For want of a party

[CatholicLeft]

I think the real reason a party like this hasn’t formed in America has to do with the difference between America’s and Europe’s response to Christianity in recent times.

Someone (Scott Hahn?) that “Europeans know what Christianity is and have rejected it. American’s believe anything they want and call it Christianity.”

I think what that means practically is that starting in the late 1800s, the political left in Europe was explicitly anti-clerical, anti-religious, and atheistic. So, the leftist parties there today that we would compare to the Democrats were explicitly not Christian, and often were against Christianity expressly, including Christian morality. However, the bulk of the people in Europe were much more receptive to socialist/liberal economic policies, so the split really became one of religion and moral issues, with a general consensus on economics.

In this way, you ended up with a atheistic or anti-religious parties on the Left (Labor in Britain, SDU in Germany, etc.) and only slightly less socialistic parties on the center-right that were distinguished by their support for Christian ideas and morals, at least in Catholic countries (i.e., the Christian Democrats in Germany, Italy, Belgium). In Britain and elsewhere in Protestant Europe, even the parties on the right were not particularly religious, but that’s another topic.

In America, on the other hand, with outlier parties such as the communists, socialists, etc. excepted, the two major parties were both “Christian” as far as morals went until 1968. So, the only difference was on economics. Thus, there was no need for a “Christian” liberal/socialist party, because it was effectively the Democrats. The abandonment of Christian morality in an official and express way by a large portion of the political spectrum happened much later in America than in Europe.

In 1968 this changed, but the two parties are so entrenched, it has prevented the development of a Christian left party in America, which explains the dilemma many Catholic progressives and evangelical progressives find themselves in today—a belief system without a political home. I should also add that the Democrats here would never admit they’re not amenable to Christians, as most socialists in Europe would. This is due to the quote from the beginning of my post.

That would be my best guess anyway.

Speaking of other parties, you people do know that there is an entire Catholic socialist movement out there…

On the Catholic side, the Rerum Novarum encyclical letter of Leo XIII (1891) was the starting point of a Teaching on social questions that was expanded and updated all through the 20th century. Though avoiding the word Socialism (as the Socialist movements of the day were anti-religious) the encyclical promotes a kind of corporatism based on social solidarity among the classes with respects for the needs and rights of all. In the more Catholic countries of Europe the encyclical’s teaching was the inspiration that led to the formation of new Christian-inspired Socialist parties.

A number of Christian socialist movements and political parties throughout the world group themselves into the International League of Religious Socialists. It has member organizations in 21 countries representing 200,000 members.

Christian socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is one group for example…anglocatholicsocialism.org/

 

[Awful_Things]

Catholicleft,

Did you have any thoughts regarding my post on minimum wage? Or is there another topic in your list that I should move on to next in my attempt to refute your assertion that “bleeding heart conservatism” does not exist and conservative values are in direct contrast with good social policies.

 

[kristie_m]

You sound like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

You just made my day!!!

 

[CatholicLeft]

Catholicleft,

Did you have any thoughts regarding my post on minimum wage? Or is there another topic in your list that I should move on to next in my attempt to refute your assertion that “bleeding heart conservatism” does not exist and conservative values are in direct contrast with good social policies.

I’m sorry. Like you I’m having a busy day and it might take me some time to produce a response, I think I might have more time tonight if you are willing to wait.

bless you

 

[JPUSC]

You just made my day!!!

 

[jpm1977]

One of the great Catholic thinkers of the past hundred years, G.K. Chesterton had a lot to say about everything, but especially about morals and economics. He was dismayed by the increase in corporatism in his day and he was writing around the turn of the (last) century. In the 1910s, he was decrying the fact that the means of ownership were becoming more and more centralized in corporations, and that trend has only increased. He is worth a read by all Catholics, but especially those with questions about the economy.

As far as the living wage/minimum wage issues, I don’t disagree that raising the minimum wage can eliminate certain very low end jobs that could be filled by low skilled unemployed people, but so can robots and a lot of other things. I think reasonable people of all political stripes can disagree about whether the minimum wage is a good idea at all, but I think we should also consider bigger economic forces at work.

