Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Are all MOJ-bloggers proudly liberal?

By Michael Scaperlanda

Michael P. says:  "there *is* an important sense in which we MOJ-bloggers are all liberals - and proudly so" in the sense that most "conservatives" and "liberals" on the US political scene today are merely two sides of the same liberal coin.  I certainly believe that "our commitment to democracy ... cannot be understood except  by appeal to a higher moral authority..." and that all persons are "inviolable in the eyes of God."  But, are these tenets of liberal democracy? 

I understand liberal democracy as a project that cares deeply protecting human rights (negative liberty) with an offshoot of liberal egalitarianism (with elements of positive liberty).  And, I agree with these tenets.  But, what is the foundation for this perspective on human flourishing.  In liberal democracy, individuals are free to pursue their own private conception of the good, but the only public conceptions of the good are that people ought to be free to pursue their own private projects, and for liberal egalitarians, with wealth redistribution, if necessary.  (Am I wrong about this?)  The questions of origin, purpose, and destiny in life are privatized, leading to a very thin public conception of the person.  This very thin public conception of the person  means, I think, that the liberal democratic project cannot adequately answer who counts as a human being and cannot provide the intellectual foundation for its own human rights project because it cannot answer the question of why human beings count.  That is why Pope Benedict is, as Rick says, making certain anthropological claims:    "about authentic, integral human development and flourishing and, therefore, it is a call to take seriously what the truth is -- there is a truth -- about the human person, namely, that he is made in the image of God and loved by Him."  The modern political project (whatever we may call it) is doomed to failure without a thick conception of the person - without a criterion for judging why human beings ought to be respected.

Does liberalism, as Michael P. described it, have the resources to undertake this thickening process?  (I have lots of other questions but this will have to suffice for now).

On "liberalism"

By Michael Perry

A brief comment on Rick's post--in particular, on the question of political labels.  In my judgment, the heart of the problem--and it is a serious problem--with the labels "liberal" and "liberalism" is that they mean such different things to different people.  And they mean such different things in different contexts; moreover, to be a "liberal" in one context--that is, with respect to one issue or set of issues (e.g., the proper role of government vis a vis the economy)--does not entail that one is a "liberal" in a different context (e.g., the proper role of government vis a vis the regulation of abortion).  The pope's encyclical illustrates the last point quite powerfully, yes?

And yet, there *is* an important sense in which we MOJ-bloggers are all liberals--and proudly so:  It is not "democracy" full-stop that we affirm, but "liberal democracy":  a democracy committed, first, to the proposition that each and every human being has inherent dignity and is inviolable and, second, to certain human rights against government--that is, against law-makers and other government officials--such as the right to right freedom of religion.  (A democracy is committed to the proposition that every human being has inherent dignity and is inviolable if in the political culture of the democracy, the proposition is axiomatic.  And a democracy is committed to a human right against government if in the legal system of the democracy, the right is recognized and protected as a fundamental legal right.)  Philosopher Thomas Nagel has written that "[t]he term 'liberalism' applies to a wide range of political positions . . .  But all liberal theories have this in common:  they hold that the sovereign power of the state over the individual is bounded by a requirement that individuals remain inviolable in certain respects . . .  The state . . . is subject to moral constraints that limit the subordination of the individual to the collective will and the collective interest."  Thomas Nagel, "Progressive but Not Liberal," New York Rev. of Books, May 25, 2006.  Similarly, philosopher Charles Larmore has argued that "our commitment to [liberal] democracy . . . cannot be understood except by appeal to a higher moral authority, which is the obligation to respect one another as persons."  Charles Larmore, "The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism," 96 J. Philosophy 599, 624-25 (1999).   Cf. Samuel Brittan, "Making Common Cause:  How Liberals Differ, and What They Ought To Agree On," Times Lit. Supp., Sept. 20, 1996: "[P]erhaps the litmus test of whether the reader is in any sense a liberal or not is Gladstone's foreign-policy speeches.  In [one such speech,] taken from the late 1870s, around the time of the Midlothian campaign, [Gladstone] reminded his listeners that 'the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of almighty God as can be your own . . . that the law of mutual love is not limited by the shores of this island, is not limited by the boundaries of Christian civilization; that it passes over the whole surface of the earth, and embraces the meanest along with the greatest in its unmeasured scope.'  By all means smile at the oratory.  But anyone who sneers at the underlying message is not a liberal in any sense of that word worth preserving."

