Another Errant Guide

October 4, 2020 (414 words)

Walking into the back of church this morning I was greeted by an imposing stack of “Catholic Voter Guides” almost two feet high, sitting on a small table in the vestibule. What a colossal waste of ink, I couldn’t help thinking, since the advice being offered is always a foregone conclusion: Vote Republican.

Not that I don’t appreciate the serious dilemma the earnest people who assemble these “guides” are trying to address. According to Catholic teaching, “it is never licit to obey a law that permits abortion, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.”

These folks know full well abortion entered the American mainstream in January 1973 through an exercise in raw judicial power. They note how every Democrat with any sort of national profile has, one-by-one, succumbed to the zeitgeist concerning a woman’s right to choose. In their minds these two unfortunate developments create a clear-cut choice for voters of conscience.

Relying on a hierarchy of values to make the case for Republicans, Catholic leaders acknowledge there are many important issues before the voters: racism, immigration, healthcare, climate change, economics, etc. – but they stress how none of those other issues have the gravity abortion does.

And they are correct in that assessment. In terms of moral imperative, legalized abortion takes precedence over any other issue in the public square. The question is what to do about it. And this is where I part company with every Catholic Voter Guide that insists the answer to our prayers is to vote Republican.

Without trying to be difficult or split hairs, the only way a Catholic woman can “obey a law that permits abortion” is to have one. Certainly no Catholic should “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of” abortion laws. And it goes without saying no Catholic should ever vote for any law permitting abortion. But when was the last time we were even given such an option on Election Day?

A Catholic Voter Guide that insists abortion can be addressed at the ballot box, even though it is not on the ballot, is missing the larger issue. The Supreme Court may have made infanticide the official law of the land back in ’73, but it was simply yielding to public pressurein handing down its decision in Roe v. Wade. This relatively recent legal turn of events was just another triumph of freedom (aka “The American Way”) over morality. It’s a process that has been unfolding since our Founding – a process that has been eating away at all of Western civilization for the last five hundred years or so.

Previously pro-life Democrats may have “evolved” their position on the matter, but they are only listening to their constituents. Mixed in there are a slew of middle-of-the-road types who recoil from the idea of having an abortion themselves, but don’t think it’s their place to stand in the way of a woman making decisions about her own body.

Given this reality, any political strategy designed to end legal abortion must address our national commitment to individual freedom, and must understand how the American concept of “liberty” has always been at odds with the objective moral law. This extends to the “economic freedom” our friends the Republicans all hold dear.

The problems of racism, immigration, healthcare, climate change, economics, etc. may not rise to the raw, unspeakable horror of abortion. But each is an important component of the common good, with a direct bearing on the level of dignity a citizen is able to experience. The Catholic approach to these “ancillary” issues should be dusted off and polished up, in order to take down the crown jewel of apostate thought, which is legalized abortion.

And in my view economics is the linchpin that holds the key to accomplishing this objective.

Catholic leaders should stop taking a back seat when it comes to economic behavior. “How to manage the economy” is not just one of many negotiable issues open to legitimate debate among people of goodwill. It’s not enough to claim the “underlying principles” of Catholic social teaching are non-negotiable, while leaving the implementation of those principles to the vagaries of the profit motive and the free market. Such leaders should roll up their sleeves and get more involved in this particular debate. They should weigh in on how the underlying principles of Catholic social teaching are, or are not, being observed by a particular economic agenda.

Unfortunately for all serious Catholics, many of whom identify as conservative politically, the cause of “social justice” has lately been co-opted by some shady characters. Their presence in this space represents an apparent cultural contradiction which distracts the serious Catholic. In times like these it pays to keep one’s eye on the prize. Not everyone pulling a certain lever, or checking off a particular box, is going to share your reasons for doing so. That’s okay. After all, no political party in a liberal democracy based on pluralism will ever embody the fullness of Catholic social teaching, or attract only like-minded purists. So don’t expect it to.

At the heart of Church teaching is the equitable distribution of profits. This is where Republican fiscal policy should come in for some pointed cross-examination by Catholic leaders. Since it is the glaring lack of equity in how profits are being distributed that plays such a large (if not exclusive) role in the current acceptance of abortion among the voting public.

