When it comes to providing solutions to particular political dilemmas, there is always room for disagreement among honest and sincere Christians, and everyone else involved for that matter. Thus, the short answer to my question is no, there is not one, distinctively Christian response to the current debate about the debt ceiling. There are, however, fundamental principles at the root of the question, and the way in which one defines those principles will highlight the options available in distinctive ways. On this point, I would argue that there are certain core principles that Christians are to consider when formulating a response to the current issue.
Drawing upon modern Catholic social thought and the work of Thomas Aquinas’ political thinking, the goal of law and political authority is to serve, enhance, and protect the common good of society (see, for example, Summa Theologiae I-II Q. 90). It is perhaps ironic – or tragic – that the common good is the one element that seems to be missing from the current national debate. This seems to be due to the fact that the ideology that holds the most momentum right now in our political system – and hence that controls the terms of our debate – is the far-right ideology represented most vocally by the tea-party movement (but engaged by others as well). This ideology, rather than upholding the common good as the end and goal of government and law, sees government as the very source of the problem. Therefore, those who propound this ideology are seizing upon this moment of debate over government spending, taxation and revenue creation, and the debt ceiling as an opportunity to starve government at its source by cutting off its supply of money. Some of the more extreme elements seem entirely willing to let the whole system come to a crashing halt rather than think about long-term solutions that seek to protect the common good of all involved.
[To be fair, this libertarian agenda should differentiated from other forms of political thought on either the right or the left that would take a more practical approach to the problem. For example, it has seemingly left behind any of the positive elements of conservative thought that focus on personal and corporate responsibility, the social value of tradition, or removing overly burdensome regulation that stifles economic growth (as opposed to intelligent regulation that protects consumers and citizens). Likewise, liberal thought has its own problems in creating a language to speak about and pursue the common good that is not solely grounded in rights language.]
What would bringing the language of the common good back into the discussion accomplish? For one thing, it would re-establish the principle that government has a necessary role to play in seeking the common good (not the only role, but still a necessary one). It would also allow us to recognize that in times of economic hardship sometimes government spending is the last resort to help spur the economy. This principle, established by John Maynard Keynes and until very recently accepted by those on the right and the left, would remind us that the time to cut programs and spending is not during an economic downturn, but rather once the economy has rebounded enough to pick up the slack currently left by the high unemployment rate.
Ultimately, the far-right ideology that controls the terms of this debate is going to fail for one simple reason: it won’t work. Imagine walking into an interview for a job as a manager or CEO of a firm and telling them that you think your primary role is to do as little as possible and let your employees each pursue their own narrow self-interest to the exclusion of everyone else in the firm – the interview committee would think you’ve gone mad. But this is precisely what politicians on the far right are asking of voters right now. The best of American democracy has always fostered political experimentation and pragmatic results over ideology, but in our current situation the experiment being run by the far right is playing Russian roulette with our common good, and will have disastrous consequences for our economy.
The mantra “job-killing taxes” that has been repeated ad nauseum only hits at one part of the truth. Some taxes can inhibit economic growth and job creation, but others can stimulate economic growth and enhance the common good. It is impossible to believe that closing corporate tax loopholes and asking more of the top wage-earners is going to be worse than the kind of political and economic instability that would ensue following a government default on its debt. Ultimately, those hit the hardest by this experiment will be those who are already most vulnerable (see Tobias Winright’s post from July 18th). In a climate such as this, Christians – and all people of good will – have a responsibility to continue to uphold the principle of the common good as the foundation of our political life together in society, even if it appears that very few are capable of hearing the message right now.
