THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Today marked the longed for day when I would find my newly-issued glasses in the mailbox. As a veteran I get most of my eye-care from the VA, and in this case they provided me with a decent pair of specs. But after wearing them for a few hours I began to notice that the left side was irritating the back of my ear. Lo and behold, a sticker!

In case you are hard of seeing, the sticker says “Frame China.” I wish I could say I was shocked, but with our Border Patrol uniforms being made in Mexico, nothing surprises me when it comes to government outsourcing jobs that could have been easily and *cough* efficiently done by American workers.

McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for VP

Q: Are you voting for Barack Obama?

A: I haven’t decided who I will be voting for. I believe that there is a case that can be made for voting Obama-Biden, but that’s a far cry from saying I will vote for him. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is one of fairness. If a candidate is worthy of criticism, then be critical. If the candidate holds a position you like, give him honor and acclamation. In any instance, be fair.

Q: Why haven’t you endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin?

A: I’m not sure I won’t endorse him. While I agree with the majority of his platform, I am hesitant to cast my vote to the wind. This isn’t to say that voting third party is worthless. As far as I am concerned, it simply misses the objective of a “dissenting” vote, which would be the only reason for my choosing to vote for a third party. The idea is to get the attention of the candidate, or candidates, who would have otherwise had my vote. But with the 2004 CP candidate coming in with around the same number of votes as Joliet, Illinois, has people, then it’s makes grabbing attention rather difficult.

Q: What do you think about McCain’s VP pick?

A: Aside from being quite attractive, I am not sure. I received the talking points, but I don’t dare spout them off without giving them a critical examination. Still, I must admit that I haven’t had my phone ring so much in a long time. All my McCain friends are ecstatic that he chose a conservative woman. What they ignore is the constitutional function of the Vice President, the fact that this decision was probably made to satisfy those “I won’t vote for a liberal like McCain” conservatives who have a serious problem of wetting themselves when being thrown a bone, and that his choice of a woman was more than likely contingent upon Barak’s not choosing Hillary. Had Hillary been Barack’s side-kick, then we would be seeing a McCain-Ridge or McCain-Romney ticket.

Q: Who do you think you’ll be endorsing?

A. I haven’t made up my mind. I’m not even sure whether or not I will make my endorsement public. I may just make “the case” for a number of candidates and let folks run with it. It may boil down to making a case for abstention. The only thing I am confident of is that whatever decision I do make will result in a flurry of emails and phone calls from people who think I’m out of my mind. Lord help me…

This is taken from my election countdown calendar.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

“And I suspect that what you’ll see, Toby, is there will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.”

George W. Bush, talking to reporters along the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Mississippi, August 28, 2006.

Pic by Joao Silva for NYT

My previous post caused a gentle stir amongst those near and dear to me. They understand my angst and can sympathize with my reasoning, but they remain convinced that it is wrong to vote for one who is not pro-life. One, a very close friend indeed, would go so far as to insist that it is a mortal sin. Suffice it to say that my fans were fewer in number than my foes.

Debates of this nature are preferably cut-and-dry, but this one appears to be more open-ended. While the Church takes an unwavering position on abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research, it is rather tolerant of those who would vote in favor of a candidate who does not share those value, requiring only that the reasons be proportionate to the weight of the weightier matters.

Let me here quote Priests for Life. This quotes is concerned with the general principles laid down by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in regards to the Catholic laity, Catholic politicians, issues surrounding the “right-to-life,” and participation in the Eucharist.

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

All of this is well and good. Coming from an unabashedly pro-life organization, this would appear to be quite reliable. The difficulty, though, rests with the conditions wherein such an endorsement or vote is permitted. The issue is with “proportionate reasons.” It is at this very place where the cut-and-dry begins to fray.

Let’s consider the numerous elements of Catholic Social Doctrine I mentioned in my earlier piece: military interventionism, the arms race, immigration, international trade, taxes, health care, agriculture, the environment, energy independence, and many others. The “many others” should include the Living Wage, labor associations, universal destination of natural resources, equitable distribution of land, and still yet many others. The point being that there are many “many others” involved here by which the voter must weigh in.

Could one contend that the hierarchy of values would make finding “proportionate reasons” for voting for a pro-choice candidate virtually impossible? Maybe. But it comes down to the value they place upon the other “right-to-life” issues within every sphere and every stage of human existence, from the cradle to the grave. Other social matters may find themselves on a lower rung of the Catholic Social Doctrine ladder but cumulatively they may hold more gravitas. In any case, it is a matter of perspective.

