tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post4314934831057431470..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Obligation vs. IndividualismDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-25053327243083413382008-07-14T14:07:00.000-04:002008-07-14T14:07:00.000-04:00From the original comment you quoted:"Obama shows ...From the original comment you quoted:<BR/><BR/>"Obama shows promise of challenging the reigning ethic of individualism and autonomy that holds sway in this country...."<BR/><BR/>The trouble with this logic is that the Catholic social ethic is not based on the same things Obama's ethic is based on. They are like birds and bats: Externally, there seem to be some similarities, but internally, they are completely different. The Catholic social ethic is based on serving God by serving each other. The change the commenter is hoping for is superficial compared to that ethic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-80593722371482873912008-07-14T11:19:00.000-04:002008-07-14T11:19:00.000-04:00John Brooks says:David - nice to see you on-line! ...John Brooks says:<BR/><BR/>David - nice to see you on-line! Congratulations on tenure and good luck with the grant process. I am sure that the academic gatekeepers will be appropriately rueful. Hopefully your long-rumored blog will materialize in the not-too-distant future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-65764706822805574712008-07-13T16:43:00.000-04:002008-07-13T16:43:00.000-04:00Dear Darwin,Happy to be around on your consistentl...Dear Darwin,<BR/><BR/>Happy to be around on your consistently excellent blog - and leaving comments is a bit of vicarious blogging since I think I'm going to wait to get my own blog going. I don't think I should be leaving so wide a conservative pixel/google trail in a year I'm applying for grants (I've already used up a whole lot of luck evading the academic gate keepers whose failure to keep the likes of me from gaining tenure is a bit of a suprise. At the risk of too great a self-regard (oh, what the hell, if a freshman senator can aspire not only to be President but to lower the level of the ocean and finally see the sick healed in this country why can't I indulge in a little hubris) I hope that one day some of said gate-keepers will rue this as the year that I gained tenure).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think on the whole your dead right in your analysis on this post. I think in general the sense that the degree to which we expect or experience political authority and/or technology as having the key responsibility to alleviate or eliminate "burdens" associated with family, the less able we will be to cope with such burdens. Do check out the excellent article by Gilbert Meilaender "I want to burden my loved ones" at <BR/>http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/WRHC/181_I%20Want%20to%20Burden%20My%20Loved%20Ones.PDF (I think I might have recommended this to you before - apologies if I have). <BR/><BR/>Take care, przyjaciol.<BR/><BR/>DavidDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16082999953017523421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-44473620517409926252008-07-13T15:29:00.000-04:002008-07-13T15:29:00.000-04:00David,Good to see you around more!There's a book o...David,<BR/><BR/>Good to see you around more!<BR/><BR/>There's a book out by Brooks called Who Really Cares in which he goes into the details on charitable contributions by political identification in great detail. (I picked up a copy cheap at one point, but haven't had the chance to read it yet.)<BR/><BR/>Although the main source of the divide is that regular church goers overwhelmingly identify as conservatives, and regular church goers donate more money by far than any other group, the difference in giving goes far beyond money given to religious organizations. Apparently conservatives even donate more blood than liberals.<BR/><BR/>The lowest givers, apparently, are moderates. Showing, I suppose, that the worst temperature of all is lukewarm.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-23885019721445479472008-07-13T15:26:00.000-04:002008-07-13T15:26:00.000-04:00Kurt,What you're saying sounds a bit odd, given th...Kurt,<BR/><BR/>What you're saying sounds a bit odd, given the people I've known who have spent time on food stamps and/or subsidized housing. Though I believe they were 19-20 at the time rather than 17, so perhaps the difference is that one must be 18 to receive benefits?<BR/><BR/>When I said "job training" I was thinking of the kind of community job training centers that I've seen both here and Texas and back in California (both privately and publicly run) which provide things like typing lessons, basic computer skills, etc. I suppose that unions and such might provide training that's more specific to particular jobs -- but then the ability of unions to provide jobs seems to be negative at a net level, so I'm not exactly impressed. (Actually, all of my own experiences with unions involve being told that you can't have a job because the union is trying to keep labor supply down -- but that's dealing specifically with the theatre related unions in LA.) I don't think many child care subsidies are currently available -- however I threw it in to my example since that's one of the number one things my progressive colleagues keep advocating in the way of new social services.<BR/><BR/>As for those over eighteen returning to public schools -- I guess I'd have to know the specifics to decide if I agreed with you or your conservative opponents. We already have the GED program and the community colleges (which are open to those with GEDs), and I could see some reasons why it would be problematic (from a discipline and social point of view) to having people much over 18 coming back into public high schools. <BR/><BR/>But if my general argument that social services allow us to lapse into a much more individualist society seems less than credible, think of this example: The Amish communities specifically refuse to use insurance or government programs that are paid for by people outside the community. They do this because they believe that with insurance and social services, their tight knit community would start to break down.