Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin
Many Christian conservatives, reassured by the nomination of Sarah Palin for VP, have set aside their objections to John McCain and have enthusiastically endorsed the ticket. Some have gone so far as to speak of a Christian or Catholic obligation to support the party with a pro-life platform. Others have raised doubts about Ms. Palin's opposition to wasteful government spending or have expressed disappointment with her off-handed way of discussing her daughter's premarital sex and conception. Several Chronicles editors have agreed to take up one or another aspect of this question, not because they wish to muster support for or opposition to McCain-Palin, but in the hope that they can help to clarify what is at stake.
Let me put some poorly concealed cards on the table. I do not intend to vote for John McCain. He has only one qualification that I can see and that is the fact that he is not Barack Obama. I can understand very well why people who believe in voting for "the lesser of two evils" will support him, but I would like them to understand that they are, by their own account, voting for evil. I fully concur that it is a good idea to vote for a candidate who does not favor unrestricted abortion rights, but I would also like to suggest that if killing babies is wrong in America, it is equally wrong to kill them and their siblings and parents in Iraq, Iran, and in all the other places in the world this quick-on-the trigger candidate is likely to start wars. Let us not reduce ourselves to the leftist caricature of pro-life activists who only care about babies before they are born.
Ms. Palin seems no less a fancier of the dogs of war then Mr. McCain, and her extreme Zionism—so incompatible with Christian faith—might well make her a dangerous President, where anything involving Israel's interests were at stake. Others will take up the question of Ms. Palin's religion, but I should like to point out in advance that it is not at all unfair to characterize her commitment to the Assembly of God as outside the main stream, since she herself, as a baptized Catholic rebaptized in the AOG, has declared the ancient branches of Christianity, Orthodox as much as Catholic, as outside the Christian fold. It is not at all clear to me that she does not regard Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the same light.
If Ms. Palin is a truly a Christian conservative, she is certainly not a conservative Christian. Christians are supposed to understand the implications of "male and female created He them" and, at the very least, realize that a mother's primary obligation is not to the taxpayers but to her children and husband. It is all very well to celebrate her prowess as a politician and moose-hunter, but I do not recall these as feminine qualities in the Scriptures. I or we are not saying that we cannot vote for a woman who did not stay home to take care of her family, but only that this decision is incompatible with traditional Christian morality.
Critics of Ms. Palin will be told that they are being unduly selective or harsh in their criticism. I can only repeat what I said in response to a critic on my Hard Right column:
"People who aspire to high position and who hold Christian and conservative banners aloft should not be exempt from scrutiny. When Bill Clinton claimed to be a Christian, Republicans were quick to point out his lapses in marital fidelity. I doubt that conservatives like Newt Gingrich, divorcee and adulterer, were much concerned about casting the first stone. There are reasons why good people will hold their nose and vote for McCain-Palin, but there are also reasons why they should hold their nose. That, I believe, is all we are saying.”
76 Responses »
Trackbacks
- The Southern Avenger » Is Palin Really Pro-Life?
- Palin, traditional Christianity, gender roles and a faith sold cheap « R. Justin Shepherd | PART-TIME PUNDIT
- The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » Paleo Shadow
- Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat
- Politeuma · All Babies
- Of Greater Importance « Mormon Paleo Thought
Entries(RSS)
"Over the past few years I have seen writings by a nice young Catholic American historian, who without showing any sign of having made a serious study of the Church’s traditions, utterly rejects the Church’s social teachings in favor of the theories of a Jewish atheist, Ludwig von Mises."
No doubt you are referring to Thomas Woods.
I think it is inaccurate to say though, that he has simply 'rejected' Catholic social teaching.
