Mis-Using Subsidiarity
It happens all the time: Catholics will invoke the principle of subsidiarity to back up what is really an ideological attraction to free market principles and to “small government” (whatever that means). But subsidiarity has little to do with the liberty of the individual from state power; rather, it emphasizes the key role of mediating institutions that stand between the individual and the state. In short, subsidiarity means there must be respect for civil society, and that these institutions should not cede their functions to higher and more distant authorities. Fundamentally, it is about community, and how the common good is exercised. It is about personal relationships, how human bonds can be formed without sacrificing human dignity.
Subsidiarity is not a catch-all argument against the role of the government, even if that is often how it is used. There are, of course, some functions that are most appropriately undertaken by higher levels of the social order– this usually means the state in modern terms. And it is also no respect for subsidiarity to replace a large bureaucratic government with a large bureaucratic private entity. And yet those who call for “small government” often fail to make these distinctions. As an example, many will argue against single payer health care on grounds of subsidiarity. They rarely address such issues as: (i) it may be the best way to achieve universal health insurance, when health care is seen as a basic right under Catholic social teaching; (ii) risk pooling works best when the population is larger; (ii) the current system whereby impersonal insurance companies make money by denying coverage and denying claims is about as clear a violation of subsidiarity as is possible. Therefore, being serious about subsidiarity means going beyond blanket ideological statements. We can think about community-based risk pools. We can think of a system administered by the social partners. We can think about a system of primary care, with a personal relationship between individual and family doctor– exactly what the insurance-company driven health care does not deliver.
Too often, then, the spectre of subsidiarity is used to ignore another key principle: solidarity. In fact, these principles must act in unison. As noted by Church teaching, while solidarity without subsidiarity can lead to the problems often associated with the welfare state (an overly-bureaucratic mindset, a distance from individual dignity), subsidiarity without solidarity can degenerate into “self-centered localism”. We need both. And should cannot invoke one of these principles to deny economic and social justice. If the welfare state is broke, fix it, don’t ignore poverty. If people are lacking adequate health care, fix it, don’t make false excuses.
But health care is only one example. At the beginning, I noted a lack of clarity over what “small government” means, a lack of clarity that feeds into the subsidiarity debate. Many think of it purely in terms of the size of government as an economic entity, rather than as an entity that uses coercive power to smother subsidiary mediating institutions. Why do the proponents of subsidiarity not speak out against the progressive weakening of unions over the past quarter century, when unions are an indispensable aspect of the social order? This is one of the most grave violations of subsidiarity in modern times.
Focusing on spending can also lead to incongruities. It is well-known that those most fervently opposed to the role of government make one very large exception: military spending. Now, one can perform ideological somersaults to justify cutting health care and education spending to buy more bombs, but what about subsidiarity? After all, there was a time when defense was assigned to subsidiary mediating institutions, with local ties. But the rise of the nation state has erased these competing loyalties and instead demands personal allegiance between every citizen and itself. This has incredibly important issues for subsidiarity, issues that never seem to be addressed (outside Vox Nova, that is!), issues of immense importance in a country the size of the United States.
Comments are closed.
Sweet, you’re supporting the Second Amendment. I am my own well-armed militia :o)
Too often, then, the spectre of subsidiarity is used to ignore another key principle: solidarity. In fact, these principles must act in unison.
Yes.
I agree with a lot with this post. However, and I have seen this topic before, it is for the most part not feasable to have the military tied into local units epsecially as to spending. If there are papers advocating this from from a Catholic point of view as to the Unite States I would like to see it.
Having 50 states trying to do their own thing as increasing military systems that must be integrated would be something to see. Would Louisiana have to buy the Cruiser and California the Aircaraft Carrier?
Though I guess it would be romantic to return to the days where many of the leading Universities become again Military Acadamies and have that even on the high school level we are way past that. It ain’t coming back.
I would speculate that we don’t need the world’s largest and 7th largest navies, the US Navy and Coast Guard respectively. There are places we could cut in the military, not to mention we probably don’t need a nationalized military except when we are actually at war.
Good post MM.
MM – Yet again you ignore the power of Christians to solve problems without “the state”. Yes, there needs to be government involvement in certain aspects of life. Charity is also very powerful and can provide the goal you are looking for.
“I would speculate that we don’t need the world’s largest and 7th largest navies, the US Navy and Coast Guard respectively.”
Heavens to Betsy!! Needess to say the Coast Guard is vey rtaxed and underfunded as it is. I t seems we ar eenterign a age where a Navy is need more.
Having a Nation like the UNited States armed with Nuclear weaposn with no Nationalized Army is a dangererou sthing.
The US Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act–the US Navy isn’t.
“Charity is also very powerful and can provide the goal you are looking for.”
As elicited by whom, for whom? Even charities receive a biting on St. Blog’s critique-only charities with unskilled workers with “feed and leave” policies and with few professional staff receive the over-venerated “Seal of Fr. Sirico’s Approval.” Or the charities have to be so tiny as to impact policy and a community as little as possible-this is another group of conservatives’ latest diversion.
Where does the community stand? Is there no such thing as community? Why is it that those bewailing the “power of the state” when it comes to such horrors as executing a housing or feeding program (and simultaneously embrace its ability to obliterate entire cultures by its military ends) never have typed the word “community?”
What is the community? Who is involved in it and what is our responsibility towards it?
The community is who can provide the Charity. You won’t hear me extol the virtues of making the state uber alles when it comes to social issues. One need only to look at the history of Christian charity and organization sans “the state”.
The “state” can provide the charity.
Are they the community? And who is the state? If one attends to definitions put out by Grover Norquist, who finds his local PTA and Board of Ed to be depriving him of life and liberty to shocking degrees, then the local community government is equal to a Nazi regime. Is it a church parish? But what about the local food pantry at the municipal center-is that a typical example of the horrors of the overreach of the state, promoting a godless utopia as Weigel and Novak would have one believe?
Who is this dreaded boogie man “the state?” Where is it overlapping in the community? And why is this word “the state” supposed to inspire such dramatic fear? Its use as such speaks more to the political philosophy’s of those who use it.
Not really. The community can’t force someone by threat of jail, execution, or just general good ol’ dictatorial enforcement. Those are relegated to “the state”.
Many modern economic institutions justified by free market principles actually work against the principle of subsidiarity by taking certain goods away from the oversight of those who should have responsibility for those goods. All sorts of family matters are examples of this sort of development.
[i]the current system whereby impersonal insurance companies make money by denying coverage and denying claims is about as clear a violation of subsidiarity as is possible.[/i]
We can’t use subsidiarity to argue against single-payer health care but you can use it to argue against private insurance?
If you want to play like that they the system I advocate, subsidized HSAs, is subsidiarity at its finest. Neither government nor private insurers stand between the patient and the doctor.
Quite! The principle of subsidiarity is not about being “anti-government” but rather about what level of government various services ought to operate at. It’s that simple.
The salient question is which government you’re talking about.
“Small government” means both of two things: keeping the federal government to just its Constitutional limitations and no more, and doing as much as possible at the local level.
This is not in contrast with solidarity or the “common good,” as vast bureaucracies can never be in the “common good.” The one thing lacking in Magisterial documents on social issues is the wisdom of Lord Acton. Whenever big bureaucracies try to “do good,” they take it upon themselves to decide what that “good” is.
Subsidiarity is about recognizing the family as the basic unit of society and giving as much authority as possible to the family. That authority is to be found in the active *local* goverments that were intended by America’s founders.
A true subsidiarist does not trust corporate or federal bureaucracies.