Category: Public Policy

Blog author: kschmiesing
Monday, June 2, 2008
By

Sometime Acton publications contributor and adjunct scholar Thomas Sieger Derr posts on the First Things blog under the title, “The End of the Global Warming Scare?” Derr identifies a trend that has not been ignored on this blog: increasingly vocal and widespread skepticism toward at least the most dire predictions emanating from the climate change disaster crowd. I would add to Derr’s observations that consternation over oil prices is likely to encourage reluctance to implement any costly programs that have only debatably positive environmental results (e.g., Kyoto). Instead, folks will be more supportive of sensible moves that fuel the economy and cause little environmental harm (e.g., Arctic drilling), meanwhile making similarly sensible efforts to increase efficiency (car pooling is surging), which is always good for both economy and environment.

Still, Derr is right to punctuate his post title with a question mark. There’s a lot of hot air left in the global warming baloon.

Here’s the key assumption in Michael Gerson’s piece from last week, “The Libertarian Jesus”:

Private compassion cannot replace Medicaid or provide AIDS drugs to millions of people in Africa for the rest of their lives. In these cases, a role for government is necessary and compassionate — the expression of conservative commitments to the general welfare and the value of every human life.

Private compassion certainly could do this, and much more. Private giving generally dwarfs government programs in both real dollars and effectiveness.

Does this mean that there is no role or never a role for government? No. But that role is one of last and temporary resort. The dichotomy that Gerson draws from one side (and many libertarians draw from another) is false.

Gerson also misunderstands the import of Coburn’s claims that compassion cannot be coerced, “that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver.” The divide between government programs and individual charity isn’t a public/private distinction, but rather a political/moral distinction, where the moral element may sometimes but not always necessitate political action. Poverty is simply not morally equatable with slavery or abortion.

Abraham Kuyper makes the point pretty well in his treatise on The Problem of Poverty. Read these two quotes in juxtaposition and you can see where Gerson’s errors reside.

First, from the main text, “The holy art of ‘giving for Jesus’ sake’ ought to be much more strongly developed among us Christians. Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your Savior.”

And second, from a footnote, “It is perfectly true that if no help is forthcoming from elsewhere the state must help. We may let no one starve from hunger as long as bread lies molding in so many cupboards. And when the state intervenes, it must do so quickly and sufficiently.”

With whom does the primary responsibility for care for the poor reside? Answer that question, and you can properly relate the political and moral claims regarding poverty.

Why yes, yes she did:

Link: sevenload.com

Via Hot Air.

The new farm bill may be one of the most shameless displays of government largesse ever, even more so when you consider who will most benefit from the pork. Citizens Against Government Waste called it “The most farcical farm bill in history.” The Economist dubbed it “Harvest of Disgrace.” The Wall Street Journal opines, “If farm prices stay high, consumers face higher grocery bills and farmers get rich. If farm prices fall, taxpayers kick in the difference and farmers still get rich.” The most pressing concern is that billions of dollars in subsidies will be going to the wealthiest agribusiness corporations in the country.

President Bush vetoed the bill, saying the “Legislation is too expensive and would send too much government money to wealthy farmers.” He wanted a subsidy cap on farms with a gross income of more than $200,000. Senator McCain also urged the President to veto the bill. Despite this warning, many Congressional Republicans joined with Democrats to override the veto. The Wall Street Journal declared:

House Republicans are equally as complicit, despite their claims of having found fiscal religion after 2006. About half of them voted to override a Republican President. GOP leaders refused to whip against the bill, and two of them – Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida – even voted for it. These are the same House Republicans who last week unveiled their new slogan, “The Change You Deserve.”

As food prices soar, it’s plain wrong to transfer large sums of taxpayer money to enrich already wealthy corporate farms. Citizens Against Government Waste also declared of the bill:

It continues to dole out $5.2 billion annually in direct payments to individuals (many of whom are no longer farming) without any regard to prices or income. These direct payments, 60 percent of which go to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients, were created in 1996 and were supposed to phase out by 2002.

