Sharron Angle and the Curse of the Baby Boomers
If you really want to see the utter depravity of the individualist mindset that dominates the Republican party, look at the video of Sharron Angle, the Nevada Senate candidate. In it, she lashes out at having to pay insurance premiums for things she is never going to need. Why should she pay for “autism”, she says? And since she is never going to have another baby, why should she pay for maternity coverage? If the pro-life movement had any integrity, they would lambast Angle for these statements. For these policies are directly encouraging abortion. But I don’t expect them to say anything.
I believe tha Angle and her ilk represent the nadir of the baby boomer mentality (Angle was born in 1949). This is the generation that adopted selfishness as a religion. This is the generation that rebelled against social norms in the 1960s, and elevated individual self-expression as the greatest virtue. This is the generation that came of age during the “greed is good” 1980s, when the dismantling of the postwar social model began in earnest. This is the generation that oversaw the end of the postwar consensus, and a return to rates of inequality and social dysfunction not seen since the Gilded Age. This is the generation that is today the backbone of the tea party, and is still pushing the policies of selfishness – refusing to contribute to anyone else’s healthcare costs, refusing to conserve energy to protect creation, and demanding the combination of the lowest possible taxes and the highest possible benefits for themselves. Indeed, the tea party movement might well represent the dying gasp of the worst elements of a base and discredited generation.
Update: In the comments section, Cindy points out that Angle is heavily endorsed by Catholic Vote, another tawdry outfit associated with Thomas Peters. She is deemed “pro-life and pro-family”. Except when it comes to handicapped children and supporting maternity, that is.
If you really want to see the utter depravity of the individualist mindset that dominates the Republican party,
I don’t.
For the record, I agree that Angle’s comments are deplorable.
I disagree with the guilt-by-association stew that is being cooked up from this — let’s see, Angle made a statement betraying selfishness, and this implicates Republicans, the tea party movement, and the entire baby boom generation. And the pro-life movement for not lambasting her for it (does the pro-life, or any other movement, make a habit of lambasting senatorial candidates for statements tangentially related to their primary cause?).
This is the problem I have with VN. Sharon Angle’s statement deserves to be strongly reguted. I agree. But instead, MM tries to pin Angle’s sin on an entire generation and an entire political movement. The game is given away with the opening, “If you really want to see the utter depravity of the individualist mindset that dominates the Republican party.”
This is what VN wants to do — see the utter depravity of those it identifies as being on the wrong side, and, I suppose, congratulate themselves for not being among them. Almost every (political) post reads like the Pharisee’s prayer — I am so thankful I am not like those depraved hypocritical Republicans over there.
Do you really think that Republicans have a monopoly on selfishness and depravity?
Let’s reform insurance entirely so that each person pays only for the expenses he or she actually incurs!
John,
The sad part is, they are asking for Catholics to vote for her. Go look at the poiticians on Catholic Vote and see who they are lobbying for to be voted in.
Sharon Angle is on there front and center. So it is fair then to question the the pro life policies that she speaks to. They are endorsing her and so it’s fair for people to bring up exactly in depth who she really is and what she really says. You yourself say that you feel it’s deplorable.
http://www.catholicvote.org/index.php?/endorsements
Do you really think that Republicans have a monopoly on selfishness and depravity?
Absolutely not. But they are to selfishness and depravity what Microsoft is to PC operating systems.
“Angle made a statement betraying selfishness, and this implicates Republicans, the tea party movement. . . ”
Angle is the republican candidate for senator in Arizona, but she doesn’t represent the views of the republican party.
Neither does Glenn Beck, or Michael Steele or Christine O’Donnell.
Doesn’t anybody represent the GOP?
Cindy, how appalling. A new low for Catholic Vote. At this point, Catholic Vote seems about as “Catholic” as Catholics for a Free Choice.
Angle is from the state of Nevada.
MM– yep.
In it, she lashes out at having to pay insurance premiums for things she is never going to need. Why should she pay for “autism”, she says? And since she is never going to have another baby, why should she pay for maternity coverage?
Exactly. If you don’t want an abortion don’t have one. Don’t give me this communal obligation crap.
