Monday, November 9, 2020Subject: Common Ground
and Opposing Hearts in the Right Place
From
Paul (1):
Dear Liberal Friend
& all:
Thank you for your beautiful e-mail. I forgot to mention a lovely Latin American
custom as I understand it. When one
accepts being a godparent of a child in Latin America, the person becomes a
member of the extended family of the child.
That means you are our comadre, literally translated co-mother of our son. For godfather, it's
"compadre". I like to call
the father of my daughter-in-law, compadre.
You are right. Your liberal heart and our conservative
hearts are not that far apart in our ardent desire for the common good of all
as well as our love for the Church, our Country, and its Constitution. We all agree on the inherent dignity of every
person created by God according to His image, equal opportunity for every
person to be successful, justice for all, human rights, etc. We have common goals for a more prosperous
America, minimizing poverty, a healthy America, public order and safety,
personal freedom short of abusing the rights of others, etc. That’s a lot of common ground……common goals
but different paths that have to be resolved by good will and civil dialogue.
Liberals tend to depend more upon a
central government, regulation, and the welfare state for solutions;
conservatives depend more on the dynamic creativity and resourcefulness of the
individual and the private sector…….. community organizations, churches,
private schools, religious orders, voluntarism, and charities for solutions
while recognizing the need for limited government to control against
abuses. All that empowers the people
instead of concentrating power in big government, giving a tremendous dynamic
for good.
Private enterprise, be it big business
or small business with its profit incentive, stimulates competition that breeds
greater productivity, lower prices, and greater quality. However, abuses must
be minimized by business social responsibility and ethical minded managers
formed by a moral God fearing people, i.e., self-regulation. Every corporate culture must have a mindset
of serving the customer with a good or service while making a profit. Since human beings are prone to old fashioned
sin, namely greed and corruption, we do need limited government regulation
against abuses when self-regulation fails.
Abuses are inevitable under laissez faire cut-throat capitalism.
According to the principle of subsidiarity
in the social teachings of the Church, decisions should be made at the lowest
level possible such as local government, community groups, the family, and
individual responsibility. In other
words, Big Government with its bureaucratic inefficiencies should only be
involved when the private sector cannot or will not do what is necessary for
the common good. Centralized power leads
to corruption and tyranny.
You are right. We are all children of God………born and
unborn.
I pray that Joe Biden will be a
successful president, even a great president in serving the people with
integrity and dedication. I pray that he
can unite us as a people and restore civility and cooperation among diverse
groups. I pray that he will be effective
in stopping the pandemic. I pray that
his policies will lead to a prosperous economy that will trickle down to every
person. I pray that he will stimulate
better selected and well trained cops capable of restraint in defusing
incendiary situations with lethal force as a last resort. I pray that he will foment racial justice,
and equal opportunity while insuring public health and public safety.......that
our homes and our streets will be safe.
We must follow the intent and meaning of the Constitution as the
founding fathers originally intended.
Any updating belongs to the legislative branch and constitutional
amendments, not the judiciary.
Perhaps diverging from liberals, I also
pray that Joe Biden and all Catholics be true Catholics, observing all Church
teaching passed down primarily through the Bible from Christ and the apostles
as opposed to being Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they want to
believe. I also pray for the rights of
all, particularly the most fundamental right to life.......born and unborn from
the womb to the tomb, the integrity of the traditional family as God intended
since Genesis, and religious liberty to be faithful to Church teaching in the
public square (not only religious worship confined to the four walls of the
local church). I also pray for a Republican
controlled Senate to maintain our system of checks and balances in order to
prevent the radical left from destroying our country with stifling bureaucratic
socialism, packing the Supreme Court, codifying Roe v Wade, etc. Of course, may God answer our prayers
according to His will, which is the best for all in the long run.
May Joe Biden be God's instrument in
healing the many decades old wounds of the soul of the nation, beginning with
civility, mutual respect, and working together for the common good. If so, I'll be the first to jump on his
bandwagon. God bless.
P.S. Forgive me for the
length. I only intended a paragraph or
two, but the ideas just flowed.
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
From Young Liberal (1):
Dear Uncle Paul and All,
While I do not usually
respond to political criticism, I feel like a lot of the things that were
claimed in this email were greatly hypocritical and misleading. That is why as
a patriotic American and a proud progressive I feel the need to politely and
emphatically disagree with your statements.
In your email you stated
that “liberals” and “conservatives” have vastly different beliefs in how to
make our country more prosperous. You claimed that liberals (Democratic Party)
long for a more central federal government as well as more stringent
regulations while conservatives support a more limited government and less
regulation. While conservatives claim that they support limited government and
limited regulation, in reality it couldn’t be further from the truth. I say
this because the Republican Party (and conservatives) are the ones who want to
limit and regulate personal freedom in regards to a woman’s choice to bear or
not bear a child, abolishing same-sex marriage, limiting transgender laws, not
allowing gay people to adopt children, and keeping marijuana illegal at the
federal level. To me this is an example of big government trying to control our
fundamental rights to decide for ourselves what we do with our bodies and
lives.
Unlike “conservatives,”
“liberals” do not want the government to decide what a woman can and cannot do
with her own body, want people to marry whomever they want regardless of sex,
show dignity and respect to transgender people, allow same-sex couples to adopt
a child if that is what they wish to do, and give each and every adult the
freedom of choice to smoke marijuana if that is what they want to do with their
body. Why should you as a “conservative” decide what your neighbor can and
cannot do as long as it doesn’t affect you? It's not like you are being forced
to marry another man or forced to have an abortion.
I am personally against
abortion, however, I believe that it is a woman’s choice and that it is a big
tragedy for a woman to do this.
If a God truly exists
then those who engage in “sins” will be punished accordingly by God. It is not
anyone else’s job to deliver punishment. That should solely be the job of
God.
