There have been a wide-range of reactions to the pope's recent exhortation; some have praised the pope, some have denounced him as a marxist, socialist, or for just being wrong, and others have offered specious arguments designed to play-down the pope's words, and deflect the criticism. Christopher Bedford, associate editor of the conservative Daily Caller website, wrote of the pope's comments: "Conservatives and libertarians shouldn’t blame the pope for his characterization of the free market---we should blame ourselves…his questions and teachings this week showed, (that) we have failed to broadly and convincingly make the moral case for the free market." I'd never heard of Bedford before this, but I'm a fan of the Daily Caller website, so I would imagine that he and I would agree on 95% of the issues---but, here we couldn't disagree more.
Which conservatives have ever had the opportunity “to the make the moral case for the free market” to Pope Francis? The pope was born in Argentina in 1936, whose fault is it exactly for the beliefs he holds? Fox News? Glenn Beck? The Wall Street Journal? Ayn Rand? F.A. Hayek? William F. Buckley? I addressed weasel words in my last post, and Bedford, I'm sorry to say, has employed them to "blame the victim"---if the pope was misguided, whose job was it to guide him? American conservatives and libertarians who he's most likely never met or heard? When Bedford says that the pope’s “questions and teachings” have revealed that advocates of the free market have failed to make the moral case, is he saying that the pope’s argument was therefore correct, or is he simply assigning blame for the pope’s ignorance on these issues to less-holy scapegoats?
Bedford wrote: “While the pope’s message confirmed a lot of social doctrine that conservative Catholics can be thankful for, his defense and advocacy of a moral society contained one glaring omission---a defense of the free market.” This is absurd; anyone who read the document, or at the very least read the portion pertaining to economics, knows that the pope spent at least 10 pages assaulting vague concepts that are generally associated with capitalism/libertarian economics/the free market (which are all generally synonymous---and the pope was speaking very generally)---the pope’s “glaring omission” was any semblance of logic, defined terms, or objective facts…not a "defense of the free market."
Nevertheless, Bedford continues: “In fact, he seemed to come down fairly hard on libertarian economics, characterizing them as ‘trickle-down theories’ that have ‘never been confirmed by the facts,’ and tend ‘to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits.” In other words, it was not a “glaring omission” at all---it was an intentional disparagement. Why would he call it an “omission” when he contradicts himself in the very next sentence?
His next paragraph contained a distasteful mixture of snide-elitism and righteous anti-intellectualism: “There is much to goad the average libertarian in Pope Francis’ critique. Most sound economists we know would likely convulse at the his [sic] contention that the benefits of economic freedom are not overwhelmingly ‘confirmed by the facts,’ and would launch into an intelligent and true defense of economic freedom, citing the unparalleled spread of prosperity, the steep rise in life expectancy, the sharp decline in infant mortality, the virtual end of any permanent lower class, and any number of other demonstrable truths. And they would, in all likeliness, fail to sway the pontiff, as well as millions of other intelligent and moral people. Because as Gov. Chris Christie recently observed, ‘politics is a feeling.” (Italics are mine). Reading his article caused me to observe that nausea is also a feeling...Factual defenses of economic freedom are belittled as being merely "intelligent and true"---morally invalidated by their inability to "sway the pontiff (and) other intelligent and moral people." And why is that?…"Because 'politics is a feeling.” Well if Chris Christie says so, no further explanation needed.
Bedford then attempted to clothe this naked-assertion by referencing an anecdote about a "knowledgeable champion" of economic freedom, (Arthur Brooks of AEI), being "defeated at a Thanksgiving-table discussion" by his “liberal” sister. Brooks had apparently erred by employing objective facts and logic, whereas his sister, "rested her point on a newspaper account of a woman and her child forced to sleep in a car." Bedford concluded: "Who cared if Dr. Brooks---with all his numbers and figures---had the greater cure for human misery? In the eyes of his family, his sister cared most about human beings." Did Bedford evaluate the validity of this family’s logic before referencing it, or is it simply true because they felt it, and logic does not apply? This family cares about human misery, but doesn't care about curing human misery? I guess my definition of "intelligent and moral people" is fundamentally different than Bedford's…
After throwing a bone to the free market, Bedford brought the pope's exhortation back into focus: "But like every single society of men, there is more than enough room for the devil. And the greed and consumerism Pope Francis rightly criticizes is a weakness of human nature, not of freedom. As libertarian economist Milton Friedman challenged decades ago, 'Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?" This is all well and good, except for the fact that, as was the case with the word "capitalism," the pope never once mentioned the word "greed"---although he did mention "consumerism" four-times in the 200+ pages of the exhortation.
