« Dobson vs. Obama | Main | A Choice, Not An Echo (II) »

A Choice, Not An Echo

28 Jun 2008 11:16 am

rockefeller.jpg

Ed Kilgore wonders about parallels between a Sam's Club Republicanism and the Rockefeller Republicanism of yore:

The argument that the GOP can rebuild an electoral majority by shrugging off its anti-government mentality and strategically accepting key elements of the New Deal/Great Society legacy is not new, though it hasn't been heard in a while ... Indeed, this was the animating idea of the "moderate" or even "liberal" Republicans of yore, who struggled with the conservative movement for control of the GOP for decades, and didn't completely succumb until 1976, 1980, or even 1994, depending on how you measure these things.

... To conservatives, [Nelson] Rockefeller was the perfect embodiment of an elite, anti-grass-roots tradition of Eastern Seabord Republicanism, and popular support for him was no more genuine than the manufactured "We Want Willkie!" demonstrations in 1940 that representated an earlier form of the same "betrayal" ... But looked at from another angle, Rocky (along with other prominent Republicans of the 1960s and 1970s, such as George Romney, Chuck Percy, and Bill Scranton, in a tradition that went back through Ike and Tom Dewey, all the way to Alf Landon) was a Republican "modernizer" who believed, like Douthat and Salam, that the anti-government habits of GOP conservatives bred during the long era of opposition to the New Deal were keeping Republicans from harvesting a vast number of middle-class votes.

Teddy White wasn't alone in viewing pols like Rockefeller as representing a vibrant future-oriented option for the GOP, and not the elitist symbol of surrender to Big Government so familiar in conservative polemics. In the 1960s and much of the 1970s, the Ripon Society, promoting a distinctive blend of social liberalism and market-oriented public-sector activism, was a happenin' place within the Republican Party ... And while Richard Nixon's Disraeli-style experiments in public-sector activism may have been motivated by sheer political opportunism, they were as legitimate an expression of a certain brand of Republican philosophy at the time as his better-known pioneering of a harsh and divisive cultural conservatism, and did contribute to his 1972 landslide victory.

I think the Rockefeller Republican tradition is a useful one for today's GOP to look back on, but I tend to think that it's useful primarily as a cautionary tale. Republicans in this tradition did achieve some real successes, in policy as well as politics, but in hindsight they often look like prisoners of me-tooism: They became so convinced that the only way the GOP could win was to accept the post-Roosevelt consensus that they missed the opportunity afforded by the post-Sixties crack-up to actually offer real reforms to that consensus. As a result they lost the GOP, and eventually the country, to the once-unlikely alliance of Goldwaterites and neoconservatives - by which I mean not only the Podhoretzes and Kirkpatricks, but all the ex-liberal voters, from blue-collar Catholics to Sunbelt evangelicals, who joined the GOP in the '70s and '80s, and eventually formed the heart of the new Republican majority. This is why Grand New Party spends a lot more time on the neoconservative tradition, broadly understood, than on the Rockefeller-Republican tradition. The Rockefeller types were too often content to imitate what the Democrats were offering; the neoconservatives were bold enough to offer something different. Liberal Republicanism gave us John Lindsay's mayoralty; neoconservatism gave us Rudy Giuliani's. Liberal Republicanism gave us Richard Nixon's wage and price controls; neoconservatism gave us Ronald Reagan's economic boom. Liberal Republicanism gave us affirmative action; neoconservatism gave us welfare reform. And so on.

I spend a lot of time talking about the dangers of the retrenchment mentality on the Right - by which I mean the assumption that all the GOP needs is to go back to conservative basics, to promise to bust pork and drill in ANWR, and its majority will magically reappear. But me-tooism is a major danger as well. Talking like a Democrat may be a matter of political survival for, say, Gordon Smith, but you can't build a successful national party without finding a way to draw distinctions, and having a GOP that reacts to the Democrats' success simply by offering similar policies with minor modifications (as John McCain has done on cap-and-trade, for instance) is bad for the party in the short term - the Rockefeller Republicans won their share of elections, but they never managed to break the Roosevelt majority's hold on Congress - and bad for the country in the long term. If there's anything I've taken away from the experience of writing this book, it's that we need a wider-ranging conversation about domestic policy, not a narrower one - and for that to happen, tomorrow's reformist Republicans need to be more creative about looking for reforms that the Democrats can't (or won't) champion than the Rockefeller Republicans were before them.