As a “God-fearing” and
“God-loving” Catholic you should support policies that help those that are
impoverished, those who go to bed hungry at night, and those who need
assistance. Unfortunately the Republican Party (and conservatives that support
it) do not care about poor members of society. They are too busy giving
trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, while cutting
funding for programs that poor people rely on. Conservatives are also the ones
who do not support raising the minimum wage to a living wage. The federal
minimum wage has not changed in 11 years while the cost of living has surged.
The Republican Party is also doing everything it can to repeal “Obamacare” which
would cause 20 million Americans to lose their healthcare on top of the already
30 million of Americans who currently have no healthcare insurance. The
Republican Party has been and is a party of elitist old white men who do
everything they can to ensure that their current “way of life” is not changed.
That is why they refuse to fix problems relating to racial discrimination that
has ravaged this country well before I was even born.
Not to mention, many
conservatives don’t even believe in climate change and if they do they refuse
to admit that it is man-made. This is ridiculous because all major studies show
that climate change is real and that it most certainly is affected by
humans.
While I do not like big
government, I know that the private sector is not enough to ensure that all
Americans have a living wage. That is why I personally support policies that
will actually help those who are in poverty such as a $15 minimum wage,
Medicare-for-All (socialized medicine like every other major countries in the
Western World have) free community college for those who want it, a Green New
Deal (to help transform our energy production from dirty fossil fuels to clean
energy) get rid of private-prisons, legalize marijuana, and give more emphasis
on rehabilitation instead of sending nonviolent drug users to jail.
That is why I personally
do not support neither Republican Party nor the Democratic establishment. I
support politicians who are not corrupt (meaning those who refuse to take
corporate money) such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other
progressives who actually care about eradicating poverty and ensuring all
Americans are being taken care of and not just the rich. So before you
criticize the “radical left,” how about you actually take a look at some of the
policies they support and then look at your own party and it’s regressive and
backwards policies.
If anyone has any
disagreeing thoughts feel free to respond.
Best of luck everyone,
Your “radical leftist” (Young
Liberal)
The Chaos of Repealing
the Affordable Care Act During the Coronavirus Pandemic - Center for American
Progress
Tuesday,
November 10, 2020
From Young Conservative (1):
Dear
Young Liberal and all
It is very difficult,
indeed, to restrain one’s temper when it comes to political discussion, or to
hear one’s own tone justly. I have just been rebuked quite strongly in the past
few days by a friend for my own failure to do so. In a chastened spirit,
therefore, I wish to make a response.
The charge of
hypocrisy is very serious, and ought to be used sparingly and only after we
have clearly determined that the person in question is consciously
contradicting himself and ignoring the contradiction. I have never met anyone
in my whole life who is more sincere than Paul Sebastian. You may disagree with
his policy, and you may even believe that you have insight into a contradiction
within the policies that he holds, but to assert that he believes one thing and
says another is simply incorrect. Please to consider your tone and the meaning
of the words you use. Basic civility demands no less.
You name a number of
progressive policies. There is certainly room to dispute the good of them — you
yourself find some of the actions sanctioned by the policies distasteful. What
lies at the center of the dispute between the traditionalist and progressive is
a different view of certain profound ideas like Goodness, Freedom, and Nature.
(I think leaving the terms conservative and liberal behind, for now, will be
useful.) The question is legitimate: how do you define Goodness? Another way of
asking this question is: what does a human being exist for? What is
the goal of any individual life? One can ask a similar question about Freedom.
Does freedom only equal “freedom from” or is there also a possibility that
freedom can exist for the sake of achievement? Is there a difference between
liberty and license? Does nature (human nature) exist, and if so, what does it
teach us about goodness and freedom? I think you will find that the
traditionalist will answer this cluster of questions differently than the
progressive, and that this difference lies at the heart of many differences in
policy.
I think that we can
illustrate this from the examples of same-sex marriage or marijuana. If your
concept of freedom is only that freedom equals lack of external restraint, then
a law-maker might transgress your freedom if he imposed a ban on either one. A
ban would constitute a limitation or restraint, and would therefore curtail
freedom. If, however, one understands freedom to be the power to do what is
good, and one sees same-sex marriage or the use of marijuana as antithetical to
the good, then a law preventing such things would not infringe upon freedom —
it would only place a limit on license. There are, in fact, several lines of
argument available to the argument that homosexuality and marijuana hurt the
commonwealth. For one, homosexuality is sterile. Countries which fail to
reproduce (America is hovering at the 2.1 replacement rate necessary to
maintain a population) cannot support themselves. This is why Russia, for
instance, now incentivizes fertility — it is in a desperate race against time
to restore a workable population. Furthermore, it seems likely that people who have
no reason to think about the future will be unlikely to raise a child to make
responsible decisions. Or regarding marijuana, there is much evidence available
from emergency-room doctors that marijuana use directly, often solely, causes
mania, aggravation, and violence, let alone other uncitizenlike and
uncontrolled behaviors. A citizen might well prioritize the goods of
maintaining his country’s population, minimizing the diffusion of apolitical
mindsets, and reduce the amount of manic violence in the streets. To treat
these issues as obviously and unimpeachably settled without argument seems to
smack more of youthful ardor than measured sense. It may be the case that
"old men” - white or otherwise - have had occasion to think through some
of these questions during the span of their responsible lives, and to make
conclusions from experience, rather than ideological fervor. It's a possibility
worth considering.
[I’m not using the
example of abortion because it constitutes the destruction of another life, and
consequently your own logic should lead you to reject it as a matter of policy.
A mother choosing abortion is, in fact, forcing abortion on another person. Let
me encourage you, your sense of the tragedy of abortion is logical and just,
and you should carry it to logical and just conclusions.]
