An interesting proposal: Read the Bills Act

According to the non-profit group Downsize DC, both houses of Congress have eliminated requirements that Representatives and Senators hear and/or read -- or even have full copies of -- legislation that they vote on. They have therefore submitted a bill entitled The Read the Bills Act and are trying to get a Congressman/-woman to introduce the bill.

They are having little success.

Now, much of the Downsize DC agenda seems to be taken from the Libertarian handbook, and I don't want to imply support for their agenda; but this piece of legislation seems pretty common-sensical to me. Is there any real objection to such requirements as a full verbatim reading of legislation before a quorum of each House? or a seven day waiting period between the final text of legislation and a vote thereon?

I'm asking real questions. If there are real problems with this bill, I'd like to know.

Thinking about universal health care

My dad, who gets most of his information from radio and TV, is adamantly opposed to President Obama's proposal of a government-run health insurance program. I, on the other hand, get most of my information from the far-more-reliable internets, and so-- wait a sec.

Maybe we both ought to think for ourselves for a moment.

Let's start with a few principles. First, it's hard to deny that a basic level of health care is a fundamental human right. No one seriously believes that, if you get the flu, you should or could be denied the bed rest and clear liquids and chicken noodle soup required to get over it.

But I have some friends, one of whose kids is hydrocephalic. I have another friend who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. In order to survive, to say nothing of living "normal" lives, they require costly and time-consuming treatments -- more costly than they are able to afford on their own.

Is such treatment a human right? Were all the generations of humanity with the misfortune to live before the mid-twentieth century deprived of their rights? What about citizens of poor or "undeveloped" nations today, who don't have access to the cutting-edge research-driven medicine of the United States of America?

This is where the notion of "rights", so foundational to our political discourse these days, might get in the way of thinking clearly. Society as a whole has the responsibility of distributive justice, meaning that we have to allocate (or distribute) the goods and resources we hold in common to our members in a just fashion. So asking, "to what level of health care do we have a right?" or "what constitutes the basic health care (to which I am entitled)?" leads the conversation in the wrong direction. I think the question should rather be, "are we using our medical resources in a just manner? do all the members of our society have access to the goods available to us as a whole?"

From a Catholic point of view, the question is asked out of charity as well as out of justice: in other words, while "strict justice" might ask what the minimum level of health care is that we must provide, charity asks how much health care are we able to provide to those who need it?

So, that said, universal health care is certainly a human right, but it will look different from one society to another depending on the resources available.

Which leads to the second principle: that society as a whole has the responsibility for providing this health care.

Now, theoretically, there are lots of ways that this can happen. We could support doctors and other medical professionals directly through patronage or sponsorships. The Church could provide health care and hospitals, as she has in decades past. We could have various private medical providers compete to offer the best care. Or, we could offer insurance policies, in which a company pools resources from individuals to pay for health care. The government may wield a strong hand, or almost no hand, in any of these systems, so long as they proceed to work justly.

I can fully understand those people, like the ones my dad has been listening to, who see dangers in too much government involvement in health care. Especially the U.S. government. Can we really trust them to be efficient? to be fair? to provide consistent treatment? Will the government legislate what "health" is? force doctors to perform abortions or euthanasia? force pharmacists to distribute contraceptive drugs? force citizens to undergo sterilization or other unnecessary medical procedures? take away a patient's choice and control of his/her own treatment?

However, morality is always the art of the practical: what do we do here and now? So, with these principles in hand, let's take a look around and see what the practical possibilities are.

It seems to me that there are only two institutions that have the scope and breadth to offer (much less guarantee) health care to the whole of society: the government and the Catholic Church. (As for a third option, starting a new private endeavor, I say: Good luck with that.)

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Church took advantage of its vast, inexpensive, and well-trained workforce of religious sisters to establish hospitals and clinics all around the nation to serve the poor and those who could not otherwise afford health care. However, those sisters are no longer so numerous, nor do Catholics contribute financially to the Church as they did, nor is the training needed to provide quality health care so readily available as it once was.

Which leaves the government to pick up the slack.

After all, left to themselves, our largely for-profit medical providers will simply do whatever they can to turn the greatest profit and reduce their own expenses and obligations. This will not lead to a just distribution of health care resources.

So, I see two practical options: either to accept government-run health care, as imperfect as it is; or to devote our time and energy and money to building and supporting a Church-run health care system on a scale we haven't seen since the 1950's. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then are you giving to the Church? Are you writing the bishops and heads of sisters' congregations? Are you volunteering your time and talents? Are you supporting young men and women to give their lives to the work of caring for the sick and injured?

To do neither is to allow our society to remain unjust with regard to health care.

Classics of the Western Political Tradition

Most of the main texts that have informed political thought in the west are (thankfully) available for free online. Consider this reading list your homework. Life itself is the pop quiz.