Comments (34)

And what ideas might that be? God, guns and gays? Saying that Barack Obama is John Kerry with a tan? It is hard to come up with ideas when your leading lights are such blundering idiots. neoconservatism didn't give you Ray-gun's boom. Paul Volcker gave it to you by clamping down on inflation. And if you want to take credit for the economic boom under Ray-gun, you are going to have to take credit for the credit/housing/oil meltdown going on right now. If you read any history, you'd understand that Republicans through some of Nixon's first term didn't touch any of the New Deal because it was very popular. Trying to dismantle it would have been the kiss of death. Beginning really with Ray-gun and extending onward, they fooled people into voting against their own self interest. Have you seen polls lately? The Democrats(or liberal) position is very popular for a lot of things. If Reid and Pelosi weren't such wimps, they'd make Commander Codpiece look bad and render Republicans to the way of the Whigs.

My question is this: what if Republicans actually can't help fix things for the working class without adopting traditionally liberal policies? You and Reihan seem sure that there is this space in between traditional Republicanism and liberal social policies that can at once improve the lot of the struggling working class but remain a party in opposition to "big government". But what if that space doesn't exist? Liberals don't pursue the policies they pursue for no reason, and we don't, in point of fact, just want to grow the government for its own sake. We support policies that at times grow the size of the federal government because we think those policies are the most likely to provide the relief for the working class that you and Reihan are looking for. I mean, look, if there was a host of solutions out there that could at once ease the economic burden on the working and middle class while at the same time remaining true to the conservative creed and preserving the Republican hold on the affluent-- a key constituency for the Republican coalition-- well... don't you think we would have heard those solutions by now?

What if it turns out that the only solution to helping the working and middle class isn't a reformist conservatism but instead... liberalism?

Thank you for the flood of memories that I got from your mention of 'A Choice and Not an Echo'. That was one of the two books that I carried with me back in HighSchool. The other of course was 'Conscience of a Conservative'. And later, 'McCarthy and His Enemies'. As Homer Simpson says, 'happy days.'

Couple of reactions. Do you remember who wrote 'Choice'? Phyllis Schlafly. Perhaps that will tell you what the 'choice' offered to us was?

The determination to staunchly hold onto conservative ideas did not lead to Reagan '80. It led to Goldwater '64. A horrible recession that followed a senseless war and the Iranian Mullah's led to Reagan.

The future ownership of the Repub party is of course the real stakes in this election for wingnuts. Barney Frank has an op-ed this morning explaining that the Congressman King (R-NY) on the Finance & Banking committee proposed modifying the Anti-Internet Gambling Bill to allow banks and credit card companies to relax their monitoring and interfering with transactions that might indicate moral weakness. The Repubs on the Committee killed it.

The Dobsons and Donohues and Tom Monohans hold all the important levers in the Repub party. Until local county party chapters are separated from local anti-choice and fundamentalist activists, the Repubs are going to trend toward their future as a small rump of the electorate.

Freddie: "But what if that space doesn't exist?"

it doesn't. this is nothing more than douthat's idle fantasy... and hell, why not fantasize? he can afford to, unlike the people who actually bear the consequences of his ideas. why live in reality when you can make up your own little dream world, where conservativism helps poor people and the lord jesus christ rose from the grave on the third day?

there's an obvious jokey rejoinder to Mr Douthat's floundering that ends, "...and everyone gets a pony."


But you probably knew that.

What. I can understand Dewey and the like being not wholly anti-government, but Rockefeller? Wasn't he the preeminent economical libertarian/classical liberal/small gov't conservative of the day? Or maybe that was Goldwater.

Rocky and company did not fall because of big government. They fell because they seemed like John Kerry on social issues and loved liberal itnernationalism. Rocky and his gang all seemed like anti-Catholic country clubbers to me. In Connecticut this type of Republican dueled with pro-life Democrats like Ella Grasso. Guess who usually won?

I have not read the book yet but it is frustrating to have the club for growth or WSJ attack tax cuts for the working man because they don't affect marginal rates, rather than absolute numbers paid by this segment of the populace.