(I am not sure if von Mises was an atheist, either)
This thread is having the worst effect on me. Should I err in judgment, and post a line that is written in less-than-exemplary English, I feel I will be judged upon my less-than-exemplary grammar. I suppose I should retire now lest I be judged... I am a man who is stirred by my inner Yeats, but this appears inadequate. Heretofore I refrain from further posts. In my estimation, Mr. Camp has brought, upon this conversation, interesting points (but illegal as to the purview of our esteemed moderator),as they are being disregarded due to their problematic content. As such, I will refrain and await further response. Is this really the future of Chronicles? I expected more from my favorite publication… I read, nor interpreted no vulgarities from Mr. Camp, et al. If we are to be judged upon our written words, I am sure that Mr. Fleming would open himself to an inspection of his written words, seemingly impeccable, through all these many years…. Please…
Read Mises' book on Socialism, if you have any doubts. Whatever he may have thought about the possible existence of supranational beings, he was hostile to Christianity, which he regarded as a superstition that lends itself to tyranny. I said nothing of my friend Tom Woods and have no wish to make this a personal issue. Everyone makes mistakes,I no less than anyone. There are at least a dozen American historians who are self-proclaimed Misesians. Woods has, I believe, withdrawn his most extreme criticisms of Catholic social teaching but has not withdrawn his allegiance to Mises. Put quite simply there is almost no common ground between any traditional form of Christianity and Misesian liberalism. My point, however, was not to attack Mises and his followers--Mises' as philosopher (as opposed to his economics) is so negligible a figure as not to be worth refutation, but to suggest that earnest young men today seem incapable of accepting tradition and authority and even when they do, they then use tradition as a stick with which to beat authority.
TJF
While it´s true that many young catholics, don´t accept authority, I think you have to accept that the Church desintegration was the direct responsability of the changes in doctrine and liturgy that arose from Vatican II and from the popes who accepted it, from Paul VI to B16 (the very "council was a complete departure from Tradition), so if truth be told the ones to be held accountable for the church current situation are its "popes"
“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”4
The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books.
And in reference to the new Mass I have only this to quote from the Bull Quo Primum:
Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”2
One doesn´t have to know latin to understand something´s not quite right with todays "bishops", (because most of the them aren´t worthy that name, just look at Mahony or Niederauer) and the current power structure, and I don´t think infallible statements become fallible over time.
"In my experience Catholic and Orthodox priests are far more tolerant of Evangelicals and Pentecostalists than vice versa. I remember once mocking the extravagance of Pentecostalists and Mega-church hooters-and-hollerers to a learned priest. He rebuked me and said that Christians who had rejected the blessings of the sacraments had been given a lesser satisfaction but one not without precedent or value and that we should rejoice with them that they had what consolation they had."
How dare this "priest" say something like that? Protestantism is an antibiblical man-made religion, responsible for the loss of millions of souls, and I´m not trying to be mean, I ´m just trying to put the things right, because as you said before the ridiculus ecumenism preached by heterodox hierarchy in Rome is not shared at all by protestants.
God Bless
Sarah Palin's political views seem to be conservative yet inchoate. Her rise seems almost accidental. After giving birth to three children and being a stay-at-home mother, she won a seat on her small town city council and later moved on to mayor, both part-time jobs for towns the size of Wasilla. City managers do the heavy lifting in small-town municiplities so her workload was small. She may even have been a Buchanan supporter during her early career. When the dry-rotted Alaska Republican Party showed weakness in 2006, Sarah Palin pounced, won the Governor race, and placed herself above her family duties. And now the odious John McCain calls. Sarah Palin the mom gives way to Sarah Palin the politician.
Although Sarah Palin's recent Republican Convention speech was brilliantly given, a closer read of the speech reveals almost no substance. Conservative policies were sparingly mentioned. It was mostly a speech that regaled John McCain and ridiculed Barack Obama. Sarah Plain is plainly just John McCain's tool to energize conservatives for the November 2 vote, after which he plans to ignore the very conservatives that thrilled to Mrs. Palin's words on Wednesday. Given the malleability of Sarah Palin, look for the neo-conservatives to step in to give her an ideological framework, including support for military intervention all over the globe.
McCain will probably stumble to victory two months from now because he is not Barack Hussein Obama. Conservatives will be betrayed for four years, starting first with an immigration amnesty marshaled by McCain's particular friend Lindsey Graham and the dying Ted Kennedy. A McCain victory will set back conservatism just as George W. Bush's victory in 2000 was a set back. Didn't Yogi Berra say something about deja vu happening all over again? And some people think Berra was just a dumb catcher.
