Anytown, U.S.A.

February 14, 2019 (928 words)

On any given day of the week, you can stroll into a bar or diner of your choice and be treated to a variation of the following exchange, being bandied about over a cup of coffee or a glass of beer.

The bleeding heart will be complaining about the way things are, and expect government to step in and right the ship and balance the scales.

The rugged individualist, on the other hand, will be complaining about the way things are and blame the sorry state of everything on misguided or downright wasteful government interventions and initiatives.

Both friendly conversationalists are partly right. Government does seem to have difficulty putting one foot in front of the other at times. But sitting back and expecting the unregulated free market to magically solve society’s problems is equally unrealistic.

---

…bringing technology to rural communities

---

Take the subject of broadband internet access in rural areas. The following is from a New York Times op-ed of February 7, “Farmers Deserve Broadband, Too,” written by an assistant professor of media studies at the University of Virginia by the name of Christopher Ali:

“Since the 1930s, policymakers have known that rural communications is a ‘market failure’ – something that happens when private companies don’t provide a socially desirable good because of a lack of return on investment. At that time, electricity and telephone companies were simply unwilling to enter rural America: The population was too sparse and the geography too vast.”

The federal government addressed this problem by creating the Rural Electrification Administration in 1936, to provide loans and grants to rural electric and telephone companies. It worked out pretty well. Within twenty years, 65% of farmers had a telephone and 96% of them had electricity.

Today there are not one but two federal agencies charged with subsidizing broadband access in rural parts of the country, and the amount of money involved is staggering.

The Federal Communications Commission earmarks $4.6 billion for such subsidies. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) – the successor to the Rural Electrification Administration of the 1930s – operates as a division of the Department of Agriculture, and hands out about $800 million a year. Congress also allocated an extra $600 million to the RUS, on top of the $7.5 billion in rural broadband loans and grants provided by the 2009 Recovery Act.

---

…lots of funding, but poor results

---

“Despite this large amount of funding,” Christopher Ali explains, “rural America has not seen broadband deployed and adopted at the same speed and effectiveness that it was with electricity and telephone service almost a century ago.”

Mr. Ali sees two primary reasons for this failure: A lack of a coordinated federal policy, which in turn has allowed major telecommunication companies to sop up a large portion of the federal subsidies without much accountability.

From the governmental side, it sounds like a classic administrative boondoggle. “An opaque set of grant and loan stipulations make it difficult for communities to apply for funding, and in some states, laws prohibit or inhibit towns and cooperatives from wiring their own communities.”

So the first call from assistant Professor Ali is for a national program. As things stand now, “Almost every state has a broadband deployment plan. With so many plans, however, come as many definitions of broadband, target speeds, eligibility requirements for grants and a host of unique priorities.”

---

…benefits of a national plan

---

“A national plan would designate a single agency – preferably the Rural Utilities Service, with its century-long relationship with rural communities and offices in every state – as the primary coordinator for rural broadband.”

A coordinated national plan would “mandate the creation of a new national broadband map, using granular and testable data rather than what we have now: Broadband providers report advertised rather than actual speeds to the F.C.C., and broadband deployment is calculated by census block rather than by household.”

“The F.C.C., which manages the current national broadband map, has grossly overestimated broadband deployment; when a single building in a census block is reported to have broadband, the agency considers the entire block ‘served.’”

A coordinated national plan would also “democratize the subsidy system… (by) abandoning rules that force the Rural Utilities Service and the F.C.C to give the bulk of subsidies to the major telecom companies, which deliver only the bare minimum speeds to comply with the law.”

“This money should be provided on a competitive basis without reserving the bulk for the major companies.” Mr. Ali’s op-ed goes on to give a prime example of a major telecom player now pulling down a half billion dollar annual federal subsidy for providing painfully slow download and upload speeds.

---

…taking advantage of the situation

---

So yes, as with so many other areas of public policy, government could stand to be sharper. In this case, it needs to get its act together when it comes to rural broadband internet access. But it sure would be nice if the free market, represented here by major telecom companies, were not satisfied to merely take advantage of the situation.

Here’s a thought: What if the major telecom companies, who have the know-how and the resources, would deign to work with government as an ally in this undertaking?

