Think It Out, III, or, the Obligatory Election Post

I'll start this post with a large caveat, in the form of an article which (with some reservations) I rather admired (on first reading--see: admission of reservations): https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/holding-your-nose-how-to-vote-like-a-catholic/.  The gist of the article is that Catholics are required to exercise prudence when voting.  Some of the details are a bit more iffy, but the overall message seems to me to be correct.

Having laid that out there, steel yourself for my prudential considerations when I go to vote--for president, for various ballot measures, for local and federal officials from the water board superintendent to the mayor to my senator.

I'm a conservative when I vote (actually, I am a conservative at other times as well).  That word means a great many things these days; here is how I understand it.

Political conservatism (and its polar opposite, progressivism) has at least three planes: the social/cultural, the philosophical/methodological, and the economic. 

(N.B. I am deliberately avoiding the word "liberal," which comes in such a large variety of senses today as to be nearly meaningless.  A recent quiz I took, purporting to helpfully sort Americans into no less than seven tribes, identified me as a "Traditional Liberal," I believe on the strength of the facts that I prefer polite political dialogue and like to think the best of those with whom I disagree.  It also, on the basis of these facts and the subsequent identification, incorrectly predicted the political candidates I supported.  Tl:dr, "liberal" is a broad label.)

On the social and cultural plane, conservatives favor ending abortion (which is, in some cases inarguably, the ending of human life).  Social and cultural conservatives want legal distinctions between so-called traditional families and nontraditional ones.  Social and cultural conservatives want to delay and discourage transgender operations for the young; and they want educational presentations of transgenderism to be formulated in a way that, while they do not stigmatize those experiencing transgender feelings, they also do not encourage those with other atypicalities (e.g., autism) to explain their experience, reductively, through a transgender lens.  Social and cultural conservatives want conscience protections for workers and employers who believe that providing contraception (qua contraception) is morally evil--and the same applies to participating in abortions, etc., etc.

On the philosophical plane, conservatives want diversity of opinion--ideological, religious, and philosophical--to be as important as diversity of ethnicity.  (This is were a conservative is most likely to overlap with a "traditional liberal" or libertarian, btw.)  Subsidiary to this, philosophical conservatives tend to want immigration to be conditioned by assimilation--or, to put it more simply, they think it is critically important for new immigrants to want to stay in this country and to commit to learning the history and language of this country, since these things are prerequisites for having actual conversations about important matters of politics, ideology, religion, and philosophy.  Philosophical conservatives tend to value political methodologies--like the various forms of legal originalism--that prefer to change government and society through the system found in the Constitution, rather than finagling the sense of the Constitution to achieve change.

On the economic plane, conservatives tend to be cautious about the notion that government can keep printing money without ever incurring inflation; they want a welfare state designed to help people out of welfare, and for that reason tend to prefer policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit over policies like raising minimum wage laws.  Economic conservatives also tend to think that a federal-level bureaucracy is a money-loser: rather than streamlining the redistribution of wealth, and making it more efficient, it tends to line the pockets of those who congregate in air-conditioned offices in D.C.   And economic conservatives worry about regulatory capture, and think that many regulations, while they can sometimes protect consumers, are more damaging on balance, as they can encourage monopolies, depress existing small business, and present barriers to entry for people attempting to start their own businesses.

That is actually one of the most terrifying posts I've written in some time.

And that, in and of itself, is a good reason to lay all this out there.

P.S. Thank you to the person who inspired this post.  You know who you are.

Think It Out, II

Another alternative to restricting all healthcare deductibles would be to have a safety net specific to people who find that their deductibles end up being too high.  One can readily imagine how some people would misuse that.  But then again, some people would genuinely need to be helped through it.

I'm reminded of the scene in My Fair Lady where Shaw (a socialist, FWIW), makes Eliza's father Alfred Doolittle categorize himself, truthfully and with some self-awareness, as one of the undeserving poor.  He is, in fact, not particularly worthy of a government handout, but some of the men his his position are, and there's no way for the government to tell which are which.

The liberal response is generally to vote for the government to be liberal, in the sense of generous, towards all the Doolittles, deserving and otherwise--which frequently leads to the government being illiberal to all, lest the Alfreds of the world in their liberty abuse its liberality.  The conservative response is to vote to be generous to none of them.

And the conservative response is, I think, the better, so long as there actually are other ways of helping those who can't actually help their doing little.

This is where prudence comes into government, and charity into life.  Those in government (and to a fair extent, those voting for them based on their platforms) have to discern prudently which sorts of welfare are in fact best administered at the particular level of government at which they serve.  And those who are not in government have to discern charitably how best to help those who are not being helped by government.

