Health Care and Resentment

 

The great national controversy about health care is, I submit, about something more than health care.

Man-in-the-street conservatives (as opposed to conservative intellectuals) feel — and feel very correctly — that they are viewed with great disdain and contempt by upper-middle-class liberals who, thanks to the elections of 2006 and 2008, happen to be running the country at the moment. Now, it doesn’t hurt you when people view you with disdain — provided they make a successful effort to conceal this fact and to treat you with courtesy. But today’s liberal elites make only the very slightest attempt to conceal the disdain they feel for their social and cultural inferiors — i.e., “Main Street” conservatives.

Not surprisingly, then, these conservatives have come to resent the liberal elite. As a consequence, almost every time such a liberal comes up with an idea, the Main-Street conservative opposes it. Liberal elites are in favor of President Obama’s health-care proposals, So Main-Street conservatives oppose it — as they made clear at the famous congressional town hall meetings held in August.

It is not that conservative criticisms of Obama’s health-care package are invalid; I myself think that a number of them are valid. But the passionate dislike felt for this package by Main-Street conservatives is not the result of dispassionate study. Rather, it is the result of resentment — a resentment that is growing stronger every day — these conservatives feel for liberal elites, the authors of this package. “I don’t care how good you say your package is,” says the average conservative. “The fact that it’s your package is enough for me to mistrust it.”

Feelings of patriotism get mixed up in this. Main-Street conservatives believe that they are more truly patriotic, more truly American, than are liberal elites. There is some truth to this. These conservatives are “hard” patriots; that is, they are flag-wavers who are willing to say without embarrassment that America is “the greatest country in the world.” It is they who provide sons and daughters for the U.S. military. By contrast, liberal elites are patriotic in a “soft” way; that is, they are internationalists or cosmopolitans. While they love their country, it is not an unconditional love they feel. They are ever mindful of America’s many historical and present-day deficiencies. They rarely encourage their children to enlist in the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force.

And so, if you’re a Main-Street conservative, not only are you irritated that you are being governed by people who look down their noses at you; doubling or tripling your irritation is the feeling that you are being governed by people whom you see as less than 100 percent American. (This may help explain a curious phenomenon: the conservative fringe that doubts that President Obama — liberal elite par excellence — is a natural-born American.)

There may even be a tinge of racial feeling to some of this. If the liberal elite are running the country today, this is largely due to the election of Barack Obama to the White House in 2008; and Obama’s election was in great measure the result of a de facto alliance between these elite liberals on the one hand and, on the other, African-American voters, who turned out in big numbers and gave Obama about 95 percent of their vote. President Obama — both African-American and a liberal — is the perfect symbol of that alliance. Some Main-Street conservatives see this and feel not a little resentment.

 

If I’m right here, or even approximately correct, this goes a long way toward understanding the immense popularity of Sarah Palin among these Main-Street conservatives. She is (or at least gives the impression of being) one of their own. Her enthusiastic Americanism, her old-time religion, her pro-life-ism, her love of guns and hunting, her “aw shucks” manner, her love (when she was young) of beauty pageants, her manly husband, her soldier son, her handicapped child, even her daughter who “got in trouble” by doing something she knows she shouldn’t have done — all these make her the perfect representative of the Main-Street conservative. No wonder they love her.

And how delicious that this perfect symbol of man-in-the-street conservatism should be a woman. Decades ago, the liberal elite promoted feminism in the expectation that women, once empowered, would support their agenda. Surprise! Feminism has led, after many twists and turns, to Sarah Palin, a woman who repudiates the radical feminist/liberal agenda.

Every time liberal elites and their camp followers mock, ridicule, scorn, or denounce Sarah Palin — something they love to do, something they can’t get enough of — Main-Street conservatives feel that it is they themselves who are being mocked, ridiculed, scorned, and denounced. These liberals are in effect saying, with no pretense of the courtesy one is supposed to show in a pluralistic society: “You under-educated, fundamentalist, anti-choice, homophobic, racist, gun-toting, hate-filled, hypocritical super-patriots — what imbeciles you are! Go stand in the corner until you can learn to be modern and respectable human beings.”

Who then can be surprised that Main-Street conservatives are reflexively opposed to Obama’s health-care agenda? If the liberal ruling class would really like to reform the American health-care system, they should try to see themselves as others see them; they might begin by making the effort of sympathetic imagination needed to put themselves in the shoes of Main-Street conservatives.

By

David R. Carlin Jr. is a politician and sociologist who served as a Democratic majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate. His books include "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion" and "The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America." Carlin is a current professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island at Newport.

  • Michael

    You have not mentioned the plainly obvious unqualified disdain that the Republican party elite feels for the same people. Part of the appeal of Palin is that she does not appear to be a Republican insider like those who have shown themselves over and over again to sell out the interests of ordinary Americans.

  • VR

    you are entirely correct in pointing out that the so-called “Main-Street” conservatives have the same repugnance toward the GOP as well, and for the same reasons. The Republican Party treats them with the same disdain that the Democratic Party does.

  • Christine

    I think that both political parties don’t listen to the “unwashed masses” and act as if the will of the people does not matter. They were elected to carry out the will of the people and I think that is where the anger lies.

  • Ted Seeber

    Were in the same position not 12 months ago, and had been for 8 years. Funny- all the conservatives I know call me a socialist and a communist when really I’m a distributist; but all the liberal elites I know call be a bigot and a racist for merely following Church teaching as I see it.

    So let me ask all the liberal elitists and conservatives out there- where is a faithful son of the Church supposed to turn? To whom can I turn and find support for a consistent ethic of life, for instance? Or even mere admission that every right comes with a duty, and that individualism and freedom, when used to sin, are anti-Christian?

  • Ted Seeber

    I’d point out a year ago the reverse was true for 8 years. But guess what? All we got out of that was a war we didn’t want and a recession caused by bad trade practices.

    Where does a son of the Church who is for a *consistent* ethic of the sacredness of human life *above* economics turn to find justice?

  • Scotty

    This resentment is felt for both Republicans and Democrats.