<BR/><BR/>Would you say that the Amish generally have a stronger or weaker sense of community and mutual obligation than your average mainstream American?<BR/><BR/>I assume that your comment that I seem like a liberal at heart is meant as a compliment, so I thank you for it. You might also consider, however, that it's just that conservatives are not as stereotyped creatures as some imagine. Because whatever I am, when it comes to politics I usually find myself frustrated that the Republicans are not conservative enough -- not considering the other side of the aisle.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-11475094188773749712008-07-13T13:55:00.000-04:002008-07-13T13:55:00.000-04:00Darwin,First of all, I enjoy dropping into a conve...Darwin,<BR/><BR/>First of all, I enjoy dropping into a conversation where you are termed a liberal (the disguise is almost perfect by the way...) - but I found this at the FT website (part of a longer peice comparing US and European patterns of giving).<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/<BR/><BR/>Brooks has uncovered other fascinating findings. In 2000, the Americans who attended a house of worship at least once a week were 25 percent more likely to give charitably than those who participated in a religious service less frequently or participated in no religion at all. Further, religious people donated nearly four times more in dollars per year than secularists. And religious persons were 23 percent more likely to volunteer their time.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, households headed by a conservative gave 30 percent more dollars to charity in 2000 than households headed by a liberal, though liberal-headed households tend to have higher incomes. Both these facts—the higher income of leftists, and the greater giving by conservatives—run counter to the mythology that the left holds in both Europe and the United States.<BR/><BR/>Overall, Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars of their own money every year to universities, research institutions, clinics, private schools, churches, and thousands of private charities (both local and international). In 2006, Americans donated just over $295 billion dollars to charitable causes: about $223 billion in individual giving outright, $36 billion through philanthropic foundations, $22 billion through individual bequests at death, and $13 billion through business corporations. Since there are approximately 226 million adult Americans, this rate of private giving amounts to, on average, $1,300 per adult per year.<BR/><BR/>Developing this sense of responsibility in all citizens takes emphasis in churches, schools, media of communication, and specialized journals on philanthropy. It also requires laws and other actions by government to make incentives universally available through tax deductions; dollars given to recognized philanthropies are not taxable. <BR/><BR/>It seems that we have some real evidence to suggest that conservatives are a great deal more "communitarian" as a practical matter - 'tis all a matter of subsidiarity - and do read the first part of the article, because it shows how much, much more likely Americans of all incomes are to volunteer their time and money than our supposedly more communitarian European friends.<BR/><BR/>Czesc,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16082999953017523421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-33661943398107787282008-07-13T00:50:00.000-04:002008-07-13T00:50:00.000-04:00John Brooks: Misdirected or not, your third paragr...John Brooks: Misdirected or not, your third paragraph crystallizes the fallacy behind the "prolifers for Obama" position. <BR/><BR/>I think your assessment was generally correct (if not in this instance) and well-stated.<BR/><BR/>I find myself wondering if folks who think this way would, say, buy a used car or choose a doctor or investment advisor based on the charisma, rather than the proven track record, of the prospect.CMinorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305306030099439903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29775818452458371252008-07-12T19:56:00.000-04:002008-07-12T19:56:00.000-04:00John Brooks says:Re-reading the post (and actually...John Brooks says:<BR/><BR/>Re-reading the post (and actually following the link), I misread it earlier. Apologies for the misdirected rant...lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-26940896222962870732008-07-12T18:09:00.000-04:002008-07-12T18:09:00.000-04:00Dear DC:I don't mean to be stalking you, but in fo...Dear DC:<BR/><BR/>I don't mean to be stalking you, but in follow up to this and your vox nova post, I still think you are a liberal just not aware of it!<BR/><BR/>In your example with the 17 year old girl, you say "Two paths are possible." The second path is not possible. Whatever myths exist about an expansive welfare state giving things away at every turn, there is no public housing available to a girl in such circumstances. There are federally funded, locally (usualy Church based) administered group and foster homes when such girls are asked to leave home but not public housing. And she would not be eligible for food stamps either. So path #2 is not a path that exists in reality.