Will the Real Subsdiarity Please Stand Up?

*italics are mine and only used for emphasis*

One difficulty facing those who take a borderline libertarian view of subsidiarity is that doing so fails to take into into account what encyclicals have said concerning the state, its proper role and functions, and particularly its rightful involvement in the market. This, as I have contended elsewhere, results in allowing the distributist tail to wag the CST dog.

It is my hope, then, to herein demonstrate what I believe to be a more accurate understanding of subsidiarity and how it should function alongside the powers and responsibilities belonging to various spheres of authority within the political economy, be it the individual, the family, the workforce, the church, or even local, regional, state, national, or international civil authorities.

Let me demonstrate what I mean.

We would do well to first consider the role of what the Magisterium has said concerning the State. For sake of time and space, as well as the fact that this particular encyclical is an excellent source for material pertaining to this matter, I will focus most all of my attention on the papal letter Mater et Magistra. I will also add a few tid-bits from the CCC and its Compendium, both of which substantiate and further clarify those issues dealt with by the popes in their universal letters.

Pope John XXIII was no foe of the state. As with Pope Leo XIII and all those pontiffs before and after him, he saw the state as being a authority deriving its power from God. He believed its existence to be most natural in the order of men. And as we will see, he believed the role and function of the state to be much more broad than many of the libertarian-leaning distributists.

Read Mater et Magistra, and search out those portions I will reference here. See what the pontiff says of the State. Consider whether or not this view of the state is in harmony with the position advocated by those whose definition of subsidiarity would make the State an almost non-existent entity.

Take for example #20-21. Here we are told that the State “whole raison d’etre” is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. Echoing the Leonine theme of the Church’s insistance that the State take special, and even preferential treatment of the poor and working class, he praises “labor laws” regarding environmental conditions of laborers, child labor laws, and anything harmful to their material and spiritual interests.

Number 44 requires the state to intervene on occasions where individuals cannot work out matters concerning the division and distribution of work.

Number 60 makes explicit the responsibility of the civil government in areas of healthcare, education, career opportunities, and even the rehabilitation of those who are physically and mentally handicapped.

We find in 74 the civil authorities responsibility to “secure without interruption” the material conditions in which the citizens of the nation may fully develop. Number 79 goes further, indicating that the state is to be vigilant over and within the economy, assuring that work will be maximized amongst the citizenry, that privileged classes would not be permitted to rise up, that there would be an equilibrium amongst wages and the price of goods, that both goods and services would be accessible to the greatest number, and that the three branches of the economy (i.e. agriculture, industry, and service) would be regulated in such a manner as to ensure that they will grow together rather than for any of them to be absorbed with the dominance of any other. To top it off, the civil government was to have the authority necessary to direct the current contract system that divides capitalists from wage-earners to one resembling a partnership.

We could also deal with #s 104 (regulating Big Business so as to operate in a manner promoting the common good over against special interests), 115 (putting in place an economic system wherein the distribution of wealth, land, houses, tools and equipment used by various industries, and shares in medium and large business concerns would all be maximized), 116 (granting to the state various activities that “carry with them power too great” to be left to lower orders), 88 and 127 (dealing with state involvement in ventures such as roads, transportation, communication, drinking water, housing, healthcare and service providers, technical and professional education, religious and recreational facilities, and subsidies for family farms), 150-151 (demanding vigilant care as to the further elimination of economic and social inequalities and imbalances, the supply of labor, drif of population, wages, taxes, credit, investment, and the promotion of useful employment, enterprising initiative, and hte exploitation of local resources), and 168 (the redistribution of riches amongst all within the community and working towards ensuring that agriculture, service, and industry progress evenly and simultaneously). The list goes on an on.

For anyone to walk away from even this one encyclical with the idea that it proposes the kind of “lowest rung possible” subsidiarity regarding virtually every economic activity under the sun would be a sure indicator that they either didn’t really read the encyclical or they have a terrible case of selective memory.

But what of those places that deal with subsidiarity? We have discussed at some length the role and proper functions of the state, but what then are we to make of this principle of subsidiarity? Well, let’s go back to Mater et Magistra for a moment.

Number 53 within Mater et Magistra sounds much like the version of subsidiarity commonly promoted by those harboring a general distrust (or disdain) for civil government. But it would be injurious to tear it from its surrounding context. For number 53 is surrounded by affirmations that make absurd the notion that the pope(s) have promoted this “lowest rung possible in any and all situations” subsidiarity. Looking at #52, we see Pope John XXIII explicitly stating that “the civil power must also have a hand in the economy.” And this intervention is not merely an afterthought, or functioning as a clean-up watchman waiting for an otherwise private market to make a mistake. No, it is to “promote production” in a way that is “calculated” and has as its aim “social progress and the well-being of all citizens.” Remember, this is what immediately precedes the popes take on subsidiarity.

Following #53 we see the pope go right back into promoting state intervention and direction of the economy. In #54 he affirms the state’s obligation to minimize imbalances amongst various sectors within the economy, to implement policies that do not pit one people, region, or nation against another, and to erect safeguards against mass unemployment and fluctuations within the economy. Again, this follows on the heels of the section dealing with subsidiarity.

The pope further deals with subsidiarity in #117, but he presupposes what had already been established by other popes regarding the various spheres of authority within the political economy as well as the rights and responsibilities belonging to each. The civil government (as with the individual, family, the marketplace, and the church) had been assigned various functions. These were always to be kept in view when talking of subsidiarity, as it would be just as wrong for a lower sphere to take upon itself what rightfully belongs to a higher sphere as it would for the higher sphere to deprive or absorb those responsibilities properly acknowledged as belonging to a lower sphere. While libertarians may tend to see only a higher sphere absorbing a lower sphere as a form of aggression, the traditionalist and encyclical enthusiast would do well to see it as a two-way street.