Faithful clergy and earnest advocates who don’t give “economic freedom” or “market liberalism” a second thought as they battle abortion should go back to the drawing board. And they should hit the books. After they emerge from that strenuous effort, armed with a firmer grasp of this plague’s philosophical roots, then will they be able to provide something more comprehensive and more substantial than “Vote Republican.”

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
October 4, 2020

Answered Prayers

October 3, 2020 (414 words)

What was your immediate reaction when you first heard President Trump tested positive for COVID-19 the other day? Not many of us want to go on record as wishing anyone ill. We don’t want to be ostracized as despicable, and we don’t want to tempt fate. Even the rowdiest heathen has an unwavering sense what goes around, comes around.

But I’m willing to bet more than a few of us indulged a brief moment of wicked glee upon hearing this news. That so many of us had to fight off such dark thoughts is itself a sad commentary on this President’s unorthodox tenure.

Every politician has their critics. And those critics can get themselves really riled up about this or that errant policy initiative. Many citizens develop an intense personal dislike for politicians they don’t agree with. All that can be considered as fairly constant.

The variable this time around is how the object of our scorn enjoys dishing it out, too, like a common ruffian. Has there ever been an occupant of the Oval Office who went out of his way to provoke such a wide swath of the general public as this man has? Surely no other President has relished “poking the hornet’s nest” of public opinion as hard and as often as Donald Trump.

Growing up there was always a kid who liked to say outlandish things, just to get a rise out of the adults in the room. Mr. Trump’s late-in-life political career seems to be based on nothing but that – getting a rise out of the electorate by being “unfiltered.”

It’s almost comical to watch the “polite” population register their outrage with clockwork regularity, every time the President dispenses with decorum. And he never tires of pushing those buttons, does he? It’s apparent he revels in being the “disrupter-in-chief.”

On the other side of the coin, the way Mr. Trump can effortlessly make the “establishment” squirm has proven deeply satisfying to a different, perhaps somewhat-less-polite segment of the population. His bull-in-the-china-shop routine is clearly their cup of tea, even though it’s become painfully obvious it’s pretty much his only move.

So while nobody really wants to see ill befall anyone, it’s only natural to not mind when a loudmouth get his comeuppance every once in a while. Having said that, I’m sure deep down we all wish President Trump a speedy recovery.

Who knows, maybe he’ll get to experience a “Ghost of Christmas Future” conversion while in quarantine.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
October 3, 2020

Loving Our Constitution

September 28, 2020 (1,000 words)

Legendary Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died on Friday, September 18, at the age of 87. On Saturday, September 26, President Trump announced his choice to fill the vacancy her passing leaves on the high court: Amy Coney-Barrett, age 48.

During an introductory news conference held in the White House Rose Garden, Ms. Barrett made a good first impression with a brief statement. What was most striking about that statement is how one could easily tell she composed these remarks herself, without the aid of a professional speech-writer to “sharpen the messaging.” She came across as articulate, sincere, and down-to-earth, someone we can all relate to and who is used to relating to us.

Hearing and watching her one couldn’t help but wonder how much better the country would be doing right now, if only our President were half as classy, composed, and coherent as this woman appears to be.

She began by declaring “I love our country, and I love our Constitution” – sentiments most everyone listening to her would enthusiastically agree with. But I’m wondering if there is such a thing as loving our Constitution too much. Is there such a thing as putting too much faith in it?

This question should not be mistaken as my taking sides in the long-running “original intent” versus “living document” debate. No, what I have in mind by posing this query will not be welcome news to partisans on either side of this steep ideological divide.

Ms. Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame before being confirmed by the Senate as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals in October 2017. She is well-known as an “original intent” kind of person.

Barrett does not believe a judge should “create new law” by “legislating from the bench.” The job of a judge is to interpret the law as the people who wrote that law intended. It boils down to “the primacy of the text.” The Constitution means what it meant to those who ratified it.

Yes, that’s right, we’re talking about the late 18^th Century understanding of the text. For the civil rights amendments that would be the post-Civil War Reconstruction understanding, etc. The rationale for this approach is nothing less than democracy itself: The enacted text went through the process of ratification to become a law in the first place. If we change that law now to comport with our current understanding, or with what we may want those laws to mean, then it ceases to have democratic legitimacy.