• The Republic (Plato, ca. 360 B.C.)
• Laws (Plato, ca. 360 B.C.)
• Nichomachean Ethics (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.)
• Politics (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.)
• The Athenian Constitution (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.)
• De Res Publica (Cicero, 54 B.C.) [Younge translation] [Barnham translation]
• Treatise on Laws (Cicero, 51 B.C.)
• Institutes of Roman Law (Gaius, A.D. 160)
  
• City of God (Augustine of Hippo, A.D. 426)
• Rule of St. Benedict (Benedict of Nursia, ca. A.D. 547)
• Magna Carta (1215, amended through 1297)
  
• De Regno (Thomas Aquinas, A.D. 1267)
• Treatise on Law - qq.90-108 (Thomas Aquinas, ca. A.D. 1272)
• Utopia (Thomas More, A.D. 1516)
  
• The Prince (Niccolo Machiavelli, A.D. 1532)
  
• De Monarchia (Dante Aligheri, A.D. 1559)
• Politica (Johannes Althusius, 1614)
• Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes, 1651)
• Two Treatises on Government (John Locke, 1689)
• Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among Men (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1755)
  
• The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762)
• The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848)
• On Liberty (John Stuart Mill, 1859)
  
• Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill, 1863)

Resources on Catholic Social Teaching

The starting point for understanding Catholic Social Teaching is the recently published (2004) Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, an excellent summary of the basis and extent of the tradition.

The tradition has mainly been articulated through papal encyclicals:

• Rerum Novarum (1891, Leo XIII)
• Pacem Dei (1920, Benedict XV)
• Quadragesimo Anno (1931, Pius XI)
• Summi Pontificatus (1939, Pius XII)
• Mater et Magistra (1961, John XXIII)
• Pacem in Terris (1963, John XXIII)
• Populorum Progressio (1967, Paul VI)
• Humanae Vitae (1968, Paul VI)
• Octagesima Adveniens (1971, Paul VI)
• Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975, Paul VI)
• Dives in Misericordia (1980, John Paul II)
• Laborem Exercens (1981, John Paul II)
• Familiaris Consortio (1982, John Paul II)
• Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987, John Paul II)
• Centesimus Annus (1991, John Paul II)
• Veritatis Splendor (1993, John Paul II)
• Evangelium Vitae (1995, John Paul II)
• Deus Caritas Est (2005, Benedict XVI)
• Caritas in Veritate (2009, Benedict XVI)
  

The Social dimensions of Catholic Doctrine also featured prominently at the Second Vatican Council, especially in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).

Profit, justice, and charity

There's plenty of blamestorming about the causes of our current economic troubles. Some look to George W. Bush, some to Clinton, some as far back as Nixon. But I have another proposal to make: let's blame the Supreme Court.

No, not our current Court. Let's blame the 1919 Court, who decided Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. According to this Wikipedia article, (I know, Wikipedia! -- but it covers the main points so non-lawyers can understand, and it links to the actual ruling), the argument was over whether a company should use its profits to enrich shareholders or to engage in charitable activities. That's not really accurate, as the quotes show: the real argument was over whether a company's first responsibility was to the shareholders or to the products (or services) it was providing -- and selling for a profit. The Court ruled that the shareholders have a right to a significant share of the profits.

As the article notes, this ruling has been used to justify a policy of maximizing profits for shareholders, of making profit the primary motive of businesses and the purpose of being in business in the first place. That is, the purpose of business is seen to be creating wealth and "growing" the economy.

The article also notes that the ruling does not necessitate this interpretation; but this is the interpretation that has ruled business practices and business law for nearly a century -- almost to the extent that we cannot imagine another purpose for business.

I'd like to propose one: what if business' first priority was to provide goods and services to society, to promote the common good, to make society a better place. I'm not saying that profit would disappear, nor should it; but it would come second to improving the a company's ability to provide needed or appropriate goods for the community. In other words, what if Henry Ford had won the case that the Dodge brothers brought against him?

Perhaps then, banks would not pursue such risky courses of investment in search of higher profits. Perhaps then, companies would not use cutbacks and layoffs as the first defense against a slumping market. Perhaps then, the computers and cars and toasters we buy would not be built to break down three days after the warranty expires. Perhaps...?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that these are possibilities worth exploring. What do you think?

U.S. Foundational Documents

If you haven't read these, you should:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Constitution of the United States

Don't know much about Sotomayor

I'm not one to place great hopes or fears on any single individual, and with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, it seems certain that Sonia Sotomayor will take the soon-to-be-vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, I'm doing my best to rise above my former cynicism about all things political, and so I'm trying to learn a little, at least, about this new member of the highest court in the U.S.A.

The main controversy I've heard about concerns some statements she made in a 2001 speech at UC Berkeley:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Some consider this a sign of bias, or even of "reverse racism". But, in the context of discussing cases on sexual and/or racial discrimination, her point seems to be that her experience as a minority and/or as a woman gives her relevant information that a typical white man would not have.

My hope is that she will bring such a perspective without bringing prejudice. I hope that she will consider the Supreme Court as a place to settle disputes based on law, rather than a place to create new law. And I hope that she is as open to other perspectives, such as the perspective offered by her Catholic faith, as she expects people to be open to hers.

