(www.RemnantNewspaper.com)
A
new congress has been elected, and for many people this
represents a new hope. This hope arises, I believe, not
because the election is a victory for the Republicans,
but because it is a victory for the Tea Party. Catholics
in particular regard the Tea Party as anti-abortion and
pro-marriage, as well as anti-government and anti-taxes
. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
However, just as the liberals who had high hopes for
Obama were disappointed, I suspect the same thing will
happen to the Tea Party. Running is easy, but ruling is
hard, and the agenda of the campaign is difficult to
translate into an actual program.
For example, the Tea Party wants to cut the budget, but
they have no idea where it should be cut. Indeed, they
have exempted the lion's share of the budget from
scrutiny. 32% of the budget goes to Social Security and
Medicare, but these are programs generally popular with
the Tea Party, since a disproportionate share of its
members are older, and this portion of the budget can
only grow as the baby boomers continue their march to
retirement and government dependency. The next biggest
item is the defense budget at 23%, but the current wars
are generally popular with the movement. Then comes net
interest on the national debt and veterans and military
retirement programs, which together come to another 12%
of the budget. That brings us to two-thirds of the
budget that is more or less exempt from any real cuts.
In
dealing with the rest, they are likely to discover that
the budget is a vast conspiracy of special interests;
each line of the budget has behind it some constituency
ready to fight for their share of the pie. We have all
become clients of the state rather than citizens of the
Republic. For example, cutting the farm subsidies ($25B)
will endanger their support in the midwest. Cutting
Medicaid payments to the states will raise howls from
the governors of both parties. Even when they attempt to
repeal ObamaCare, they will find that this is a
lucrative set of subsidies not to the poor, but to some
very powerful interests. The insurance companies will
get 30 million new customers who are required by law to
purchase their products; they are not going to give that
up without a fight. To be sure there will be some
cosmetic changes, allowing the Tea Party to declare a
“victory,” but the trick will be to prevent the
subsidies from being increased rather than decreased.
All in all, they will not find enough budget cuts to
finance any tax cuts. Nevertheless, they will likely
push ahead with extending the Bush tax cuts, thereby
inflating the deficit even further. The reasoning will
be that the cuts will ignite a recovery. However, this
wasn't true even under Bush. If you subtract the growth
in government, health care, and the housing bubble
(which was a product of Fed policy, not tax policy)
nearly every other sector of the economy shrank during
those years, as did the median wage for workers and
families; the theory simply did not pan out in practice.
The basic problem was tacitly acknowledged in the
Republican Party's “Pledge to America”: it was mostly
about pretty pictures (over half of the booklet) with
vague promises to shrink government while avoiding any
specific cuts; talking in specifics loses elections.
The Tea Party is likely to have some successes in the
area of the so-called “social” issues, abortion and
marriage. They will likely block a judge here or end a
program there. This may not seem impressive, but it
would be unfair to hold the Tea Partiers to too high a
standard, especially when their own party is not
enthusiastic about the fight. The truth is, the
Republican Party has never been a pro-life party;
rather it has been a big tent party with an
anti-abortion wing, which means, in effect, that we have
one-and-a-half pro-abortion parties. But at least the
Republicans were willing to admit the anti-abortion
candidates, something the Democrats have rarely done.
The divided politics of the Republican Party means that
the totality of Catholic social teaching has been
subordinated to the needs of the Republican Party, and
that party has given very little in return for the
Catholic vote, even though Catholic loyalty to the party
has been the margin of victory year after year.
All of this has left the Catholic voter in a rather
peculiar position. The Church's social teaching covers a
lot more than abortion or marriage, and these other
“social justice” issues are poorly represented by the
Republican Party. But as the life issues are
foundational to all the other issues, many Catholics
feel they have no choice but to vote the foundational
issues alone. This is not an unreasonable decision, but
it puts us in an unfortunate position. Glenn Beck urges
his followers to run from any church that preaches
“social justice.” But Catholics cannot run, because the
term is part of the magisterial teachings of the Church.