Does such a theory lend itself to social relativism? Far from it. Admitting to the complexity of such decisions is simply facing reality as it is. By the same token, though, the Catholic understands that there are limits beyond which one may not go. As I have said elsewhere, we have been provided not only a pasture free from poison, but a fence by which we are protected, both from ourselves and those without. This lays the foundations whereupon our decisions are to be made, but it falls well short of what Fr. Robert Sirico may describe as a political straitjacket.

In any case, even if one satisfy the demands of “proportionate reasons” and were to vote for a pro-choice candidate, they would still be involved in “remote material cooperation.” The same may also be said of those who vote for “pro-life” candidates who advance anti-life policies. This makes the decision process much more difficult, but that is nature of ethics and elections.

With all this having been said, I wish for to see Catholics begin discussing these “other” life issues. My prayer is to witness a vibrant discussion amongst those who are tired of the status quo, yet cautious about progress. In any case, weighing these matters on the scales of Catholic truth and justice would do us all, and the world, a huge favor.

Roe v. Wade is on the mind of the electorate, and political lip-servers are frothing at the mouth. We can rest assured that this election will be little different than others in that partisans will construct bogeymen of one another while their parties will employ the grossest of guilt manipulation in hope of convincing those middle-of-the-road types to dread their sensibility. Whether it is squawking about coat-hangers or babies being murdered on every street corner, one could bet their bottom buck that the rhetoric will run as thick as an Appalachian drawl.

Matters of life and death are never pretty, and history has shown us that the actions to be taken are not always as black and white as we may wish them to be. This is especially true in politics. The role of the politician has become so vast, especially for those who take an office in the District of Columbia, that the concept of voting on a single-issue has all but become an outdated concept. If I may be so daring, I would say it has already passed its utility. But don’t tell that to the partisans! They will have my head.

This can be seen most definitively in regards to abortion. My fellow pro-lifers tend to minimize other “life” issues. Consequently, a politician’s position on abortion, and abortion alone, has become the litmus test for culturally conservative voters. Republicans have capitalized on this, realizing that they have only to give the issue minimum lip-service to convince the pro-life electorate that they are the lesser or two evils in any given election. They may be neoconservative war-hawks, free-trade globalists, amnesty advocates, and sworn enemies of Trustbusters, but at least they give lip-service every four years to the cause of life.

Pathetic soundbytes and outlandishly general remarks about supporting a “culture of life” win over the single-issue voter, while those dissenters with half a wit are derailed as traitors to the cause. Considering a candidate who doesn’t wish to overturn Roe would be outrageous, especially in light of the fact that this is the very position held by the vast majority of Republican officeholders since 1973! Let us never mind history, though, for it has too much to offer in the way of rebuke for the chronically gullible. Stick with the masters of single-issue manipulation, but be prepared for the same dance to go with that song.

In hope of testing the waters let me advance the possibility of looking at the election of federal officials, particularly the president, in a more holistic fashion. Come to grips with the fact that the next president will oversee the slaughter of another six million babies in his first term. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to slow down the holocaust of the pre-born, much less outlaw it. This being as it is, it may be a worthy venture to begin looking at the candidate’s “other” positions. Expand “life issues” to those which affect every stage of life, from cradle to grave. This would include, but would not be limited to, positions on military interventionism, the arms race, immigration, international trade, taxes, health care, agriculture, the environment, energy independence, and many others. It will force us to look at elections, and life, in a manner more accurately reflecting its being a big picture within a sloppy system.

Would this, as many are sure to insist, mean that we wrongfully minimize the tragedy and terror of abortion? No, but it does mean that we recognize its proportion within a very complex order. It will allow other meaningful issues pertaining to every phase of human life to take the stage. Most importantly is that it will free the pro-life community from the partisan straightjacket given to them by the charlatans they have served for 35 years.

Why do politicians wish upon a star for Big Business to provide the remedy to the ailments of what has become known as unemployment? Do they not see the inefficiency of Big Business? Do they not see the value of a diversified economy made up of small owners? Must they be reminded that the wage-earning masses working for a week-to-week paycheck from the paws of Big Business is destructive, both morally and economically, to a vibrant republic? It appears that seeing the “big picture” is as difficult as learning from both history and common sense.

“Measure your needs not by the world’s measures, but by the ell or by the King’s Arm. Let your standard not be Babylon, or Thebes, or Paris, or New York, or London – but Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capharnaum, Calvary.”

