Like it or not, liberal Democrats have an edge when it comes to wooing Catholic voters on economic issues. They are often able to put those who favor free-market economic theory on the defensive by pointing to numerous passages in the social encyclicals and various pastoral letters.
No doubt, Catholic social activists who are fond of reprimanding us for not being willing to send more of our “surplus wealth” to the needy overseas will not welcome Williams throwing cold water on their high-minded rhetoric. (If it matters, Williams is black.) But the purpose of foreign aid should be to help the needy overseas, not provide a penitential service for middle-class Americans who want to feel better about themselves as “concerned Christians.” It does no good to make Americans “sacrifice” if the sacrifice is not helping the needy in the Third World. If foreign aid is doing more harm than good in a particular instance, it deserves to be criticized. And the funds should be cut-off, or re-directed.
Williams is not “un-Christian” for making that case. Neither is a Catholic who reads him and agrees with his proposition.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
Apart from a larger context these appear to make the case that Catholics are required to support the poverty programs long championed by the Democratic Party.
It is true: the social encyclicals are full of references such as “fundamental option for the poor” and the need for government action to combat the dangers of “economic individualism” and an “all-consuming desire for profit.”
It is not that simple, of course. From the time of Leo XIII, the Church has made clear that Catholics are not required to endorse any particular economic school of thought. While we are obliged to seek social justice and attend to the needs of the poor, we are left free to use prudential judgment in determining the best methods — the nuts and bolts — of achieving those goals. Those who contend otherwise are either ignorant of the facts or blinded by ideological enthusiasms. Or engaged in a con-job.
Indeed, the Church requires that we weigh the options conscientiously when we consider supporting government programs purported to help the needy and downtrodden. We are warned not to presume that every new federal program designed to aid the poor deserves our backing merely because its supporters assure us that is its purpose. Quite the contrary: the principle of subsidiarity specifically calls upon us to seek solutions for our economic dislocations in the private sphere before resorting to governmental programs; and that, when we propose government programs, we are to look first to the lowest levels of government before granting power to the central government.
The only economic theories specifically condemned in the social encyclicals are the extremes of Social Darwinism, on one hand, and totalitarian socialism, on the other. Everything else can be debated. If our prudential judgment tells us that a solid dose of free-market theory will do more to create a just society than the big government programs championed by the Democrats, we are free to make our case. And vice versa.
In other words, high-minded slogans are not enough. I have in mind the way many Catholic commentators on the Left have been making the case in recent years that the federal government must step in to stop the “outsourcing” of American jobs and the “exploitation” of Third World labor by “multinational corporations” with no commitment beyond the “corporate bottom line.” You can find articles and columns on these themes week after week in Catholic publications such as America, Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter. We are told that free-market capitalism is the problem in the modern world, and that an energetic application of state power in the name of social justice is the answer.
Well, that is not always the case. Some recent economic analyses by the editors of Forbes magazine and the syndicated columnist Walter Williams make that clear. Granted, Forbes and Williams are champions of free-market theory. But facts are facts, and Forbes and Williams have come up with some facts that question whether we should put our faith in big government regulatory power to end outsourcing and cure the ills of the impoverished Third World.
In the July 5 issue of Forbes, William Baldwin took a look at the phenomenon of more and more movies being made in New Zealand. (Peter Jackson’s production of the Lord of the Rings and his upcoming remake of King Kong are the most notable examples.) Baldwin asks, why New Zealand? To be sure, the island offers some stunning scenery. But that is not the only reason why moviemakers are attracted there. “Union work rules have something to do with it.” Baldwin notes that film producers in the United States “have to contend with separate unions for drivers, directors, actors, musicians, writers and stage-hands” with “arcane craft distinctions that dictate job assignments.”
The result, says Baldwin, is movies made with drivers who “now work at the beginning and end of the day but have nothing to do in between.” Other Hollywood union members are placed in similar featherbedding situations. In contrast, in New Zealand, there is greater flexibility. Workers are well-paid, but they pitch in to get the job done even when the job that needs getting done does not fit their exact job description.
Baldwin proposes that we emulate the arrangement in New Zealand: “A camera operator would do double duty as a still photographer, a grip as a carpenter. Anybody could be asked to pitch in on any task. There would be less sitting around. Such an industry could pay very good wages and still be competitive with upstarts abroad.”
The question: If a film company “outsources” production to take advantage of the less restrictive union work rules in New Zealand are they displaying a disregard for the legitimate needs of American working men and women? Or does it make more sense to criticize the Hollywood unions for placing unreasonable demands on film producers? Is Forbes proposing a cut-throat way for capital to take advantage of labor, or a sensible way to reform union work rules to save American jobs?
More to the point, is there a “Catholic” answer to the above questions in tune with the teachings found in the social encyclicals? Or are these topics that Catholics are free to debate. I say the latter. Slogans about “protecting American jobs from outsourcing” simply do not work in this instance. They do not bind Catholic consciences.
The same questions must be raised about the issue of increasing foreign aid to the poverty-stricken Third World. In a recent column, Walter Williams examined the African countries that we are told are most in need of increased financial assistance from the industrialized West, especially United States. No doubt you have heard calls for Catholics to pressure their representatives to devote money to this objective rather than to military spending and “corporate tax cuts.”
Williams disagrees: “What can the West do to help? The worst thing is more foreign aid. For the most part, foreign aid is government to government, and as such, it provides the financial resources that allow Africa’s corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for the leaders to set up ‘retirement’ accounts in Swiss banks. Even so-called humanitarian aid in the form of food is often diverted.”
He concludes, “Most of what Africa needs the West cannot give, and that’s the rule of law, private property rights, an independent judiciary and limited government. The one important way we can help is to lower our trade barriers.”