When you argue that
the purported conservative support for limited government is all bosh, I think
you confuse metaphor and history. It is simply a fact that progressives favor
larger governments and more extensive regulation by that government upon
people’s lives. Perhaps you do not see that mandating a Christian to remain
silent about a choice that, say, his son makes to marry another man is at least
as invasive a regulation as to prevent that son from entering a homosexual
union. "Limited government” entails just what Dr. Sebastian said — leaving
many freedoms — many licenses, even — untouched by the law and by governmental
agencies. I would suggest that having a government mandated curriculum for public
schools is one of the largest imaginable invasions of freedom.
I would be happy to
discuss each of the policies which you offer for consideration in a different
thread, and with a willing audience.
You will find, should
you choose to explore, that God-fearing Catholics often support other avenues
of relieving the destitute and hungry besides taxation. It is, perhaps, an
indication of how far-reaching your sense of governmental agency has become
that this possibility does not present itself to you.
The last thing that I
feel should be said in response, is an answer to your question: "Why
should you as a “conservative” decide what your neighbor can and cannot do as
long as it doesn’t affect you?” The individualism which colors the way you put
the question, as well as the aggressive sense of power-relations, is not
particularly helpful. Most ‘conservative’ lawmakers do not mandate laws that
pertain to specific neighbors. Their concern is to secure the good of the
commonwealth. But the twofold answer to the question "why should you care
about what your neighbor does” is quite simple: first, people’s actions affect
other people, and second, we love our neighbors. To love someone is to desire
the good for him or her. If a citizen finds that certain behaviors are actually
destructive both to a fellow citizen and to their society, it is reasonable for
the one to try to prevent that destruction. We are not islands, we do not live
radically individual lives. I am sure that your experience of family and
friendship bears witness to this truth. It is foolish, therefore, to think that
our actions do not affect other people.
I thank you for your
patience. I hope that you all are well. It is good to consider important things
together.
Love Joy and Peace
Young Conservative
p.s. here is a link to a recent article on the dangerous
consequences of marijuana.
Wednesday, November 11
From Young Liberal (2)
To: Young Conservative & All
Good afternoon Young
Conservative and wife,
Thank you for your
response. As you said it can be very hard to restrain oneself from political
discussion especially in our current ultra-polarized society. I in no way
intended to be disrespectful of my uncle Paul. I have the utmost respect for my
uncle and never questioned his sincerity or what he holds in his heart in my
rebuke. My charge of hypocrisy is directed at “conservatives” as a whole and
not specifically Uncle Paul. I know that Uncle Paul meant no disrespect and I
didn’t take it that way. I know that he means good, but I figured that it
doesn’t hurt to express why I disagree. After all, family should always be
above politics and I hope that it will remain that way. I don’t believe that I
was disrespectful or that I lacked “basic civility” in my response. If it
offended anyone then I apologize, since that was not my intention.
My response yesterday
was strictly from a policy standpoint and not from a theological or
philosophical perspective. Your response Young Conservative focused solely on philosophical
and theological arguments, while it omitted policy completely. You said that
there is “certainly room to dispute the good…” of progressive policies, so I
ask you to please elaborate and explain to me why you disagree with the
following policies that progressives support:
- Medicare-for-All (What is wrong with ensuring all
Americans have good, affordable health insurance?)
- Raising the minimum wage
- Free community college
- Investing in clean energy
- Legalizing marijuana
- etc.
I think that these are
exactly the policies that support human life and would help eradicate poverty
and ensure all Americans can live happy and fruitful lives. That is partially
why I think using the phrase “radical left” is wrong because I think there is
nothing radical about the policies that I support. I would actually make a
claim that it is radical not to support these policies.
I agree with your
statement that the charge of hypocrisy is very serious, however, I stick to
what I said because I do think it is hypocritical for conservatives to claim
that they support personal freedom and liberty when in reality they do everything
they can to suppress it. I also think it is hypocritical for “conservatives” to
claim they care about human life. Just because conservatives are against
abortion does not make them pro-life. If the Republican Party was truly
pro-life then it would support policies that ensure that all Americans have
access to affordable healthcare, would encourage people to wear masks instead
of politicizing them, they would support policies that encourage people to
educate themselves to help lift them out of poverty, they would support
expanding Medicare and Social Security, and increasing the minimum wage to a
living wage.
What I don’t
understand and hope you can explain to me is why conservatives in this country
do everything they can to support the lives of fetuses, while not doing
anything at all to help support the lives of those Americans who are currently
alive. If you can’t support the people who are alive, why support those who
aren’t?
Don’t get me wrong I
do not like abortions and when a woman has to abort a child it is a sad thing,
and I respect your stance on abortion. But I do not think that outlawing
abortion will actually eradicate abortion. Look at Poland, they have some of
the strictest abortion laws in the world, but women still find ways to get
them. Just cause drugs are illegal doesn’t mean that people don’t use them.
Where there is a demand there will always be a supply.
When it comes to
homosexuality there is nothing we can do. Being homosexual is not a choice.
People are born that way and nothing will change that. Banning homosexual
marriage will not mean that homosexuals will marry people from the opposite
gender. Plus on top of this I am not sure if you're aware of this or not, but
homosexuals adopt many children who otherwise would have no homes or families.
A homosexual home is better than no home in my opinion.
To respond to your
worries about the left forcing others to embrace their way of life I do not
think that is the case. While I agree with you that students shouldn’t be
taught about celebrities because as you said it isn’t educational and I am glad
that you're not wasting your student’s time by discussing such worthless
matters. I believe in tolerance and that all people should respect one another
regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, etc. I don’t like how the political
right wants to limit my freedom to decide for myself what I can do. I don’t
think prayer should be mandatory at public schools, I don’t think people should
force their religion on others, and I don’t appreciate conservative politicians
trying to tell me whether or not I can or cannot smoke marijuana. I think that
should solely be my decision since it is my body and doesn’t affect anyone
else, but me.