    The Republicans believe they can ride to victory in 2010 because of the negative view independents and moderates have towards the Democrats currently “serving” in the Congress/White House. Their belief, I think, is mistaken.

    Republicans have done much to earn Americans’ distrust the last four years. As Sen. John McCain put it: “We were sent to change Washington, but Washington changed us.” But will they have to earn the trust back, or will America hand the Congress back to the Republicans based on negative sentiment alone?

    In other words, what substantial changes can the Republicans bring? Yes, they may impede Obama’s radical agenda, but if they again win the White House and the Congress, is it not hard to believe they will just serve their special interests too?

    Maybe its time for the people to really take control. Both polital parties are, in principle, the same when it comes to their view of Main Street America. It’s too bad that this great Nation, built on the initiative and drive of its people, cannot have one, two, or three more substantial political parties. Why not? Isn’t competition good, Republicans?

    Unfortunatley, in this free country filled with all sorts of opportunities that can never happen.

  • Aaron

    Negative sentiment can obviously give a party control of Congress – the Democratic Congress with an 11% approval rating extended its majority all by saying Democrats would be different from Bush. No one even bothered to see that if they wanted to change Congress they would have to elect someone other than a Democrat, because the message had been so well packaged: 1) We all know you don’t like Bush, 2) We are not Bush, so 3) suspend all other faculties and vote for us on that basis alone.

    The negative backlash against this out of control Democratic Congress should conceivably be as manipulable as the anti-Bush sentiment of the last election cycle, but the Republicans will have a harder time exploiting it because, so soon after having negative sentiment used against them, they need to overcome their lingering negative image in order to fully utilize the negative image of their opponents. As is, I think negativity will get a lot of third party votes instead of Republican ones.

  • Christine

    Ted,

    Turn to the Lord. Start paying more attention to the information you receive and what the source is trying to sell you and PRAY PRAY PRAY.

    There will never be a neatly packaged answer, and if you are looking for salvation in a political policy, judging by the website you are on, you will fail to be satisfied. Ted, you have chosen the Cross through Jesus and you have to understand that you will be treated as a criminal when you speak the Truth, as Christ himself was.

    I think you should stop calling yourself any label (distributionist, etc.) and start calling yourself a Catholic. God will take care of the rest.

    All of the precepts given to us by God and his Vicar on earth, the Pope are worthy to believe in and fight for, because they are set in place for our well being. God does not give you a dirt clod if you ask for a fish.

    Please re-consider your views on abortion and PRAY about it. Read church sanctioned materials on it and other things and you will find that it makes sense. God did not say we would have heaven on earth, and I think you might be looking for a utopia here on earth through our governmental systems.

    I will be praying for you too and I trust that it will become clearer for you. [smiley=happy]

  • Mother of Two Sons

    As it was well stated at our march, take yourself and the other “distributists” to Canada and any of the other 192 nations in the world. We have our Constitution and we don’t want you violating it with your NEW GAME! This is the country of possibilities and it is World Famous for being generous and charitable with its wealth. I would like my sons and their children to grow up in the same wonderfully FREE Nation as I did without being strapped by taxation. (Funding source of you “distributists”)

  • Ted Seeber

    Ted,

    Turn to the Lord. Start paying more attention to the information you receive and what the source is trying to sell you and PRAY PRAY PRAY.

    There will never be a neatly packaged answer, and if you are looking for salvation in a political policy, judging by the website you are on, you will fail to be satisfied. Ted, you have chosen the Cross through Jesus and you have to understand that you will be treated as a criminal when you speak the Truth, as Christ himself was.

    I think you should stop calling yourself any label (distributionist, etc.) and start calling yourself a Catholic. God will take care of the rest.

    All of the precepts given to us by God and his Vicar on earth, the Pope are worthy to believe in and fight for, because they are set in place for our well being. God does not give you a dirt clod if you ask for a fish.

    Please re-consider your views on abortion and PRAY about it. Read church sanctioned materials on it and other things and you will find that it makes sense. God did not say we would have heaven on earth, and I think you might be looking for a utopia here on earth through our governmental systems.

    I will be praying for you too and I trust that it will become clearer for you. [smiley=happy]

    It is in service of Christ that I say what I say. We are our brother’s keeper- and Christ came to bring us the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Christ is our King, his Vicar our minister. Our governmental system should reflect THAT, not this foolish corporatism. And Catholics should stop worshiping at the altar of Wall Street, like the Republicans and Protestants do.

    I see no way to vote Republican or Democrat. I voted Constitution party because only in isolationism can we avoid war, the Death Penalty, Euthanasia, and Abortion.

    Do you really think the politicians in the Republican Party will ever truly reverse RoeV.Wade as long as they can use it to keep you voting against the family and for Wall Street Bankers?

  • Ted Seeber

    As it was well stated at our march, take yourself and the other “distributists” to Canada and any of the other 192 nations in the world. We have our Constitution and we don’t want you violating it with your NEW GAME!

    The Constitution was violated by Wall Street long ago. It’s dead. It wasn’t very Catholic to begin with for that matter- being against the Kingship of Jesus Christ and his Vicar the Pope.

    The Constitution is anti-Catholic; the Government by Wall Street against the family doubly so.

    This is the country of possibilities and it is World Famous for being generous and charitable with its wealth. I would like my sons and their children to grow up in the same wonderfully FREE Nation as I did without being strapped by taxation. (Funding source of you “distributists”)

    Really? Does that include the income tax rate we had in 1953, during the largest expansion the middle class has ever seen anywhere in the world? Or is it only the income tax rate imposed on us by Ronald Reagan after 1982, which saw the largest destruction of the middle class ever seen in the world? Are you for the depression, and so-called “free trade” which sent our jobs overseas in exchange for a tax break? Or the 20% profits the big banks took while kicking people out of their houses?

    Pray tell, what happened to this “generous America” when 25% of it’s labor force is unemployed, 16% are on food stamps and welfare, and families have gone homeless?

    I’d rather have NO freedom than that.

