Paul Ryan: “Ayn who?”
At Georgetown on Thursday, Congressman Paul Ryan gave his much-anticipated talk about the Republican budget he designed and that he has defended as embodying the Catholic social justice principle of subsidiarity — something more than a few Catholics, including the U.S. hierarchy, have found hard to believe.
Several good things have emerged from this episode, it seems to me: One is that a Catholic university was once again an arena for a vigorous debate on contested issues, and I suspect a lot of folks have learned a good deal about Catholic social teaching that we didn’t know before — something to keep in mind when folks start clamoring for certain speakers to be barred from Catholic campuses.
Another good thing: Ryan himself seemed to alter some of his rhetoric, being careful to add words like “solidarity” to his rather “lobotomized” version of subsidiarity. Though as Michael Sean Winters notes, matching deeds to his words would be the important next step.
And perhaps best of all, Ryan seemed to discover the humility of prudential judgment, noting: “What I have to say about the social doctrine of the Church is from the viewpoint of a Catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day.”
This seems critical, and it’s good to see Ryan’s comrades taking up this line. “Let’s stop the easy moralistic posturing,” as First Things’ Joseph Knippenberg advised the bishops. Indeed. Especially since we need to use that easy moral posturing for the opposition to health care reform, the contraception mandate, and of course the incipient Nazi and Stalinist terror that is set to descend upon us from the White House at any moment.
My favorite development, however, is that this whole saga gave Rep. Ryan a chance to debunk that noxious myth that he is a disciple of the goddess of all things libertarian and irreligious, Ayn Rand. As he told National Review this week, it’s an “urban legend”:
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”
Knippenberg is glad that we can finally be rid of that “canard,” and at MOJ Rick Garnett rips into those who have associated Ryan with Rand. At the scrupulously non-partisan Catholic Vote site, Joshua Mercer takes Ryan’s critics to task:
I earnestly hope that Father Reese and others will now stopping pushing this urban legend now that Paul Ryan has categorically rejected it. Trying to paint Paul Ryan as a bloodthirsty capitalist with no mercy or compassion for the poor might be effective propaganda, but we as Catholics have a responsibility to not bear false witness.
Indeed! How could anyone say such things about Ryan and Rand? Unless of course, as Vince Miller notes, it happens to be Paul Ryan himself. In his own campaign video…
And that’s in addition to these gems that ThinkProgress helpfully gathered:
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
“I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” — a 2003 interview with The Weekly Standard.
So maybe Ryan and his allies embrace Orwell more than Ayn Rand?
PS: The Aquinas hug is nice, too. But as Esquire’s Charles Pierce notes, Saint Thomas may not provide Ryan much cover.
Did some one say flip-flop? Etch-a Sketches for all!!!
He’s such a sincere looking young man…..
Yes, there we have it, George Romney’s perfect running-mate, a man with the same uncanny ability to transform himself and his most fundamental ideals even as he speaks.
I suppose you meant Mitt, Beverly, not his dad. But there might be big dissonance if Mitt’s flippin’ when Paul’s floppin’. They’ll need careful coordination.
I do not agree, as far as I understand it, Ryan’s budget. However, i don’t like tossing out terms like misrepresenting or being unCatholic or other characterizations relative to his faith life that I have heard and read in the press by other Catholics. Simply because he has a differing interpretation of the social teaching of the Church does not make him in “error”.
I am also not a fan of Rand either and I was concerned that Ryan was handing out her work when I read about. However, I think we have to appreciate the fact that every lay Catholic is going to be influenced by philosophies and ideologies that lie outside of the gambit of what we would consider “Catholic”.
I have historically, for example, been influenced by political philosophies that might be considered quasi-anarchial. Consequently, in some ways I am supportive of libertarian thinking in some areas of political life.
I would guess that it takes some years in office and a fair amount of reflection before any politician or leader is going to be able to develop a coherent, legislative philosophy that will guide him or her. The oath that US leaders take is to the constitution which inevitably leads to debates around the meaning of the constitution as it is applied to public life.
