Roman Catholicism and Health Care as a Moral Issue

Once, as I was driving to work, a man shot me a dirty look while speeding past me. Presumably, this was in response to my bumper sticker that read, “Health care is a moral issue.” I had learned to expect such disapproving glares from time to time. On one occasion, a driver mouthed the words, “You’re wrong” as he angrily drove past me. I thought to myself, “Now, what did that do for him? Did he expect that his thought-provoking two words would prompt a 180 degree shift in my thinking?” Of course, being the child that I am, I then said to myself, “Oh no you di’int!” and pressed the gas. Having caught up with him, I responded with an equally persuasive, “No, I’m right!”

Although I am accustomed to such hostile responses to my “radical leftist” propaganda, what surprised me about this particular encounter was the fact that the driver’s own bumper sticker suggested that he was Roman Catholic. “But doesn't the Catholic church acknowledge the moral relevance of health care?” I asked myself. After a cursory review of Catholic social teaching throughout the past century, I feel like I can confidently answer in the affirmative.

For instance, Pope Pius XI noted the need to protect rights he considered “sacred”, including – alongside others – the right to health. Similarly, Pope John XXIII expressed support for social and economic rights which pertain “…to the necessities of life [and] health care,” to name but two areas. In specific reference to workers, Pope John Paul II believed that “the expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance…be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge."

Now, what exactly is a “moral issue”? I define it as an issue concerning beliefs about how something should or should not be. Regarding health care, it is clear that the pontiffs referenced in this brief review of Catholic social thought acknowledge that people should have access to health care (indeed, health care is explicitly described as the object of a sacred right). Thus, the fact that many millions of Americans are without adequate health care should, from a Catholic perspective, be morally troubling. In other words, no Catholic should be scandalized by my old bumper sticker.

I don’t doubt for a second that there are many Catholics in the U.S. who agree with this claim. Yet it appears equally obvious that many don’t. For better or worse, such prominent issues as abortion have led many Catholics to abandon the Democratic Party and join the GOP. I fear that many among them have jettisoned other Catholic teachings in the process. Yet regardless of one’s party affiliation, and however much I commend the Catholic church for its pro-life stance, I hope that all Catholics will come to press politicians to adopt platforms that are consistently Catholic.

Tehran's "Last Chance"

Reuters reports that the U.S. "has asked Russia to inform Iran's leadership that forthcoming talks with six world powers over its nuclear program represents Tehran's 'last chance'."

And yet a new poll finds that nearly 70% of Americans prefer diplomacy over military action to deal with Iran's disputed nuclear program.

If this is indeed Iran's "last chance", then it seems reasonable to expect that efforts to persuade us about the necessity of war will be stepped up in the coming weeks or months, given the current unpopularity of the idea of war with Iran. And those who aspire to change our minds with new "evidence" of Iran's evil-doings may be motivated by the fact that "a majority [already] shows a readiness to support a more limited use of military force against an Iranian nuclear weapons program, assuming that the existence of the program is established" [emphasis added].

Response from a Representative

Earlier this week I contacted my representative in order to express my opposition to House Resolution 568, which would essentially facilitate a military strike against Iran (ostensibly in response to its alleged nuclear weapons program). Although I was thankful to get a prompt response from him, I was so disappointed to see an elected member of Congress use such baseless, hostile rhetoric. To address just one of his statements:

"A nation such as Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would present an unimaginable threat to the United States..."

This statement creates the impression that Iran is in fact seeking nuclear weapons - a claim that even Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, appears reluctant to make. Indeed, the Obama Administration recently and subtly changed its rhetoric from opposing Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons to opposing its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons capability (translation: civilian nuclear power, the pursuit of which cannot be publicly condemned, as it is perfectly legal under international law).

Orthodoxy and Capitalism: Towards a More Balanced View

The following is a brief response to Dr. Banescu's discussion on capitalism and its compatibility with Orthodoxy in The Illumined Heart, a wonderful podcast on Ancient Faith Radio.

Impact of the Welfare State on Living Standards

Dr. Banescu claims that social democratic countries are associated with lower living standards. However, there is an abundance of empirical research that reveals the contrary. Below is a sampling of recent findings:

1.) Leftist political institutions reduce relative poverty (David Brady, 2003, “The Politics of Poverty,” Social Forces, Vol. 82).