Stressing “original intent” in this way is not to claim the Constitution has all the answers or should call all the shots, but rather to see it as setting a reliable, unchanging baseline. This still leaves plenty of room for social change. However, any topic the Constitution does not specifically describe as off limits should be up to the public to make decisions about, not the courts.

Judiciously-speaking, then, Amy Coney-Barrett’s bottom line is this: Any social change should come only through the democratic process. If you want to alter the Constitution, do it through an amendment. If you want to change a statute, do it through the Congress or the State legislatures.

This leads me to the contentious issue of legalized abortion. In the wake of her recently announced nomination, Ms. Barrett is being hailed as a dream come true by the right, and condemned as a nightmare by the left. The latter group describes her as a “dangerous” conservative who will turn back the clock on women’s rights to the dark days of the 1950s, and return us to the era of back alley abortions. Without wanting to sound too glib, I guess you could say the former group is pretty much hoping for the same thing.

The pro-life crowd is positively giddy with anticipation at this latest turn of events. Someone who takes a liberal or activist approach to interpreting the Constitution (Ginsberg), is on the verge of being replaced by an individual (Barrett) who takes a conservative or “original intent” approach to that same document. But I’m afraid my pro-life friends are indulging some wishful thinking when considering the impact of this switch.

If I may insert some personal context here without being awkward, when the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down on January 22, 1973, I wasn’t paying the least bit of attention. I was just a 19 year old know-it-all punk kid, abandoning the Catholic faith in favor of Buddhism, astrology, Abraham Maslow, and other assorted Maps of Consciousness. When I finally came to my senses twenty years later, all I heard about Roe v. Wade, over and over again, was how it represented “an exercise in raw judicial power.”

A majority of that Supreme Court found certain “penumbras” in the Constitution they claim protect a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. With “liberty from government restriction” being the operative concept here.

The original intent gang may insist on social change through the democratic process, rather than allowing an activist judiciary to step in and hurry that process along. But there is no getting around the fact our Constitution is grounded in a strenuous belief in both “individual liberty” and protecting the citizenry from undue “government restriction.”

Pro-lifers may feel that legalized abortion takes these hallowed concepts a bit too far. But this is what we all signed up for when we signed on to a liberal democracy based on pluralism, when we put our faith in the democratic process to determine what laws would dictate our behavior.

Clinging to the hope that returning the Supreme Court to a majority of “original intent” Justices will somehow restore a Christian sense of moral order to our nation’s public proceedings, especially as those proceedings pertain to legalized abortion, is not the mark of someone who is cognizant of their surroundings, or who properly understands the philosophical framework of the country he or she is living in.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 28, 2020

Marital Fidelity and Mental Health

September 25, 2020 (49 words)

So the way it worked in our house growing up was, my mother loved us kids, and my father loved my mother. Despite everything. (And there was quite a lot of “everything,” as I recall.) This arrangement made for confident and well-adjusted children, if I do say so myself.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 25, 2020

Catholics for Biden

September 23, 2020 (992 words)

While I believe Catholics who identify as “conservative” in the practice of their faith should untether themselves from the Republican Party, I don’t think the newly-formed group Catholics for Biden offers a convincing rationale for doing so.

This group had its “virtual launch” on the evening of September 3, when a number of prominent Catholics who proudly identify as “progressive” said their peace. And Jesuit Father Thomas Reese, certainly no stranger to the spotlight himself, published a recent essay that laid out the group’s logic:

“A Catholic Democrat can vote for Biden, even if his policies promote abortion and gay marriage, as long as the voter’s intent is not to support those positions.

“A Catholic Democrat might feel impelled to vote for Biden despite his position on abortion and gay marriage because of other morally grave reasons, for example, his positions on racism, immigration, global warming, and COVID-19.”

Here I must say I appreciate the position I think Father Reese is trying to carve out for Catholics who find themselves dissenting from various aspects of the Republican party line. But I believe he could be far more persuasive in making the argument, if only he’d put his mind to it.

As things stand now, his approach can be too easily dismissed as an example of the “two out of three ain’t bad” sort of moral reasoning. It goes something like this: If we can improve the national response on racism and immigration, then we’ll just have to live with legalized abortion.

This sort of thinking just doesn’t fly with me.

It’s very curious Father Reese’s litany of “morally grave reasons” does not include “economic injustice,” given the nation’s ongoing preoccupation with the subject, and how it was a central focus of certain candidates who led early polling for the Democratic nomination last year.

