Thursday, September 12, 2019

A victim of the culture wars

The Catholic Herald has an article entitled The Church used to have a powerful economic voice. What went wrong? and that is a pretty good question.

It starts:

One hundred years ago, the National Catholic War Council, the predecessor of today’s US Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a “Program for Social Reconstruction”. Drawing on American progressive thought and the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), it argued for a living wage, urban housing, trust-busting, worker-run cooperatives, and employee ownership of industry.

Unlike most documents issued by America’s Catholic bishops, this one gained widespread notice. It was denounced by some as socialistic, though it in fact condemned socialism in unsparing terms. Leo XIII had done the same in Rerum Novarum. Then as now, a great deal of confusion arose from the fact that the Catholic Church condemns socialism while advancing ideas many people falsely regard as socialist. Some Catholics (including this author) who reject what the Church rejects have even called themselves socialist in this colloquial sense, with more exuberance than accuracy.

The statement’s ideas, some more practical than others, were not immediately implemented. But they helped shape the arguments and activism that would later result in the New Deal and the Great Society. The priest who drafted the statement, Fr John A Ryan, became an influential supporter of Franklin Roosevelt. The Program remains the most important intervention the American bishops have made in economic debates.

Given the document’s importance, the American bishops have marked its centenary rather tepidly.
These paragraphs offer an explanation: 
 Looking back on the document now, a right-wing observer is likely to view it as too economically progressive, and a leftwing observer is likely to view it as culturally retrograde. For example, the bishops state that women should receive equal pay for equal work, but that only adult men are to be guaranteed a living wage (the idea being that the man is responsible for supporting the family). They ask that women be treated fairly – in the name of justice and chivalry. Yet they insist that “the proportion of women in industry ought to be kept within the smallest practical limits.”
Not all these statements necessarily follow from Catholic premises. But simply glossing over them (as many left-wing admirers of the Program do) obscures something important about the document, however questionable some of its conclusions may be. Its signatories felt it was natural to argue simultaneously for economic justice and for healthy families (as they understood those things). They did so in a way that offends liberal economic and cultural pieties. Their statement showed an unabashed confidence in Catholic thought, economic and moral, that has since been lost.

This loss of confidence has much to do with developments in post-war politics. The Left focused on cultural deregulation and the Right on deregulation of the economy. It is hard for the Church to support unions when unions support abortion. It is hard to endorse the pro-life party when its members deny the universal destination of goods.

It is no secret that both political parties have become alienated from the working class. Hillary Clinton’s denunciation of “deplorables” and Mitt Romney’s misleading dismissal of “people who pay no income tax” were of a piece. Though it has generally avoided such crude rhetoric, the Church has suffered the same fate. Poorer and wealthier Catholics used to attend Mass at roughly equal rates. But there has been a large drop in attendance among working-class Catholics born after 1960. It should not surprise us that the Church has lost its economic voice at the same time it has lost the attachment of the working class.
One of the most appalling features of conservative Catholics is their adoption of  selfish, small government economic policies of the libertarian Right, and pretending that this has always been true Catholic thought.   And a large part of the reason for this is because they don't want to catch culture war cooties by being seen to be aligned in any way with the Left on the matters of abortion and sexuality. 


7 comments:

Not Trampis said...

small government and Christianity is incompatible as I have shown.

GMB said...

It could be compatible so long as the small government is egalitarian. Some of these Catholic intellectuals are really good. Like for example if we had followed someone like Bob Santamaria we would be more egalitarian, have a much stronger manufacturing sector and we'd be far better off.

GMB said...

I'm a small government hyper-egalitarian. I think this is completely in keeping with Christian values. Australia and New Zealand in the 1960's were more egalitarian, and with a smaller government than they have now. Most but not all of the damage is done with finance. The disappearance of the bifurcated trading bank/savings bank situation and the loss of the reserve asset ratio; these are catastrophes. The thin indirect link to gold but a break on the system of financial exploitation we have now. This is a disaster that we don't have any kind of break on financial industry hoovering and exploitation.

Not Trampis said...

Graeme,
Grow a brain.
if people keep more of their money who is going to help the poor and needy.

For exanmple how would pensioners who cannot afford dental care get it except through a government program? Vinnies??

GMB said...

"if people keep more of their money who is going to help the poor and needy."

We will need a lot of welfare for the foreseeable future I'm not denying that. And lots and lots of infrastructure spending as well. But welfare payments, infrastructure and defence could still be part of fairly small government if we could easily close down government departments that weren't doing much and if we didn't have this financial debt economy menace.

Back in the sixties in New Zealand there was one year where the unemployment was 50. Not 50%. Not 50, 000. Just 50. You could get welfare benefits but you didn't need them because you could just walk down any street and get a job.

Thats the system I'm working on really. A system where there is welfare always available. But almost no-one chooses to use it. Mass unemployment came with changes to banking. Banking changes which meant that the banks didn't need savings accounts and term loans to lend money. And that inflation could keep going without a cleansing collapse. So from that moment on, it hit around 1973, investment was transferred from small business to land inflation.

GMB said...

This explanation of my social system thinking was made under the name "The egalitarian eugenicist" at twitter. Its now been blocked. Hence the references to breeding:

Supposing income tax rates for non-sole traders is 50%. No GST. Generous tax free threshold. Any registered dependent cedes his tax free threshold to you but you have some responsibility for their well-being. Your student brother, your wife, baby, father in another country.

Suddenly you have distributed welfare, your brother and your mistress have to do favours for you but they miss out on communist welfare and must pay 50% tax from dollar one. They can get the shits and go and get communist welfare. But we want them to choose not to.

Sound morality is partly just a name for social norms that facilitate co-operation. The 50% tax rate in this incident promotes co-operation and the Godfather need only pay a tiny amount to qualify. It doesn’t dig into producer goods accumulation since not much of it is paid.

Modern high-paid executives aren’t the geniuses they make themselves out to be. However they are “fit” in the sense that they tend to be tall healthy fellows who can control their temper, have their bed made by 5.00 am and do boring mental work for hours at a stretch.

Mental stamina and health are good proxies for “fitness”. So why would I want to bitch-slap these guys with a 50% tax? If the threshold is 50,000 and they earn a million they will get raped? We want these people to be sole traders and not corporate eunuchs. Thats the goal.

The sole trader who cannot put his operations into high-rise has to pay his land-tax if he goes above threshold. But he must never pay taxes on retained earnings. Not in any circumstance. Not in wartime. Not ever. Thats where we need the “fittest” guys to be competing.

Though this system has socialist intention and eugenicist outcome …. after 50 years on the ground it will begin to start looking like a near-libertarians wet dream. If you have no social connections or if you are being ostracised you will be able to get welfare and quickly.

GMB said...

Huey Long was not sophisticated from an economics point of view. But his intention was free enterprise egalitarianism. A type of egalitarianism which would have cut off the oligarchies parasitism. We, under our current tax and monetary system, are awash in parasitism. We are dying from it.

The thing that must be understood is that there may be a lot of Huey Long types around but they have to be marginalised. And if they get to power like Huey did they have to be killed. So we will continually be veering between a poxy version of capitalism and a horrifying version of socialism and all the time the blood-sucking will continue unchallenged.

https://justrichest.com/wp-content/uploads/Rothschild-Family.jpg

So here are these welfare queens. The Rothschild family. Their mother is not better than yours. They don't deserve anything of what they have. Gerry Harvey deserves most of what he has. But if he has great great grandchildren they may wind up horrific parasites. We cannot tolerate this sort of thing any more.