<BR/><BR/>As for path #1, the option for job training would be through government funded programs or labor union programs. There is no private sector financed job training program anywhere near where I live. Maybe they exist elsewhere, but its news to me. <BR/><BR/>I also remember when working for a labor union sponsored program in the 1980's promoting full employment, we had a political battle with the conservatives in our effort to change the rule that if you dropped out of high school and turned 18, you could not return. We prevailed over the conservatives so that is an option now most places (I'm sure there are laggards as well as a few progressive school districts that always welcomed back returning students.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-55946897830445100282008-07-12T17:17:00.000-04:002008-07-12T17:17:00.000-04:00Kyle,I think you're clearly right that the baselin...Kyle,<BR/><BR/>I think you're clearly right that the baseline issue is that we must remain a virtuous people in order for any sort of institutions (free or centralized) to achieve anything good. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that it must be possible to have governmental social service programs which do not undercut family and community, but I think you would have to be very, very careful in determining what sort of behavior they may accidentally incent, because it seems to me that often through virtuous instincts we set up programs which inadvertently incent people to be less virtuous. In this sense, a cynical economist may often have a much better idea of what will go wrong and a virtuous charity worker.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that in order to work well, a government social program probably has to be run more like a private charity -- and yet I'm not sure to what degree that's possible since everyone knows that the government's pockets are very deep. And so, people have very little guilt incentive to avoid taking any more help than they possibly can.<BR/><BR/>John,<BR/><BR/>You may be right. I'd taken the comment to mean that Obama's promised tax cuts and new programs for the elderly and people with lower incomes would make us a more mutual obligation-based society. If, however, the commenter simply meant that Obama would use the "bully pulpit" to make us all want to be virtuous, then it's such a silly point as to be barely worth responding to, because as you say, such powerful inspiration from a modern politician is unlikely.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-39135416244258750182008-07-12T12:59:00.000-04:002008-07-12T12:59:00.000-04:00John Brooks says:Good points all DC, but I think y...John Brooks says:<BR/><BR/>Good points all DC, but I think you give the argument too much credit. The idea that a politician can challenge 'the reigning ethic of individualism and autonomy that holds sway in this country,' or enact a 'transformation from individualism and autonomy toward community and reciprocal obligation' doesn't pass the laugh out-loud test for me. The only surprise by the end was that unicorns weren't mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Whomever left that comment (and I resisted clicking the link because VN is like cable news channels - addictive but rarely helpful), seems to think that politicians are some sort of moral supermen, able to enact wholesale cultural revolution with a few new government programs (or, perhaps, speeches). <BR/><BR/>The poster dramatically overstates the role of the politician as a cultural agent of change. Only naivety or partisanship could lead to such a confident assertion electing a certain candidate will result in wholesale cultural change that will reduce the level of abortion, particularly when the candidate has made it quite clear he supports abortion. If politicians do have the power the commenter suggests, it also argues against electing Obama because of the cultural effect his pro-choice views would have on the country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-33929237787926637292008-07-12T12:56:00.000-04:002008-07-12T12:56:00.000-04:00One of Wilhelm Röpke's main points is that economi...One of Wilhelm Röpke's main points is that economic policies and practices cannot be divorced from a social moral framework and expect to achieve the ends of justice and happiness for which they are implemented. Whether we’re talking about the “free market solutions” or “government programs” the imperative is the same: we must be a moral people. <BR/><BR/>I agree with your thesis that conservatives are not all individualists and progressives are not all believes in mutual obligation. However, I’m uncertain about the notion that “one of the side effects of setting up such a social services structure is that it serves to undercut community and mutual obligation by making them less necessary.” This can and does happen, but must it always be the case? Would it be possible for a community to make use of government social services and care for one another as a community without the former ultimately supplanting the latter? <BR/><BR/>I guess I’m wondering if it’s at all possible for government programs to be humanizing rather than dehumanizing.Kyle Cupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14607703830461449390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-31747543800189998002008-07-11T20:34:00.000-04:002008-07-11T20:34:00.000-04:00The Blackadder Says: In one of Wilhelm Röpke's boo...The Blackadder Says: <BR/><BR/>In one of Wilhelm Röpke's books, he recounts the story of a German MP who was arguing for more state spending on the elderly by recounting the horrible conditions in which her father lived. When one of the conservative MPs told her she ought to be ashamed at herself for letting her father live in such conditions, she was taken aback. It apparently hadn't occurred to her that she had an obligation to look after her father that went beyond pressing for more government services.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com