While one could possibly construct a way that a specific function assigned to a particular sphere may be done by another sphere, be it replacing the function of the individual or family with the state or vice versa, this would not constitute subsidiarity. Rather, it would be for one sphere to break ranks, absorbing what does not belong to it. In short, even subsidiarity works in a manner that accepts the rightful authority and functions of other spheres within the political economy, be they higher or lower, belonging to the state or the individual.

Let us just for a moment take a peak at the encyclical known as Quadragesimo Anno. It is here where we find the birthplace of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Teaching. Yet even here we see civil and church authorities granting special care for the poor and weak in society (#25), the praise of labor laws (#28), the redistribution of wealth for the common good (#57), requiring the state to work towards establishing an “ownership society” (#82-83), the condemnation of laissez faire (#88 and #109), and even demanding that the state take hold of the reigns of the “free market” in order to direct it towards the common good (#110).

None of this sounds unfamiliar to those holding a position concerning subsidiarity and the state detailed ever so consistently in the papal letters. But it would sound awfully strange to those granting to subsidiarity a function and reach it was never meant to have, nor ever recognized by our most highly esteemed Roman Pontiffs as ever having in the first place.

Before bringing this entry to an end, I believe it would do us well to look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and Compendium have to say regarding the definition of subsidiarity. I believe that these two sources, and the definition they provide the Catholic, vindicate the premise of this entry, as well as the arguments used to substantiate it.

CCC 1883: Subsidiarity: according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view of a the common good.”

Compendium: 403: Subsidiarity: “The principle of subsidiarity states that a community of higher order should not assume the task belonging to a community of a lower order and deprive it of its authority. It should rather support it in case of need.”

Notice that both the CCC and Compendium make it very clear that subsidiarity does not mean that if one were to concoct a means by which a lower order could perform a task as good (or even better) than the order to which the function belongs, then it should absorb that function. Not at all!

In conclusion, each order, each sphere within society, is given various tasks it must or ought to perform. Sometimes these are clear-cut. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes we are left with a great deal of gray. But subsidiarity must not be understood as some libertarian wishbone. Instead, it is restricted to the overlapping areas and those gray regions. Unfortunately for the libertarian-leaning distributist, this turns out being more of a bust than a boom, as so many of their policy proposals stand or fall on an accurate understaning of subsidiarity.

Read more...

Exceptional Ignorance... of Distributism.

It was but only a short time ago that I stumbled upon a Catholic blog that happened to be discussing the most recent papal encyclical. Most all the gang was there. Libertarians! Neocons! Distributists! Oh, my! Each and every one of them making their claims and placing their stakes in the war-torn wastelands of public discourse typically surrounding the discussion of Catholic Social Teaching. Very little productivity, but plenty of huff-puffery.

For most of the readers here, nothing I have described is all that peculiar. In fact, it is relatively run-of-the-mill. What made this particular battle significant, though, was a question asked by very popular Catholic who presides over a rather popular organization that published a not-so popular book written by an undeservingly popular Catholic attempting to put a halt to the ever-increasing popularity of distributism. Then again, it wasn't so much the question as it was the fact that it was asked by this particular fellow, and with what he insists to be the most sincere of motives.

The question, in sum, was how distributists believe their view of the State and the political economy differs from that advocated by adherents to National Socialism.

Let's ignore for a moment that this question has been answered by a myriad of distributist thinkers much brighter than me. Let's also brush aside the fact that a handful of these answers are readily accessible to anyone willing to take a moment utilizing a search engine. Instead, let us focus our attention on the fact that this man, who has dedicated so much time, effort, and money into convincing Catholics (and non-Catholics) to move "beyond distributism" lacks what could in all fairness be consider a functional literacy of distributism.

To deem this as merely unfortunate would be an understatement. What it does for us, though, is reveal the heart and soul of what may be the biggest problem distributists have yet to overcome: general ignorance. Think for a moment. If this particular theologian/economist is ignorant of what differentiates distributists from fascists and socialists, then where does that leave the mass of people unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of all things CST? Not fearing redundancy, to deem this as merely unfortunate would be an understatement.

So what may be done? Plenty. In fact, plenty is already being done. Distributism has made great strides in recent years. It has found itself being discussed on blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, talk radio, podcasts, as well as in books, magazines and newspapers. Distributist apologists have also found a place at the table of public debate along with the socialists and neoconservatives who have for so long dominated the CST scene. Furthermore, for all the chatter pertaining to the so-called "non-relevance" of distributism, enemies of the school of thought have dedicated decent sums of time and money combating it. They may be of the type that spends gobs of energy beating dead horses, but I'm not of the type that would believe such things.

Having said this leads me to conclude that it's not so much the lack of material that has led to this general ignorance (though an ever-increasing amount of material wouldn't hurt) as it is the fact that most distributists are distributists in the abstract. In other words, we talk the talk, but very few walk the walk.

None of this is meant to be demeaning, as I am the guiltiest of the guilty on this count. Instead, this is meant to be a simple reminder of a simple maxim: actions speak louder than words.

Take the Amish for example. I would bet that most of us have read very little about the Amish. Few delve into studies concerning their history, theology, philosophy, and traditions. But most of us are well aware of their being thoroughly agrarian and, giving Arthur Penty a run for his money, extraordinarily skeptical of machinery. Most of us have seen their clothing, their buggies, their working on farms or on houses, and many of us may even have some of their woodwork in our homes. The point here, though, is that while we may be largely ignorant of the Amish life, our seeing them put their beliefs into practice (and in such an open and consistent manner) gives us a decent idea as to who they are, where they are, what they believe, and why they do what they do. Better yet, for those who have bought food from their stands or furniture from their shops, we see the standard of excellence they strive to achieve.

In final analysis, it would do us well to have more than Madragon to talk about. How wonderful would it be to talk of the achievements and lifestyle of distributists and Catholic Worker communities nationwide? More importantly, what impact would seeing such achievements and communities have on the public? At bare minimum, it may provide an image that would give them some degree of functional literacy regarding distributism. Then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have so many well-studied men asking such elementary questions concerning who we are and what we believe. That, in and of itself, may be worth the effort.