I think we should applaud the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough to engage in structured reflection on how it coheres with his economic politics (even if we disagree with those)
George D
“I think we should applaud the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough to engage in structured reflection on how it coheres with his economic politics (even if we disagree with those)”
I agree, but it seems that Paul Ryan has made an issue of his Catholic faith. See his website, where it says that he is a parishioner at St. John Vianney Parish. So, I guess it is fair for us to question how faithful he is to Cathoic Social teaching.
I am amused by Paul Ryan’s recent repudiation of his attachment to Ayn Rand.
Nevertheless, if liberal Catholics get to be cafeteria Catholics and oppose the church’s ridiculous teachings against artificial contraception, legalized abortion in the first trimester, and legalizing same-sex marriage, then conservative Catholics such as Paul Ryan should get to be cafeteria Catholics and selectively interpret Catholic social teachings.
But I agree with President Obama that Ryan’s budget proposal is social Darwinism. So let’s criticize Ryan’s budget proposal as social Darwinism.
Thanks for this summary, and for all the links (which are a summary in their own way).
I agree it’s good that Ryan is talking about solidarity. Next, perhaps, he could deepen his understanding of subsidiarity to its Latin roots in subsidium, the principle of the “reserve troops”, ready to come to the aid of those in need when those closest to them fail to protect them.
Does anybody here think that Ayn Rand herself would agree with Ryan than he can be both a Randian and a believer in Catholic social principles? (Unless he’s quite dumb, of course.)
Geeezzz. Paul Ryan is a grown man, not a child. He is rambling around in one of the most powerful legislative bodies in the history of the known galaxy. And, yet, in only the last few months has it dawned on him Rand’s philosophy was as tragically barren as her romances. How the heck did this fellow learn to read so well without multiple parts of his noggin engaged? You know, the parts that say “there’s the audience” and “there’s the camera”. Both are likely pointed at me.
While I’m at it, what da heck is with these folks throwing Marx’s name around without a clue as to where that fellow truly failed miserably, as a husband and father. Often happens when one sets out to save the world, I’m told. And they’re the party of family values? I have no idea what these people are but they are not conservatives. Libertarians, perhaps? I have no idea what that is and I don’t believe those who call themselves Libertarians do either.
A positive note, I’m always late to the race but if you want to read a fellow channeling Twain’s view of all this give Charles Pierce’s “Idiot America” a spin. The title sounds condescending, the writing is anything but.
Masterful post.
Alex Pareene also has a funny roundup of the hot-and-cold Rand-Ryan relationship.
It doesn’t take a leap to equate Ryan to Rand. I just read Atlas Shrugged last summer! Me thinks he denies the comparison too much! Since I just witnessed a one-man impersonation of St. Thomas Aquinas last Sunday, I’d say that Ryan’s own comparison to that saint is more of a stretch than to Ayn Rand!
You can look it up: we really were not better as a country and a society during the Gilded Age when the federal government played no role in alleviating poverty and hunger. The programs of the New Deal, and the Great Society war on poverty really did help people to not only survive, but move up the economic ladder. Food Stamps, public education, medicaid, housing support actually have made a difference. Perfect? No. Inefficient and occasionally wasteful? Yes. But Newt Gingrich was right about one thing: The Paul Ryan Budget is a radical document.
jbruns,
You can also look up what would happen to the economy if a close associate of Ayn Rand was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. probably the most powerful economic job in the country. Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Fed from 1987 to 2008, was an intimate of Rand’s and one of her earliest followers who remained highly influenced by her. Greenspan, who was tremendously influential, supported reduced taxes and the lowered interest rates, which lead eventually to the housing bust and the 2008 melt-down. If you liked Greenspan you’ll love Paul Ryan.
I’ll give it to Greenspan, though. He was interviewed as the economy was melting-down and was honest enough to admit that had been wrong big-time — that the market was not automatically self-corrective. Unlike Greenspan, other conservatives don’t seem to have learned the economic lessons that are staring them in the face, and they always insist that lowering taxes is the way to go.
We should have a thread or two on Rand one of these days — while her melt-down is still with us.
I read Ryan’s speech and it is a debate that Americans should have. With all due respect to philosophical questions which I love as I studied it as an undergraduate, as I age I become more of a pragmatist and less enamoured with broad rhetorical flourishes. The issue is not Rand, it is debt, spending and taxation – not only in the USA but everywhere.