Further, as I understand it they urge an alliance. In areas where the Government performs badly or ought not be I do not hear Douhot and Rheihan arguing for more goverment.

A Republican Party that romed from Mickey Kaus/Christopher Lasch to Phil Gramm would be more powerful than a Democratic party run by Barney Frank, college professors and the Unions.

I also disagree with the reocurrent refrain to jettison the social right. Tell you what I'll take the votes of those who believe in the death penalty for those who rape 8 year olds and you take the Justice Kennedy coalition. Guess whose going to win?

Rocky and company did not fall because of big government. They fell because they seemed like John Kerry on social issues and loved liberal itnernationalism. Rocky and his gang all seemed like anti-Catholic country clubbers to me. In Connecticut this type of Republican dueled with pro-life Democrats like Ella Grasso. Guess who usually won?

I have not read the book yet but it is frustrating to have the club for growth or WSJ attack tax cuts for the working man because they don't affect marginal rates, but only the (mere)rather absolute numbers paid by this segment of the populace.

Further, as I understand it the boys urge an alliance. In areas where the Government performs badly or ought not be I do not hear Douhot and Rheihan arguing for more goverment.

A Republican Party that roamed from Mickey Kaus/Christopher Lasch to Phil Gramm would be more powerful than a Democratic party run by Barney Frank, college professors and the Unions.

I also disagree with the reocurrent refrain to jettison the social right. Tell you what, I'll take the votes of those who believe in the death penalty for those who rape 8 year olds and you take the Justice Kennedy coalition. Guess whose going to win? I'll take those who believe in marriage as its always been and you get the married lesbians. I'll take parents raising their kids and you take those who pass laws against spanking. On those issue the social right will win by lopsided margins. If an issue is "divisive" by being 80-20 or 60-40 conservative its the minority being divisive. WE have nothing to apologize for.

Abortion on demand is a ghastly practice and no political organization worth adhering to should be aught but implacable in opposion to it.

A common thread in our political life for more than fifty years has been a degenerative process whereby legitimate authority acting within its competence has been deposed or subject to the superintendency of those from a preferred list of mandarins: judges and the bar generally, social workers and others of the helping professions, and the educational apparat. Public employee unions and their members get a slice of cake along with it. Thus emasculated have been fathers, mothers, mayors and municipal councillors, and business proprietors. Now we see that the conduct of war will henceforth be vetted by Mr. Justice Kennedy. The Republican Party is less enmeshed with this set of interests and less in thrall to the ideologies which animate them, so is the better bet to free society from the grip of those who consider themselves our betters. Doing so does not require restoring the political economy ante-1929.

We support policies that at times grow the size of the federal government because we think those policies are the most likely to provide the relief for the working class that you and Reihan are looking for.

Oh, how sad.

Don't you realize how inefficiently the government does everything?

I realize there is a liberal swing in our politics now, and that's to be expected after the breakdown of the Republican party. But the hard truths that discredited liberalism have not changed. Read Jonathan Rauch's book, Demosclerosis to see how government programs mestastize over time into expensive programs that deliver little value but can't be killed because of the power of interest groups. Create a new government program and almost instantly, you create a lobbying force that will turn that program into something its idealistic progenitor wouldn't recognize.

Conservatives supposedly like the defense department, right? It's their kind of place. But the same rules apply to defense, and it justifiably drives liberals mad. The waste, fraud, abuse and lobbying pressure that boosts the cost of defending our nation. The difference is, we have no choice but to give our government the power to defend us. Some of the domestic goals of liberals can be handled in other ways, and thus should be. A new government program is the single worst answer to any social problem you might point to. It should be the solution of last resort -- always.

Vail Beach:
And yet the private sector is the problem that solves everything, right? It was the private sector, with the help of anti-regulation ideologues who brought us the credit/housing mess. It isn't liberals who want profits privatized but losses subsidized(see Bear Stearns).

Great post, Ross. I'm looking forward to reading the new book.

Great post, Ross. I'm looking forward to reading the new book.