Read more...

To Twitter or Not to Twitter

This post will most certainly be an odd-ball as it has nothing to do with the political economy, at least not directly. Instead, I wish here to make a suggestion to the contributors of the Review. While it may seem small, and some may deem it unworthy of posting here, I would beg to differ. I believe what I am about to suggest to be of relatively significant importance, especially as we are seeing the distributist movement expand by leaps and bound.

My suggestion, dear friends, is that the contributors consider creating an official Distributist Review Twitter account. Alongside this project would be the creation of personal accounts, both for the contributors and followers who may happen to be interested.

I bring this up for a number of reasons.

First, I am seeing many other think-tanks, online forums, and pundits use this network to their advantage. They are able to update their followers with links to articles, blogs, videos, and tidbits of personal or professional information. The updates are limited in character, so it forces the writer to get straight to the point. It also allows those with short attention spans to get nuggets of info without having to peruse a 10 paragraph blog entry.

Second, Twitter is just another extension of the alternative media envisioned and praised by Belloc. While it may be fragmented and peice-meal, two weaknesses to the Free Press that Belloc was more than willing to grant, it provides people with quick and easy to follow information. And it is formatted in a way that takes into account the fact that most people are selective when it comes to reading material on the internet. Sadly, it also accepts the hard-to-swallow truth that people tend to treat the written word like they do television, expecting fast-paced information at the their fingertips.

Speaking of fingertips, this brings me to my third point: cell phones. People who subscribe to an account may wish to have updates sent to them via text message. This enables electronic written word to be treated much like 24-hour news (of which I am not a fan), but without the advertisements.

Fourth, there may be some of us who are rather busy and find posting medium or lengthy blog entries rather hard. This is especially true for those who are forced to live a life characterized by multitasking. Short updates or posting links to things of interest may actually enable some members to become more active, as restraints of time and space are no longer an issue.

Lastly, while we work collectively on this site, we live relatively separate lives. We read different books, magazines, and blogs. We listen to different music, watch different programs, and work in a rather diverse array of fields. Furthermore, we are all at different places in our lives, be it personal, familial, vocational, social, or religious. Having individual Twitter accounts would allow our followers to see us in a way that Blogger cannot.

None of this is to say, or even imply, that we decrease our activities on this particular site. Rather, it would be adding a new dimension to our current activities. These should compliment one another rather than replace one another.

As I stated in the beginning, I admit that this post may seem rather odd. It certainly doesn't fit the mold. But if we wish to see this movement continue to spread like wildfire, then we should have no reservations of embracing an information-sharing trend that has taken the world by storm. But in the end, it is just an idea I figured to be worthy of consideration, both by contributors and followers. Your input, then, is greatly appreciated.

Paleocrat's Twitter (Click Here)

Create a Twitter (Click Here)

Read more...

Distributism for All of Life

I was recently sent a video clip featuring a Protestant theologian, author, and apologist by the name of Gary DeMar concerning his opinion as to why evangelicals are not appointed to the Supreme Court. His rationale was that, unlike Catholics, evangelicals tend to be piece-meal in their application of Divine Revelation. On the other hand, Catholics have historically understood the dominion mandate, both in its meaning and extent. It is all too unfortunate, according to DeMar, that modern evangelicals have a tendency to be so focused on "saving souls" that they forget that there is still a life to live and a world to disciple once one has been born again. To paraphrase my father, "they are too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." Add to this the belief that the end is moments away, and you have about as much reason to reconstruct a Christian social order as you would shining the brass on a sinking ship.

Understanding DeMar's remarks requires one to have a basic knowledge of the distinction he makes between the modern (and typically American) run-of-the-mill evangelicals as opposed to the Protestant school of Dominion Theology that he would identify with. Prior to my conversion, I also believed much like DeMar & Co. DeMar's works in the field of what has become known as Christian Reconstruction ranked up there with notables like Greg Bahnsen, R.J. Rushdoony, David Chilton, and, most importantly for me, Gary North. All of these men are "black coffee" Calvinists, adhering rigorously to Sola Scriptura, Covenant Theology, TULIP, Van Tilian apologetics (i.e. presuppositionalism), and postmillennialism. And all of these men have a strong conviction that by our applying kingdom principles to every sphere of human life we will bring about the kind of justice and peace that fulfills the Great Commission though subjecting all thoughts to Christ and by being the instruments through which King Christ takes dominion over all people in all nations, until the only enemy remaining is death.

The above mentioned convictions, when combined, create a holistic worldview. This school of thought literally touches on every area of human life. Sola Scriptura provides, at least it is believed, a normative standard by which Christians must live. Their form of Covenant Theology, over against the theological dinosaur known as Dispensationalism, places a special emphasis on the Torah. They see within God's law principles from which we can formulate political, legal, economic, and even environmental policies. Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony have written a myriad of economic commentaries seeking to draw out those theonomic principles underlying the case law of the Old Covenant, as well as those principles that can be found in New Covenant texts. James Jordan, who prefers to be called a theocrat rather than a theonomist, takes this further by including the ceremonial laws and historical narratives in his search for a truly authentic Christian order. And their postmillennialism provides the kind of optimism, not to be confused with triumphalism, that spurs them and their adherents to living this faith diligently in their daily lives, holding fast to the belief that such efforts would do more than save their souls, but would also works towards the reconstruction of a truly Christian order.

It is not my intention here to hold these men or their works as standards of hermeneutical excellence that ought to be emulated by faithful Catholics. Rather, it is in an effort to renew within the mind and heart of the faithful Catholic the age-old conviction that our faith is neither piece-meal nor meant to be lived out on Easter and Christmas. Instead, the orthodox faith handed down to us over the past 2,000 years is, and always has been, meant to be applied on a personal level, to the family unit, and to the political-economy as a whole. It is, by its very nature, holistic.