In Ontario’s last provincial election there was not a whisper about the debt. Following the election came the Drummond Report which was commissioned by an independent economist. As the Toronto Star reported, ” “Ontario faces more severe economic and fiscal challenges than Ontarians realize,” said Drummond, a former TD Bank chief economist, warning the deficit would balloon from $16 billion this year to $30.2 billion by 2017-18 unless the hemorrhaging is stanched.
“Our message will strike many as profoundly gloomy. It is one that Ontarians have not heard, certainly not in the recent election campaign, but one this commission believes it must deliver,” he said, castigating all the major political parties for saying they could balance the books within five years relatively painlessly.
The bottom line is that Paul Ryan is discussing issues that need to be discussed, either privately in the legislature or publicly in the campaign. The litmus test for me is the common good and are the poor given hope and opportunity and do the rich understand the moral obligation they have to the poor not as a matter of charity (pace Benedict’s first encyclical) but as a matter of justice. I know Ryan and the conservatives are big on charity, I am not. I think it is all about funding programs and services for people. so I am in half agreement with him (the half is his framing of the problem)
Being forewarned by Network, I caught Sister Simone Campbell, who heads that organization, on MSNBC a couple of nights ago, discussing the Ryan budget and its shortcomings. She managed to be both charitable about Ryan, and devastating about his budget. I must say I’m glad I will never have to debate her!
I would agree, however, that the questions Ryan and his ilk raise about debt do need to be properly debated. Given the appallingly debased political climate today, I’m not sure that such a debate would be fruitful, particularly in paying attention to the important questions that George D. raises in his last paragraph above.
Network seems to be on the USCCB’s hit list, to be looked at during the investigation into the LWRC. As far a I can make out, their chief sin has been in not dropping immediately all their work in lobbying for housing, health care, relief of poverty, etc., etc., etc. and turning their undoubted talents to pointing out to the world the terrible dangers of contraception and gay marriage, and so on.
Presumably, the poor you have always with you, so they can wait. Another probably sin is that they are a group of sisters who don’t seem to understand that they should have a man — preferable ordained — in charge of them. So I made another contribution to Network today.
“I am amused by Paul Ryan’s recent repudiation of his attachment to Ayn Rand.”
He and Romney will make great running mates. Both seem to forget that what one utters is NEVER lost to the enquiring eye with google.
George D: I just wanted to say that I completely agree that this is a debate we need to have, about our fiscal and budgetary problems. I am big on getting our financial house in order, because I think that provides all sorts of benefits to society. I am not at all convinced that Ryan’s plan is the way to go (his plan may bust the budget too, as its provision are vague — and since Reagan the GOP has had a much worse track record of fiscal rigor than the Democrats). But as James Stewart (I think) in the NYT said, it’s a good starting point.
The issue to me is his effort to claim that his budget manifests the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. That is actually different from whether it works, though there is overlap. Lots of things could “work” and help our financial situation — getting rid of anyone over 80 would I imagine hugely reduce health care and benefits costs. But…
I actually think the GOP, and Ryan in particular, it seems, made a perhaps understandable bit of overreach in trying to “baptize” the budget in order to give it religious credibility and cover. The GOP has an advatnage with religiously observant voters, and may have wanted to press that further. Or maybe the impulse was akin to trying to declare the Iraq war legit under just war doctrine. The war turned out to be a disaster on almost every level, but even if it had been a political and military “success” it still would not have qualified as a just war under Catholic doctrine.
David Gibson says that “getting rid of anyone over 80 would I imagine hugely reduce health care and benefits costs.”
If the frame of reference were my personal wealth or David Gibson’s personal wealth, the reductions that would result from getting rid of anyone over 80 might seem to be huge — big bucks compared to the bucks I have available to spend.
However, if the frame of reference were the federal budget, the reductions would not be huge as percentage amounts of the federal budget.
Now, apart from this point, I suspect that Paul Ryan may have felt that some of his fellow Catholics were being holier than thou in denouncing his proposed budget based on their understanding of Catholic social teachings. So for understandable reasons, he decided to say that he knows a thing or two about Catholic social teaching. Except that his understanding of subsidiarity is idiosyncratic, to say the least.
