Posts tagged with: politics

Blog author: jcarter
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
By

V. Rev. Paul Jannakos offers an Orthodox perspective on the upcoming election:

As Orthodox Christians we bear witness to Christ in all dimensions of life. This includes participation in civic life, where as citizens of this country we elect into office those who aspire towards the work of public service on both the local and federal levels.

We do not deny that the democratic electoral process is a wonderful gift given to us as citizens of the United States. We thereby vote for those whom we feel would best govern our lands according to the values and principles we esteem as believers.

As we approach the upcoming Election Day, it is beneficial to be reminded about several key issues regarding the Orthodox Church and its role in the social and political life of its faithful.

Read more . . .

Blog author: ehilton
Friday, October 26, 2012
By

Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg, notes in a recent NRO article that vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has avoided “emotivist nonsense” and presented a clear moral vision for our country.

Among other things, Ryan, ever so politely but unambiguously, underlined the immense damage inflicted by sometimes well-intentioned government welfare programs upon those in need. Yet he did so in a manner that detailed the economic costs but also went beyond a narrowly materialist reckoning. Ryan pointed to the manifold ways in which government programs have undermined the dignity of those in need and constrained their opportunities for human flourishing.

But then Ryan did something else: Identify civil society as the distinctly American way of addressing the challenge of poverty, be it material, moral, or even spiritual in nature. As he noted: “There’s a vast middle ground between the government and the individual. Our families and our neighborhoods, the groups we join and our places of worship — this is where we live our lives. They shape our character, give our lives direction, and help make us a self-governing people.”

Put another way, America has never regarded politics as the be-all and end-all of human existence. Politics has its place, but most human flourishing occurs in other arenas of life. That’s something the Left will never, ever understand.

Read “Ryan’s Way” on National Review Online here.

Conservatives should embrace the cause of equality of opportunity, says David Azerrad, not sameness of opportunity.

[W]e must not confuse equality of opportunity with sameness of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is a moral imperative and a requirement of just government. Spending money on programs that aim to expand opportunity for the poor is a charitable pursuit to which some may aspire but which government is not bound to deliver. Justice demands that we uphold the rule of law, secure the rights of all, and oppose any legal barriers to advancement. It does not demand that we ensure that everyone be given all they need to fulfill all their dreams. As a political community, we are obliged to tear down artificial barriers to opportunity and are morally bound to provide a minimum safety net, but we are under no categorical imperative to ensure that all reach their maximum potential. We should not confuse the army’s recruiting slogan with our national motto.

Read more . . .

From a purely political standpoint last night’s Vice Presidential Debate was probably a victory for both candidates. Vice President Joe Biden fired up his base with his aggressive and somewhat dismissive behavior towards Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan of course did nothing to hurt Romney and showed he is prepared to be president in an emergency.

Ultimately, the Vice Presidential Debate matters little to nothing in terms of outcome, and that’s why these two were probably in a better position to sit down together and have a candid and civil conversation about the economic and spending crisis this nation faces. It was not to be of course. And it’s probably too much to expect given the nature of the budgetary wars between the Republican Congress and the White House over the last two years. So much of the spending fight had already exhausted itself between these two behind the scenes in Washington.

Save for Ryan’s defense of a plan for cautious entitlement reform, much of the domestic argument came down to which team is better equipped to manage the bureaucracy. The federal government has now doubled in size from just over a decade ago. And it has funded that expansion all through borrowed money. We’ve spent $2 trillion on education at the federal level alone with no marked improvement, only educational decline. Greater urgency and details are needed from our leaders on how they are going to cut and limit federal spending. Everybody knows gutting subsidies to PBS won’t cut it.

Catholics can address the abortion question as it relates to Catholic Social Teaching and who is the serious thinker about their faith, but I also feel there was a real opportunity by both candidates last night to speak less politically about the debt and take moral leadership on an issue. Our spending problem is a visible sign of America’s holistic decline when it comes to our historic strong moral values, strong work ethic, and moral courage. Rev. Robert Sirico has said, “When one generation borrows what cannot be expected to be paid in the next generation, such a civilization is at a crossroads.” We need our leaders to embody those words or we need to replace them.

Alan Duncan, an aid minister in the UK, says his government is “forced” to hand over large amounts of money to the EU’s foreign aid budget, but has no say in how the money is spent. The problem is that much of the $2 billion+ “aid” money (one-sixth of the British budget) goes to projects such as making a Moroccan water park more eco-friendly, an art project in St. Petersburg, and building a hotel and leisure complex in Barbados. Britain’s International Development Committee reports that only 46% of the “development” donations go to “low-income” nations.

Some are urging that the British government “redefine their official development assistance (ODA), through which the relevant EU aid is spent“, with the British Development Committee warning that the situation will “devalue” the concept of aid in the eyes of its citizens.

Oxfam policy adviser Claire Godfrey stated, “If aid is not about helping the poorest then it is not worthy of the name.” Peter Bone, a Tory, had this to say about the money given to wealthier nations:

The Government has been saying for the past two years that this money’s been spent brilliantly. Alan Duncan is right to say the money is being wasted, but wrong to say there’s nothing we can do about it. There is: all you have to do is stop paying the money. It’s no good just crying crocodile tears about wasted money. If we stop paying, what will the EU do: sue us for not funding water parks in Morocco? Come on!