Distributists, in common with most all groups or schools of thought ending with an -ism, tend to ride hobby horses. It has been brought to my attention that I tend to overemphasize foreign policy and international trade at the expense of many other pressing issues. For others it may be the Fed. For others it might be guilds and localism. Still for others it could be a mixture of all these things at the expense of the "other" topics typically getting little more than a passing glance. At any rate, most of us are guilty. And while the principle of the division of labor may be applicable here, at least to a certain extent, it should not be seen as a justification for our enthusiasm for certain teachings at the expense of others.

All of this poses a particularly sticky problem for those wishing to embrace and live out the fullness of Catholic social and moral teaching. Life isn't just about money, nor is it merely concerned with the ownership of land or family farms. Catholic Social Teaching, of which distributism most accurately reflects, deals with people as they are and life as it is. This requires the distributist to at bare minimum to familiarize himself with the entirety of Holy Mother Church's social, moral, and dogmatic teaching. As She is concerned with life in its entirety, so ought we. We must, therefore, become at least respectfully acquainted with those issues which may not be most appealing to our special interests. In short, it means becoming Catholic in the fullest sense, with the devout life as our aim, and the realization of Christ reign as Lord and King of Heaven and Earth as our primary objective.

Do I believe any of this to be possible? Apart from the grace of God and the works of Our Lady that result from a life of prayer, no. Do I believe that this revolution will happen overnight, or that progress will always be seen in leaps and bounds? No. The distributists of old, in harmony with the teachings of Mother Church, were as much realists as they were pragmatists. The theory of one brick or one step at a time, regardless how small or insignificant it may initially appear, is at the heart and soul of Catholic social reconstruction. But none of this can be done without a more comprehensive study and application of the kingdom principles laid out for us in the Holy Scripture, the writings of the saints, the papal encyclicals and the catechisms. Still, prayer is an absolute essential. Pray we can, and pray we must. For without prayer our most valiant efforts will be of little to no avail.

Gary DeMar was right. Historically, Catholics have been holistic in their application of their religion to each and every area of human existence. It is for this reason that the Catholic faith and Mother Church are seen as the one's who shaped and preserved Western civilization. So let us pray that we too can live up to that high calling and standard of excellence provided for us by the saints of old. Then, and only then, will we see the dominion of King Christ manifest within the world and the affairs of those God chose to create in His most sacred image.

NOTE: I am now on Twitter. http://twitter.com/Paleocrat and Plaxo

Read more...

Paleo Radio Announcement

Paleo Radio will run from 5-7 p.m. (EST) on http://wocrfm.com. If you have Quicktime, then just go to mms://mediasrv.olivetcollege.edu/WOCR. 

At 6 p.m. I will be discussing anarchism, atheism, and the political-economy with a man who identifies himself as a libertarian socialist. It will last the better part of a half hour, but all calls are welcome after the discussion. 

Call: 269.749.7398

Read more...

Thomas Storck Podcasts

I recently uploaded a three-part interview with Mr. Thomas Storck. They are podcasts. While the quality may not be the best, this is something we are working on. We will also be working on podcasting the interview with Dale Ahlquist. Hopefully I am not naive to say "all in due time."

The links to the podcast archive section will direct you to them. 

NOTE: There were certain difficulties. I found that if one clicks on the title of the particular podcast rather than the generic podcast image, it worked fine. If this still doesn't resolve the problem, I'll have to work on figuring it out.

Read more...

Distributism in the Populist Moment

Life is full of pleasant things, regularly coming at times when they are least expected. Today just so happened to be one of those days. As I went out to check the mail, I noticed that my edition of The Week magazine had arrived. And there, on the cover, was a splendid picture of people rioting around the idol (i.e. the statue of the bull) in front of the New York Stock Exchange. The people with their fists in the air, shouting at the symbol of swinishness, pulling it down from its pedestal in a way reminiscent of the famous topple of Saddam’s statue, and the words “Populist Uprising” gracing the bottom of the page. The image beautifully captured the sentiment, and the words accurately reflected the image. It was spectacular in the truest sense of the word

Unfortunately, as with many articles of this nature, my joy was quickly and significantly diminished. The story was on page 18 in the Talking Points section and it only consumed the larger part of the upper-half of the page. That aside, the article was concerning to the $500,000 salary cap Obama has issued for all bank CEOs to receive per-annum. While I should have paid more attention to the cover of the magazine (which has the words “the new, $500,000 limit on CEO salaries” as the tag line), I figured that the story would deal with… well, the overall uprising of populism.

It was the earlier portion of January, 2008, when I began speaking more about populism, and in particular what I saw as the rise of populism in America. The populism I predicted was relatively moderate. I insisted that it would be a hodgepodge of ideas derived from what is typically referred to as the “right” and the “left.” People would be generally conservative on abortion, homosexual marriage, and a host of other “culture war” issues. On the other hand, people would still support public schooling. Very few would want to rid the system of Medicaid. Unemployment and welfare benefits would remain. They’d stand by the notion of Social Security. If trends continue to go in the direction they appear to be going, people maybe even endorse some form of universal health care. Furthermore, I believed that we would see an outcry against Wall Street, CEO salaries, and mega-monsters like Wal-Mart.

I still stand by my predictions, and I believe most of the indicators are pointing in that direction. Sadly, I don’t see this rising tide lasting too long before it breaches.

People are angry, this much is sure. But they either don’t really know why they are angry or they are taking it out on the wrong things. A casual conversation with Johnny Q. Public will get you an earful of emotionally charged tirades concerning the salaries of CEOs, how Scooter’s Hardware is going out of business because they can’t compete with Wal-Mart, and how the average Joe just can’t make the kind of living he used to with a hard day’s work. In all likelihood, you’ll even hear them talk about the hucksters and swindlers in Washington and Wall Street.