What if the free market made a conscious decision to set aside a not-so-enlightened self-interest just long enough to make sure this king’s ransom in federal subsidy produces a high quality result for the rural people that government is trying to see get served.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
February 14, 2019

Framing the Argument

February 12, 2019 (355 words) Despite my recently noted reservations about the methodology used for his economic prognosticating, there is an initiative American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks is currently promoting that has my unequivocal support. He wants liberals and conservatives to stop hating on each other, and acknowledge they both have the same goal in mind: a more equitable and humane society. In pursuit of this laudable objective, disagreements are bound to happen, and need not disturb what can be a fundamentally cordial relationship between opposing camps. Each side should be prepared to engage in a spirited exchange of ideas, after which – according to Mr. Brooks – the best ones will naturally win out. I admire Brooks his idealism on this point. I only wish he would expand his intellectual horizon beyond the shop-worn liberal/conservative, either/or dialectic. There is a worldview that promotes human dignity and human flourishing far better than the one he has hitched his professional wagon to. What exists above and beyond the familiar dialectic, and what might be called a “third way,” is none other than Catholic anthropology. Though it’s been around for some two thousand years it suffered a precipitous decline in popularity starting five hundred years ago, and has subsequently gotten buried under a mountain of modern rubble. But it’s still there, waiting to be dusted off and tapped into, with the benefit of countless spot-on additions to the teaching, generated by a series of marvelously astute supreme pontiffs over just these last 125 years. Together this body of work amounts to the best kept secret, a kind of “final frontier” if you will, of political thought and social-planning, even among Catholics. Take a practicing Catholic like Arthur Brooks, for instance – an intelligent man, an engaging speaker, and an entertaining writer – who seems to lack even a passing familiarity with the subject. He’s already there in the building every Sunday, for goodness sake. To rectify the situation all he need do, metaphorically speaking, is pull some different books down off the shelves and start reading. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. February 12, 2019

American Catholicism, American Power

February 9, 2019 (1,367 words)

Arthur Brooks and Andrew Cuomo are the same type of Catholics. This may come as a surprise to most readers, since each man operates from opposite ends of the political spectrum. But then it’s my job to point these things out to you.

Mr. Cuomo enjoys a much higher level of name recognition among the general public, as the current governor of New York. Mr. Brooks, on the other hand, is known mostly to the cognoscenti, as the president and public face of a wealthy and influential Washington, D. C. think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

Despite their opposing political orientations, both men share an abiding belief in the big-picture concept known as the American Experiment, and the limited role Catholicism should play within that experiment.

Most conservative American Catholics have come to view Andrew Cuomo as the proto-typical “bad” Catholic, for his support of abortion rights. Many such Catholics believe Mr. Cuomo, along with a roster of other, high-profile politicians, should be ex-communicated from the Church for standing up for “a women’s right to choose.”

Arthur Brooks, meanwhile, enjoys a sterling reputation as a “devout” Catholic among those same conservative Americans, despite his allegiance to and promotion of libertarian economic policies that are equally opposed to Church teaching.

---

… drawing from the same poisoned well

---

While I will grant Mr. Cuomo’s transgressions are easier to spot, both men draw inspiration from the same poisoned well. That well is classical liberalism, an ideology that subverts authority and law, custom and tradition, in favor of an unencumbered emancipation of the individual. The United States represents the world’s leading example of this ideology, in both areas of public life: economics and politics.

In a New York Times op-ed that appeared just the other day (February 7), Governor Cuomo offers a brief tutorial on how this all works in the political realm. “Our country is founded on pluralism… While governments may very well enact laws that are consistent with religious teaching, governments do not pass laws to be consistent with what any particular religion dictates…”

He continues: “Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York – not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties….”

The governor then concludes as follows: “We cannot have true freedom of religion without separation of church and state. And the country cannot function if religious officials are dictating policy to public officials. Only by separating constitutional duties from religious beliefs can we have a country that allows all people the ability to pursue their own theological and moral principles in a nation true to its founding premise of religious freedom.”

---

…pointing out the flaws in such reasoning

---

In case you haven’t noticed, I am devoting my modest, late-in-life avocation as a writer to pointing out the flaws in such reasoning. It starts with my challenging the idea that we all get to have our “own theological and moral principles,” in the words of Andrew Cuomo. One thing then leads to another, and before you know it I find myself having no choice but to call into question the entire big-picture concept known as the American Experiment.