2.) Social-Democratic welfare states prevent income poverty (Muffels & Fouarge 2004, “The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation,” Social Indicators Research, Vol. 68).

3.) Public entitlement programs reduce both relative and absolute poverty (Scruggs and Allan, 2006, “The Material Consequences of Welfare States,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39).

4.) The welfare state enhances life satisfaction (Pacek & Radliff, 2008, “Assessing the Welfare State,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 6)

Capitalism and its Relationship to Theism

The U.S. is unique among advanced industrialized democracies both for its high degree of religiosity and its highly capitalistic economy. Dr. Banescu assumes that these unique qualities must be causally related. In other words, there is something inherent in capitalism that enhances or sustains the level of religiosity in a country. This may or may not be true, but it strikes me as a theoretically-undeveloped thesis (as a social scientist, I could never get away with arguing that two or more variables are causally related unless I could explain that relationship theoretically).

I saw no mention of alternative explanations, such as the following two (I quote these verbatim from U.S.A. Today, which reported on a recent AP-Ipsos poll):

1) “Many countries other than the United States have been through bloody religious conflict that contributes to their suspicion of giving clergy any say in policy.”

2.) “A long history of religious freedom in the United States created a greater supply of worship options than in other countries, and that proliferation inspired wider observance.”

The posited relationship between capitalism and theism reminds me of the inverse relationship between the latter and I.Q. (of which many atheists are so fond), and I find both to be spurious. On the contrary, I believe a case can be made for a relationship between capitalism, on the one hand, and secularization and immorality, on the other (please take this with a grain of salt, though, since I don’t have time to elaborate on this argument here).

Orthodoxy and Capitalism

If I remember correctly, Dr. Banescu argues that although the Byzantine Empire behaved in ways analogous to the modern welfare state, we mustn’t forget that it was also capitalistic. Yet this is less of an argument than it is a matter of grammatical preference. After all, one wishing to enhance social democracy’s appeal could simply argue in the reverse; that is, although the Byzantine appear was capitalistic, it also behaved in ways analogous to the modern welfare state. Indeed, Nikolas Gvosdev (Emperors and Elections: Reconciling the Orthodox Tradition with Modern Politics, Troitsa Books) notes “parallels between the principles espoused by the Byzantines with the operations of the modern welfare state” (p. 130). Gvosdev goes so far as to argue that there is “a tendency within Orthodox economic thought that lends support to socialism, based on conciliarism” (p. 128).

“Creating Value”: Dispelling the Nature Myth

Imagine yourself instantly transported to a plot of land dotted with apple trees. The fruit of this land is available to all who are willing to work for it. Suppose you expend the effort to pluck two apples from one of the trees. The enjoyment of those apples is the natural consequence of, or reward for, your labor. And if someone were to come along and take an apple or both against your will, he would rightly be accused of stealing. The proponent of laissez-faire capitalism likens this to the state of affairs in a “free” market economy. One’s wealth is imagined to be the direct, natural, result of his personal efforts alone. To the very last penny, one’s wealth is believed to measure the extent of his labor with the same precision that a thermometer gauges the temperature outside. Hence, to take any portion of that wealth (i.e., in the form of taxation) would be tantamount to stealing. This explains why, of the three possible ways “of creating and obtaining value”, Dr. Banescu places taxation in the same class as stealing.

However, wealth accumulation in a capitalist economy is quite different from picking apples. In reality, “wealth is not simply the result of an individual’s efforts, but exists within the context of a larger community which has supported and protected these efforts” (Gvosdev, p. 125). Further, the government (far from being the enemy of laissez-faire mythology) is the instrument through which these efforts are supported and protected. If government policy benefits the wealthy, and if wealth production is a collective effort, why should it not also benefit the working class? The individualism that pervades our culture encourages the myth that the rich C.E.O. arrived at his position on the basis of his personal efforts alone, as if workers are no more deserving of credit than a conveyor belt.