Indeed, those who tend to vote against government welfare have, for that reason, a particular burden on them to be charitable with their time, treasure, and talent.  In America, conservatives supposedly give more to charity than liberals (here, for any liberal readers, is an NYT piece on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html).  Worldwide, Americans are supposedly more charitable than many other nationalities (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18).  This doesn't mean that Americans or conservatives should pat themselves on the back: it simply is an indication of the fact that they are actually doing their duty, to some extent, by attempting to provide personally for those whom they have voted against providing for governmentally.

And of course, one can still argue about which way is better: do things go better when people can decide where to put their money, or when there is a government bureaucracy of experts making those decisions?  (For those who don't know a conservative, be aware that all the folks right of center just sneezed as if they had an allergy at the phrase "government bureaucracy of experts.")  I think that the Alfred Doolittle argument is a strong reason for preferring the former, but there are plenty of other arguments out there ... which is why good, smart people vote both D and R: because there's a lot to be thought out.

Think It Out, I

The following is a (heavily edited) version of a Facebook comment I left on a friend's thread, vis-a-vis the fears that Justice Barret may strike down the ACA, aka Obamacare.

I quite understand the concern of people who may lose their healthcare; and I do feel, as a Catholic, that healthcare for those who can't afford it is one of those things that society has an obligation to provide.  Of course, there are other ways to provide healthcare besides government, and local governments might arguably be better than the federal government at providing it ...

But setting all that aside, my personal experience with Obamacare has been negative. It led to my rates being hiked--of course; for someone has to pay for those who can't afford their own healthcare, and I was young, employed, and healthy when the bill was passed--but, what bothered me more, Obamacare made it more difficult for me to get the sort of high deductible plan I was interested in, as a young healthy person with sufficient savings.

So I suppose what I'd like to see, if indeed the plan were to be struck down, would be something that protected people with lower incomes and those with preexisting conditions but also allowed for more ... consumer discretion?

This, however, is tricky, because there will always be people who do foolish things, like purchasing houses (cf. Fannie/Freddie crisis) and healthcare plans that they can't afford.  I know I could afford high deductibles, but not everyone can, and some people would try to cut corners, and then the taxpayer would end up footing the bill.  (Again, cf. the housing crisis.)  So should I, the prudent person, have my choice of healthcare plans restricted by the government because other people, granted the same freedom, would inevitably be imprudent?

I can understand why some would argue that way, but as a conservative (surprise!) I don't think that's the right solution.

One alternative might be to have some sort of means-tested provision, e.g., if you can check a box claiming that you have more than X amount in savings, or saved more than Y amount every month for the past year, then you are permitted a high deductible plan.  That wouldn't necessarily penalize poor people, the way an income-based means test would, though of course plenty of people would lie about their savings, and there would doubtless be other unforeseen consequences--as there always are, of any regulations, and the less foreseen the more complex the regulations are.  (#reasonsforconservatism)

Children Are Children Are Children

There's a nice craft book by that title, should you be the sort of person who is interested in doing crafts with (grade-school-age) children.  The gist of the title is simply that, whatever the time or place, there are certain commonalities in the way children think.

That is why classic children's books can remain classic: because they really do dig in to the way children think about the world.  The Winnie the Pooh books are an outstanding example (far more than the Disney adaptations, although the older ones of those are fairly innocent and harmless).

For instance ...

There is a pine cone sitting on my desk right now.  It's a little lopsided, and doesn't quite have that autumnal je-ne-sais-quoi  that, say, a William Sonoma centerpiece would have, because small children have picked off some of the knobs from the bottom--very methodically--although more from one side than the other, so that it now leans for support rather than standing properly.  That it should have been the recipient of experimentation by small hands is only right and just, however: it is booty from a walk, and the rightful possession of the little people of the house.  In this case, I borrowed it for the ambiance, not (as so often happens) the other way round.

The children call it "the fir cone."

This, despite my introduction of it as a "pine cone."  (Reader, I promise, it is a pine cone from a pine tree.  I used to know my botany well.)

I was initially disturbed by this until I realized that their avatar for such articles is the collection of fir cones that Winnie the Pooh throws over the bridge, thus inventing the game of Pooh Sticks.  Also, while Pooh sings a song about "a mystery / About a little fir tree," the only evergreens one meets in the books are the Six Pine Trees.

So one can play Pooh sticks with a fir cone from a pine tree in small person land.  That, at least, is the Tao of Pooh, and I for one am not prepared to dispute it on such a fine afternoon as this.

Poor Chris Pratt, Not Really, P.S.

Did you know “One has to go” was a popular Twitter meme?  It was new to me.  And it struck me as a bit strange.

Stories about the illiberal nature of Twitter, Facebook, etc., are a dime a dozen.  Scratch that, stories about the illiberal nature of liberal progressives in America are a dime a dozen.  And of course, there are plenty of conservative voices who nevertheless manage to have a large following (I heard recently that Ben Shapiro trends a lot on social media? Bo).