The minimum wage is just the tip of the iceberg. Real incomes for working class people in this country have been stagnant for a long time as costs of housing, health care, etc. have gone up. Those with “knowledge jobs” have been doing well. I’m a lawyer, so I see this first hand. But those with “manual jobs” have not made any economic progress in a long time. My dad is a construction superintendent, so I see this first hand as well. He has been making essentially the same salary in real terms (very little inflation adjustment) for probably ten years or more. Meanwhile, his health care premiums have gone up by probably 400%, so his standard of living has gone down–he guesses–since about 1992. (And he’s a Republican).

That’s one example, but in the global sense, competition from foreign labor is driving down living standards among the lowest skilled workers in developed countries. And I’m not a protectionist, I’m just asking for a level playing field–something every economic conservative should be in favor of.

When the average low skilled wage (not the minimum wage) in the US will get you a cheap apartment with at least heat, water, and appliances, and the ability to keep clothes on your back and food in your fridge, and maybe cable TV and a couple other frills, and the average low skilled wage in China or India will keep you in a cardboard shack with a few cups of rice to feed your family, there is an imbalance.

There is also an imbalance in work conditions. A construction worker in the US gets a hard hat, safety equipment, OSHA standards, and other measures to keep him relatively safe. (And even those are derided as government interference in business). An Indian or Filipino construction worker overseas will probably die on the job within ten years from inadequate safety measures, that is an imbalance too.

When global corporations take advantage of that imbalance to shift jobs overseas to cut costs, that is unfair.

So, I don’t know what the minimum wage should be. Maybe it should be lower, but I think there should be at least a set of comparable labor standards across the globe to correct imbalances that global corporations take advantage of to an unfair degree in a way that degrades and dehumanizes human beings. Unless and until that happens, I think its only fair for the government to keep corporations from taking unfair advantage of imbalances on global treatment of working people. Corporations are creatures of the law. They only exist because the law allows them to, so there’s no reason not to use the law to have them work for the benefit of us all, rather than against us.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’m sorry. Like you I’m having a busy day and it might take me some time to produce a response, I think I might have more time tonight if you are willing to wait.

bless you

Of course. Thank you for intending to avoid a superficial reply. I hope (and think) you understand that I have no desire to debate minimum wage or any other issue with you. You are welcome to argue every point in my post. My hope, though, is that while you may completely disagree with me as to what end such legislation as minimum wage and socialized healthcare bring, conservatives can very much have a “bleeding heart” and still completely disagree with the means by which the poor and undereducated, etc. are helped.

 

[Awful_Things]

You mean more important then this pesky poverty issue that we are discussing right now?

I think so.

You know, that issue that Jesus must of spoke about maybe a zillion times?

You don’t believe, then, that Catholics should give honor to Mary?

After all, the numbers argument is exactly the same one that Protestants use to criticize our emphasis on Mary, arguing that her name appears so seldomly in Scripture compared to other figures, she must not be that important. Is this the same argument you are using to put fighting poverty as the highest goal?

 

[mpi]

You mean more important then this pesky poverty issue that we are discussing right now? You know, that issue that Jesus must of spoke about maybe a zillion times?

"Poverty"in the US is a joke. Michelle Obama was at a soup kitchen for the “poor” - who were taking pictures of her using their cell phones. Greed is here in the US - among our “poor”.

 

[jpm1977]

"Poverty"in the US is a joke. Michelle Obama was at a soup kitchen for the “poor” - who were taking pictures of her using their cell phones. Greed is here in the US - among our “poor”.

I don’t disagree that the poor in the US are very rich by global standards, but just because people can afford cheap electronics doesn’t mean they aren’t poor. Things are much more expensive in the US too.

If you can’t afford to adequately clothe your children, or put healthy food on the table, or adequately heat the house, or transport your family to work, school, and church, and if you can’t afford to save any money or send your children to college, or to pay for even emergency health care for yourself and your family, you are poor. There are many, many poor people in the US.

I admit many poor people of all backgrounds waste money on stupid purchases of status symbols and the like, and that is in large part, why many are poor. But not all.

