My non-negotiables
I left the following comments at the Crunchy Con blog concerning Catholics being unenthusiastic with Mike Huckabee:
I was enthusiastic at first for Huckabee’s candidacy. As the preceding statement implies, my enthusiasm has waned. Admittedly, my own views are only representative of myself. The Haggee thing never bothered me. My threshold for outrage is a lot bigger than others. What bothers me about Huckabee is that his foreign policy doesn’t appear it will be modest but rather guided by the interests of Israel; his fair tax is kookery and would benefit the wealthy; he really doesn’t see an actionable problem with the oligarchs/corporate elite; he really doesn’t want to do anything about the carnage free trade has wrought; and he will not address the health care crisis in this country. I don’t have any plans for voting Democratic, but at least they are addressing the real issues facing this country. Yes the social issues are important, but these are issues that can be, and I’m afraid will have to be, addressed at the State and local levels.
As we come closer to the Presidential election, my list of non-negotiable issues is shortening. John Medaille of the Distributist Review offered his own list of non-negotiables. Needless to say his list and my list aren’t what you will find at Priests For Life or Catholic Answers Action. To be honest, it isn’t really all that representative of Faithful Citizenship. Here is my list:
-
Address the Health Care Crisis. Note, manipulating tax credits and speculating over the benefits of reducing defensive medicine produce negative points. Blaming the uninsured or illegal immigrates will not ingratiate you either, although those are at least legitimate issues. Addressing those issues however will not come close to solving the health care problem.
-
Address the Corporate Issues. Companies moving their pension obligations to the public through bankruptcy is evil. Companies that depend on the public sector to provide housing (Section 8), food (Food Stamps), and medical care (Medicaid) for the families of employees are evil.
-
One cannot provide public witness in favor of abortion and gay marriage. I understand much won’t be done on either issue. A little outrage at the occurence of abortion wouldn’t hurt. A recognition that people in good conscience can oppose abortion while feeling sympathy for the social circumstances surrounding abortion would be helpful. I can accept the stark reality that in a society that overwhelmingly supports abortion rights the ability to eliminate them is doubtful. I will not however vote for someone who proudly affirms the ‘value’ of abortion.
-
Free Trade cannot be abided. Free Trade has destroyed the bonds of community. It alone accounts for a significant portion of the immigration from Mexico to here. One doesn’t have to support the draconian measures many advocate for dealing with immigration in order to recognize that people leaving their home, community, and culture is not a good thing. One doesn’t have to be a socialist to recognize that the economies of the Great Lake’s states have suffered greatly in the wake of de-industrialization.
-
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict can only be resolved by Israelis and Palestinians. Our national security interests do not need to include having an Israeli State. This may be interpreted as an anti-Israel. It is not anti-Israeli to recognize that states have obligations to indigenous peoples, even hostile ones. Regardless, our national security is really not dependent upon the outcome of this conflict.
-
Unskilled and lower skilled workers need to be treated humanely. The present minimum wage is an embarrassment. The idea that the high school dropout has no right to a better wage than the Chinese prison worker is offensive. To be wonkish for a moment, we are not that far from the point where historically social instability has commenced as measured by the GINI coefficient. There is a real gap between rich and poor that has grown. If it were not for increases of women’s incomes as they reconciled with those of men, household income over the past 30 years would be negative. As it is, wages have been stagnant for 30 years, and male wages have seen actual declines after accounting for inflation.
Comments are closed.
I pretty much agree with all of this, except for your point on free trade. This reflects a fundamental problem I have: does not the common good include workers in India and Mexico as well as in Detroit? If we don’t like such articficial boundaries when it comes to immigration, cannot a similar argument be made for the movement of inanimate objects across borders? Note that this is not idolization of the free market, but a recognition of the need to consider the interests of the world community here– maybe free trade is beneficial, or maybe it is not.
Are the people of Mexico better off since NAFTA? There’s no question that NAFTA has improved Mexico’s GDP. It is also undeniable that there was a significant surge in immigration post-NAFTA.
