Thanks Mark. An enlightening posting.

Excellent, Shea.

Luke 20:25 - “Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar—and God what belongs to God.”

Best,
Pedro Erik

“In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine, and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

Pope Benedict XVI, “Europe and its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006,
at: www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—-50.

Since Catholic social doctrine is dependent on the Gospel, one might say the Pope sees the Gospel as a political program, at least in part.

Something to think about.

Mark…dude.  Just because you know the origins of a word doesn’t mean you can just make up a new definition.  A heretic is a baptized member of the Church that holds views contrary to its teaching.  Do you even know if Mr. Paul is Catholic?  Christian?  Because he can’t be a heretic if he’s not a member.

Even if he was a baptized practicing Catholic, having crazy views about politics, the life of Jesus, or the meaning of the Gospel, would not necessarily make him a heretic.  Heresy is a very serious charge in the Church and is reserved for those who directly contradict or disavow a clear and unambiguous teaching.  Those that deny the divinity of Christ for example.  All other opinions, theories, and even beliefs are fair game.  You are perpetuating the myth that the Church censors thoughts and opinions by threatening to exclude members that have silly views.

The reason the word is not thrown around any more is because it has been abused so much.  Every cafeteria Catholic could be accused of being a heretic if we start using mushy headed definitions.

Dear Craig,
Thankyouthankyouthankyou. In a world where so few people speak English it is really refreshing to encounter someone who realizes that words are symbols of specific ideas or THEY ARE NOTHING AT ALL. Note to Mark: could you please reread your penultimate paragraph, which either violates all the requirements of English prose or is totally confused in its thinking, or both?

Craig:  Take it up with Chesterton.

Craig and Mary Elizabeth,

I think you misunderstand the last paragraph.  Mark is not saying that Gregory Paul is a heretic, but that the faithful who try to reduce the Gospel to this or that political theory are engaging in heresy.

Mark, you’re wrong to assert that no form of government or civil order is suggested by the gospel message.  We live in an absolute monarchy, with Christ as our head.  This is the only form of social organization appropriate to the relationship between God and man.  And this relationship subsists despite doubt, denial or despair.  All this tarrying over governments and religions is pretty much besides the point, sincee “God is in charge” whether we acknowledge him or not.  Social democracy (and nameyourism) is just a side show.  How embarrassed we will be to realize that we’ve used our “freedom” to harm a brother and sister, or upend them from their faith.  And what a blessed relief to learn that every “cup of cold water” did not go unnoticed.

This great article makes too much sense for these truly “best and worst of times” circa 2011. Mark, get ready for yet another long, long, long combox.
  when we live in an era where good old fashioned neighborliness and public spirited selflessness has been infected by the cancerous introduction of off-setting budgetary games and shennanigans, we should be all the warier when it comes to charlatans attempting to directly link the Gospel with any singular economic or political system. Yes, the Social Democrats, particularly Christian Social Democrats, I would agree, come much closer than any of our two parties, but they have their problems as well.
  No party has a “lock” on morality, much less an agenda one could clearly identify as “God’s ideal plan for the nation.” That’s the kind of baloney Lincoln wisely warned against when he said we should be more concerned about being with God than whether or not He’s with us.
  We also pay too much attention to the private faith of our politicians, notwithstanding the “other facts” that our elected leaders carry with them besides their “faith bios” and personal faith testimonials they’ve decided to make public. (And for what reason? Hmmm.)
  When Keith Ellison, (D-MN) got up to castigate the Republican’s linkage of a set-aside rider relating to funding for the slew of natural disasters we’ve been hit with this year, he got up and blasted the majority party for its “cheap” and other “stingy” tactics associated with Wednesday’s failed attempt to pass the Continuing Resolution Budget. Does it matter that Ellison is one of the only two Muslims serving on the Hill? Not a bit. When water floods your house or a tornado wipes out your entire town, who (should???) care if the politician speaking out on your behalf in order to obtain a “clean bill” for disaster relief is a Muslim,a Jew, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shintoist ... whatever.
  If you’re a farmer in Vermont and can’t get your milk to the nearest coop milk facility or your town’s filtratin system is kaput, what difference will it make if the man or woman who has your back on Capitol Hill if he’s a Muslim or Mormon. Well, to a lot of ill-informed, or to be fairer, deliberately misinformed, voters, it makes an all-too-HELL of a big difference.
  The more I witnessed of some of my fellow Christians serving on The Hill, the disgusted I became with their willingness to stiff their fellow man or woman to gain mere economic browniepoints with their parties and big money backers. There’s nothing some of these ever-so-brave stalwarts fear more than being “primaried.” Contrast that to what the brave martyrs of Fascism and Communism faced during Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, Franco’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s faced.
  Compare being primaried to what our first Christian “Founding Fathers,” no, not the ones wearing powdered wigs, but the real old timers of 2,000 years back who faced torture, mauling by big cats and burnt as street lights for Nero’s gardens.
  Compare being primaried to what Jesus underwent for everybody. And the biggest cowards in this bunch coincidently have the biggest mouths when it comes to proclaiming their Christian faith and (not so subtle) message that in order to be a “genuine” American politician, he or she must be a Christian or Jewish politician. And preferably fiscally conservative to boot, notwithstanding how often today’s most popular school of fiscal conservatism, the Austrian dog-eat-dog “school,” starkly clashes with all major faiths when it comes to economics. Hell, no sense mincing words: the Austrian economics nonsense is monetarist paganism.
  What I’d still like to know is why so many prolife Christians buy into this ancient and downright cruel form of fiscal conservatism that should’ve long been left behind in 19th century trash cans. If they can live with the “we love pre-born children, but they’re on their own if their moms are poor” attitude, I’d be curious to read the defense of their “political programmes” as they stack up against all four Gospels.

It is one thing to give a dollar to a homeless person not knowing how the money will be spent and quite another to give a dollar to my drug addicted brother knowing full well what the money will be used for.
I will resent being forced into sending my tax dollars until our government gets out of the business of abortion and stops making laws that require faith based charities to go against their values or go out of business. There will be no social justice in this country until the government becomes just. Sometimes love says “No” and justice means we don’t get everything we want. Especially if it is not good for us. Do you give your children everything they ask for?

Matt B:

Our relationship with God and the constitution of the Church is not the issue.  What is the issue is that the gospel is not a political programme and the Church does not prescribe the political structure of a given nation.  Monarchists are welcome to their private opinions, but the Church does not command us to be monarchists.