And Democrats show the individualist mindset by choosing that one may die so that others can live as they want through liberal abortion laws & funding, not to mention embryonic stem cell research. When Obama tortures, or orders murders of civilians, is this not individualist? When the Democrats push increased access to contraception? When they push for gay marriage? Is that not an expression of their exaltation of the individual over the community? When the Democrats carve our their own earmarks?
Get off your high horse. Both parties cultivate and cater to the selfish desires of the American population. Your party is just as guilty.
“Angle made a statement betraying selfishness, and this implicates Republicans, the tea party movement, and”
Yes, of course, but the problem is that Catholics only see these things as wrong when democrats do them. Bush’s torture policy, which is exactly the same as Obama’s, didn’t cost Bush the catholic vote.
It is entirely appropriate for a Catholic blog to address the blindness that voting Catholics actually suffer from.
Catholics don’t have to be reminded that democrats are baby-killing perverts they are told this over and over. But what they often forget is that republicans are just as bad. Thye need to be reminded. Constantly.
Um, it’s Calvinists — you know, actual Calvinists — who believe in “utter depravity.”
JohnMcG says “But instead, MM tries to pin Angle’s sin on an entire generation and an entire political movement.”
Hey, I’m a Boomer…I’m selfish. I admit it. I do draw the line at depravity however.
I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters….
Why are we not surprised that the young Peters is actively supporting this horrid and nasty woman?
The problem with mandating that health insurance cover autism is that 1) many autism treatments are incredibly expensive, and 2) there is little to no evidence that they actually work (see, for example, here).
Health care seems to be a good example of Bastiat’s dictum that statism is the belief everyone can live at the expense of everyone else.
Here’s what I think the disconnect is for me.
VN’s contributors seem to think that most of their readers are Catholics who proudly proclaim themselves pro-life and regularly vote Republican and need regular reminders that the Republican Party was not immaculately conceived and is capable of being wrong. I suppose this is boosted by volume of commentary.
My suspicion is that VN’s readership included a healthy slice of “thinking Catholics” who think pro-lifers are kind of icky, regularly vote Democratic, and have their views validated by these posts.
In other words, I think VN thinks that somebody like me, who strongly opposes torture, am probably happier that health care reform passed than if it did not, abstained from voting in the last presidential election, and opposed the Iraqi invasion, but still considers leagalized abortion a very important, if not the most important issue of our time, to reside on the far left end of the bell curve of the political leanings of VN readers. I’m inclined to think I’m probably to the right of the median VN reader.
I guess there’s no way of knowing the disposition of the lurkers here, and I could be wrong. But I think that’s what leads to the disagreement about what the primary impact of VN’s posts are. VN contributors believe they are speaking hard truths to those who would blind themselves to it; I think they’re preaching to the choir of those looking for reasons to villify Republicans, and by extension, those who focus their pro-life efforts on legal restrictions.
John, no I think most of our readers are quite sane and sensible. But I personally feel that speaking out against the cynicism, hypocrisy, and depravity of the modern so-called “conservative” movement is extremely important, especially seems more and more Catholics have fully assimilated into this culture of hyper-individualism.
Blackadder,
If you are a couple making minimum wage, and you happen to have a child and that child is autistic, you feel that it’s too expesnive to help them give that child the care or treatment it may need. However, permanent tax cuts for the richest people in the country is a good idea?
Cindy,
Actually I think the tax cuts for high earners should be allowed to expire. Nice try, though.
The problem with mandating that health insurance cover autism is that 1) many autism treatments are incredibly expensive, and 2) there is little to no evidence that they actually work (see, for example, here).
Blackadder,
The bill that mandates insurance coverage for autism was passed with overwhelming support in the Republican-controlled Nevada state legislature (Assembly: 39 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 absent; Senate: 21 in favor, 0 opposed). So at minimum, if Sharron Angle opposes the bill, she is out of step with her own state legislature. However, the Angle campaign says:
So exactly where does she stand on mandated insurance coverage of autism?
More interesting, really, is her statement: “How about maternity leave, I’m not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. So those are the things we want to get rid of.”