None of this is necessarily problematic. What is problematic is how this tirade is followed up with the same old song and dance that got us here in the first place. The very same person will go to the grave defending state capitalism, quoting “the ole Gipper” by saying “Government is the problem.” This person may be on their way in (or even out!) of Wal-Mart, while Scooter’s is just one mile up the road. He’ll stand by the wage-slave concept, decrying a Living, Family, Just Wage or vocational organizations as socialism. And he’ll probably tell you (depending on how the next few years go) that all we need to do is get more “conservative” Republicans like Sarah Palin in office to begin “taking care of business.”

If you haven’t been formally introduced to this person, or the mass of individuals he happens to represent, you haven’t been in the US very long. Or maybe you just haven’t been paying attention. At any rate, intellectual schizophrenia is the way of the day, and apathy runs thick through Main Street.

This isn’t to deny the ray of light peaking through the clouds. Not at all! It is simply admitting that, as of yet, it is little more than a sunbeam piercing through the clouds of convention tomfoolery. It’s a mere acknowledgment that the masses aren’t as angry with the socio-political apparatus as they are with who may be in control at the time. It’s a blame game, with all their bets being on top-down measures to make all the difference.

Yet even here it is not entirely doom and gloom. This underlying sentiment is real, it is emotional, and it is angry. What is required is good old distributist education. While a large portion of the populace may be experiencing frustration with the status quo, they need to realize that the answer is not found in merely tweaking the status quo, or even crossing their fingers in hope that those on Capitol Hill who just so happened to micromanage the status quo will make all the difference.

Distributists, then, are living in a time of great opportunity. People are dissatisfied, and they are willing to listen to “new” ideas. Better yet, most do not realizing that those “new” ideas are far from being “new.” Capitalists have had their chance. Socialists have had their chance. Now it is time for distributists to have their day in the sunbeam.

How long this uprising lasts is unknown. But it would be foolish not to take advantage of a brilliant opportunity to direct this populist moment towards a more humane political economy.

Read more...

Distributism is Dying...

... or so I've been told.

It wasn't but four years ago that I stumbled upon Distributist Perspectives Vol. 1. It was a Christmas gift from my parents. Along with it came two other books. The first was "I'll Take My Stand" by the Twelve Southerners. The second was "Who Owns America?" edited by Agar and Tate. Unbeknownst to me, the writers and content of both "I'll Take My Stand" and "Who Owns America" were in some way or another linked to those persons and ideas contained in Distributist Perspectives Vol. 1. Chalk it up as a strike of providence. 

Upon reading these books, it didn't take me long to see the similarities. All three were traditionalist, skeptical of all things big, and agrarian to the core. Furthermore, the writers all appeared to see a connection between the political economy and culture. They talked of art, literature, and architecture. In brief, there was a consensus amongst the contributors that the debates surrounding the political economy were not merely academic. Rather, these debates hit to the very center of who we are as individuals, as a city, and as a nation.

Some may insist that the ideas advanced within these books fall within the losing column of history. I would beg to differ, though only with the luxury of hindsight. While one should readily admit that there was relatively little progress made during the lifetimes of these particular men, it would be foolish to confine the win and lose columns of history to the lifespan of a group of writers. 

At any rate, there are those who point to the burgeoning of Big Business, Wall Street, and the service economy as proof that the American people have no interest in the ideas typically associated with distributism. Some may even note the fact that a large portion of Americans claim to love Capitalism, while very few have ever heard the word distributism, and even less of its substance. These facts, at least for the anti-distributist, serve as evidence that distributism is on its deathbed waiting to be put out of its misery. Or, if they are generous enough to grant that there will always be a remnant of those willing to identify themselves as distributists, they will ridicule the school of thought as a fringe movement made up of discontents and those overly infatuated with all things nostalgic. 

But are these so-called evidences proof, as the antagonist would insist, that distributism is dying? As I said earlier, I would answer this in the negative. For these so-called evidences can be seen and interpreted in many other ways. 

Take for instance Big Business. It certainly appears to be thriving. On the other hand, even giants like Wal-Mart are having to rally the troops in hope of figuring out ways to bypass what has recently become a storm of opposition.  One need only watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" to see just how strong, and coordinated, the opposition has become. 

But this, in and of itself, does not answer the question as to why so many people continue to frequent these behemoths. Truth be told, the answers are as simple as they are complex. We know that there many shoppers that have been pigeonholed into believing that they cannot afford to shop anywhere else. There are others who could shop elsewhere, and who decry the loss of small business, but who would prefer watching the local hardware dealer go out of business than to pay what could only be described as a reasonable price for goods  and services of better quality. Sadly, there are also those who simply don't care what happens to their neighbor, so long as they save a few pennies here and there. Of course, they shun from their conscience all guilt for having fed companies that rely for their existence on what amounts to nothing less than slave labor in foreign countries. For these particular shoppers, it is a matter of "out of sight, out of mind." To make matters worse is that the vast majority of these people don't realize that their low prices are also tied to government subsibies. These come from local, state, and federal dollars, and they come in frequency and figures that would be the envy of any local business owner. So while the answer to this question may seem easy to the antagonist, the truth of the matter is that the issue is much more complicated than it may first appear.

Wall Street is an entirely different story. The average Johnny Q and Sally Sue have little care for what goes on there. As The Nation pointed out so accurately in 2002, people don't typically go to work in order to purchase stocks. Where the common folk of yesteryear may have been somewhat indifferent to Wall Street, this can no longer be said. Instead, indifference has turned into outrage. Faulty prices, rabid speculation, credit swaps, and the stock market's subtle, but now apparent, interconnectivity with even those who know little about the numbers and letters flashing across the bottom of the television screen, has resulted in a collective man-hunt, with Wall Street as its target. Add to the flames the "revelation" concerning the government's obvious preference for the well-being of Wall Street insiders over against the common good, and you have a sure recipe for populist outcry. 

People are outraged. This much is certain. But what is more telling than their outrage is their not wishing to better familiarize themselves with the beast. Rather, many prefer to see it go the way of the dinosaur, or at least to be treated like a plague that needs isolation and strict supervision. Regardless of how the hucksters on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue wish to spin this, the American people have quickly grown a healthy distaste (and distrust) for Capitalism's casino and the gamblers who frequent its halls.