If Ryan had recommended Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom instead of Ayn Rand’s work I wonder if the reaction of progressive Catholics would be any different. My guess is that, on the other hand, they would not be dismayed by a politician on the left, Catholic or not, recommending Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. (FWIW, I’d recommend both).
What would be the most pro-market work that a Catholic could recommend without incurring the ire of leftist Catholics?
For anyone interested here’s a reminiscence on Friedman on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Capitalism and Freedom:
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/2012_4/79-84MR54.pdf
MF: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
“The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.”
Moving well beyond my ability, does Aquinas’s grand notions still hold significant weight in Catholicism these days? I’ve stumbled through at bit of that fellow’s ideas and realized I had found another reason for wishing for a next world. One in which I would understand better. Nonetheless I believe the gist of it was reason matters. That sufficient debt can cripple a nation seems reasonable enough. However, using that bit of largely common sense to distract an attentive audience from a useful discussion of the predicatable, prevasive damage done by unbridled greed seems altogether lacking in reason.
As I recall this remarkable nation all but collapsed under the weight of seemingly insurmountable debt on more than a few occassions in its history. But here we are.
Hoping Ryan’s commitment to Catholicism would prevent him from tossing out the Old Testament altogether, I would love to hear him present a homily on the tale of David and Goliath.
Patrick Molloy: I do not admire William F. Buckley, Jr., to say the least. But Buckley is usually credited with making Ayn Rand unacceptable in the conservative movement, through the influential magazine he started and edited called the NATIONAL REVIEW. Buckley was of course a Catholic.
But Ayn Rand has a very negative reputation among many liberals today who are not Catholics.
George D, –
Sorry to hear about Ontario. I had understood that Canada had done quite well in the melt-down as compared with other major countries. Given what you say about Ontario, how are the other provinces doing? Do the provinces typically assume more of the communal services than the national government? I suppose I could put it this way: is there more subsidiarity in Canada than in the U.S,?
John Prior: “I suppose you meant Mitt, Beverly, not his dad.”
As OJ Simpson would say, “Doh!” ;-)
MightBe: “Moving well beyond my ability, does Aquinas’s grand notions still hold significant weight in Catholicism these days?..”
Aquinas’s grand notions will probably always “hold significant weight” in Catholicism, but I don’t think many Catholics would consider Aquinas the go-to guy nor scholasticism or neo-scholasticism the best theologies to help one gain a better understanding of modern Catholic social and economic doctrine. I’d say Mr. Ryan was grasping for something to say that sounded halfway “Catholic” under the circumstances.
David Gibson: “I actually think the GOP, and Ryan in particular, it seems, made a perhaps understandable bit of overreach in trying to “baptize” the budget in order to give it religious credibility and cover. The GOP has an advatnage with religiously observant voters, and may have wanted to press that further…”
Do you think? I’d say there is absolutely NO DOUBT that Republicans are trying to use the bishops and every potentially Catholic-related issue they can grasp onto to convince as many Catholics as possible that voting Republican is their religious duty.
“I’d say there is absolutely NO DOUBT that Republicans are trying to use the bishops and every potentially Catholic-related issue they can grasp onto to convince as many Catholics as possible that voting Republican is their religious duty.”
And when Ryan’s budget suddenly attracted such much criticism from bishops and other Catholic voices alike, Ryan undoubtedly believed he had to, may even have been told he had to, do something as soon as possible to “tie off” the wound before criticism of the budget endangered the hold Republicans thought they had on the Catholic vote this year.
Oh crumb…”such much” is a phrase popularized by George Romney and me back before OJ Simpson turned into a cartoon character. IOW, doh!;-)
MightBe –
Aquinas didn’t get into economic theory, though he did talk about some concrete problems like fair prices. Economic theory wasn’t really even begun until about the 15th century, when the Age of Exploration began. The exploration led to the formation of corporations and international trade, and introduced some moral problems not considered before. In the 15th century some Dominicans and Jesuits at the University of Salamanca, including deVitoria and Suarez, developed (sort of) Aquinas’ natural law theory, including his theory of natural rights and just war theory, and Western economic theory began in ernest with this group.
