Rebuttal of the myth that Catholics can fully embrace either political conservatism or liberalism, by a Franciscan University of Steubenville professo

[Swiss_Guy]

. But if he is painting all political conservatives with the “laissez faire all the way” brush, then he has done Catholics a major disservice

Indeed. This isn’t the 1890’s.

 

[austenbosten]

Getting back to Professor Krason’s comments and suggestions for conservatives, what suggestions of Professor Krason’s do conservative apologists think have some merit?
(I personally am pessimistic of any of these suggestions ever being acted upon).

What, in brief, would this mean in terms of general policy approaches? First, on economics conservatives should follow the mid-twentieth-century Catholic scholars and writers who called for a kind of “enlightened self-regulation” in place of governmental micromanagement. This would be done by codes of conduct that different industries would be nudged by government to adopt on matters such a wages, treatment of employees, quality of goods and services, and even—treading carefully here—pricing. This was attempted during FDR’s First New Deal.

Which has all failed. Price controls do not work and numerous studies and real-life scenarios prove such. Government entities hardly ever regulate the corporations they are supposed to, in fact they are usually in bed with them. Case-in-point the SEC, FDA, FDIC ect.

It’s not that Conservatives are against regulation, it is that from our conclusion based on the evidence. Regulation works best when the market is left to itself without unecessary government interference.

Second, conservatives have to “get real” in how they understand big corporations. The standards applied to small business cannot also be applied to therm. As some Catholic writers used to say, big economic enterprises are for all practical purposes quasi-public entities. The common good is often profoundly affected by their actions. When a company decides to move a factory to keep their stock prices high and causes economic dislocations for a community and a substantial number of people, conservatives can hardly just look the other way in the name of “the laws of the market.” Nor should they hold that government should permit easy consolidation and mergers, when this is likely to lead to the dangers of monopoly. Instead of laissez faire, conservatives should embrace something like economic populism.

As in how the Democrats “understood” the small businesses when they implemented Obamacare that only big businesses could tolerate?

As for mergers and consolidations, I don’t know of any conservative movement be in favor of monopolies. The reason we Conservatives were against TARP and the Auto bailouts was because it was going to promote oligopolies.

As for looking the “other way” would you not see the opposite side of that situation? If that company decided to keep the factory open here’s what would happen.

• Factory would go on losing money
• Stock price dip
• Prices remain high compared to competitors
• Stock price fall
• Company moves factory but it’s too late
• Stock tanks
• The company becomes insolvent and everyone loses out.

What I’m trying to say, is that these things are a little more complex than this author would lead you to believe.

Third, while conservatives need to constantly continue to emphasize that self-initiative is central—as Pope Paul VI said, we should not encourage the indolent—they must also both show in their rhetoric and practice that they believe that some people need help. While they must—in the best educative tradition of politics—intensify their efforts to explain why massive, Great Society-type government programs have proven to be inadequate and ineffective and are financially unsustainable, they also must stop believing that people can just be left to fend for themselves. Men are not isolated individuals adrift from community in some kind of Hobbesian state of nature. Rather, conservatives should use government to encourage and make as easy as possible the building up of civil society—networks of voluntary organizations, many of which would probably be religious-based—to help those in need. The conservative approach, then, should be one of calling for decisively scaling down the governmental role, but with something solid and reliable to replace it. They should also continue to stress that there always has to be a government safety net as a back-up.

No Conservative believes that people should be left to fend for themselves. Once again this author has a skewed and warped view on Conservatism.

Fourth, conservatives also need to scale down their unrealistic expectations of the market and to recognize, as the Church does, that it cannot supply all needs. In other words, they need to be more attentive to the traditional economic notion of “merit goods.” This basic belief is crucial to building up a vigorous civil society. Conservatives should realize that such things as health care and education do not work well in the for-profit sector. By not opposing such developments, conservatives are easily viewed by the public as for corporate advantage and “against the people.”

Says who? This author? I would love for him to try and justify that our education is better now thanks in part to more government. Sadly the facts and data disagree with the author.

Fifth, while conservatives must forcefully reject the increasing leftist and pro-social democracy tilt of the national labor leadership and the excessive demands of public employee unions, they must aggressively advocate for the legitimate cause of workers. They must show by their actions, again, that they have abandoned laissez faire. As Pope Leo XIII said way back in Rerum Novarum, legislation is needed to avoid the possibilities of labor-management conflict. The statist, quasi-socialist agenda of the left reflects an abstract, ideologically-driven way of thinking that is out of sinc with the situation of most workers, but so does the lingering laissez faire, classical liberal thinking of many conservatives.

