BETTER GET BETTER BASICS TO BARRY!

Barack Obama talked a lot the other night at Columbia about new, large government-sponsored ‘volunteer’ or ‘service’ programs. Volunteerism has certainly been a wonderful part of our national character and, yes, the government-related movements like the Peace Corps have been great examples of a healthy body politic.

However, I sensed that Obama sees the government’s role as pretty all-encompassing. His seeming preference for a more socialist approach is what I get out of lot of his remarks. We all remember other top-down ideas that have slipped out of Obama’s deepest psyche, like that Homeland Military Force that will be as strong as the Army (!).

I thought it might be time to go back and take a look at some classic Catholic social justice theory that makes so much sense in retrospect. I think Obama – and all of us – need a little primer on some ‘economy and society’ basics. Let’s take a look.

Leo XIII came out with the seminal encyclical, “Rerum Novarum” in the year 1891. It was followed up by other letters that built upon that good foundation. The basic idea from this tradition that I want to underline is summed up in two words: ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘solidarity’. In Catholic social theory, these two values are presented as tied together, balanced and equally necessary in a healthy society. I know, this all seems pretty abstract to start with, but hang with me, here. If we could just grasp this, a LOT of common sense can flow from it. What are these two words?

In Catholic thought, ‘subsidiarity’ simply reminds us that a healthy society is made up of a whole lot of small, strong, independent social groups – ‘subsidiary’ groups. You have youth groups, charitable societies, local governments, schools, the Elks, religious societies, etc. (By far, the most important is the family, nuclear and extended.)

In order for things to work right, each of these smaller, ‘subsidiary’ units needs to be respected by the larger organs of power. THE State, THE Church, THE Press, THE Armed Forces must respect the independence and integrity of each of these smaller groups for the good of all. These larger groups shouldn’t overawe or super-cede jobs that are properly done by the smaller groups.

What this means is, a large group, such as the government, should neither take over the smaller functions of the family through force such as in Communist or totalitarian governments or through a sort of benevolent ‘smothering’, such as in socialism. When decisions within families, such as how to educate the children or how they will be taken care of are taken over, the result is massive social injustice and disequilibrium.

When Hitler forcibly shipped youths to retraining camps, severed from their family and town roots, it served as great brainwashing but horrible social justice in the long run. Hallowed family and regional traditions which had humanized and stabilized were ripped out, leaving a moral vacuum ripe for the greatest horrors. Scandinavia’s 80% taxation and 6 AM to 8 PM daycare led to unprecedented levels of 5-year old suicides among other things before they lurched away from total immersion socialism. This is not some abstract idea. It’s really there and has real consequences when it is violated.

It was the genius of our Founding Fathers to build in and express respect for states and towns, families, churches and associations. It was this that de Tocqueville marveled about, because it worked so well. That’s why the ethos of ‘small-town America’ resonates so strongly when we see someone like Sarah Palin. (This is not to romanticize all ‘small-town’ values, by the way. I understand these places can, indeed, sometimes, be petty, parochial or prejudiced. The larger point remains.)

However, it’s not good to ONLY have respect for subsidiarity. What if all the small groups did whatever they wanted without regard to other groups or larger supervisory groups? That wouldn’t work, either. John Paul II warned not only about Communism, but, also, about untrammeled capitalism.

What is the antidote for such a danger? It is the idea of ‘solidarity’. (Have you ever wondered why John Paul used the word so much, or why Lech Walesa named his union with this word? Wojtilja knew how to put these classic ideas into practice in the real world!) This principle says that everyone should consider the whole of humanity or the larger group in whatever they do. We’re all in this together, after all. True, my grocery store can put up the price of milk far above wholesale if it wants and that might be good for the store in the short run, but how would that affect the needier people, and, therefore, the larger community? Patriotic sentiments and actions for one’s country are a perfect example of such ‘solidarity’. It might cost my family and my locality for me to serve in the military, but it serves the greater purpose of preserving the liberties of millions.

