THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Readers of this blog know I am not a Libertarian. Nor do I fully subscribe to the Austrian theory of economics. I am a Distributist, which means I believe the Austrian theory must be restrained, and the purpose of government is to support smaller government through Subsidiarity, rather than stand aside and do virtually nothing. In this respect, I find myself at odds with our Libertarian friends, even though I do find myself having more in common with them on other things. The truth is, Libertarians are people we can work with, to some degree, whereas supporters of big-government are nearly impossible to work with.
Senator Jim DeMint is right. The debate in the Republican Party should be between Libertarians and Conservatives, and I think by Conservatives he means to say those of a more Traditionalist and Distributist mindset. Or at least, that's what I THINK he means to say. Who knows?
The problem here is that the vision of Reagan Conservatism has always been an aberration in the Republican Party, one of very recent origin. Historically, the Republican Party has always been about radical Modernism and empire building. The only thing that is different about the modern era, is that in the last eighty years, the liberal Democrats have out-radicalised the radicals! The Democrats have beaten the Republicans at their own game, so in came Ronald Reagan to redefine the game based on the Barry Goldwater model. What the Reagan-Conservative Republicans seek is to turn back the clock on financial matters to the days prior to the New Deal. Personally, I don't think this goes nearly far enough, as I would advocate a more Mediaeval economic model pre-dating anything the Libertarians have to offer, but it's all a moot point anyway. The problem is, top Republicans have for the most part rejected the Reagan Conservative (Austria-Libertarian) approach to economics anyway! Leading Republicans (like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney) have embraced the big-government New Deal model. Sorry, that's just the facts, and like it or not, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. It is reality.
If you were looking for a fiscal conservative in this presidential election cycle, you're not going to get one. The one and only candidate that has embraced Reagan-style economics is Ron Paul, and the Republican Party has rejected him! So this is what you get. Regardless of who wins the G.O.P. nomination (Santorum or Romney) what you will get in November is a choice between two big-government politicians. Granted, I think both Romney and Santorum will likely spend less than Obama, but both of them will run large national deficits -- mark my words! Both of them, like Obama, will seek to expand the American empire overseas. Both of them are just as likely as Obama to take America into another major war. Both of them, like Obama, will look to the federal government FIRST for all the answers to America's problems. The only difference is, both of them will likely be less offensive to Christians (at home) than Obama. That's about all. Sorry, that's just the facts. Don't shoot the bearer of bad news.
Republicans now get to choose between two variations of the G.W. Bush presidency, because both will carry on the G.W. Bush legacy -- like it or not. We can choose between a Catholic version of G.W. Bush in Rick Santorum. Or we can choose a Mormon version of G.W. Bush in Mitt Romney. Take your pick! Personally my hope is the Catholic version of G.W. Bush (Santorum) might actually listen to the pope on some things. So there is a little hope there I guess.
Perhaps we will be lucky and Ron Paul will gain enough delegates to broker some kind of deal at the convention. I just find it sad that the Republican Party has rejected him outright. In doing so the G.O.P. has helped consign America to the ash heap of history. Our time is short. Americans would do wise to start thinking about what kind of nations they want to build after the fall of the United States.
13 comments; post here:
"my hope is the Catholic version of G.W. Bush (Santorum) might actually listen to the pope on some things."
My sentiments exactly, but it didn't work so well when JFK was POTUS....granted, Santorum is not a horn-ball like JFK was, but I do worry about Santorum checking his Catholicism at the door of the Oval Office should he be the victor.
The power of an emperor (even a temporary one) is addicting, worse than crack cocain. It's nice to think that a man like Santorum can resist its intoxicating effect, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
"As rioting leads to deaths in Afghanistan, NATO officials apologize again for defiled Koran
US embassy in Afghanistan on lockdown as anti-American protests continue over Koran burning incident"
If Catholics were half as serious about defending their faith as these Muslims that are rioting would anyone be discussing forcing Catholic institutions to pay for sterilization and abortificants?
Let's hope Santorum is as serious in is Catholicism as Planned Parenthood is serious about their anti- Catholicism.
American Secularists generally leave Muslims alone, while going after Catholics (and other Christians), for one reason only. They are cowards. They know Christians will not fight back, so they pick on those whom they perceive as weak. They would NEVER do this to Muslims. They fear Muslims.
Santorum is not to be trusted. His record shows he's a big government conservative. Also, his betrayal of the pro-life movement in his support of Specter tells me he's willing to throw his 'conservatism' under the bus when it's expedient to do so.
All of the top three candidates are BIG-GOVERNMENT Republicans (Romney, Santorum and Gingrich). This is an undeniable FACT supported by their own statements and political records. The very notion that some radio talk show hosts are touting these jokers as 'conservatives' is laughable! Sorry, but a spade is a spade and all three of these guys are big-government Republicans -- another version of G.W. Bush and his daddy. The only difference between them is flavour. Do you prefer Mormon, Catholic or Catholic-lite?
G.K.Chesterton - any and all should read his thoughts on Distributism. Catholic and convert - good stuff!
Ron Paul reminds me of the coiled snake ready to strike. If anyone is not to be trusted, it is him. Pete Frey
Heard a theory put forth today the Paul's trying to angle either himself or Rand to be Rum-knee's (a little Herman Cain-ism there) Veep....interesting take when you consider Paul has not criticised Romney at all...or very little.
If either Ron or Randal can get their foot into the Whitehoise door that way, there might be a shred of hope for the Republic after all. I'm not sure how much hope, but hope nonetheless. If we could ever return to a Constitutional Republic and return power to the states, there may not be a need for secession. But it's a long shot. A real Hail Mary pass, and yes, the pun was intended.
TCK, I identify with certain strains of the libertarian movement (there are many different types of libertarians by the way, some who accept and promote traditionalist views and some who do not) as well as Austrian economics (in my mind it's the only school of economics that is logical - and it relies heavily on the Spanish Scholastics including Father Juan de Mariana and other Jesuits by the way). But I certainly think there is room for disagreement within the broad traditionalist movement and even in the Southern nationalist movement. There will probably always be something of a disagreement between more libertarian-minded folks and more paleo-conservative minded folks on certain issues. I don't see this as a problem. We have a great deal in common. And we have common enemies. Let's defeat our common enemies and then work out our differences.
PalmettoPatriot: Of course, that's the whole idea. Pope Benedict XVI once referred to these types of disagreements as 'German thumb wrestling.' That's kind of how we should look at it.
I personally think the most ideal system of economics would look something between Libertarian and Distributist. In other words, an absolutely free market, moderated only be strict antitrust laws at both the confederate and state levels, so as to prevent business from getting so big it gobbles up all small family-run operations, and begins to control the government itself. Beyond that, I think the market will pretty much run itself. People should be free to form trade guilds and cooperative businesses, again, minding the Antitrust laws. This insures the market remains free for the little guys to jump in and get a piece of the action too. If we had a government wherein the main argument was between Libertarians and Distributists, instead of Corporatists and Socialists, we would all be a lot better off.
Despite his gaff with the Specter debacle, Santorum seems to be a true believer in the social conservative position. I don't much doubt he will do the best he could to follow Church teaching in that area. What concerns me is his foreign policy (on which he would spend at least as much, if not more than a social liberal would on entitlements). He seems too trigger happy, and too ready to ignore Church teaching on this under the veil of "prudential judgment."
Post a Comment