I realize I am swimming upstream on this, with no aid or comfort offered from my former compatriots. Conservatives who decry cultural abominations such as legalized abortion think of it as an unfortunate departure from our nation’s Christian roots. They don’t see that our nation was founded on a rejection of such roots.

Those well-meaning conservatives also cannot bring themselves to question the economic expression of the same rebellious, anti-Christian principles. This is where our friend Arthur Brooks comes back into the picture.

In an March 2018 interview I just happened to come across this week, Hugo Gordon of The Washington Examiner asks Mr. Brooks straight away about the difference between classical liberalism, which holds individual freedom as the apex of political thought and social policy-making, and what Mr. Gordon refers to as a “Burkean” conservativism, which believes custom and tradition should temper individual freedom.

---

…operating in the middle of the continuum

---

Brooks replies to the question by describing himself as operating in the middle of that continuum, by virtue of his being a “progressive conservative,” a free enterprise enthusiast, and a Roman Catholic. But it is the distinctively American version of Catholicism from which he takes his cue: “The Church of the Empire in Europe that became the Church of the outcast in America.”

This coda fits his clever analysis of the United States being “a country founded by gentry for ambitious riff-raff.” According to Arthur Brooks, there is a moral consensus at the heart of our Founding, and that consensus centers around “creating opportunity and pushing it out to the margins of society.”

Since its inception in 1938, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has been known for its work in economics and foreign policy. Mr. Brooks can be positively inspirational when he describes AEI as a “morally based organization” focused on “the radical equality of human dignity,” and “the limitlessness of human potential.”

In this same March 2018 interview, he continues: “We’re known for spreading the idea of free enterprise and democratic capitalism around the world, but promoting those concepts is just how you get to human dignity and limitless potential. What sets our hearts on fire around here is addressing the challenge of people who still lack dignity and need to be set free.”

How to bring this uplifting vision to life? “We need systems and American power, a determination and a moral force coming out of this country…”

---

…applying an “outcast” version of Catholicism

---

Brooks sees the “outcast” version of Catholicism, which he believes functions best within the context of American conservativism, as fueling the unique moral force that we have an obligation to share with the rest of the world.

One can agree with Arthur Brooks on the subject of human dignity and people being set free, but one must part company with him over which “version” of Catholicism can do the most good in the world.

By limiting himself to an ideological choice between “free enterprise” and “more government initiatives,” he and his army of now-almost three hundred associates are missing the big picture. In order to better exemplify a “morally based organization,” Mr. Brooks and at least of few his many colleagues would benefit from a close reading of the papal encyclicals that focus on the very themes he claims set their hearts on fire.

A professed Catholic like Arthur Brooks is in need of at least one more epiphany in his professional life, prompting him to allow Catholic anthropology to enter the economic discussion. Scholars such as those employed by AEI would do well to parse the modern-day socio-economic encyclicals of the Catholic Church, and figure out how best to implement the general principles contained therein.

Under no circumstances should we let our national commitment to a slap-dash, poorly conceived premise like “separation of church and state” stand in the way of true and abiding progress in the social realm.

---

…not enough to get the job done

---

Haven’t we already learned, and haven’t our Popes already pointed out, that free enterprise and democratic capitalism on their own are not enough to get the job done, when “human dignity” and “fulfilling human potential” are the objectives?

Because free enterprise enthusiasts assume all economic actors conduct themselves in an inherently moral fashion, their altruistic designs are too often sabotaged by expressions of fallen human nature such as corruption and greed. Their empirical data doesn’t tell nearly the whole story.

We can soldier on, continuing the same echo chamber arguments between “free enterprise” and “more government initiatives.”

Or we could consider a radical return to a Christian model of economic behavior. Such a move would put shaky concepts like “enlightened self-interest” under the microscope, and create an imperative for moral considerations to once again guide all things “economic.”