It isn't just the millenarianism. I don't think pre-mil dispies in Argentina think Argentina needs to militarily defend Israel. It is some awful combination of millenarianism and Americanism that makes for the volatile mix. That America has been granted by God some special status as defender of Israel and for that matter, freedom everywhere. When stated like that it sounds absurd, but that is how many think whether conscious or not. I don’t think it is just outright bloodlust.
Red, you may be too good a man to comprehend the evil that may be lurking in the hearts of self-described Christians. I do not say I have any idea, but these people are as indifferent to the fate of Arab Christians as, say, Nazi guards were indifferent to the fate of Jews. I do not at all believe that everyone who worked in the camps wanted to kill people, but for various reasons--fear, greed, laziness, convenience, envy--they worked in a system that dehumanized its prisoners. How many of these guards, I wonder, professed to be ultra-pious Christians? I would guess rather few. So that is the conundrum to which I have no answer: How is it that people who say they worship the Prince of Peace support political movements that kill fellow-worshippers as well as Muslims? I can imagine someone accepting their mythology but drawing the line at violence. I have met Muslims of this type. At the very least, their conscience has been so dulled that they give assent to what is patently evil. Few of them would kill anyone, I suppose, or even sign a document arranging a murder. But their consciences are so deranged as to make them morally dangerous, which is why I refuse to have anything to do with them. We are all capable of evil in a weak moment, but these people openly advocate evil.
Thomas Fleming @ 56
Mises was wrong about some things, and even Murray Rothbard admitted as much. Whereas Mises might have been hostile to religion, Rothbard (and the modern day 'Misesians') are by and large very friendly to religion, if not religious themselves. Rothbard at times seemed so friendly toward Catholicism that shortly before his death, I had hoped he would actually convert (from his Dietism, or perhaps religious-friendly agnosticism?).
"I said nothing of my friend Tom Woods and have no wish to make this a personal issue....Woods has, I believe, withdrawn his most extreme criticisms of Catholic social teaching.."
Indeed. I actually not read any of Woods criticism of Catholic social teaching, beyond the critique on economics (which had some merit). I apologize if you thought I was 'stirring the pot'.
Red @58 makes an excellent point. Does the phenomenon of militant Christian Zionism so prevalent among the 'pre-mil' dispies in the states appear elsewhere ?
In Human Action, Mises declares that his praxeology must be independent of religion, and my impression from reading is that he was almost obsessively hostile. Murray was very impressed with Mises' theory of praxeology but to me it seemed entirely too thin to be of any use. This was one of those things we agreed to disagree on and did not speak much of it. Of the Misesians I have known well, none was hostile to religion. Murray was very favorably disposed, though I do not think he was in a process of conversion. He was persecuted vicariously for his wife's Christian faith. David Gordon had an historical and cultural interest especially in theology, but, then, David is interested in everything. Hans Hoppe struck me as more or less indifferent, though he may have changed. Of the self-described Christians among the Misesians, none seems at all to have grappled with the fact that no liberal theory, certainly not Mises', is compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Lord Acton was one of the greatest of liberals (at least so far as ability and education are concerned) but he could never fit his Catholicism into his liberalism or vice versa. He said something like that as a liberal he was a bad Catholic. I am not suggesting that a mere human can tie up all the loose ends of his loyalties, but this is a pretty big divide to paper over. A liberal Catholic is something like a Jewish Nazi, but it does not seem to bother them.
TW's critique of Catholic social teaching was entirely without merit, primarily because he was a) trying to square the circle, and b) had not made a concentrated study of the matter. In fact, he seems to have accepted a kind of Liberation Theology view of the social encyclicals, which he proceeded to refute. Unfortunately, the deeper her went into his criticism, the more it was clear he was rejecting the teachings of Christ. For a Christian, this is a problem. Like all of us, he has a lot to learn and he has considerably nuanced his criticisms. I have been discussing this very issue with a rather deep political thinker, Claude Polin and hope to publish an article from him. As a non-Christian, Polin does not face the same problem as Catholic liberals.
Thanks, by the way, for your useful comments. I was not quite well over the weekend and I hope I did not respond too harshly.