  • Scotty

    The negative backlash against this out of control Democratic Congress should conceivably be as manipulable as the anti-Bush sentiment of the last election cycle

    Your comment reminds me of the keynote addresses at the Value Voters Summit last weekend. Gov. Mitt Romney and Gov. Mike Huckabee threw red meat to the crowd for most of their speeches, and Mitt’s delivery on jokes made me cringe.

    Yes, I understand you have to gin up the base a little bit, but what substantive, game-changing ideas have the Republican Pary offered lately?

    National Security became a massive increase in spending, establishing enormous bureaucracies like the Dept. of Homeland Security. Billions have gone into nation-building, i.e, not our Nation.

    Healthcare must have been great from 2000-2008. Where were the Republicans’ great ideas then? Immigration, social security, monetary policy…what leadership have the Republicans shown on these issues in this millennium?

    And, finally, they have failed as a party on pro-life issues: can anyone honestly say that unborn in this country were substantially more protected under Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, or W. Bush?

    I think it’s time for Americans to truly realize whom both the Republican Pary and Democrat Party are looking out for…and it’s not Main Street America.

  • Andy

    As it was well stated at our march, take yourself and the other “distributists” to Canada and any of the other 192 nations in the world. We have our Constitution and we don’t want you violating it with your NEW GAME!

    If by “new game,” you mean “Catholicism.” You do realize that distributism is advocated by the Church, right? Do you even know what it is, or are you assuming that since “distribute” is in the word, it must be Evil, Marxist, Liberal ideology?

  • Ted Seeber

    As it was well stated at our march, take yourself and the other “distributists” to Canada and any of the other 192 nations in the world. We have our Constitution and we don’t want you violating it with your NEW GAME!

    If by “new game,” you mean “Catholicism.” You do realize that distributism is advocated by the Church, right? Do you even know what it is, or are you assuming that since “distribute” is in the word, it must be Evil, Marxist, Liberal ideology?

    The funny thing is that it’s a conservative ideology- if a bit of a protectionist one. Most liberals are afraid of the first premise of distributism- that the family, as far as we can, should be self-sufficient. That the town, as far as we can make it, should feed, clothe, shelter, have fresh water and medical care, for all of it’s residents, and do so without trade. That interstate commerce should be rare. And international commerce, even more so. And that in all of this, in subsidarity and solidarity, we should be our brother’s keeper.

  • Scotty

    If by “new game,” you mean “Catholicism.” You do realize that distributism is advocated by the Church, right? Do you even know what it is, or are you assuming that since “distribute” is in the word, it must be Evil, Marxist, Liberal ideology?

    I don’t believe the Church advocates any economic system. I would be interested in knowing where the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) has commented in favor of distributism. Even Benedict XVI’s recent social encyclical does not advocate distributism by name.

    Several Catholic thinkers have advocated distributism (G.K. Chesterton was one, I think), but that doesn’t equate with Church advocacy.

  • Ted Seeber

    If by “new game,” you mean “Catholicism.” You do realize that distributism is advocated by the Church, right? Do you even know what it is, or are you assuming that since “distribute” is in the word, it must be Evil, Marxist, Liberal ideology?

    I don’t believe the Church advocates any economic system.

    And yet, we have quite a bit coming out of the Church, starting with Rerum Novarum and ending with Caritas In Veritate.

    I would be interested in knowing where the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) has commented in favor of distributism. Even Benedict XVI’s recent social encyclical does not advocate distributism by name.

    Distributism is just Chesterton’s name for it.

    Several Catholic thinkers have advocated distributism (G.K. Chesterton was one, I think), but that doesn’t equate with Church advocacy.

    Go back and reread all of the great economics encyclicals. They all repeat Chesterton’s idea of small, autonomous and self-sufficient communities and a lack of centralization.

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say subsidarity over centralization, solidarity over individualism, is the command of Rerum Novarum and the encyclicals that followed. A total support of the right of private property, a total rejection of rights without duty. And most certainly, above all, a rejection of the Marxist/Capitalist wish to enslave mankind to economics.

  • Phil Atley

    As it was well stated at our march, take yourself and the other “distributists” to Canada and any of the other 192 nations in the world. We have our Constitution and we don’t want you violating it with your NEW GAME!

    If by “new game,” you mean “Catholicism.” You do realize that distributism is advocated by the Church, right? Do you even know what it is, or are you assuming that since “distribute” is in the word, it must be Evil, Marxist, Liberal ideology?

    Andy, while I think that Mother of Two Sons may have confused Distributism with socialist redistributism and needed to be informed about Distributism, I must take strong exception to your claim that Distributism is “advocated by the Church.”

    The Church does not advocate particular socio-economic-political systems. She does condemn some systems that are incompatible with faith (any communism that totally denies private property, any laissez-faire system that absolutizes private property–though I’m not sure even the most extreme laissez-faire capitalists did that).

    And since you didn’t inform Mother of Two Sons very well about what it is, she should know that it was advocated by Chesterton and Fr. Herbert? McCabe, O.P., and others and desires a return to small property holders and away from statism and large corporations dominating things. While I agree with the Distributists that an economy and political system of small-property holders makes a lot of sense, I am not impressed at all with the major Catholic advocates of Distributism at present. Most of them spend too much time denouncing Catholics who hold to views on either side of them on the spectrum, proclaiming themselves superior because they are Third Way. That by itself would not be so bad, but they almost always mischaracterize what the Catholic capitalists advocate. I can’t speak to how badly they may mischaracterize the Catholic socialists.

  • BenK

    There are large groups of people who dislike being scorned; they feel rejected by people whom they at least want to be appreciated by. Then there are people who see a group as so ‘other’ that the scorn is a badge of honor.

    This is the confusion that enters into the equation when certain coastal conservatives are engaged with liberals. They also share a certain distaste for things that seem uncouth. They don’t like being scorned by their majority neighbors. They are sensitive to the NYTimes headlines.

    Palin makes them cringe because they know they will be mocked. They don’t necessarily have a complete handle on how to turn that mockery around. They don’t feel complete camraderie with the heartland folks, and those folks aren’t there to back them up. They can’t scorn people who share credentials and career paths with them. They want their religion to be sophisticated, their economics to be nuanced, and their beer to be imported. The heartland doesn’t care about this – actually, they see the ‘nuance’ as selling out and the ‘sophistication’ as sophistry. They can fall back on each other.