It is good to recall what Robert Woodson, a poverty activist in the U.S. has said about this type of situation:

There is a poverty industrial complex. You’ve got huge numbers of people who profit off our differences. You see, if you are problem oriented, you can write about the problem, you can lecture about the problem, you can consult on the problem. You can do everything but solve the problem.

Clearly, some in the British government are becoming aware of the fact that transparency, accountability, and outcome are absolute necessities in foreign aid and transferring money from one government to another. It remains to be seen if the UK government will take action, or will write, lecture and consult.

Read “EU Squanders Our Aid Millions” and “Most EU aid ‘goes to richer nations‘ “.

This article is cross-posted at PovertyCure.org.

Joe Carter recently highlighted the discussion at Ethika Politika, the journal of the Center for Morality in Public Life, about the value of (not) voting, particularly the suggestion by Andrew Haines that in some cases there is a moral duty not to vote. This morning I respond with an analysis of the consequences of not voting, ultimately arguing that one must not neglect to count the cost of abstaining to vote for any particular office. One issue, however, that I only touched on was that of voting for a third party candidate, which I would like to explore further here. (more…)

Blog author: jcarter
Friday, September 21, 2012
By

Trends in Voter Preferences Among Religious Groups
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

A new interactive graphic tracks voting preferences for the upcoming presidential election among several major religious groups.

Welfare Reform as We Knew It
Wall Street Journal

This new standard didn’t appear out of thin air, but is part of a liberal critique of welfare reform that has made its way into the Administration.

‘Doing God’
British Religion in Numbers

The majority of Britons are keen to keep religion apart from politics, according to a study published on 13 September 2012. 81% affirmed that religious practice is a private matter, which should be separated from British politico-economic life.

Why Christian Pacifism Is Inconsequential to Real World
Keith Pavlischek, Institute on Religion & Democracy

So, what does a pacifist do if he wants to get a serious hearing in the “halls of power?” Over the past several decades Christian pacifists have tried to come to grips with this problem.

Blog author: jcouretas
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
By

Writing in National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg weighs in on Mitt Romney’s remarks about the “47 percent”:

Ever since the modern welfare state was founded (by none other than that great “champion” of freedom Otto von Bismarck as he sought, unsuccessfully, to persuade industrial workers to stop voting for the German Social Democrats), Western politicians have discovered that welfare programs and subsidies more generally are a marvelous way of creating constituencies of people who are likely to keep voting for you as long as you keep delivering the goods. In terms of electoral dynamics, it sometimes reduces elections to contests about which party can give you more — at other people’s expense.

For several decades now, it’s been a playbook successfully used by European parties of left and right, most Democrats, and plenty of country-club Republicans to help develop and maintain electoral support. As Tocqueville predicted, “Under this system the citizens quit their state of dependence just long enough to choose their masters and then fall back into it.” In such an atmosphere, politicians who seek to reduce welfare expenditures find themselves at a profound electoral disadvantage — which seems to have been Mr. Romney’s awkwardly phrased point.

Of course, it all ends in insolvency, as we are seeing played out in fiscal disasters such as the city of Los Angeles, the state of California, the city of Philadelphia, the city of Detroit, the city of Chicago, and the state of Illinois.

Read “Mitt de Tocqueville” on NRO by Samuel Gregg.

A video surreptitiously filmed during one of Mitt Romney’s private fundraisers was leaked and captured the Republican presidential nominee talking to donors last April in a Florida home (watch below) during a very candid moment.

While Romney states the facts and opinions as he sees them regarding the prevalent public welfare culture in America, he quotes figures that will surely stir animosity from within the Obama administration and his loyal Democratic voters.

Here’s a summary of what Mitt Romney told his campaign donors:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. ..They will vote for this president no matter what… And so my job is not to worry about those people. I will never convince them [that] they should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center, that are independents, that are thoughtful, the look at voting one way or the other…

(more…)

Blog author: jcouretas
Thursday, September 6, 2012
By

Video: At the Democratic National Convention, delegates opposed to adding language on God, Israel’s capital to platform shout, “No!” in floor vote.

On Powerline, John Hinderaker quotes from a recent Rasmussen Reports poll to show that “Democrats, bluntly put, have become the party of those who don’t go to church.”

Among those who rarely or never attend church or other religious services, Obama leads by 22 percentage points. Among those who attend services weekly, Romney leads by 24. The candidates are even among those who attend church occasionally. Romney leads by seven among Catholic voters and holds a massive lead among Evangelical Christians. [Ed.: Remember when one of the chief worries about Romney’s candidacy was that evangelicals wouldn’t support a Mormon?] Among other Protestants, the Republican challenger is ahead by 13. Among all other Americans, including people of other faiths and atheists, Obama leads by a 62% to 26% margin.

CNN reports that atheists were “deeply saddened” when Democrats inserted the word “God” back into their platform.

Perhaps because of the Republican Party’s ties to conservative Christianity, atheists tend to be Democrats. According to a 2012 Pew study, 71% of Americans who identified as atheist were Democrats.