T
There was a time, not so long ago, when I felt great affinity with a certain type of conservatism, the Burkean, Kirkean, variety that valued family and community, that favored a human- and humane- scale to things, that viewed bigness, whether corporate or governmental, with suspicion.
That kind of conservatism, though it endures in certain hideouts like The American Conservative magazine, is invisible in power politics. It has been replaced by the politics of predatory capitalism, by the Randian world of “makers and takers”, by the sort of heartless policies that would break up families to deport undocumented workers and slash social programs while giving tax breaks to millionaires. The prophets of profit have taken over.
Some would say that Ron Paul represents this more decent sort of conservatism, but that is inaccurate. While Dr Paul has the folksy charm and the ill-fitting suits of traditionalist conservatism, this is wed with a vicious economic ideology that offers no protection to the poor and workers from the effects of unregulated capital. He may have the style in spades, but he lacks the substance.
The newer and meaner conservatism has found, in many ways, the perfect candidate in Willard “Mitt” Romney. Born to wealth, he then “earned” a bigger fortune not by creating goods or services but by manipulating money with no goal but profit. He seems intent on acting like a caricature of the Clueless Rich Guy, the one who views the peasants with disdain. And the peasants are reacting as they should.
It is too early to pronounce a winner; the debates are yet to be aired, and any number of things can still sway those relatively few voters who can still be swayed. But if things continue as they are Romney is going to lose. You can sense the desperation on the Right, in the fevered pronouncements of the talk show pundits: they know they are in trouble. Rush Limbaugh predicts the “end of the Republican Party” if Obama is reelected; in his view it will split, with a third, more conservative party emerging.
But other, more thoughtful types are rethinking the direction the conservative movement has taken. I linked to Michael Gerson’s remarkable editorial a few days ago. And now David Brooks has weighed in, saying “Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney’s underperforming campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The GOP has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners, but not as parents, neighbors and citizens.” Read the whole column here: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21628164/david-brooks-conservative-mind
A caveat: both of these writers refer to Catholic social teaching as something the Right needs to return to. While it may occasionally overlap with it, I don’t recall that tradition as ever having been particularly influential on conservative thought.
Personally I would welcome the parting of ways on the Right; let the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Levins form their own squadron in the fever swamps. And I would welcome the renewal of traditionalist conservatism. Not that I would be tempted to join them, but at least I would feel like we inhabit the same moral planet. The GOP today is the party, not of Kirk’s “permanent things”, but of war and capitalism.
It seems like nothing if not the enemy of humanity.
Although there are those who call themselves conservatives who would agree with most of what Catholic teaching and tradition says about the social order, I’ve never been comfortable with the term “conservative” – of any type. Kirk himself became a supporter of Ronald Reagan, and more to the point, the mere notion of conservation can hardly be the fundamental principle of social thought. Depending on the society in question, we might want to conserve it, reform it, destroy it, etc. Of course one should always want to preserve what’s good, but then, one should want to reform what’s bad too. And though I accept what Aristotle said about the imprudence of changing laws too often, if you read the social encyclicals, there’s a lot more there about changing things than there is about conserving them.
The motto “to restore all things in Christ” implies that something is currently lacking in that regard. Mitt Romney isn’t going to restore all things in Christ, not remotely. It seems to me they’re mostly interested in conserving the ability to make as much money as possible, though they may not put it in those terms.
Actually “instaurare omnia in Christo” means to renew all things in Christ. But in any case, restore and renew mean about the same thing if you think about it.
It’s fairly well documented that Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance. Certainly the love, discipline, and structure his family gave him stayed with him but all of his cash is self-earned. You may (or may not be) right about everything else but Romney is not a trust fund baby as you seem to imply by the phrase “Born to wealth, he then “earned” a bigger fortune”.
But I can see that you also are a little unclear about what profit is in an economic sense. Profit is managing an economic transaction such that the gain exceeds the loss. All economic systems strive for these surpluses of gain because it is how we rise up beyond the cruel realities of subsistence to do anything in civilization. Profit is nothing to be sneered at because without it, the widow would not even have had her two mites.
