Category: News and Events

I don’t much like the term Calvinism. I think it is historically unhelpful, and in general prefer to use something like Reformed theology or speak about the Reformed confessions, depending on the particular context.

And I don’t much like the term capitalism, preferring instead to discuss the market economy, or perhaps, in light of the results below, free enterprise.

But while popular and intellectual usage certainly prefers the use of the former term (even if it often is caricatured or has negative connotations), it doesn’t look like the public responds too well to the latter. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a multi-year publicity campaign, but won’t be using terms like capitalism or protectionism.

BusinessWeek reports (HT: First Thoughts via The Corner) that the Chamber did some study of how particular terms are received by the public, and the results of the focus groups showed that, as Chamber spokeswoman Tita Freeman puts it, “‘Capitalism’ was universally problematic,” and was often associated with greed and oppression.

It’s true of course that particular words and terms shouldn’t simply be ceded because of potentially negative public regard. It may be that capitalism isn’t an irredeemable term (although many would contend it is an irredeemable system!).

One of Sam Gregg‘s favorite paragraphs from the encyclical Centesimus Annus discusses this terminological issue. Paragraph 42 reads, in part,

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

Public relations campaigns aren’t typically the place where nuanced terminological arguments can be made. And so there’s some strong rhetorical support for the Chamber’s decision to talk about free enterprise rather than capitalism, but this may also reflect some deeper wisdom about the usefulness of particular terms.

Blog author: rsirico
Thursday, August 13, 2009
By

The Acton Institute, and I personally, have lost one of our most enduring and earliest friends in the peaceful (and I am told, beautiful – if such a word can be used) death of Karen Laub-Novak, wife of our long-time collaborator and mentor Michael Novak.

During the time I lived in Washington, D.C., some 25 years ago, the Novak dinner table became a veritable salon of the free society. As Michael would be mixing up his magical Manhattans (where I learned to make them), Karen and I would be busy in the kitchen churning out Italian dishes: antipasti, pollo caccitore, broccolini in padella – all served into the midst of sparkling conversations and debates around that table. Here were the likes of Clare Booth Luce holding formidable court against Bill Bennett, Irving Kristol and his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb; Bob and Mary Ellen Bork would be conversing with the late Jack and Joan Kemp or Charles and Robyn Krauthammer.

Karen, an artist of note, had a natural ability in such an intellectually charged atmosphere to exude an infallible and gracious hospitality, making anyone who visited her domain feel fully at home.

A bit of beauty has gone out of the world in Karen’s passing. RIP.

Blog author: jballor
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
By

As promised, the Summer 2009 issue of The City is now available online.

In addition to my review of Blind Spot, this issue includes a host of noteworthy items, including Wilfred McClay’s essay, “The Soul & The City,” and a review by HBU provost Paul Bonicelli of Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa, by Dambisa Moyo. Bonicelli, formerly an assistant administrator for USAID, discusses how his own experience as a “foreign aid official” coheres with Moyo’s depiction of the state of affairs in international development.

“I saw the same people doing the same things over and over again,” writes Bonicelli, “heard the same mythical references to the power of aid to transform a society, and of course observed the same people and institutions ignoring the history of aid-giving–all things are made new once the cycle begins again with new tranches of money because a new program or leader is now in place.”

This issue of The City, which is available in hardcopy via a complimentary subscription, is the first to be fully available in digital format. This is worth consideration because this is a publication that I used as an example in a post exploring the state of magazines and print journals in the digital age. At that time editor Ben Domenech sent me a note discussing the journal’s desire to appear in full form online.

While searching for the right venue the editors seem to have settled, at least for now, on Zmags, which uses a browsable form that imitates the print version as well as providing the option for a full PDF download.

A Caritas in Veritate Reader

In response to the ongoing interest in Pope Benedict’s new encyclical, the Acton Institute is readying the publication of Caritas in Veritate — A Reader.

This encyclical, in all of its remarkable depth, will no doubt be the subject of thoughtful analysis for a long time to come. Later this summer, Acton will gather the best of its own commentary on Caritas and selected articles from other observers in a single volume that will be available in hard copy and in a digital format. We trust that this Reader will serve as a guide to understanding the encyclical and the thinking of Pope Benedict on important social questions. We’ll update you with information on how to purchase or download the Reader as we get closer to the publication date.