The last thing I will
touch in this email is marijuana rights since I am very passionate about this.
The article you attached Young Conservative regarding marijuana is not a scientific study,
but a personal opinion of a doctor who represents his own opinion based on his
own experiences. This article would not receive approval from any legitimate
scientific journal. While I agree that frequent marijuana use can have adverse
health effects and in the worst circumstances lead to mania, this is very
uncommon.
My opinion on
marijuana has nothing to do with my “youthful ardor” and much more to do with
“measured sense.” I have written 4-5 papers at my university regarding
marijuana, so this is a topic I know a great deal about. I will attach my
research paper for you to read if you choose to do so. Your view of marijuana reminds
me of the fear mongering that was prevalent in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and
80’s. Your views are not based on science, but your preexisting misconceptions.
Based on my own extensive research, marijuana was made illegal solely for
political purposes and not due to any health effects. After all, basically all
major studies show that marijuana is much safer than alcohol. Since this is the
case should we prohibit people from drinking alcohol?
To finish it off I
will respond to your claim that conservative lawmakers main purpose is “to
secure the good of the commonwealth.” If you believe that politicians enriching
themselves off of political corruption is to secure the good of the
commonwealth then that's your right to believe that. I do not believe any
politician, Democrat or Republican, can act in good faith towards the people if
they take corporate money from lobbyists. To me that is the definition of
corruption and exactly what I am fighting against. That is why I don’t like to
call myself a “liberal” because there are many corrupt liberals. I call myself
a progressive because I support progressive candidates that only take in
grassroots money from people like me and you. Who you choose to support is
solely your decision.
P.S. Texas will turn
blue in the next 10 years
Best,
Young Liberal
Thursday, November 12
From Young Conservative (2):
Dear
Young Liberal,
Thank you for the
thoughtful and charitable response.
You bring up many
topics — an adequate treatment of each in a single email would be intolerably
lengthy. As I mentioned before, I would happily attempt that treatment, but I
think it would be best to do so in a separate thread.
I do wish to respond
to a few comments and questions, though.
I want to consider the
distinction between policy and philosophy. I brought up the philosophical
arguments in order to counter the suggestion that the conservative policies are
hypocritical. Trying to determine which policy to promote without having a firm
philosophical rooting is simply an impossible task. Policy just is the
application of one’s understanding of the political good to the reality at
hand. If you don’t have a firm understanding of what the good is, then you
can’t make rational policies. By pointing out that a different vision of what
is good can lead to different policies, I’d hoped to suggest that
traditionalists or ‘conservatives’ may in fact be able to justify many of the
policy-positions which progressives criticize. This would de-barb the
accusation of hypocrisy, and allow us to have a valid conversation about what
the good is. Once we agree about what the good is, we can proceed to deliberate
about the most effective means of bringing that good into the reality which we
all inhabit. [I would also point out that I scrupulously avoided making any
theological arguments. I believe in God, and my philosophical understanding of
reality is consonant with this belief, but a theological basis for a policy
would be one rooted in revelation, and I did not make such arguments.]
I think that a closer
examination of current policy would undermine the claim that conservatives do
nothing "at all to help support the lives of those Americans who are
currently alive.” Firstly, I will add a word which I assume you meant: conservative
politicians, rather than anyone who holds conservative or traditional
values. My wife and I, for instance, give more than 10% of our gross income “to
help support the lives of those Americans who are currently alive” and we are
not unique either in so doing or in the proportion of our commitment. I’m not
virtue-signaling. I’m just pointing out that there are alternative ways to
support these people besides governmental compulsion, through a system of
wealth redistribution.
Secondly, I think that
the categorical statement even that conservative policy makers do noting at all
to support living Americans is dramatically overblown, unless nothing
constitutes “help” besides the establishment of a total safety-net. Tax
incentives for small businesses constitutes “help” for “Americans who are
currently living,” as do all welfare laws. You can argue that there ought to be
more help, and we can engage in that conversation, but it is unhelpful to
assert that conservatives manifest no concern at all for living Americans.
Overstating the case typically detracts from an argument’s persuasive force,
since it leaves the argument open to easy counterattack.
I am very sympathetic to the idea of a living wage. I think that there is a lot
to argue in favor of the justice of a living wage. Indeed, my concept of a
living wage may be even bigger than that of the typical progressive (I don’t
know where you stand) since I think a man should be able to exchange his time
and labor (40 hours a week, or 50 even) for a wage sufficient to support his
wife and his children. There is (by the bye) a long tradition in Catholic
social teaching in support of this concept. I’m thinking of Pope Leo XIII’s
encyclical Rerum Novarum in particular. It is a fine, short piece, well
worth the reading, since it offers a measured critique both of unchecked
capitalism and of socialism.
The manner of
achieving this living wage, however, is a matter for deliberation. Raising the
minimum wage to some arbitrary figure has not proven to be an effective means.
Let’s say that I run a small manufacturing business, and employ 10 people for
40 hours/week (400 man-hours/week x 50 weeks/year = 20,000 man-hours/year).
Let’s say that I make a decent $50k/year in the net profits from my company’s
work. If I had to raise my hourly wage by $1, I would increase the cost of
running my business by $20,000 annually. This would cut directly into my own
salary, leaving me at $30k/year. If I had to raise the minimum wage by $5/hour
I would no longer make any money. Of course, I would probably not want to live
on $30k or $0 /year, so my recourse would be to raise the price of my product
so that I can recuperate the loss on my ledger line. Or I can fire some of my
employees, and threaten to fire the others if they don’t make up the
difference. Raising minimum wages raises the cost of everything produced by
companies who pay minimum wage. If the cost of everything goes up, then the
relative value of $15/hour goes down. Or, to keep costs down, we increase
unemployment —which is not anyone’s desire. Or we close up shop, and sell out
to the big corporation who can afford to pay out.