To call it a “joke” is to minimize the very difficult lives that many poor people in this country lead. Sometimes I fear that a modern “greed is good” philosophy has caused many people and many Christians too to view the poor with disdain and contempt. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Awful_Things]

One of the great Catholic thinkers of the past hundred years, G.K. Chesterton … [edited to fit into one post] …He is worth a read by all Catholics, but especially those with questions about the economy.

Chesterton was, indeed, a great thinker in several areas. He is, though, one great thinker among many, and the consensus is not unanimous.

As far as the living wage/minimum wage issues, I don’t disagree that raising the minimum wage can eliminate certain very low end jobs

And also some jobs that are not so low end. It has happened at my place of employment. Minimum wage, after all, has the tendency to push up everything above it.

that could be filled by low skilled unemployed people, but so can robots and a lot of other things.

So why add insult to injury?

The minimum wage is just the tip of the iceberg. Real incomes for working class people in this country have been stagnant for a long time as costs of housing, health care, etc. have gone up. Those with “knowledge jobs” have been doing well. I’m a lawyer, so I see this first hand. But those with “manual jobs” have not made any economic progress in a long time. My dad is a construction superintendent, so I see this first hand as well. He has been making essentially the same salary in real terms (very little inflation adjustment) for probably ten years or more. Meanwhile, his health care premiums have gone up by probably 400%, so his standard of living has gone down–he guesses–since about 1992. (And he’s a Republican).

No doubt, but I believe that the intervention of government can be found at the root of this disparity. Greed, also, but as Uncle Miltie pointed out in the video clip I posted above, greed will exist in any system of government and with any philosophy of disbursement. I would argue that it is the intervention of government that has unleashed that greed, rather than harnessed it through free market, which has resulted in healthcare and other costs going up disproportionately to his income. I hope to be able to demonstrate this in my sequence of responses to Catholicleft, but I will wait until he responds to my last post so as not to appear to “shotgun” my reply to him.

That’s one example, but in the global sense, competition from foreign labor is driving down living standards among the lowest skilled workers in developed countries. And I’m not a protectionist, I’m just asking for a level playing field–something every economic conservative should be in favor of.

I don’t agree here, and I will point out why below. I believe, actually, that it is quite the opposite.

When the average low skilled wage (not the minimum wage) in the US will get you a … [edited to fit into one post] … that is an imbalance too.

When global corporations take advantage of that imbalance to shift jobs overseas to cut costs, that is unfair.

I don’t think your conclusion follows from the premise. You stated earlier that these corporations seeking low-skilled labor are driving down standards of living, but that doesn’t make sense.

Let us suppose two scenarios. Let us suppose that these companies do not chose to exploit labor in a third world country and, therefore, do not locate there. Would the condition of those companies be better somehow with the companies simply gone? Does it drive down the standard of living for people to receive a low wage over no wage at all?

Similarly, let us say we passed some global requirement that any corporation, no matter where located, must pay a minimum wage of, to chose a random about, the US equivelant of $7.50. So, a company that relocates to a third world country would need to pay the workers there the same as if that company had located in Germany, the US, or France. What, then, would the company’s motivation be for locating in that third world country? The fine cuisine? So, again, we have robbed that country of the opportunity to have any opportunity at all.

So, I don’t know what the minimum wage should be. Maybe it should be lower, but I think there should be at least a set of comparable labor standards across the globe to correct imbalances that global corporations take advantage of to an unfair degree in a way that degrades and dehumanizes human beings.

Again, why should there then be any motivation to locate to those areas in the first place? By setting that standard, you’ve taken jobs away from those third world residents.

Unless and until that happens, I think its only fair for the government to keep corporations from taking unfair advantage of imbalances on global treatment of working people. Corporations are creatures of the law. They only exist because the law allows them to, so there’s no reason not to use the law to have them work for the benefit of us all, rather than against us.

But laws only exist because people allow them too. And the laws are created by those in public office. And those in public office are as susceptible to greed (if not more) than some “greedy” CEO. The only difference is that those in public office are not kept in check by competition. I can point to example after example of countries where the power shift from a central government to the industry has brought the country and its people out of abject poverty. I cannot think of examples where shifting from corporations to government has brought the same result.