As for capitalism, while the word is commonplace amongst the citizenry, very few know what it really entails. Most tend to boil it down to a free market where people can compete with others and earn money along the way. This is typically dovetailed with the notion that less government intervention is good. 

While all this sounds well and good, it fails to take into account the fact that, as Chesterton put it, one of capitalism's greatest inadequacies is that it creates too few capitalists.  To add insult to injury, the average citizens knows as little about little of the current status of wealth in the United States as they do about the meaning of capitalism. I'm willing to bet the farm that were the citizenry to be fully aware of the figures concerning the distribution of wealth and land in this so-called capitalist society, they would, unlike Chesterton, be astounded. 

Let's take the 2006 Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury survey as a practical example. We begin with $100. Then we add 100 people. Now,  a perfectly equal distribution of wealth (which is not the goal of distributism) would be $1 per person. As it stands right now, the 50 individuals at the bottom of the stack have $0.05. Collectively, they make up $2.50, leaving $97.50 to be divided between the remaining 50. The next 40 have $0.70 of wealth, or $28 collectively. The next nine have $4 of wealth, or $36 collectively. Now this leaves one person remaining. This single individual would, per $100 mentioned earlier, have in his or her sole possession $33.50. 

To say that this is horrifying would be to trivialize the meaning of horror.

One may rest assured that when these figures come to light, as they are with the passing of every day, people will begin to see the forest for the trees. They'll begin to connect the dots, finding a line between Big Business, Wall Street, and what parades around as capitalism. It is here, at this moment and at this time that distributists can smile and wink at the antagonist, knowing full well that the confidence of the naysayer was built on what was little more than a phantasm waiting for the right moment to disappear.

Distributism isn't dead. It isn't even dying. No, distributism is coming to light. It is, as John Medaille would say, "the wave of the future."

The road is destined to be hard, as money and power never fail to put up a good fight. But those rumbling underfoot, fueled by ideas penned by those of old, may be too much for even the giants of today to withstand. In the end, being perceived as finding a home in history's losing column may have turned out to be a boon rather than a bust. 

Read more...

Gaza-Israel Crisis in Context

Gaza currently has 1.5 million people running out of food, fuel, and water suitable for drinking. The region has been set ablaze with Israeli attacks, leaving hospitals unable treat the myriad of people in desperate need of care. As a recent editorial in The Nation pointed out, 75 percent Gaza is without electricity and their sewage systems are bordering ruin. Furthermore, the loss of a dozen Israeli deaths and just over a dozen injured, Gaza has been lost over 600, a quarter of them being civilian. To say that this is a mere crisis would be as grave an injustice as the conflict itself.

All of this has created a dividing line in the mainstream media punditocracy. Neo-conservatives, the Israel Lobby, Christian Zionists, J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Peace Now have engaged in some of the most vitriolic debate many have had the misfortune of seeing in a long while. 

The worst has been directed towards those seeking a just peace, questioning the actions of Israel and proposing actions, ranging from conventional to the extreme, in hope of bringing this age-old crisis. Neoconservative writer Andrew Sullivan has compared The Nation’s Eric Alterman to the authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He writes, “Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young has accused me of blaming Hitler’s victims for Palestinian misery.” Statements just as striking can be found (predictably) in publications such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard.

All of this couldn’t come at a worse time. America is in shambles, and our credibility in the Middle East has been squandered on account of eight years of belligerent foreign policy, unjust wars, wrongful imprisonment, torture, and the perception that the US works only in the best interest of Israel. Attempting to play a vital role as the “middle man” will be take an extraordinary amount of finesse, not to mention the need to send a strong and clear message to the world that we wish only for justice and peace in the region. 

This is easier said than done. The US has a long history of failure in the area of Middle East diplomacy, and this is particularly true in regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. More often than not, it is that the US and the international community lacks the resolve to implement and enforce agreements, while giving a wink and a pass to breaches of the agreements.

How, then, are we to overcome these obstacles? 

We must first begin with a change in perception. An example of such change would be US citizens overcoming the notion that Israel has for years been sacrificing land for peace. While it is true that land has been transferred, these plots are by no means sacrificial. The regions are settlements, having gone beyond it’s pre-1967 borders. In short, they are returning land that they confiscated and settled upon, forcing an outrageous number of Palestinians from their homes.

Doing this will force the US and the international community to hold both sides accountable for their former agreements. All sides endorsed UN Resolutions 424 and 338, the Oslo Accords of 1993, Bush’s “Road Map for Peace” in 2003, as well as those agreed upon at Annapolis. The only thing at play here is forcing both sides to be implement what was already agreed upon.

Secondly, the US must consistently apply their calls for democracy with the results of the democratic process of elections. The crusade for global democracy has resounded from Washington for some time, but leaders have been very selective when recognizing those democratically elected. If the goal is to have “the people” vote, and “the people” vote for a group that the US doesn’t particularly like (i.e. Hamas), the US must, if wishing to be consistent in their crusade for global democracy, recognize the decision of the people. To do otherwise is to be horribly inconsistent, fueling the Arab world’s impression that it isn’t so much democracy that we want, but rather to put leaders in power that have US interests and secular values at the forefront of their mind. 

It would do us well recognize the fact that without a resolve which favors a two-state solution and a complete (or almost complete) withdraw from illegal settlements, there will be further tension in other areas of the Middle East. Iran, al Qaeda, and Hezbollah have much to gain from a failed peace process. Recruitment will increase, policies will be justified, and alliances will be solidified.

The US must identify and condemn various actions committed by both sides. The difficulty in doing so rests, at least in part, with the fact that we are dealing with two radically different groups. 