Bedford continued by referencing Milton Friedman's work in Chile, which neighbors the pope's homeland of Argentina, and writes that "Dr. Friedman’s point...was likely lost on a young Argentine priest who would one day lead the Church," because, even though Friedman's free market reforms saved Chile from economic ruin: "Gen. Augusto Pinochet---became the face of free-market reform in Latin America…(and) was not exactly a poster boy for caring...despite the great successes of the Chilean economy, to many in Latin America, free markets became synonymous with the harsh excesses of his rule." For those of you keeping track, Bedford has just added the murderous Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, to the list of people who are to blame for the pope's views---a list that does not include the pope himself.
Bedford finishes with a quote from the bible (omitted for lack of relevance) sandwiched between two pieces of advice: "While libertarians must stress the moral, human story of economic freedom, we must also guard against progressives’ claim to the moral high ground." And: "While we conservatives and libertarians may disagree with the pope on the details, his message is dead on. And despite their victory lap, the other side doesn’t get it: Man is not a material creature nurtured by minimum wage laws, moved by Dodd-Frank; he is a spiritual creature, nurtured by freedom, moved by caring. In short, it’s the humanity, stupid."
First of all, the pope didn't give any even resembling a "detail"---and if the pope's "message is dead on," why did Bedford quote so little of it in his article? To recap, these are the only actual quotes from the exhortation that Bedford used: 1) the title; 2) “trickle-down theories” that have “never been confirmed by the facts,” and tend ”to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits;” 3)…That was it---no third quote, just two partial sentences from the document. Why did Bedford not take the time to actually prove that the pope's message was correct? Because his only intention was to give the impression that the pope was "dead on" by running a weasel worded play in which he combined a "deflect" with a "mirror"---deflect the blame from the pope by holding a mirror to his critics---with the accusation running throughout: "You are to blame for the pope's views." And what exactly are those views, what exactly are we to blame for Mr. Bedford?---he gives no answer. The article is titled, "The pope, and the libertarians' failure," but the only thing he actually talks about is the failure to make the "moral, human case for the free market"---in what way exactly did the pope's exhortation expose that failure? What contrasting case was made by the pope? No answers.
Which conservatives have ever had the opportunity “to the make the moral case for the free market” to Pope Francis? The pope was born in Argentina in 1936, whose fault is it exactly for the beliefs he holds? Fox News? Glenn Beck? The Wall Street Journal? Ayn Rand? F.A. Hayek? William F. Buckley? I addressed weasel words in my last post, and Bedford, I'm sorry to say, has employed them to "blame the victim"---if the pope was misguided, whose job was it to guide him? American conservatives and libertarians who he's most likely never met or heard? When Bedford says that the pope’s “questions and teachings” have revealed that advocates of the free market have failed to make the moral case, is he saying that the pope’s argument was therefore correct, or is he simply assigning blame for the pope’s ignorance on these issues to less-holy scapegoats?
Bedford wrote: “While the pope’s message confirmed a lot of social doctrine that conservative Catholics can be thankful for, his defense and advocacy of a moral society contained one glaring omission---a defense of the free market.” This is absurd; anyone who read the document, or at the very least read the portion pertaining to economics, knows that the pope spent at least 10 pages assaulting vague concepts that are generally associated with capitalism/libertarian economics/the free market (which are all generally synonymous---and the pope was speaking very generally)---the pope’s “glaring omission” was any semblance of logic, defined terms, or objective facts…not a "defense of the free market."
Nevertheless, Bedford continues: “In fact, he seemed to come down fairly hard on libertarian economics, characterizing them as ‘trickle-down theories’ that have ‘never been confirmed by the facts,’ and tend ‘to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits.” In other words, it was not a “glaring omission” at all---it was an intentional disparagement. Why would he call it an “omission” when he contradicts himself in the very next sentence?