JK's Conscience, Yes, the liberals want to bail out big business. See the current scandal of Chris Dodd pushing through the bailout of lenders in the housing market. Furthermore, liberals were pushing for decades for lenders to be more generous in extending credit to people with poor credit histories. Those mean banks wouldn't give poor people a second chance. Banks weren't just following short-term profits in extending credit, they were caving to urban-activist ('community organizer'?) demands.

Freddie, here's an example of what's between doctrinaire libertarianism and social democracy: cheap clean abundant energy from nuclear power. Or universal health insurance in a deregulated market, with subsidies for the poorest policy buyers. Once everyone has insurance, how much anxiety will Dems be able to whip up about the lack of a single-payer system? You assume that Dems are following the only good options, but anti-private/environmentalist ideology prevents them from even considering many routes of action.

The difference between Brooks/Douthat and Rockefeller is that the former are cultural conservatives, while the latter types were not. Even these "Sam's Club" conservatives, who want to moderate fiscal conservatism recognize that the economy grows faster when deregulated, and when top income tax rates are in the 30s, not at 70%. Whatever you think of Eisenhower versus Reagan, to say that Douthat et al. would bring the GOP to pre-Reagan views on anything is inaccurate.

"Don't you realize how inefficiently the government does everything? "

The problem is, though inefficient, government often does things that the private sector absolutely will never do on its own.

Here's an example: The answer to governmet falling down on the job regarding food inspections isn't to abolish government's role in inspecting food. The reason government got involved in the first place was because no one else was doing it.

Rocky and his gang all seemed like anti-Catholic country clubbers to me. In Connecticut this type of Republican dueled with pro-life Democrats like Ella Grasso. Guess who usually won?

I also disagree with the reocurrent refrain to jettison the social right. Tell you what I'll take the votes of those who believe in the death penalty for those who rape 8 year olds and you take the Justice Kennedy coalition.

Well which is it? You want to build the future Republican Party on a pro-life Catholicism, or on expanding the death penalty to crimes where its use is categorically condemned by Catholicism?

Re: Tell you what I'll take the votes of those who believe in the death penalty for those who rape 8 year olds and you take the Justice Kennedy coalition. Guess whose going to win?

Guess what? many of the Supreme Courts "liberal" decisions are actually quite popular-- or at least have strong pluralities in favor of them (with lots of people in the "don't know, don't care") category. Sure on the death penalty eaving the bloody shirt in incite bloodlust in people will work in the short term-- human beings have a certain thirst for killing in them and the death penalty (and war) allow them to exercize it in a socially licit manner-- and politicians who pander to those dark passions are as reprehensible as if they were trolling for votes with porn stars strutting their stuff in their entourage. Still, I would not advise the GOP to ditch social conservatism outright, only to rein it in, muzzle (or eject) the radicals and force the rest to act like civilized human beings. There's a place for social conservatism, but it should be the social traditionalism of a Pope John Paul II, not the ranting radicalism of our latter-day Savonarolas and John Calvins.

JonF,

While I realize that you disapprove of all of them, I think it would be historically inaccurate to associate today's GOP with either Savonarola or John Calvin. Those men were repressive and fanatical, true. But Savonarola and John Calvin were also men of penetrating intellect and a passionate thirst for justice and morality, miles away from the venal banality of a G.W. Bush. Savonarola in particular was a man of impressive self-discipline and courage, who refused the temptations offered by the reigning pope, and who was willing to endure repeated torture and to go to the fire for his beliefs. Unlike G.W. Bush, there was nothing mediocre about either of them.


Dilan,

It's evident that you don't know much about theology. The stance of the Catholic church on the death penalty (and, say, the Iraq war) is a prudential one, not one of fixed and unarguable dogma the same way abortion is. It is simply not permitted for a Catholic to disagree regarding the protection of unborn life, whereas one may legitimately disagree on the subject of capital punishment. Indeed, the Holy See had an executioner until 1969- and that was under Paul VI, probably the most progressive pope in the last two centuries. The Catholic Church has the moral wisdom (whether from a divine or a human source) to see the grave difference between killing a vicious rapist in the name of the purest demands of justice, and killing an innocent unborn child in the name of nonsense about women being able to 'excel in the boardroom and the bedroom' and similar loathsome BS.

I dunno: sounds like a great pony hunt for ideas to me.