@Conundrum,
It’s intriguing that during the 2nd Reich, the democratic socialism was embraced because Bismarck felt the Kulterkampf wasn’t going anywhere, and the much more menacing enemy were the Marxists. I’m sure the Pope understood that but intriguing none the less.
We talked a little bit about what the Bible today in my epistemology class; someone was exploring whether religious wriitings that are the faith’s basis (Torah, Bible, Koran basically) are influenced by the time period they were written in. Her example was Jesus was against the Roman Empire. Of all things about the philosophy of govt, one thing is certain: Jesus does not condemn the Roman Empire.
Great piece. Really brings up a lot of good questions to reflect on.

Oh! I forgot. St Thomas More’s Utopia describes the kind of society that the Apostles lived in during Acts, that Gregory Paul describes as Marxism before its time. St Thomas More’s book might not be the best example, but we can certainly learn from it in regards to implementation of the Gospel (along with official Church teaching of course).

@mmpauly:  Self-nullification of laws we don’t like isn’t the answer. It’s only a shade away from seceding from political and legal morality. Besides, the government will ALWAYS WIN and leave the individidual taxpayer flat out exhausted and destitute. Who will gain from that?
  Remember also, you’re not just denying the government whatever it deems necessary from you to keep your local PPF related program alive. It’ll also help to k ill off other programs that are not abortion related which might be run by the same firm or on the same grounds. Are you willing to see a WIC program or a “Meals on Wheels” program in your area cut off just because it’s run out of the same building?
  One last thing; not all the people who say they’re involved in the prolife movement in Washington are just involved in the campaign to save unborn childrens’ lives. Very slick and cleverly marketed outfits like the so-called Susan B. Anthony Fund have used the late suffragist’s reputation to imply she was some stalwart against abortion when in fact she wasn’t. But that hasn’t stopped the same list from funnelling money to Rightist candidates whose voting records insofar as funding legitimate anti-poverty organizations such as WIC and Meals on Wheels or for that matter, any social agency because it rubs against the grain of slash n’ burn GOP/Tea Party “budgeting priority-setting” tactics.
  I’m no fan of PPF, but I sure as heck wouldn’t want to give the Right Wing—which is only interested in solidifying its power base, at the expense of unborn children if they thought that would keep them in power (and watch ‘em switch on a dime when that happens!)—any more opportunities to hurt the poor in the “dawn” of their lives, as well as in their latter years.
  You only have to listen to the absurd ramblings of Rand Paul in his openly stated doubts about the wisdom of keeping food programs for the elderly intact to gain a better idea of what I’m trying to get at.
  The best way to put an end to the abortion business is to find electable candidates who don’t come off as being typically five times as cheap as they are prolife. That scares people, especially the elderly who’d normally like to vote for a young and promising prolife candidate.

@ Mark, then I wonder what all those references to “the Kingdom of Heaven” pertain to.  The only condition to this monarchy is that God is king.  From this presupposition, everything flows: personal, social and even political.  This is somehow clearer to Islamists, however wrong-headed their religion may be.

@Mark
It’s a been a while since I read ‘Heretics’ but I still think about the part in ‘Christmas and the Aesthetes’ when he describes the relationship between the joy of Christmas and the ‘too sophisticated to care’ crowd.  “It is painful to regard human nature in such a light, but it seems somehow possible that Mr. George Moore does not wave his spoon and shout when the pudding is set alight.”  How could a line be so hilarious and yet so sad.  Possibly because we all know friends and family members that grew up and became too ‘smart’ to believe in Christmas anymore.  But they tend to be apostates and not heretics.  In regards to my comment about your article, I can only guess that your point of linking to a book is to signal me that you were trying to channel Chesterton for the Outer Limits generation.  That’s obviously a tough and noble job.  So if that’s your way of saying ‘cut me some slack man’...ok then.
P.S.  ‘The Great Heresies’ by Hillaire Belloc provides a more focused and less fanciful treatment of the subject.

“then I wonder what all those references to “the Kingdom of Heaven” pertain to.”

They pertain to a kingdom that is not of this world, as Jesus says.  Which is why the gospel is not a political programme.

Mark, Jesus tells Pilate, “if my Kingdom were of this world, my followers would be clamoring to set me free,” in a way that hearkens back to God the Father’s sorrowful consolation to the prophet Samuel: “it is not you they have rejected, but me.”  Do you get the sense that this is really a concession to human weakness, and not “the ideal?”

The ideal is Heaven, where there is no sin and therefore no need of government and politics at all.  Abandon the attempt to turn the gospel into a plan for a theocratic state.

Oh, my. Mr Shea, did you not write another essay recently (“Fool Says In His Heart…”) in which you explained how atheists try to hang on to Christian morality even as they claim there is no God? Isn’t atheistic Marxism FULL of “ought tos” and “should bes”? Why are you now so outraged that Ron Paul recognizes the same thing? You certainly shouldn’t now be shocked that Paul sees how collectivists try to use government to force a socialistic sharing that should be voluntary. Why is giving individually to beggars “scary” to you…unless you are concerned about the NUMBER of beggars we now have (that would never have been tolerated in Christs time) that are a RESULT of “Great Society“ “programmes“. Begging and being on the dole is a family tradition for some today, as frequently happens in collectivist societies. Does Jesus condemn wealth or does he say that wealthy MEN have a harder time being holy because they love their wealth? You say:”The burden of the Church is not to micromanage our economics and politics.” but this idea that faith can be separate from the state simply relegates God to second place behind the state….it’s ALL politics/economics/worldview. You cannot serve two masters. Christ said to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar but he was begging the question: What belongs to Caesar? He did not call on Herod or Pilate to give alms, or to support beggars. He called for the Jews to do so as individuals.
  I believe Ron Paul is a Protestant which would classify him as a heretic in the eyes of the Church, I suppose, but he is not guilty of what you are accusing. Christs teaching is much more free market than collectivist. Nowhere does he entreat the state to do anything, in fact, he behaves and speaks as though the officials/rulers are powerless. He is all about INDIVIDUAL voluntary actions, charity, stewardship, sin. The early Christians, however, WERE socialistic but Dr Paul does NOT say THEY were Marxists. Do you see the difference? Capitalism is simply private ownership of economic means as opposed to the state owning/controlling all wealth, land, etc. Anyone who thinks the state can do a better job of creating wealth out of resources than private individuals does not know much history or current events. Mercantilism, “crony capitalism”, and corporatism are NOT capitalism despite what you read in the MSM. Look in a dictionary. Free market capitalists are not necessarily militarists, Ron Paul is NOTORIOUSLY anti-war and non-interventionist so your attempt to lump him in with Neocons or Rand (a militaristic, atheistic statist) is very wrong. He was actually booed by a right wing religious group when he stated that he believed in the “Prince of Peace” in ‘08. And it IS just possible that what was being cheered at that debate was the idea of personal responsibility and choice, not an uninsured guy “being left to die” (the question betraying the leftism of the “moderators”).