As regards free trade more generally, it is not apparent that the benefits of free trade accrue to the common good. As Krugman and the men from MIT have found, the empirical evidence suggests that free trade between 1st and 3rd World countries tends to benefit the oligarchs of the 1st world country. Krugman hasn’t turned against free trade yet unfortunately. This however isn’t a recent phenomena. Keynes observed the same thing between Britain and her colonies. Whereas the arbitration between say a French company and an American company occurs on technology, the arbitration between a 1st World Country and a 3rd World Country occurs on wages.
Krugman hasn’t turned against it, because he is well aware of its benefits (the arguments are a tad more complicated…). That is to be pragmatic, not dogmatic. Do I believe trade has benefitted India and China? Absolutely. Does it all benefit people elsewhere through cheaper goods (especially goods like clothing)? Yes. Are there costs? Of course. My problem withe the debate in the US is that it assumes that all that matters is people in the US.
I wouldn’t call the corporations evil. It’s the government that is favoring them. Call the government evil.
The minimum wage should only serve to make welfare unattractive. Higher minimum wages disproportionately hit the poor. women, and elderly.
But your nativist rant against free trade is what I find most disturbing. Free trade is one of my non-negotiables. I consider it a life issue. Forgive me for feeling more sympathy for starving foreigners than Michiganders who fret over not being able to afford that second car.
I think that the people of Mexico are better off since NAFTA, though they probably would have been even better off if it hadn’t been for the China trade deal. I also think that Americans are better off because of free trade, and that in the long run even Wisconsin will be better off because of it (though I concede, as I must, that there are a lot of people there now who have been hurt by it).
Krugman’s discomfort over his inability to join his liberal brethren on the trade issue is palpable. That he sticks to it says a lot.
RPFN,
Most liberals are proud corporatists and free traders. Update your political labels.
You speak of nativism as if it is bad thing. Your own putative candidate favors are more restrictionist immigration policy. He is a free trader however.
I’ll take your words to heart however. Rather than offering my son two quarters to shovel the walks, I will first check if there is a young boy from Milwaukee who’s willing to come to my aid. If concern for the men of my region over the men of other nations makes me a nativist, than surely the favortism offered my son in snow shoveling is an example of immoral nepotism.
Well I still contend that Huckabee is the best option. He is not perfect but if we wait for that then we shall go nowhere.
I do think there is a opportunity here to align Conservative Cathlic and Consevative Evangleicals into a more broad based alliance that is much more closer to Catholic Social thought. If not now when? Huckabee comes from soem experience and more importantly has govern a demographic that gives him experience in this regard.
As to Free Trade and I am prety much a Free trader but it needs to be finetuned. You can not put the genie in the bottle. Epsecially in this day and age when trade from Small Business is positioned to become international truly because of the net . In our case the opening of the new port in Mexic and the Trade Center in Kansas City will be of great affect
That being said. If something happens to Huckabee then McCain is where I go. He is pro life enough and his trying to be the voice of reason in the immigration debate scores many points for me.
If Catholic Social Thought is just a series of vaccuous platitudes then yes Huckabee is closely aligned to CST. CST is not however and substantively one of Huckabee’s core policies is anti-thetical to CST.
If Catholic Social Thought is just a series of vaccuous platitudes then yes Huckabee is closely aligned to CST. CST is not however and substantively one of Huckabee’s core policies is anti-thetical to CST.
This is true. Sometimes I find CST interpreted as such (e.g., by the Acton Institute, by Michael Novak).
“Rather than offering my son two quarters to shovel the walks, I will first check if there is a young boy from Milwaukee who’s willing to come to my aid. If concern for the men of my region over the men of other nations makes me a nativist, than surely the favortism offered my son in snow shoveling is an example of immoral nepotism.”
But the protectionists wants to force me to hire your sons to shovel my walks rather than allow me to hire say, for sake of example, a poor Mexican immigrant who is willing to do shovel for cheaper. And yes, I would consider unjustly preventing someone from earning a living, immoral.