    Into this, Palin and any other member of the heartland will fall – being mocked by the coastal liberals and soon finding it hard to get support among embarrassed coastal conservatives. However, coastal conservatives will quickly find that anyone who is faithful to a church (even the racist establishment Obama used as a political spring board) will either be mocked or abandon it. Anyone who is actually conservative will be trampled by the extreme leftists and the NY Times will provide cover. The coastal conservatives will have to stand up for principals that seem crude and extreme or they will stand for nothing – which explains, in large part, the unproductive Bush years and the loss that followed. It was capitulation on the coasts, from the grassroots up.

    Is there anything that can be done?

  • R.C.

    Ted Seeber states the following:

    The Constitution is anti-Catholic…

    To me, that’s a heck of a statement.

    Ted, in what way is the U.S. Constitution “anti-Catholic?”

    I’m curious to see whether the parts of it you regard to be “anti-Catholic” are the result of the last hundred years of anachronistic and dishonest “living document” interpretation, emanation, and interpolation by progressive jurists, or whether the U.S. Constitution I love and value, when not misinterpreted, is the source of your opposition.

    The Constitution is the employment contract between We The People, the employers, and The Government, who are our employees.

    To them we delegate some of our authority (Amendment X specifies that whichever powers we do not delegate are reserved to ourselves and to the people).

    We the people have that authority first from God; it is only because of our intrinsic human dignity that we have any just authority to delegate, or any power to delegate it.

    That same intrinsic human dignity gives us basic human rights and makes us free-willed moral actors. Unlike any other organization in society, government is that organization to which we delegate some of our God-given authority to employ force (or the threat of force) in the defense of the rights of innocent persons.

    All this is very Catholic, and all this is very Constitutional. Surely you do not object merely to the Bicameral nature of the legislature, or the three-branches division of powers?

    I am mystified. Please enlighten us by giving us your reasons why the U.S. Constitution is “anti-Catholic.”

  • Aaron

    The negative backlash against this out of control Democratic Congress should conceivably be as manipulable as the anti-Bush sentiment of the last election cycle

    Your comment reminds me of the keynote addresses at the Value Voters Summit last weekend. Gov. Mitt Romney and Gov. Mike Huckabee threw red meat to the crowd for most of their speeches, and Mitt’s delivery on jokes made me cringe.

    Yes, I understand you have to gin up the base a little bit, but what substantive, game-changing ideas have the Republican Pary offered lately?

    Scotty,

    I apologize if my attempt at brevity left you thinking I was simply trying to score points against the Democrats; in my mention of Republicans needing time to overcome their bad image I was trying to adumbrate the reason for which they might not have a good one. Still, despite Bush’s having been a mediocre president at best and the Repbulican Congress’s surrender to all the vices of bureaucratic excess, I don’t think it can be denied that the mindset of “anything but Bush” really did allow many Democrats – including Obama – to compaign without offering any substantive policy proposals. As I mentioned, the majority of Americans were mistaken as to who held power in Congress at the time, and in voting for change voted for the exact opposite. Such asininity could not have been so widespread in a climate of substantive debate.

    Thus, taken that negativity has been the deciding factor in one recent election and taken that this Congress is behaving in the very manner for which the Bush regime was criticized (being “out of touch” – with a clear disconect between Pelosi/Reid and almost any poll on healthcare, for instance – and spending like a drunken sailor), if the Republicans could simply rally around a few simple talking points that highlight what people ought to like about them I think they could just as easily ride our feelings-based political environment to a similar victory. I have a very low opinion of any political manipulation that seeks to grab power without actually challenging people to decide on the merits of policy and philosophy, but we’re at the low point where that is how the game is played.

  • Marie

    As a consequence, almost every time such a liberal comes up with an idea, the Main-Street conservative opposes it. Liberal elites are in favor of President Obama’s health-care proposals, So Main-Street conservatives oppose it — as they made clear at the famous congressional town hall meetings held in August.

    Main Street conservatives, on the whole, have a better grasp of the situation than you portrayed. They are against ObamaCare not because the Liberal elites are for it but because they know instinctively how it would apply to their lives.

    One only needs to attend the Townhall meetings to see how perceptive and articulate this once silent group has become. They’ve studied the Bill and asked intelligent questions that their representatives could hardly answer. They know about the Delphi Technique and stuck to their questions even as their representatives tried to change the subjects.

    They have more sense and wisdom than Nancy Pelosi, for instance, could ever have. Please do not sell them short.

  • Dan

    This ‘analysis’ by Carlin is simplistic and not hitting the issue as it relates to Catholic–why is it even on this site? For every point he makes there is a clear counter-point that is just as valid–therefore it seems he has half truths at best, and vague generalizations at worst. I hope InsideCatholic gives us better next time.

  • Mack

    Despite President Obama’s Chicago base, the default cultural viewpoint of this nation is predicated on the Long Island / Cape Cod Axis of Adirondack Chairs. Anyone who does not live in this Tsarko Seloe is a Larry, Darryl, or Darryl.

  • Scotty

    …if the Republicans could simply rally around a few simple talking points that highlight what people ought to like about them I think they could just as easily ride our feelings-based political environment to a similar victory. I have a very low opinion of any political manipulation that seeks to grab power without actually challenging people to decide on the merits of policy and philosophy, but we’re at the low point where that is how the game is played.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. And you certainly weren’t trying to score points against the Democrats in your post. I just used the Value Voters Summit to demonstrate that the Republicans are saying more what they are generically opposed to, not what they are specifically for. And I guess that’s the perrogative of the Party-out-of-power.

  • Francis Wippel

    David,

    With all due respect, you left out one painfully obvious aspect of conservative opposition to liberal healthcare reform: common sense.