Now, I’m never going to get pregnant or get anyone else pregnant. I am never going to need a mammogram or a pap smear. I don’t have a uterus or ovaries. But the employer-provided insurance I have covers all those things, and I have to pay part of the premiums. I am hoping Sharron Angle can do something about that.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence to show that many fairly routine medical interventions either don’t work or make things worse. MRIs for lower back pain, followed by surgery, is rarely effective. Serious questions have been raised about PSA tests and even mammography. Unnecessary prescriptions for antibiotics are creating superbugs. Hospital personnel who don’t was their hands are causing billions of dollars in medical expenses and tens of thousands of preventable deaths a year.
I’m not even going to bother trying to find the statistics for how many billions of dollars Americans spend on ineffective and potentially dangerous weight-loss products or fad-diet books. Ditto for Botox treatments which are now being sought by people in their teens! But mandated treatment for autism is “too expensive.”
Let’s also have free health care for diabetes. That is an expensive lifetime disease and it does affect children.
Also, there are many diseases of the nervous system that cannot be diagnosed as to what it is and there is no cure and very little relief for the patient. And this does also affect children.
Think all those people should also be given their medical treatment for free?
Think all those people should also be given their medical treatment for free
Ellen,
When insurance covers something, the medical treatment is not “free.”
The Catholic Church recognizes a right to medical care. Don’t you?
Yet we have a for profit insurance healthcare system. That is what insurance is. It covers you for the unexpected. How can laws exist that would allow insurance companies drop a person with a pre-existing condition? How could people actually feel that they should only be responsible for what they would actually incur? If people want to only pay for the things that they have, then they should just pay as you go. Insurance is for the unforseen. When you get down to it, isnt that a little bit of a ‘greedy’ approach to looking at it? Would it be better to just let people get sicker and die with diseases that are clearly more costly? It’s almost like people do not care about others at all. Sharon Angles statments are repulsive to me.
How can laws exist that would allow insurance companies drop a person with a pre-existing condition?
Cindy,
I am pleased to report that thanks to the President, as of September 23rd, they cannot at least for children up until age 19. Further protections will gradually come into law.
Angle is no angel. Apparently, she’s embraced Louis XV: Après moi le dèluge.
The concept of pre-existing condition is obscene. Plain and simple.
Re: pregnancy -Austrian friends of mine had a baby today. In Austria, pregnant women can’t be fired. 8 weeks before and after birth women must not work. Even before, women are protected from dangerous work. For these 16 weeks, the woman gets her full salary. Then, for a year (plus 2 months for the other spouse) the mother can stay at home, receiving 80% of her salary (capped at a net monthly payment of close to $3000). After this, she can have her old job back. *
Don’t show this to Republicans, they might drop dead. Mind you, this situation is similar in the other EU countries. Protection of mothers of this kind is requires for membership.
Lastly, abortion rates in the EU are far lower than in the USA in general and even more so among teenagers.
* some, ahem, “pro-family” conservatives might argue that this is to blame for low birth rates. The best for high birth rates is apparently third world squalor, so they’re working on bringing those conditions to the USA.
“VN’s contributors seem to think that most of their readers are Catholics who proudly proclaim themselves pro-life and regularly vote Republican and need regular reminders that the Republican Party was not immaculately conceived and is capable of being wrong. I suppose this is boosted by volume of commentary.”
Yu have actually summed up my opinion of the Amercian Catholic church; and I don’t believe that this is mere prejudice on my part, but supported by recent history.
Bush carried the catholic vote, torture not being an issue; some claimed that they didn;t know he was a torturer, but that’s a bit hard to swallow, though it’s vaguely possible. Be that as it may, when it became clear that the Bush administration did condone torture, Catholics stayed home in 2008, suddenly rememebering that they were “above politics.” They did NOT “vote the rascals out,” they abstained from the dirty business of politics.
Now there is a fierce anti-incumbent sentiment, now that the incumbents are democrats. Catholics will NOT be staying home; they have suddenly realized that it’s important to hold our politicians accountable.
Obviously there are individual exceptions, but my sense is that this is how the Catholic vote works: they NEVER vote against republicans and NEVER vote for democrats. They either vote republican or declare themselves “independent.” But this pattern of voting benefits the GOP.