I do agree that the GOP has somewhat lost its way. This is rather better than the Democrat party which has entirely lost its way. That the GOP is somewhat better than a party that celebrates death and tolerates economic philosophies that reliably lead to mass murder is faint praise indeed.
In Romney’s own religious tradition, he sucks. Hugely. As I said elsewhere, if he were a believing practising mormon, he’d have far less money, and there would be so many farmers growing so much food for so many food pantries it would truly beggar the imagination.
And Willard would be there personally to welcome as many of the poor into those pantries as he possibly could.
First, nice way to move the goalposts. My only commentary on Romney is that he isn’t a trust fund baby. Are we agreed that he gave away all his inherited money? If not, you need to provide some evidence because that’s in the public record.
Considering the man just released his tax returns and he seems to have given huge amounts to charity, what is your basis in saying that Romney’s a bad mormon? Is it that you are unfamiliar with his personal record on charity? You’re dinging him for not chest beating over what he’s done? Are you for real?
My basis for calling him a bad mormon? A mormon mother and a mormon early childhood.
He is both a mormon bishop and priest, not merely a priest in the order of melchizadek. (These are mormon theological terms, though they sound like catholic ones.) That carries with it certain responsibilities, responsibilities that cannot be met by donations of mere treasure. Willard, to the best of my knowledge, doesnt meet the obligations of a mormon bishop and priest. If you have evidence of his tireless personal assistance to the poorest of the poor, show your hand.
Further, what wealth he keeps, wealth he is not entitled to keep under mormon theology, is not invested in tangible goods, but in the usual “normal” investments. He has every right to house his family in comfort. He has every right to stockpile all the food and goods he believes that family might ever need. He has every right to use his time to earn a living for his family.
He doesnt have a right to a shit ton of saved money. He doesnt have a roght to invest his time in making more money beyond the obscene amounts already accrued.
The poor have a right to every die Willard ever made that didnt go to food, shelter,etc for his family. The poor have a right to his time and intellect, as well as his wealth.
Now thus is all in a mormon context, but its a f^»\ing shame that a bunch of suckers who bought a pathetic religious hoax have SO much to teach the European Men in lacey dresses about proper charity.
And lastly, when I get drafted into a Lutasball team, you can have some say on goalposts. Until then I bet you know where I think you ought to store your goalpost. If not, its the nearest place to you where sunlight is completely absent.
Right, nit roght.
Dime, not die.
This, not thus.
My fingers are big, but in the wrong dimension to play Rachmoninoff.
And I assure you, I am quite fer rillz.
Your man Mitt sucks at a made-up religion.
Hezekiah Garrett – You are giving Mormon religious terms without defining them and your warnings that they aren’t the same as Catholic really need to be underlined. My eyebrows flew up when I found out that a bishop in LDS terms is a lay pastor.
Pardon me for doubting that Mormonism does not permit financial investments since the church itself owns holding companies and does the sort of thing that Bain Capital does (run a business to invest in other businesses) on its own books. There seems to be some tension between your assertion and the available public record.
In christianity there is something of a tension between charity and reserving seed corn for future needs. Both are required and I have no special insight as to how the LDS crew manages the balance. You seem to have an ax to grind against the man. I don’t. Like most other US presidents, his faith is not my own. But that doesn’t mean that I vote on that basis. Somebody who gives away $4M on a $14M investment income portfolio when they get their temple ticket punched at $1.4M is not showing the signs of somebody just sliding by to keep up appearances.
Finally, sir, you are annoying. I have a long list of what I think are legitimate grievances against Mitt Romney and somehow you’ve managed to maneuver me into defending the man. Stick to his actual faults (they number quite enough) and you’ll get no objections from me. His best characteristic in this political season so far as I’m concerned is that he’s not Barak Obama.
I have heard that before! I will say you are one of the very few people on the web I let my hair down around because I know you are a big boy. Im trying to say I respect you in a perverse way.
