A Sensible Life

Category: Economy and the Public Square

Politics and Political Philosophy and the Principle of Subsidiarity

  • The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court

    In the last couple of days I have been reading and listening to a lot of commentary from a variety of folks regarding the role of our chief justice in the recent PPACA decision.  I and others have commented on the motives of our heretofore fairly solid chief justice.  I realize the danger of trying to figure out motives but the reality is that when a person acts out of character I want to seek to attempt to understand and to explain.  I firmly maintain that if Chief Justice Roberts’ motivation is simply the preservation of the legitimacy and the non-partisan public perception of the Supreme Court, and this is the most altruistic motive I can see that explains the behavior, then his motivation is misplaced. I insist that all of the Supreme Court justices including the chief justice have been appointed to serve the constitution and the founding principles of this nation enshrined therein. When they neglect this sacred duty in order to preserve the perceived reputation or legitimacy or “political neutrality” of the institution of the Supreme Court they are in effect turning the constitution on its head. What is more important, the constitution or the institutions created by the constitution? What happens to constitutional checks and balances when one of the branches of government refuses to exercise its authority out of fear that it will be perceived as political?

    This idea has been tossed around that the chief justice views the role of the Court as that of an umpire.  This idea is repugnant.  The Court has an active role to play in the preservation of this country and its founding principles. Ah, “activist court”, you counter. Well, when a Court needs to assert the constitution and assert the freedoms and government limitations contained therein then the court must act, regardless of whether or not the media or the political parties may point to its action as activism and even partisanship. The Court’s duty it to do what is right not what the public may perceive to be right. When I worked at the Supreme Court back in the 1990?s, I used to help the justices go through their mail. When a big case came along there were justices who would actually have their mail separated and counted according to the positions taken regarding the upcoming case. This “voting” was then allowed to influence these certain justices’ opinions on the case. I found reliance on public opinion by justices repulsive then and I do now.  If the public is wrong let us educate the public but in the meantime let the Court do what is right.

    I have seen a lot of commentary to the effect that those of us who oppose PPACA should take the necessary political steps and not look to the Supreme Court to carry out our will in the realm of public policy.  Guilty as charged, I am one of those who want to get rid of PPACA because it is bad law.  And I wanted the Supreme Court to act.  However, I did not want the Supreme Court to act because the law is bad.  I wanted the Court to act because the law is unconstitutional. I wanted the Court to act because its failure to do so leaves the judicial and executive branches of the national government unchecked in their continual arrogation of power. Unless this tide is stemmed states’ rights, individuals’ rights and families’ rights will be a thing of the past in short order.

    As many commentators have pointed out, the way to deal with PPACA is now political. I totally agree, and I’m on board. Let’s get with it. In fact, the whole PPACA debacle should never have arisen if we had done a proper job of forming ourselves in our voting in 2008. But I’m going to make this one final point with regard to the Court – its reason for being is to serve the founding principles of this country as they are enumerated in the Constitution.  The failure of the people to exercise their responsibility well does not absolve the Court from its obligation to exercise its responsibility well.

  • Gratuitousness

    Gratuitousness

    The post-enlightenment world in which we live tells us that man is essentially an individual animal; that he is on this earth to serve his own needs and desires and to act to ensure his survival and that of his progeny.  His relationship and interaction with others takes the form of a series of social contracts.  These social contracts impose certain duties upon him and give him certain rights.  However, he does not give freely, he does so with the hope (or rather, the expectation) that he will receive something in return.

    Christianity and the Catholic Church vehemently reject this notion of man in isolation self-interestedly seeking his own advantage and engaging with others only to the extent that (a) his forced to do so or (b) such engagement serves his purposes.  We are called to a radically different approach to our life in the world.  As Pope Benedict states in Caritas in Veritate, “the earthly city is promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion. Charity always manifests God’s love in human relationships as well, it gives theological and salvific value to all commitment for justice in the world.”

    So we if we are to engage in this earthly city in a fully human way, in a manner that lifts us above the nature of other animals, we are to live gratuitously.  This principle of gratuitousness lies at the heart of all understanding of man’s relationship with man and hence must underlie all discussion of the manner in which we create and execute those institutions and ideas that give form to man’s interconnectedness with man:  families, communities, economic systems, systems of governance.