Once again this author acts as though he is speaking to the RNC Convention of 1920. Once again tell me what Conservative supports worker oppression?

Finally, conservatives need to understand—as Aristotle did—that wealth maldistribution is not something to be ignored. They need to think more of how it can be mitigated without conducting a “war on the rich” like the left does.

Correct and the places with the most maldistribution of wealth? Places where the government dominates. The facts and data once again rejects much of this author’s claim. One of which is the simple GDP per capita rate. Which proves it is better to be a poor man in America, than a middle-class one in Cuba.

As for mitigation, it’s a contemporary economic myth. I suggest any malcontent watch this video to learn about income mobility.

The free-market works, but sadly men like this author still believe in utopia. That if only we did this or do that, or if the government made this law things would be good. However time and time again it proves that governments do a very poor job making things fair.

I really think this author makes the mistake of generalizing Conservatism by use of Liberal stereotypes and vice versa, instead of actually learning what each political thought entails and whether or not they are justified in their views. This essay is effective for the layman who knows nothing about both parties and economics, but those who have been a member of both ends of the spectrum and has a level of knowledge of economics, one can clearly dismiss this essay.

 

[mercytruth]

To Ridgerunner:

It seems the only suggestion you can agree with Professor Krason is the one which you apparently refute by implying that we already have a redistribution of wealth in a way that does not work.

Professor Krason was speaking of the **maldistribution **of wealth, and how it should not be ignored. That is, the majority of the wealth of this nation is being accumulated in the hands of fewer people…something that is equivalent to the ‘robber baron days’ of Republican President Teddy Rooselvelt, who ran on the platform of greater federal income taxation towards the rich. Republican President Rooselvelt knew that an oligarchy of the wealthy is contrary to the ideals of a democratic republic.

To diehard, always right, never wrong, conservatives:

I seriously do not want to communicate politics, nor economics. My own Catholic family is divided over politics. I actually detest politics, there is nothing Catholic, nor Christian about them today. These systems are doomed for failure…I am looking and praying for God’s will and kingdom to come to this earth through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace.

 

[austenbosten]

The Republicans love Exxon and Haliburton. They believe in the free market for the big guys to move hedge funds around and specualte on currencies at will.
If ever you try an dobject they say you are a communist who wishes to interfere with the market. Greed is as much a deadly sin as lust.
That is how it comes across as a non American but hey believe what you will.

And Conservatism DOES NOT equal Republican Party. Stop making ridiculous generalizations.

It may come across as that to a non-American if the lie keeps getting repeated…anything can be made the truth. People once thought the moon was made of cheese for goodness sakes.

 

[austenbosten]

It seems the only suggestion you can agree with Professor Krason is the one which you apparently refute by implying that we already have a redistribution of wealth in a way that does not work.

Professor Krason was speaking of the **maldistribution **of wealth, and how it should not be ignored. That is, the majority of the wealth of this nation is being accumulated in the hands of fewer people…something that is equivalent to the ‘robber baron days’ of Republican President Teddy Rooselvelt, who ran on the platform of greater federal income taxation towards the rich. Republican President Roosekvelt knew that an oligarchy of the wealthy is contrary to the ideals of a democratic republic.

I seriously do not want to communicate politics, nor economics. My own Catholic family is divided over politics. I actually detest politics, there is nothing Catholic, nor Christian about them today. These systems are doomed for failure…I am looking and praying for God’s will and kingdom to come to this earth through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace.

And might I ask who Professor Krason believes should have that wealth?

I agree that I am too disgusted by the level of extravagance by some of the rich, however does that justify the government confiscating their wealth so that they the politicians can live extravagant? Better yet, what does Mr. Krason think about the poor and middle class who live grossly beyond their means by way of credit cards and refinancing so they can buy the newest stuff? The rich aren’t the only sinners in town.

I would propose that instead of Catholics getting lazy and expecting the government to do the job. Catholics get out there and start getting converts/re-verts and start pushing the rich Catholics to tithe their money and be charitable and responsible with it. Here’s why…

• Since the advent of SS has Americans been better at saving and planning for retirement?
• Since the advent of Medicare, has Americans been better at keeping their health?
• Since the advent of Food Stamps, has Americans been more resourceful in growing their own food?
• Since the advent of the Dept of Education, has America’s education gotten any better?

