Paul Ryan Discussion

[manualman]

Edwin, in a LOT of ways you are correct and make great points. But elections are NOT academic debates. American politics revolve around making a choice between (usually) two candidates.

In the process of attempting to persuade people to vote, advocates often attempt switcheroos, deceptions and fals equivalencies. That’s precisely what is happening here. This election season is NOT about any petition to canonize either Ryan or Romney. It is about selecting which leader would do an overall better job for our nation.

As I understand it, catholics are called to evaluate the moral stances of candidates according to the proportionate impact of any problematic position stances they may hold. I share your concern about politicians that seem to have a blind faith in the power of tax cuts to increase total tax revenue and about where the country is headed in regards to spending priorities.

But the fact is that excessive focus on particular issues considered apart from their priority ranking has the effect of making people lose track of what the most serious proportionate impact issues really are. As catholics, I think we’re called to identify the largest crises and prioritize our attention on stopping the national bleeding before we worry about other important, but less immediately pressing issues. This is just the basic logic of triage applied to moral considerations in politics.

My suggestion to folks like you who recognize the seriousness of how abortion is gutting the soul of our nation, but also are concerned about what you feel is long term callousness towards the poor on the part of the supposedly pro-life party is to vote rigidly pro-life for president and Senate and use your House vote to address all other concerns. The House holds the big stick on spending, but has very little influence on abortion policy compared to the other two election factors. Food for thought anyways.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, in a LOT of ways you are correct and make great points. But elections are NOT academic debates.

But elections and theological debates (not just academic debates) intersect, for faithful Christians.

I’m a lot more interested in the theological debate than I am in the election per se.

I do not judge those faithful Christians who “hold their noses” and vote for the lesser of two evils. My concern is with the growing push on the “right” to redefine Catholic social teaching so that voting Republican really isn’t an evil at all.

In the process of attempting to persuade people to vote, advocates often attempt switcheroos, deceptions and fals equivalencies. That’s precisely what is happening here. This election season is NOT about any petition to canonize either Ryan or Romney. It is about selecting which leader would do an overall better job for our nation.

No, the debate has also become about the nature of Catholic social teaching. When two Catholic economists writing in the WSJ can claim that Ryan understands Catholic social teaching better than the bishops, then that’s a claim that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. It has implications far beyond this particular election.

But the fact is that excessive focus on particular issues considered apart from their priority ranking has the effect of making people lose track of what the most serious proportionate impact issues really are. As catholics, I think we’re called to identify the largest crises and prioritize our attention on stopping the national bleeding before we worry about other important, but less immediately pressing issues. This is just the basic logic of triage applied to moral considerations in politics.

You’re vague on what these priorities are, and you seem unreasonably confident that sorting out priorities leads to supporting Ryan.

If you’re alluding to his supposed fiscal responsibility, then I’m not convinced that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are fiscally responsible.

The analysis of this I’ve seen has been from left-wing sources, so I’d like to see a refutation. (The claim on MSNBC was that the tax cuts are actually a lot bigger than the savings.) Contrary to your unjust accusation in the other thread (now closed), I do not listen uncritically to Democratic talking points. When I see a claim made on the left-wing media, I look for a refutation on the other side before making up my mind.

My strong statements about the evils of right-wing Mammon-worship are the result not of listening to MSNBC but of listening to FOX. When I listen to the left, I think, “well, you make some valid points but you’re way over the top.” When I listen to the right, I think, "well, maybe they weren’t so over the top. . . . "

Edwin

 

[Ender]

The piece to which I linked above makes substantive arguments showing ways in which Ryan’s policies conflict with Catholic social teaching.

Identify one or two that seem most compelling to you and let’s see how substantive they are.

The problem is that Rand’s rejection of charity and the common good is central to the specific aspects of her thought for which Ryan has expressed admiration, and that Ryan’s policies then match those specific elements.

It is irrelevant whether any of Ryan’s policies match some of Rand’s - or of the Marquis de Sade - what matters is whether they are or are not outside of Church teaching.

The point made in Dave’s article is that Ryan doesn’t have any specifics for what caring for the poor means.