APOLOGIES, Mr Shea..I misread your essay and thought you were referring to Ron Paul because of the reference to the debate. I missed the name “Gregory” in the link. Mea culpa.

I forgive you.  And I hope you are able to get some therapy for that jerking knee soon, Cha.  Now if you could just dial back your ridiculous claim that I am a communist you’ll be in great shape.

subsidiarity

@Mark Shea
“How we are to treat the poor, whether inside or outside the Church, is discussed, not in political treatises, but by Jesus, who, says (scarily), ‘Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again.’ I have no idea how to do that, so I do what you probably do: try to give as I can and pay my taxes which support state efforts which do that, as well.”

So, Mark, are you saying you think government’s forced taxation, of those who pay income taxes (as you willingly do), to fund programs for the “poor” (of politicians’ political choosing) is the same spiritual act as your personal, voluntary contribution to the poor?  Do you really think that is what Jesus is saying by “and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them back”?  Then could that also mean Christians shouldn’t take tax deductions for their private charitable donations?

Also, do you think that Christians who willingly (joyfully) pay more taxes for government programs for the poor are winning favor in heaven?  I think many Catholics think that and that is why they can feel morally comfortable remaining in and voting for the Democrat Party.  And I also think the Democrat Party counts on Catholics thinking that way and that is the reason the Dems are so opposed to “reforms” to those programs, “reforms,” incidentally, that the USCCB ALWAYs feels the need to warn against.

calumny

That is too rich!  Cha tries to discuss some of the very real dangers of the far left wing of Catholocism and Mark shouts, “Slander!  I’m no communist!”  And it appears UNDERNEATH THE SAME ARTICLE THAT HE ACCUSES SOME WaPo JURNO OF HERESY!  seriously dude…don’t you think there’s a *teensy* bit of a problem with this?  What’s worse…‘commie’ or ‘heretic’? 
Before you answer, “If Chesterton can do it, why can’t I?” just stop and think about it.

Mark, St. John implies that “eternal life” is available to us, at least in part, even during our sojourn in this “valley of tears.”  Does this eternal life form us in a communal way, as well as individually?  If so, is this formation restricted to ecclesiastical organizations?

@All our budgetary “off-setters,” especially all our beggar-thy-wiped-out-neighbors, all our bean-counting, must make sure everybody’s held accountable crowd and so many other short-sighters who can’t see how your cowardly, stingy and short-sightedness is affecting the nation as a whole ... THIS IS FOR YOU:
 
  “America has always had—and America still has—a small minority who assume that there are not enough good things to go around to give that minority all it wants and at the same time to give the rest of America—the overwhelming majority of America—a humane and modern standard of living. Even today that minority is shortsightedly sure that its interests must lie in exploiting all who labor on the farm as well as in the mill and the mine.

  “But at the same time all over the country the unity of interest of all common men and women—warm-hearted, simple men and women, willing to live and let live, whether in factory or on farm—grows steadily more evident. Clearer every day is the one great lesson of history—the lesson taught by the Master of Galilee—that the only road to p eace and the only road to a happier and better civilization is the road to unity—the road called ‘The Highway of Fellowship.’”

  It’s not “math,” but it is uncommon wisdom from a man called worse than a mere economic “heretic” among other things. No, he was called by his own kind, “a traitor to his class” for having the guts to stand up to the same kind of narrow minded, cheap and politically-timid bunch of weasels who hide behind “talking points” and stale whiny whimpering cries of “class warfare.”’

  The so-called “traitor” who dared to challenge his own on behalf of the vast majority of the American people who were deliberately ripped off and neglected by the oligarchs of his time, was no less than the wheelchair-bound Franklin Delano Roosevelt who delivered those words in 1938.
  However, to the credit of the GOP in FDR’s time, I don’t recall any attempts to beggar other parts of the Federal budget to help New England out in the aftermath of the Great Hurricane of ‘38.

Steven, I don’t think “cowardly, stingy shortsightedness” is bankrupting this country, but rather “craven, pandering spendthriftiness.”  I have a question for you: if we’re $14,000,000,000,000 (trillion) in debt - where did all that money go?  What did it buy?  Is anybody really better off?  BTW - Your quote from FDR is quite Obamian in it’s oratory: empty bluster supported by impending world war.

@MattB: Answer to your question:
A. Two wars put on the gov’t credit card; one of which was for entirely specious reasons.
B. Medicare Part D’s sweetheart deal for Big Pharma whereby the government gave a free pass to the big pharmaceuticals insofar as competitive bidding; save for the Veterans’s Administration.
C. Bush tax cuts: The government was flush with money and its finances were rock solid the day Bill Clinton left office. The Bush gang proceeded to redistribute the wealth of the people of the United States primarily to themselves in one of the most shameless displays of wealth redistribution in history. The re-extension of these cuts, which in some cases last year allowed for massive inheritance tax goodies for the Walton family (WALMART)and the heirs of Sam and Helen Walton was the price Obama had to pay in order to keep UE checks coming to people who were already screwed out of their jobs no thanks to the “too big to fail Mafias” on Wall Street. But guess what, we, and our grandchildren will be picking up the tab for the largesse of the Waltons and other undeserving leeches. Hey their inheritance tax giveaway will have to be paid by somebody someday; and guess who picks up most of the tab; If you say Middle Class, give yourself a star.
And how’s this little bit of information about trillions of dollars that should be working on behalf of the vast majority of the American taxpayers, also in the Middle and lower income groups. Sixteen Trillion have made their way out of the nation’s coffers no thanks to the Federal Reserve in an audit report issued by the General Accounting Office last July. According to Sen. Bernard Sanders, (I-VT) who co-sponsored a bill along with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to get this information out: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ca3bd5d9-0ebe-4ee4-a005-9e59f9bc73d2

  ” . . . More than two years ago, I asked Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a few simple questions that I thought the American people had a right to know: Who did the Fed bail out? How much did they receive? What were the terms of this assistance?

  ” . . . Incredibly, the chairman of the Fed refused to answer these fundamental questions about how trillions of taxpayer dollars were being put at risk.

  ” . . . Thanks to an amendment that I included in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to audit and investigate the Fed, the American people are finally getting answers to these questions.

  “. . . A few days ago, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office completed the first independent investigation into the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve. As a result of this investigation, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the world.

  ” . . . Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland. In my view, no agency of the United States government should be allowed to bail out a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president.”