Your post could have two meanings. Since a picked a service rather than a commodity, I am to blame. If you mean
a) A person should have to opportunity for work regardless of x,y,z, then my objection is more qualified. I generally support non-discrimination in corporate and government employment. Depending on circumstance, I would support a policy of non-discrimination in private employment. An instance of the latter would be employment of blacks during and after Jim Crow. As to immigration specifically and migration more generally, I tend to take the view that it would be immoral as a matter of policy to deny an immigrate the ability to work without cause. In specific instance, I think regulation of private employment should be avoided unless abuses are manifest. Declining employment or restricting employment as a matter of private policy is not immoral a priori.
b) If you are to argue that the seamstress in Saigon has an equal right to clothing production as the seamstress in my city, I would say nonsense. The seamstress in Saigon will not pay my social security or the police to patrol my streets. If such an arrangement were mutually beneficial than obviously it should be done. Those that argue we need not consider benefit are really just arguing their idelogy unless they wish to argue that the seamstress in Saigon needs to care for me when I’m old. There are some in their naivette who argue such nonsense which is why we fought a war in Iraq in supposed solidarity with the Iraq people and why others advocate we invade Sudan, Rwanda and other states.
“If Catholic Social Thought is just a series of vaccuous platitudes then yes Huckabee is closely aligned to CST. CST is not however and substantively one of Huckabee’s core policies is anti-thetical to CST.”
Yes one might be. However I sense a broader opening. Of course if you put 10 Catholics in a room and ask them to flesh CST and apply it ot the political culture they live in then there shall be disagreement.
Still I see some possibilities to lay a foundation here. Of course I am just speaking for myself in what I am seeing and thinking.
However I fear another election year will go by and CST will not enter the political discussion much at all. Most Catholic blogs are just interested in the Horse Race aspect of it. WIth some noteable excpetion. I can’t remember whom but there was effort to fit Ron Pauls’ viewpoints into that frame work or at least a discussion.
SO we shall see
“I don’t have any plans for voting Democratic, but at least they are addressing the real issues facing this country.”
———
I guess I’m missing the logic here but if you don’t base your vote on “the real issues facing this country” then what do you base it on?
You seem to equate “gay marriage” with abortion. Why? Do you feel the same way about “civil unions” for “gay” people, and do you really believe that loving “gay” parents who have adopted children that might otherwise not get adopted are contributing to the undermining of “family values” in our society?
Issues come and go. I’m more interested in a candidate’s political philosophy, hermeneutic frameworks, principles, and ethical thought and practice. I also look for a candidate who knows that he or she is corruptible and takes measures to check his or her own power.
I guess I’m missing the logic here but if you don’t base your vote on “the real issues facing this country” then what do you base it on?
I do base it upon that. The democrats and I do have some serious divergences on the issues.
M.Z.–
I don’t really understand why the person who produces my shirts needs to pay my policing or social security. Could you explain why I should not be able to purchase a shirt from whomever I choose?
Kyle,
Well that sounds very high minded and all but I doubt the average American knows the definition of hermeneutic. For most of us it usually boils down to issues.
MZ,
I too have some serious divergences with the democrats but your list of non negotiables are more likely to be addressed (albeit imperfectly) by a democratic administration/congress which you immediately rule out voting for (“I don’t have any plans for voting Democratic…..”). I suppose that inoculates you from being called a baby killer, gay sympathizer or bad catholic by some, but it makes little sense from the perspective of the issues you raise.
“What bothers me about Huckabee is that his foreign policy doesn’t appear it will be modest but rather guided by the interests of Israel; his fair tax is kookery and would benefit the wealthy; he really doesn’t see an actionable problem with the oligarchs/corporate elite; he really doesn’t want to do anything about the carnage free trade has wrought; and he will not address the health care crisis in this country.”
So, with the exception of health care discussions on the democratic side and with the exception of Edwards taking on the corporate elite, which candidates meet your expectations in “non-negotiables”?
“If you are to argue that the seamstress in Saigon has an equal right to clothing production as the seamstress in my city, I would say nonsense. The seamstress in Saigon will not pay my social security or the police to patrol my streets. If such an arrangement were mutually beneficial than obviously it should be done. Those that argue we need not consider benefit are really just arguing their idelogy unless they wish to argue that the seamstress in Saigon needs to care for me when I’m old. There are some in their naivette who argue such nonsense which is why we fought a war in Iraq in supposed solidarity with the Iraq people and why others advocate we invade Sudan, Rwanda and other states.”
And if I can’t afford a local seamstress? Or what if I can afford one but it would cut into my profits so much that I can’t expand my business? Now I can’t open that new local store that would’ve hired ten locals. Or what if I take the full hit of the higher labor cost and I can’t buy that new Ford?