He does, however, have a specific budget proposal and it is those proposals and those alone for which he is accountable. Which ones violate Church teaching?

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

OK, I’ve now read Michael Sean Winters’ excellent article (to which Dave’s article on the CMT blog linked), and I recommend it highly. (And please, let’s not have guilt-by-association about how he can’t be worth reading if he writes for the NCR. If you have actual evidence that Mr. Winters’ claim to submit to the teaching of the Church is false, then present it.)

Edwin

Winters cites no specifics in detail whatever. All generalities and a sneer, which is typical.

The closest this article comes to specific critiques of the WSJ article and specific features of Ryan’s policies is a bare mention of food stamps, suggesting (quite wrongly) that Ryan intends to do away with this kind of aid altogether. The truth is that he suggested reducing the rate of INCREASE of food stamp funding from about 12% to 8%. The article does not mention that, let alone argue why 12% is somehow morally preferable to 8%, preferring to perpetrate a false impression of what Ryan proposed. Typical again.

Nor did the article distinguish between those things Ryan found admirable in Rand’s writing and those things he does not, himself, espouse, (and says he doesn’t) preferring to tar him from head to foot with the Rand brush in order to create a totally wrong idea about what Ryan thinks about Rand. Again, typical.

Since Winters did not detail how, in actual practice, his own positions are consistent with the teachings of the Church, it’s impossible to say whether they are or are not. He steps rather close to suggesting equivalence between whatever budgetary problems he has with Ryan and abortion. But he then backs away from it, nevertheless suggesting there is moral equivalency between Biden’s (abortion-supporting) “sins” and the vague, non-specific “sins” he invents for Ryan. Not totally typical, but very similar to some of the arguments we see from time to time in here.

Which leaves us back where the WSJ started. Nothing in Ryan’s positions clearly violates any teaching of the Church and can be read as entirely consistent with those teachings. Much in the Democrat positions (abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage”) very definitely and dramatically run counter to the teachings of the Church.

Defending the indefinsible anti-life positions of the Democrat party isn’t easy, and maybe misrepresenting their opponents is the only way they have found to do it.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

That may be so, but I don’t think it is justifiable to say, let’s vote for a guy who will put ideologues in the court, we need more ideologues, I like the ideologues that agree with me, and I don’t like the other ones. What is going on. Sometimes I think this entire country has lost it’s mind.

There is no easy way to solve this other than voting for people who would nominate strict Constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court. The people who are most likely to do this is the GOP.

 

[rlg94086]

There is no easy way to solve this other than voting for people who would nominate** strict Constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court**. The people who are most likely to do this is the GOP.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with wanting a conservative idealogue. It has to do with wanting a Justice who is actually going to follow our Constitution, rather than popular trends and international opinion.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Exactly. It has nothing to do with wanting a conservative idealogue. It has to do with wanting a Justice who is actually going to follow our Constitution, rather than popular trends and international opinion.

Many people don’t understand that the proper place for laws to be passed is the Congress. The problem is we have people on the bench who have to engage in mental gymnastics to say that laws are constitutional.

 

[Contarini]

Winters cites no specifics in detail whatever. All generalities and a sneer, which is typical.

He’s responding to McGurn point by point. The lack of specificity should be laid at the door of the article that “set the agenda”–McGurn’s.

The closest this article comes to specific critiques of the WSJ article and specific features of Ryan’s policies is a bare mention of food stamps, suggesting (quite wrongly) that Ryan intends to do away with this kind of aid altogether.

Again, he’s responding to McGurn. He doesn’t say that Ryan wants to do away with food stamps–he’s responding to McGurn’s claim that “liberals” want to continue “food stamps” ad infinitum without considering the effects of such policies.

Nor did the article distinguish between those things Ryan found admirable in Rand’s writing and those things he does not, himself, espouse, (and says he doesn’t) preferring to tar him from head to foot with the Rand brush in order to create a totally wrong idea about what Ryan thinks about Rand. Again, typical.