  And still, not one damn job has been created by the so-called “job creators” since they’ve taken over the House of Representatives. (Why isn’t this LIE challenged more often! Just ask any of the thousands of people laid off when Nixon cut the funds for the Apollo program years before it was to normally expire if government doesn’t create jobs in the private sector? Didn’t those companies who supplied the parts to the rockets and lunar landers get full credit; when the Pentagon awards a contract out to build a plane or ship, doesn’t the public learn that the plane was built by Lockheed, Boeing, etc., or the ship built by Bath Iron Works in Maine or one of the private shipbuilders down South or out West? Of course!
  The Gospel isn’t any political or economic policy statement, “programme,” etc. But it sure contains more positive reasons than not for us to get off our bums to help others and not be so stingy in our hearts and wallets when it comes to helping the entire commonweal prosper.
  Time after time I’ve read fiscal conservatives tell their readers what Jesus didn’t intend to say about the government’s role in helping the lot of the poor. But not once have I read in any version of the Bible these words: “Blessed are the rugged American entreprenural individualists who are also highly favored.”
  Wonder why.

@Steven

Like it or not, National Defense is a legitimate expenditure of federal tax money.  The Medicare Drug program comes in under budget, the only federal program that has or does.  The question is why is your Democrat President driving our country into unheard of debt in less than three years, pilling up debt in his less than three year that exceeds the debt of every president before him combined?!  And at the same time causing the worst economy since the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Depression of the 1930s! Even the Democrat leaning USCCB is starting to urge their “underlings” to talk about the unemployment and poverty this Democrat Administration is causing.  When you get the Catholic bishops starting to question their own leanings politically, it is encouraging to Catholics of my beliefs to start having hope again for our country and our Church.  Real American Catholics have an opportunity in the next 14 months to wake up and save our country from becoming another has been national leader in world affairs while at the same time beginning restoring respect and longing for faith in Our Lord, Jesus Christ.  The war between good and evil is on like never before!

@Stillbelieve: Great to hear from you again, even though I’m in a state of agitated depression, despondancy and despair ... what I’m hoping for the GOP candidate’s team in November 2012 ... but somehow during the meantime, I’ll manage to absorb your broadsides and respond in full measure!
  Insofar as the military/VA getting a break on bidding for pharmaceuticals, I have no problem with that given the special people whom the VA serves and we all owe considerable gratitude for their service and sacrifices. My problem with that set up is with the fact that the Bush administration didn’t work harder to get competitive bidding process for everbody.
  If it’s wrong for people to engage in selective tax-paying (especially those electing not to pay “war taxes”) why should the very same government engage in selective cost reductions concerning competitive bidding for Medicare recipients, especially since we all pay for the program through our FICA taxes? This was a typical K-Street product which in turn insulted the intelligence of the American electorate, and could lead to more to unnecessarily turning non-Vets against Vets, vice-versa; and all over a simple misunderstanding of how the set up resulted.
  That deal had politics stamped all over it since the previous administration was keenly interested in doing what all political organizations have to do in order to say in power: keeping the power base happy, just as the Democrats do with Labor, academics, NOW, the Republicans do with the NRA, National Right to Work, etc. And I’ll readily admit that the bulk of military retirees live in the Sunbelt and it only makes sense for the GOP to keep its power base content. But, the VA which serves Veterans everywhere, also exists by virtue of law and tax revenues taken from Vets and non-Vets alike. Some of those non-Vets may happen to be very disappointed folks who were turned down for one reason or another and were more than willing to serve and possibly give all for their country.
  My beef isn’t with the military retirees. My two brothers are retired Army officers and we were raised by an Air Force officer. My parents would’ve been upset at the inherent unfairness of the deal, and they would’ve been quite understanding, as I am as well, of a Veteran taking advantage of this benefit. It’d be foolish and fiscally irresponsible for the Vet not to. But it’s a hell of a lot different for a Vet who served for a lot less money while serving on active duty than for a Congressman who’s making a nice fat income for himself while preaching the virtues of fiscal responsibility in the public sector, a killer 21 pct Federal sales tax, the most regressive tax of ‘em all!, all the while he’s taking advantage of a FREE program which we’re all paying into—and the congressman I’m referring to is no less than Rob Woodall, R-GA, a very disengenuously self-described rookie congressman who spent a quite a long time serving his former, now retired boss, Rep. Rob Linder.
  Say as you will about FDR and the bishops changing their positions as time flies. The bishops and their organizations haven’t always seen eye-to-eye anyway. I’d venture to say that while the bishops are holding their noses with the Democrats on abortion and other related issues, for the most part, they still agree with the basic premises of the New Deal versus what the GOP, the “Nine Old Men” on the Supreme Court, and the “economic royalists” FDR rightly railed against. (Hell, the fatcats who turned on Roosevelt had already turned on Hoover who was the first Republican or any president to initiate a national relief program of any sort during a depression or panic. But it was tepid and accomplished zilch. Even Hoover who could save the lives of millions in Europe had his hands tied by the same oligarchs and stingy bums who turned on FDR and would’ve left this nation even broker than it would’ve been had it not been for FDR doing SOMETHING to give people a chance to make some money and keep their dignity intact. Even FDR admitted not all his programs worked or would’ve worked, but he never lost sight of this fact: FAILURE WOULD’VE SURELY SUCCEEDED IF HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS COMPLETELY BLOCKED FROM OR DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE OLD “NOTHING VENTURED, NOTHING GAINED” VIEW.
  Had Eisenhower had to face the same skinflints FDR faced, or Kennedy and Johnson following him, the Interstate and NASA programs would’ve never gotten anywhere: Period! And look at the number of private sector jobs created out of those two programs alone! I’ll bet people who found jobs with Caterpillar, Grumann, McDonnell-Douglas, and on our many research universities across the country had little to complain about about the millions spent on the highways, and space programs, respectively.
  You and I agree on the rightful place our defense needs should have in our economy and society in general: Notwithstanding Ike’s wise warning against too much of a cozy relationship between the big defense companies, and Congress in particular, we can’t deny that a contract given to a big defense plant, say, United Aircraft in Connecticut, is going to help put alot of people to work. Those are private sector jobs created by the government and this has gone on since the day our first frigates were ordered by the Federalists! Sure got our dollars worth with Old Ironsides!
  I sharply disagree with the assertion put out by the GOP and its fiscally conservative allies in the Libertarian wing ... this notion that “government doesn’t create jobs.” Try telling that to the manufacturers and their employees who make full-body armor for our troops, cops and fire-fighting equipment/medical equipment for our First Reponders.
  But try and get an honest reply from a big-mouthed congressman who’s bloviating on the House Floor about how “guvmint creates only debt, not jobs” why he’s also on public record for fighting hard to get some fancy weapons system built by a company that’s been lobbying his office day n’ night to get x number of contracts sent their way. Hell, Tip O’Neill was on record as being for the Nuclear Freeze, but he sure had the smarts to know the difference between discussing difference about nuclear strategy with Reagan and the necessity of maintaining the constant readiness of our tactical weapons and what this “maintenance” meant in terms of job creation for a GE jet engine plant in Lynn, MA.
  Your final sentence couldn’t be more correct; except for one thing: let’s always resolve to “do battle” with a good sense of humor and that way we won’t have to don either the armor St. Paul wrote about or the hip-waders our political pals on the Potomac need so often.