A Visual History of Democracy in Iran

Visit this link - www.bit.ly/weJQdi - to view an animated graph displaying changes in Iran's democraticness over the 1900-2009 period. This particular measure (which, I should add, isn't one I'm particularly fond of) of democracy ranges in value from -10 - 10, 10 being the most democratic. What may surprise many is that Iran had reached its highest point of democratization under the current theocratic regime. However, that "high point" was a 3, which, when converted in the form of a letter grade, is a mediocre D (65%). A sad history, indeed.

Praises from the Amirica Fan Club

"Your problem, Amir, is that Barack Obama could rape a nun at high noon in the middle of Times Square and you would work your tail off to find some way to minimize it."

Orthodox Christianity And Capitalism

Here's a little blast from the past - an interview with Kevin Allen, host of the Illumined Heart (on Ancient Faith Radio). I engaged both Kevin and Fr. John Whiteford in a discussion on the compatibility of capitalism with Orthodoxy Christianity. Kevin provides the following synopsis of the episode:

The previous podcast on this subject stimulated comments about whether we covered the bases on this issue fully or dispassionately enough. In this conversation, Fr. John Whiteford (ROCOR) priest and frequent conservative commentator and blogger, and Dr. Amir...(ROCOR) layman, political science lecturer, and self-described “social democrat,” talk about poverty, the welfare state, whether alms-giving is spiritually effective if government mandated, and the best way to live out the Orthodox Christian life in the world.

Hmm…why wasn’t Fr. John introduced as a “self-described” conservative, and why is social democrat enclosed within quotation marks? Oh well…

Click here to read follow-up comments.

Cherry-Picking Catholic Teachings?

This article shows what I dare call the progressive side of Catholic political activism - a side that seems to be frequently ignored by Santorum and his ilk.

Support Our Troops...Until They Come Home?

Published in the Summer 2009 issue of New Politics.

Hardline conservatives have traditionally sought to vest monopoly control over patriotism in the Republican Party. In contrast, they frequently castigate Democrats and liberals in general as traitors. As Ann Coulter claims, liberals have a “preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.”

These hardliners have employed a number of tactics in their effort to monopolize patriotism. One of the more recent of these is the use of the popular “Support our troops” slogan, in which they have attempted to convince Americans that opposing the war is somehow equivalent to opposing our troops. Noam Chomsky attests to the propagandistic value of such catchphrases:

The point of public relation slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa…The issue [is], Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for (Media Control, 2nd ed., p. 26).

Are liberals really anti-American? Do they truly wish our troops harm? One can infer an answer to this question from the 2008 Congressional Report Card, published by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund. The Report Card assesses the extent to which members of Congress have endorsed pro-veteran legislation relating to an “entire range of issues…including veterans' health care, the new GI Bill, mental health, and support for homeless veterans.”

To be clear, IAVA is a non-partisan group. To the best of my knowledge, the 2008 Report Card does not list party affiliations of legislators next to their scores. Anticipating the accusation of partisanship, IAVA points out that “the methodology behind the report card is completely transparent – those who voted with veterans scored well, those who did not support our veterans did not.” They note, further, that “both parties did very well” overall.

That said, there is a strong correlation of over 70% between party affiliation and one’s total score in both houses (the figures below display average scores for Democrats and Republicans). Specifically, Democrats are associated with higher support for pro-veteran legislation. This relationship is statistically significant at below the .01 level, which in laymen’s terms means that there is less than a 1% chance that this relationship is simply coincidental (please feel free to contact me if you'd like to obtain my data).

Maybe it is worthwhile to inquire on the grades our presidential candidates received. Perhaps to the surprise of those who support John McCain (himself a veteran), the senator got a D, whereas Barack Obama got a B (which is also quite low, at least in comparison to the many who got perfect As).

In short, it appears that many are eager to send our men and women in uniform to war and yet turn their backs on them once they return. This invites the impression that our troops are regarded less as freedom defenders, and more as impersonal, expendable resources like money. That’s hardly patriotic.

How do Many from the "1%" Cope with Democracy?

In a democracy, the "people" (normally understood to be a majority of a given community) are supposed to rule. This constitutes a basic problem for the wealthy few who comprise a tiny minority in their society, and whose interests frequently conflict with the people's. How, therefore, do some of them cope with democracy as they pursue their often narrow goals? Why, deception, of course!

What is Communitarianism?