    Look at how the government is running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. None of these programs are solvent, and yet I

  • I am not Spartacus

    Sam Francis coined a number of useful neologisms. There was AnarchoTyranny: a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions

  • Ted Seeber

    The Church does not advocate particular socio-economic-political systems. She does condemn some systems that are incompatible with faith (any communism that totally denies private property, any laissez-faire system that absolutizes private property–though I’m not sure even the most extreme laissez-faire capitalists did that).

    I’d argue that in September 2008, we saw the result of 30 years of low-taxes, no-regulation financial industry bankers doing that- and it very nearly destroyed the economic system of the world.

    And since you didn’t inform Mother of Two Sons very well about what it is, she should know that it was advocated by Chesterton and Fr. Herbert? McCabe, O.P., and others and desires a return to small property holders and away from statism and large corporations dominating things. While I agree with the Distributists that an economy and political system of small-property holders makes a lot of sense, I am not impressed at all with the major Catholic advocates of Distributism at present. Most of them spend too much time denouncing Catholics who hold to views on either side of them on the spectrum, proclaiming themselves superior because they are Third Way. That by itself would not be so bad, but they almost always mischaracterize what the Catholic capitalists advocate. I can’t speak to how badly they may mischaracterize the Catholic socialists.

    The proof of capitalism to me came first with the .com bust of 2001, and secondly with the financial industry bust of 2008. I’ve always been against Chaos, and for Order, as long as that order makes sense (don’t get me started on Stalin’s 5 year plans and the strange lack of food during a time of plenty for the Ukrainian farmer). Idolatry is at the center of capitalism; fraud is at the center of modern money creation. To me, the only worker worth his wage, is the one that actually produces something; the rest, deserve only that which every poor person should be due, in keeping with Rerum Novarum and it’s descendants.

    The man who lives on the labor of others through investment, is just as much to be despised as the man who lives on the labor of others through taxes.

  • I am not Spartacus

    “Go back and reread all of the great economics encyclicals. They all repeat Chesterton’s idea of small, autonomous and self-sufficient communities and a lack of centralization.”

    Incorrect, Mr. Seeber. He is what Pope Benedict called for in Caritas In Veritatis:

    In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

  • Ted Seeber

    Ted Seeber states the following:

    The Constitution is anti-Catholic…

    To me, that’s a heck of a statement.

    Ted, in what way is the U.S. Constitution “anti-Catholic?”

    Three main ways. First, it fails to recognize the divine right of rule, and thus, the Kingship of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it disorders society by putting religion secondary to secular government. Third, it was written by, and contains the values of, Freemasons and Protestants, particularily in the arena of freedom from just authority.

    I’m curious to see whether the parts of it you regard to be “anti-Catholic” are the result of the last hundred years of anachronistic and dishonest “living document” interpretation, emanation, and interpolation by progressive jurists, or whether the U.S. Constitution I love and value, when not misinterpreted, is the source of your opposition.

    The actual source of my opposition is even more basic- as a Catholic, I see the Monarchy of Christ being the model of perfect government, not the Republic, and certainly not Representatives who are only Representative of Corporate Interest against the family.

    The Constitution is the employment contract between We The People, the employers, and The Government, who are our employees.

    True, and from that standpoint, I’d think it would be good. But who are We the People? Certainly not a bunch of saints; and our system rewards crooks and criminals at the expense of the innocent.

    To them we delegate some of our authority (Amendment X specifies that whichever powers we do not delegate are reserved to ourselves and to the people).

    Yes, but who are the people? I put forth that in the beginning, this worked somewhat because there were no corporations- every person was a real human being. Since SPR vs SCC, however, that’s changed greatly- human beings are second class citizens to the immortal corporations, who use us as mere “human resources” to grind up for profit.

    We the people have that authority first from God; it is only because of our intrinsic human dignity that we have any just authority to delegate, or any power to delegate it.

    We had that authority from God; we gave it up for authority from the lowest hobo.

    That same intrinsic human dignity gives us basic human rights and makes us free-willed moral actors. Unlike any other organization in society, government is that organization to which we delegate some of our God-given authority to employ force (or the threat of force) in the defense of the rights of innocent persons.

    And how do we use our free will? Only to gain advantage over our fellow neighbor, not to serve him. Only to take money and power from the innocent instead of defending him. Only in service of selfishness, never in service of solidarity. “Free-willed moral actors” is right- except it seems, we only choose one side, and that side isn’t God’s, but rather the side of the idol Mammon.

    All this is very Catholic, and all this is very Constitutional. Surely you do not object merely to the Bicameral nature of the legislature, or the three-branches division of powers?

    Well, that too- I prefer Plato’s philsopher King, the Vicar of Christ, to mere human Republics. The Servant of Servants- the last who shall become first. That’s the ideal model I crave. Too much sin, too many idiots, for self rule to work in the long run.

    I am mystified. Please enlighten us by giving us your reasons why the U.S. Constitution is “anti-Catholic.”

    You apparently see Catholicism quite differently than I do. And mankind quite differently than I do. I don’t see a lot of human dignity left in the United States- what humans that lived on this land that had such dignity, we killed off with malaria and smallpox as we invaded their Garden of Eden.

  • Ted Seeber

    Look at how the government is running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. None of these programs are solvent,

    The only reason they’re not is because Clinton and the Bush Dynasty kept borrowing money from them to hide their excessive spending.

    and yet I

  • Christine

    Ted,

    I know that you are very smart, but I still don’t think that you think of yourelf as Catholic first. You seem to use certain parts of Catholicism to justify your politics and argue and argue when people don’t see your way. These people are usually the ones who see themselves as Catholic first. You can argue all you want, but their a priori knowledge of what is right and wrong will not be moved.

    You seem to think that governments can change the world and that we will somehow evolve, like the characters from Star Trek. The only way we can evolve is by changing ourselves first through God’s grace.

    Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.

    You might find it more fulfilling to argue on a more political website. You may make more headway into change the hearts and minds of those who do not consider their faith first.

    I still pray for you and I hope that others who contribute to this blog will also pray for you. You are very smart, but you also seem very lost in your political ideologies.

  • Ted Seeber

    “Go back and reread all of the great economics encyclicals. They all repeat Chesterton’s idea of small, autonomous and self-sufficient communities and a lack of centralization.”

