Tag: sensible

  • Mitt Romney the Social Justice Candidate

    Mitt Romney the Social Justice Candidate

    A few days ago I published an article explaining why Catholics and others of good will have a moral obligation to vote for Mitt Romney. The crux of my argument centered around the non-negotiable moral issues that are in play in this election as they never have been before.

    I enjoyed the healthy give and take resulting from that last article.

    That article dealt with moral imperatives. Now I would like to write about an issue of prudential judgment. However, I believe the argument in favor of Romney in this case is just as clear, if not as imperative. If you care seriously about living authentic Catholic social teaching and social justice in the United States of America then you must vote for Mitt Romney.

    Romney is a distributist. That is, he believes in a distributed economy wherein the primary economic engine is small business – an economy of multitudes of independent businesses whose capital is provided by innumerable individuals and whose laborers are not separated from investors by multiple layers of bureaucracy. Business owners are close to their workers, close to their business partners and close to their customers. This creates an economy of relationship, an economy in which the providers of capital and the providers of labor work together and share equitably the rewards of the production that results from their collaboration. This is an economy whose participants understand that they best serve each other and the best serve their own interests by cooperating with each other. This is an economy living solidarity. This is the sort of economy that made America great and it is the sort of economy to which Mitt Romney wants to return.

    Let me bring to your attention several quotes from Mitt Romney of comments made during the presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 (emphasis added):

    “Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.”

    And…

    “My five-point plan does it: energy independence for North America in five years; opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America, cracking down on China when they cheat; getting us to a balanced budget; fixing our training programs for our workers; and finally, championing small business. I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go.”

    And in response to a request to point out how his positions differ from those of President Bush…

    “And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.

    And the thing I find most troubling about “Obamacare” – well, it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.

    My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush had a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.”

    Our current president has an abysmal record when it comes to the economy and small business. One of the reasons for this is his failure to understand and support small business. He believes government creates jobys. He is wrong and his policies have stymied growth in small business, have discouraged individuals from investing in small business and have set up road blocks to individuals who want to embark on their own small business ventures.

    By getting government out of the way, Romney will turn small business loose. This will lead to more jobs, less poverty, greater freedom and a renewed sense of responsibility among private citizens. Consequently we will see a flowering of authentic social justice, a social justice focused on bettering the condition of all rather than what we see as the focus of the current administration, a promotion of strife between social and economic classes policies directed a pulling some groups down in order to “level the playing field.” The fruits of authentic social justice are solidarity and communio. We certainly are not seeing these fruits now.

  • 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 Lake Isle of Innisfree

    The Lake Isle of Innisfree

    In this “Metre” section of A Sensible Life we will explore the literary arts and will in particular savor the sweet words of those who understand the earth and creation and who speak beautifully of our relationship with the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

    I came across this poem today as my wife and I were reading poetry with one of our daughters. I cannot add much to the beauty expressed in this piece. All I can say is that much of the purpose of A Sensible Life and much of the purpose of my life is contained here:  participation in creation, blessed peace, simplicity (thrift), quiet contentedness…

    The Lake Isle of Innisfree

     

    by William Butler Yeats

     

    I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,

    And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:

    Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,

    And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

     

    And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,

    Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;

    There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,

    And evening full of the linnet’s wings.

     

    I will arise and go now, for always night and day

    I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;

    While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray,

    I hear it in the deep heart’s core.

     

    I will not seek to live alone on the Lake Isle of Innisfree, for that is not my call. But I will seek that peace in my soul and that joy of a life surrounded by beauty; beauty received as pure gratuitous gift, beauty enhanced by those around me, beauty cultured by the work of my own hands…