As a Catholic radical, one who is religiously and morally “conservative” but deeply concerned about the concentration of wealth and power and the steady erosion of the working class, President Obama’s reelection is a mixed bag. Yes, he is no friend to the unborn, to understate it, though in the news today I saw that abortion is at an all time low since legalization. And no, he is no friend to religious liberty, however hypocritical many Catholic institutions have been in protesting his policies; you know, like the Catholic hospitals who do sterilizations or the Catholic colleges that dispense birth control to students. And he has reversed himself and now endorses the metaphysical impossibility of gay marriage. And he has continued Bush’s policies in concentrating presidential power.
On the other hand, he is taking baby steps against the thirty years of policies that favor corporations and the rich; nothing radical mind you, but a far cry from the attack on workers and the poor that a Romney administration would almost certainly have launched. And there is no reason to believe that a Romney presidency would in any way affect the status quo regarding abortion, except perhaps to increase the number of abortions as social programs were slashed.
But I was thinking yesterday about those who are both religiously conservative and economically “conservative”; ie, classically liberal.
To them there is nothing redeemable in the President’s reelection. It is all bleak. While it is hard for me to imagine that many sincerely believe that deregulating finance and industry and lowering taxes for the wealthy really would bring about prosperity for all, despite the results of doing just that for thirty years, let us give them the huge benefit of the doubt.
Blindsided and bewildered, there is wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right. And finger-pointing, lots of finger-pointing.
The world must appear bleak and hopeless. Despair must eat at them like a worm in a tomato.
I can’t help feeling a little sorry for them. Really, I do, however deluded they are.
Which does not in the least diminish my relief at their defeat.
Even for the distributist, Obama’s election is a bad deal. Just look at the names in his cabinet- the Corporatist foxes are very much embedded in the regulatory henhouse. Any regulations they pass WILL harm small business and funnel more market share to cronies.
And Romney would have been the same.
It is all just shuffling the chairs on the deck of the fiscal titanic anyway. America is dying and nothing can stop it.
As a very small business owner I am very glad Obama beat Romney, if only for Obamacare. I cannot afford health insurance for my family let alone my few employees. Having just had a sudden emergency appendectomy, my first serious medical problem in the 13 insurance-less years of my adulthood, I am anxiously awaiting the bill and cursing my appendix for not waiting until 2014 when the mandate kicks in.
Even Obamacare is primarily about killing small insurance companies and healthshare co-ops to funnel more business to large insurance companies and enable them to service an additional 30 million people.
What, did you think Obamacare was actually SOCIALIST?
Also, you do realize that the mandate just gives you the choice between paying private corporations for your insurance at regular market rates, vs extra taxes, right?
It doesn’t actually pay for anything.
The only way Obamacare helps me is by getting rid of the whole pre-existing condition nonsense- but it came at the cost of NOT having a choice and will cost me an additional $1000/year.
Zeb,
Just let your employees die like Ron Paul.
Ted it will also create lower priced options and subsidies for low income but not MA eligible people.
Which I’m not, and almost no small business owner is. We earn too much gross profit, even if we plow it all back into the business. By their standards, we are not “low income” and never will be.
But it will be nice not to have to worry about pre-existing conditions. Of course, it will come with the cost of them bumping up the risk tables to cover it, which will make premiums more expensive for everybody.
I agree that it is a terrible solution, but the only thing worse would be nothing. I think this will be a very modest but not negligible step for many people, myself included, but I think the most important thing it’s a that it is a stepping stone that can not be taken away. The only good sensible solution in my opinion is singlepayer (block granted to the states and run on a voucher system with federal over site for ubsidiarity), but once the American public gets a taste of guaranteed coverage for all I think that’s an inevitability. What we the church need to do is get out in front of this and steer it in the right direction, not get pulled along kicking and screaming.
Nothing would be better- because nothing would bring back the doctor as a municipal employee and the hospital as a charitable institution. Like it was before the feds started raising costs during WWII
“he is taking baby steps against the thirty years of policies that favor corporations and the rich;”
Hahahahaha no he isn’t. He’s wholly owned by Goldman Sachs and other 0.01%ers.