    Incorrect, Mr. Seeber. He is what Pope Benedict called for in Caritas In Veritatis:

    In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.

    Yes, and I hold the best way to reform the UN, and give poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision making, is for each town and village to be self sufficient *first*, and engage in trade *only out of surplus*. That change alone would make, in the words of the last Kalapuya, human beings a “wealthy people”.

    It is the very hamfisted control of wealth in the hands of the few, rather than the many, that has destroyed the ability of poorer nations to have a voice.


    To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

    Yes, EXACTLY! That is what is needed. One cannot have small autonomous, self sufficient towns if chaos reigns in the free market and big corporations are allowed to put their factories in the least powerful countries to avoid pollution controls, while undercutting the market in other countries to put local businessmen out of business.


    Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

    Yes! That is distributism- solidarity in balance with subsidarity, and a social order that conforms to the moral order, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is the very center of Chesterton’s (and before him, Pope Leo XIII’s) dream. Not huge corporations- but a reversal of human authority.

  • Ted Seeber

    Ted,

    I know that you are very smart, but I still don’t think that you think of yourelf as Catholic first. You seem to use certain parts of Catholicism to justify your politics and argue and argue when people don’t see your way.

    My politics are what they are because of Catholicism; without the Kingship of Jesus Christ and his Vicar the Pope, I have no politics other than an intense hatred of sin.

    These people are usually the ones who see themselves as Catholic first. You can argue all you want, but their a priori knowledge of what is right and wrong will not be moved.

    How can one see themselves as a “Catholic First” yet deny the writings of the Popes and the Kingship of Jesus Christ over a mere *experiment*?

    You seem to think that governments can change the world and that we will somehow evolve, like the characters from Star Trek. The only way we can evolve is by changing ourselves first through God’s grace.

    True, but we’re not going to help God’s grace along by rewarding SIN, are we?

    Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.

    And what God has given to Caesar is authority over economics.

    You might find it more fulfilling to argue on a more political website. You may make more headway into change the hearts and minds of those who do not consider their faith first.

    I’ve yet to see many consider their faith first, when arguing to (for instance) deny health care to illegal immigrants (just to use a sin I was once guilty of myself), or deny the basic duty of Noblese Oblige.

    I still pray for you and I hope that others who contribute to this blog will also pray for you. You are very smart, but you also seem very lost in your political ideologies.

    My only “political ideology” is the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the return of Christendom.

  • Aaron

    I don’t see a lot of human dignity left in the United States- what humans that lived on this land that had such dignity, we killed off with malaria and smallpox as we invaded their Garden of Eden.

    The people who lived in the Americas before European settlement were just as human and thus just as fallen. Two points should illustrate sufficiently.

    1) Aztec human sacrifice. ‘Nuf said.

    2) The longtime enemies of Huron and Iroquois were both peoples who specialized in torture of their military prisoners. If a man stood up exceptionally well under the most pain they could give him, someone would eat his heart to share in his courage.

    Ah, if only we hadn’t destroyed that Edenic dream!

  • R.C.

    Ted,

    In reply to my question “in what way do you see the U.S. Constitution as “anti-Catholic?” you stated the following:

    Three main ways. First, it fails to recognize the divine right of rule, and thus, the Kingship of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it disorders society by putting religion secondary to secular government. Third, it was written by, and contains the values of, Freemasons and Protestants, particularily in the arena of freedom from just authority.

    Ted, I have difficulty understanding your meaning in each of these areas. To take them in order:

    (1.) To what “divine right of rule” do you here refer? Is it the original “divine right of kings” of European monarchies?

    (2.) The U.S. Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion, or preventing the free exercise of religion. How does that “put religion secondary to the secular government?” In your view, can only an established religion, in which the government enforces particular religious practices, represent a social order in which religion is primary?

    (3.) From which just authority do you perceive the U.S. Constitution as rebelling?

    The actual source of my opposition is even more basic- as a Catholic, I see the Monarchy of Christ being the model of perfect government, not the Republic…

    Well, of course. But since the Monarchy of Christ is not an option for keeping public order at any time prior to the Second Coming, what form of government, in your view, is proper in the interim?

    When I stated that “The Constitution is the employment contract between We The People, the employers, and The Government, who are our employees” …you answered as follows:

    True, and from that standpoint, I’d think it would be good. But who are We the People? Certainly not a bunch of saints;

    Naturally, We The People are not perfected saints, and only some of us are saints in the lesser sense meaning Christians; but then, the U.S. Constitution is written in a way which acknowledges that. That very fact is the reason for the doctrine of enumerated powers; the reason for the notion of “a nation of laws, not of men”; the reason for the three branches with separated duties; the reason for the balance of powers between the federal government and the states; the reason for the bicameral legislature. This is American Civics 101: The Founding Fathers put in place a system designed to ensure that when, as would inevitably occur, wicked or ignorant persons gained political power, that power would be checked.

    You go on to say:

    …and our system rewards crooks and criminals at the expense of the innocent.

    This is sometimes true. But I think it less true of the American system than of most, probably all, other governmental systems in existence during the last 250 years at least. You seem to be contrasting the American system (a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic) against the Reign of Christ at the end of time — and naturally it comes up short! — but what does that have to do with the pertinent comparisons, which would be between the American system and, say, the French monarchy, or the Roman empire, or the Athenian city-states, or the Swiss (I should probably say Helvetican) cantons, or the Third Reich, or…?

    …continued…

  • R.C.

    …continuing…

    You add:

    Well, that too- I prefer Plato’s philsopher King, the Vicar of Christ, to mere human Republics. The Servant of Servants- the last who shall become first. That’s the ideal model I crave. Too much sin, too many idiots, for self rule to work in the long run.

    Well, there’s Plato’s philosopher king, who could plausibly play the kind of role European monarchs once did; and then there’s the Vicar of Christ whose infallibility does not extend to traffic laws because Christ never meant it to. They’re not the same. Of the two, only the philosopher king would properly have the sword of secular authority in this lifetime…but he’s just as likely to be a sinner and an idiot as any of his subjects.