Fr. Vincent McNabb, The Church and the Land, A Call to Contemplatives

Mammon is the new pink. He is most everywhere we go, and he is certainly required company in most anything we do. A troublesome tag-along, but he is with us nevertheless.

What is sorely unfortunate is that many either don’t recognize his presence, or have merely grown accustomed to his stench. Folks pass by evidence of his plague, but they are too busy listening to their MP3s to pay any mind. They wear his clothes, eat his foods, drive his cars, listen to his iTunes, and play on his $600 Playstation 3, all the while never coming to grips with the ever-increasing fact that they live, move, and have their being in a system designed by Mammon.

As much as one may wish to count it off as mere ignorance, I fear this would be a tad bit naïve. It may possibly be a simple matter of desensitization, but I think it to be much more complex. If I may, I would say it is within the ballpark of blissful self-deception. People are generally aware of our money grubbing, pocket spoiling system. The issue at hand is that they could care less. Like children rushing to the van of a devilish stranger offering them candy, so we rush to Mammon.

But even this analogy will not suffice, if for no other reason than that the child is unaware of the impending pillaging of her being and dignity. We, on the other hand, know this all too well, making the analogy more one of prostitution than that of rape. Who can rape the willing? Human dignity is sacrificed for petty lemon drops and lollipops, and little more.

Is it foolish to wish for a day when people would banish Mammon in exchange for the all things humane and dignified? Don’t past experiences demonstrate that men and women often exchange the obviously bad for the disguised worse? Even if this is the case, and there is good reason to think it is, we would nevertheless be both foolish and unrighteous to sign ourselves and the world over to the eternal dominion of Mammon. Even if our progress is small, which it most likely will be, and even if it may be viewed by many as trivial, which it most likely will be, we must never be ashamed of or disheartened by having to tear down a fortress one brick at a time. But this can only happen if we begin opening our eyes and ears so that we may more clearly see and hear the sounds of Mammon all around us. Pay close attention, my friends, for the beast may be nearer than you realize.

“Simple faith and economic rationalism cannot dwell together. It is unthinkable that priests should govern entrepreneurs.”

Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, II.15.30

It was only a matter of weeks ago that I first posted a critique of Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr. My contention was, and continues to be, that the distinguished scholar has placed himself in a dangerous position for his outright defiance of and hostility towards the Church’s economic and social doctrine. I still maintain this position.

The issue soon came up on YouTube. Various viewers wanted to know my position on the matter of Catholicism and economic liberalism, and most had not read my previous remarks concerning the subject. So as any arm-chair vlogger with too much time on his hands would do, I decided to produce a video. It was rather specific, maybe even too specific, in that it dealt only with the claims the popes have made of the Magisterium’s jurisdiction, competence, and supreme authority over social and economic principles, matters, and activities. I provided both positive affirmations from the Popes as well as their warnings and judgments upon those who would beg to differ.

Then, out of the blue, I get a YouTube message from none other than Dr. Woods. He was rather unhappy with the fact that I had criticized him without having first read his book. I must grant that I have yet to read his book, and I am not at all sure that I wish to. I have little time to spare, and even fewer pennies. More significant would be that my knowledge of him and his position, being derived from both written and audio material, is more than satisfactory. Nevertheless, I will grant that my having done as much would have fulfilled a common courtesy that falls somewhere between arbitrary and advantageous.

More important than his being irked by my having side-stepped lining his pocket was his one million dollar challenge. Well, he didn’t offer one million, but he did offer to “listen.” He went on to insist that an inability to do so would be to concede his belief that economics is an autonomous and amoral science. In any case, here is the challenge:

If anyone can point out to me a_theoretical_statement from economics that contains a moral dimension, then I will listen.

He went on to say:

As soon as you can find me one principle of economic theory that is bound up with morality, you be sure and let me know.

Now, lest anyone be confused as to what he is asking for, his request is limited to “ONE principle of economic theory.” Not four, or three, or even two; no, Dr. Woods only asks for one.

Should we go with profit, value, labor, private property, or any other single principle readily at our fingertips? Maybe next time. I’ll take the hard way.