In the 20′s Oxford started its PPE (Philosophy, Politics, Economics) curriculum, and it has spread world-wide, though not far enough. Some of the curricula emphasize ethics. Originally it was set up to train civil servants. Good idea. Too bad Ryan didn’t pursue that major.
Ann & Beverly
Many thanks for the helpful and much needed additions to my knowledge of these things.
While cleary dated (1939), would you consider Edwin Burtt’s “Types of Religious Philosophy” a useful source for a hopefully mid-level fellow? I’m reading it now. Shouldn’t take more than a lifetime or two.
While I appreciate GeorgeD’s observation, this one struck me as worth a second look: “However, I think we have to appreciate the fact that every lay Catholic is going to be influenced by philosophies and ideologies that lie outside of the gambit of what we would consider ‘Catholic.’”
As Catholics, aren’t we supposed to be judging ideas based on how the square with Church teaching? Even a bad Catholic now lapsed like me knows that.
Certainly Catholic politicians who have been soft abortion and the deaths of innocents have been called on to explain themselves. So why not Ryan, especially at a time when CNN estimates 45,000 people in the U.S. die from lack of health care insurance and 50 million, many of them children, receive Medicaid benefits.
Ryan’s policies, which would seriously gut Medicaid and Medicare, could certainly be expected to drive up mortality rates, so he needs to explain how these collateral deaths are justified. By Church teaching.
Ann: “We should have a thread or two on Rand one of these days — while her melt-down is still with us.”
I agree. Her philosophy has definitely made a big splash with the Tea Party crowd, although many, like Ryan, don’t share her atheism, a situation that would undoubtedly elicit some choice — and cutting — words from Herself, popularity (or electability) never having been a Rand value. Still, her books continue to sell like hotcakes, rivaling the Good Book for yearly sales in the US. How such an unlikable, even mediocre writer got to be so widely read is a mystery, although the fact that the Ayn Rand Institute distributes her books free of charge to any teacher in the US who agrees to order them explains a good deal. The ARI says it currently distributes 350,000 books to US public schools every year. What other *philosopher* gets that kind of exposure, never mind readers? (Cf. AYN RAND NATION by Gary Weiss.) What an irony, too, that religious parents who keep such a close eye on anything that smacks of secularism and atheism have no problem with their kiddies reading Ayn Rand novels. Maybe because they read them too. It’s a mad, mad world, this America.
Before the Ryan / Rand hullabaloo subsides it’s useful to consider that
1) Ryan is a “cafeteria Randite,” not a purist. Here’s a post from the Ann Rand Institute excoriating Ryan for his compromises. He is considered by the true believers to have a bleeding heart since he acknowledges the need for an effective safety net, something Rand would never countenance. So he not only rejects much of Randian metaphysics, they reject the views he has embraced in his voting record and in his budget documents.
http://capitalism.aynrand.org/the-compromised-case-for-capitalism-2/
2) The Georgetown signatories no doubt include some who favor same-sex marriage, legalized abortion and other causes in the culture wars favored by academia. They would find themselves on the same side as the Ayn Rand Institute and Ayn herself. In short, at least a good portion of the letter-writers claiming to uphold Catholic Social Thought in all its glory are more Randian than Ryan when it comes to various “liberationist”causes. He might want to nail them on some of their Randian preferences.
Since they were so kind as to send him a copy of the Compendium of Social Doctrine he might want to reciprocate by returning a few pages to Georgetown highlighting teachings on the family, though he might understandably recoil from such a juvenile gesture, not knowing how common these practices are in the academic playgrounds.
“As Catholics, aren’t we supposed to be judging ideas based on how the square with Church teaching? ”
Do you honestly believe for one moment that the history of church teachings on such things as slavery, usury, women, salvation, the laity ad nauseum should all have been the guiding touchpoints on how Catholics should be judging ideas of the time?
MightBe=
I’m not familiar with Burtt, but I checked Amazon, and it seems it has been in print for many decades, which is usually a very good sign, though even the best teachers have their weak spots.
What is your particular interest? A survey of all philosophies of religion? Or are you also mainly interested in the big questions of the existence and nature of God? Or in the contemporary wars with the atheists which are mainly about science and philosophy of religion? How much philosophy have you done?