Headline Bistro, a news service of the Knights of Columbus, published a new roundup of commentary on Pope Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate encyclical. I am joined in “Catholic Thinkers Reflect on Caritas in Veritate” by Michael Novak, Kirk Doran and Carl Anderson. Here’s the introduction and the article, which was written by Elizabeth Hansen:

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI released his much-anticipated social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. While it addressed the global economic crisis and the need for reform in business practices, the document was marked overall by its underlying premise of fostering true, integral development of the human person: a goal achieved by practicing charity in truth. Three Catholic economists and social thinkers shared their reflections on Caritas in Veritate via email correspondence with Headline Bistro.

Balance: In a word, that is what Michael Novak, Father Robert Sirico and Kirk Doran would name as the strength of Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical released one month ago today.

From discussing the pros and cons of development aid to a treatment on the theological principle of gratuitousness, the span of Caritas in Veritate is wide. The document’s suggestion of reform of the U.N. – “so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth,” the English translation said – grabbed headlines in the mainstream press, while Catholics noted Benedict’s insistence that true development involves the whole human person, on a spiritual as well as economic level.

Indeed, anything beyond a superficial read of the encyclical reveals its depth, which is what makes Pope Benedict’s ability to balance numerous perspectives and proposals on the technical end – even more, to transcend them – all the more impressive. (more…)

The Bible Answer Man is in the middle of an extended, two day interview of Jay Richards, about Jay’s new book, Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem. It’s the most in-depth discussion of the book I’ve encountered on the internet, and Hank Hanegraaff’s introduction alone makes it worth a listen. Yesterday’s interview is here. Today’s interview will stream here.

History shows us that civil rights can exist as nothing more than legal fiction. Take, for example, the right to vote. Although suffrage was extended to African-Americans under the Constitution in 1870, that right was little more than a nice idea until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. With many activists and politicians calling for America to recognize the “right” to health care, it is well worth looking at what this means. Making promises that cannot be met is a betrayal of the public trust, and the integrity of the government depends on its ability to hold to its word. In many other economically-developed countries, the “right” to health care coverage exists, and nearly everyone is enrolled in some sort of insurance or public plan. Unfortunately, coverage is not the same as health care procedures. Many governments insure nearly everyone, but cannot deliver the health care that those insured people need. These governments leave a broken promise in the place of the right that exists in their laws.

Take serious diseases, for example. Although Great Britain professes to treat health care as a right, there is no right to an oncologist. In fact, John Goodman of the Cato Institute reports that only 40% of British cancer patients even see an oncologist. This has had devastating results on their health: 70% more cancer patients in Great Britain die than in the United States. In addition, wait times for free health care in that country are so extreme that 20% of colon cancer cases diagnosed as curable are incurable by the time treatment is available. Great Britain is not the only country that falls short when it comes to treating major health problems. The Heritage Foundation recently created a laundry list of places where Americans, despite lacking the “right” to treatment, still have better health outcomes than other countries with universal health care: “Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher (in Canada) than in the United States.” Whether it is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, Americans have better chances at surviving than Europeans and Canadians. If enshrining a right to health care in the law only eases consciences and not human suffering, then it is a lie on the part of government.

One of the major reasons for America’s advantage in treating major diseases is that our patients have far more access to modern medical technology and diagnostic procedures than other countries. The Heritage report shows that Americans are more likely to get mammograms, pap smears, colonoscopies, and PSA tests than Canadians. Americans have better access to drugs than Europeans: “44 percent of Americans who could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering medication that reduces cholesterol and protects against heart disease, take the drug. That number seems low until compared with the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could both benefit from the drug and receive it. Similarly, 60 percent of Americans taking anti-psychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are taking the most recent generation of drugs, which have fewer side effects. But just 20 percent of Spanish patients and 10 percent of Germans receive the most recent drugs.” We also have far more CT scanners, dialysis machines, and MRI machines than Europeans and Canadians, despite the fact that the first two pieces of technology were developed in Great Britain. Here again, the abstract right to health care does not translate into meeting the needs of the sick. It is far more honest and humane to establish a system that delivers health care than to write laws that promise it.

Waiting for necessary procedures also has a lethal toll on the populations of Europe and Canada. Greenwood writes that, “During one 12-month period in Ontario, Canada, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery with a reasonable chance of survival.” The Canadian Supreme Court recognized this problem. Overturning Quebec’s ban on private health insurance, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin stated: “The evidence shows that, in the case of certain surgical procedures, the delays that are the necessary result of waiting lists increase the patient’s risk of mortality or the risk that his or her injuries will become irreparable. The evidence also shows that many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life.” Any time that a “right” to health care means artificially lowering or eliminating its costs, there will be too much demand for too few services. There is nothing moral about a system that trades in real efficiency and comfort for imagined equality.

