In Capitalism for the Masses, David Brooks features Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, whose thinking these days comes as a pleasant surprise:
He has emerged as one of the most ardent defenders of the free enterprise system. But the humanist that he is, he has primarily defended capitalism on moral terms. He’s criticized Republicans for defending capitalism on materialistic grounds — because it makes some people rich …
The real moral health of an economic system, he argues, can be measured by how well it helps all people make an enterprise of their life. Whether they work at odd jobs or at a nongovernmental organization or at a big company, do they get to experience the joy of achievement? Do they know that their work amounts to something?
… [C]apitalism faces its greatest moral crisis since the Great Depression …
This economy produces very valuable companies with very few employees. Meanwhile, the majority of workers are not seeing income gains commensurate with their productivity levels.
This puts a strain on the essential compact that you can earn your success. As Joel Kotkin has argued, the middle class is being proletarianized….
With my Distributist sympathies, I’m heartened by such an important “think tank” thinking about these things.
There is no excuse for encouraging protesters in a dangerous course of action when there is no real intention of providing them with tangible support. In the absence of that support, making rhetorical gestures can have the effect of irresponsibly giving people false hope while simultaneously making our promises seem meaningless. This does absolutely nothing to aid the people in the other country, and it makes the U.S. partly responsible for whatever follows.
(Daniel Larison, Slogans Have Consequences)
Back to the notion that religion or morality has no place in public affairs, as if excluding it were feasible, this article from Mother Jones should give pause. Tendentious excerpts (i.e., you’re not getting the full picture just from me):
- [O]verall, liberals showed just as much moral conviction as conservatives—albeit on very different political issues.
- The 21 studies in question … asked participants how much their stances on a wide variety of political issues were “based on moral principle,” “deeply connected to [their] beliefs about fundamental right and wrong,” “a moral stance,” and other related questions.
- Skitka and colleagues didn’t find much convincing evidence that conservatives feel more morally righteous than liberals do.
- Different levels of moral conviction from left to right might tell us a lot about how particular issues play out, then (think abortion). But there’s wasn’t a very big difference in moral conviction overall.
- [L]iberals and conservatives were equally likely to be driven, by their moral convictions, into overt political actions such as activism or voting.
- [T]he new study suggests that in spite of them, both the left and the right can get very fired up about politics. And when they let their deep-seated moral emotions drive their political views, they may do so with equal zeal.
Yes, I’m tacitly (now explicitly) equating one’s deepest moral convictions with religion. I see no reason to privilege fundamental moral convictions that delusionally think they’re totally “rational” over those that acknowledge a tincture of “religion.” Can you think of a reason?
If those excerpts weren’t enough, consider Kirsten Powers’ column of Friday. I’m not sure how well she knows Him, but she’s pretty sure that Jesus would be, like, totally in the tank for gay rights, y’know, because He “routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.”
“Personal lifestyle.” “Disagreed with.” Is such fatuity impermissibly injecting religion into public affairs, or does that gate swing only one way?
I saw a bumper sticker last night I should heed: “Wag more. Bark less.” It shared a bumper with “My Man Mitch.” (That would be Mitch Daniels for non-Hoosier readers). Mitch is conservative in substance, mild in manner.
So: How do I share 6.5 decades of accumulated insight and wisdom without sounding like a scold? That may require a bit more insight.
News Flash: Getting married and having a child is now an “alternative lifestyle”! At least if you’re 23. (H/T David Koyzis)
Is there a principled difference that can be drawn between “I won’t sell a cookie from this baked goods case to you, a neo-Nazi” and “I won’t take a order for a cake, decorated by my skill, to celebrate your shindig for the anniversary of Kristallnacht”?
Of course, unless you’ve been living in a cave, you know that “neo-Nazi” is a stand-in for “GLBTQetcetera,” “Kristallnacht” for “Same-sex wedding.” And yes, I’m aware that I’ve just set myself up for breathless claims that I “compared gays to Nazis.” But I’m leaving it because Nazis are our consensus villains (a consensus I join), Kristallnacht (for those who know it) a horrific example of “history” marching “backward” instead of its supposed inevitable progressive march.
The occasion of the provocative question is a New York Times article that decries an Arizona bill that allegedly “discriminates against gays,” the contents of which bill the Newspaper of Record can’t be bothered to share with us. I was genuinely curious. Does it immunize the hypothetical baker who won’t sell the already-baked cookie out of the case or only the kind of baker who had actually been in the news: the one who won’t take a order for a cake, decorated by his or her skill, to celebrate a same-sex wedding?
Setting aside whether this morning’s transitory headline about something bad should become this afternoon’s legislative bill to prohibit such badness, the distinction seems relevant to me, even if it’s impenetrable to Kirsten Powers.
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 