The minimum wages is,
in my view, characteristic of a lot of progressive thinking about policy: I see
it as trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a roller brush and Sherwin
Williams. It is too clumsy an instrument to wield effectively or in due proportion
to the work it seeks to perform. I would be much more interested in educating
and persuading business owners to understand the goodness of using their
position of power and influence to support the lives of their workers. This
endeavor takes a lot of time and effort, but it is not inconceivable, and it
does not derogate from the freedom of the employer.
[One of the best
arguments against the claim that conservatives have done nothing to help people
is that over the course of the last four years we have seen the lowest
unemployment rate we’ve ever seen = more living Americans than ever before
getting regular income.]
I think you can see that our conversation will take quite some time and space,
if we are do anything like justice to our consideration of each of the policies
you have mentioned — since this is only my understanding of one of them, let
alone your response to that argument.
I would be happy to
carry our political philosophizing out in a new thread.
Some questions for reflection: what constitutes healthcare? Does abortion
count? How about contraceptives? Should a Catholic be forced to pay for someone
else’s birth control? What about euthanasia?
Why should anyone subsidize a failing network of institutions. Community colleges in most cases that I’ve
seen are ineffective as places of higher education. Places where youths
congregate to look at the internet during class and get certificates from
adjuncts who are afraid they might lose their jobs and therefore their careers
if they hold their students to high standards. Why not encourage trade schools,
or encourage companies to furnish ongoing education for their employees, rather
than forcing everyone to pay for it?
Some people are “born" sadists, or masochists, or pedophiles — meaning they
experience unelected, spontaneous, desires for unusual forms of sexual pleasure
or camaraderie. Does that mean that it is good to be sadistic, or masochistic,
or to have intercourse with children? Should I countenance these forms of
activity just because some people spontaneously desire to perform them? The
argument proposed in defense of homosexuality works just as well in favor of
psychopathy. But we reject psychopathy or pedophilia since they clearly destroy
the fabric of society. It is arguable that homosexuality does the same.
Almost done — to the point that illegalizing something doesn’t automatically
eradicate it. That is certainly true. But I would point out that the mantra
“safe, legal, and rare” that Bill Clinton used to justify pro-abortion laws has
only definitively accomplished the middle term. The reason the legislation in
Louisiana was so contentious is that the doctors who perform abortions are not
admitted into hospitals because they are unqualified —Louisiana made it a
requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges within a 30-mile
radius, and that requirement would have put Planned Parenthood out of business
in the state. So abortions are being provided by the worst doctors in our
country. And, of course, they are not rare. Just legal. So legalization has
increased the number of abortions. Presumably, therefore, illegalization would
decrease the number and that would constitute a positive good.
Lastly — I do not
believe that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez or Mr. Sanders refuse money from Planned
Parenthood. It is also clear that there is a great deal of corrupt corporate
money behind certain recent racially motivated movements. But I certainly do
approve of the intention to be wary of the corrupting influence of large
capital. It is good to be aware of it, and to raise awareness. (That is one of
the reasons I support Donald Trump: being independently wealthy, he is much
less influenced by corporate money than many other current politicians.
Consider his chief enemies — Big News, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook,
Amazon — these account for a huge proportion of the wealth of corporate
America, and they are certainly not supporting Trump or conservative
politicians. I think his crowning achievements — his ability to avoid foreign
entanglements in wars and to facilitate growth in the job-markets — is related
to this relative freedom.)
Mercy! It is hard to stop the flow, when you’re as loquacious as I am. Let me
put an end to my words here!
Again, thank you for
your patient and thoughtful consideration. Family is such a delightfully good
thing.
Godspeed.
Love Joy and Peace
Young Conservative
Friday, November 13
From Young Liberal (3):
Dear Young Conservative,
I will try to keep my
response as brief as possible. I think we each know where we stand at this
point and it is clear to me that we live in two different worlds and that there
is very little in common between us. A good Catholic in my view is someone who
embraces and tolerates those who are different just like the teachings of Jesus
state. I think that every human being is worthy of respect and dignity
regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. This
is the main difference between us as I see it. I think that diversity is what
makes America great and I hope that you don't think that your beliefs are
superior to those of others and that you will find the virtue of tolerance and
compassion.
Your comparison of
pedophiles and homosexuals really stood out to me as distasteful. To me
pedophilia is inherently bad and evokes a great deal of pain and suffering on
the child. Homosexualism on the other hand is not destructive in the same way
and it involves a consensual relationship between two adults.
Since you brought up the
topic of pedophilia I think it is important to acknowledge the role of the
Catholic Church in covering up pedophilia within Catholic clergy. To me this is
hypocritical because the Catholic Church claims they are against pedophilia,
however, it is evident that they have tolerated this for centuries.
Last, but not least I
completely disagree with your view on politicians and Mr. Trump. Idealistically
you think that politicians are working for the common good of the people. In
reality politicians represent vested interests, lobbyists that contribute to
their campaign, and their own interests, not the people they are supposed to
represent. Trump is the most corrupt, egoistic, and narcissistic politician in
modern American history. His sole purpose for being president is to enrich
himself and his family. He engages in nepotism more than any other previous
president (five members of his family hold top posts in the country, which is
unprecedented in Western Democracy and more common in absolutist regimes) Your
claim that Trump is less corrupt because he is wealthy is laughable to me. He
only spent $66 million of his own money in 2016 and nothing in 2020. He relied
heavily on billionaire support, such as the Koch brothers. Not to mention the
fact that he received millions from the oil industry and pharmaceutical
industry. This is why he refused to lower prescription drug prices and refused
to acknowledge climate change. This is vivid proof that he is not independent
and extremely corrupt.
