-255x255.jpg "Wikipedia/Gage Skidmore")
When I interviewed Congressman Paul Ryan two years ago, neither he nor I had any idea that he would be the next GOP vice-presidential candidate. Not much has changed since then, either in regard to Ryan or our situation.
Then, as now, we were in a severe economic slump, severe enough to be called the “Great Recession,” that is, teetering on the edge of duplicating the Great Depression.
Then, as now, Paul Ryan was known as the GOP budget hawk, the man with the intestinal fortitude to take on both parties in his cry for fiscal reform.
Then, as now, Ryan’s solution was a very concrete proposal, “A Road Map for America’s Future” — the economic plan heralded by the GOP, and, now that Ryan is the VP candidate, excoriated by the Democratic Party.
Ryan’s “road map” will be at the center of the debate in these weeks leading up to the election. Catholics need to understand what Ryan intends in his proffered economic reforms in order to make a clear judgment in November.
Obviously, the difference between VP Biden and Ryan is clear in regard to their respective stances about abortion: Biden, a Catholic, is unabashedly pro-choice; Ryan, a Catholic, is unabashedly pro-life. Therefore, insofar as there is any debate about their merits beyond the life isues, it will likely turn on their respective economic positions.
So what is Ryan’s basic economic philosophy? Contrary to what some in the media would like us to believe, Ryan is not some kind of crazed capitalist. When I spoke with him, I found him to be a sober moralist. He very firmly believes that the economic problems we (and Europe) have gotten ourselves into are, at bottom, moral problems.
In Ryan’s words, from the interview, “If you ask me about the biggest problem in America … in society, you probably think I am going to rattle off debt and taxes. No, it’s moral relativism.”
That should sound familiar. Just do a quick Google search of “moral relativism Pope Benedict,” and you’ll find innumerable instances of the Pope hammering away at moral relativism as one of the main evils, if not the chief evil, destroying our culture.
For Ryan, the economic crisis is, at heart, a moral crisis, a crisis rooted in moral relativism. And so, Ryan understands his road map to be as much a moral proposal as an economic proposal.
How so? In what way is it moral? Ryan obviously has some explaining to do in order to make that much clearer, especially since he has also claimed that he looks to Catholic economic and social thought as forming his moral understanding of the moral foundation of economics.
I think I have at least some insight as to what Ryan intends in saying that our economic crisis is a moral crisis and, consequently, needs a moral cure (and I’ll be looking at this moral-economic connection in greater detail in future blog posts).
First, our moral duty to provide for ourselves, our families and our communities is being shifted from the individual to the national government. In Ryan’s words, self-reliance is being replaced by reliance on the state.
That’s a problem because it creates a “culture of dependency,” where individuals look increasingly to a strong central government to fulfill their needs and wants instead of providing for themselves. The government, therefore, grows stronger, individuals grow weaker, and the debt burden due to entitlements grows so astronomically high that economic collapse becomes inevitable.
Such is the current fate of the collapsing democratic socialist governments of Europe. Such will be our fate very soon, Ryan insists, if we don’t turn things around immediately. To do this, he says, we need morally “strong individuals, not a super-strong government at the expense of the individual.” We need morally strong individuals who see it as their moral duty to provide for themselves, their families and their local communities.
Second, as noted above, moral relativism is corrosive. Relativism corrodes the moral glue of society, resulting in isolated individuals who have no common moral good that defines and limits their economic desires and activities. The result is not just the “I’m gonna get mine, no matter what” entitlement mentality, but the self-absorbed greed that allowed Wall Street “banksters” to mutilate the economic infrastructure so as to maximize their own personal profits in any way they could, no matter how destructive to anyone else.
Certainly, Ryan’s points have merit and, again, are worthy of more exploration in future posts. He also hasn’t yet made it quite clear enough how his views are connected to Catholic principles, and so we’ll need to explore that as well.
Comments
Post a Comment
“First, our moral duty to provide for ourselves, our families and our communities is being shifted from the individual to the national government. In Ryan’s words, self-reliance is being replaced by reliance on the state. That’s a problem because it creates a ‘culture of dependency’”. That is a complete misreading of history and the current situation. Communism and Socialism have both failed because they failed to solve the core moral problem of Capitalism. The core moral problem of Capitalism is that it is a system of dependency. The only asset of the typical citizen is labor sold to an employer. I am an old man. In my father’s generation that labor was mostly physical and the system was harsh. Today it is mostly mental and the system is quite tolerable, even pleasant, for the educated majority. It is only an extreme minority, however, that has the opportunity or the ingenuity to amass the proper capital to become self-reliant, i.e. to become self-employed. The only way to eliminate the culture of dependency is to replace Capitalism with an economic system of the individual ownership of capital. I doubt that anyone or any group has the ingenuity even to conceive of such a transition, but it could grow on its own out of a culture of life. Even so, today we need technocrats of the current system to thaw the present freeze in economic activity. Is Paul Ryan such a technocrat, who can cause the least harm to the most vulnerable?
Of course abortion is an important issue. But does the Vice President have much influence on abortion policy in the US? Who decides US abortion policy? It is effectively the Supreme Court.
The VP’s position on abortion is largely irrelevant to abortion policy. Their influence on economic policy is far greater.