...and if the Spirit is moving among us, building us into up into the fullness of Christ, shouldn’t that affect our personal, social and political relationships?

@Matt: ... Matt, first, check in with Lily Tomlin. Next, read up on the history of the New Deal, especially Social Security’s origins. Yes, FDR and Frances Perkins, both old line Episcopalians got the lion’s share of credit for SSA’s creation. However, both FDR and especially Perkins were gracious in their acknowledgement of Msgr. John Ryan’s intellectual and practical contributions to the program. Looks like the Holy Spirit had a say in this program, whether or not the Grand Old Pharisees of Ryan’s, Perkins’ and FDR’s time cared to admit.

One POV I never see mentioned is that maybe we would all be better off if we started spending more for less. Holy cow - Have I gone nuts?!!!

I don’t think so. We have been so brainwashed to be hyper-consumers of cheap foreign made goods and electronic gadgets that have to be constantly replaced, we are losing the jobs base that used to make up the middle class. If we would buy fewer but more expensive US made goods that would last, buy fewer wants and focus on our needs, we could climb out of this hole by putting people back to work. And maybe kids could once again be raised by a parent instead of a paid caregiver if we could go back to supporting a family on one decent salary and economizing at home.

Jesus warned us that the more prosperous and comfortable we are, the less we think we need God, and the harder it will be to get into heaven. I think our experience in the US is a good example that prosperity and ease leads to lot’s of hedonism and selfishness and lazyness.

@Oregon Catholic: Somehow I sense a strong New England lineage and connection here. Why you sound like so many of the folks uy heavily academic saturated “Happy Valley” (many of ‘em tenured, well protected and very well off who can afford to be so discerning and cost-conscious if faced with the very real prospect of living in a much more expensive economy.)
  In theory what you’re saying does make sense, but to a point. Indeed, if we pay more for somethings, we’re more likely to take better care of them. Unfortunately, most folks nowadays don’t live in areas that’ve been shaped by folks with a strong politically correct enviro-mindset and can afford to put their desires to day to day use.
I’d love to join you and wipe out all the Wal-Marts and other companies like it that are helping to push us further down the line in the race to the bottom. Surely, no more American exceptionalism; we’ll all be Third Worlders then. It won’t be Obama’s fault, contrary to his nastiest critics on the Lupine “Unfair and Unhinged” Network for Nitwits. We can then thank the brothers Koch and their pals in the Tea Party they helped greatly to crank up. Then there’s the Boehner-Cantor House of “Representatives.”
  However,in the real world, we have to accept the fact that many people simply are unable to stop shopping in the big box retail chains because that’s the only place they can afford to buy clothes for their kids (aside from the Salvation Army.) Some choice. Not that anybody should be ashamed to buy from the SA, but ever notice a lot of not-so-poor folks “slumming” to pick up “bargains,” that they think will give them a certain cachet; all the while depleting the one or two items that somebody in the “lower” tax brackets have a far more pressing need and claim on them. 
  I make and sell nativity creches from scratch, no artificial ingredients, nails, tacks, or fakey looking (cork) “bark” used to simulate rough boards, etc. Unfortunately, WalMart eats all my Christmas baked goodies every year because it sells its nativity sets (including figurines which I cannot create, it’s a special discipline. But I also don’t have Chinese factories using slave or prison labor “workers” working 24/7 to pump out these gems on a special deal with the great “All American” company from Fayetteville, AK. They sell for 1/10th of what I (have to) charge and they even use formaldehyde shrink wrap as part of their “packaging.”
  In angst I consulted a businessperson far brighter than I in these international disputes bound to increase the sales of Tums for most crafters. She said to keep my prices up and sell to the wealthy who’ll appreciate what I do more than those who simply want a creche at a reasonable price.
  Guess what, I can’t help having some empathy for the poor family struggling to get by and just wanting to have any nativity set to put up for their kids, paying between 12 and 20 bucks for a lesser-quality product. On the other hand, I owe it to my fellow American crafters to fight the good fight and hopefully we’ll succeed well enough to be able to reduce our prices to make our products more affordable for everybody.
  This is a long and hard slog and unfortunately tells more about the realities of living in a free-trade globalist dog-eat-dog world where “tariff” is as toxic to marketers as zoning is to developers in the Sunbelt and unions are to Right To Work pols and company owners who contribute a lot of bucks to pols, (again mostly in the Sunbelt) to help keep their plantation-mentality society afloat.)
  I hear what you’re saying Oregon Catholic, but we live in a very ugly world where more and more Americans are taught to count the price of verything and sneer at the value, especially if it means they have to (gasp) go without for a little while longer. Despite my earlier teasing above, I wish you the best in spreading your views because in the long run, they do make more sense.