Israel is a nation with a capitol, huge military and economic subsidies from the US, as well as a military force that rules the region like a colony, punishing a people collectively. As UN human rights representative of the territories has recently been quoted as saying, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is a “crime against humanity.” Women, children, and the elderly have been victims of attacks from Israeli air strikes. Palestinians are required to carry color-coded IDs and travel permits. Civilians have had their homes demolished. One must also include the barricades, checkpoints, and settler-only roads. 

On the other hand, the Palestinians left with little more than guerrilla warriors and the unconventional tactics often accompanying them. As Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said to Alya Rea of CounterPunch, “Unfortunately the insistence on violent repression by or assailants leads to innocent blood on the streets. Since 1996, 12 years ago, we have proposed to exclude civilian targets from the conflict on both sides. Israel did not respond to that. When Israel insists on killing our kids, our elders and senior citizens and women, and bombarding houses with the gunships, F-16s and Apaches, when Israel continues these attacks, what is left for the Palestinians to do? They are defending themselves with whatever they have.”

None of this is to say that targeting civilians is ethically permissible. All that is meant here is to put the situation into context. One country with a capitol, subsidized military and economy, the ownership of nuclear weaponry and a state of the art military over against a colonized people with little more than Qassam missiles, outdated artillery, and individuals willing to be human bombs in order to settle a score. 

President Obama has a tough road ahead, both on the home-front and internationally. But he must have the courage and wisdom to confront this age-old controversy in a way and with a resolve that former presidents have not. Unless he begins seeing the bigger picture, with all its complexities (i.e. religious, ethnic, economic, and militaristic), he will follow the same path as those who went before him. A path covered as much with the inhumane and unjust as much as it is with the blood and tears of the innocent.

Read more...

Should Distributism Be Given a New Name?

A rose is a rose by any other name... if only social theories were the same.

The topic of distributism comes up frequently in my day-to-day life. The word's use in my daily conversations would land it a place it somewhere between the words "and" and "the." While I may wish to chalk it up as the result of people clamoring over my views on the political economy, I fear that it has more to do with my being a blabbermouth, unable to stop talking about those things I hold near and dear.

This pleasant addiction to discussing distributism with friends and strangers alike has been accompanied with a great deal of inquiry and feedback. I often have people accuse me of being "a socialist" or advocating "Robin Hood economics." This is all too typical, particularly from those who have never heard of, or who have never read material pertaining to, distributism. It wouldn't be a fool's wager to bet the farm that many of you have been accused of much the same.

The question, though, is why people would accuse us of such things. In my humble estimation, it has more to do with the word distributism than with the actual substance of the economic system itself. People hear the word distributism and they immediately connect it with the redistribution of wealth, particularly at a federal level.

While these people certainly miss the mark, there is little room for doubt as to why they would harbor such an assumption. Words, like slogans, are tricky. This is especially true of political and economic schools of thought. Take just two examples: Conservatism and libertarianism. People don't have to be political wonks or economic gurus to have a general impression of what these words mean. Conservatives want to conserve something, being (at least historically) traditionalist in nature. Libertarians, though far less familiar to the citizenry, would deal with liberty or freedom. Both of these words have positive associations, dealing with things people generally like to identify with. The designations Progressive or Constitutionalist is much the same.

So what of distributism? Well, for better or worse, as was stated earlier, people associate the word with redistribution of wealth. While putting an economic system in place, as well as a political structure in order, where the wealth of the nation would be redistributed away from Big Business to local businesses would be a good thing, this is not the common perception of what we are hoping to achieve. Rather, they work under the definitions and intellectual framework provided for them by pundits and talking-heads hailing from both the Left and the Right. Both sides generally refer to the concept as the federal government taking money from the little guy in order to pay for an array of social programs and line the pockets of special interests. 

All of this has led me to a few conclusions. On the one hand, distributists can retain the name, only then to spend large amounts of time clarifying themselves and attempting to tear down walls of defense and skepticism surrounding those who otherwise be open to our ideas. Or we could consider formulating a new designation that would bypass negative connotations, saving us plenty of time and making our mission all that much easier.

On a personal note, this idea is not at all foreign to me. Back in 2002 I became frustrated with designations I would use when describing my personal political and economic beliefs. At the time I was still a Protestant, and I held to a hybrid of positions commonly found within Christian Reconstructionism (Theonomy) and paleoconservatism. To say that these didn't roll off the tongue with the greatest of ease would be an understatement. Christian Reconstruction was just far too long. Theonomy placed me (wrongfully so) alongside the ecclesiocrat ayatollahs. And paleoconservatism had a number of difficulties. People typically identified my conservatism with the likes of Bush, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Furthermore, for those who had an inkling of an idea as to what it was, they associated me with racialism so often found amongst its adherents. In short, these designations would not do.

So in hope of distinguishing myself from these groups, I began using the term paleocrat. A simple combination of words. Paleo meaning old or ancient. Kratos meaning rule or law. So there it was. I was an adherent to "the old rule" or "the ancient law." 

The problem, though, was that I was left having to explain not only what the word meant, but also the substance of that philosophy. For this reason, I chose to use the designation as little more than an internet identification. It was an experiment that fell short, but an experiment nonetheless.

Whether distributists choose to retain the name or look towards formulating a new one that steers clear of negative association while also providing people with a positive and familiar connotation is yet to be seen. It appears that there are those within the movement who are willing to discuss such an idea, and their motivations may be similar to those I've discussed here. My hope, at least for now, is to have stirred the imaginations within minds much brighter than mine, so as to begin a discussion that may be long overdue.

Read more...

Distributist Radio Begins on Monday!!!!

Paleo Radio deals with economics, politics, and culture from a distinctively Catholic perspective.

Paleo Radio

Every Monday and Friday from 5-7 p.m. EST

Listen LIVE on http://wocrfm.com (Internet Explorer ONLY)

Call the show: 269.749.7398

IM during program: Add Paleocrat to Yahoo IM and/or AIM

Open invitation to distributist authors, bloggers, and organizations:

Call The Paleocrat Tribune at 269.317.1263 to set up day and time for interview & promotions.