David,
The Catholic church does not recognize a right to government provided health care. She recognizes the right to governmentally protected nondiscrimination in the provision of health care, but not the right to government provided health care or health insurance.
The Catholic church does not recognize a right to government provided health care. She recognizes the right to governmentally protected nondiscrimination in the provision of health care, but not the right to government provided health care or health insurance.
Austin,
I said, “The Catholic Church recognizes a right to medical care.” I didn’t say “government provided health care.” If by “the right to governmentally protected nondiscrimination in the provision of health care” you mean that the Church would approve of a “nondiscriminatory” system where the wealthy could pay for health care and the poor could not, I don’t agree with you. Would you not say that society must guarantee basic human rights? And if the poor have nowhere else to turn but the government, then the government must come to their assistance?
Here is what the Catechism says:
See also this page on the USCCB site, which has the following quote, among others:
Austin’s post used such tortured wording, I have no clue what he is getting at.
Catholics don’t have to be reminded that democrats are baby-killing perverts they are told this over and over.
Doesn’t seem to stop them from voting for democrats in droves, or even running as pro-abort democrats themselves.
So phosphorius, what were they supposed to do? Vote for a pro-abort, or vote for a torturer? Seems staying home was the most prudent thing to do. Or is voting for an intrinsic evil ok as long as it’s your party doing it?
NEVER vote for democrats
Well, if a pro-life democrat ever ran for an office for which I am a constituent, I’d be glad to.
Her position on the autism coverage (from the short clip) seems to be that too much that may not really be autism is included. So she does not appear to be against coverage for true autism, only the inclusion of various and sundry things under that heading.
On maternity, well, what can I say. The theory of insurance is to spread risks, so you are paying for things that you may never contract in order to spread the cost around (and therefore diminish the cost per payor). If she had a heart condition (or liver, or kidney or whatever) would she agree that those who do not have such conditions should be able to excise that coverage and reduce the premium for them, thereby increasing the premium for her?
Maternity is a bit different than other conditions in that it is not a “disease” and the risk factor (conjugal relations) is pretty much under your control. I might support a slightly higher premium for women of child bearing age per household or something to that effect to help offset (something on the order of $20 to $30 per year per family to get the coverage). But other than that, she should be willing to help shoulder some of the maternity risk if others are helping shoulder some of her heart, liver, etc. risk from which they may never suffer.
Ms. Angle is running against a pro-life Democrat.
well, unforntunately, I am not in Nevada.
So she does not appear to be against coverage for true autism, only the inclusion of various and sundry things under that heading.
c matt,
Except she is incorrect that other things are being included in the diagnosis.
As I noted in my message above to Blackadder, the bill that mandates insurance coverage for autism was passed with overwhelming support in the Republican-controlled Nevada state legislature (Assembly: 39 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 absent; Senate: 21 in favor, 0 opposed). So at minimum, if Sharron Angle opposes the bill, she is out of step with her own state legislature.
well, unfortunately, I am not in Nevada.
Ok, is wasn’t you. But didn’t someone hear say they worked as a professional showgirl/blackjack dealer? I just assumed anyone in that line of work….
:)
Does anyone know what Sharron Angle has for health insurance, if any?
I would make both a poor showgirl (being male) and a poor blackjack dealer (as I have about as much luck as that Schleprock character on the Flintstones).
I see things as almost exactly the reverse of your post.
In the first place, I think both parties have plenty of selfishness, but the Democratic party is par excellence the voice and tool of selfishness.
It may well be that Sharron Angle is a selfish human being; however, the majority of Republicans whom I know, are very generous people, who simply have a principled stand against government enforced redistribution of wealth, as opposed to voluntary giving. This is all the more so, since state subsidized programs are, increasingly, inherently immoral. And, since time began, such programs are exposed to a great deal of incidental immorality – kickbacks, rewarding special interest groups and lobbyists, etc. Not to mention, it’s inefficient. The good I can do directly with twenty dollars is far greater than the good the goverment program does with twenty dollars, after it buys land for the building, pays for the building, pays utilities for the building, pays to staff the building, pays to supply the building and the staff of the building with necessary requisites, and then finally distributes two cents of my twenty dollars to those in need.