The problem with the Republican party is that their public face is a bunch of old white incompetent male hacks.

Start by working on the demographics first, and the new ideas and policies will come naturally.

Put a moratorium on running dead white men for president.

Get Carly Fiorina as VP.

Recruit heavily among businesswomen and Asian and Hispanic immigrants.

Join the 21st century.

Re: I think it would be historically inaccurate to associate today's GOP with either Savonarola or John Calvin.

The GOP as a whole, no I agree that's an extreme comparison. But the moral fascism of Savonarola and Calvin lives in the hearts of some of the GOP's supporters. Pat Robertson of course is too corrupt to be compared with such purists: he's more like some Renaissance pope, condemning heretics while living the high life. But Dobson et al are not men I trust to be friends to freedom and liberty. Put them in an era when such things could done and they too would be piling the faggots (pun intended) on the bonfires of the auto da fe.

Re: Unlike G.W. Bush, there was nothing mediocre about either of them.

True: Bush can't even do wickedness right.

Re: The stance of the Catholic church on the death penalty (and, say, the Iraq war) is a prudential one, not one of fixed and unarguable dogma the same way abortion is.

This is true, but still it would be nice for those rightwing Catholics who bash others for deviating from Rome's line to at least admit they do not agree with Rome on this matter and on others perhaps. Every Catholic (in fact I would say every Christian) ought to at least owe serious consideration to the formal teachings of the Bishop of Rome, and should not just airily dismiss teaching they do not wish to follow with a dismissive "It's not required!" while going their separate way. At the very least they ought explain why they think the Pope is wrong. Otherwise they are just dining from the righthand side of the good old church cafeteria.

Sorry for posting an incomplete thought. Also, I think the death penalty/ Catholicism points well taken on both sides. However, my point is a cultural conservative might not be a Catholic theologian but that is where the votes are. The Church's increasingly harsh stand on the death penalty is of recent vintage and we tend to wait a millenia or two before we see whether it sticks.

Cultural liberalism leads to results so batty that people recoil from it, especially when they are told that the Constitution (made by super-majorities) somehow compels it.

Also, I do not see why being old and white is, ipso facto, a bad thing. Take a look at the world. People of both sexes, all ages and colors spend an inordinate amount of time, money and personal risk to flee the places run by either young people (usually soldiers or gangs) or non-white people and arrive at countries more likely to have old white guys in charge. Why is that?

Considering that less than half of the children in kindergarten are white, it is easy to see how politics will be in the future, a small group of rich, elite whites having all of the power and using it to deliver a huge array of government services to black and Hispanics and paying for the services with extremely high taxes on whites.

The problem with the future of the Democratic policy initiatives is that it requires a belief that taxes have no effect on the economy in the long run. The other question is how can the private sector create jobs withouth employers.

All this "conservative" rigamarole is simply noise intended to keep the rich in control of EVERYTHING. We've been on the wrong track since FDR died and that idiot Truman let Churchill start the "cold War." Lenin and Stalin and the Bolshevicks together were no great prizes, but FDR could handle them and Truman could have too, If he had had guts enough to stand up to the Brits, who by the way, have often been allies of but never friends to, the United States. Perfidious Albion has always pursued its own agenda at our expense. No Moderates! No Bi-partisan BS. The Reagan Democrats can go screw themsleves. We don't need 'em, We don't want'em in our party. Tbat goes for all right-wingers of any stripe. your day is over. The people have seen the light at last. Get ready to pay-up!

If JFK had lived, RFK would've run against Rockefeller in '66 and cleaned his clock. Rocky's numbers were really low at the time!

JonF,

I realize you don't like Savonarola but calling him 'wicked' seems a stretch. There is an important movement in the Dominican order to canonize him.

Since you obliquely mention homosexuals above it's worth pointing out that Savonarola's persecution of 'homosexuals' is qualitatively different from the anti-gay activism of a Dobson today. Today we think that homosexuality is generally an innate and inborn condition that people, contra Dobson, aren't to be blamed for. It's not fair to condemn Savonarola for not having known something that only was published in the last 20 years or so. Furthermore, from what I know about medieval Florence it would seem that many of the people that Girolamo Savonarola executed for sodomy weren't who we would call "homosexuals' today. They were decadent, irreligious and exploitative aristocrats who wanted to vary their jaded sexual routines by incorporating boys as well as women into their seraglios-- either as a form of excess and overindulgence or as a deliberate rebellion against the values of the church. In short they bear more resemblance to the people referenced in Romans 1 than to what we think of as loving and committed homosexual couples today.

