Modern nation-states are governed through a series of compromises between a range of more or less conflicting economic and social interests. What weight is given to different interests varies with the political and economic bargaining power of each and with its ability to ensure that the voices of its protagonists are heard at the relevant bargaining tables. What determines both bargaining power and such ability is in key part money, money used to provide the resources to sustain political power: electoral resources, media resources, relationships to corporations. This use of money procures very different degrees and kinds of political influence for different interests. And the outcome is that although most citizens share, although to greatly varying extents, in such public goods as those of a minimally secure order, the distribution of goods by government in no way reflects a common mind arrived at through widespread shared deliberation governed by norms of rational enquiry. Indeed the size of modern states would itself preclude this. It does not follow that relationships to the nation-state, or rather to the various agencies of government that collectively compose it, are unimportant to those who practice the politics of the virtues of acknowledged dependence. No one can avoid having some significant interest in her or his relationships to the nation-state just because of its massive resources, its coercive legal powers, and the threats that its blundering and distorted benevolence presents. But any rational relationship of the governed to the government of modern states requires individuals and groups to weigh any benefits to be derived from it against the costs of entanglement with it.

For MacIntyre, the possibility of authentic rational discourse is the key issue. In the modern nation-state, the reality of the political community and the discourse it allows is prohibitive to substantial discussions about the common good. According to

the conception of political activity embodied in the modern state, . . . there is a small minority of the population who are to make politics their active occupation and preoccupation, professional and semiprofessional politicians, and a huge largely passive majority who are to be mobilized only at periodic intervals, for elections or national crises. Between the political elites on the one hand and the larger population on the other there are important differences, as in, for example, how much or how little information is required and provided for each. A modern electorate can only function as it does, so long as it has only a highly simplified and impoverished account of the issues that are presented to it. And the modes of presentation through which elites address electorates are designed to conceal as much as to reveal. These are not accidental features of the politics of modern states any more than is the part that money plays in affording influence upon the decision-making process.

I think those quotes provide a good taste of what MacIntyre’s arguing for. Finally, here is MacIntyre’s essay from Notre Dame magazine, quoted in full:

 

The Only Vote Worth Casting in November

Alasdair MacIntyre
University of Notre Dame

When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush’s conservatism and Kerry’s liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish. These two sentences, if fully spelled out, amount to a politics. It is a politics that requires us to be pro-life, not only in doing whatever is most effective in reducing the number of abortions, but also in providing healthcare for expectant mothers, in facilitating adoptions, in providing aid for single-parent families and for grandparents who have taken parental responsibility for their grandchildren. And it is a politics that requires us to make as a minimal economic demand the provision of meaningful work that provides a fair and adequate wage for every working parent, a wage sufficient to keep a family well above the poverty line.

The basic economic injustice of our society is that the costs of economic growth are generally borne by those least able to afford them and that the majority of the benefits of economic growth go to those who need them least. Compare the rise in wages of ordinary working people over the last thirty years to the rise in the incomes and wealth of the top twenty percent. Compare the value of minimum wage now to its value then and next compare the value of the remuneration of CEOs to its value then. What is needed to secure family life is a sufficient minimum income for every family and that can perhaps best be secured by some version of the negative income tax, proposed long ago by Milton Friedman, a tax that could be used to secure a large and just redistribution of income and so of property.

We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.

In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.

Sports are the principal place where children learn the notions of right, law, and fairness. It is also one of the few places where the common man thinks metaphysically: here is something that might not have been, but is. And it is one of the few liturgical acts remaining in our culture: something that is done, not for ulterior reasons, but for its own sake. In a world that is dominated by consumerism and fealty to the almighty dollar and its queen, efficient production, the playing field is the last place where people gather for no other reason but to celebrate, to enjoy festivity, to witness and contemplate the beautiful. It is true that sports are constantly threatened by pernicious forces, particularly in the world of professional athletics, and even in collegiate sports (e.g. the current bowl system in college football, the hegemony of which is preserved solely because it brings in lots of money). Nonetheless, no where else is the value of the amateur so prized.

But this is not a post about sports. The whole tragedy of steroids and baseball has raised a deeper issue for me: what should our attitude be toward the law, rules, right and fairness.