All these answers I find to be no, because when someone is given assurance that “this or that” will be done for them they really believe it. If we want the rich to be more responsible with their money then we have to demand all people to be more responsible with their money. We cannot just set up some tax system or law, or government agency and just walk away.

 

[mercytruth]

And might I ask who Professor Krason believes should have that wealth?

I agree that I am too disgusted by the level of extravagance by some of the rich, however does that justify the government confiscating their wealth so that they the politicians can live extravagant? Better yet, what does Mr. Krason think about the poor and middle class who live grossly beyond their means by way of credit cards and refinancing so they can buy the newest stuff? The rich aren’t the only sinners in town.

I would propose that instead of Catholics getting lazy and expecting the government to do the job. Catholics get out there and start getting converts/re-verts and start pushing the rich Catholics to tithe their money and be charitable and responsible with it. Here’s why…

• Since the advent of SS has Americans been better at saving and planning for retirement?
• Since the advent of Medicare, has Americans been better at keeping their health?
• Since the advent of Food Stamps, has Americans been more resourceful in growing their own food?
• Since the advent of the Dept of Education, has America’s education gotten any better?

All these answers I find to be no, because when someone is given assurance that “this or that” will be done for them they really believe it. If we want the rich to be more responsible with their money then we have to demand all people to be more responsible with their money. We cannot just set up some tax system or law, or government agency and just walk away.

This is my last communication with you regarding economics, or politics. It is my contention that corporate capitalism by its very nature is a servant of ‘mammon’. Notice, I did not write, ‘capitalism’, but corporate capatilism. Once again, I quote the economist, Milton Freidman, “the only purpose of business is to generate profit to the shareholder”.

Shareholders normally invest their money for a greater return on their investment, namely for more money. When we are commanded by Jesus “to lay up treasures in heaven, where neither moth, nor rust corrupt and thieves do not break through and steal.”

Our whole economic system of ‘corporate capitalism’ is geared toward the pursuit of mammon.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Republicans love Exxon and Haliburton. They believe in the free market for the big guys to move hedge funds around and specualte on currencies at will.
If ever you try an dobject they say you are a communist who wishes to interfere with the market. Greed is as much a deadly sin as lust.
That is how it comes across as a non American but hey believe what you will.

I think it’s a major stretch to assert that “Republicans love Exxon and Haliburton”. Undoubtedly, some don’t. But if you look at Exxon, for example, why does it have a 2.69% yield and a P/E of only 10 if it’s so favored and beloved?

True, it does produce a lot of oil and gas, for which anybody who drives his car or heats his home should be grateful.

And hedge funds that speculate in currencies? My goodness, man, the robber baron of them all is George Soros, who threw the “Asian Tigers” into depression and looted the Bank of England and bragged about it. He’s Obama’s main backer and the financier for virtually every pro-Obama and left wing web site. Soros is also anti-religion and anti-U.S.

I think you’re after the wrong target here, pardner.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Once again, I quote the economist, Milton Freidman, “the only purpose of business is to generate profit to the shareholder”.

There is nothing in this statement, that is necessarily against Catholic Social Teaching. In fact, pursuing profits for the shareholders is a just thing. The problem is that when corporations become large it is not clear whether corporate managements are serving the shareholders or themselves. There is a conflict of interest that arises when there is the separation of ownership from control of the corporation. The above also presupposes that the managers of the corporation are acting ethically as well. Profit maximization is not desirable if people are cheating to get those profits.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To Ridgerunner:

It seems the only suggestion you can agree with Professor Krason is the one which you apparently refute by implying that we already have a redistribution of wealth in a way that does not work.

Professor Krason was speaking of the **maldistribution **of wealth, and how it should not be ignored. That is, the majority of the wealth of this nation is being accumulated in the hands of fewer people…something that is equivalent to the ‘robber baron days’ of Republican President Teddy Rooselvelt, who ran on the platform of greater federal income taxation towards the rich. Republican President Rooselvelt knew that an oligarchy of the wealthy is contrary to the ideals of a democratic republic.