In much the same way a majority of those primary voters were eventually scared off by a vague sense that any discussion of adjusting our approach to economic behavior was tantamount to a complete conversion to “socialism,” so too this new group Catholics for Biden seems to want to steer clear of the subject as well.

But that’s exactly where this conversation needs to go. A reform of our economic rules of engagement holds the key to ending abortion, though I don’t have much company when making this assertion. None of my favorite pro-life friends and debate partners shows a willingness to entertain my logic. In fact, just last week one of them accused me of “economic reductionism.”

To be clear, I have not fallen in love with the Democrats. It’s more a case of my having lost all faith in the other side.

For blue-chip Republicans, the abortion issue is little more than an election year “social conservative” side hustle. Oh yeah, sure, between elections they are busy “transforming the federal judiciary” by appointing judges who will not “legislate an abortion agenda from the bench.” They can be counted on to sporadically discuss defunding Planned Parenthood. And they are always looking to pack the Supreme Court with as many pro-life Catholics jurists as they can find.

These stalwart gestures may strum the heartstrings of pro-lifers everywhere, but they are extended with an incontrovertible quid pro quo understanding: Every single appointee must adhere to the hardcore fiscal policy Republicans hold dear.

It is an unwavering commitment to the “free market” and to “economic freedom” – both of which happen to dovetail nicely with our national spirit of rugged individualism – that defines Republicans and is demanded of their followers.

They stand opposed to government “interference” and resist any attempt at regulation. This “absence of obstacles” approach to economic life has obviously worked out well for the clever and the advantaged among us, and has unleashed the movers and the shakers. But it leaves far too many rank-and-file folks out in the cold.

Pro-life Catholics have been overlooking these unfortunate Republican fiscal tendencies – which amount to a pronounced disdain for the common good – ever since Roe v. Wade.

In 2016 we were told to hold our nose and vote Republican, for the same reason as always – upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court. The entrenched pro-life strategy is all about getting the right kind of people on the high court, which will eventually lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Well folks, here’s a news flash: I don’t think overturning Roe v. Wade will end abortion. It may start a civil war, but it won’t end abortion.

The only thing that will end abortion is when women stop choosing to have one.

This means addressing the mentality behind a woman’s decision to abort. And I see this equation as largely (if not exclusively) economic in nature. The female “haves” possess more money than they know what to do with. Their lives are centered on comfort and pleasure, and the career that makes it all possible. Newborns are resisted as an unnecessary part of life, an unwanted intrusion. The female “have nots,” meanwhile, live paycheck-to-paycheck, and feel constrained from welcoming a child (or another child) into the world.

Republican fiscal policy encourages this me-first attitude among the “haves,” and prevents the “have nots” from flourishing in all aspects of American society. The Democrat approval of abortion and gay marriage is surely a worrisome thing, but that support does not translate into a mandate. Republican fiscal policy, on the other hand, does in fact dictate the harsh, kill-or-be-killed culture we are all forced to accept.

From my perspective, fiscal conservatives blithely undermine the objectives of social conservatives at every turn, with policies that contradict their stated commitment to the pro-life cause, and decimate the “traditional family values” they are always touting.

So Jesuit Father Thomas Reese, do us all a favor. Roll up your sleeves and wade into the economic nitty-gritty that could explain why a committed pro-life Catholic might actually vote for an apostate politician like Joe Biden.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 23, 2020

Peggy Noonan’s World

September 13, 2020 (1,134 words)

The toughest part of being a name-brand commentator who gets published in the prestige press on a regular, weekly basis is that it can be hard to come up with worthwhile subject matter every single week.

Even when a kernel of an idea does present itself, the difficulty lies in fleshing things out properly on a deadline.

The careful reader can tell when a best-laid plan goes awry. The title of a column may be catchy. The opening sentence or two may draw you in. There may even be a musical phrase somewhere in there that especially resonates. But as you read on you realize this week’s installment is not really coming together or taking off as perhaps the author would have liked.

This is an occupational hazard that can happen to the best of them. To paraphrase Truman Capote’s famous critique of the old Jack Kerouac book On the Road, sometimes our favorite columnists are “writing,” and sometimes they’re “just typing.”