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
February 9, 2019

A Treasure

February 7, 2019 (45 words) Our only daughter is getting her own place and moving out. She is a treasure, and now it’s time for us to share that treasure with the rest of the world. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. February 7, 2019

Under Development

February 3, 2019 (1,264 words)

As president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) since January 2009, Arthur Brooks has spent the last ten years working with political, intellectual, and business leaders in Washington, D.C. and around the country. His special mission has been to “defend liberty, increase opportunity, and expand access to the blessing of free enterprise to all.”

He has also been fund-raiser-in-chief for this high-profile conservative/libertarian think tank, whose over two hundred employees were relocated into an historic D.C. landmark building after it underwent a mind-boggling $100 million renovation in 2016, transforming it into a glittering new headquarters.

As reported in a feature article on Mr. Brooks that appeared in The Washington Post in early 2017, this army of employees “earn a living from the nearly $50 million a year in donations that Brooks & Co.’s scrappy fundraisers bring in. About $1 million of that money covers Mr. Brooks’ annual compensation, according to federal tax records.”

In addition to developing himself into a rainmaker extraordinaire over the last ten years, Mr. Brooks has “spent decades studying culture and public policy,” during which time he has simultaneously developed a reputation as an “idea man.” A self-described “bleeding heart with a conservative brain,” the source of Brooks’ unique insight is the point at which he sees technical economics intersecting with sources of human happiness.

Among his favorite topics, then, are economic opportunity, the inherent morality of free enterprise, and traditional sources of human happiness and human flourishing. In recent years he has shared his thoughts on these subjects via a steady stream of best-selling books, along with the occasional New York Times op-ed piece.

---

…what’s next for this original thinker?

---

So now, having achieved personal wealth, and having established his reputation as a best-selling author, a prolific social scientist, and an original thinker, what’s next for Arthur Brooks?

In his latest book, due to be published next month (March 2019), he sets aside economic forecasting to take up the mantle of mainstream social commentator. Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt , “offers a roadmap to the happiness that comes when we chose to love one another, despite our differences.” The author creates this roadmap by “drawing on ancient wisdom, cutting-edge behavioral science, and examples from history’s greatest leaders.”

Wow, sounds like pretty heady stuff, with something to appeal to a broad range of today’s inquisitive citizens/consumers. Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles says this new book “demonstrates that the seemingly ‘soft’ virtues of love, friendship, and warm-heatedness are, in point of fact, the very qualities most needed to make progress in the rough-and-tumble of the political and cultural conversation.”

This altruistic theme has been the undercurrent of Brooks’ last few best-sellers. But what reviewers and Brooks himself seem to miss is this: it is the economic framework we live within that is responsible for our toxic ideological climate.

As a man who earns a million dollars a year, it’s relatively easy for Mr. Brooks to sit above the fray and look down on the current turmoil with the perspective that comes from detachment. Which is to say, when one is making a million dollars a year, it’s far easier to bring love, friendship, and warm-heartedness to life in our dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself culture.

---

…worldly success, and the cut of his jib

---

Not that I would ever hold his worldly success against him. Nor do I have any reason to object to the cut of his jib. The gentleman may be just as Jonah Goldberg of National Review describes him: “a unique mix of Catholic piety, data obsession, sartorial connoisseurism, physical fitness, old-soul wisdom, and basic decency.”

My point is simply that Arthur Brooks has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a useful synthesis of ideas. Like every other well-known commentator currently plying their trade, there is a gaping hole in Mr. Brooks’ analysis.

Jonah Goldberg makes reference to Arthur Brooks’ Catholic piety. Elsewhere one will find Brooks portrayed as a “devout Catholic.” (There seem to no “professed” or “practicing” Catholics in public life; they are all “devout.”)

Mr. Brooks has obviously been drawing on his Catholic belief of late, as when he has referenced the need to focus on “faith, family and friendships” as a source of life’s meaning. This is offered as an antidote to the empty feeling that comes from the endless pursuit of material improvement, a pursuit “the blessings of free enterprise” so obviously encourages. The title of his new book, a famous aphorism/commandment, is his most direct reference to basic Catholic teaching so far.

---

… a fundamental deficiency in Brooks’ thought process

---

I can appreciate Mr. Brooks’ generic attempts to bring his soft religious beliefs to bear on the harsh economic proscriptions that have defined his professional life. But there is a fundamental deficiency in Mr. Brooks’ thought process. He has failed to embrace Catholic social teaching as it applies to economic behavior. That teaching has been elucidated by every single Catholic Pope since Leo XIII started the parade in 1891.