However, this ‘solidarity’ is absolutely USELESS if it is not entirely starting from one’s self; one must be acting completely from one’s own volition. (That is precisely where Marxism and socialism err, by theorizing that individuality is not important and conformity must be forced.) This internalization of ideals of solidarity is called virtue. If the larger organs of power seek to IMPOSE it, then it is NOT ‘solidarity’ at all! Solidarity must be learned on the knees of mothers, at truly free-standing schools, in the company of local friends and co-workers and in the pews of churches. It involves souls reared in such nurseries that go out “to give their lives to a cause greater than themselves”. Can you see the perfect balance of the two extremes: subsidiarity AND solidarity? Precisely because you are so respectful of the smaller, organic groups, you are able to more perfectly promote the whole.

Were you thinking about John McCain as I went through these principles? He is steeped in the language of respect for the small and devotion to the greater. He even uses the phrase “a cause greater than oneself” routinely, and it seems clear it’s really part of him. In this forum, and at Saddleback, the ease with which his convictions arose showed amply how this whole world view forms the warp and woof of his soul.

Can you also see how the Marxism which was apparently so prevalent in Obama’s learning and upbringing runs counter to all of this? Perhaps, that is why he can make some of the suggestions he has. Perhaps, he really believes what he said about the bitter small town Americans clinging to their guns and religion. Perhaps that’s why his campaign’s initial reaction to Palin was a denigration of small towns. Perhaps that explains his explicit espousal of the “What’s Wrong with Kansas” mentality.

We should help to defend and preserve a balance which is good for America, and, hence, good for the whole world. Without rancor, let us promote the election of McCain and Palin. We should maintain the great American balance as expressed in Catholic social theory and lived out across our country. We should not turn our country over to those who espouse the unbalanced, socialist approach. Any reasons we are being given to do so can’t be anything other than rationalizations. Any sudden conversions in Obama’s policies or statements are probably not to be trusted.

Recently he’s tried to talk out the lyrics of the balanced American ideal, but he’s seemed to speak as one who knows only the words and not the tune of the song. Maybe someone can get this basic academic information about subsidiarity and solidarity to Obama and it might help him understand what so many Americans believe and live in practice.

Is there somebody out there who would be willing to send these basic social ideas to Obama and company? Can I get a witness? I really think we had better get better basics to Barry.

 

THOMAS MORE & THE CUP TO NOWHERE
*published on Flopping Aces*
In the famous play and movie by Robert Bolt, “A Man for All Seasons”, we are told the inspiring story of Sir Thomas More. (He is ‘Saint Thomas More’ for Catholics. "He was the person of the greatest virtue these islands ever produced,” was the appraisal of the acclaimed Samuel Johnson. Fame also attends him as the humanist intellectual and friend of Erasmus who wrote Utopia.) More is a judge and a public servant who has a large family and a reputation for unusual honesty and self-application. He eventually becomes the number two official leader in the Kingdom, the Lord Chancellor. The tension of the piece lies in his refusal to publicly approve of King Henry VIII’s divorce and marriage to Anne Boleyn and the King’s break with the Catholic Church. This leads to More’s martyrdom. His devotion to conscience and ethics through all of this has provoked admiration from observers of every stripe, and rightly so.

In one key scene near the beginning, More, the judge, receives the gift of a cup as he is exiting the court to go home. He carries it absent-mindedly, a fact which comes to the attention of the office-monger Richard Rich. On the boat ride home, it is brought to More’s attention that the giver of the cup had a case in his court, opening the possibility it might be a bribe. Within a split second of hearing this news, Sir Thomas unhesitatingly dumps the expensive cup into the river.

Later, near the end of the play, at his trial for treason, the treacherous Judas figure, Richard Rich, attempts to make something of More’s cup, twisting the facts to imply that this man most famous for his honesty and probity had intended to take a bribe. More makes mincemeat of the whole smear by pointing out that not only was there no evidence he kept the cup but he ruled against the woman by whom he was supposedly influenced. [Rich later stole More’s head from his shoulders by outright lying under oath about his statements.]

Among the avalanche of ‘scandals’ thrown against the brass wall which is Sarah Palin, there is one which struck me as more legitimate. A ‘boatload’ of the others have been retracted or proven false almost as soon as they have arisen. However, the word has been trumpeted that Palin was “for ‘the Bridge To Nowhere’ before she was against it.” That would be troubling, if true. But I soon thought of St. Thomas More.