For the sake of this blog entry, we will have to make a few things clear. First, Dr. Woods denies that the Magisterium has jurisdiction, competency, and supreme authority over economic and social principles, matters, and activities. He readily admits that this is in blatant contradiction to the declarations of the popes. Secondly, he denies that social and economic theory is to be guided by social justice and charity, as well as it being a matter of anthropology, thus placing it within the realm of moral theology. This, too, is contrary to the claims of the popes. Lastly, he would consequently deny that the papal warnings and judgments against those who would lack the kind of loyal trust and filial obedience to fearlessly uphold and apply the principles and directives given within the social encyclicals. Needless to say, such disregard is deemed scandalous and would formally convict one of the grossest of injustice and ingratitude. Once again, Dr. Woods doesn’t even wince. The popes have no jurisdiction, competence, or authority, so their verdicts, including their harshest warnings, are of no effect.

So what of his challenge? Does he have a point? Is economics a morally neutral science? Are economics theories without any ethical dimension?

Foremost amongst his problems is the idea that epistemology (in general) is ethically neutral. This is an unargued assumption. He may presuppose this, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. In fact, one would be hard pressed to say that Christian epistemology allows it. One could, and should, work from the assumption that to know things as they are or ought to be is to known them rightly. If this is done, then we know things as God has made them or would have them to be. Seeing things in this manner would cause our knowing rightly to be theological matter and an ethical good. It is the equivalent of demanding that we think God’s thoughts after him. In so far as we do this, we are seeing and thinking things rightly and, consequently, ethically.

So from the outset we see that he has an epistemological problem on his hands. It is a presuppositional matter. This, being the framework wherein he rests his argument, poses a serious problem for all which is to come.

Let’s ignore for a moment this glaring difficulty, and just presume for the sake of argument that epistemology is neutral. Aside from it making all knowledge amoral, posing serious problems for the morality of thought and belief, such a notion is of no value in arguments of this nature. Even if I said that an economic theory, as a collection of symbols attempting to communicate a message to be decoded by a receiver, was neutral, the meaning of the words and the value judgments it makes would bear moral significance.

Take for example laissez-faire. The theory would have us believe that men and nations will prosper most under conditions wherein the state abstains from most, if not all, economic interventions into the free market where goods are freely exchanged. Sounds neutral enough, right? It’s just a theory, right? Well, no and kind of. The theory is riddled with moral dimensions. We must deal with how to define concepts like men, nations, prosperity, the state and its purpose, and what is or is not to be included within the notion of goods to be exchanged. Each and every one of these touches upon a moral and theological concept.

Moreover, it’s not so much the theory, as an accumulation of words, which is at issue here as it is with the underlying presuppositions of any given theory. The concern is with one’s notion of man, the world, how things relate and interact with one another, how things ought to relate and interact with one another, etc. To leave it as theory would be nonsense seeing that the theorist has in mind putting his theory into action. One could also point out that economics deals not only with how things work, but with how things ought to work, therefore tossing it headfirst into the realm of ethics.

In final analysis, it should be rather clear that Dr. Woods has wrongfully presupposed the notion of epistemological neutrality, causing him to gloss over the fact that economic theory, even as just a set of words, is not left without a moral dimension in so far as it deals with reality and is attempting to communicate with morally loaded words and concepts how things ought to be.

Why Dr. Woods continues down this road of ruin is left unknown. But those faithful sons and daughters of the Magisterium should begin holding his feet to the fire, demanding that he at least begin to listen.

Listened to Laura Ingraham recently. She was interviewing neoconservative Robert Kagan. The topic: Russia vs. Georgia. The verdict: Russia acted irresponsibly for having given the diplomatic middle finger to the West; Putin has little to no regard for the opinion of the international community; and Russia forced the poor Ossetians to side with them.

This is only run-of-the-mill reporting in the US. Too bad it’s piss-poor reporting. It falls within the silly category of being “true except where it is false.”

First, for Kagan to make remarks such as these is beyond outrageous. Kagan is the co-founder of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and has been a staunch interventionist for years. He supported Bush deciding to invade and occupy Iraq, considering the opinion of the international community to be of little or no concern in regards to how America dictates her foreign policy. In fact, he sees this as a sign of strength in an executive. As if it couldn’t get any more hypocritical, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributor to the Weekly Standard, and a foreign policy advisor to John McCain. One would think, were Kagan to be consistent, that he would praise Putin & Co. for their move, having displayed (were US reporting of the situation to be correct) the style of maverick and muscle-bound foreign policy he has advocated and championed for years. His condemnation, then, is curious indeed.

For the truth on the Russia-Georgia-Ossetia debacle, watch this video by SouthernAvenger.