To diehard, always right, never wrong, conservatives:

I seriously do not want to communicate politics, nor economics. My own Catholic family is divided over politics. I actually detest politics, there is nothing Catholic, nor Christian about them today. These systems are doomed for failure…I am looking and praying for God’s will and kingdom to come to this earth through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace.

I’m not sure we actually disagree in most respects. But I would disagree that some peoples’ having wealth somehow causes others not to have it, except in those societies in which government actively intervenes for the sake of a few; the “banana republic” way.

What is wrong with advocating for greater acquisition of wealth on the part of those who don’t already have it, without grabbing it out of the hands of those who have already done so? No respectable economist says seizure of assets is necessary to the acquisition of wealth by ordinary people.

What is wrong with allowing those who do want to acquire productive assets for themselves and their families to keep more of what they earn? It’s really hard to do that now because of taxation at all levels. I know. I’m not wealthy, but I have acquired some productive assets in my time, and the most difficult part of doing it is the level of tax I had to pay along the way. The second most difficult part of it has been the sudden and arbitrary decision of some governmental functionary to change the rules of the game for political reasons.

And parenthetically, I think if you really research FDR’s record, you will find that he served the “oligarchies” very well, and to the detriment of the small business people and small investors. FDR talked the talk, but he most assuredly did not walk the walk.

 

[mercytruth]

There is nothing in this statement, that is necessarily against Catholic Social Teaching. In fact, pursuing profits for the shareholders is a just thing. The problem is that when corporations become large it is not clear whether corporate managements are serving the shareholders or themselves. There is a conflict of interest that arises when there is the separation of ownership from control of the corporation. The above also presupposes that the managers of the corporation are acting ethically as well. Profit maximization is not desirable if people are cheating to get those profits.

If Milton Freidman had said, 'the purpose of" , rather than ‘the **sole **purpose’, then there would be nothing against Catholic Social Teaching. But, to be fair to Milton Freidman, I do not know if he meant to say ‘sole purpose’.

The truth is in the pudding, we have too many corporate CEO’s who fix the books , disregard fair labor laws, disregard pollution controls in order to keep shareholders, or they fill their own pockets for themselves.

The thing about corporate capitalism in a consumer economy is that it creates a new addiction every 30 seconds.

 

[austenbosten]

There is nothing in this statement, that is necessarily against Catholic Social Teaching. In fact, pursuing profits for the shareholders is a just thing. The problem is that when corporations become large it is not clear whether corporate managements are serving the shareholders or themselves. There is a conflict of interest that arises when there is the separation of ownership from control of the corporation. The above also presupposes that the managers of the corporation are acting ethically as well. Profit maximization is not desirable if people are cheating to get those profits.

Exactly!

Corporations have several responsibilities:

• Ensure delivery of a quality product or service to customers
• Ensure a profit is made
• Ensure that the employees are adequately treated (though that does not mean they are forced, labor has the right to reject their labor to the employer if the employer seeks to abuse the employee)
• Ensure that the profit is delivered to the shareholders who many are employees for the corporation and others investing for their retirement.

Failure to do so will lead to a corporation’s demise.

 

[austenbosten]

If Milton Freidman had said, 'the purpose of" , rather than ‘the **sole **purpose’, then there would be nothing against Catholic Social Teaching. But, to be fair to Milton Freidman, I do not know if he meant to say ‘sole purpose’.

The truth is in the pudding, we have too many corporate CEO’s who fix the books , disregard fair labor laws, disregard pollution controls in order to keep shareholders, or they fill their own pockets for themselves.

The thing about corporate capitalism in a consumer economy is that it creates a new addiction every 30 seconds.

And governments are guilty of the same thing, as to corporations creating addictions…you seem to leave out the consumer. Consumers have a choice whether or not to buy a product.

You seem to ignore, that it is the coveting of goods that is the sin, not the institution of corporations. People who live by the law of “keeping up with the Jones’s” are committing the sin, not the corporation that sells a product.

 

[mercytruth]

And governments are guilty of the same thing, as to corporations creating addictions…you seem to leave out the consumer. Consumers have a choice whether or not to buy a product.

You seem to ignore, that it is the coveting of goods that is the sin, not the institution of corporations. People who live by the law of “keeping up with the Jones’s” are committing the sin, not the corporation that sells a product.