And there are of course good reasons to sometimes be illiberal; illiberality is the appropriate response, for instance, to someone who attacks one’s family.  One can imagine, therefore, certain political, cultural, or social positions which merit an illiberal response; although of course one’s priors will determine which positions those are.

But the point of an illiberal response is, or should be, to correct the situation.  When someone attacks your family, you respond for the purpose of sustaining and restoring your family’s integrity.  You don’t respond in order to punish—or, at any rate, such actions were deemed, after the advent of Christianity, to be vengeful and wrong in their own right.

That is why the particular illiberality of “One has to go,” by whomever and on whomever it is used, is problematic.  Not because it might be hypocritical, not because its victims are necessarily all innocents, but because it’s designed to punish rather than to cure.  Ostracism does not, ultimately, heal the body politic.  Only conversions will do that.  And “One has to go” is not about earning converts.

Poor Chris Pratt

No, not really.  He’s a Hollywood star with, I am sure, lots of money, plenty of adoring fans, a beautiful family (second wife, I think? if he sticks with #2 we’ll just call it the Hollywood standard, I guess), and no (yet publicized) major personality or drug issues.

So, from a modern human standpoint, he should be pretty happy.

Did I mention he’s also characterized in the news as a committed Christian?  That his church doesn’t support LGBTQ people?  That he once gave away an old cat that he co-owned with his ex-wife (presumably without her knowledge and consent, or it wouldn’t be an issue)?  And that he said he won’t be going to a Biden fundraiser with some of his fellow Marvel stars?

So he’s in trouble again, on Twitter, not for the first time, for the most recent of those offenses (and of course the others are being dredged up as well).  A producer pulled up a picture of Pratt and three other Chris-christened actors, and employed the popular Twitter meme “One has to go,” leading to fans expressing disapproval of Pratt’s non-presence at the virtual Biden fundraiser, as well as his other offenses.

And, adding insult to injury, Pratt had the gall to be defended by some of his fellow stars (e.g., the ever popular, also-not-going-to-be-at-the-fundraiser Robert Downey Jr.) who did not leap to defend female Marvel stars during similar Twitter spats.  So Pratt is an inspiration for an ongoing anti-woman double-standard as well.

That’s the short version of the events of the past few days in the Hollyverse.

And as someone who’s seen maybe half the Marvel movies franchise, who watches maybe five new movies a year (and waits until movies come out on video for less $$—at which point are they even new anymore?), who doesn’t have a Twitter account, who spends less and less time on Facebook, and who is also not voting for Biden … I’m sitting here and shaking my head and laughing.

I don’t have a problem with Twitter censoring conservatives.  It’s not a public library or courthouse or even a newspaper; it’s a privately held company with a distinct ownership and a distinct set of fans.  I think any conservative who hops on Twitter expecting not to be censored is fooling himself or herself.

But, mes frères libéraux, I submit for this incident to be entered as exhibit P in the case of the Shy Conservatives.  If you don’t see anyone expressing conservative views on your platforms, or in your neighborhood, or at your book club, or what have you—and if the only ones you do hear of online seem to be increasingly strident and scary—then it’s probably because all the nice guys and gals got tired a long time ago and went back home, or reopened a personal blog, or took up origami airplane making.

I recommend all three, especially the last if you have small kids.

 

 

 

 

Shouldn’t the Good Guys Be Better than This? (VI)

Aquinas tends to explain human frailty in more intellective terms (lack of attention, grounded in imperfect thought processes); his near-contemporary Scotus thought the problem was more one of will—and that tends to be the modern diagnosis as well.  Certainly there are issues in both faculties.

In any case, whether one puts the source of human error in the intellect or the will, or suspects both equally of frailty, the effect is similar: even good people, and people who know better, fall through frailty.

And grace?  Doesn’t grace repair fallen human nature?  Indeed, the frailty of the best of Christians is rather a scandal, if you think grace is meant to eradicate human frailty.  But I don’t think that’s what St. Paul meant to convey when he talks about Christ’s power being made manifest in weakness, or when Julian of Norwich says that sin is behovable.  Grace builds on nature, it shores nature up, but it seems that God only rarely bestows so much of it as to create a preternatural superstructure entirely ungrounded in its natural foundation.  Or, to put it in English, God helps people slowly, in time, and not in an instant; and in eternity it all comes out in the wash.

That of course raises problems of theodicy for many.  But that’s another problem for another blog series; and this one is not finished yet.

Shouldn’t the Good Guys Be Better than This? (V)

It’s something of an empirical fact that people do things which are not in their own best interest.  Some people—Socrates, libertarians (yes, I know one of these things is not like the others)—seem to feel that this can always be traced back to an information deficit.  If only we truly knew better, we would never eat sugary foods, buy tchotchkes, or stay up too late.