Beyond this, I’ll tell you what I came to realize during my time at the University: this post gets long, but I hope some people may read it and think deeply about the pressing issues of policy that have to be made NOW. This is from the experience of a Benedictine Monk, who just went through the State University system.
Here’s what I’ve learned: there are selfish people in either party; but the (historic and actual) ideals of the Republican party (albeit NOT the more recent neo-conservative principles) make an hyopcrite of a selfish Republican, whereas the principles of the Democratic party are almost inherently selfish by virtue of the outright culture of entitlements, special interest rights, and forced redistribution of wealth… an INHERENTLY unamerican and objectively immoral ideology. Some Democrats are good-hearted and well-meaning, and I have no doubt that is true about the owner of this particular blog… but this is out of naivete and ignorance of the core essence of the Democratic party and its intenseley socialist nature.
How did I realize this in the University? I saw in the University a microcosm of the broader societal problems; what I saw in the University caused me to consider more deeply the things in the surrounding society, and have brought me from being a liberal Democrat in many ways, all the way ’round to be being a card-carrying conservative (in the genuine conservative tradition, and not a la Bush, Cheney, etc.). It may seem like I’m going on a tangent for a moment or two, but I’ll tie it all up in the end.
I’m a monk (Benedictine); that means I was unable to attend the University on my own personal finances. My parents and the monastery certainly couldn’t afford to send me. However, they wanted me to get a degree from a secular school before going to seminary for various reasons. I went to school to apply, and also applied for financial aid. For the first two years I was in school, I was at the monastery and was supported thereby. This made me a “zero expected contribution” student. The result? ALL of my tuition, with a few hundred left over, was entirely paid for by government grants.
Now, I get to the University and immediately realize a few problems. Initially I went into a long speech about how the vast majority of the student body was essentially incompetent (academically) in every measurable way. I’ll spare you the full speech, but let me highlight the two big points: the students came into the University, i.e., overwhelmingly from public high school, as semi-literate persons; once at the University, the same “pass the buck” system that graduated these kids as high school seniors, rubber-stamped incompetent kids through the University system as a matter of unofficial policy. Because I was an older student, and because I was a bright kid with some scholarships, I took upper-level courses right away and spent a lot of time socializing and studying with grad students. As we all know, grad students teach and grade the basic-level courses in their departments. They were always shocked by the quality of their students’ work, but told me that their instructions were to pretty much pass every kid with at least a “C,” unless they absolutely couldn’t understand their writing. The significance of this will come up later.
After the death of our most experienced monk, our bottom-heavy community of young men and one old man (vocations were low for a long time there, as I’m sure we all know) faced difficulties with finances and leadership. For various reasons, the decision was made to close that monastery and move the younger men elsewhere. But, I was in the middle of school! What to do? The bishop and the superior of my new monastic house said that I should finish school in-state (where I had low tuition rates) if possible, and regroup with the monastery in the following year. I began to investigate the feasability of this arrangement, to look for a job, etc., etc.
What I soon discovered, was that IF I got a job, a large portion of my financial aid would disappear. As a “zero contribution” student, my tuition and then some was covered. As a student with a part time, minimum wage job, over half of my grants would disappear (but loans went up!). If I had worked, my job would barely pay for my rent, groceries, gas, etc. – and that left no wiggle room in case of an emergency. And then, I was still left with about ten thousand to pay in tuition, not to mention books.
In the end, we learned that it was cheaper for me to stay unemployed and collect the full amount of financial aid plus other government helps (welfare, etc.), with a small amount of help from donations. I could have accepted loans, but as a monk I would not likely be able to pay them off, which seemed dishonest. Plus, who wants to be saddled with decades of tuition-loan debt? I remember my cousin Susie, 15 years older than me, still trying to pay off college debt in her mid-thirties with a family to feed. So, I didn’t work, I accepted the grants, and I declined the loans.
At first, I didn’t bat an eye at any of this. I was a monk, working in good faith to get a degree, and I was glad that government programs existed to help me.
But then, in my Senior year, I began to see the broader scope of the whole situation. All of the problems – poor student performance, rising tuition costs, college debt being paid off for years by hard-working people, a morally decadent society – all had roots in the same, socialist problem. How?