It bears remembering that many of the sins Savonarola talked about most were sins of economic exploitation and conspicuous consumption. Heaven knows our American society could do with more condemnation of those sins today. Savonarola was more of a Jeremiah Wright than a James Dobson- right down to calling for the French army to invade Florence for its sins- and unlike either of them he had the courage to go to the fire and die a martyr's death. The Pope was almost unable to find anything heretical in his belifs or immoral in his life, and admitted he was executing Savonarola for purely political reasons.

It's evident that you don't know much about theology.

Hector, you totally missed the point. I was responding to a post that implied that the Republicans needed to take a more "pro-life", "pro-Catholic" line-- and then also sung the praises of the political salience of supporting the death penalty for rapists, which the Church opposes and which TAKES lives.

But since you engaged me on the theology, I would observe that whatever the strength of the Catholic opposition to the death penalty GENERALLY (and it is actually a lot closer to absolutism than you claim, because there must be a VERY stringent justification for capital punishment), there is no doubt that the Church categorically opposes execution for crimes that don't result in death. Indeed, this isn't close to being in doubt.

And also, you are wrong about abortion to the extent that you think that the Church position is that no Catholic can be pro-choice. This gets into formal vs. material assistance to evil and other religious concepts that I don't think matter one bit, but my understanding is that there are certain "pro-choice" steps (like voting for a candidate) that are permitted and others (like voting for abortion legislation) which are not. Perhaps Marquis can confirm this.

Also, on Catholic conservatives and the death penalty, what JonF said.

Dilan, it needs be reiterated that the pronouncements of the Holy See and pastoral missives from bishops, while exercises of the Church's teaching authority, do not bind the laity equally. Some require belief and obedience, some merely obedience, and some are advisory and require respectful attention. The aspect of the Church's teaching on principles of justice that concerns penalties for offences has not varied in its precept that the state has the authority and at times responsibility to undertake executions in the pursuit of justice. (Cdl. Dulles has published an article on this issue, pointing out the scriptural origins of this teaching). The fairly novel elaboration by the recently deceased pope is that contemporary technologies of incapacitation and social circumstances render it possible to obviate the use of execution as a penalty. That is dependent on what the technologies are and what the social circumstances are and what these are have not been incorporated into the Church's ordinary Magisterium and have not been expounded upon in an exercise of the Church's extraordinary Magisterium as mere circumstances are too contingent for that. Neither an assessment of the technics of penology or of the sociology of crime is especially characteristic of a bishop's teaching office, though the bishop may pronounce on them. Read also Tom McKenna's (Seeking Justice) commentaries on this point: capital punishment as actually applied in this country is not incongruent with the advisories the pope has offered. Durable teachings on moral norms and novel elaborations on circumstantial application thereof are not meant to be received the same way by the laity, and a layman who questions and disputes pastoral statements of the latter sort is not engaged in illegitimate dissent.

Art Deco:

Again, what JonF said. Benedict XVI (not just John Paul II), to my knowledge, protests every execution in the United States. So obviously you guys are saying you know Catholic doctrine better than the last 2 popes. Well, maybe you do, but that's far from self-evident and it seems to me you have a heavy burden of proof on that one.

Further, though, you are ignoring a crucial point. I have always understood the Catholic teaching on the death penalty-- and for quite some time, even predating JPII-- to be that it is to be justified, if at all, as a necessary use of force proportionate to the taking of a life. In other words, as far as I am aware, the death penalty for child rape is categorically prohibited. Am I wrong? If so, can you cite me something from the Vatican that shows that I am wrong?