No, you were fine but I suspected I err'ed in naming Woods when you kept his name incognito.
But you're 100% correct. Catholics do run into a problem with (classical) liberalism. I am no exception. To some, it seems I am celebrating greed. Lord Acton, one of my favorite classical liberals was also accused of this. Indeed, one has to find a middle ground. But I think liberal ideas ARE compatible. For instance, probably around half of American Catholics favor 'Universal Health Care'. They say it will mean the sick get cured, regardless of their ability to pay. The (classical) liberal Catholic answers, but that means the state decides who lives and who dies. Indeed, in the UK if youre in your 60s and you have Cancer and need chemo - they will simply tell you you 'are not worth it' and let you die.
The one 'Misesian' you did not mention was Lew Rockwell. He is probably the most religious of the whole group, but he keeps his faith to myself as of late (he used to write some pieces on Catholic politics but its been a number of years since I've seen one.)
Gentleman, I'm still baffled at this notion of "militant Christian Zionism so prevalent among the ‘pre-mil’ dispies..."
To reiterate (and heaven knows I don't want to beat a dead horse), real dispensationalists are thoroughly apolitical. Visit a Plymouth Brethren meeting and discover for yourself. They would laugh out loud if not weep over the misrepresentations here. They are no more interested in secular power and warfare than the Amish. Moreover, they rarely discuss eschatology in their meetings. The chief aim of dispensationalism is not to predict The End but to foster (rightly or wrongly) a less worldly Christian.
So, to answer Mr. Maxwell's question (#60), no, you do not find in "dispies" worldwide a fixation on a Middle East conflagration -- which proves that this phenomenon is distinctly American in nature and indicative only of an abuse of dispensational theology.
Hagee, Van Impe, et. al. are not dispensationalists; they have neither the theological aptitude nor exegetical skill to lay that claim. They are simply sensationalists.
I suspect Dr. Fleming never intended the topic to get off in this ditch, but please, let's be careful and accurate in identifying the war-mongers and charlatans in Christendom.
Mr. Hicks, no disrespect was intended. Some years ago, when I lived in Maryland, there were some dispensationalists (friends of my mother's) who were as apolitical as you mention. I did not mean to imply that they are all blood thirsty savages. However, here in Ohio, many are the more militant type (one co-worker of mine is a perfect example of one) So maybe they are not 'real dispensationalists' but the Zionism caught on and seems to have spread.
".., but please, let’s be careful and accurate in identifying the war-mongers and charlatans in Christendom..."
I would not go so far as to say 'charlatans'. One should be careful on judging another man's devotion to Christianity as we know not what lies in a man's heart. To be sure, there are some were it seems justified. Good example: Joel Osteen. In my view, what the man promotes (pray to God and get rich!) is downright blasphemy.
Well stated, Mr. Maxwell. Thank you for the needed reminder.
Laying this aside, I agree wholeheartedly with one of the key points in the original article: voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still evil.
I'm sorry -- that should read "...is still voting for evil."
I would rather not speak of Rockwell, whom I knew well once upon a time, except to say that he evinces little interest in Catholic moral theology.
This is not the place to discuss this, though I would be happy to set up a discussion in a few weeks on the question of liberalism and the Church. A few anticipatory points: 1) It does not matter what most Catholics think, what matters is what the Church teaches; 2) The Church's teachings on social justice, going back to Christ and his apostles, are a complex that is best viewed through the lens of Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Thomas. They have nothing to do with either socialism or liberalism. 3) Liberalism evolved as a subversive movement to undermine all traditional authorities, that of the King, the Church, the aristocracy, and ultimately, of property-owners, husbands, and parents. There are many splendid insights in the liberal emphasis on personal dignity, but its philosophical foundations in Locke et al are quite simply false and false in a way that subverts the Christian understanding of man. At the heart of liberal theory stands the emancipated individual who possesses some magic quality known as rights. This rights-bearing individual is a fantasy who does not now and has never existed.
