicalism of the right. The first thing any Republican should do before making these sorts of public endorsements of Rand is to read Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged from the National Review. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback) The most fascinating thing in Chambers' piece is how he immediately recognized in her thinking the same radical intolerance and latent totalitarianism that he had fled when he left the Communist Party.
11.12.2012 | 5:15pm
gordon marino says:
I think you nailed it here.
"But this election has helped me see that the Republican Party lacks a vocabulary and vision of social solidarity."
"But this election has helped me see that the Republican Party lacks a vocabulary and vision of social solidarity."
11.12.2012 | 5:18pm
DB Hart says:
Michael PS,
"Referendum" is not, as you claim, a gerund, but a gerundive. It means not "referring," but rather "something to be referred." As a gerundive, it should be declined as a normal substantive, and its nominative plural form is indeed "referenda." The Oxford Dictionary claims that, when speaking of legislation, the plural should be "referendums," but the reasoning behind this claim is specious. Supposedly the plural form is appropriate only in regard to the matters put to a vote, but not to a discrete piece of legislation, as the latter may encompass many different issues. This is splitting hairs. A bill that is referred to a popular vote is a referendum, and two such bills constitute a pair of referenda. The plural form is both good Latin and licit English.
Just saying.
"Referendum" is not, as you claim, a gerund, but a gerundive. It means not "referring," but rather "something to be referred." As a gerundive, it should be declined as a normal substantive, and its nominative plural form is indeed "referenda." The Oxford Dictionary claims that, when speaking of legislation, the plural should be "referendums," but the reasoning behind this claim is specious. Supposedly the plural form is appropriate only in regard to the matters put to a vote, but not to a discrete piece of legislation, as the latter may encompass many different issues. This is splitting hairs. A bill that is referred to a popular vote is a referendum, and two such bills constitute a pair of referenda. The plural form is both good Latin and licit English.
Just saying.
11.12.2012 | 5:55pm
TomD says:
The results of the election, unfortunately, confirm that the political "battle" over the redefinition of civil marriage has been lost. At least in the short run.
As conservatives, we should acknowledge the fundamental distinction between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage has morphed into a purely legal contract which is, ironically, non-binding and established primarily to establish the requirements on dissolution of the marriage. Sacramental marriage is what counts . . . civil marriage is becoming irrelevant as a truly binding commitment between a man and a woman and its modern redefinition only confirms this reality in our current culture.
As conservatives, we should acknowledge the fundamental distinction between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage has morphed into a purely legal contract which is, ironically, non-binding and established primarily to establish the requirements on dissolution of the marriage. Sacramental marriage is what counts . . . civil marriage is becoming irrelevant as a truly binding commitment between a man and a woman and its modern redefinition only confirms this reality in our current culture.
11.12.2012 | 9:05pm
Despair Awaits says:
Calm down, you say, the electorate is just willfully ignorant and self-centered.
How is that comforting?
How is that comforting?
11.13.2012 | 10:24am
Bill Gnade says:
Dear FT,
May I?
Listen closely to liberal pundits and thinkers; and take note of what Sarah Westwood, a college sophomore, wrote in her WSJ essay, "Advice From A Lonely College Republican". This is their message: Republicans can always win as long as they become Democrats. Indeed, my liberal peers tell me the parties are largely split over so-called social issues, with the line of demarcation drawn between economics and morality. But I don't buy that liberals buy their own distinction, as they believe EVERYTHING is a social issue, including the economy. (It seems nearly tautological: what is social is a social issue.)
The spirit that inspires calls for gay marriage and the protection of abortion rights is the same spirit coursing through the Occupy Wall Street movement and the left's insistence wealth be redistributed: It's the invidious demand that all things are equal. Are they? Really?
Peace.
May I?
Listen closely to liberal pundits and thinkers; and take note of what Sarah Westwood, a college sophomore, wrote in her WSJ essay, "Advice From A Lonely College Republican". This is their message: Republicans can always win as long as they become Democrats. Indeed, my liberal peers tell me the parties are largely split over so-called social issues, with the line of demarcation drawn between economics and morality. But I don't buy that liberals buy their own distinction, as they believe EVERYTHING is a social issue, including the economy. (It seems nearly tautological: what is social is a social issue.)
The spirit that inspires calls for gay marriage and the protection of abortion rights is the same spirit coursing through the Occupy Wall Street movement and the left's insistence wealth be redistributed: It's the invidious demand that all things are equal. Are they? Really?
Peace.
11.13.2012 | 2:29pm
Adam Baum says:
"The spirit that inspires calls for gay marriage and the protection of abortion rights is the same spirit coursing through the Occupy Wall Street movement and the left's insistence wealth be redistributed: It's the invidious demand that all things are equal. Are they? Really?"
So few people understand that.
So few people understand that.
11.18.2012 | 9:02pm
Bill Kurtz says:
Re the hope the increasing role of Catholics in the GOP "will renew American conservatism by removing that blind spot."
Don't hold your breath, for two reasons: First, the "unshackled economy" you referred to is the current core principle of the Republican Party. Everything else, from social issues, to law and order, to dog-whistle racial appeals, is just bait to lure downscale white voters who, as you note, are often fearful of unshackled capitalism.
Second the bishops and priests you accurately state are seeking to lead Catholics into the GOP have engaged in a transactional bargain: The Republicans promise them to oppose abortion and gay rights, and perhaps a related issue or two. Any attempts to get more from them in return for Catholic support will be ignored, the terms of the transaction are to uncritically support the GOP on all other issues in returnn for their stands against abortion and gay rights. For proof, how about the deafening silence on the Catholic right over the Iraq War, despite the Vatican's clear opposition to that adventure.
Don't hold your breath, for two reasons: First, the "unshackled economy" you referred to is the current core principle of the Republican Party. Everything else, from social issues, to law and order, to dog-whistle racial appeals, is just bait to lure downscale white voters who, as you note, are often fearful of unshackled capitalism.
Second the bishops and priests you accurately state are seeking to lead Catholics into the GOP have engaged in a transactional bargain: The Republicans promise them to oppose abortion and gay rights, and perhaps a related issue or two. Any attempts to get more from them in return for Catholic support will be ignored, the terms of the transaction are to uncritically support the GOP on all other issues in returnn for their stands against abortion and gay rights. For proof, how about the deafening silence on the Catholic right over the Iraq War, despite the Vatican's clear opposition to that adventure.
"Referendum" (a referring) is a gerund and has no plural
"