A liberal-democrat mindset that has for years focused on rights and entitlements, and on “equalizing” every group of people on the level of abstract principle and opinion (rather than the objective – and impossible – level of merit and ability) had produced the kind of environment in the public school (a STRONGLY liberal-social-democrat environment) where every child was made to feel equally special and creative and brilliant, while all initiative to teach and learn was surpressed in various ways. The result? A plethora of students with great self-esteem, in spite of being semi-literate, even compared to their 5th-grade-educated great Grandfathers.
Because it is on the public dime, everybody goes to public school. Most people don’t need any skills beyond basic reading and writing, and basic math, for their jobs. In a sane world, people who can only just master this level of learning, would be excused from school after elementary school to do such jobs as don’t require more than this, and there should be no shame or stigma attached to their honest work (like my grandfather and great-grandfather – good, wise men who were respected by their whole community as farmers, but whose education was truly elementary).
But, since it’s on the public dime, everybody goes. And since everybody goes, the public standard is that everybody should have a diploma (or GED); and since not everybody is really capable of (or interested in) succeeding brilliantly at this, the standards have to be kept low. Also, since everybody goes, it is in the vested interest of “social-change” parties to get heavily involved in the system, and keep kids in school as a captive audience for as long as possible.
Of course, if you’re running the socialist machine and doling out the dollars, you also help set curriculum and standards for the public schools. I don’t think a lot of Catholic democrats understand just how morally depraved and anti-catholic a place the public schools are nowadays. I was thoroughly indoctrinated in population control, evolution, the evils of dead white men and the hypocrisy of Christianity, before I left elementary school. I knew FAR MORE about African cultural music and folklore, than about my own. My sexual innocence was shattered in 8th grade, when we listened to our “science” teachers as they shared their sex lives with us and talked about how sex was an inevitable biological “need” for all of us, which we should excercise and explore on our own terms… they were just there to tell us “the facts” (i.e., masturbation is healthy; “stifling yourself” was unhealthy; sexual exploration with peers of either gender is normal; prudish attitudes that were embarrassed of open exploration can be psychologically damaging). After my innocence was shattered, the shards were swept away by my sophomore year, when I was “educated” about “safe” ways that teens could “explore and pleasure” each other without risking pregnancy, and reducing the risk of STDs. I listened to my “health” teacher discuss her sex-life with us and demonstrate how to apply condoms by means of a dildo, and listened to an homosexual couple address our class as “guest speakers,” summoned to tell us that their kind of “sex” was not really at any higher risk for AIDS so long as condoms were used… and besides, they could recommend fellatio and analingus to curious high school boys who were afraid of getting AIDS, but ready to start experimenting. We were all given flash cards with words like “fellatio,” “cunnilingus,” “analingus,” etc., and asked if we knew their meaning. I was the only one in my class who did, and I rolled my eyes as all the other kids snickered while I gave their “street” names.
This produces a certain kind of person by the Senior year of High School, unless some very powerful and lucid influence can command greater respect… and in our society, most kids have no such influence in their lives.
Now, the program continues: after you craft your ideal High School graduate, you subsidize state universities, thus making it possible for everyone to go, thus making it the norm for everyone to go, thus making it the public standard for everyone to go. And, thus the standards have to be kept low, admitting semi-literate applicants and passing them on anyway, finally handing out degrees to students who, fifty years ago, would have been driven off the campus with a blunderbuss. And, all of this at an higher relative cost than fifty years ago, and all at the expense of the taxpayer. Why does the university encourage such students to attend and graduate?
I realized that the subsidization of education produces major problems. Most of them hinge on the interplay of two over-arching factors: i.e., when government aid makes it possible for everyone to go to school, almost everybody does. And, the socialists, who favor radical-left agendas generally, are very interested in rendering people beholden to their government programs en masse, as a forum for social change and propaganda.
In terms of the social change agenda, we all know the state of that on a college campus. The first week of each new school year, all the feminist, GLBT, racist, etc., clubs have their flyers and sidewalk paint all over campus. The professors are often their eager allies. I, a monk, was forced to take a brief class and quiz on the dangers of date-rape, and to affirm the notion that if a girl gets drunk and is taken advantage of (without rufinol, etc., even entering the picture), the man is a rapist and she is entitled to the protection of hate-crime laws and financial compensation. I trust there’s no need to explain how deep the social indoctrination program is at the University.