Even where America does recognize the right of the poor and the elderly to health care, it tends to restrict rather than liberate the sick, as Sue Blevins documented in 2003: “Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills — even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today’s seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.” Even the privacy and family rights of patients in the “care” of the government are violated in the name of the right to health care: “Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors — mainly home health nurses — are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed ‘depressed feelings’ or has used ‘excessive profanity.’ If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors.” Rights cannot contradict each other. The “right” to health care means a loss of the rights to privacy, family, and consumer choice. This is no right at all.

Health care is not a right. Since we have such a murky understanding of what rights are in today’s world, many governments still pretend that it is, only to see increased regulation and bureaucracy stifle the delivery of good care. Outdated technology, rationing of time and services, and intrusive government follow the “right” to health care. Declaring health care to be a right puts it under the government’s supervision. Unfortunately, health care itself can never be a right. Coverage might be, as evidenced by how many countries have insurance rates near 100%, but there are still limited health care resources out there. The best that we can do is to let them be distributed in the most efficient way possible, which remains the free market. Trying to follow in the steps of Europe and Canada by making health care a civil right is a nice intention, but it will never amount to anything more than another broken promise by the government.

[UPDATED BELOW] The DNC has released a political commercial and an email warning Americans about dangerous mobs gathering to do dangerous things (protest socialist health care reform). Meanwhile, the White House has issued a call for loyal citizens to report fishy behavior to a special White House website. Well, I want to do my part to inform on my fellow Americans. The three images below show just how deep the problem runs. It’s fishy mobs all the way down. [UPDATE: ANOTHER OLD FISHY MOB HERE]

Civil Rights March

Suffrage Movement

Boston Tea Party

In the current issue of The City, a journal published by Houston Baptist University and just arrived in my mailbox, I review a book on the oft-maligned relationship between journalism and religion. In Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion, the case is compellingly made for a deeper and more authentic integration of religion into every aspect of the news media.

The CityThe City, and this issue in particular, comes highly recommended from the likes of Russell Moore of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, James Grant at Between Two Worlds, and the enigmatic and insightful millinerd. This issue has been promised to appear online, but in the meantime be sure to sign up for a complimentary hardcopy subscription.

In my review I speculate that within the context of challenges brought about by new media, “perhaps a newfound emphasis on responsible religion reporting is a recipe for the revival, maybe even the redemption, of professional journalism.” I briefly mention the efforts of some religious groups to take steps in this direction, including the World Journalism Institute, which offers short-term sessions, what director Bob Case has called a kind of “boot camp for aspiring journalists of faith.”

I neglected to mention, however, the work of the Washington Journalism Center, an initiative of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. Where the World Journalism Institute focuses on short-term training seminars, the Washington Journalism Center offers the “Best Semester” program, a full semester of education for full-time students to “receive academic credit for the program from their home institutions.”

Blind Spot contributor Terry Mattingly is the founder and director of the center, which he says has been around “in one form or another for 15 years.” Mattingly also founded the essential religion and journalism blog, GetReligion, and points us to the student blog of the Washington Journalism Center, Ink Tank. Other blogs of note include The Revealer and When Religion Meets New Media.

The question of journalism in the age of new media was the focus of a past series of PowerBlog Ramblings. But one concrete place to look to see how things play out might just be the city of San Diego, which is home to “a Web venture that gives writers a cut of the ad money created by their own stories; another whose nonprofit founders raise cash from readers to buy laptops for their reporters; and a third, which, in spite of the $10 million it nets each year, faces a very uncertain future.”

One other issue that I don’t think gets enough attention is the question of archival integrity as digital media becomes more ubiquitous. The question, “Do any newspapers have explicit archiving strategies for Web content?” is a hugely important one.

If newspapers do not have such a strategy, then on whom does the responsibility for long-term archiving and accessibility fall? Libraries? Researchers? Non-profits? Archive.org?

I just read today that the cars traded in for the Cash for Clunkers program are rendered unusable by running liquid glass through the engines.

Has anyone considered the impact of this on the poor? What has happened is that a huge number of low cost cars are being removed from the market. These are cars low income earners would ordinarily drive or teenagers would buy them who need to get to school or work.

What happens when we radically reduce the supply of a particular good? If there are no good substitutes, then the price goes up. In effect, this is a tax on the lower end of the market.

“Progressive” policy isn’t always good for the poor. Acton has been making that point for years. Hopefully, it is becoming more obvious.