The US Catholic Bishops do not think that Ryan’s economic policies are Catholic especially as regards:
-Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
-The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
-Solidarity
-Care for God’s Creation
See the USCCB primer: Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm
To me, Tea Party economics and Ryan’s economics just seem to be elaborate justifications of greed and selfishness - especially by the better off.
Saving unborn lives is not just about reducing the Supply of abortion, it is also about reducing the Demand (by economic factors and forming consciences). The Supply is not going to be reduced much while Rowe vs Wade is extant - regardless of who is VP. The Demand can be reduced by better healthcare and poverty reduction.
Romneycare, upon which Obamacare is based, has resulted in a faster than expected reduction in abortion rates amongst poorer women in Massachusetts. Romneycare includes abortion, Obamacare does not.
Thank you, Leo. Well said, and true!
Leo,
Paul Ryan’s bishop said that he is a faithful Catholic and his views fall within the stream of Catholic teaching.
I am not aware that the entity entitled “USCCB” has any real moral authority in Catholic teaching.
The issues we are discussing fall within the realm of prudential judgment. The main factors to keep in mind are Solidarity and Subsidiarity. How that plays out practically in the USA is a matter for discussion.
Posted by Leo on Monday, Sep 10, 2012 4:28 PM (EST):Of course abortion is an important issue. But does the Vice President have much influence on abortion policy in the US? Who decides US abortion policy? It is effectively the Supreme Court.”
***************************
If something should happen to the President, who’s next in line to help us appoint those pro-life members of the Supreme Court?
Leo:
“Saving unborn lives is not just about reducing the Supply of abortion, it is also about reducing the Demand (by economic factors and forming consciences).”
**************
While your statement is essentially correct,interpose “slavery” with “abortion” & see how that makes sense today. There was some truth to that philosophy for nineteenth century slavery too, but can you imagine supporting that view in 2012?
If something is so essentially evil & destroys the dignity of human life, it can not be legally protected in a decent society.
Ryan and others like him politically support draconian cuts that hurt vulnerable populations. He’s a bit like a man with a family that is homeless, the children starving, and proudly brags to others that he isn’t in debt. I guess that’s what’s important, eh?
Tony,
There are other ways to help the poor besides the federal government. Don’t you think it JUST MIGHT be better to have local communities and people help the poor in their own community, with a personal touch, love, and accountability, than to receive a check from the federal government.
Put down the goverment nipple long enough to think about it…
Posted by Tony on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2012 7:13 PM (EST):Ryan and others like him politically support draconian cuts that hurt vulnerable populations. He’s a bit like a man with a family that is homeless, the children starving, and proudly brags to others that he isn’t in debt. I guess that’s what’s important, eh?”
*************
In today’s economy, I’d bet good odds that man is homeless because he IS in debt.
Strange how the author says nothing about Mr. Ryan’s worship of atheist Ayn Rand.
Ryan’s worship of Radian “philosophy” of selfishness is the same as the prior worship by extreme liberation theologians of atheist Marx.
In fact, Marx and Rand are two examples of 19th century derived relativisms.
This is not surprising, as the author is in cahoots with Scottt Hahn, an Escrivista.
Escrivism promotes Randian non Christian dogmas of selfish worship of material abstract “little things”, like the Gnostic secret of chocolate making, as long as one writes a fat check to Escrivistas, instead of following God’s commandments.
Ayn Rand/Escrivista Catholics=Marxist Liberation Theology=material utilitarianisms.
Posted by Tom ATK on Thursday, Sep 13, 2012 12:32 PM (EST):Strange how the author says nothing about Mr. Ryan’s worship of atheist Ayn Rand. “
************
Perhaps you haven’t read recent interviews with Mr. Ryan where he explains his current thoughts on Ayn Rand? No worship going on at present.
Kathleen, get the facts straight. Paul Ryan does not worship Ayn. He merely was inspired by her fiction novels for the ability of people to fend for themselves and create a future for themselves. He readily admits he does disagree with several of her positions as well. That is what a well formed conscience does: it can differentiate between fact and fiction and between what is right and what is wrong. He highlights the good and is against the bad. Raymond Arroyo interviewed him and in that interview he speaks on that matter. You can find the interview on the internet if you wish to get better informed. Nobody knows government spending more than Ryan, and he has the skills and the know how on getting this country back on track.
@Kathleen, above coment meant for Tom. Sorry. Your post confused me.
@Tom: don’t forget, when you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach him how to fish he eats for his life. In a nutshell, that is the biggest difference between Obama and Romney/Ryan.
Pope John Paul II stated in Evangelium Vitae that it is “never licit to obey or take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of” a law permitting abortions “or to vote for it”. The National Right To Life Committee rated Paul Ryan 100% pro-life.
Here are some of the cases in which times Paul ryan voted “Yes”:
- to ban national health coverage that includes abortion
- to ban partial birth abortion except to save a mother’s life
- to prohibit moving minors across state lines for an abortion
- to give the unborn equal protection under the 14th amendment
I’d say Paul Ryan should receive the support of all TRUE Catholics.
Paul Ryan should NOT be supported for failing to follow one basic commandment of life: THOU SHALL NOT LIE.
Augustus:
Huh?
Please be specific.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.