    Hence the need to check his power, to prevent him doing excessive damage. But it was that reflection which led to the U.S. Constitution as a corrective.

    Moving on, the strongest and clearest assertion in your reply is, I think, the most overwhelmingly false:

    I don’t see a lot of human dignity left in the United States- what humans that lived on this land that had such dignity, we killed off with malaria and smallpox as we invaded their Garden of Eden.

    Their “Garden of Eden?” Surely you jest! Putting aside the cannibalism and the tribal warfare indemic to the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans, the malaria and smallpox to which you refer were largely a scourge of the natives of Central and South America. How much human dignity was there, really, in a culture which practiced bloody human sacrifice by the tens of thousands, whose demonic gods carved in stone can mostly be described as grinning, goggling death-masks?

    Let’s give credit to the Aztecs and the Mayans for their achievements in commerce and construction and so forth, to be sure: These were not rustic barbarians, to be sure, but an advanced civilization. But let us not forget: They were an advanced pagan civilization of sinful human beings, and their social structures were rife with the same sinfulness that the Europeans brought with them.

    The only difference was that the Europeans knew Christ. In that sense the Europeans were worse than the natives they conquered, in that the natives had the excuse of not benefiting from special revelation. The Europeans were worse in that they were still sinners; they were worse in that they weren’t much better than the natives even though, as Christians, it was their duty to be better. But the native Americans were not, by any stretch of imagination, sinless.
    I think you’ve been reading too much politically correct nonsense which couched the evils of some of the native American cultures in sensitive languages so as not to offend. This is all very well: Let us not give offense if it isn’t necessary. But “in lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath.” Don’t forget that the polite version generally isn’t the bluntly accurate version.

    But all of that is an aside. I would like to know your answers to my earlier questions. And in general I would like you to clarify what governmental system you regard as sufficiently Catholic, in this lifetime.

  • I am not Spartacus

    Once the Iroquois threw-in (cough, cough) with the English (against The French) they tried to destroy the English by corrupting their water supply by heaving the pelts of skinned animals into the water above where the English were camped. (It was estimated that around 1000 were killed).

    Biological warfare courtesy of the Latter Day Camp of the Saintly American Indians.

    I think this was left out of “Dancing With Wolves.”

  • Christine

    The Aztecs enslaved all of the tribes around them, used their captives and their own people for torture and sacrifice – and they both practiced and spread the practice of cannibalism.

    Evidence even proves that the Aztecs tortured and cannibalized unarmed women and children Spanish settlers before there was any war declared.

    Ted, this seems to be more than just a bit worse than the torture taken on by the last president’s regime (although I do not condone torture in any way, at least the people who the Bush regime tortured left with their lives).

    The Aztecs were taken over not just by smallpox but by the insurrection of their conquered territories, who aided the Conquistadors in conquering that evil, albeit technologically advanced empire that spread their evils of torture all the way up to the Hopi Nation in what is now the US.

  • Ted Seeber

    The people who lived in the Americas before European settlement were just as human and thus just as fallen. Two points should illustrate sufficiently.

    1) Aztec human sacrifice. ‘Nuf said.

    2) The longtime enemies of Huron and Iroquois were both peoples who specialized in torture of their military prisoners. If a man stood up exceptionally well under the most pain they could give him, someone would eat his heart to share in his courage.

    Ah, if only we hadn’t destroyed that Edenic dream!

    Well, maybe not all. But the Chinook nation on the West Coast would settle their differences with feasting, not war. At least until right-wingers made a federal law against the potlach in the 1950s for being “communist”.

  • Ted Seeber

    In reply to my question “in what way do you see the U.S. Constitution as “anti-Catholic?” you stated the following:
    Three main ways. First, it fails to recognize the divine right of rule, and thus, the Kingship of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it disorders society by putting religion secondary to secular government. Third, it was written by, and contains the values of, Freemasons and Protestants, particularily in the arena of freedom from just authority.

    Ted, I have difficulty understanding your meaning in each of these areas. To take them in order:

    (1.) To what “divine right of rule” do you here refer? Is it the original “divine right of kings” of European monarchies?

    Yes, as confirmed by several millenia of Popes.

    (2.) The U.S. Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion, or preventing the free exercise of religion. How does that “put religion secondary to the secular government?”

    By preventing the usage of moral arguments in the political spectrum. It’s effectively a gag order against God.

    In your view, can only an established religion, in which the government enforces particular religious practices, represent a social order in which religion is primary?

    Yes. In fact, only when the established religion, acting on behalf of God, chooses the governmental leaders, will religion be primary.

    (3.) From which just authority do you perceive the U.S. Constitution as rebelling?

    The Kingdom of God, under our once and future King Jesus Christ, and his Vicar the Pope.

    The actual source of my opposition is even more basic- as a Catholic, I see the Monarchy of Christ being the model of perfect government, not the Republic…

    Well, of course. But since the Monarchy of Christ is not an option for keeping public order at any time prior to the Second Coming, what form of government, in your view, is proper in the interim?

    I disagree. For 500 years, the Monarchy of Christ, under his Vicar the Pope, with good Catholic Monarchial families chosen by the Church, kept order in Europe. Only the Great Schism, Reformation and the Enlightenment (three events I consider to be mistakes) caused that to change.

    When I stated that “The Constitution is the employment contract between We The People, the employers, and The Government, who are our employees” …you answered as follows:
    True, and from that standpoint, I’d think it would be good. But who are We the People? Certainly not a bunch of saints;

    Naturally, We The People are not perfected saints, and only some of us are saints in the lesser sense meaning Christians; but then, the U.S. Constitution is written in a way which acknowledges that. That very fact is the reason for the doctrine of enumerated powers; the reason for the notion of “a nation of laws, not of men”; the reason for the three branches with separated duties; the reason for the balance of powers between the federal government and the states; the reason for the bicameral legislature. This is American Civics 101: The Founding Fathers put in place a system designed to ensure that when, as would inevitably occur, wicked or ignorant persons gained political power, that power would be checked.