Someone recently commented on a post of mine and inquired on my definition of communitarianism, a political ideology with which I have identified myself:

I would be interested in knowing how you do define "communitarianism", since there seem to be a lot of very strange definitions of it floating about. For what it's worth, you can see what I think it means here Notes from underground: Search results for communitarianism and hereLove is the measure: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker | Khanya

To be sure, communitarianism has been defined in various ways. As I wrote in that post, I use the term to describe “a political ideology that’s at once economically progressive and socially conservative." This is the meaning I was first introduced to. Communitarianism, so defined, is thus similar to Christian democracy, or what some have called “progressive conservatism”. It is tempting to describe my worldview as “Amiricism” since it doesn’t fit neatly into any extant ideological box (then again, the free-thinker’s ideology rarely does). But that would make me look like a narcissist.

Perhaps my usage of communitarianism diverges from that of my predecessors (although it’s difficult to tell in the case of Dorothy Day - her particular use of the term, at least in the quoted excerpt, is quite vague), much like other ideological terms (e.g., “liberal” or “libertarian”) have considerably changed in meaning over time. Today, efforts are underway to redefine British conservatism to make it more accepting of same-sex marriage rights. As Prime Minister, David Cameron, recently put it, “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.’’

Of course, one shouldn’t unilaterally redefine an ideology just for the fun of it. That said, what Chomsky says of anarchism is true of communitarianism: nobody owns the term.

How Long is the Affordable Care Act?

Opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., "Obamacare") continue to harp on the law's length. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) famously said that it's longer than Tolstoy's War and Peace (actually, it isn't). I began to wonder whether the PPACA really is that long (in comparison to other legislation) and I stumbled upon an article published back in 2009 by OpenCongress. In it, Donny Shaw discusses findings from an analysis of legislation appearing in Congress over the previous 10 years. Here are some revealing snippets:

...the Democrats’ health care bills in the Senate and the House are, comparatively, very long. In fact, at 314,900 words, the House version is the longest bill to move through Congress since at least 1999.

But long bills are written by both Democrats and Republicans. The second longest bill to appear in Congress...was authored by Republican Rep. Don Young [R, AK-1]. It’s a mere 68 words shorter than the House health care bill. Of the 10 longest bills in the past ten years, five were written by Democrats and five were written by Republicans.

Thought bubble: One question worth exploring is whether laws generally become lengthier over time. Perhaps an extra credit opportunity for a student...

In short, yes - the PPACA is long...incredibly long. In fact, it was found to be over 100 times longer than the average congressional bill. Yet if Republicans are going to oppose a law on account of its word length and wish to be logically consistent, they must be prepared to withdraw support for legislation that they've championed.

Ozzie Guillen and His Comment on Castro

Ozzie Guillen, the manager of the Miami Marlins, was suspended for five games in response to his comment about former Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. As Guillen stated in an interview with Time: "I love Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years but that [expletive] is still here."

"The pain and suffering caused by Fidel Castro", the Marlins stated, "cannot be minimized especially in a community filled with victims of the dictatorship." Cuban-American baseball announcer, Amaury Pi-Gonzalez, offered the following explanation for why members of Miami's Cuban community were so outraged by Guillen's remarks: "It's like going to New York's Jewish district and saying, 'Hitler wasn't so bad.'"

Although Guillen repeatedly apologized for his remarks, calling them the "biggest mistake so far in his life", he caused such an outrage that many within Miami's Cuban exile community have called for nothing less than his termination.

Hypocritical Backlash?

Would Guillen have elicited a similarly hostile response if he were to praise Fulgencio Batista, whose regime was overthrown by Castro and his fellow revolutionaries? I doubt it. And yet the Batista regime caused quite a bit of "pain and suffering" of its own. Criticizing past U.S. policy towards Cuba, John F. Kennedy noted that:

Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years - a greater proportion of the Cuban population than the proportion of Americans who died in both World Wars, and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state – destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista – hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend – at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections.

My sincere hope is that the Marlins and most members of the Cuban exile community are consistent, opposing any and all forms of dictatorship. But I can't help but feel that what many are effectively denouncing isn't dictatorship per se, but dictatorship of a particular (left-wing) sort. And to the extent that my hunch is correct, it's difficult to take their indignation at Guillen's remarks seriously.