The Prefential Option: A follow-up

After noting that the "preferential option for the poor" may be, and is, invoked in good faith by both the "left" and the "right" in discussions of economic policy, Mark asks: 

[O]f what value is the concept of "the preferential option for the poor," if it is so elastic as to contain such widely disparate economic ideologies? What does the phrase add to how we make choices about economic policies and the legal infrastructure for supporting and expressing them if it can be used so promiscuously? What sense does it make to talk about Michael Novak and a Catholic socialist both being able to invoke the preferential option for the poor?

I want to say that, in my view, and notwithstanding its "elastic[ity]", it does make sense to talk about "Michael Novak and a Catholic socialist both being able to invoke the preferential option for the poor?"  The Preferential Option disciplines  -- at least it should! -- the economic-policy thinking of both the left and right:  It requires those on the "right" (like me, I suppose) to always ask, "do we support non-intervention, or resist government intervention, in this case because we believe that it will serve the common good, properly understood, and -- in particular -- will serve the special needs of the poor?  What reasons, grounded in those needs, support non-intervention in this case?"  On the other hand, I think that "Catholic socialist[s]" need discipline, too.  They need to be challenged:  "Is it really the case that this intervention or regulation actually serves the needs and promotes the authentic flourishing of the poor?  Or, are we simply assuming -- perhaps out of ideology, perhaps out of habit -- that command-and-control strategies and regulatory policies accomplish these ends, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary?"

Mark also says:

I tend toward a pragmatism on this question -- whatever works for the poor works. Sometimes the solution is market-based, sometimes it requires government intervention. I am troubled by the reflexive anti-statism of the arguments on the right; it is a categorical hostlity that cuts far too broadly. What distinguishes the Option is its radical insistence upon attention to the poor in policymaking. What mechanism does the market possess that will ensure such attention without the state? I'm not sure that we can simply assume that a rising tide will lift all boats.

I agree with much of this.  I would add, though -- and I think that this is consistent with CST -- that other values and principles will sometimes constrain a "whatever works"-style pragmatism, even in the service of the poor's interests.  (I am confident that Mark and I agree on this point.  That is, even a commitment to the Preferential Option would not justify all government -- or non-government -- actions allegedly designed to benefit the poor.  An arbitrary, or discriminatory, complete confiscation of some persons' private property, followed by redistribution, would not, in my view, necessary be justified by the Preferential Option).  As for whether the market possesses a "mechanism . . . that will ensure such attention without the state":  The claim would not be, I think, that the market necessarily "attends", in a conscious or purposeful way, specifically to the interests of the poor, but rather that those interests are more likely to be advanced, generally speaking, in the conditions of a reasonably free and fair market.   Mark is right that we cannot "assume" that a rising tide lifts all boats, but we can observe that, in fact, it often does, and also observe that economic stagnation or stasis tends to fall heavily on the poor. 

I'm probably more "reflexive[ly] anti-statis[t]" than Mark is, but I think we agree that the public authority has the right and duty (subject to the rule of law, structural and other constitutional constraints, etc.) to craft policies consistent with the Preferential Option.  In my view, though, such "policies" will often (not always, to be sure) involve supporting -- and, perhaps, getting out of the way of -- the market.  Mark and I agree, though -- as would Michael Novak -- that the normative principle doing the work in designing and implementing policy is not so much the "market" itself, but rather the Preferential Option.

Rick