Dear reader, I submit myself as exhibit A in refuting this position.  I know very well that lack of sleep, spending on valueless items, and too sweet foods do not make me happy for more than about half a second.  And the more I can keep those facts of life in mind, the less I am tempted by these particular pitfalls.  But the fact is, for all that I have that knowledge, I don’t always … remember it very well.  Aristotle has some excellent analysis of this paradox, which Aquinas picks up and many a modern psychologist has performed all anew.

It comes down, in modern terms, to willpower.  It’s hard to muster enough will to do the best things for ourselves all the time, because doing the best thing is often harder than doing the immediately sensually or emotionally appealing thing.  Aquinas talks in this context about attention: our minds tend to flit from one thing to another, and we do not always attend to the principles that we know to be true, e.g., this pecan praline crunch will not actually make me feel happy after about more than a tablespoon.

Shouldn’t the Good Guys Be Better than This? (IV)

I think the answer to the question of why so many Catholics sin in obvious contravention to the Gospels, and despite the help of grace, can be boiled down to three parts.

(1)   Free will.

(2)   Original sin.

(3)   Are you so sure?

I’ll talk about each of these parts in an upcoming post, but preview the answers here, since the short phrases may seem absurdly glib, especially as they are hardly original as responses to this problem.

(1)   Free will means that people often resist what they know to be in their best interests, e.g., I resist eating raw vegetables and exercising.

(2)   Original sin means that even when we know our own best interests, we generally know them only partly, and with mixtures of other information, e.g., I know that exercise is good for me but I don’t know all the details of how running helps my heart and mood levels and gee that was a really good episode of the Mandalorian; I wonder if that actor was in the other thing that I saw with the friend whose hair is really too good to be true but how much time does it take to take care of that, and you just have to prioritize some things over others in life, like parents deciding whether to homeschool their kids or not, which is a really dicey topic these days, but it shouldn’t be, unless of course we start turning into France after the election, which would be weird but not entirely far-fetched, given the history of …

(3)   I’m not convinced that Catholics who resort frequently to the sacraments are not, in fact, better at following the Gospels than other people.  I would love to see some actual research on this.  I’m not sure how you’d conduct a double blind study, but I think it might almost be done … and even a less well conducted study would be well worth the reading.

Shouldn’t the Good Guys Be Better than This? (III)

Of course, most Catholics are not following Jesus particularly well (myself included).  And indeed, when people point to vengeful Catholics, or lying Catholics, or greedy Catholics, or what-have-you, it is generally not hard to show that vengeance, lying, greed, etc. are in pretty direct conflict to the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and to the basic teachings of the Church.  (Cf. the Seven Deadly Sins).

Regarding vengeance and related sins of anger in particular, there are, of course, those places in the Gospels that discuss hell.  But in general, Jesus seems to draw a pretty direct line between hell and a lack of charity; so—whatever you make of hell doctrinally—it would be difficult to argue that a reasonable interpretation of Jesus’s remarks on hell could form grounds for our treating each other worse.

(Of course, there have been unreasonable interpretations that did precisely that.  I’m not appealing to the idea that Christians has never gotten anger, etc., wrong; rather, I’m appealing to a reader who doubts my “reasonable interpretation” metric to just go read the source texts and explain to me how taken as a whole, the Gospels support anger, vengeance, and the like.)

But in fact, this seeming defense of Christian doctrine has actually exacerbated the original problem.  For if sins of (say) anger are not only against nature/intuition/enlightened-best-interest but also against the basic tenets of Christianity, then it is even harder to explain—given the doctrine of grace with which this series of posts began—how Christians can so often violate these tenets.  If God says “Be angry, but sin not” and also gives Christians the grace not to sin, why do so many sin anyway?

Shouldn’t the Good Guys Be Better than This? (II)

One cannot, alas, explain away bad Catholics by appealing to the mere fact of good Catholics.  Mother Teresa is wonderful, but she doesn’t answer the problem of President Kennedy.

Evelyn Waugh, to an interlocutor who considered that his status as a mediocre human being reflected bad on the Church, is said to have rejoined something to the effect of, “You can only imagine how terrible I’d be if I weren’t Catholic.”  That is funny, though it hardly addresses the problem of Bad Catholics in general either.

Still, another moment is due to Waugh’s response.  It is after all the response that I am prone to give in my own case.  If I fail, it is not in spite of my membership in the Church—it is certainly not due to my relationship with Jesus Christ, to the time I spend with him in prayer, and to the ways in which I attempt resemble him.  On the contrary: to the extent that I fail, it’s because I am not conforming myself to Christ and the divine element within the Church.

That is only one data point, but it is one which I know intimately—the workings of my own mind—and so it has considerable salience.  And it suggests to me that the starting point, when I ask why there are so many bad Catholics, should be to consider whether most of them are in fact doing what Jesus commanded.