Douthat is (forgivably) young but still high off of Smoking Reagan's Ashes: The so called Ronald Reagan Economic Boom was based on the "My Credit Card Makes Me Rich" School of Economics. Huge deficits resulted due to bad tax policy and monstrous deficit spending, which eventually resulted in the LARGEST tax increase in history (Social Security reform) and the tax-rate adjustments of the GHWBush & Clinton terms, which eventually led to a balanced budget under a Dem President only to be totally trashed by the fools & criminals of the GWBush Administration. So much for Republican Fiscal Brilliance. Time to read more History rather than Political Fantasy

theod,

You are forgetting that everyone of those huge deficits in the 1980's was passed by a U.S. House that was dominated by Democrats and that every balanced budget from the Clinton Administration was passed by a Republican controlled house.

Tip O'Neill wanted his pork in order to pass Reagan's initiatives. The Republicans in Congress were not going to let Clinton start any major initiatives.

The Clinton ADministration is a good example of why libertarians are correct. The government made almost no major policy changes for six years and the economy did great. I doubt the same thing will occur in an Obama ADministration.

Dilan,

As an informative example, Peru is constitutionally a Christian country with the Catholic church as the established state religion. This year, they are voting on a bill (proposed by your favorite Alan Garcia, but also supported by Humala) to allow execution of child rapists. The leaders of the Church in Peru has advocated, fairly mildly, against the death penalty (in part, no doubt, because Garcia is the leader of the traditionally secularist party). But the one thing they have made _very_ clear is that this is a prudential matter, and that they do _not_ condemn the death penalty as a matter of Christian dogma, and that this is a matter for the individual conscience. No one has been threatened with excommunication for voting for the bill and the Church has not called on people to refrain from voting for APRA or anything like that.

Whether the last two popes categorically opposed the death penalty or not isn't really the point. The point is that they have never declared it a matter of fundamental Catholic dogma that the death penalty is wrong, and they have never denied that this is a matter for the individual conscience. They can't really do much else given that the Catholic church supported the death penalty consisentely between the fifth and twentieth centuries. (As distinct from, say, abortion, which has been condemned as a sin against life since the time of the Apostles). Abortion is a categorically and inarguably evil offence while the death penalty is in essence a matter for the individual conscience. By the way, it is forbidden for a person to vote for a candidate _because_ of their pro choice position, although it is legitimate to vote for them _in spite of_ that reason. I believe that, voting behavior aside, it is also a sin for a Catholic to hold pro-choice beliefs in one's own heart.

By the way, the Christian religion forbids the taking of innocent human life, not human life in general. It's ridiculous for you to pose as the defender of human life given that you airily support the right to abort healthy and innocent unborn children in the name of nonsense like "women's rights" to casual sex and to make a lot of money. "Excel in the bedroom and the boardroom" and similar BS that even a child can see through. Whereas when it comes to executing vicious rapists in the name of something _good_ like the expiation of sin and the pursuit of justice and morality, you are suddenly the defender of human life. It's pretty clear that you have little moral seriousness.

Dilan,

By the way, as an Anglican my guide in this matter is the combined witness of scripture, reason, and tradition, and _all_ of them combine to tell me that the death penalty is eminently justified for acts of grave evil including child rape. If anyone denies that the death penalty can be deserved as a punishment for evil, then he is implicitly denying that the death penalty was a fitting punishment for original sin, therefore denying Christ's sacrifice was necessary, and thus denying the truth of Christianity himself. Your love for abortion is of a piece with your hatred of capital punishment: for history tells us that those who begin by hating death will end by hating life.


"As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friendship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more." - St. Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica".

Hector, you are still missing the point. JonF said it well-- sure, the Vatican has not made opposition to capital punishment mandatory, but there's a huge jump between saying its not mandatory and saying that the last 2 popes were wrong. How come you are right and they are wrong? What got into them?

It's a little easier for you as an Anglican, because you don't recognize papal authority. But what about all of those CATHOLIC conservatives whom JonF calls out?

Further, if the Pope can be wrong about capital punishment, he can be wrong about abortion too, can't he?

Finally, you are missing half the ledger on WHY the Pope says the death penalty is wrong. As far as I can tell, the reasoning is that it can only be justified in the same way a just war can be, i.e., to prevent additional killing. That, as far as I know, results in a categorical ban on executions of rapists. So what you must be saying is that the entire Catholic intellectual tradition that says you can only take even "guilty" life under narrow circumstances to prevent more deaths is wrong. You don't seem to make much of an argument on that point though.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.