What I observed on a more fundamental level, was that the system positively rewards people who don’t work. As I say, my financial situation was superior, overall, if I remained unemployed, than it would have been if I worked even at minimum wage, part time. Honest people who do try to work and be self-sufficient are *punished* for working and independence. In the first place, they suffer the immediate loss of grant money; in the second place, they usually have to accept loans, which put them into debt… sometimes for decades to come. There is no incentive to work or to save, financially.
Correspondently thereto, there is not much incentive to succeed academically or intellectually… the system is so intent on involving and processing as many people as possible, that it abhors the idea of a meritocracy. Truly great work (or work that wholeheartedly espouses “progressive” ideals) will get you a scholarship or an award, maybe. But, the grade difference between truly excellent work and truly mediocre work, is often the difference between an A and a high B. Truly bad work usually walks away with a C. For very motivated students, there is a slight benefit to be had from working hard, if it may give them an edge for grad school or genuine work in the field of their degree. For the majority of students, who are simply playing society’s game and getting a random degree, there is no incentive to work hard because the system wants your money and wants your allegiance, and it will purchase it from you in the form of infinite tolerance for bad and sub-standard work. This is a great injustice, and a suicidal policy for any nation.
In the second place, the fact that the government subsidizes the tuition at all, causes the schools to keep raising tuition at an otherwise impossible rate. If the schools had to charge what a family could actually afford, the rates would be significantly lower. But, since they can put the tab on the government, or secure massive goverment loans for students, the rates go higher and higher. This is very bad for the honest people who are actually trying to pay for their tuition (rather than taking hand-outs). It is also bad for society at large (since this money theoretically comes from taxpayers).
I say “theoretically,” for two reasons: first, as more people are on the government dole, fewer people are paying taxes for programs which are obviously getting bigger… which leads to the second reason: in lieu of real money from real taxpayers, there is a need for the government to print money and borrow money from other nations, forcing us into debt and devaluing our currency significantly as it becomes increasingly detached from reality.
So, costs for government services skyrocket both in a “bald-faced” way (i.e., colleges and other government-subsidiaries raise prices as the government increasingly foots the bill) and in a more unseen way (via devaluation of our currency).
This is a pass to total bankruptcy and insolvency. We already see the trouble in Greece and Spain. But, as several comedic sketches have alread pointed out, it’s all a domino effect. Greece borrowed from Spain, who borrowed from France, who borrowed from England, who borrowed from Germany, who borrowed from Italy, who borrowed from Greece. Everybody owes money to everybody in the circle, and nobody has the actual capital on hand. Suicide.
Past this, the problem of social control and indoctrination by the state is very great. When everybody is assigned a social security number at birth, and can’t do anything important without it; when the state controls your education through to young adulthood; when you are indebted to the state through government loans for college; when the state subsidizes your living expenses; when the state subsidizes your healthcare; when the state also controls all the laws and policies of these institutions, upon which every facet of your life is dependent… you are no longer a free citizen in a free country. The illusion and pretence may still exist, but in every way you are bound by the apron strings of the government. And, the leftists who have created the socialist paradise, also control the school curriculum and special sets of laws and regulations for those dependent upon state largesse, and the kinds of services that are permitted (or required?) for infirm citizens, etc. It’s all well and good to say that people can still vote… but, when everybody has been educated by the socialist state, and when everybody depends upon the socialist state for access to the basic building blocks of their lives, who is really going to vote against it, at great personal cost to themselves?
So, my experience with government subsidy throughout education – and especially at the university – showed me how the socialist system actually bankrupts societies; redistributes wealth from working people to non-working people (many of whom could work and be independent, but have little incentive); devalues the currency of all people, essentially reducing them and the nation to poverty over time; makes people into wards of the state; and finally, takes unto itself a great power to control the public opinion on all issues. Therefore, as well-meaning as some in the Democratic party may be, the fact is that the party’s policies create slaves of the state without personal financial independence or hope, in the long run, all so we can pretend to be affluent for a few decades before the bubble bursts. That is not compassionate or unselfish.
