A recent post on the Tea Party Movement was meant to elicit some discussion of how the central core of the Tea Party Movement seemed to be like the basic thrust of Rerum Novarum, published 15 May 1891. For me, one of the big takeaways of Rerum Novarum is the idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the idea that no higher or larger level organization should take action or make decisions when some smaller unit of organization is perfectly capable of doing the job itself.
I will try to be briefer in the future.
Regards — Cliff
13 comments:
One wonders if there is an inherent difficulty with "subsidiarity" that keeps it from being more embraced. Clearly one would like more done in the local parish or diocese rather than done by Rome. But is it the desire for power or the thought process that there is a better perspective on truth and goodness in Rome that keeps them from devolving? Or is it that the local units are not able to organize for action due to lack of leadership, or ability to settle on a commoness of purpose? Perhaps the Tea Party movement will prove that while "all politics are local" if can be get reach a commoness of purpose that allows it to be effective in a positive way and not just being in opposition to things to no results and a dissipation on energy. Or maybe Washington and the State Capitols won't let the reins loose.
At last!
I have heard that Liberals are adamant about maintaining Roe v.Wade because they don't want the states to have a say in the matter. The reason is not ideological tyranny, but simple logistics.
If you have to split your lobbying efforts in 50 directions, your resources are scattered. The COC is bigger, with greater delegation. Your energy diffused.
Now flip a switch and imagine you are ExxonMobil.
Would you want this "subsidiarty" some of you swoon over?
Hardly!
Wake up. We are post-Citizens United. The veil has been dropped. This "big gubmint" that burns your ass is there to serve its clients. Take a guess who that is. Voters?
If the Tea Party was for real, Lawrence Lessig would be a nationally recognized name.
Well, he is right about the Mickey Mouse Copyright problem.
And, one fears that Big Government is not here to serve the voters, if one thinks of the voters as the average Dick and Jane. Just look at the Tax Code. Hence the Tea Party.
Regards — Cliff
Tax? Really?
The VAST majority of Americans are perfectly content with taxes, even deficits. More so when Republicans are in charge.
What sets Americans off is when corporate shills like Bush/Cheney don't even bother to hold the facade up.
Taxes is a "metaphorical vessel" in which all the anti-Gov't angst gets dumped. It is the shortest of slogans. So easy to remember.
The Bush Bailout on the heels of the Bush War of Choice was what set this thing off. But Dubya is off to greener pastures, leaving "Obamao" holding the bag.
It is all bullshit, Cliff.
http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/
Jack, where on earth do you get the data to support such sweeping statements as "the VAST majority of Americans are perfectly content with taxes." Now, I know we have become a nation of sheeple, but giving up more than 40% of your paycheck for various and sundry taxes is hardly anything to be "perfectly content" about.
And give the Dubyah tarbaby a rest. Blaming everything up to and including global warming on Bush is, well, delusional. Let's remember that for many years of his terms, he faced a strong Democrat Congress......many of whom went along with the policies he proposed. BTW, check the legislative process.....bailouts are not Presidential acts...they are Congressional acts....and as I recall...Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd were prominent names in the game. Of course, today they, along with othere prominent Dimowits like Nutty Nancy and Stony Horror claim that they were "duped" and "lied to." WAIT!!! I thought that these were intelligent, discerning sheeple. Isn't this why they were elected.
Yes, you are right Jack, it's all bullshit.....but becoming more and more donkey doo.......
BTW.....did you notice that Obamao was heckled by Dims yesterday in CA......oops...I'm sure that they were TPs in drag.....you just can't count on anything anymore.....
LOL...
Comity is such a farce for the bitter.
Back to "subsidiarity":
Power shifted to DC during WWII and was locked in, due to the Cold War.
The threat of thermonuclear holocaust centralized decision making to the the White House and maybe some of the Congressional leadership.
Of course, constitutionally, everything on paper was the same. However, I'm comfortable with the assertion that Americans became cozy with the cult of personality doctrine.
The stature of Congress diminished. They became glorified bean counters. But boy o boy, what a hill of beans. The ravenous MIC demands cash money. It all runs through DC and is then gifted back to the states. This reinforces their subservience.
After the wall fell, I began to notice a change in the political equilibrium. Congress was standing up to POTUS. (Newt/Clinton)
It didn't take long for the GWOT to put things "right."