@Oregon Catholic: Somehow I sense a strong New England lineage and connection here. Why you sound like so many of the folks uy heavily academic saturated “Happy Valley” (many of ‘em tenured, well protected and very well off who can afford to be so discerning and cost-conscious if faced with the very real prospect of living in a much more expensive economy.)
  In theory what you’re saying does make sense, but to a point. Indeed, if we pay more for somethings, we’re more likely to take better care of them. Unfortunately, most folks nowadays don’t live in areas that have been shaped by folks with a strong politically correct enviro-mindset and can afford to put their desires to day to day use.
I’d love to join you and wipe out all the Wal-Marts and other companies like it that are helping to push us further down the line in the race to the bottom. Surely, no more American exceptionalism; we’ll all be Third Worlders then. It won’t be Obama’s fault, contrary to his nastiest critics on the Lupine “Unfair and Unhinged” Network for Nitwits. We can then thank the brothers Koch and their pals in the Tea Party they helped greatly to crank up. Then there’s the Boehner-Cantor House of “Representatives.”
  However,in the real world, we have to accept the fact that many people simply are unable to stop shopping in the big box retail chains because that’s the only place they can afford to buy clothes for their kids (aside from the Salvation Army.) Some choice. Not that anybody should be ashamed to buy from the SA, but ever notice a lot of not-so-poor folks “slumming” to pick up “bargains,” that they think will give them a certain cachet; all the while depleting the one or two items that somebody in the “lower” tax brackets have a far more pressing need and claim on them. 
  I make and sell nativity creches and historical replicative designer-decorative birdhouses from scratch, (i.e., using no artificial ingredients, nails, tacks, or fakey looking (cork) “bark” used to simulate rough boards, etc. ) Unfortunately, Wal-Mart eats all my Christmas baked goodies every year (LOL) because it sells its nativity sets (including figurines which I cannot create, it’s a special discipline. But I also don’t have Chinese factories using slave or prison labor “workers” working 24/7 to pump out these gems on a special deal with the great “All American” company from Fayetteville, AK. They sell for 1/10th of what I (have to) charge and they even use formaldehyde shrink wrap as part of their “packaging.”
  In angst I consulted a businessperson far brighter than I in these international disputes bound to increase the sales of Tums for most crafters. She said to keep my prices up and sell to the wealthy who’ll appreciate what I do more than those who simply want a creche at a reasonable price.
  Guess what, I can’t help having some empathy for the poor family struggling to get by and just wanting to have any nativity set to put up for their kids, paying between 12 and 20 bucks for a lesser-quality product. On the other hand, I owe it to my fellow American crafters to fight the good fight and hopefully we’ll succeed well enough to be able to reduce our prices to make our products more affordable for everybody.
  This is a long and hard slog and unfortunately tells more about the realities of living in a free-trade globalist dog-eat-dog world where “tariff” is as toxic to marketers as zoning is to developers in the Sunbelt and unions are to Right To Work pols and company owners who contribute a lot of bucks to pols, (again mostly in the Sunbelt) to help keep their plantation-mentality society afloat.)
  I hear what you’re saying Oregon Catholic, but we live in a very ugly world where more and more Americans are taught to count the price of everything and sneer at the value, especially if it means they have to (gasp) go without for a little while longer. Despite my earlier teasing above, I wish you the best in spreading your views because in the long run, they do make more sense.

@oregon catholic

“spending more for less…we are losing the jobs base…
buy fewer wants and focus on our needs, we could climb out of this hole by putting people back to work.”

That is not human nature.  Human nature is getting the most you can for the lest amount of cost.  Big business is not unlike us consumers.  Both are going to get the most they can for the least cost.  To understand why we are losing much of our manufacturing base you have to look at the economics in our country that trips that human nature of manufacturing company.  I have no doubt that most U.S. manufacturing firms would prefer building and producing here in America.  But political government decisions often force businesses to do what’s best to stay in business and produce the best return on their money.  U.S. corporations operating in the U.S. are the 2nd highest taxed companies in the world.  In addition, environmental regulations add more cost to operating here.  And governmental regulations like Obamcare are futher mandates placed on businesses.  Taxes, enviornmental regs, and other government mandates, and lets not forget about unions; all of them cost manufactures money that they would not have to payout if they moved to another country that doesn’t have all those cost of operation.  In addition, their labor cost are also lower in those other countries.  All of are incentives for them to move out in order to be stay in business and more competitive in the world market. 

You know, the USCCB hasn’t been that helpful, either, to the U.S. manufactures and businesses, and for that matter, to the U.S. workers and families because of their consistent support of what I call “compassion politics.”  In fact, they have been a consistent supporter of government activities that lead to the financial and housing collapse that we have been suffering from the past three years which has led to this consistent high unemployment.  I’m referring to their support for the Community Reinvestment Act and the politicization of issuing mortgages to low income earners resulting in the sub-prime loans that the Democrat congress members refused to regulate.  As Congressman Barney Frank said during hearings about putting controls on those loans, “I feel comfortable to continue with rolling the dice,” or something to that effect, meaning he was OK with the government-forced sub-prime loans continuing and mandating that Fannie and Freddy continue to buddle up their loans to sell making room for them to buy up more of these sub-prime loans so to be able to meet their government quotes.  The USCCB is on record of supporting what Barney Frank and the Democrats wanted to do and opposed to issuing regulations that would make it more difficult for low income people to qualify for mortgage loans. And lets not forget the USCCB sent a letter to the Wisconsin Bishops Conference in support of their support for the state public unions opposition to Governor Walker and Republican State Legislator to modify the state employees union contracts concerning benefits and making the state workers pay more for their benefits to bring them more in line with what private sector workers are having to pay for their benefits.  The modifications sought by the Governor and Republican Legislature was to be able to reduce the state’s deficit spending so that they would not have to lay workers off.  Why the bishops support the union bosses who are responsible for getting more pro-abortion legislators elected to office than any other, single group, I’ll never understand.  But I don’t understand either how 55% of Catholics could have voted for the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President our nation ever had.  These are the “fruits” of the bishops “compassion politics,” an arena they really don’t understand, and aren’t very good or successful playing in – unless you count keeping the pro-abortion party alive and functioning to continue their support for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land.