The term entered the magisterial vocabulary in 1931 with
Pius XI, who used it eight times in the encyclical
Quadragesimo Anno. Since then, it has generally been
part of nearly every social encyclical and has been
incorporated in the Catechism and the
Compendium of Social Teaching. Unless we decide to
be cafeteria Catholics, or follow in the footsteps of
Tom Woods and deny Church teaching, we cannot follow Mr.
Beck's advice.
Still, one must have some sympathy with Mr. Beck, since
the term “social justice” has been emptied of its real
content, that is, its Catholic content, to become
an empty vessel, one filled up by either side with their
ideological concerns. On the right, the term is often
reduced to abortion and marriage, while being married to
the Austrian version of libertarianism, which is not
only economically unsound, but is anti-Catholic,
anti-Christian, and anti-family, as Christopher Ferrara
has amply demonstrated. That is to say, on the right,
the foundational issues don't actually found
anything; they just stand apart as single issues, and do
little to contribute to a true Catholic polity worthy of
the name. On the left, they have usually cut themselves
off from the foundational issues entirely and so the
social justice issues are rooted in the air, and usually
become a constant and tiresome call for more government
intrusion into every level of social, political, and
economic life.
But one should not always be scolding; one should be
able to point to what should be done. And I suggest the
model for this is given in Benedict XVI's latest
encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. In this
document, the Holy Father joined two works of his
predecessor, Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, with its
concern for life, and Populorum Progressio, with
its concern for the common good and the material
development of nations. Paul was roundly criticized by
the left for the first and by the right for the second,
but Benedict has given us a document that has the
potential to transcend the false choices of left and
right to produce a true Catholic polity to which both
sides can repair as the economic and social situation
deteriorates. So what would a “Catholic Party” look
like? What would be its platform? First and foremost, I
believe, it would be pro-life.
Being pro-life is more than just being opposed to
abortion or for the sanctity of marriage. One can be
anti-abortion on narrow moral grounds, on political
grounds, or just out of a certain fastidiousness, or be
pro-marriage on any number of grounds. But families do a lot more than just give birth,
and life is more than just its beginning. A true
pro-life movement could be—and should have been—the
foundation of a new Catholic politics. But given the
dynamics of a two-party system, Catholics felt they had
to be one party or the other, which means we had to
choose which bits of the social teaching we would uphold
and which we would ignore; politically we all became, in
effect, “cafeteria Catholics.” But a pro-life party
could have forged broad areas of agreement between the
existing factions and become a true “centrist” movement.
What would a “pro-life” agenda look like? Mostly, it
would be pro-family:
Pro-Family Wage.
Wages have stagnated for 38 years; in fact, the median
wage has declined in the face of vastly increased
productivity, and the average male worker earns $800
less today then he did in 1973 (in constant
dollars). This has put pressure on women to enter the
work force, limiting their freedom to be full time
mothers and home-makers. The just wage is intrinsic to
Catholic social teaching and a pro-family policy, as
well as to economic rationality. Without it, you cannot
be pro-life, and certainly not pro-family.
Pro-Natalist.
The bias of both law and policy should support
families and particularly large families. American
politics has been caught in the grip of a false
Malthusian doctrine, one that is disproved in generation
after generation, yet still holds sway in the culture.
Further, the accepted neoclassical and Austrian economic
doctrines privilege capital over labor. This is a direct
result of a Malthusian outlook which makes people
problematic and wealth an end in itself. Capital is
thought to be the true source of growth, while labor is
just a drag on profits. What the economy needs first of
all is a supply of workers and consumers, and if we
don't “produce” these ourselves, people will come across
the border—legally and otherwise—to fill the spaces we
have left vacant.
Pro-Employment.
A pro-family policy would not subordinate the
needs of the family to the desires of the globalists.