The Christian/Catholic view of man acknowledges him as a corporate being whose identity is defined in part by his obligations to parents, friends, nation, etc. Where this became confused, at least in retrospect, is when liberal nation states emerged and began making their own set of false claims on people. At that point it became rather easy to mistake socialism for Catholic morality. But Catholic thought was fixed long before the invention of the modern state, and the best way of understanding it is to invoke what has been called "the well-known principle of subsidiarity. At the very least, this principle tells us that the government of the US should not be doing what the states can do better; that the states should not being doing what cities and counties could do better; that cities and counties should not be doing what neighborhoods and private associations can do better; and that for the most part these lowest communities should not be doing what families can do better. On a practical level, it means that roughly 90% of what the federal and state governments do is a usurpation of authority. On this basis, Rothbard and I shook ands and struck a deal that there was no point in quarreling until we had stripped government of 90% of its power. At that point we could engage in polemics.
To sum up. The dichotomy between liberty-loving liberals and the Catholic tradition is entirely false. In fact, from an historical sense, liberalism, in destroying every bond between man and man and replacing them with the cash nexus--to paraphrase Marx and Engels--prepared the way for an inevitable socialist revolution. The way back to sanity and strictly limited government is not to attempt to reconstruct the liberal state--which got us into this mess, as so many people at the time said it would--but to recover a deeper and more ancient sense of the human person and society. Liberal economic theory and analysis is not to be despised as a part of this reconstruction, since on a pragmatic level it shows how futile and destructive are the redistributist policies of the socialist state.
Amen to # 67. A discussion of liberalism and the Church is much needed as most conservative Christians are basically liberals of a sort, but have no idea they are. Many conservative Christian think liberalism is mandated by the Bible.
I agree with much of what you said Dr Fleming.
I think though, in terms of what 'liberal' means in the Catholic world it would be a bit incorrect to start a discussion of 'liberal Catholicism' as most will assume the American usage of the word (today meaning social democrat). Even more specifically, as I am sure you know 'liberal Catholics' are the ones at National Catholic Reporter who constantly invoke socialist theories "..in the spirit of Vatican II'". They are the same crowd who thinks Roman Catholic 'Womenpriests' is a legitimate Catholic movement worthy of support. This I am sure you already know, as you're probably more religious than I am.
My usage as I am sure you know is the Classical Liberal, IE, a Grover Cleveland Democrat.
"I would rather not speak of Rockwell, whom I knew well once upon a time, except to say that he evinces little interest in Catholic moral theology"
Well, aside from a few emails/suggestions I've sent him, I dont know him. I wrote Rothbard a letter way back in 1994 (I think to his Las Vegas office? I think he moved back to Manhattan by that time) but never got a reply, so I didnt have the pleasure of meeting him before his tragically sudden death, either. I will not comment further on the LvMI and your differences, except to say I think they are not as different as you might believe. Like you said, let's worry about that 10% difference *if* we ever get there. Lord knows the state hasnt shrunk any since Rothbard's days.
Hmmm... The numbers changed. # 67 is now # 70.
I think all of these articles have been very insightful. They have pointed out that the Christian Right, and other neoconservatives as well, seem to have decided that winning one batte against abortion is worth losing the entire war against feminism, relativism and secularism.
Bu the trouble is, that approach is equal to a doctor treating a symptom but not addressing the disease. Abortion is a vicious evil, but it istill only a sympton of the bigger disease. Yet the New Right seems to be perfectly willing to further the interests of moderism and feminism by putting a woman in the White House (yes she is only running for Vice President THIS time, but it is clear that she is being aimed at the White House, either through the death of a 72+ year old President, or as his annointed successor). And putting a woman in the White House has been a mian goal of feminism for years.
This is tantamount to losing the war just to win one battle.
Daniel Maxwell
It is inaccurate and shocking for you to say that in England in the NHS they will not give you chemotherapy for cancer if you are over 65. I live in Devon, England and I know two people around 65 who have had chemo from the NHS and are managing.In the country as a whole there must be thousands.
The real problem with the NHS is if you have a problem that needs treatment but is not urgent. Then you can wait and wait.This fact explains the paradox of a country with a National Health Service free at the point of consumption in which more and more people take out private medical insurance.
However if you are badly injured or otherwise have a serious or chronic illness the NHS, metaphorically speaking, is a godsend.