The only distinctions Ryan himself has made are that he doesn’t agree with her atheism and her epistemology. He has not, that I’m aware of, named any aspect of her economic/social thought with which he agrees. Hence, it seems clear to me that Ryan is the one who is obfuscating–he’s getting all indignant at being held accountable for his expressed admiration for Rand’s economic/social views, but his “refutation” is to mention unrelated points on which he doesn’t agree with her. This is a shell game.

Since Winters did not detail how, in actual practice, his own positions are consistent with the teachings of the Church, it’s impossible to say whether they are or are not.

But the burden of proof is on the one who asserts. McGurn asserted, uncharitably and unjustly, that “liberal” Catholics who oppose Ryan are themselves dissenters.

He steps rather close to suggesting equivalence between whatever budgetary problems he has with Ryan and abortion.

It’s not merely a “budgetary” problem. This is the Big Lie the right is putting forward about Ryan–that he’s just a pragmatic, fiscally conservative policy wonk. Nonsense. There’s a clear ideology behind Ryan’s budgetary proposals, an ideology that matches his often-expressed enthusiasm for Rand. That’s why Rand is important.

Which leaves us back where the WSJ started. Nothing in Ryan’s positions clearly violates any teaching of the Church and can be read as entirely consistent with those teachings.

Not reasonably, no. Only if you take the huge leap of faith required to think that tax cuts for the rich will help the poor.

Defending the indefinsible anti-life positions of the Democrat party isn’t easy,

But of course Winters isn’t doing that. Neither am I.

Edwin

 

[epan]

What does putting your money in foreign bank accounts have to do with the policies one pursues to get the economy back on track and restore fiscal sanity? This whole Romney offshore banking account is just a red herring/non-issue designed to distract people from the abject failure of the Obama presidency.

Ishii

It is a criminal act, if it constitutes tax evasion, which it usually does.

What a cop out by Dolan at the end of that article.

 

[Ender]

There’s a clear ideology behind Ryan’s budgetary proposals, an ideology that matches his often-expressed enthusiasm for Rand. That’s why Rand is important.

Apparently you don’t believe that turnabout is fair play since what you cautioned Ridgerunner not to do with regard to Mr. Winters is precisely what you’re doing with regard to Mr. Ryan.

“And please, let’s not have guilt-by-association …”

Ender

 

[fix]

OK, I’ve now read Michael Sean Winters’ excellent article (to which Dave’s article on the CMT blog linked), and I recommend it highly. (And please, let’s not have guilt-by-association about how he can’t be worth reading if he writes for the NCR. If you have actual evidence that Mr. Winters’ claim to submit to the teaching of the Church is false, then present it.)

Edwin

It is not guilt by association to point out you linked to a left leaning site that has a link to an even farther left leaning site. Both certainly are not starting out without bias.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Paul Ryan is that arrogant high school/early college kid who read Ayn Rand and suddenly felt like a powerful intellectual. The problem is that he didn’t grow out of it like most do. I was one of them from ages 17-18, but thankfully I grew up. His budget also lacks terribly in detail. It has been condemned by Catholic bishops for a reason, but of course many here don’t want to think about that. The GOP voice matters more than a Church authority figure.

 

[gnjsdad]

It’s not about balancing. It’s about faithfulness.

The false–indeed the deeply dishonest–assumption behind the WSJ’s argument is that anyone who dares to criticize Ryan on social justice must be a dissenter from Church teaching. In other words, a secular political framework has been imposed on Catholicism, and Catholics are required (how dare they do anything else?) to line up on one side or the other.

For a response to Ryan’s defenders, see this article (which links to a more thorough article, apparently, which I have not yet read).

How about trying to follow all the teachings of the Church on social justice, instead of claiming “my dissent isn’t as bad as your dissent”?

Edwin

Both articles are powerful stuff, Edwin. Thanks for posting!

 

[fix]

Paul Ryan is that arrogant high school/early college kid who read Ayn Rand and suddenly felt like a powerful intellectual. The problem is that he didn’t grow out of it like most do. I was one of them from ages 17-18, but thankfully I grew up. His budget also lacks terribly in detail. It has been condemned by Catholic bishops for a reason, but of course many here don’t want to think about that. The GOP voice matters more than a Church authority figure.