Thanks for this post, Tom. The dysfunction of this whole process is something that everyone should deeply concerned about. I agree that the key point of focus here should be the common good, but the division resides precisely in how the common good is best achieved. It seems to me that there is a deep and genuine ideological divide in our society about whether the best way to foster and protect the common good is from the bottom up or the top down. You mentioned Keynes in your post, and I can’t help but share this wonderfully creative video depicting a rhetorical “boxing match” between Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. It does a great job of outlining this very fault line: bottom up or top down? http://www.mercatornet.com/video_choice/view/9114/
Do we begin to cultivate the common good by actively manipulating economic and social activity through legislation and regulation, or should that legislation and regulation take a more passive role, reacting to the forces and currents on the ground? In any case, the thing that really frustrates me is that this sort of debate has taken a back seat to political jockeying in the last few weeks. It seems clear to me that these leaders (Obama included) are more worried about posturing for the 2012 election than they are about focusing on the substance of a compromise. That being said, as a conservative-leaning spectator to this whole debacle I am absolutely disgusted with the Republicans intransigence about closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy. In my opinion they have gone way over the line there, and I was shocked by how distorted and manipulative Boehner’s speech was on Monday. As much as I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, I think at this point I would rather see a congressional term-limit amendment instead. Washington is a pit of snakes. Where’s St. Patrick when you need him?
Thanks, Tom and Patrick. Did either of you see this USCCB pdf today? I’d be interested in what you think. While the common good is certainly invoked, they seem to emphasize preferential option for the vulnerable even more than common good.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economy/upload/budget-debate-letter-to-house-2011-07-26.pdf
Patrick, I agree with you that the dysfunction of the political system has been especially frustrating. I was so hopeful that a big compromise could be reached last week, and was shocked that talks fell apart Friday.
Preferential option for the poor I would say, presumes the pursuit of the common good. The idea of “shared sacrifice” mentioned in the letter, also speaks to the common good. What is transpiring in Washington is an undermining of the public good. This is not solely the blame of one side. Both sides in this debate have looked to politics and election outcomes as the measure of the good. That beings said, there can be no justice in society when the interests of poor and vulnerable persons are cast aside and where the interests of the wealthy and powerful are given preference. This is nothing short of class warfare. The common good requires a mutual respect and pursuit of the good of society which includes the rich and poor alike. It would be good to reflect on the thought of Aquinas and what consitutues the common good. What is government for and what should it be and do in society? What does our republic look like today? These are sobering thoughts to consider.
I was struck by the directness and clarity of one of the last sentences in that letter:
“The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated.”
I wonder about the passive tense of the sentence, though. How the poor are treated by whom? The government, presumably. And who is doing the measuring? Is it God? The Church? The public? Again, it comes down the question of what the government is and what it is for. Should it ensure structures that help citizens escape poverty? Absolutely. Can it establish and sustain structures of sin? Without doubt. But how is a government to be judged morally? By the electorate? By “history”? Or by any transcendent form of judgment? It seems to me that Scripture and tradition reserve this last category either for God’s chosen people (in the prophetic tradition) or for human individuals such as Dives, Ananias and Sapphira. So when we call a certain law or political policy “immoral,” we are really pointing to the decisions made by individual human beings, right? And it seems that part of our job is to keep reminding them that God will judge them based on how they treat the poor. Otherwise, our raging against government structures qua structures will be little better than Xerxes’ flogging of the Hellespont.
As Cardinal George once said to a group of wealthy donors at Mundelein Seminary, “the poor need you to get out poverty, and you need the poor to get out of hell.” It seems to me that Christians, and the Church as a whole, needs to say things like that more often. Because that is the ultimate meaning of the “moral measurement” we apply to policy decision like this one, is it not?
Thanks for your comments everyone. I agree that the preferential option for the poor and the common good are intimately connected. And in response to VAThomist, I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of looking closely at how Aquinas defines the common good and the role of government and law vis-a-vis the common good. This is precisely what I am working out in my own research and hoping to publish a more polished work addressing just that topic in the next year or so
Wendell Berry has a quote I love: “Abstraction is the enemy wherever it is found.” While this may be an exaggeration, what Berry is pointing to is that our engagement in economic issues is often dominated by abstraction.
I would point out two particularly problematic ones Christians might consider in the current debate. One, the whole idea of “spending caps” of “packages of 10-year cut” with a dollar amount or even (sorry, Patrick) a balanced budget amendment encourages us to understand “government spending” as some sort of pure aggregate – and then start debating whether there is too much or too little. This whole frame is deeply problematic… and I hate to say it, but it is largely a frame determined by constant, relentless Republican oversimplification. Balancing the federal budget SOUNDS admirable, but in fact this would be like saying you or I could never have a year to buy a house and take out a mortgage – or a business could never choose a year to take out a long-term expansion loan. Federal borrowing smooths consumption, just as household borrowing smooths consumption. Can it go too far? Sure. But government is in a position much different from households in making that determination. Further, the a priori idea that government spending is “out of control” – well, this also needs scrutiny. Why don’t we talk about specific spending?