We are a nation that is addicted to addictions. I see with my own eyes what happens to immigrant refugee families who come to this country and come under the spell of television and radio. They lose their ‘innocence of simple life styles’ and become addicted to our ways. Corporations push coveting through their national and multi-national advertising, never forget that. As the scriptures say of Babylon, “she has made all the nations drunk with her madness”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We are a nation that is addicted to addictions. I see with my own eyes what happens to immigrant refugee families who come to this country and come under the spell of television and radio. They lose their ‘innocence of simple life styles’ and become addicted to our ways. Corporations push coveting through their national and multi-national advertising, never forget that. As the scriptures say of Babylon, “she has made all the nations drunk with her madness”.

I have observed a similar effect on “hillbilly” families who come to cities from the country.

The Popes have equally condemned big business tendency to entice people to waste their wealth on trifles, and big government which encourages philosophical dependency as well as physical dependency.

 

[austenbosten]

We are a nation that is addicted to addictions. I see with my own eyes what happens to immigrant refugee families who come to this country and come under the spell of television and radio. They lose their ‘innocence of simple life styles’ and become addicted to our ways. Corporations push coveting through their national and multi-national advertising, never forget that. As the scriptures say of Babylon, “she has made all the nations drunk with her madness”.

All nations suffer from addictions. Name me this perfect utopia where everyone is perfect and everyone is innocent and noone suffers from faults and sin.

You seem to have an intolerable hatred of corporations. I am bombarded with those same messages and I see my peers getting car loans for new cars after graduating college with student debt…do I do the same? No…in fact I plan on keeping my car until the wheels fall off.

I don’t hate the man who wants a bigger house, I worry about my own life instead of getting bitter about other people’s purchases.

 

[austenbosten]

I have observed a similar effect on “hillbilly” families who come to cities from the country.

The Popes have equally condemned big business tendency to entice people to waste their wealth on trifles, and big government which encourages philosophical dependency as well as physical dependency.

Especially when they strike some Texas tea and come to Beverly Hills

 

[mercytruth]

All nations suffer from addictions. Name me this perfect utopia where everyone is perfect and everyone is innocent and noone suffers from faults and sin.

You seem to have an intolerable hatred of corporations. I am bombarded with those same messages and I see my peers getting car loans for new cars after graduating college with student debt…do I do the same? No…in fact I plan on keeping my car until the wheels fall off.

I don’t hate the man who wants a bigger house, I worry about my own life instead of getting bitter about other people’s purchases./QUOTE

Consumer corporations promote covetousness. Defense corporations promote war and death. We spend as much on ‘defense’ every year as all the nations of the world combined. Why? Defense corporations are in business to make a profit.

So, I do not hate the people who are affiliated with corporations, I just hate the promotion of the pursuit of mammon, covetousness, and death.

 

[Durnford]

You chaps can go on defining a pure conservatism that does not support big business and allows the little guy to work hard and thrive as long as you like. It is like hearing a communist insist that what there was in Europe was not real commuinsm. Real communism is somehow been distorted by the communist party just like you are trying to say conservatism whatever that is has been distorted by the Republicnas. Truth be told both US parties are Un Godly and pursue lustful worldly objectives. Thye just claok there objetcives in rhetorrc.

 

[austenbosten]

austenbosten;9505683:

Consumer corporations promote covetousness. Defense corporations promote war and death. We spend as much on ‘defense’ every year as all the nations of the world combined. Why? Defense corporations are in business to make a profit.

So, I do not hate the people who are affiliated with corporations, I just hate the promotion of the pursuit of mammon, covetousness, and death.

By your logic all businesses promote covetousness. All businesses have to sell a product to make a profit. Advertising is simply a way to promote one’s wares it does not promote covetousness.

As to why we spend so much on defense? In case you haven’t noticed America’s foreign policy for decades has been for the defense of freedom and democracy. No other nation has been so benevolent that they are willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of others. If that is an unmoral and unjust cause then I strongly question your ethics.

 

[austenbosten]

You chaps can go on defining a pure conservatism that does not support big business and allows the little guy to work hard and thrive as long as you like. It is like hearing a communist insist that what there was in Europe was not real commuinsm. Real communism is somehow been distorted by the communist party just like you are trying to say conservatism whatever that is has been distorted by the Republicnas. Truth be told both US parties are Un Godly and pursue lustful worldly objectives. Thye just claok there objetcives in rhetorrc.

Spouting out angry rhetoric based on stereotypes, does not prove your point. It belittles your argument.