Unlike Mr. Trump,
Senator Bernard Sanders and other progressive candidates refuse to take
corporate money. Thus your statement that Senator Bernie Sanders and
Representative Ocasio-Cortez accepted money from Planned Parenthood is false.
Don't just take my word for it, but you can verify this yourself here: Planned Parenthood PAC
Contributions to Federal Candidates
I appreciate the fact
that we had the possibility to have this dialogue. I know that I am very
passionate in what I believe, as well as you are. The exchange of opposing
opinions is always beneficial in helping us expand our views. I wish you and
our extended family all the best.
Sincerely,
Young
Liberal
Friday, November 13
From Young Conservative (3)
To: Young Liberal & all:
Thank you, Young
Liberal,
You will find, on
re-reading my comments about corruption, that I am in no way the idealist you
propose. I do know that it is the sworn duty of a politician to look after the
common good, and that is what I want them to do. I try to vote for people who,
I think, will do that better than the other available options. But I know (not
to the admirable extent that you do) that there is a lot of corporate money
leveraging policies — as a Catholic, I feel this keenly, since I attribute the
failure of Republican governments to meaningfully restrict abortions to the
influence of corporate money. Believe me, at home, with my Republican family, I
am found to have distasteful ideas about cutting down on big business and
especially big business’s influence in politics… I never said that President
Trump didn’t take any money; I just pointed out that the largest companies, by
far, are opposed to him. This has ‘in-kind’ ramifications (I don’t know the
price of advertising, or reputation, but the role of the media in spreading the
word in favor of, or against, a candidate is certainly real, as is its ability
to stifle the spread of certain other stories), beyond the fact that their
monies are going elsewhere. Indeed, I’m sure you bitterly regret this valuable
influence of in-kind donation, since, by all accounts Senator Sanders was the
favorite candidate among actual living, breathing people. His candidacy seems
to me to have been torpedoed by media and tech sabotage. But you mentioned in
your first email, I believe, that this is the reason you do not call yourself a
Democrat or a liberal — because both established parties participate in
corruption. That is why I praised your wariness in my previous email - I meant
that praise, and still mean it.
Upon review, I think
you will find your comments about President Trump to be overstated, and some of
them indemonstrable. You cannot prove what he desires, for instance.
Your answer to my
pointing out the logical consequences of your argument in favor of
homosexuality is in the right vein. Serious thinking about politics works by
pointing out the distinctions. Now, we are able to agree on one feature of the
Good. I said that pedophilia ‘destroys the fabric of society’ and you said that
‘it is inherently bad’ causing pain and suffering. I think we can agree that
destructive behaviors are not part of the Good which we are try to enact into
policy. Now, the (hypothetical) conversation (not this thread, probably) is
poised to prosecute the question: Is homosexuality a destructive behavior or
not? You suggest reasons why you think it is not. The ball would now be in my
court to consider your objections and return my own.
The Church has
scandalized the world by being like it. It is true that the Church has come
under scrutiny recently, and no Catholic is proud of the behavior of his or her
errant priest. We feel it especially because we do stand against it; our Faith
and our allegiance to Jesus Christ cries out against the horrors of pedophilia.
It is worth noting, though, that the Church does not suffer more from this vice
than does the public school system, or any other similarly organized group. We
are average. Believe me, we understand and feel deeply the scandal and
hypocrisy of those men and those who support their activities.
And, for the record,
know that Jesus did not ever teach his disciples to tolerate anything. He
teaches us to forgive, and to suffer patiently when others refuse to live in
harmony with their own good and the blessed will of God. Forgiveness and
patience is the only way forward in a broken world. We both see brokenness in
the world and in our beloved country. We both feel keenly — urgently — the need
to restore justice. But any approach to this restoration that does not enjoy
patience and the free disposition to forgive will always fall into an unjust
extreme. Anyone who follows such an approach will fall away from his or her
ideal into bitterness and hatred — hatred not of evils, but of persons — and
thus sunders man from man, family from family, citizen from citizen.
Forgiveness restores community, and no one can forgive who is not able to endure
wrongs patiently.
Peace be with you, Young
LIberal and with anyone else who has read this dialogue.
Love Joy and Peace
Young Conservative
November 17, 2020
From Paul
(2):
My dear Young Liberal:
I congratulate you for your social awareness and concern for the
poor. Furthermore, it was close to heroic how you took care of your dear
mother and was instrumental in saving her life when she had a brain aneurysm
while your father was abroad. We will always be grateful to you for
that. I am certain that prayer also had a lot to do with the miraculous
recoveries of your dear mother and father from their two severe medical emergencies,
one after another. There is a reason why
God spares us from so many crises and close shaves.
Thank
you for your e-mail and for the dialogue you started. I rather enjoy it. I’ve had many a dialogue with Marxist
students and professors in Perú. They
even invited me to publicly debate a Marxist professor in front of a hostile
audience of some 75 students. Thank God,
they were respectful and I held my own in Spanish. Another time, the biggest radio station with
the most listeners in Arequipa (population 500,000) invited me for an interview
about a Time Magazine article on the arms build-up on both sides of the
frontier between Perú and Chile. They
asked me what I thought and I told them what I thought. It was crazy that “Perú and Chile, (both
under military dictatorships), were in a grave economic crisis and millions
were spent on arms, tanks, and jet planes.
Imagine how that money could be used for development projects to help
the poor”. So their FBI interrogated me the
interviewee and the interviewer all night and we spent a week together in
jail. I was treated well and it was a
great experience although I don’t want any more experiences like that. I wasn’t afraid although I should have
been. I’m sure it was because God was
with me.