While it’s not my habit to check out the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal every single Saturday, when I do Peggy Noonan’s prominent above-the-fold missive on the Op-Ed page is always a must-read.

Like the rest of her audience, i enjoy the way she cleverly manages to tease out the tenor of the times, and how she goes about her business with such a generous spirt. But occasionally her strokes are a bit too broad. Take for instance today, when she writes:

“America has now been battered by waves of distress. Summer is becoming fall and there’s little sign people want to remake everything in a progressive direction. They want stability, not a cultural and economic revolution, which many of the Democratic candidates seemed to imply they’d be open to, even support. They want the economy to come back. They don’t want looting in the streets; they feel they have already been looted, by history”

Here Ms. Noonan is pitch-perfect about the waves of distress, the desire for stability, and a longing for the economy to come back. But as to her claim “there’s little sign people want to remake everything in a progressive direction,” well, that would depend on what is meant by “everything” and “progressive.”

Then let’s hone in specifically on Noonan’s contention the public has little taste at this time for “cultural and economic revolution.” One could say the dreaded cultural revolution has already occurred, to the chagrin of many. The only thing really up for debate is whether an economic revolution is warranted.

But I would like to avoid using the word “revolution” in this context, simply because it unnecessarily excites some folks and worries others. Better to plug in a word less fraught with emotion, such as “reform.”

In fact I would also suggest we rethink discussing potential economic adjustments as being in a “progressive direction.” In the present context, “progressive” is too easily misconstrued as being synonymous with “socialist,” and we all know the immediate tar and feathering a nefarious word like “socialist” comes in for.

Linguistic shorthand such as “progressive direction” or “economic revolution” can be helpful when trying to communicate. It can save time and bring the discussion to the crux of a matter more quickly. But such shorthand can also work against having a serious debate.

It can encourage the listener/reader to fall back on familiar, pre-established positions, and continue assuming he or she already knows all about what’s being presented for consideration.

No need to really pay attention to what’s being written or said. When this phenomenon kicks in, even the most detailed dissertation becomes little more than a sensation that washes over us, making us feel either content or disgruntled.

Therefore in many cases it would be better to avoid the linguistic shorthand altogether. This would force the listener/reader to actually think the issue through to a more logical and rational conclusion. Avoiding linguistic shorthand might have the same positive effect on the writer/speaker, as well.

Peggy Noonan’s take on there not being much of an appetite for systemic economic change is not necessarily off the mark. She speaks for a segment of the population who mainly yearns for the pre-pandemic status quo. These are the people she makes a point to rub elbows with on a regular basis. And these are the ones who naturally share her own well-established ideological preferences.

But there is another America apart from the one Ms. Noonan is able to personally interact with and deftly portray. To get a feel for that America one has to refer to the work of some of our other fine journalists. Consider the notable economist Paul Krugman, for example, whose opinions can be found in the New York Times.

Mr. Krugman is fond of reminding us that while the stock market may be doing well, even now during the pandemic, it’s not representative of the economy that most people experience. Just the other day he pointed out that more than half of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population. The bottom half of the population owns only 0.7% of the market.

As any wily pollster can tell you, the answer you get on a survey depends on how you phrase the question. A majority of people may recoil from the idea of having an abortion, but that same majority does not want to interfere with a woman making medical decisions about her own body.

In a similar way, a distinct majority have come to realize in their bones there is something fundamentally wrong with the winner-take-all form of casino capitalism that has come to dominant our society over the last fifty or sixty years. Much of that majority has also become frustrated with our current medical system and is willing to consider alternatives.

If you suggest taxing the largest (monopoly) fortunes, breaking up the big banks, and legislating against the more predatory aspect of private equity behavior, lots of regular, middle-of-the-road people will express support.

But when Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez takes to the stump and pounds the podium to advocate on behalf of such issues, it turns off those same, previously receptive individuals. In this case I would say certain folks are shooting the messenger without paying proper attention to the message.

The fine, upstanding people who populate Peggy Noonan’s World and celebrate her perspective are the ones who hold the most valuable cards at this important table. The “haves” need to admit the “have nots” aren’t being treated equitably, and must prepare themselves to try and do something about it.

Our basic rules of economic engagement are due for a major re-write. That was the sentiment rumbling across the country when the pandemic hit. And it will be waiting there to greet us once this pandemic finally passes through.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
September 13, 2020