When thinking of southern Italy, Americans probably imagine the Amalfi Coast, Mount Vesuvius, and lemon groves, but to the average Italian the picture is of rotting garbage in the streets of Naples and the Mafia. These realities have been strikingly portrayed in Roberto Saviano’s book Gomorra (ET), which is also the basis of a newly-released motion picture in Italy.

Saviano is a young journalist who clearly describes the dark side of his country. It is probably the most courageous “j’accuse” ever cried out against the Camorra, the Mafia of Naples. In order to write this book, the author disguised himself, took on another identity and infiltrated “The System”, as the Camorra is known in Naples.

Saviano’s reporting has won several awards. His book has been translated in 42 countries and has been a best-seller in Germany, Holland, Spain, France, Sweden and Finland. The New York Times classified it as one of the best books of 2007 and The Economist added it to its list of 100 best books of 2008. In Italy, it is considered the best book of the year and has sold over a million copies.

In chilling passages, the author explains the power of the organization and names the families, alliances, trafficking, corruption and misery surrounding the Camorra’s world. It is a shocking picture, even for those Italians who are well-aware of the criminal organizations infesting Italy. These corrupt networks seem impossible to defeat, a parallel country within the country.

It is incredible to recount the Camorra murders in Naples, nearly 4,000 in the last 30 years, numbers that can be compared to a war. Even more astonishing are the figures concerning the economy of this international organization that, together with the other criminal organizations, accounts 7 per cent of Italy’s gross domestic product, more than $127 billion in a year.

The historic, political and social reasons that have lead to this phenomenon can be summarized in one word: “corruption”. Never in any other European country has there been such a wide scale and longstanding connection between crime and political corruption.

But thanks to this book and civic movements that are starting to rebel against this kind of society, Italians are developing a deeper awareness of the problem. The film version of Gomorra has gotten off to a great start at the box office, with more than €2 million in ticket sales in less than three days.

The movie brilliantly summarizes the book and is courageously filmed in Scampia, the dangerous Neapolitan neighborhood where the story takes place. The movie is also showing at the Cannes Film Festival where the international press applauded Saviano’s courage and the courage of Italians like Saviano (who has been living with constant police protection since October 2006) who courageously face truth and stand up to crime and corruption.

Rumor has it that the Rev. Johnny Hunt is on the short list (if you consider six guys "short") to preside over the Southern Baptist Convention this summer.

Big Daddy Weave notes that Reverend Hunt signed the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative.

Could his signature on this initiative cause him trouble during the nomination process? Were he to be elected, would it signal a shift in the prevailing Southern Baptist Convention reluctance to engage issues like climate and energy?

We report, you decide. And Jon Merritt, call your office

[Don’s other habitat is evanelicalecologist.com]

Over the years, Acton commentators have had reason to criticize religious groups that try to influence corporate policy through shareholder resolutions and similar activities. The criticism has revolved around two points. One, Christian shareholder activism has often focused on issues that are matters of prudential application of moral teaching (e.g., environmental practices) rather than non-negotiable moral evils (e.g., abortion). Two, such activism often seems to imply, if not explicitly proclaim, that the normal operation of business is not adequately “good,” and that business must promote a series of programs extrinsic to its enterprise in order to prove its commitment to the common good.

But there may be a valid sort of shareholder activism, which does focus on non-negotiable moral evils. This kind of activism, far from obstructing the profitable operation of a beneficial enterprise, challenges businesses to practice trade in ways that promote rather than detract from the building of a healthy moral culture. Companies that provide or promote abortion or pornography, for example, while furnishing legally permissible services to customers, are not satisfying “genuine human needs” (see Robert Kennedy, The Good That Business Does). It is reasonable for Christians to exhort such businesses to shift from the provision of harmful products to the provision of “goods,” in the full sense of the term. That seems to be the motivation behind this recent press release, for example.