Principles: Economics is a descriptive science

I've heard a great deal about the "invisible hand" of the economy, how the economy acts in this way or that, or how the economy wants or needs something or other. In other words, I hear a lot of people talking as if the economy is a sentient or even intelligent animal, with a mind and will of its own.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I always thought economics was a science: the study of trade, of resources and their uses, often called "wealth". "The Economy" is a phrase we use to describe the system(s) of resource use going on all over our society. But the economy does not itself use resources, or dictate their use.

People use resources. People engage in economic activity. People use (or reject) economic systems that other people have set up to make trade easier. People are responsible for every decision that is made, and for the repercussions of those decisions.

This is not to say that economics is more or less bunk. Rather, it's to say that economics really becomes useful and worthwhile when it's kept in its place: describing the various systems we use to exchange goods, and anticipating the results of those systems. But the economy, especially the profit motive, are out of place as prescribing or proscribing behavior. The systems do not cause virtue or vice; our own decisions do. We cannot blame the economy for making bad decisions, either as individuals or as a nation.

Instead, we can learn from studying economic systems how to better use the resources we have to build a better world for ourselves and our children.

Principles: The True

In some circles today, "truth" is a dirty word. It's seen as an attempt to impose some arbitrary ideology, or to restrict some freedom. In other circles, "truth" is celebrated, but unrecognizable as the classical notion of truth. You have your truth, and I have mine, and there is no real relationship between your truth and my truth -- but we can celebrate the diversity of truths!

But Truth is one of the foundations of basic common sense living. We say something is true when it is the same in our mind as it is in reality. Truth is a recognition of what is real and what is not. To deny or to relativize truth is simply to deny that we have a connection to the real world.

Now, to hold that there is Truth, and that we can know it, doesn't mean that we always recognize it perfectly. The progress of various sciences show us that the truth about physics (for example) can be learned more, and more perfectly, as we continue to study the world around us. In fact, the quest for a deeper knowledge of the truth is the whole basis for discussion and debate: we start by seeking the truth about some topic, and recognize that each of us sees that truth differently; so we search out contradictions and differences in order to come to a fuller knowledge of what is true.

And this works in human relationships -- even political relationships -- as well as in natural science. After all, there must be some common thing that makes us all human, and some common thread that defines our relationship. To search out the truth about being human in relationship will bring us to better relationships with each other. And, perhaps more obviously, it really matters what is the truth about the economic situation of some town, or the military capacity of some foreign power.

In every situation, whether personal or political, the foundational question is: what is true here and now? We just can't move forward without answering that question.

Principles: Human Dignity

The concept of human dignity is the foundation of all relationships, especially the relationships of political community. If other people have no dignity, no inherent value as persons, then there is no reason to treat them with respect or justice.

And yet, this idea has come under attack of late. For example, psychologist Stephen Pinker recently wrote an article claiming that human dignity is "a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it." He says that it's no basis for human relationships or morality. Instead, he suggests (following Ruth Macklin) that "personal autonomy" serves a better purpose. As Mark Shea puts it, he considers consent to be the sole criterion of what is good.

And yet, is there any reason to respect another person's autonomy except that the person's autonomy has some value that demands respect? I will agree that the word "dignity" has a number of very squishy meanings, but I cannot think of a better word to describe the value and freedom and agency that inhere in each and every human being. If this dignity is not taken for granted, then we have a tendency (repeated throughout history) of dividing the world into "us" and "them", and deciding that "they" do not deserve the same consideration or respect that "we" do; in short, a double-standard that leads to all forms of injustice.

Human dignity is a necessary foundation stone to justice, to human rights, and to a humane society.

Charity in Truth

Whether you're Catholic or not, the fact is that Catholic Social Teaching has tremendously impacted ethics and politics over the past century-plus since Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum novarum in 1891.

The current Pope, Benedict XVI, is following in the footsteps of his predecessors by issuing an encyclical on social issues, entitled Caritas in veritate, or Charity in Truth. It's well worth reading.

Principles: The Good

I've found that the classical definition is the simplest, and the clearest. It was a commonplace even for Aristotle, so I'll let him state it:

The good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (Nich.Eth. I.1)

We'll set aside (for the moment, at least) the question of goods for creatures other than human beings, and just concentrate on the human good.

The two main features of this definition are:

• The Good is a goal, or an end, toward which we aim
• The Good is universal; everyone aims for it

So, traditionally, the name given to this Good which everyone aims for is "happiness".

But this happiness is not the ephemeral delights of pleasure, or the escapist flight into fantasy, or the passionate intensity of infatuation. Rather, this happiness is the goal of the whole of our lives: it is that peace and joy of being who and what you really are and are meant to be. It is simply recognizing what is real, and desiring reality over escape or deception.

To love the Good is simply to love what is real, and to aim at the fullest life possible in the real world.

To be happy is simply to live in accordance with reality, and to love the Good.

Living this way gets as complicated as the myriad situations of each individual life; but the foundation is really that simple. "Keep it real" is perhaps the best advice for living a better life.