With More, much of the smear campaign did not ring true because he already had a record and a reputation as being unusually, notably honest. Most of the charges fell apart at his trial, despite the most powerful forces being arrayed against him. The cup charge seemed pretty bad at first. But, in the end, it became clear that More had simply gone down that road for a while, ignorant of the implications, and had dropped it as soon as he knew what was going on.

Palin has demonstrated through an undeniable pattern that she is a cost-cutter and a promoter of government ethics. Even most of her enemies concede as much. This ‘outlier’ of an ethics ‘poll’ strikes an impartial observer as suspicious immediately. It doesn’t fit the pattern. It seems like a proverbial straw being grasped at. After reading about the whole affair, it seems to me that we have a similar situation to More’s cup.

Palin has never said she was against the IDEA of a bridge there. (She has actually done a lot for the infrastructure of Alaska by the way.) In her speech, she said, “If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.” That does not contradict the fact that she openly talked about the idea. Why not? Why not check it out and see if it’s feasible? Isn’t that what thorough executives do? She was not AGAINST the IDEA of having a bridge, at first. However, the undeniable fact remains that when Stevens’ federal earmark was brought to her for action, SHE SHOT IT DOWN (a fact Alaska Democrats tried to expunge from the State web site). The Cup ended up in the river. The Bridge never got there. That is the bottom line for this whole affair. She recognized it for the boondoggle it was, and dropped it like a hot potato; at some point, she also saw the IDEA itself was not going to be fiscally feasible and opted for a ferry instead.

Palin, unlike Obama, has a record and a reputation for actually doing things in terms of ethics and change. This is so true that she is being considered, rightly, I think, for the second highest office in the land, just as St. Thomas More was. Neither would have been considered if not for this.

The smear involving More’s Cup led to nowhere. It sunk without the support of a pattern. The enemies of Palin are trying to get across a solitary, contrived point that I believe will crumble and will lead nowhere. This is a Bridge idea that they will not be able to get across to anyone in the end because it cannot be sustained without a ‘suspension’ of belief. In fact, I think they will cross under that Bridge when it falls down.

http://mlajoie2.blogspot.com/ And http://mlajoie2.blogtownhall.com/

 
ROCKY BARRACUDA
* published on Flopping Aces*
Rocky Marciano was quite a person. My friend, Coach Mac, used to be a pro fighter in Boston back then and knew Brockton and knew Rocky. As a young man, Rocky learned one hard lesson once. He jumped into an amateur boxing match one time, for the first time, and was winning easily, but he soon ran out of gas and lost on points. He swore to himself that he would never forget that lesson and he never did. (By acclamation, he is now regarded as one of the hardest trainers ever, someone who got stronger as a fight went on.)

He was routinely underestimated on his way to the championship. He was undersized with a very short reach. He seemed very awkward indeed and not very impressive. He came from a working class Italian family and refused to get involved with Mafia or dishonest boxing insiders. His generosity, family sense and integrity were sneered at by many. But he came up the hard way – the honest way. And nothing was going to stop him.

What they all didn’t realize is he was driven by the unconquerable power of virtue, faith and determination. And his seeming awkwardness was actually ingenious adaptation and humble learning as he went on. The fully developed Rocky used a great gambit. He tried to bait his opponents by their pride or lack of emotional control and when they came closer in a later round and let their guard down, he unleashed his awesome punches (which, at one point, were measured to be as strong as a jack hammer!).

This Wednesday night there is no doubt in my mind we saw Rocky Barracuda. The Democrats made the classic mistake of letting their anger, fear, and greed for easy victory lead them to take the path of the low blow. They convinced themselves they could rush in and finish off this young, helpless female, Sarah Palin, and destroy her. What they found on that night was every bit as devastating as “The Punch” that ended Jersey Joe Walcott’s fight, though he had been ahead on points. With powerful, honest, totally AUTHENTIC thrusts of oratory she displayed undeniably true strength.

She has been tried in a true crucible involving real people and true governance, not the artifice of Obama. She is true hope and change built in reality. And like the well-trained Rocky, who had paid his dues, the Barracuda showed the greatness in America that de Tocqueville came to love and admire.

With unexpectedly powerful punches she totally stunned the pretender and with thunderous blows she struck him like few have been struck before.

All I can say is, “Down goes Barry! Down goes Barry!”

http://mlajoie2.blogspot.com/ And http://mlajoie2.blogtownhall.com/