But you also might be surprised to learn that the Twelve (their 12, not our 12) can do anything, and it doesnt change the implications of the Pearl of Great Price for the rest of the church. Except when they say it does.
You notice I have not claimed the LDS leadership isn’t a pit of vipers? I’m personally more willing to argue the moon’s compositional percentage of Stilton.
I will say though that the favorite example I always heard from the melchizadek priests of my childhood is an urban legend. Ezra Taft Benson, president of the church, did not make his fortune on Benson and Hedges cigarettes. But I don’t think I ever met a practicing mormon, much less jack mormons like my mother, who don’t believe that’s so.
In some ways, even today, its a weirder theology than scientology. And yet, I cant help but hugely admire every Mormon father out there trying to devoutly live his weirdo faith. Because they aren’t Christians, but in terms of day to day praxis they look more like lottle Christs than all but a handful of Christians I have ever met. I am just allergic to cognitive dissonance.
And I don’t know that Rmoney is better than the Won. I know the Won is passionate about putting his heel on my throat, while Rmoney would only do it because it is popular. But I personally can’t call BO worse, because I have to consider the commonweal, not what is less likely to keep me from being martyred.
Thats a long way still from seeking the red crown.
I am not unclear about what profit is. I do not resent anyone who contributes to human well being and the common good making a profit. As chronicled in Rolling Stone Romney made his fortune by brutal means, which cared not at all if people lost their jobs or shipped them overseas so long as he made his profit.
And I would say that the GOP also clearly celebrates death and tolerates economic philosophies- free market fundamentalism- that also lead to mass murder.
I never read Rolling Stone for politics but for you, I went through Matt Taibi’s hatchet job. The big bad LBO people break up managerial incest fests where investor funds are being wasted every day and providing sub-par returns or actual losses and are successful at saving companies and increasing their value 93% of the time, fouling up 7% of the time. That’s actually a very good batting average and not something to be ashamed of.
We live in a world where people die, every day, for lack of capital. People like the LBO crowd that includes Mitt Romney create more capital and push it out towards the margins in a domino chain reaction that, at its final destination, is the difference between a dignified life and grinding poverty with no way out. Creating capital and forcing people to hunt out those risky edge investments in poorer, less safe areas because all the safe investments are already fully funded is how capitalism is raising millions out of poverty in sustainable ways.
I do not mind that the price for a microcapital institution getting funded and making lifesaving loans in Africa is overpaid US factory workers taking a pay cut. My question is why do you?
To say that Bain was good at saving companies and increasing their value does not deny what Daniel said, that “made his fortune by brutal means, which cared not at all if people lost their jobs or shipped them overseas so long as he made his profit,” nor does it blunt the edge of his criticism. A company may prosper at the expense of workers, in the sense that investors get better returns on their investments. But the workers still suffer.
But, Daniel, if you’re going to use right and conservative interchangably, and you aren’t going to specify the American context, then yes, the Right was very much beholden to Catholic Social Theory at one time, at least up until around the time the names Left and Right were devised.
Your European kings, the halfway decent to good ones at least, were ALL friends of the poor. I understand this was largely out of self interest, to balance the folk against the aristocracy, but still, they were.
Romney gave away his inheritance. Hadn’t heard that before, so I checked. But first, when I hear something like that, I think of someone like several saints who gave away their inheritances and had nothing left afterwards. Or in a more modern context, had no more than an average college graduate, and did start from scratch. Instead, according to PolitiFact:
“”I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. … And that’s where his inheritance ended up.”
Why did he give the money away?
“I figured we had enough of our own,” he said.”
Not like the saints, was he? His father died in his late 80s, and Romney had already been at Bain over a decade. I guess a couple of million or so doesn’t mean that much to someone worth over $100million.
The fact, too, that Romney was born to wealth means that he had connections and opportunities that others do not have. This is not in itself a bad thing, but it does not qualify him as a self-made man.
The fact that Romney is rich, tells us that he isn’t living by what is needed for a Mormon Bishop, let alone a good Catholic.
People who are generous are never rich.