I don’t know the current textbooks, but contact me off blog and let me know your interests, and I’ll try to recommend some things that might interest you. But I warn you, the subject is wide and deep. I’d say the main thing for you to do now is to get to know a few of the major thinkers and their questions and vocabulary. That will make the others easier to read.
“As Catholics, aren’t we supposed to be judging ideas based on how the square with Church teaching? Even a bad Catholic now lapsed like me knows that.”
Jean –
The simple answer is Yes. I’d say that practically all Catholics agree that we really musn’t just pick and choose the teachings we like. The problem is that some of the official teachings look clearly contradictory. (Even some popes have disagreed with each other about some things.) That, I think, is one of the very biggest problems in the Church right now.
One of a pair of contradictory teachings says that we must always agree with the Church, while another teaching says that we must alway follow our consciences.
So which teaching is true? The conservatives say we must go with Rome. The liberals say we must disagree with Rome when we honestly have good reason to think Rome has made a mistake. So what to do? Scripture says we must tell the truth. So my conclusion is that we must look at all the facts as best we can, and then tell the truth as we see it. Yes, we might be wrong, But what else should we do but tell the truth?
Ann: You answered by question well enough. Thank you. Being somewhat aware of the sheer volume and depth of writings on grand notions I’ll continue to follow the discussions here and likely find more than well enough suggestions. At the moment I seem best served by writers like Jung or Russell who, it seems to me, often explain mind numbing complexities in terms more close to common sense.
My two cents on truth. In my limited experience truth is a fine thing except when used as weapon. In that circumstance it seems all too likely not only to be unhelpful but much too likely to turn itself back on the truth teller. If the person to whom the truth is being delivered is in a place beyond any possible humor their reality or their illusions will likely prevent them from perceiving truth as a thing useful. Isn’t that a thing parents learn quickly enough?
There are days whn I feel like I’m back in the 40′s and &0′s again when the country was torn over social justice issues (voting rights/lynching) and big oil corporations vs. the little guy.
Tydings on the floor of the senate denouncing the”tyranny of the majority”
The Churcj then was a Church of the middle class .
That was then, now it gives aid and comfort to the powerful using”subsidiarity” as a base to support plutocracy even as USCCB gives lip service to the poor.
The rhetoric goes on poltically (e.g. yesterday Gillespie terms Obamna the “most divisive president) with all its chutzpah and hypocrisy, but Church leaders are wrapped up in their own”liberty” and the yans et al can forget about the common good.
Politics, sadly has not changed much except to get worse, but the Church has grown colder in its “definitive” stances about prioirites( which are not much like Mt 25.)
Meanwhile Dolan on his victory tour of Milwaukee with red hat in hand gave the Republican a big hug including Ryan and Walker: http://bit.ly/JPW1kl
That should have been Republicans
MightBe,
Ah, Russell. I continue a fan, even though at the moment he has lost some stature. Splendid explainer. However, he (as well as most modern philosophers) thinks that philosophy began with Descartes, which of course it didn’t. So, not understanding the ancients, they largely dismiss them. Unfortunately, to understand the great philosophers of any age you really have to understand their questions, where they’re coming from, and you absolutely must know their vocabulary. Otherwise they can seem even crazy. Unfortunately, there have been a few who were/are nuts.
Since you like Russell, be sure to read his classic debate with Fr. Copleston, S.J. on the existence of God. It’s both clear and deep considering how short it is, and it’s eminently civil on both sides. It’s in many anthologies. Fr, Copleston’s “History of Philosophy” is well on its way to being a classic history. And do try Edward Feser. He’s a conservative politically, but otherwise fine :-) Try him at his blog. He’s nice to students :-) http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
Intros to contemporary philosophy are problematic. The Anglo stuff often assumes some technical vocabulary and the continental stuff’s vocabulary is often astonishingly mushy. But Roger Scruton’s “Short History of Modern Philosophy” is quite accessible. (He’s another conservative, obnoxiously so, but he explains well.)
Good luck!