 

[mpi]

I don’t disagree that the poor in the US are very rich by global standards, but just because people can afford cheap electronics doesn’t mean they aren’t poor. Things are much more expensive in the US too.

If you can’t afford to adequately clothe your children, or put healthy food on the table, or adequately heat the house, or transport your family to work, school, and church, and if you can’t afford to save any money or send your children to college, or to pay for even emergency health care for yourself and your family, you are poor. There are many, many poor people in the US.

I admit many poor people of all backgrounds waste money on stupid purchases of status symbols and the like, and that is in large part, why many are poor. But not all.

To call it a “joke” is to minimize the very difficult lives that many poor people in this country lead. Sometimes I fear that a modern “greed is good” philosophy has caused many people and many Christians too to view the poor with disdain and contempt. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

healthy food? Food is sufficient.

You make going to college sound like a “right”. I respectfully feel that your opinion is disgusting.

 

[Awful_Things]

I was surprised to see no response from Catholicleft after last night. While I didn’t expect to see a detailed rebuttal to my post, I was hoping he would at least apologize for implying that conservatives are heartless and their policies are intentionally designed to harm the poor. As busy as he claims to be, I think there is always room for a quick apology.

But nothing, not even a sarcastic or a , such as he enjoys peppering his posts with.

So, moving on from minimum wage, I thought it would be time to move to another item on his litany of conservative policies that he doesn’t think help all of society: deficit spending.

This is an easy one, because deficit spending isn’t a conservative platform, so there is no need to defend it. This is what is called a red herring. Have there been Republican presidents who have engaged in deficit spending? Sure. But … so have Democrat presidents, and I would say the participation from that side has, at the least, been equal.

But that distinction does not matter to me because I don’t consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, but a conservative. And those times when Republicans have engaged in deficit spending have been when they have drifted from conservative values.

I wish this president, the last president, the president before him, etc. would stop. I would agree with Catholicleft that it is harmful, but not just to the poor, but to all of us.

The only response I hope to have from Catholicleft on this one is his explanation or documentation as to why he feels that “deficit spending” (see post #8) is a conservative platform. Once again it seems like an unfair attack on people with whom he disagrees.

 

[aspawloski4th]

healthy food? Food is sufficient.

You make going to college sound like a “right”. I respectfully feel that your opinion is disgusting.

Please elaborate on why you think college is not a right. I think it’s byond that and should be a requirement.

 

[Michael96]

I couldn’t agree more that we DO need such a party. I am a self proclaimed, bleeding heart conservative! I am pro-life, and anti-execution. I believe in traditional marriage, restorative justice, feeding the hungry, fixing our schools, looking after the elderly, saving the planet and being fiscally responsible. Where’s MY party?

That would be a cool party

 

[Awful_Things]

Please elaborate on why you think college is not a right. I think it’s byond that and should be a requirement.

I think the burden of proof is on he who proposes it is a right. Where is that right given to us? It isn’t a natural right, as higher education isn’t necessary for basic survival. It isn’t a constitutional right (or even mentioned in the constitution) nationally or in any state. It isn’t even a biblical right. Christ nor the inspired authors never exhault higher learning as a virtue.

I also think, to suppose it must be required, is insulting to the great tradition of apprenticeships and vocational education that have long provided the backbone of our society. Is there something dishonerable with a young man following in his father’s footsteps and, after high school, going into the carpentry trade?

There is something to be said for wisdom and knowledge, but I know plenty of people who never went to college who have both and plenty who did go to college who have neither.

 

[jpm1977]

healthy food? Food is sufficient.

You make going to college sound like a “right”. I respectfully feel that your opinion is disgusting.

Adding “respectfully” doesn’t make your response respectful.

May I ask how often you confront poverty in America in your daily life? Next time you pass a homeless person on the street who isn’t even wearing shoes, ask yourself if his poverty is a “joke”.

 

[jpm1977]

I think the burden of proof is on he who proposes it is a right. Where is that right given to us? It isn’t a natural right, as higher education isn’t necessary for basic survival. It isn’t a constitutional right (or even mentioned in the constitution) nationally or in any state. It isn’t even a biblical right. Christ nor the inspired authors never exhault higher learning as a virtue.