The second problem is, I worry, abstract notions of common good and preferential option for the poor. It’s not that I don’t endorse these – I do – but the fact is “middle-class entitlements” make up a far larger portion of the federal budget than do safety-net payments. It is surely better to mount abstract defenses of the poor and vulnerable than of the rich (!!) – but it also avoids the issue. As Jim Wallis was quoted yesterday in the Washington Post, he expressed disappointment that Obama’s Monday speech only talked about protecting middle-class entitlements – and said nothing about the poor. Radio ads in the Washington market – an endless source of entertainment around here – confirm this: the Democratic card is dedicated to making sure everyone knows that the Republicans are the party determined to cut Medicare and Social Security. So long as this is the position, we know what will get cut: actual safety net programs!
The stark fact is that health care costs are the long-term monster in the room, followed by the burdens of more Social Security payments supported by fewer workers as the population ages. The common good demands first and foremost a plan to control health care costs long-term, and to deal with the fact that many people who receive government payments may be in the position of not, in fact, needing these payments. These are complex, thorny issues. But any real long-term outcome hinges on some ability of government to sort them out.
Just looked at Simon Johnston’s quite effective analysis of the reality of the situation over at Economix, put in context of the European set of problems. Just very solid.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/which-is-in-worse-shape-u-s-or-europe/
SO I am entering into this discussion late and I greatly enjoyed reading both the posts and the comments.
To echo David – while a balanced budget sounds like a good idea. A balanced budget amendment would be a complete disaster. There is no sound justification for it in economic theory when dealing with a 21st century economy. Given that lower levels have to have some degree of a balanced budget (although even that falters in the event of a crisis. If your child has appendicitis or and you don’t have the money for the “deductible” or you are laid off from your job and you need to buy food – you go into debt because the need at stake trumps the ideal of a balanced budget). The government HAS to be able to step in. We can have debates about when it should/ or not but the federal budget being balanced is NOT an a priori good. Government spending should be directly proportional to the needs of the common good. That means we don’t cut food stamps funding when unemployment is this high and people are suffering REGARDLESS of the ‘deficit’ and it means that we don’t stop spending on infrastructure, education, and science sacrificing our future in the name of a balanced budget. If we really tie the governments hands through a balanced budget amendment – we are guaranteeing that we cannot respond to a crisis when it emerges.
Like David, I was upset by President Obama’s failure to mention the safety net and the poor (and at the apparent political decision sometime ago to shift focus from poor to middle class) – however, if we allow it to really turn into a battle between “middle class entitlements” and the “safety net” we’ve conceded the war. We’ve lost and the power structure that self-perpetuates to protect the rich and powerful has won. It can’t become the poor OR the middle class. Their interests are too tightly intertwined, both are under attack and both are failing. The middle class is shrinking and poverty is growing – and a good percentage of the high unemployment right now is among formerly solidly middle class families. I’m emailing Congressmen/Senators and such begging them all not to cut FoodStamps and the safety net for the poor…but for me, the problem isn’t the democrats drawing a line in the sand with social security (which I don’t agree should be taken out of ‘safety net’ category) it is in separating it from the rest of the social safety net. We need to be upfront and vocal about the connection between Social Security and School Lunches, Head Start, etc.
An interview of interest:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/galbraith_the_danger_posed_by.html
Thank you for quoting Summa; I bet I’m not the only one who needed that today.
If politics fails to protect the common good by raising the debt ceiling on time, the markets will punish our already rickety economy and hurt lots of people.
But without diminishing the harm to real people, I wonder if the coming crash might be a good thing on a spiritual level. That self-inflicted belly wound will offer a clear indication that America is an empire that has declined. Jefferson’s dream of Reason alone providing for our needs might finally be seen as irrational fantasy. Maybe we’ll listen for the “still, small voice” instead of the loudest people in the room. In my mind, this debt ceiling chaos is so absurd it can only be explained by what we Christians call “sin.”