This says it all:
http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2012/04/the-ryan-plan/
I’d like to call attention to this Robert Samuelson column.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/30/democracy_in_america_113991.html
At 87, I would willing leave this plutocracy we are contending with but the ” maker of the wheeL that moves the stars” won’t cooperate
Mary: Plutocracy? Good Lord, you’re 87? How about letting that one go for the moment and telling us something important. Like, how the heck to make it to 87 and still find a use for a word like plutocarcy, for example. If that’s not an indication of success I have no idea what is.
Robert Samuelson often seems clever enough. However, as we all know well, tossing around unhelpful statistics simply increases rather than decreases the likelihood of a helpful outcome.
For example: “In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516″
I’ll assume that’s true, I don’t know.
But it is about as helpful as my saying in 1776 shopping at Public’s was considerly less financially challenging. For one thing, this quite simply ain’t 1962. A big part of me wishes it were but I’m not certain that wish involves much fair play on my part.
Here’s a notion that might be helpful concerning our current financial challenges.
“Five Banks Account For 96% Of The $250 Trillion In Outstanding US Derivative Exposure”. Yep, that trillion and a bunch of them. If that is even largely rather than actually true it seems more than a little significant.
Jim, I’d like to call attention to E.L. Docrorow’s piece in yesterday’s NYT.
“Dolan downplayed his elevation to cardinal, saying, “This red hat is not about one Timothy Dolan,” not at all. “It’s about Jesus Christ and his church, and the summons to serve him better.”
The red hat really has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
Patrick:
I think you’re missing the point about Ryan and Rand, Patrick. He may not agree with her on every single point, just as her most diehard opponents undoubtedly agree with her on something. But it was Ryan who claimed her as *the* major influence on his career and political philosophy. He’s the one who as keynote speaker before the Randian Atlas Society said he “grew up on her philosophy” and that no one makes the case for capitalism as well as she did. He’s the one who said he made sure his entire staff read all her books. And as those Georgetown critics said, he’s the one who fashioned a budget that favors the same extreme unregulated capitalism she wrote about, a system that favors corporations and the rich over any and all programs that benefit the community. By their fruits, they say. But hey, we’ve got waaay more than just fruits. Go to YouTube and type in Paul Ryan on Ayn Rand and take it all in. All that just doesn’t jibe with what he told National Review. I’d say one of those Paul Ryans is lying.
Bob – you frequently reference articles on other sites, but you never provide a URL. Do you have a system limitation that doesn’t let you paste URLs?
MightBe: here is the paragraph that you find unhelpful: “Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest “means tested” federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty. Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.”
You make an attempt to explain why you think these statistics are unhelpful, but I don’t follow you. Why is this unhelpful? You say,” But it is about as helpful as my saying in 1776 shopping at Public’s was considerly less financially challenging.” I would reply that the programs that Samuelson is writing about – food programs, health care, and income redistribution (Earned Income Tax Credit) address basic needs that the poor of any time or place need help with. And note that these are “real” (i.e. inflation-adjusted) numbers. I don’t know if Publix existed in 1962, but if it did, we really could talk about grocery prices in 1962 vs. grocery prices now. (My guess is that food prices, in real terms, have decreased substantially in the US, but that’s just a guess).
Spending per poor person is something on the order of 250 times more now than it was 50 years ago. No doubt, there were some basic needs we weren’t meeting in 1962 – the Great Society social programs didn’t exist then. But it’s not out of line to ask, “is the government money being wisely spent? Do we have the right mix? Are we matching dollals to needs?” And it’s pertinent to the topic at hand to explode the perception that the poor are being neglected. The point of Samuelson’s column seems to be that the poor are not neglected – government aid to the poor has grown very significantly. The liberal Christian critique of the Ryan budget is that it balances the budget on the backs of the poor. Samuelson’s statistics make this a more difficult argument.
FWIW – I believe there are some substantial holes in the safety net. Housing assistance is inadequate, and so is mental health care funding. I’m not mounting an argument that the government overspends on social programs. But the statistics that Samuelson quotes could motivate an interested person to do a deeper dive into what we spend on social programs, what is effective and what isn’t.
If government was functional, Ryan’s budget could start a national conversation on these issues. We can’t continue down the current path. We have to start cutting spending. The cuts have to come from somewhere. Personally, I think it’s untenable to not cut from the defense budget. I’d like to see cuts spread across all programs. I continue to hope that government can become functional again, because we do need to work toward solutions.
