Anglican/Catholic

[Bluegoat]

For the sake of those just tuning in! Attention: GKC is Not, I repeat, NOT a distributism fan!

Oh! Stab me in the heart!

 

[Bluegoat]

Only a person who doesn’t know much about Chesterton assumes he is a conservative,or would only appeal to conservatives, because he was a traditional RC.

GKC

True, but how often do you see people here who assume that to be a serious Catholic, one has to be a conservative?

In any case, my experience has been that tthe left-leaning folks think distributism is reactionary and dangerously conservative, while those on the right think it is little better than socialism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My experience is that being an Independent, a moderate, is like a what Galadriel said in LOTR about being a ring-bearer: “to bear a ring of power is to be alone.” I just change it to: “To be independent and moderate it to be alone!” LOL Reason I say that is I tick off my Republican friends because I’m pro-life, anti-gay marriage, very traditional in morality, want fiscal discipline, and yet I like unions, the environment, hate free trade, think the defense budget is bloated and insane, etc. Then my Democrat friends hate that I’m pro-life, anti-gay, voted twice for Bush, and a bunch of other things. I hate farm subsidies and distrust big business and especially the insurance industry. I think government is ok in many instances and am not anti-gov’t in everything like GOPers. But I also think government can get out of hand and isn’t the only answer. I was against Obamacare, so that ticks off my liberal coworkers. And I don’t want to legalize dope. Oops! I’m a loner…a rebel! to quote Pee Wee Herman

True, but how often do you see people here who assume that to be a serious Catholic, one has to be a conservative?

In any case, my experience has been that tthe left-leaning folks think distributism is reactionary and dangerously conservative, while those on the right think it is little better than socialism.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hey Guerney…tend to agree with your political stands!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Kathleen, you’re awesome. It’s nice to know I’m not all alone in my Independent bubble land! In our last elections, I voted for 7 democrats, 7 republicans and I didn’t even do it deliberately. I went back counted after I voted and realized that LOL!

Hey Guerney…tend to agree with your political stands!

 

[GKC]

True, but how often do you see people here who assume that to be a serious Catholic, one has to be a conservative?

In any case, my experience has been that tthe left-leaning folks think distributism is reactionary and dangerously conservative, while those on the right think it is little better than socialism.

I think it’s idealistic fuzzy-mindedness.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But isn’t the nature of politics fuzz-minded idealism? Take the far right positions. Government should be so tiny you scarcely see it with ultra low taxes, no regulations hardly at all (bare minimum) and government not offering social security or medicare or medicaid or hardly any services with a huge, bloated defense budget. That’s extreme idealism…to think that we can and should privatize next to everything and that private sector is so super trustworthy while government is always crooked. That’s idealism gone wild. Then the “progressive” left thinks that all private sector is nirvana and the private sector is essentially evil. Government should intervene and run next to everything and we should legalize every drug known to man and it will fund a utopia while we shouldn’t censor anything and encourage abortion and population control while keeping our borders wide open to every illegal immigrant in the world and yet we should pay all of them medicaid, give them drivers’ licenses, public and college educations, etc.

They’re both extreme and idealistic and ultimately unrealistic. Hence compromise and balance. Problem is we haven’t had either for the better part of 10 years now on both sides.

Honestly distributism isn’t any more fuzzy, goofy, or unrealistic to me as a Tea Party Rally, a Palin speech, or a Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow/NPR extravaganza…

I think it’s idealistic fuzzy-mindedness.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But isn’t the nature of politics fuzz-minded idealism? Take the far right positions. Government should be so tiny you scarcely see it with ultra low taxes, no regulations hardly at all (bare minimum) and government not offering social security or medicare or medicaid or hardly any services with a huge, bloated defense budget. That’s extreme idealism…to think that we can and should privatize next to everything and that private sector is so super trustworthy while government is always crooked. That’s idealism gone wild. Then the “progressive” left thinks that all private sector is nirvana and the private sector is essentially evil. Government should intervene and run next to everything and we should legalize every drug known to man and it will fund a utopia while we shouldn’t censor anything and encourage abortion and population control while keeping our borders wide open to every illegal immigrant in the world and yet we should pay all of them medicaid, give them drivers’ licenses, public and college educations, etc.

They’re both extreme and idealistic and ultimately unrealistic. Hence compromise and balance. Problem is we haven’t had either for the better part of 10 years now on both sides.

Honestly distributism isn’t any more fuzzy, goofy, or unrealistic to me as a Tea Party Rally, a Palin speech, or a Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow/NPR extravaganza…

The essence of distributism lies less in the simple question of a relationship between the state, at a given level, and the individual; at least not in any unique sense. That argument, as you say, also occurs between anyone with a statist approach to organizing an economy or polity, and a libertarian one, or any point in between. Distributism inserts a particular formula for the economic structure, and for how ownership of the “means of production” is to be changed, and is to affect such an individual/state relationship, as well as society in general, into the mix (so do statist and capitalist schemes, of course). It is that point that I consider romantic idealism, unrealistic as it is fuzzy-headed.