All day long I’ve been thinking of Yeats: “… The center cannot hold… / The best lack all conviction while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity…” Lord, save us from ourselves.
What a great conversation, everyone! Since it seems I represent the “reddest” point of view in the room (funny how “red” used to be associated with another- very different- political perspective), I suppose I should venture a reply about the idea of a balanced budget amendment.
One will inevitably see it as an oversimplified solution if one conceives of it in an oversimplified way. In my view, if the government cannot manage its finances in a way that avoids defaulting on its debt payments, then there needs to be some permanent structural safeguard to prevent that from happening again. Does that have to take the form of a penny-for-penny balance each year? Not necessarily. It is also an oversimplification, in my mind, to think that there can be no middle ground between a yearly balanced budget requirement (which I agree would be too restrictive) and the complete lack of ANY permanent budgetary guidelines, which is what we now have.
Meghan, you characterized a balanced budget amendment as “tying the hands of government.” But it seems to me that that is pretty much what most of the constitution is all about: “tying the hands of government” in ways that keep it from transgressing the proper boundaries of subsidiarity. Such a view of the constitution needs to be clearly balanced by a recognition of its positive functions, but nonetheless I still think much of it is about circumscribing (and not expanding) federal power.
I completely agree that in a crisis “we” cannot stand by and do nothing. But who is the “we” we are talking about here? If the Republicans have framed the public debate so as to make the fiscal crisis seem like a zero-sum game, then Democrats have also framed the way the debate by their presumption that the “we” who should respond to social and financial crises is first and foremost (and perhaps even exclusively) the federal government. We have completely lost sight of the integrity of the many levels of civil society to act in their own proper spheres. Although the preferential option for the poor will always remain a fundamental moral criterion, we cannot lose sight of the importance of subsidiarity in our practical deliberations about how best to “opt” for the poor through social policy. Locking the poor exclusively into federal entitlement programs whose size and scope makes them financially insolvent and politically poisonous is not, in my mind, a responsible way of serving the poor.
And in this regard, I completely agree with David that the real monster in the room is health care costs. But I seem to remember that not too long ago, there was another 3-ring political circus about how to deal with exactly that problem; and it seems hard to deny that what came out of that whole debacle did little or nothing to address the structural issues causing that problem. No real insurance reform, no public option, no effective regulation of demand, and hence no discernible impact on the rise of health care costs. It was commendable and wise for Obama to try to tackle this issue from the outset, but what came out of that 2-year odyssey is just grotesque in my opinion. I would opt for a single-payer system in a heartbeat over what we have now.
My problem, I guess, is that no one seems to entertain the idea that these “crises” could be partly due to an imbalance of power in our structure of civil authority. Whence comes the automatic assumption that every societal problem can be ultimately fixed only by recourse to active intervention from the highest level of government? And to the predictable response, “Well then how do we fix such problems if not through federal legislation?” I would simply inquire as to what we really mean by “we.”