Beverly,
I still think it would be a useful exercise for Ryan to propose to the Georgetown worthies that they collaborate in support of, say, the Defense of Marriage Act (which by the way, seems to be opposed by the Ayn Rand Institute). Do you think he would get more than a small minority of the Georgetown letter authors in such an anti-Rand alliance?
I’m far more concerned with a politician’s current positions than with his intellectual development. Otherwise I’d have to consign a certain community organizer to the deepest circles of infamy merely because of his early associations and without examining his current policies.
As far as Ryan’s budget is concerned you will find that he proposes less regulation than Obama favors but “less” is not the same as, in your words, “extreme unregulated capitalism.” And I believe the best response to Ryan’s budget lies not in further excavations of his past reading recommendations but in proposing an alternative budget that addresses the problems he confronts. Does Harry Reid have a secret plan?
For the record, I would be embarrassed to name some of the most influential books in my past.
Hi Anne:
Federal and provincial jurisdictional issues are controversial feature of Canadian public political life. You may have heard of the referendum in Quebec regarding separation in 1995!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
The federalist side one by 51-49.
Relevant to the budget, take health care as a comparable example. The federal government of Canada passed the Health Care Act which is a national act mandating that every citizen is entitled to health care. However, it is provinces who are responsible for the delivery of health care (and the costs although some of these are transferred). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act
There was a lot of debate when Alberta permitted private, for profit clinics to set up in the province. A lot of people argued that this would lead to a two tiered system and health care is an important value for most Canadians. The issue of whether a province or territory can allow private for profit health care clinics in Canada and if it violated the Act, I believe went to the Supreme Court but I forget the outcome. Nonetheless, certain procedures can be de-listed from medicare so there is a kind of quasi private system that operates as well.
People using emergency as primary health care is also still an issue where I am. Part of it is doctor shortage, part of it is just convenience. Lots of people use emergency for non-emergency visits which adds significantly to costs. Some people are drug seeking so come in complaining of soreness or pain in the hopes of getting a prescription for something, etc., etc.
As far as subsidiarity is concerned, the practical application is where it gets tricky. Federal governments can “download” responsibilities to provinces and provinces to municipalities. But this leads to a race to the bottom. In other words, budgets can be balanced at least on the federal side but the costs need to be taken up somewhere else (provincial taxation, municipal, etc).
“Do you honestly believe for one moment that the history of church teachings on such things as slavery, usury, women, salvation, the laity ad nauseum should all have been the guiding touchpoints on how Catholics should be judging ideas of the time?”
I think the operative words in this comment are “teachings” and “history.” The opinions of some bishops are not infallible teachings, and what the sons of the Church have opined in the past has certainly been shameful.
Jim: My impressioin is we agree much more than we disagree. I believe you would agree the article by Robert Samuelson that you referenced lacked an important component to a useful discussioin, balance. Please forgive the O’Reilly like expression. Were I to reference an article statistically detailing the growth of military expenditures since the end of the WWII I do believe the numbers would be equally impressive and an understandable source of concern. But there is that context issue.
I often do not word my opinions well enough but I do believe my suggestion the article’s reference to this remarkable nation’s challenges in 1962 are as much a reflection of time and circumstance as it is a useful source of today’s challenges. I remember that time. For most of us a color tv was considered a luxury and a remote device an enviable extravagence. As George Carlin so well expressed we now have a lot of stuff around just to convince ourselves our neighbors and friends will not pity us.
One more remark and I’ll end this bit of rambling. I once knew a fellow bright enough to obtain a doctorate in mathematics. Well beyond my ability. One day he casually mentioned to me he had participated in a study statiscally proving Stalin and his notions were bound to fail. I did not respond. Didn’t know how. But I did wonder when in the history of world putting so seriously flawed a person as Stalin in charge not fail.
” I think the operative words in this comment are “teachings” and “history.” The opinions of some bishops are not infallible teachings, and what the sons of the Church have opined in the past has certainly been shameful. ”
Jean, that is an excellent argument for cafeteria Catholicism and I will use it often.