And my reaction to distributiism also is affected by the fact that his all-out support of the idea, in his last days, shortened Chesterton’s life.

Anyone who wants to adapt a distributist life style, to encourage others to do so, and to advocate for a wider acceptance of its ideas (without any hint of coercion, of course) is free to do so, for my part.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Having read all about distributism, I’m good on all that you discussed until this part…you lost me here?

And my reaction to distributiism also is affected by the fact that his all-out support of the idea, in his last days, shortened Chesterton’s life.
GKC

 

[GKC]

Having read all about distributism, I’m good on all that you discussed until this part…you lost me here?

Based on his own convictions, and based on his dedication to supporting and furthering his brother Cecil’s memory and legacy, he worked himself to an early grave both in supporting distributism, generally, and in particular in editing/subsidizing first THE NEW WITNESS, then GK’S WEEKLY, money-losing enterprises, as the principle propaganda organs for the DISTRIBUTIST LEAGUE. He led an unhealthy life style anyway, exacerbated by the worry and work of editing the newspapers (at which he was not very good), plus the other strains of being the most visible figure and a principle source of funding for the movement. He died of congestive heart failure, at age 62. Not possible to prove that his work for distributism killed him directly, but he made it a crusade, and it took its toll.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Based on his own convictions, and based on his dedication to supporting and furthering his brother Cecil’s memory and legacy, he worked himself to an early grave both in supporting distributism, generally, and in particular in editing/subsidizing first THE NEW WITNESS, then GK’S WEEKLY, money-losing enterprises, as the principle propaganda organs for the DISTRIBUTIST LEAGUE. He led an unhealthy life style anyway, exacerbated by the worry and work of editing the newspapers (at which he was not very good), plus the other strains of being the most visible figure and a principle source of funding for the movement. He died of congestive heart failure, at age 62. Not possible to prove that his work for distributism killed him directly, but he made it a crusade, and it took its toll.

GKC

People do this for their churches, as well. I don’t see how that would make the Church an idealistic and fuzzy minded this, per se.

 

[GKC]

People do this for their churches, as well. I don’t see how that would make the Church an idealistic and fuzzy minded this, per se.

Not the point. He worked for a cause I consider, on its merits, not a worthy one, and it contributed to his death. It didn’t contribute to his death because it was fuzzy-minded and idealistic; that’s another point.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Not the point. He worked for a cause I consider, on its merits, not a worthy one, and it contributed to his death. It didn’t contribute to his death because it was fuzzy-minded and idealistic; that’s another point.

GKC

But then what is the point? That he was a bit of a fool?

 

[GKC]

But then what is the point? That he was a bit of a fool?

No. That he worked for cause he believed in, and it contributed to his death. A cause I find unworthy, on its merits, but that he did not. His wife tried to moderate his activities, to no avail, be the merits what they might be.

That’s not the definition of a fool. Any more than his sedentary life style, heavy drinking and smoking, and obesity, which also contributed to his death, define a fool.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

True, but how often do you see people here who assume that to be a serious Catholic, one has to be a conservative?

I thought Chesterton was not a conservative, but rather a reactionary. Which is as close as I can come to explaining to Gurney his massive appeal.

 

[GKC]

I thought Chesterton was not a conservative, but rather a reactionary. Which is as close as I can come to explaining to Gurney his massive appeal.

He was not particularly a reactionary, unless one considers his Roman Catholicism reactionary. He was a Liberal, in his early years (I still believe in Liberalism, but once I also believed in Liberals, as he said) , and was more revolutionary (in his social thinking; i.e. distributism) in his later years. And always a populist.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

He was not particularly a reactionary, unless one considers his Roman Catholicism reactionary.

I was thinking of his rejection of the modern world and modern “thinking” and his admiration for the values and institutions of the middle ages.

I never thought of him as a populist before. That’s interesting.

 

[GKC]

I was thinking of his rejection of the modern world and modern “thinking” and his admiration for the values and institutions of the middle ages.

I never thought of him as a populist before. That’s interesting.

It was of his essence. Try Margaret Canovan’s G.K. CHESTERTON: RADICAL POPULIST, among other stuff.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

It was of his essence. Try Margaret Canovan’s G.K. CHESTERTON: RADICAL POPULIST, among other stuff.

Thanks, GKC!

 

[GKC]

Thanks, GKC!

You are very welcome. I can probably come up with other recommendations, but I’m out the door, to the movies now.

GKC