Patrick, I agree there is a massive imbalance of power -but I do not think it is about the dangerous expanding power of the federal goverment as a violation of subsidiarity. I think the fundamental imbalance of power is about economics and influence. Wall street, transnational corporations have bought a structure of power that benefits them to the detriment of everyone else – the middle class and the poor. Healthcare is one clear example – it is staggering when you comparing the lobbyists and funds spent on lobbying government by for-profit health insurance companies and forprofit pharm. (And, as yet, no one from Bank of America has been indicted for an expansive and pervasive mortgage foreclosure fraud regime currently going on)
Cities, Counties, and states all have to balance their budgets and cannot perpetuate a deficit running “state debt” for good sound economic reasons. And it can be that way because they are intermediary levels – and because the federal goverment can. The problem is NOT that the federal government spends too much money. we do not have a spending problem.The question of the “balanced budget amendment” isn’t, for me, fundamentally about “responsible restraint” on behalf of the governemnt – but it is about sound economic theory. There must be an economic entity with the power to act – this is the fundamental difference between a state budget/govt and the fuction of the federal government. Efficiency is a real concern, as is corruption, both of which I agree should be priorities. However, the real question is – does governement spending correspond to actual needs of the economy and the society. I cannot go along with any plan that argues that ipso facto because of the national debt we should cut spending on foodstamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid, school lunches -etc. when the eligibility and need for these programs is RISING. how much money is spent on food stamps should be judged by whether or not all eligible families are able to get them. For me it is that simple. And these are the programs on the chopping block. (Now I realize, we probably follow/believe different economists) but the interview with Jamie Gailbraith I linked to explains the debt/deficit situation much better than I can)
While I do see why it seems as if it is “only the federal government can fix things” is the mantra of the left…however, I’d contend thats as much of an oversimplification. But the federal government has a crucial, necessary and positive role. The goal is not for it to be smaller just to be smaller – but that it is as big and as active as it needs to be given the needs of our society. When I say WE that includes as a nation, the federal government but it does not end there. While it is different, the WE of my local community is no less a WE than larger communities. And, as probably the “bluest” in this conversation – that WE, for me, includes the poor, the workers, and the unemployed wherever they are in this country. One aspect of the current situation that has been overlooked is that a significant amount of the stimulus program was aid to the states – and as that federal aid has run out – we are currently seeing a drastic wave of lay offs of satte employees – teachers, nurses, firemen, and so on. For me, that aid isn’t “big bad expanding federal government” but actually subsidiarity at work – the larger organization providing the funds and resources to the lower levels to properly do what they should.
Like you, I am very concerned with promoting and protecting civil society – but I tend to find this argument a false dichotomy. “private” is better than “public’ and the argument often goes to well private charity will make up the slack (there are many issues for me within these arguments….which I will not go into here…) And, while I am not saying that was what you meant – my problem is it simply underrepresents the actual structural and systemic inequalities within our society and overestimates the effect of private charity. For example, David Beeckman, President of Bread for the World, indicates that 94 % of all “feeding of hungry people” in this country is done through the federal governemnt – most through foodstamps, school lunches, and WIC. All the wonderful and great work done by private charities, soup kitchens, etc (all great work and in great amounts) only amounts to 6% — does anyone really think that private charity can make up the gap for Food Stamps, School lunches and WIC? Not to mention that many of these wonderful local soup kitchens and such exist wiht a combination of private donations and public funds/resources. I think we do have a crisis of public society (as anyone who has read BOWLING ALONE can attest) but I do not think that translates into a matter of the size and spending of the federal government.
(In case anyone was wondering, FDR probably my favorite president and I will staunchly defend the New Deal, which I do see as being massively in danger right now.)
And lest anyone misunderstand me, I am in no way implying that anyone on this website is attacking the New Deal or such….but I do think that a deep ideological divide is coming to a head right now – and it is a very dangerous moment for the nation.
Great conversation, indeed! I want especially to comment on a few things Patrick talked about:
1. Patrick self-proclaims himself the “reddest” in the room… and he’s on the table for single-payer! Bravo! Seriously, I agree about the political circus that was (and is – Romney’s biggest barrier, IMO, is his Massachusetts health care plan) – but again, why was it a political circus? Because terms like “socialized medicine” are thrown around in absurd fashion?
2. Patrick’s comments about the (in)ability of the federal govt to avoid defaulting are fair – certainly the “noble” Republican position here is that this whole debate is an opportunity to restrain supposedly “out-of-control” spending. But is spending out of control? Almost all the increase in spending under Obama has been due to increased spending on safety-net programs like unemployment and Medicare – couple this with substantially lower tax revenues, and you get bigger deficits. But it’s not as if the Bush administration and its Republican congress had this under control! The point is that we could much more easily pay for what is needed and avoid default – if we raised taxes.