Dialogue
and discussion are healthy if the participants keep an open mind and learn from
each other. But be careful with such
strong words as "hypocritical" when the discussion gets heated.
I would expect that kind of language from Donald Trump. His thoughtless
outspokenness alienated many and cost him the election despite some solid
achievements. Trying to show common ground and pointing out other ways to
reach our common goals does not make me a hypocrite. To be able to work
together and obtain reconciliation with mutual respect, finding common
ground is essential. Even Barack Obama would agree with me on that. I know that you did not mean to be disrespectful
and I accept that.
Both
the left and the right are full of hypocrites…….the liberal left – shove
individual responsibilities to the poor on big government and personally do
nothing. It’s easy to spend somebody
else’s money, namely the taxpayer’s money.
Just as bad are the conservative rich, bent on the status quo and indifferent,
caring only about themselves, do nothing.
At the same time we must be grateful to many of the rich who have
engaged in philanthropy and left millions to foundations and charity while not
living extravagantly. We believe in
Church teaching that one has a right to private property, but has an individual
social responsibility to use his wealth not only for himself, but for the
common good of all. We are stewards of
the riches of the earth which really belong to all.
You
will have to make many decisions in your business over your lifetime. So I ask you, Young Liberal: will you pay your
employees minimum wage, the going wage, or more than the going wage? More money for them means less profit for
you. Will you donate food to the nearest
food pantry or soup kitchen? Would you
work a few hours a week in one?
I
commend you, Young Liberal for your concern that all workers receive a living
wage. That’s also Church social teaching
since the 1891 landmark encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum: On the Condition
of Labor. I like to define the
living wage as sufficient to modestly raise a family of four where the mother
does not have to work. We are blessed
that my wife has been a full time mother since 1995. As a rule of thumb, I’d like to see the
highest salaried person in a big corporation make not more than 10 times what
the lowest salaried person makes. In the
large companies it’s over 100 times. Also
I’d rather see individual employers have social business responsibility rather
than a government mandate. We raised the
wage of our handyman who occasionally does work for us from $18/hr (which he
charges others) to $20/hr and we hired a contractor to replace our roof who
provides health insurance to his workers and pays them more than most. There is a danger if a government mandated
minimum wage is higher than supply and demand would indicate. Then employers will often lay off people and
lean more towards automation. And/or
employers will simply raise their prices and the worker gains nothing in an
inflationary economy unless wages increase faster than prices. Too much spent on government programs is
inflationary. The reality is that many
business owners are not socially responsible and thus a minimum wage is
necessary whenever the forces of supply and demand are impeded.
Welfare
for the poor sometimes does more harm than good, especially when it produces
generations of people on the dole dependent upon big government handouts.
Providing training, opportunity, and good jobs in a vibrant economy does far
more good for the poor than welfare. That's where the focus must
be. Helping the poor through community and church organizations is much
more efficient than impersonal bureaucratic big government programs, which so
often give without love and provides care without concern. That's
socialism. The emphasis must be upon
self-improvement…….according to an old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he eats
only once; teach him how to fish and he
eats for the rest of his life”. Your
father is a good example of the beauty of free enterprise. He came to the United States with little,
worked hard in Real Estate, saved his money, and invested in a small business
which has become quite successful due to his hard work and ingenuity.
Our family is
very concerned about the poor. We helped to start and maintain a free
clinic and it went well until Obamacare put us out of business. My wife went on a medical mission to the Philippine Islands. She prepares
food and volunteers in a soup kitchen; I sometimes help. I spent 14 years
working with the poor in Peru as a college professor. My daughter went on a
mission to Haiti as a student during a Spring Break. We try to give 10%
of our income (tithing) to our church and charities. Young Liberal, may
you yourself take advantage of opportunities to help the poor.
Over the
centuries the Church has been far more effective than governments in helping
the poor. For 2000 years the Church has had a special preference for the
poor. It was the Church that first
founded hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, patronized great art and
music, etc. Read your history by both Catholic and secular
authors. I recommend the book, “How the Catholic Church Built Western
Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D.
History has shown that the poor do much better with free enterprise than
socialism. Witness the rapid economic rise of Poland since overthrowing
Communist, which claims to be advanced socialism.
Watch
what the so called “progressive” mayors are doing in Minneapolis, Detroit, New
York, Portland, etc. It’s apparently OK
to loot because that’s peaceful protest.
“Defund the police!” Look at the
results. Crime, violence, and murders,
have doubled in cities that have defunded the police. Minneapolis had to appeal for police help
from outside the city. In San Francisco
on the left coast, they don’t even bother prosecuting petty crimes any more. The solution to police brutality is not defunding the police, but training them
to use appropriate restraint in making arrests when the suspect resists and how
to defuse explosive situations.
As
I see it, Republicans are not intent on destroying Obamacare, but to improve it
without forcing people to participate (the HHS Mandate) and forcing the Catholic
Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortifacients in their health insurance,
which is against our faith. That is a constitutional religious freedom
issue. There is widespread agreement
that pre-existing conditions should not be an impediment to health insurance.
The
Church loves the homosexuals, but cannot condone the sexual lifestyle. In fact it has organized the group called
“Courage” to help those with same sex attraction to remain chaste. It would be sinful to deny equal opportunity
to homosexuals. They have done quite
well financially, especially those who are discreet about their lifestyle.