I also think, to suppose it must be required, is insulting to the great tradition of apprenticeships and vocational education that have long provided the backbone of our society. Is there something dishonerable with a young man following in his father’s footsteps and, after high school, going into the carpentry trade?

There is something to be said for wisdom and knowledge, but I know plenty of people who never went to college who have both and plenty who did go to college who have neither.

I’m not saying its a right, but it is a good idea to promote it. If everyone who had the brains to go to college could go, regardless of the financial ability, we would all benefit. They would get jobs that would pay more money, they would pay more in taxes as a result, which would alleviate the deficit. They would earn more money to buy more “stuff” that would stimulate the economy. They would be able to give more to the church and other charities. They might invent new technologies that would improve our standard of living.

Not too long ago, those who couldn’t afford to go to college were mired in jobs for which they were overqualified. Conservatives then opposed federal grants for education, opposed student loans guaranteed by the government. Some even opposed the GI Bill as “socialism” I’m sure, but look at what its done for our country.

Can anyone debate that our society would be better off if more people had access to education? Not just 4 year colleges, but trade schools, vo/tech, etc?

We can debate how that could be financed (student loans, grants, government subsidies, no subsidies and on and on), but can’t we agree that its a good thing if people have better job skills and education?

 

[jpm1977]

I think the burden of proof is on he who proposes it is a right. Where is that right given to us? It isn’t a natural right, as higher education isn’t necessary for basic survival. It isn’t a constitutional right (or even mentioned in the constitution) nationally or in any state. It isn’t even a biblical right. Christ nor the inspired authors never exhault higher learning as a virtue.

I also think, to suppose it must be required, is insulting to the great tradition of apprenticeships and vocational education that have long provided the backbone of our society. Is there something dishonerable with a young man following in his father’s footsteps and, after high school, going into the carpentry trade?

There is something to be said for wisdom and knowledge, but I know plenty of people who never went to college who have both and plenty who did go to college who have neither.

As far as apprenticeships, that’s a nice thing, but its also a thing of the past. Can a father take his son under his arm and teach him to be a computer programmer? Probably, but what if his son doesn’t like computer programming? What if he’s no good at it? What if his calling is to be an English professor, or a lawyer or something that his father knows nothing about? Skills today are specialized. It seems to me that to just yearn for a return to guilds or apprenticeships is not a response to the problem of the lack of eduction.

In fairness, this should probably be a new thread, though. I think this one has run its course.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’m not saying its a right

Actually, you did. When mpi said it was not a right, you challenged him by asking him to “Please elaborate on why you think college is not a right. I think it’s byond that.”

If everyone who had the brains to go to college could go, regardless of the financial ability, we would all benefit.

You are begging the question and assuming that college would necessarily make the best use of those brains. Some of our most intelligent contributors to society did not go to college or high school. Would you like a list? I’m not saying college is necessarily bad, but refuting your promotion of it as universally good.

They would get jobs that would pay more money,

I went to college and grad school and make less than two of my cousins who did neither. I’m not complaining - perfectly happy with my station in life.

they would pay more in taxes as a result, which would alleviate the deficit.

You have some analysis to back that up?

They might invent new technologies that would improve our standard of living.

Yes, because Henry Ford’s inovations with automobile manufacturing, and Einstein’s theories were a direct result of their college education, right?

Not too long ago, those who couldn’t afford to go to college were mired in jobs for which they were overqualified. Conservatives then opposed federal grants for education, opposed student loans guaranteed by the government. Some even opposed the GI Bill as “socialism” I’m sure, but look at what its done for our country.

Yes, look at what it’s done.

Can anyone debate that our society would be better off if more people had access to education? Not just 4 year colleges, but trade schools, vo/tech, etc?

Nobody is denying people should have access to, but not a right to.

We can debate how that could be financed (student loans, grants, government subsidies, no subsidies and on and on), but can’t we agree that its a good thing if people have better job skills and education?

Sure, I just disagree that 1) those things necessarily come through college alone and 2) that, just because it is a good thing, we must guarantee it. Upon what is that principle based?