3. The deeper concern about subsidiarity is a very good point. We can’t automatically equate “common good” with “federal government.” However, to be fair, much federal spending supports state and local govts, and federal spending actually has a remarkable redistributive effect. Rich states – and the rich in states – such as Connecticut – get back 60-70 cents of every dollar they send to DC is Federal taxes, and poor states (plus Alaska) get back 1.30-1.50 for every dollar they send. Indeed, if you look at the chart, it’s ironic that blue states predominate in how they “lose” money and red states “gain” money from Washington! Now, to be fair, I love Wendell Berry and Alasdair MacIntyre, and so I have no illusions about the whole edifice of our economy and how “corporate” it has become – whether private corporate or public corporate. I agree with Pope Benedict that we need to develop ways beyond the “market-state” binary. I think there are creative ways to do this. Health care co-ops (that could draw on federal funding). More localized clean-energy projects (again, seeded by federal funding). More subsidies for small farmers growing actual healthy food, and less for commodity crops that go for burgers and fuel tanks. More funding for municipal transit and in general for development that enhances neighborhood connections. I would love to see our investments directed so as to benefit and empower local communities to do things for themselves. But in the short-term, this is going to require federal work – federal regulations, federal money, and the like. Again, focus on simple terms like “we spend too much” or “don’t cut the poor” – while they may point us to think further – really miss the point. We have to think creatively as a society about how to pursue “common good” projects. I can walk two blocks from my house here, and be at a wonderful little lake in our gem of an urbam park, which features a central foundation and house, all built by… yes, the WPA. This park has served the citizens of Frederick as their shared social gathering place for over 70 years. Maybe this is what subsidiarity looks like?
Meghan, I could not agree with you more about the real source of the present power imbalance. The accelerating concentration of wealth in this country is astounding, as is the power of the lobbyists who work for them. My concern, however, is that further concentration of political power runs the great risk of further feeding and enabling this trend. The larger the reach of the federal government, the more bang you get for your lobbying buck. I am puzzled as to why more people who identify with Democratic ideals do not recognize this danger.
And I also agree with the point that Meghan and David both make that smaller does not always mean better. The higher levels of authority should be able to assist the lower when necessary. In my mind, though, (strange place that it is) I see ongoing profligate spending as a grave danger to this role. The wise ruler Joseph built up a huge surplus of grain precisely for the contingency of famine. I do not think the federal government should be financially weak; on the contrary, I think it should be in the strongest financial position possible. The reason the debt crisis is a CRISIS is because the federal government cannot now exercise its proper duty of supporting lower level authorities. Speaking as a former grateful beneficiary of WIC, let me say that cutting those types of programs is an outrage. But the outrage to me is the lack of regulation and stability that prevents our government from being in a position to spend (and spend heavily) precisely in those times when no one else can afford to so themselves.
The bottom line is that civil society needs the federal government to spend big right now, but the federal government cannot find the money to do so. Undoubtedly the last president bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for this state of affairs, but in my view his policies were simply an intensification of an existing (and continuing) pattern: a burgeoning federal government manipulated by a dwindling number of ever-more-wealthy handlers.
Patrick, as David noted about the single-payer healthcare…I think we are closer than our differences might make it seem. I agree with you about the government in financially strong position- however, I disagree that the federal debt or current deficit are making the federal government financially weak. The debt ceiling and the question of default is a separate situation – however, it isn’t the debt. The govt can find the money to do so – it is CHOOSING not to.
I know many economists who have explained this far better than I can….but the federal government is able to increase spending (now we can and should debate on what we think it should be spending it on and that’s where I think we’d probably be closer than expected). I am contesting the very economic theory driving the intense push for dollar for dollar cuts and the entire economic theory behind the tea party and the right-wing conservatives in the GOP. And lack of “evidence based economics” is in my opinion incredibly dangerous for the common good and civil society. (One clear example for those who watch ABC This Week with Christiane Amanpour – Paul Krugman’s attempts to combat lies with facts….).
We can and I think should have a debate about levels of bureaucracy and efficiency (both of which could be improved); however, I do not see that as at all connected to the size of the federal budget in itself.
I complete agree about lack of regulation….we need far more financial and banking regulation (and lobbying regulation – the recent Supreme court case is a travesty in my mind). But I really am failing to see how what you are really highlighting as the problems in your last post are really a matter of “burgeoning federal government.” I don’t quite see that as following from the rest of your statements?