His next paragraph contained a distasteful mixture of snide-elitism and righteous anti-intellectualism: “There is much to goad the average libertarian in Pope Francis’ critique. Most sound economists we know would likely convulse at the his [sic] contention that the benefits of economic freedom are not overwhelmingly ‘confirmed by the facts,’ and would launch into an intelligent and true defense of economic freedom, citing the unparalleled spread of prosperity, the steep rise in life expectancy, the sharp decline in infant mortality, the virtual end of any permanent lower class, and any number of other demonstrable truths. And they would, in all likeliness, fail to sway the pontiff, as well as millions of other intelligent and moral people. Because as Gov. Chris Christie recently observed, ‘politics is a feeling.” (Italics are mine). Reading his article caused me to observe that nausea is also a feeling...Factual defenses of economic freedom are belittled as being merely "intelligent and true"---morally invalidated by their inability to "sway the pontiff (and) other intelligent and moral people." And why is that?…"Because 'politics is a feeling.” Well if Chris Christie says so, no further explanation needed.
Bedford then attempted to clothe this naked-assertion by referencing an anecdote about a "knowledgeable champion" of economic freedom, (Arthur Brooks of AEI), being "defeated at a Thanksgiving-table discussion" by his “liberal” sister. Brooks had apparently erred by employing objective facts and logic, whereas his sister, "rested her point on a newspaper account of a woman and her child forced to sleep in a car." Bedford concluded: "Who cared if Dr. Brooks---with all his numbers and figures---had the greater cure for human misery? In the eyes of his family, his sister cared most about human beings." Did Bedford evaluate the validity of this family’s logic before referencing it, or is it simply true because they felt it, and logic does not apply? This family cares about human misery, but doesn't care about curing human misery? I guess my definition of "intelligent and moral people" is fundamentally different than Bedford's…
After throwing a bone to the free market, Bedford brought the pope's exhortation back into focus: "But like every single society of men, there is more than enough room for the devil. And the greed and consumerism Pope Francis rightly criticizes is a weakness of human nature, not of freedom. As libertarian economist Milton Friedman challenged decades ago, 'Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?" This is all well and good, except for the fact that, as was the case with the word "capitalism," the pope never once mentioned the word "greed"---although he did mention "consumerism" four-times in the 200+ pages of the exhortation.
Bedford continued by referencing Milton Friedman's work in Chile, which neighbors the pope's homeland of Argentina, and writes that "Dr. Friedman’s point...was likely lost on a young Argentine priest who would one day lead the Church," because, even though Friedman's free market reforms saved Chile from economic ruin: "Gen. Augusto Pinochet---became the face of free-market reform in Latin America…(and) was not exactly a poster boy for caring...despite the great successes of the Chilean economy, to many in Latin America, free markets became synonymous with the harsh excesses of his rule." For those of you keeping track, Bedford has just added the murderous Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, to the list of people who are to blame for the pope's views---a list that does not include the pope himself.
Bedford finishes with a quote from the bible (omitted for lack of relevance) sandwiched between two pieces of advice: "While libertarians must stress the moral, human story of economic freedom, we must also guard against progressives’ claim to the moral high ground." And: "While we conservatives and libertarians may disagree with the pope on the details, his message is dead on. And despite their victory lap, the other side doesn’t get it: Man is not a material creature nurtured by minimum wage laws, moved by Dodd-Frank; he is a spiritual creature, nurtured by freedom, moved by caring. In short, it’s the humanity, stupid."
First of all, the pope didn't give any even resembling a "detail"---and if the pope's "message is dead on," why did Bedford quote so little of it in his article? To recap, these are the only actual quotes from the exhortation that Bedford used: 1) the title; 2) “trickle-down theories” that have “never been confirmed by the facts,” and tend ”to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits;” 3)…That was it---no third quote, just two partial sentences from the document. Why did Bedford not take the time to actually prove that the pope's message was correct? Because his only intention was to give the impression that the pope was "dead on" by running a weasel worded play in which he combined a "deflect" with a "mirror"---deflect the blame from the pope by holding a mirror to his critics---with the accusation running throughout: "You are to blame for the pope's views." And what exactly are those views, what exactly are we to blame for Mr. Bedford?---he gives no answer. The article is titled, "The pope, and the libertarians' failure," but the only thing he actually talks about is the failure to make the "moral, human case for the free market"---in what way exactly did the pope's exhortation expose that failure? What contrasting case was made by the pope? No answers.
RSS Feed