So, Sharron Angle may be genuinely selfish through-and-through; I don’t know. But, the mentality which resents government subsidy of other people’s health care, etc., is not necessarily based on selfishness (though individuals could certainly support tax cuts for selfish reasons)… it is actually based on the very altruistic notion that, despite the scariness of having to rely on ourselves and our loved ones to build an happy life, it is actually the best way for a reasonable degree of long-term prosperity. It may result in social imbalances, but these cannot be avoided… unless we take the socialist route, which socially equalizes entire nations – into poverty. And, when people are free and happy and financially prosperous (of which there will be far more in a capitalist – but NOT a corporatist – society), they are free to give charitably to organizations that do work to send poor kids to school, the doctor, etc.
Socialism and subsidies, on the other hand, produce a short-lived and illusory burst of superficial affluence… but, in the end, it enslaves all people to the state and almost guarantees that nobody is financially self-reliant apart from state largesse. THAT is truly selfish: it is based on a narrow and short-term “get mine” mentality, at the expense of others, which ultimately robs and ruins everyone.
Finally, there is the obviously true principle, that forcing someone to give money to state-run “charities,” is theft; donations to humanitarian causes and programs should be voluntary, not state-mandated. That is a fundamental Catholic principle… “let us not do evil, that good may come,” as St. Paul says, later saying of those who speak in such a manner that “their condemnation is just.” No matter what the law says, it is not just to take a man’s money, unless he owes reparations for some crime, and give it to social programs not obviously fundamental to the government’s role in providing for societal basics – i.e., military, roads, courts, etc.
As I say, I know that not every Democrat is selfish… but, the socialist principles so beloved of the Democratic party are inherently selfish. If Democrats don’t realize it, it’s just because they haven’t observed the system working, and then thought about its long term consequences. Republicans can certainly demand their tax-cuts for selfish reasons, but their policies are, long term, far more benevolent to the society. Contrarily, the culture of self-entitlement, even at the expense of others (or often, in radical leftist circles, DELIBERATELY at the expense of others as a way of “equalizing” the classes, races, creeds, etc.), is solidly a leftist philosophy of short-term and misguided selfishness.
“Finally, there is the obviously true principle, that forcing someone to give money to state-run ‘charities,’ is theft”
No, this is not obvious, and this goes contrary to what the Church itself has affirmed throughout the centuries. Taxation is not theft, and the state is to use the taxes for the common good. And you would do well to learn what socialism is, because the state working for the common good itself is not socialism.
Fr. Austin,
As I am sure you know, the Church denies there is any contradiction between private charity the public responsibility to look after the poor and to promote economic justice. It is strange that those who call themselves “conservative” have no problem with the state regulating public morality and justice in such matters as abortion, euthanasia, pornograhy etc; but not on fundamental issues of economic justice. The contradiction, of course, comes from the fact that these American conservatives are actually deeply liberal on economic matters, where personal liberty is held to promotes virtue and a corrective government role is seen as akin to slavery.
As you well know, the Church has never taken this position, and has spoken out strenuously against this kind of liberal mindset. And the modern Church has said that redistribution is part of the responsibility of government (enunciated most clearly in Mater et Magistra). If you think certain programs do not work, or lead to perverse side effects, that’s fine, but it does not negate the underlying principle anymore than problems with democracy call for an abolition of the popular vote.
And as you well know, the Church’s repeated denunciations of socialism refer to a system of collective ownership is is light years from the Democratic party. As Pope Benedict himself has argued, democratic socialism is very closely aligned with Catholic social teaching. But in the US, the dangers of the liberal mindset cannot be purged.
Ohe final point – I’m with you on the many failings of public education, but you mention evolution. Opposition to evolution is not a Catholic issue, and is indeed almost uniquely associated with a peculiar brand of American Protestantism.
Father Austin can probably cherry pick a few charities just as I could cherry pick a few public social welfare programs. But I would be happy to have a discussion with him comparing American private charity as a whole and public social welfare policies as far as overhead, administrative vs. program costs, and the moral good.
Bring it on.