No, actually, “baby steps” is far from high praise, but it is true. Obama, however much indebted to his Wall Street contributors, campaigned largely on a populist theme and has at least promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich, while the Republicans promised to lower them further. He also is resisting attempts to cut social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (though his record of compromise is not reassuring). His reelection has given a boost to organized labor, while the GOP’s hostility to unions is red-hot.
I assume that he knows that it will kill his party if he doesn’t come through. Indeed, if things are not significantly better in four years the Dems are toast; the GOP, currently in total meltdown mode,has four years to remake itself, which should be highly entertaining. But in four years, if Obama fails to make good on his promises, however insincere, they should in good enough shape to be able to win in a landslide.
I have not much use for Mr Obama, but to say that on questions of econoomic disparity and justice he is equivalent to Mr Romney and Ryan just seems silly.
At this point, the damage is already done. What we need is distributism, not debates on what the rich pay. We need a new homesteading, not more crony capitalism.
Whatever we might need, a distributist order is about as likely to appear as a magical city come down from the sky. In the meantime we are obliged to work for justice.
If distributism appears, it will come from the ground, not the sky; from rejecting Washington DC and Wall Street equally and opposing foreign invasions into your personal county, city, neighborhood and parish.
This top down thinking has to stop; it is unsustainable. What we need to do is create LOCAL currencies, LOCAL governments, LOCAL charity, and reject both federalism and crony capitalism’s free trade.
But in four years, if Obama fails to make good on his promises, however insincere, they should in good enough shape to be able to win in a landslide.
That’s what the GOP faithful thought four years ago. While it is entirely possible for there to be a party reinvention, as there was in 1968, it is also entirely possible that we will be left with an effective one party state with multiple, though ineffectual, opposition, which was the norm for Mexico with the PRI (ruled 70 years) and Argentina under the Peronist party. Indeed, it may be worse in the U.S. if the party is re-invented as a “minority” party run entirely for the benefit of a consultant class that pockets the money of those that still think they have a say and oppose the one ruling party.
In other words, the Republican Party can just as easily be the place where opposition support, energy, and ideas go to die, though not before enriching croneys in the process.
Obama winning the election is very bad for Catholics. As far as abortion rates decreasing, well, maybe the abortions being performed in abortion mills and “hospitals” have decreased, but we can rest assured that the overall number of abortions has increased, but are now hidden from the official tabulation because of the ease of acquiring abortion inducing drugs, taken in the first 72 hours of a pregnancy (thanks to Obama). So most abortions are now mere blood masses being flushed down the toilet, but nonetheless great crimes before God Almighty.
As far as which “Catholic” institution is performing sterilizations, or handing out birth control, well, as a Catholic who will one day stand before the King in judgment, I myself can only worry about my own fidelity to the Church’s teachings, and every action that I do while in this body while on this earth. Those institutions operating according to watered down doctrine will have to speak for themselves someday.
As far as Obama himself, well, I think you nailed it: He all is about his own “presidential power.” A better word might be “narcissism.”
I believe the corrupt form of Republic Democracy found in the United States self-selects for narcissism in the few people willing to go through a campaign. That is part of the reason why, with Pope Pius IX, I have grave doubts about self-rule in any form.
Yes, I would rather see more of the earlier model of the sovereign state, than the federally mandated state system. That way the states which are run poorly, and doing the devil’s work, will be nothing more than a scab on our 50 state map. At present, when the federal government rolls out its evil, amoral laws, we are all stuck with them, and we all suffer.
You know, I was reading this and thought to myself (with a smile on my face), “Gee, you know what, it has taken me 8 years and I think I am finally actually more ‘liberal’ than Daniel!” And I was proud. ;-) When you mentioned “metaphysical impossibility of gay marriage…” is when I started thinking that thought. Cheers!
Why would anybody be proud of leaving behind Christ and God? In fact, without God, what is there to be proud of?
Hu?
Theodore, I am (honestly) confused. Did you mean to post that to me? Seems out of context and a kind of non sequitur..
Marriage is a sacramental, life-giving union of two persons, and procreation is its natural end. If you think two men or two women can enter such a union you are not “more liberal” than me, just more confused.
Well, first of all I was joking Second, I will accept that from you, ha! But Theodor But Theodore does not know me. And it is completely unacceptable for him to go around labeling people as atheists that he doesn’t know.
Theodore: perhaps we should get together and discuss your statement above. You live 20 minutes from me. :-)