One Bishop made a statement about the budget and you think that binds? If that is the standard then we can point out several bishops who have said it is a serious sin to vote for the more pro abortion candidate.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

One Bishop made a statement about the budget and you think that binds? If that is the standard then we can point out several bishops who have said it is a serious sin to vote for the more pro abortion candidate.

Particularly given the past history of that Bishop (with all due respect).

 

[fix]

He does, however, have a specific budget proposal and it is those proposals and those alone for which he is accountable. Which ones violate Church teaching?

Ender

The one’s the left do not like according to their private magisterium.

 

[fix]

Particularly given the past history of that Bishop (with all due respect).

Many times it seems items that are irreformable are called prudential and things that are prudential are called dogma.

 

[manualman]

You’re vague on what these priorities are, and you seem unreasonably confident that sorting out priorities leads to supporting Ryan.

If you’re alluding to his supposed fiscal responsibility, then I’m not convinced that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are fiscally responsible.

I was actually referring more to the literal bleeding going on. Concerned as I am about excesses in republican fiscal priorities, those pale in comparison to the LITERAL ongoing bleeding of 50 million dead human beings with the killing system being enhanced, funded and streamlined more all the time.

I think Ryan DOES have a point that we simply can’t continue to spend far more than what we take in and since there is broad opposition to widespread tax increases and since tax increases on ONLY the rich won’t even DENT the problem, the only solution is to slash spending broadly and ask people to find other ways to help their neighbor instead of demanding that Big Brother do it for them (free, preferably). While I do find his Randian proclivities troubling, I find it necessary in public forums to point out that these failings are literally trivial in comparison to the ongoing bloodbath going on in this nation (and indeed the whole world).

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I was actually referring more to the literal bleeding going on. Concerned as I am about excesses in republican fiscal priorities, those pale in comparison to the LITERAL ongoing bleeding of 50 million dead human beings with the killing system being enhanced, funded and streamlined more all the time.

I think Ryan DOES have a point that we simply can’t continue to spend far more than what we take in and since there is broad opposition to widespread tax increases and since tax increases on ONLY the rich won’t even DENT the problem, the only solution is to slash spending broadly and ask people to find other ways to help their neighbor instead of demanding that Big Brother do it for them (free, preferably). While I do find his Randian proclivities troubling, I find it necessary in public forums to point out that these failings are literally trivial in comparison to the ongoing bloodbath going on in this nation (and indeed the whole world).

Thank you for summarizing this.

People seem to believe the myth that simply raising taxes will somehow get us out of the financial problems our governments find themselves in. There has to be a systemic slashing of budgets across the board. Some people will have to realize that the free ride is over.

 

[manualman]

It’s not merely a “budgetary” problem. This is the Big Lie the right is putting forward about Ryan–that he’s just a pragmatic, fiscally conservative policy wonk. Nonsense. There’s a clear ideology behind Ryan’s budgetary proposals, an ideology that matches his often-expressed enthusiasm for Rand. That’s why Rand is important.

Here’s the problem Edwin. You’re examining Ryan in a vacuum instead in comparison to the alternative. Much as I find “Ayn Rand” (a phony name even) pathetic, I’d still have to vote for her if the only other viable candidate running against her were Margaret Sanger. Face facts, christians will continue to have zero influence on American politics for as long as we fail to prioritize our issues and pick them off in order of seriousness. For decades we’ve all canceled each other out and failed to have the influence we should while smaller, but more organized interest groups vote as a bloc and dictate public policy. There’s a REASON that the entire Democratic Party jumps whenever Planned Parenthood calls. Because they deliver votes. It’s time we stop canceling each other out and start knocking our issues off one by one.

If Ayn Rand herself got elected (rather hard dead) and managed to eliminate ALL government funding for the poor, WE could still go out and feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless. Nobody would stop us. But when Sanger is in charge (as she effectively is now), the power of the state is used to promote abortion instead of to fight it. These two threats just aren’t even in the same universe of severity.