Connection between "leftist" economic policy and moral decline?

[Seeker1961]

Moral decline has a many parents, I don’t think you can place blame in any one area.

 

[Kaninchen]

I was wondering if my observations here are correct so let me just ask others, do you notice any correlations between economic policies (like land redistribution and income redistribution, etc) and moral decline (like a decrease in sexual mores)?

It’s all a rather one-dimensional view of things - I would suggest that it’s more like the concept of the ‘perfect storm’.

In the last few decades there has taken place a rapid economic/technical/industrial revolution that has fundamentally changed who works, how we work, where we work, the homes we live in, how we communicate, how we spend out spare time, how we relate to one another, how we disperse geographically within our societies and so on and so on. There’s been nothing like it since the original Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions which began in late 18th century England (the results of which were also met with moral panic wherever they spread).

Of course, one can add in the attitudes of various people one may consider more, or less, naughty but, if one loses the context of social disruption/social complexity brought on by everything else . . . .

 

[Zosimus41]

Shoot, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t win a primary in today’s GOP -his own actions as president would disqualify him.

Moral decline has a many parents, I don’t think you can place blame in any one area.

Theres a lot of people that brag on and compare themselves to Roald Reagon including Barrack Hussein Obama however when Reagan was in office he was not an extraordinarily well-regarded president during his eight years in office. He averaged a 53% job approval rating during his presidency, slightly below average for all U.S. presidents for which Gallup has recorded job approval ratings.

Funny how we see things 20/20 while looking in the rearview!

I guess Obama makes Reagan look like a hero.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

*The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Certain Congressmen and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to the administration, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico* in his thought–provoking new book, The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society. In The Moral Case for a Free Economy, Father Sirico shows:Why we can’t have freedom without a free economy and why the best way to help the poor is to a start a businessWhy charity works—but welfare doesn’tHow Father Sirico himself converted from being a leftist colleague of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden to recognizing the merits of a free economyIn this heated presidential election year, the Left will argue that capitalism may produce winners, but it is cruel and unfair. But as Sirico proves in The Moral Case for a Free Economy, capitalism does not simply provide opportunity for material success, but it ensures a more ethical and moral society as well.

I have found online book reviews by other Catholic scholars and priests who say that Father Sirico views are imbalanced and ultimately not in accord with Catholic Social Doctrine. Father Sirico is sincere and is passionate about his views. But many say that he is out of line with many of his claims and assertions. To me, this is why it is SO important to read for oneself the original and authentic Catholic Social Doctrine documents, rather than having them filtered and interpreted by various persons claiming to be “experts.” I think people are sometimes afraid to read the original papal encyclicals. They think they won’t be able to understand them. Or, they want someone else to summarize it all quickly for them. But the truth is, unless you read the original documents yourself, you are vulnerable to being mislead and manipulated by politically oriented people on both the Right and the Left, and by people who are just not really the experts that they think they are.