    What does it mean to live gratuitously?  Simply said, to live gratuitously is to give freely, according to the needs of others and according to our ability and responsibility to give.  This gratuitous living, then, requires a life of reflection; a life spent seeking to understand others, their needs, desires, hopes and fears and also seeking to understand ourselves our own capabilities and responsibilities.  Interestingly, as one seeks to understand and live this idea of gratuitous giving, one begins to see a corollary human trait, trust.  As we empty ourselves in the care of others we come to realize our dependence upon others for our needs.  So, in this way of living I am called both to give freely and to receive freely.  My relationship with my fellow man becomes one of mutual self-giving.  This life of relationship differs fundamentally from the enlightened notion expressed at the beginning of this piece, the notion of isolated individuals entering into social contracts.

    The exploration of how we should live this idea of gratuitousness serves as one of the main themes of A Sensible Life.  Our current economic and political realities are rife with examples of how we are not living gratuitously.  With a little digging we can find some examples of things we are doing well.

  • The Death of Federalism

    The Death of Federalism

    Federalism is now officially dead. Chief Justice Roberts declared today in his majority opinion in the PPACA ruling that the national government (I refuse from now on to call it the federal government) has the right to force individuals to purchase health insurance and to penalize them with a fine if they fail to comply. This supposed right of the national government somehow derives from its “taxing power”. Well, if the national government can now coerce me into purchasing something against my will and impose a penalty for my non-compliance in the form of a fine (now called a tax) then no limit now constrains the power of the national government.

    In reality, I am probably late to the party in declaring the death of my beloved federalism. Power has been shifting from states, communities and families to Washington for the last 100 years. This shift occurs in fits and starts but always follows an inexorable path forward (or backward). Once powers move to this central authority they never move back. In this progression, however, today’s decision by the Supreme Court, marks such a profound shift that it is not overstating the case to say that we have reached the culmination, the death of federalism, the death of the idea that individual freedom and state sovereignty are more important than the national state, the death in short of any semblance of subsidiarity.

    If you think I state my case too strongly read the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissenting opinion to today’s Supreme Court ruling, “The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the federal government is one of limited powers,” Kennedy said. “But the court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

    Can federalism be resuscitated?

    All things are possible. I cling to the hope that we can return to the founding principles of our country and turn the tide. Unfortunately, we face a very strong tide. In order to return to a sensible approach to governance in this country we must (a) overcome the historical trend of this country toward centralization of power and (b) overcome the lack of formation of great swaths of our citizenry concerning principles of political philosophy especially as they pertain to the limitations of government and the rights and responsibility of individuals.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that government has no role in our lives. What I am saying is that government has forgotten that it derives its power from the people. And many of our fellow citizens have forgotten this as well. It will require a massive concerted effort from the people in order to wrest the power away from the national government that it has accumulated to itself. I hope We the People stand willing to engage in this effort.

  • Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    I recently heard on the Mike Gallagher show an interview with Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. I usually agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg has to say. In this particular interview (June 5), however, I took strong exception to one of his points. Mr. Goldberg made the statement that it is only liberals who indicate a desire to stop using labels to identify political positions. They do this, he said, because they are opposed to taking a principled stand on any issue.

    I think Mr. Goldberg is only about half correct. While it is true that much of the political discourse in this country avoids (intentionally or unintentionally) any principled stand on a particular issue, it is not true that only individuals of one political persuasion tire of the use of labels in our conversations in the public square.

    Mr. Goldberg may also be correct in his assessment of certain individuals’ tendency to hide behind labels in their desire to avoid substantive debate. I think it more likely, however, that many of us in our interactions in the public square use labels out of laziness. We find it easier in the brevity of our communications to use a word or two to describe ourselves or our opponents than to truly describe our own position or their position.

    The reality is that we frequently don’t know what the “one-worders” mean! Really, what is a liberal? What is a conservative? Let’s define our positions! What are we interested in? What is our hope for our economy? Our country? Our culture? Perhaps we’ll find that our positions are not that far apart. Certainly we will find that there are issues about which we strongly disagree but at least then we can have a conversation about the merits of the various positions on those particular issues.

    Chesterton said in What’s Wrong with the World that , “I suppose most conservatives are conserving the traditions of the last revolt.” Chesterton would not have defined himself as a conservative and had some not so complimentary things to say about those who did so this quote should be understood in that context. What I believe he rightly points out here, though, is the truth that conservatism itself is subject to a definition that rests on a shifting foundation. What is it that conservatism purports to conserve? Let the conservative define his position, define what it is he wants to conserve. Let the liberal define his liberality. As I see it, the problem with the liberal “movement” is that it is not liberal.

    I’ll save my definition of terms for another day. Until then, I resolve to speak in full sentences. If I use a label for someone or some ideology, I will make sure folks know what I mean by it…