Send any and all questions, articles, or press releases to paleocrat@me.com

Learn Distributism. Love Distributism. Live Distributism.

Read more...

Oh Yes, Economic Insanity! That'll do!

“It was the mystical dogma of Bentham and Adam Smith and the rest, that some of the worst of human passions would turn out to be all for the best. It was the mysterious doctrine that selfishness would do the work of unselfishness.” GK Chesterton

The day and age of prudence and sanity is long gone, if in fact it ever did exist. We live in a time where money gurus babble on about how the most radical deregulation will mysteriously perform the functions of regulation, how an absolutely unfettered economy will bring about order, and how “the virtue of selfishness” (as Madame Rand was fond of calling it) would result in nothing short of the economic Utopia finding its home in the wildest fantasies of men like Mises and Bastiat. To be quite frank, the entire ordeal is a tad bit overwhelming for those who, like me, have a sensitive gag reflex.

I wish these were the musings of a madman who hasn’t the slightest clue of things as they really are, the ravings of things far-fetched. Unfortunately, one has only to fetch the remote. Market mystics are commonplace, and like a bad case of herpes they show up in predictable places at just the worst times. Hucksters in tight suits and cheap cologne spouting off what Betty Crocker would consider a sure recipe for economic disaster.

The problem isn’t so much their being large in number as it is that they are professional ear-tickerls! They know the game, and they play it like champs. The masses are assured that if they just allow their cookies to crumble, then even bigger, better tasting cookie will appear from the heaped remains they let tumble to the floor.

It all sounds so simple! It sounds almost too good to be true. Like a good, old fashion pyramid scheme or bottle of snake oil. If only its this bit of irony was any bit ironic.

To imagine that we haven’t overcome our susceptibility to the charlatans of old. We should know better by now. Then again, there must be a reason why the adage “we never learn from history” has stood the test of time. If only there were a generation that had the kind of moral resolve and intellectual fortitude to put that precedent to rest. If only…

Read more...

Economic Eugenics

Miss American Pie bids farewell to the Working Class Jack as companies downsize, outsource, and offshore those jobs once proudly (and efficiently) done by American men and women.

This once great nation of producers has run out of steam somewhere between Pauperism and the ghost town of the eternal Proletariat. Our microchips are now potato chips, while our manufactured goods have been traded in for Big Macs.

All the while our politicians and economists, market mystics through and through,  whistle away the day, trusting  that their prophecies of a glorious era ushered in by classical liberalism will come to pass. They can only cross their fingers in hope that the increasing amount of evidence against them is nothing more than a mirage or mere bump in the road to Utopia.

It is rather unfortunate that these mirages, these mere bumps in the road, happen to be known by neighbor and foreigner alike as American citizens. The young, the poor, and those without a college education, these are hit the worst. But so be it! Survival of the richest is the way of the day, and economic eugenics is en vogue.

In days gone by, young Americans performed these jobs. They did for years. Many of them treated these jobs as stepping stones to something better. Some found them to took them as career-worthy vocations. While many of these jobs may be tedious and redundant, they didn’t look half bad on a resume. And with wages superior to Taco Bell, these young ones were able to save up for a home, a higher education, or even retirement.

Tough luck, kiddos. These jobs are going the way of the dinosaur, and their tales will only be told by those begin their sentences with “back in the day.”

Then there are those “down and outs,” the American poor. These men and women are hit especially hard. Many of these people are willing to work long hours on a line, if for no other reasons than paying the bills and supplying basic needs for them and their children.

While these jobs don’t require the skill level of a doctor or a lawyer, they meet many people right where they are. Truth be told, not everyone has the skill level of a doctor or lawyer. And many of these Americans have no ability or opportunity to further their eduction. All they want is some food, clothing, shelter, and enough money to make sure the bills get paid.

Sorry, folks, the rich and famous care little about you. Out of mind, and definitely out of sight, save for the burdensome fly-by during an election year or photo shoot. Place your bets on the lottery. The odds are in its favor on this one.

Take as another example the rest of those without a great deal of formal education. Jobs of this nature were a way to feel the pride that accompanies work and private ownership. And this could be done without having a degree (or even diploma) on the wall. They may have gotten married right out of high school. Maybe there were difficulties they were unable to overcome in a high school or college setting. They may have come from a family without sufficient funds to send them to college. Maybe they simply wanted to dodge the bullet of student loans that so many of their peers spend years trying to pay off. Whatever the case may be, they had their reasons, good or bad, and now their hopes have been dashed to pieces by belligerent ideologues and fideistic advocates of the Austrian school.

And let us not forget the elderly. While I failed to mention them at the beginning of this piece, it would be foolish to ignore the impact downsizing, offshoring, and outsourcing has on many of them.

This age group has really hit hard times. Social Security just isn’t what it used to be. Health risks continually increase, adequate insurance becomes harder to find, and the money simply isn’t there. In many cases it is nothing other than the death of a loved one, leaving them with less money and mess of bills.

Unfortunately, many of these people find themselves back on the line, working tough hours. That is, if they haven’t found a comfortable place as a Walmart greeter or McDonald’s cashier. Any way we go with the scenario, it feels like a lose-lose to those who’ve already lived a life of hard work.

The young, the poor, the less educated, and the elderly. Each of these lack the fitness needed to survive the rough ad tumble of a global economy. So let them rot in the cesspool of a service economy.

This wouldn’t be so sick were it not for the fact that market mystics treat the situation as inevitable, as a sort of social determinism or economic fatalism. These people were just dealt a rough hand. Better luck next time, right?

Lost livelihoods are nothing more than collateral damage in the cut-throat pursuit of efficiency (i.e. the cheapest labor the world has to offer) and never-ending capital surplus. It’s only too bad that the financial fanatics and their political tools have such a difficult time putting a name, a face, and a sense of personhood with the laborers they are tossing to the wind.

Or maybe I am giving them too much credit? Maybe they know, but simply don’t care…

Read more...