Historically,
the Democratic Party has prided itself in defending the defenseless and the
vulnerable. However, they have
completely abandoned the most vulnerable and defenseless of all…..the unborn,
even advocating their destruction until just before birth under the guise of
“choice”…….since 1973 over 61 million Americans were deprived of the most
fundamental right of all……LIFE! The
primary function of government is to defend all of its people, especially the
vulnerable and the defenseless. Who is
more vulnerable and defenseless than the unborn? The choice was made in the bedroom and
couples on a one night stand know the risks and are responsible for the
consequences. Killing the baby is not
responsible. Let us thank our mothers
for making the right choice. Where would
you and I be if our mothers had made the wrong choice? Speak sometime with a survivor of a botched
abortion or a person conceived out of rape, but his/her mother chose life and
put him/her up for adoption.
According
to your reasoning as I see it, owning slaves does not affect the rights of
other whites and the Government has no right to force the owners to free their
slaves or dictate how they should be treated.
After all, it’s the slave owner’s choice to own slaves and it’s his
property. They did see the slaves as human
beings, but not persons or “subhuman” as Hitler believed in regard to the
Jews. When I visited Auschwitz near Kraków and meditated at the memorial to
the Holocaust, I wondered “What about our holocaust…….over 61 million American babies,
including 23 million black babies (the lives of black babies matter too), killed
in abortion since 1973, not to mention the rest of the world? How many doctors, scientists, and Nobel Prize
laureates could have emerged from the millions of babies slaughtered?
Then those engaged in the pro-life
movement are the modern day abolitionists.
We cannot simply say it’s a women’s choice and then be indifferent. Society has a grave responsibility and so do
we as citizens to protect the unborn.
The baby is not part of the woman’s body which of course is an
indispensable host. The baby has his/her
own unique genetic makeup and right to life, the first of the basic rights
mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
By the part of the woman’s body logic, the mother has four legs, four
arms, etc. Many couples would love to
adopt, but there is a shortage of adoptable babies. That is the responsible and humane
choice…….put the baby up for adoption.
We have a lot in common particularly our roots, Young Liberal ……..first
of all family, that is Babcia and Dziadek (R.I.P.). May they be a bond of love that will never
separate us.
Then there’s our common Polish
American roots either by blood or by marriage.
Always be faithful to our heritage and what the great figures in Polish
history fought for, gave their lives for, and made their marks upon Poland, America,
and the world. Follow in the footsteps
of the immortal Polish greats…….Copernicus, St. Stanisław Szczepanowski who
stood up to an immoral king, Jan Sobieski, Tadeusz Kościuszko, Casimir Pułaski,
Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin, Ignacy Jan Paderewski, St. Maximilian Kólbe, St. Jan
Pawel II, Lech Wałęsa, Fr. Jerzy
Popiełuszko who stood up to the Communists.
Most if not all were solid
Catholics. And let us not forget your
namesake, the great Polish American poet and 1980 Nobel Prize Laureate, Czesław
Miłosz, another great Catholic (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czes%C5%82aw_Mi%C5%82osz)Any of the above names can be easily googled
for extensive detail.
And don’t forget that
Poland was very instrumental in saving And don’t forget that
Poland was very instrumental in saving Western Civilization more than
once……repelling the Tartars, defeating the Swedes at Czestochowa, breaking the
Turkish siege in the Battle of Vienna that kept radical Islam at bay for the
next three centuries, stopping the Bolsheviks from overrunning Europe in the
Battle of Warsaw (Cud nad Wisłą) in 1920, the Polish resistance in World War II
that tied up German forces and the Kościuszko Squadron that shot down more
German planes than any British squadron in the Battle of Britain, and Solidarność
which led to the overthrow of Communism in Eastern Europe. Throughout history when in trouble the people
would go to Maryja Panna Królowa Polski (Mary Queen of Poland) for help. It was the Church that helped the Polish
people to maintain their identity during the 125 year Partition when Poland was
absorbed by Austria, Prussia, and Russia and did not exist as a nation. Again it was the Church that gave the Polish
people strength to resist the Nazi occupation and Communist domination.
And of course we are
Americans with a mission to maintain the ideals of our founding fathers. Furthermore, you, my son, and I love
football although different teams (Steelers vs. Patriots). I say to you and I say to all of our extended
family with our roots, especially my children and spouses: “Americans first,
yet be proud of your Polish heritage and always be faithful to it. Don’t lose what they passed down to us.
The book that gave me a
great appreciation of Polish culture and history is the book, “Poland”
by James Michener. Your father has the
book. It’s a fascinating novel, but the historical
events are accurately described. I felt
like I was there living Polish history as I was reading the book. It made me proud to be Polish by marriage.
Young Liberal, you have a tremendous amount of
potential. If you ever see the light,
you would be a great Catholic Christian.
Keep an open mind. Be open to
different ideas. Read different points
of view such as mine, review your economics courses. Be willing to change
your mind and opinions if the evidence warrants. Don't let yourself be indoctrinated by either
the right or the left. Dialogue with
people of different views and learn from them; then make your own decision. Diligently search for the truth and you shall
find it.
Attached
is a complete list of all of my blog articles at http://paulrsebastianphd.blogspot.com by subject and corresponding links along with my most
recent article. I think that some of the
articles on a wide variety of subjects will interest you, especially the
sections on Poland and Business. Also
attached is a list of article blogs regarding our Men’s Conference and Men’s
spirituality at http://diosteubmen.blogspot.com with some application to women. I think that looking at the titles and
reading some will help to make you a better informed progressive. Attached is my most recent article for
Veterans Day.
Our love to all of you. We can vehemently discuss and disagree
----some are red and some are blue, a symptom of our divided nation. Yet we can agree to disagree, recognize what
we have in common, and remain a solid and loving extended family. If you’d like to dialogue by phone or if we
could ever help you, give us a call at 740-245-9404. We hope that you and your family will be able
to attend the wedding of our younger daughter.
We were very grateful for your presence at our older daughter's wedding; your presence made a difference.
May God bless you richly.