    What the founding fathers put in place was an experiment- it had never been done before, and was not in keeping with Holy Tradition.

    You go on to say:
    …and our system rewards crooks and criminals at the expense of the innocent.

    This is sometimes true. But I think it less true of the American system than of most, probably all, other governmental systems in existence during the last 250 years at least. You seem to be contrasting the American system (a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic) against the Reign of Christ at the end of time — and naturally it comes up short! — but what does that have to do with the pertinent comparisons, which would be between the American system and, say, the French monarchy, or the Roman empire, or the Athenian city-states, or the Swiss (I should probably say Helvetican) cantons, or the Third Reich, or…?

    Actually, I’m comparing it to feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire before the Great Schism; when all of the Patriarchs were equals and the Pope, first among equals. Then, morality came *first*, not legality nor mere rule of men.

  • Ted Seeber

    …continuing…

    You add:

    Well, that too- I prefer Plato’s philsopher King, the Vicar of Christ, to mere human Republics. The Servant of Servants- the last who shall become first. That’s the ideal model I crave. Too much sin, too many idiots, for self rule to work in the long run.

    Well, there’s Plato’s philosopher king, who could plausibly play the kind of role European monarchs once did; and then there’s the Vicar of Christ whose infallibility does not extend to traffic laws because Christ never meant it to. They’re not the same. Of the two, only the philosopher king would properly have the sword of secular authority in this lifetime…but he’s just as likely to be a sinner and an idiot as any of his subjects.

    It’s a continuum. A hierarchy. God, then Jesus, then the Vicar, then the King, down to your local duke or landlord.

    Hence the need to check his power, to prevent him doing excessive damage. But it was that reflection which led to the U.S. Constitution as a corrective.

    Moving on, the strongest and clearest assertion in your reply is, I think, the most overwhelmingly false:

    I don’t see a lot of human dignity left in the United States- what humans that lived on this land that had such dignity, we killed off with malaria and smallpox as we invaded their Garden of Eden.

    Their “Garden of Eden?” Surely you jest! Putting aside the cannibalism and the tribal warfare indemic to the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans, the malaria and smallpox to which you refer were largely a scourge of the natives of Central and South America.

    Well, I’m more familiar with the Kalapuya of the Willamette Valley and the Chinook trading nation, which replaced tribal warfare and cannibalism with the Potlach. But of course- invading Europeans, going around South America, brought malaria with them to the Pacific Northwest- and 90% of the Kalapuya were dead by 1830.

    How much human dignity was there, really, in a culture which practiced bloody human sacrifice by the tens of thousands, whose demonic gods carved in stone can mostly be described as grinning, goggling death-masks?

    Quite a bit more than in a culture which practices human sacrifice to the God of Profit and who would rather have a DOW of 10,000 than to feed a starving child.

    Let’s give credit to the Aztecs and the Mayans for their achievements in commerce and construction and so forth, to be sure: These were not rustic barbarians, to be sure, but an advanced civilization. But let us not forget: They were an advanced pagan civilization of sinful human beings, and their social structures were rife with the same sinfulness that the Europeans brought with them.

    True, but they weren’t the only ones here. And they didn’t have the benefit of the revelation of Christ; or even the revelation of the Jews. Or in the case of the Kalapuya, even the revelation of Cain.

    The only difference was that the Europeans knew Christ. In that sense the Europeans were worse than the natives they conquered, in that the natives had the excuse of not benefiting from special revelation. The Europeans were worse in that they were still sinners; they were worse in that they weren’t much better than the natives even though, as Christians, it was their duty to be better. But the native Americans were not, by any stretch of imagination, sinless.
    I think you’ve been reading too much politically correct nonsense which couched the evils of some of the native American cultures in sensitive languages so as not to offend. This is all very well: Let us not give offense if it isn’t necessary. But “in lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath.” Don’t forget that the polite version generally isn’t the bluntly accurate version.

    True enough.

    But all of that is an aside. I would like to know your answers to my earlier questions. And in general I would like you to clarify what governmental system you regard as sufficiently Catholic, in this lifetime.

    Traditionalism. The rule of what works, works, and what doesn’t work, is abandoned.

  • Tyler

    Main Street conservatives, on the whole, have a better grasp of the situation than you portrayed. They are against ObamaCare not because the Liberal elites are for it but because they know instinctively how it would apply to their lives.

    As Marie, above, implies, perhaps the opposition to the health care plans is based simply on the belief that they’re bad policies. Do we really need to be making up complicated reasons for everything?

  • Rudy the Scottie

    Elitists seem to be guided by a prideful spirit of self-interest and self-aggrandizement. These supposed intellectuals wear an all-knowing cloak and act as if they are God. As skilled orators, they easily convince innocent, working-class, salt-of-the-earth people that they are working in people’s best interest; when, if fact, they are working toward their own glorification.

    Trusting in elitists to provide all manner of social programs is prima-fascia evidence that we fail to trust God. We must trust in the Lord to provide for our needs. As a nation, if we fail to trust in God and live in the confidence of His love, what kind of a nation will we be tomorrow? We who fear God know the answer.

    We are the only nation on the face of the earth that has enjoyed individual freedom and prospered to the degree with which we have over the last 200 plus years. What a feat! Man

  • Marie

    perhaps the opposition to the health care plans is based simply on the belief that they’re bad policies. Do we really need to be making up complicated reasons for everything?

    Thanks, Tyler, for pointing out what should have been obvious.

    But this thread has drifted into something very interesting – the “Distributism” that Ted espouses, and I think that topic is worth pursuing. Perhaps a separate article on Distributism is in order?

    A question for Ted: If Distributism is so great, why did the Ditchling project fail?

  • Administrator

    But this thread has drifted into something very interesting – the “Distributism” that Ted espouses, and I think that topic is worth pursuing. Perhaps a separate article on Distributism is in order?

    Hi Marie,

    We ran short introductions to distributism here:
    http://tinyurl.com/6xvn2v

    …and here:
    http://tinyurl.com/dg2f2q

    You’ll find good discussions in the comboxes of both.

MENU