Families need work, and providing that work is the first
duty of the economy and economic policy. Trade is only
“free” to the extent that it increases the use of
economic factors in both countries, and to the extent it
decreases employment in either country it increases the
wealth of some but the poverty of many. We would make
intelligent trade decisions that truly benefited both
sides (the only kind of just agreement) and not ones
that merely import poverty.
Pro-(Marian)Feminist.
Secular feminism doesn't seem to differ much from
anti-feminism, and leaves women in an ambiguous place in
our society. But in such a masculine culture as ours, a
real feminism, a Marian feminism based on the twin
virtues of motherhood and chastity, would be a real
gift; we affirm not merely the dignity of women, but
even more we affirm that women do tend to have a
different spiritual and psychological outlook. Thus
women make a unique contribution, not only in birth but
in every aspect of life, but they need freedom to make
this contribution. And the first freedom that women need
is the freedom to be mothers. Currently society makes
this very difficult. The lack of a just wage has
practically forced women into the labor marketplace.
Usually, this means that they must be mothers
in addition
to all the burdens of being a wage-earner. Sarah Palin
seems to be the modern model, where the needs of the
family are subordinated to the needs of the career.
Women in this model, we are told, must be like pit-bulls
with lipstick; that is, they must be like men while
making themselves attractive to men. Some women, I'm
sure, find this model appealing. But others will not,
and the current culture of death favors the pit-bull
view.
Pro-Education.
The education system has failed in this country,
and even the college-educated are often functional
illiterates. A pro-education policy would include both
public and private schools, and even (or especially)
home schooling, since the primary authority and
responsibility for education remains with the parents.
But for this to be the case, the first four points in
this list must also be true.
Pro-Just War Doctrine.
A Catholic party would not be pacifist, at least not
when home and hearth were
truly
threatened. But it would be opposed to most of the wars
we have actually fought. Nothing this side of divorce
quite disrupts a family like sons and fathers (and
increasingly today, mothers) marching off to war. This
should only happen when the war can be
unambiguously
squared with the just war doctrine.
The Common Good.
Modern economic theory treats the common good as
no more than the summation of individual wants and
desires that are arbitrated by the free market. But as a
matter of practicality, they will acknowledge at least
some goods which are common, such as the common defense.
We are not all expected to own our own aircraft
carriers; the common defense is a common good offered to
all without regard to economic status. But there are
other goods which also escape the logic of the
marketplace, but are necessary for a decent society.
Education, for example, or health care. While it is true
that vast subsidies to insurance companies and
pharmaceutical monopolies is not the way to provide such
care, nevertheless the problem must be faced. After all,
one cannot claim to be pro-natalist while denying
prenatal care to all; surely, a pro-natalist policy
would ensure that every mother had access to basic
health care for her children, regardless of her economic
status.
A
pro-life polity is not so much a group of programs as it
is a new (and counter-cultural) way of looking at
things. It allows us to work with a variety of people at
different levels, and so bridge merely partisan
differences in American politics. For example, we can
work with Fundamentalists who may merely be
anti-abortion, and with Evangelicals who are pro-family,
and with Democrats who want to improve the worker's
situation, and with Republicans who want to restore
virtue in public life, etc. More importantly, it allows
us to showcase the richness of Catholic social teaching,
and is therefore a tool of evangelization. It allows us
to display the love of Christ and say with St. Paul,
“Look at these Christians, how they love one another.”
The Tea Party is riding high just now, just as Obama was
two years ago. But I fear they will end the same way,
and that soon enough. Perhaps, in their anger and
frustration, they will be willing to look at real
alternatives, and really Christian alternatives. But
this can only happen if we offer them another way. Being
tied to one party or the other means being tied to one
part of the social teaching or the other, and means that
we will have nothing to offer when the moment comes, as
it will shortly. We must study, we must work, we must
pray. Mostly, we must be ready. |