@StillBelieve: I can’t believe you’re still buying anything Scott Walker, the Koch bros’ puppet gov and their equally pliant GOP legislators were trimming the teachers’ benefits in order to save them. Sounds an awful lot like that Army officer’s remark about torching an entire village in Vietnam in order to save it from falling into the hands of the Vietcong, while he was practically torching the place.
  If nothing was done to call out Walker (who was even caught promising to cause some trouble-making in order to make the teachers’ unions look bad to David Koch on a pranked phone call) and the Kochs and the whole rest of the Rightist machine, they would’ve been able to grind and squeeze even more out the teachers. Next up the cops, firemen ... who else?
  And yes, StillBelieve, I can’t believe you’re not recognizing as the Wisconsin bishops did, the sneaky use of non-germane topics like the unions’ endorsement of abortion rights, teaching acceptance of homosexuality, etc. in the schools, as wedge issues to divide the union leadership from its rank and file, much less further isolate the unions, i.e., practically speaking, even all of Wisconsin’s public school teachers from the general public so Right could get its way no thanks to a cleverly divided opposition.
  The bishops, by overlooking the wedge issues as NON-GERMANE to basic question of whether or not a governor, especially a puppet governor, working on behalf of special interests, should have the power to trash hard-earned collective bargaining rights.
  In the old songs “Solidarity,” and the “Union Maid,” any and all listeners are reminded of the power employees have through collective bargaining, which can only occur if there is a union, or similarly structured employee associations. The single employee has virtually NO power and/or very little rights to fall back on. Why else has the private sector worked so hard to keep employees cowed through the use of various union-busting tactics to keep their wages lower, and the rights to defend themselves against unfair employment practices at or near the bottom of the bosses circular files?
  I worked for an employer who promised to FIRE any of his writers if he was caught, or sufficiently quoted as having said he wish there was a union in the shop. FIRED, and this was a publisher. So much for the first amendment. (My lack of “caps” is intentional, here.) Okay, it was his factory, but even a warning would’ve sufficed. Hell, if the Right finds Stalinism workable, it’ll sure as hell use it. How many rights did Uncle Joe’s workers enjoy?
  I’ll bet a lot of non-tenured (and sometimes inconveniently outspoken—even while making their comments public “off the clock” and off the campus) conservative employees working for small and (very) liberal arts colleges wish they had a union when the tenured powers that-be do their talking behind the scenes, never mind putting their anonymous remarks into the inconvenient conservative staffers’ files “for a future time”)wish they had a union! And befor e you start smirking, “Well, now he sees the light about libs,” let’s not forget that a sensible union rep, and there are tons more of them than the firebrands they’re often stereotyped by the press, out to be, who may or not be liberal, or even agree with the employee filing the grieviance, understands full well that an attack on any employee’s rights not to be subjected to political pay-back is an attack on all of them.
  Without a union watching the employees’ back, he’s singularly facing a very daunting situation and he’ll never know his job is on the line, notwithstanding how many documented incidents of exemplar service provided for X number of years or even decades. Poof!
  One of labor’s oldest and strongest arguments for unions is the simple fact that if management treated their people like free men and women, which they are, not slaves, there wouldn’t be a need for unions. I didn’t learn that from a book. I got it from a top-level labor negotiator.
  What the Kochs, DeVos’, the GOP, National Right To Work, their Tea Party patsies, brash “smack-talking” women like South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and that sleezy Rick Scott in Tallahassee, Kaisich in Ohio,and of course, the uber-patsy of the Right Wing, Scott Walker want is a permanently divided thus childlishly easy to manipulate and manage by fear workforce in all workplaces, period.
  To think they’d play on the Church’s positions on key matters of faith and morals to use as wedge issues in what should be a strictly secular matter, well, doesn’t that show how low they’ll stoop? To manipulate the Church and its positions to effectively divide and conquer a public employee union’s membership against itself?
  The Church gets it big time when it says no to casinos, using its schools as a means of accommodating white flight (Boston, mid seventies) and saying no to gay marriage and abortion. If you feel the pain on how She catches it by speaking out on matters of faith and morals, why aren’t you with her bishops in Wisconsin or anywhere else when they simply want to say, “Don’t use our moral teachings as wedge issues to divide and bust the unions: they’re not germane to this struggle and our teachings aren’t to use for cheap political convenience.”

@Steven

“The bishops, by overlooking the wedge issues as NON-GERMANE to basic question of whether or not a governor, especially a puppet governor, working on behalf of special interests, should have the power to trash hard-earned collective bargaining rights.”

Interesting that you think the murder of 52,000,000 American babies is a “wedge issue.” 

I think your approval of the bishops thinking that abortion is “NON-GERMANE” to determining a politicians moral character and insight to his or her decision making as a legislator, is quite revealing.  Hitler is a fine moral leader of his nation; so what if he advocates and follows through with murdering every Jew, mentally ill, and disabled person that his government can fine; just look how productive he has made the nation become and how superior the German people feel now.

“Puppet governor?”  Oh, Steven, please forgive him for following through on what he told the people during his election what he was going to do to save the state.  Seems to me the “people” should be the ones an elected official should be a puppet for as opposed to a small, money hungry, corrupt, immoral pocket of union boss thugs.

“Hard earn collective bargaining rights?”  What a joke!  The government giveth using hard working taxpayers’ money confiscated from forced unionized state employees to buy an immoral Democrat legislature that moral moron Catholic Democrats elected.  This time around the hard working taxpayers said enough and elected moral Republicans and the government taketh away, and the poor little union collectivist whiners, like the rude and spoiled children they are, go on tantrum, demanding a do over.  No wonder today’s children are so ignorant of American history, and so far behind most of the rest of the industrialized countries in basic studies.  There was a time in Catholic grade school we used to think that kids in the public grade school a mile away were dumb, but today, those kids were Einsteins compared to what is coming out of public schools today – but that was before teachers were allowed to unionize.

@StillBelieve: You just demonstrated the effectiveness of using wedge issues.
  Sigh, I tried, I really tried. There’s a time to fight the good cause of saving the lives of the Unborn and there’s a time to avoid being taken for a sucker by politicians and their more powerful albeit unelected sugar daddies holding all their bags of “campaign contributions.”
  Do you realize you practically said Walker promised to Wisconsin voters he’d give special treatment to his big money contributors, by blowing the surplus he inherited from his Democratic predecessor which would then allow him to play like Sherman marching through Dixie and making it howl. Even I give Walker credit for having more brains to not tip that much of a hand before he really started doing the Koch’s dirty work for them. Then again, he did also promise to “Koch” that he’d see about stirring things up to make his opponents look bad. Too bad for Walker and the Kochs (who must be thinking they picked a real “winner” in Walker) when the real “Koch” was revealed.
  Now those words spoken on the phone to the ersatz Koch are genuinely germane; far moreso than the theretofore non-existent beef the Kochs and their Wisconsin GOP patsies had with the union’s support for abortion rights, etc.
  Walker just wanted to bring back memories of the good old days, i.e., pre Wagner Act days when management thugs n’ goons handled “trouble-makers” on the job site. Hell, even the Kochs didn’t want to go that far. LOL!

Steven, are you missing the conflict of interest inherent in government sector unions?  Also, your idealistic portrayal of workers rights seems to overlook how unions themselves come to trample workers rights, and how they devolve into self-serving criminal enterprises.  It kind of defeats the original purpose.

But really, there must be a way to assert one’s Christianity in the social political sphere without your effort (and life) being mocked by thievish thugs and venal politicians.

There must be a way to have a good idea, implement it - Like Msgr. John Ryan whom you mention, and not have it highjacked by opportunists and gangsters.

Matt, I never had my employee rights “trampled” by any union. Period. In fact, the public employees’ union I belonged to was very supportive. At one time, it (MTA-NEA) even helped to arrange an un-paid leave of absence so I could take advantage of the internship scholarship I was offered by the conservative National Journalism Center in Washington, DC.
  I could go on and list other instances. But no matter, you’ve already made up your mind, public unions are no higher on a social scale than organized crime. Suit yourself. But the embarrassment will be yours, not mine. At least I know where the hell I came from and who consistently had my back. And it sure as hell wasn’t always any right-to-work union busting conservative ideologue. Unlike you Matt, I saw that garbage for what it was, is, and ever shall be.

@Steven

“At one time, it (MTA-NEA) even helped to arrange an un-paid leave of absence so I could take advantage of the internship scholarship I was offered by the conservative National Journalism Center in Washington, DC.”