I don't want to concede the term "liberal"--as in "liberal democracy"--to the citizens of the cacophonous City of Babel!  But, of course, where and when it is useful to employ the term, we should employ it in a way that clarifies rather than obscures discussion.  This I try to do in my new book, due out later this year:  The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy (Cambridge University Press).

Categories: Real and Reductive?

By Michael Scaperlanda

Amy asks"can we all agree that the categories are simultaneously real and reductive?"   I'll give a qualified "yes" to that.   They are certainly reductive and are real at least to the extent "that much of our political, social and legal landscape is working with these categories (liberal-conservative, right-left)."  But, we can reject this common mentality, and I think our dialogue would be much enriched by this effort along with, as Michael P. suggests, asking for the grace to overcome our own self-righteousness.

Michael P. asks"Don't you agree that what Fr. Reese says ("that [B16] is to the leftof almost every politician in America") is accurate?"  As I said above, I think our dialogue would be much enriched if we rejected the common impulse to categorize in this way.  What purpose does this label serve in this context?  As far as I can tell, its reductive potential greatly outweighs any probative benefits.  Shouldn't we be exploring the merits of Benedict's proposals and not whether they are conservative or liberal, right or left?  So to answer Michael's other question ("Um, we can't will the categories away, can we?"), I would say "yes," if we make a conscious effort.  And, I am glad that the two Michaels are willing to do that "[e]xcept when posting a tongue-in-cheek comment to rock-climbing Rick."

Finally, Rick's post is brilliant!

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

"The Pope is a liberal"

By Rick Garnett

Michael has posted -- I just knew he would! -- a link to David Gibson's "The Pope is a Liberal" piece.  No doubt, the Pope's views on many questions regarding the organization and regulation of the economy put him well to the "left" of the American political center.  But, the suggestion that the overall vision of society and the person presented in the new encyclical, and the letter's premises about morality, truth, duties, anthropology, are (insert here all the reservations, expressed by other MOJ-ers, about labels) "liberal", in the way that category functions in contemporary American and European politics, seems misplaced.  Today's "liberalism" -- notwithstanding the community-and-solidary language that is trotted out for use in debates about economic regulation and taxation -- is very hard to separate, I would think, from the relativism, individualism, indifferentism, and atomism that the Pope criticizes with *at least* as much fervor as he calls for new spending programs.  

In his piece, Gibson does not discuss the emphasis that the Pope places, in setting up his critique of some understandings of development, on Humanae vitae:

The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.”[29]

This should be interesting.  "Conservatives" are being criticized (quite snarkily, in some quarters, perhaps fairly in others) for squirming at the encyclical's social-democratic prescriptions, but one would hope that the "liberal" critics would at least consider the possibility -- as the Pope is challenging all of us to do -- that Humanae vitae has more to say about integral human development than they have hitherto appreciated.

And yes, the Pope emphasizes the importance of unions, but he also criticizes their excessive politicization and their resistance to change; yes, he talks about environmental stewardship, but he strongly criticizes the neo-pagan and anti-humanist strands in the environmental movement; yes, he talks about the need for international bodies and authorities to coordinate various efforts, but he insists that these bodies and authorities be constrained by religious liberty, subsidiarity, and rule-of-law principles.  Etc. etc.   

Mr. Gibson's suggestion that the Pope's approach to abortion is "Obama-esque" is, to me, not convincing.  Yes, the Pope recognizes that "respect for life" is inextricably linked to economic development and child welfare.  The "Obama-esque" approach to abortion, though, does not stop with this recognition, but rather proceeds to a wide range of policies that the encyclical specifically condemns, like using foreign-aid money to support or encourage abortion and contraception.  It is unfortunate -- it seems out-of-character with those aspects of President Obama's vision that many find appealing -- that the centerpiece of Obama's "approach to abortion" is, in fact, the constitutionalization of a (practically speaking) unlimited right to abortion on demand, supported, to the extent possible, by public funds.  One doubts that there is much in this approach that resonates with Caritas in veritate, in which the Pope says:

we need to affirm today that the social question has become a radically anthropological question, in the sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but also how it is manipulated, as bio-technology places it increasingly under man's control. In vitro fertilization, embryo research, the possibility of manufacturing clones and human hybrids: all this is now emerging and being promoted in today's highly disillusioned culture, which believes it has mastered every mystery, because the origin of life is now within our grasp. Here we see the clearest expression of technology's supremacy. In this type of culture, the conscience is simply invited to take note of technological possibilities. Yet we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal. To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future — indeed it is already surreptiously present — the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect. Insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated. While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human. God reveals man to himself; reason and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate to us what is good, provided we want to see it; the natural law, in which creative Reason shines forth, reveals our greatness, but also our wretchedness insofar as we fail to recognize the call to moral truth.