Actually, the power shifted in the 30's with the birth of The New Deal.....and what a deal that has been.....and of course...now we have a lot of Hope....and soon enough....not a lot of change left over from our paychecks. Now it's the same old deal.
BTW....it was Ike who expressed extreme fears about the MIC....which was fully supported by the Democrats of the day. JFK was a strong proponent of it as it provided the means of paying for a bigger central government. Of course, he turned renegade on the business community and became much more interested in his "legacy" (sound familiar??) than his obligations to the real oligarchs who run the show. They disposed of him. LBJ was more interested in his Great Society which demanded a much bigger central government and when the MIC was given short shrift via the war in SEA with LBJ wanting to bail out and pay for more Great Society, he was shown two pictures....the door to the street.....and JFK's grave. He took the street.
BTW....Reagan's success came from recognizing the benefits of playing ball with the MIC......and Blowjob Bill did the same...he just hid it well from his Leftist supporters.
We need to put a leash on the MIC. They are cannibals.
Who's read the latest from E.J. Dionne?
http://richardhowe.com/2010/04/20/e-j-dionne-on-the-tea-party/#comments
I bet Neal didn't. Dionne quoted the NY Times. pfffftt..
Actually abortion is where subsidiarity has worked. Leaving commity and civility aside, state by state Roe v Wade has been overturned. Latest example is the state of Oklahoma (and Kansas and Nebraska before that). It also seems that every state is adopting an immigration policy. So things are being done on the local level, whether in the name of the Tea Party or not.
Well of course he quoted the NYT....he spent a good part of his "journalistic life" in their yoke.
I don't disagree with the essence of his assertion that the Tea Party will not "win" the election in 2010. First, they are not a party, second, what organization they currently provide is, as George Will puts it, "entertainment" under the "circus tent" of politics. It will be wrong to presume a political solution from "the tea party."
On the other hand, what the media and apparently many political pundits fail to recognize or acknowledge is that the "tea party" is not so much a thing as it is an attitude, a state of mind, about the current state of national and state politics. That is why the Pew statistic is so telling. When you have nearly 4/5 of the population (as derived by the poll) not trusting the Federal government, I would suggest that you have a vote of "no confidence" and that is some serious problems....particularly for the Democrats...but for different reasons.....also for the Reps.
I would not think it wise to downplay the discontent that is on Main Street these days. But that is precisely what is being done.....stupidly....in my opinion.
To add to Jack's comment on being content with taxes, I was overhearing a liberal commentary last night on how people view government and taxes. If you ask a very general question if you think government is too big, 80% of people will say yes. If you live in a town where they cut all high school athletics, that same 80% are in an outrage that they're cutting essentially government spending. People don't mind spending taxes, when it is on themselves, but not for other people.
It's not my job to pay the way for your teenager's football championship. At least there is an principled argument on a humanitarian issue to use taxes for health care.
When you see more affluent towns (liberal or conservative) they have plenty of social services for their own residents and they have absolutely no interest in sharing the wealth either. 'Nice schools' aren't for the children, but too keep others out.
Jack, on Roe V. Wade I hear pro-lifers make that same argument, that when overturned states won't have a say. The only way I think Roe v Wade would be overturn, is by an actual Constitutional Amendment. Mother/woman has more bodily integrity rights then her unborn child/fetus is pretty set forth. An amendment would require a super majority to pass, and ultimately the best way. We have to change our attitudes towards pregnancy/life before we can really do anything to reflect it in our laws.
I agree Lance, however, the rub comes when the Feds cherry pick what they will allow states to control.
With abortion, it has been a slick sidestep for the Federal Government to make what it considers to be a currently PC statement and policy to match....and then disavow what the states want to do.
On the other hand, the Congress refuses to allow states to manage their commerce and the borders that permit interstate commerce. Not so much because they are frightened of states establishing choke points, but rather, to cede to the states the right to control their businesses within would then emasculate the claim that the Congress has the power and right to "regulate the commerce among and between the several states" (or words to that effect). It is the argument the current Congress has used over and over and used to enforce its authority to regulate medical care.
Sadly, it has to do with what is right only by accident. That aside, it has everything to do with power and growing it.
Post a Comment