We fought the war in Iraq for the same reason we have trade barriers: Many believe that the only interests worth protecting are American interests. If we need to blow up Iraqi civilians or shut down Chinese factories, so be it. Never mind that it’s actually counter-productive. Again, I’d point out that this isn’t just personal favoritism. You advocate laws that aim to prevent me and everyone else from employing foreigners or put differently, you advocate laws which aim to prevent foreigners from working for Americans.
You seem to equate “gay marriage” with abortion. Why? Do you feel the same way about “civil unions” for “gay” people, and do you really believe that loving “gay” parents who have adopted children that might otherwise not get adopted are contributing to the undermining of “family values” in our society?
I put them together because the are both examples of the degeneration of the family. Abortion is a familial crime.
I do think civil unions are deleterious to the institution of the family. Likewise I believe co-habitation to be.
The one matter I would like to address is the children of gay men and women. Since this isn’t talked about often, let’s be clear. The typical child present in a gay relationship is the product of divorce between the child’s maternal and paternal parents. Let’s not pretend that gay men and women with children are exercising some heroic virtue whenever we see them with children. More often they disregarded the vows and obligations of their marriage to pursue their own sexual desires. For a community that keep whining that it isn’t trying to degrade the institution of marriage, a condemnation of this practice would be helpful from time to time. The other typical method for finding children in a gay household is for a lesbian to find a drunk at a bar and sleep with him. While from time to time there have been news reports of heterosexual couples breaking physical fidelity to achieve pregnancy, such a practice is hardly normative in the heterosexual community and is for the most part condemned. It would be nice for a community that whines it is not trying to alter the nature of marriage to condemn this practice as well.
This leaves us with adoption. Again, the normative situation in adoption is for one partner to adopt the other’s children. There is some decent sentiment there, but then the question is why there is the need for such adoption, and we arrive at some prior familial dysfunction. All adoption outside children whose parents died is a product familial dysfunction. When that familial dysfunction can’t be addressed by the greater family, society must address that. The question is then should we create familial obligations for gay couples to address the issues of orphans and neglected children. I would claim that such would be terrible policy. The foster system doesn’t rank very high on my list either. I would prefer from a policy standpoint to have these situations that can’t be address by the familty to be addressed by orphanages with an allowance for adoption into stable, heterosexual homes.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Forrest, the two sets of “gay” adopters that I have known bear absolutely no resemblance to what you are describing: they both adopted orphaned children. I taught children of both couples in two different high schools (one being a Catholic high school in Connecticut), and, as far as I was able to discern, there was far less evidence of familial dysfunction or adolescent maladjustment in those children’s lives than there was in a number of the heterosexually-parented children’s. I suspect that what you take as a norm is no more than a bigoted stereotype. I used to think like you on this subject, but experience as a teacher has taught me better. I think you need to learn to actually listen to youth (as we in the teaching profession must do), rather than consult blogs and tendentious “studies.”
The following article seem relatively mainstream Digby:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/341
Most individuals who have a lesbian and/or gay parent were conceived in the context of a heterosexual relationship. When a parent (or both parents) in a heterosexual couple “comes out” as lesbian or gay, some parents divorce and others continue to live as a couple. If they do decide to live separately, either parent may be the residential parent or children may live part-time in each home. Gay or lesbian parents may remain single or they may have same-sex partners who may or may not develop stepparenting relationships with the children.
…
Despite these challenges, lesbians and gay men increasingly are becoming parents on their own or in the context of an established same-sex relationship. Most lesbians who conceive a child do so using alternative insemination techniques with a donor’s sperm. The woman or women may choose to become pregnant using sperm from a completely anonymous donor, from a donor who has agreed to be identifiable when the child becomes an adult, or from a fully known donor (eg, a friend or a relative of the nonconceiving partner).
The following article rationalizes not accepting marital obligations when confronted with homosexual desire.
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/ilart-15
Anecdotally, I’m aware of a couple women who have conceived using donors procured from bars. I’m also aware of step-parenting situations, but these are more confined to rumor as to the exact relationship of the roomates. I’m not personally aware of a homosexual couple that has adopted, but I’m not in a school setting or more public arrangement where I would have vast anecdotal knowledge of parenting arrangements.