It is a shocking thing to be confronted with the fact that so many have been “cheating” in professional baseball for some time. Part of the reason we enjoy watching sports is because we believe these players take nothing else save their natural abilities and intellects, and compete on a fair playing field. We do not enjoy guile or duplicity in sports for a reason. This is why soccer will never really approach the popularity it has in other parts of the world here in this country. Why? Americans cannot stand the sight of players taking a fall. This phenomenon is endemic in soccer. Europeans, as with their attitudes to rules and the law in general, do not seem to mind. In fact, they seem to even enjoy this intrusion of the theatrical.
The reality is, and the steroids incident in baseball should only remind us, that cheating has long been a part of the game. Particularly in its early years, when betting on the game was rampant. Altering bats, scuffing balls, stealing signs, taking uppers, they’ve all been in the game since the beginning. Nonetheless, we do not like to know about it. And when we find out, the offenders are usually punished. The same goes for other sports. Think of the whole notion of a “foul” or a “penalty”. Despite the fact that certain actions are “illegal”, most players will try to get away with as much as they can. Most will rationalize this as “it’s part of the game”. I would maintain it’s not. The virtuous thing would be to contain one’s actions within the rules of the game, only for the sake of preserving the integrity of what one is delighting in doing in the first place. Of course not all violations are intentional, as these acts may be instinctual. But when it is revealed that a player has premeditatedly and deliberately sought to circumvent the rules, fairness has been upset, and the spectators (and other players) are offended.

The pressure to win, not to mention the financial incentives involved, have made the intention to bend and circumvent the rules fairly the norm. How pervasive is this attitude, particularly in youth athletics? Quite, I would guess. It seems the task would be, teaching children that, despite the adulation that victory ensures (and despite how good it feels to win and be seen as the victor), fidelity to the rules and playing fair provide a greater moral victory, despite the presence or absence of adulation received. Moreover, the adulation perhaps should be avoided or even disdained, and devotion to the game itself for its own sake, prized above all.

So my question is: how important is fairness? Is obedience to the rules something truly praiseworthy? The extensions are obvious. Many Americans cheat one their taxes. Many Americans break traffic laws routinely. Et cetera, ad nauseam. It seems, at least in this country, we like to maintain the appearance of propriety, but if we can get away with it and no one finds out, we will cheat and break the rules. In other countries, for whatever reason, this attitude is all the more pervasive.

(I would maintain that American culture has the most respect and reverence for following the rules, and opprobrium against breaking the law, than any other, despite how hypocritical we may be. For anyone who has spent significant time in other countries, this should be obvious. And it is a peculiar thing as to why we are so concerned/obsessed in the country with following the rules. Whether this is better or worse is another question.)

What is the Catholic response to this? How important is encouraging an attitude of obedience to rules and laws? Should this obedience be unquestioning? If not, how much should be left to the discretion of the common man, and what does this do to legitimate authority? The implications in politics, not to mention the moral life, are obvious.

In recent years there has been a strong reaction against a perceived long-standing tradition in Catholic morality which was overwhelmingly law-based. Many have probably read Pinckaers’s account of this, among others, where much of the blame is laid on the voluntarism of Scotus and the Divine absolutism of Ockham. Opposed to this is a recent emphasis on “virtue ethics” and a morality that proceeds from questions of happiness and right desire, all of which is supposedly a recovery of a more classical understanding of morality. Still, I think that there is a huge penumbra remaining here: the Church is still a very much rules-based society, with our own code of law. Israel was also very law-based, as we see in the Old Testament, which isn’t to say that they were unaware of other ulterior motivations or foundations for their code (covenant, God’s spousal love with Israel, etc.). And for better or worse, when most people examine their consciences and confess, they think of trespasses and violations of rules, boundaries, and thou-shalt-nots.

(A related point: I have often heard the distinction where some try to express a more “European” approach to canon-law, morality, etc., where the law is the ideal, and everyone knows this, but in fact most are comfortable aiming at it if often falling short. This attitude is typically opposed to a more “American” one, where the “letter of the law” is the most important.)

What should our attitude toward rules be? How important is right and fairness, and what and how should we teach our children about this?

(E.g. should we encourage and teach our children to bend the rules in sport, so as to win, or rather is fidelity to the law so as to promote fairness more important? Remember we then have to explain why most will not follow the rules or will bend them, and how our children will be persecuted if they decide to follow the rules since they will not win as often on a playing field where in fact many do seek and retain an “unfair” advantage, and are rewarded with adulation for winning.)