It is Mr. Brooks’ stubborn allegiance to “liberty, increased opportunity, and earned success” that is getting in his way. He has adopted the mindset of a classical liberal, as first articulated some five hundred years ago. This is when the common good took a back seat, and the emancipation of the individual gained ascendancy as the sole meaning and purpose of economic and political life.

This ideology dominates and defines the modern world and has always been in direct opposition to Catholic principles and teaching. Conservative American Catholics who have done well for themselves seem to be the last people on earth able to perceive this conflict.

By now Arthur Brooks is firmly entrenched as a member of the latter, obtuse group. He is riding high and on a roll, what with a new book coming out next month, a feature film (The Pursuit) due to be released, and an appointment to the faculty of the Harvard Kennedy School as a professor of the practice of public leadership, scheduled to take effect this coming July.

Like all our other “leaders” and “social commentators,” Mr. Brooks will no doubt continue to burnish his reputation and build his brand, making appearances and issuing pronouncements. My sincere hope is that one day he will step away from the noisy and seductive adulation to have a silent encounter with the truth. Then maybe he will emerge with something truly profound to share.

---

… a recommendation for new reading material

---

My first recommendation for new reading material would be Thomas Stork’s latest book: An Economics of Justice and Charity: Catholic Social Teaching, Its Development and Contemporary Relevance.

In fact, if AEI is serious about eradicating poverty and improving economic opportunities for the destitute members of our society, it might want to consider hiring Mr. Stork as one of its resident scholars. But then, his work and thought may not appeal to the reliable stable of wealthy AEI donors.

My second recommendation would be something along the lines of The Myth of Capitalism, just published by Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn. It describes the last four decades as an uninterrupted rise of vast, predatory monopolies that have produced a toxic mix of slow growth and widening inequality felt around the world.

It’s unfortunate that Arthur Brooks and AEI refuse to acknowledge this unpleasant reality, as he and they continue to promote their data-obsessed platitudes about “free enterprise” being able to “give everyone a chance to build their own lives.”

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
February 3, 2019

Rainmaker Extraordinaire

February 2, 2019 (444 words) Somehow I missed the March 2018 announcement that Arthur Brooks will be stepping down in June 2019 as president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. This think tank has no endowment, and is funded solely through private donations from wealthy donors. Which means the leader must be a prolific fund-raiser. AEI took a big leap when they hired a college professor in January 2009 with no previous experience running a nonprofit or heading up a big development operation to be their rainmaker. But Mr. Brooks has delivered over the course of his tenure, in spades. It helps that AEI defends the financial interest of wealthy people, and has a board composed largely of said wealthy people. So this naturally greases the skids, as they say, when any president of a think tank goes calling with hat in hand. Mr. Brooks has explained his fund-raising prowess by telling us how charitable giving bestows deep benefits on all involved – those who give and those who receive. He came to this blazingly original insight while writing his book on charity, Who Really Cares. And he also shared his discovery in one of his pithy New York Times op-ed pieces: “Charitable giving improves what psychologist call ‘self-efficacy,’ one’s belief that one is capable of handling a situation and bringing about a desired outcome, When people give their time and money to a cause they believe in, they become problem solvers. Problem solvers are happier than bystanders and victims of circumstance.” But wait, there’s more… “In this role (as fundraiser-in-chief for a high-profile libertarian think tank), I have found that the real magic of fund-raising goes even deeper than temporary happiness or extra income. It creates meaning. Donors possess two disconnected commodities: material wealth and sincere convictions. Alone, these commodities are difficult to combine. But fund-raisers facilitate an alchemy of virtue: They empower those with financial resources to convert the dross of their money into the gold of a better society.” Arthur Brooks in undeniably a prose stylist, but at times he tends to get carried away with himself while writing. How exactly does contributing one’s spare cash to a private “research” organization committed to preserving the interests of wealthy people contribute to “a better society”? That AEI specializes in statistical analyses demonstrating how free enterprise has lifted billions of destitute people out of poverty around the world – the standard conservative/libertarian economic refrain – hardly qualifies as a moral crusade capable of converting the dross of enormous wealth into anything other than what it is. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. February 2, 2019