What, you couldn’t ask your employer yourself?

I certainly did.  But I worked for a state university and it needed to find a temporary replacement while I was gone and this had to be done in a way that was also fair to my fellow co-workers. Each workplace has its own culture and rules of the road to go by.
  There were other instances when the same union at the same university years later went to bat for me, as when I was ill, required hospitalization and needed some accommodations, following my return to work. Both the state’s disability agency and the local union worked with my bosses and I’ll never forget what they accomplished. I’m truly grateful. And if my gratitude to the union and my state’s rehabilitation agency for its help then and on other occasions seems too “old school”...and/or ... “ideologically sentimental,” hell, I’ll proudly wear those raps as badges of honor.
  During ever single instance I listed above, I never heard anybody ask me where I stood on abortion or gay rights, or on any other potentially controversial issue. Not once. Isn’t that something, StillBelieve.

@Steven

“During ever single instance I listed above, I never heard anybody ask me where I stood on abortion or gay rights, or on any other potentially controversial issue. Not once. Isn’t that something, StillBelieve.”

Not really, Steven, because you were not dealing with politicians.  It would be inappropriate of them to have done so.  And all that was done was done because of common decency which hundreds of thousands of workers experience from their employers every day without the need of any union.  Unions have taken advantage of decent people with their bullying and thug tactics.  Wisconsin this past year is a classic example of how out of touch they are with real people.  They also have failed in their duty to produce competent and dedicated workers.  The educational systems are the most obvious evidence of the damage unions have created in a system of educating children that was the best in the world.  Now, all they are after is more, more, more money and benefits without paying for them.  The worst thing that has happened to our country is public unions.  Private unions, that’s a different matter.  I have fun with them when they go out on strike with businesses I purchase from.  Those guys can’t make me pay for their life styles if I don’t want to. I was disappointed that the grocery workers’union and supermarkets of Ralphs, Vons, and Albertsons settled on a new contract here in southern CA and didn’t go out on strike last week.  I had so much fun the last time they did, with the union thugs outside the stores trying to shame and intimidate me and others that shopped there.  A union thug boss got arrested because of his taunting me as I stood there surrounded by all his lemmings and a woman bystander, a vender calling on a stationary store nearby, called the police because she feared they were going to beat me up.  I terminated the “conversation” before the cops came and was getting into my car when she came over to see if I was alright and told that the police just arrived and a cop wanted to talk to me.  After I told them what happened and they interview her, and the thug, I saw them handcuff him and haul him away.  A few days later I saw him on the news agitating at another store a few miles up the road.  It’s a game to them, and I enjoy playing it.

But public unions corrupted the system of employment and government.  And their support for abortion candidates is morally moronic, especially for people who call themselves Catholics.  And it is foolish, as well, in the case of teachers because they are supporting the destruction of their own future pupils as well as their future employment

Steven, I was in a public sector union, in a government job, and all I can say is “Alice in Wonderland.”  Being in a situation like this puts you two or three removes from anything resembling economic sanity.  In fact, everything becomes politics; and instead of having people do their jobs, they all become political hacks.  You have maybe one or two people doing the work, and everybody else “politicking.”

But even besides this readily recognizeable fact, don’t you think public sector unions are in an irremediable conflict of interest with politicians whom they support with donations and votes, and who in turn negotiate their contracts?

And what do you think of public union’s hackneyed support of leftist agendas.  If that’s OK with you - cool.  But what if you’re one of those “neoconservative ideologues” who believe in traditional values?  What if you just think that government shouldn’t be a spendthrift wastehole of inefficiency and special interest pandering?  Isn’t the system of public sector unions almost designed to insure this?

I just wanted to finish by saying that public universities are another example of ideological lockstep - quite the fertile ground for union activity.  If unions are supposed to shield members from “in-group” nepotism, and “unfair singling out” they’ve failed dismally in the public sector.  In fact, all they’ve really done is set the standard for mediocrity and dumbing down.

I certainly don’t mean by any of this to cast aspersions on you personally, Steven.

Matt, I didn’t take your criticism personally because I realized you were writing from your own personal perspective/work related history and I respect that. Not every public sector union is as good as the other and not every state government work situation is as bad, worse or on the opposite side of the scale.
  And I understand where StillBelieve’s coming from as well. But it’s not a conflict of interest for wokers to form a collective bargaining unit to protect their livelihoods and even personal health from the shennanigans of bosses working more at the behest of special interests, well-protected pols (in either party), etc.
  Try and imagine a hellish world where our governments are all bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and employees had NOTHING to speak of much less point to for a safety net of any kind. As for freedom of speech? Forget that, too. Just take a look at a report appearing about the Koch brothers in today’s Bloomberg website.
  Have to warn you: it’s long and quite alarming. I’ve always held them to be horric anti-Daddy Warbucks (at least he had a conscience) but this article demonstrates what workers are in for if they don’t even have either public or private unions speaking out on their behalf.
  Such is the nature and make up of the guys who are practically bankrolling all this wedge-issue kind of political smearing of public sector unions, the social safety net’s supporters, et al.
  A world of the Kochs is a world dominated by men ten times far more imaginably worse than the fictional Mr. Potter of cinematic infamy.
  Whose side do you want to be on brothers, the Kochs or the folks who make up the union rolls?

I’d go with Kochs; won’t have to pay union dues, kowtow to union bosses, or accept my work value is equal to the lowest common denominator.  I worked in the steel mills during the summers putting myself through college.  This one summer, I worked in the cable wire annealing department.  The shop steward came through one evening to give us a heads up that the company was going to be doing a time study to establish quotas for production rates of finished product.  Those quotas would determine bonus pay for exceeding those quotas.  We were instructed to slow down when the survey team came in.  I never liked that, and didn’t like being told to work to cheat my employer who was helping me pay for my schooling.  Yeah, I’d choose the Kochs any day over union folks.  Kochs would recognize someone with a good work ethic and reward their individual contributions.  And if I didn’t think they were treating me fairly, I’d go to work some where else.  But that’s just me.

StillBelieve, ya gotta stop imbibing whatever the Brothers Koch are slipping into your tea. You’re causing great angst on your behalf when you’re saying the “...Kochs would recognize someone with a good work ethic and reward their individual contributions.” And I notice your “get out of the Koch jail” sentence right aftwards. You’d better not plan on staying long with those two guys. You can’t even do the right thing and expect to keep your job with them. (Check out what happened to one such European employee in the latest story about the Kochs and their flouting of our trade restrictions against Iran…The story was run on the Bloomberg website.
  You sure you want to trust them? Oh, and check out what happened to a little girl in the last part of the story. LOL, brother, now ... please, check your tea!