My own sense is that much of the commentary so far about the encyclical has -- unfortunately -- not really "got" it, and in some cases even been unworthy of it.  It seems, so far, that too many are cherry-picking quotes that provide rhetorical support for their preferred policy goals, or that seem to score points for "their side" in the political / culture wars.  (Yes, yes, "both sides" do this . . .)  What's really animating this letter, it seems to me, are the Pope's -- the Gospel's -- anthropological claims.  The document is not about the recent American elections or the stimulus package.  It's about authentic, integral human development and flourishing and, therefore, it is a call to take seriously what the truth is -- there is a truth -- about the human person, namely, that he is made in the image of God and loved by Him.  It is certainly not a document with which someone who thinks such questions are "above [his] pay grade" (or, indeed, any of us, including me) should feel too comfortable.

Dear Amy,

By Michael Perry

Both real and reductive.  Yes.  Amen.

Michael S & Michael P: Categories

By Amy Uelmen

Seems like there are two things going on in your exchange: first, the need to acknowledge that much of our political, social and legal landscape is working with these categories (liberal-conservative, right-left), and so we do need to watch for how they are at work in the discourse, and in particular in the conversation about and critique of CST; and second, the desire especially as we engage each other to enter into the complexity of each other's thought, and the complexity of the broader discourse, both as part of the effort to not box each other in, but also make sure we genuinely understand the nuance in each others' thinking.  So can we all agree that the categories are simultaneously real and reductive?   

Dear Michael S.,

By Michael Perry

Why the colon (:) rather than a comma (,)?

I think that more than labels, self-righteousness makes dialogue difficult, and self-righteousness is something that we must all be on guard to avoid--myself certainly no less than anyone else.  Please God.

As for labels, well, they can be useful short-hands, as in "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm an economic libertarian" or "like B16, I'm an economic liberal, but a social conservative".  However, like you, Michael S., I'm wary of oversimplifying labels and, so, happy to forgo labels and other short-hands.  (Except when posting a tongue-in-cheek comment to rock-climbing Rick--which is how this to-and-fro between you and me got started.)

Still, Fr. Reese's point remains:

"Although Benedict's emphasis in the encyclical is on the theological foundations of Catholic social teaching, amid the dense prose there are indications, as shown above, that he is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to 'redistribution of wealth' or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? Who would call for the adoption of 'new life-styles'' in which 'the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments'?"  --Thomas Reese, SJ, here.

Don't you agree that what Fr. Reese says is accurate?

Dear Michael P.:

By Michael Scaperlanda

That still leaves my two questions: 

What constructive purpose do these categories serve in the present context?  And, Michael, would you concede that even if they do serve some constructive purpose, there is the real possibility that they also have a destructive side, which boxes people in and makes dialogue more difficult? ;-)

Dear Michael S.,

By Michael Perry

Thank you for your lecture.  And, I'm delighted that I was able to prove your point.

:-)

[Maybe I should have added that ":-)" to my previous posts.]

Dear Michael P.:

By Michael Scaperlanda

What constructive purpose do these categories serve in the present context?  And, Michael, would you concede that even if they do serve some constructive purpose, there is the real possibility that they also have a destructive side, which boxes people in and makes dialogue more difficult?

Update:  Michael P., you are proving my point with the revised version of your latest post:  "And, please let me note that when the story broke about the coup involving the leftist president of Honduras, you actually posted a reference to the editorial page of the WSJ (here)!  Talk about economic right-wing!!  OMG!!!" 

The label or category does our thinking for us.  We can dismiss what the WSJ says about Honduras without examining the argument because of the source - a right wing rag.  We can dismiss the investigation into women religious in the US without examining the reasons for the investigation because the investigation is being carried out by a patriarchal (sexist?) right wing hehierarchy.  We can dismiss more conservative economic voices because the Pope (formerly known as the head of a right wing patriarchy) is categorized as an economic liberal.  In each case, the categories replace critical reasoning, which could have taken place in colloboration-disputation with people who approach the world in ways that seem foreign to us. 

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive