Wikipedia has a page titled, “History of capitalism,” which carries the following disclaimer under its heading: “This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.” Wikipedia describes “weasel words” as: “Equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.” Merriam-Webster describes them as: “A word (or phrase/term) used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position;” originating “from the weasel's reputed habit of sucking the contents out of an egg while leaving the shell superficially intact.” Kudos to Wikipedia for refusing to recognize the scholarly validity of weasel words, as their disclaimer creates a standard for something sorely lacking from modern political dialogue---intellectual honesty. The lack of such honesty defined the economic justice portion of the pope’s recent “apostolic exhortation."
The relevant section of the exhortation begins on page-44, and is given the title, “Some Challenges of Today’s World”---with the politico-economic portion encompassing paragraphs 52 through 60, and, roughly, pages 44 through 50. The four sub-sections are titled: 1) No to an economy of exclusion; 2) No to the new idolatry of money; 3) No to a financial system that rules rather than serves; and 4) No to the inequality which spawns violence. You should immediately notice that the pope’s argument in inherently negative---it offers a laundry list of vague concepts to say “no” to, but very little in the way of solutions, or things to say “yes” to. The ultimate testament to the pope’s effective use of weasel wording is reflected by the fact that most (if not all) articles and reports on his exhortation mention capitalism; however, a search of the document reveals that the pope never actually mentioned capitalism (although he did mention consumerism four-times). By never actually identifying capitalism as his target, Pope Francis left the shell of capitalism superficially intact---and yet, in everyone’s minds, the content was completely sucked-out. If nothing else, that was an impressive feat...
The pope began the portion of his exhortation that has drawn so much attention over the last week by asserting: “In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history"---praising steps being taken in certain fields “to improve people’s welfare,” but then reminding his audience that: “The majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day...diseases are spreading...lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity." He finished this paragraphed by blaming this "epochal change" on the "advances occurring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life...which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.”
If you attempt to derive meaning from this assessment without adding your own interpretation of the words---i.e., without adding words that are fundamental to the meaning you ascribe, but don’t actually appear on the page---you will begin to understand the effect of weasel wording. Try to defend the pope without saying: He simply means that…(insert imported generalization) (or) He's talking about the fact that…(insert imported fact). The pope has given the impression that he is describing something new, and that he is leading us to the source of this sinful condition, but in reality he is vaguely describing a set of conditions that have always been applicable to humanity, and mixing them in with the recognition that technology is rapidly advancing---no causal connection has been established, or even attempted.
Pope Francis then moves to the section titled, “No to an economy of exclusion,” and states: “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
The only type of economy in which this choice is open to the people, in which following this “commandment” is possible, is a free market. Unless Pope Francis is addressing an audience of totalitarian dictators---the leaders of societies in which the nature of the economy is open to the discretion of a single individual---it must be the case that he is referring to a scenario in which each of us make this decision, individually and as ordinary citizens; and what is only type of market that allows ordinary citizens to make such decisions as individuals?---a free market! The pope’s focus on general “injustice” serves one purpose---to separate freedom from justice; to entice you to reject freedom in the name of justice. This is evidenced by the fact that Pope Francis used the word, “inequality,” eight-times, but never once mentioned the word “equality”---no doubt a conscious decision, as inequality is an effective instrument of blame, and equality is a false concept that has never existed and never will, and thus makes the use of inequality so effective---it implies an injustice where no justice is possible.
Take a moment and think about the concept of exchange in a free market; if everyone were equal in every respect, nobody would have something that someone else wanted, and thus no trade or exchange would ever take place. If both parties to an exchange were fundamentally equal, how could the exchange make them both better off and still equal---on what grounds would the exchange be justified? Imagine two businessmen of the same profession who are operating according to the same rules and with roughly equal resources---in a momentary state of equality; if one of those businessmen makes a bad investment, and his business fails, while the other makes a wise investment and his business expands, is it proper to focus on the inequality that such a scenario creates---vilifying success on behalf of failure, or should we instead focus on the prosperity that wise decisions create---so that it may be reproduced in the future? The pope never mentioned equality because there is no historical example of such a thing ever existing, and, remember, the Church has a very long historical record---why no equality in those societies Pope Francis? Nothing even resembling an answer was ever given, as the pope confined himself to the role of critic on this issue.
He continues: ”How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.”
If the homeless person represents despair, the stock market represents prosperity, and the news represents the focus of society, does the pope believe that dwelling on despair rather than promoting prosperity is the answer? Can you end despair without creating prosperity? Keep in mind that he is speaking to the world; in what regard is a “news item” the proper measure of “exclusion,” and in what regard is whether or not you “stand by when food is thrown away” a measure of “inequality?” How is the pope monitoring every newscast in the world on a daily basis while also monitoring the deaths of homeless people from exposure, and where does he hear of these deaths if not some form of news? And if the death is a news item, is it no longer a case of exclusion? What does it even mean to “stand by when food is thrown away?” If the pope is content with presenting his argument in the form of questions, then I’m content with presenting my response in the exact same fashion. This is a case of rhetorical reciprocity.
After condemning the affairs of the newsroom and your dinning room, the pope moved forward with the recognition that: “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.” As a consequence of what exactly? Which laws leave people "excluded and marginalized?" What does he mean by possibilities---that which is metaphysically possible, or that which is simply statistically-likely? And possibilities in accordance with what? What is no longer possible? What means of escape did they once have? Escape from what? And to where? No answers…
What does he mean by everything, and what does he mean by today? These are weasel words. "Everything" allows the reader to interpret anything; is he referring to the laws of competition and survival of the fittest within the context of laissez faire capitalism? Or within the context of African warlords? Or within the context of "Chinese state-capitalism," where the concept of government force is combined with the concept of the market? No answers…."Today" is also an equivocation, as it gives the impression of: "today in contrast to earlier days," but that is only to be assumed from the context---why does the pope simply give the impression of a change, without actually identifying a contrast by pointing to an example of when it was different and in what way it was different? If it is this way today, how was it yesterday? How was it, for example, at the historical height of the Vatican's authority---when it was blessing the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, or sanctioning the divine right of kings? Were people not "excluded and marginalized" then?
You should notice that the pope did not say, "the laws of free competition;" what then does he mean by competition? Prior to the period he intended to delineate by the word, "today," did men not compete? Or, can the clue be found in the word, "law;" does he intend to say that, prior to capitalism, men were banned from competition---by law? What does it mean to say "the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest?" These are not laws of man; they are laws of nature---God's laws. The condition in which these laws would be most applicable to man or to society would be anarchy---not capitalism, and certainly not the various mixed-economies---mixtures of capitalism and socialism, which, at present, define the vast majority of the world's economies.
If man is banned from competition, he is not free; but if "everything comes under the laws of competition and survival of the fittest," then he has no rights. The pope is importing---via weasel words---the concept of anarchy, of man living in accordance with the law's of God's nature, while giving the impression that he is describing some contemporary form of capitalism. The pope describes competition as a society where the "powerful feed upon the powerless." In what way are they powerful, and in what way do they feed? How did they become powerful? Are they politically powerful, and use the force of law---legalized force---to take from, or "feed upon," those without such power---the "powerless?" Or are they economically powerful, and use persuasive appeal to mutual benefit in order to orchestrate volitional exchanges---and thus only "feed upon" the powerless in the sense that they've been comparatively more successful in such exchanges than others have? Was John D. Rockefeller "powerful" in the same sense as Fidel Castro or Benito Mussolini? Did he "feed upon the powerless" in the same sense that Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong did? What is the fundamental difference between them? What is the difference between a businessman and a bureaucrat---or the IRS and Wal Mart? Economic power versus political power.
Pope Francis continued: "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised---they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the 'leftovers."
Apparently, in better days (when?), "it" (what?) was "simply about exploitation and oppression"---is this where the pope hopes to return us? "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods"---by whom? In what way? "To be used and then discarded"---is this simply how they are "considered," or are they literally being "used and then discarded?" And if the latter is true, how are they used and how are they discarded? "We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading"---to whom does "we" refer? Humanity? If so, to where is it spreading---Mars? If "we" does not refer to humanity writ large, then to which societies does it specifically refer? This rambling rant was most likely intended to simply set the mood for the next paragraph (No. 54 of the document), in which the pope uses his pulpit to take a shot at Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies were given the misnomer of "trickle down economics;" Pope Francis is offering conservatives a choice: Me or him? Reagan also offered a choice, but more on that later...
The pope asserts: "In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by fact, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” As opposed to the trust which is codified in all other, unfree systems---which places that trust in bureaucrats? Capitalism is fundamentally an expression of distrust in those who wield political power---which, once again, means the power to legally use force, and which is the unique power of the government---representing the only true monopoly. Is he saying that since you can't trust the results of freedom---those who succeed in gaining economic power in a free market---you should accept a system where no such power exists, by placing that power in the hands of those who wield political power?
Nobody "defends trickle-down theories;" the pope might've researched this disparaging term before regurgitating it. Thomas Sowell, of the Hoover Institute, (a former marxist who is now one of the most articulate defenders of the free market) wrote that, while opponents of "tax cuts for the rich" and other non-confiscatory or non-redistributive economic theories refer to them as "trickle down," advocates of those theories never have: "No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories, including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental 1,260-page History of Economic Analysis. Yet this non-existent theory has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena. It has been attacked by Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton and Professor Peter Corning of Stanford, among others, and similar attacks have been repeated as far away as India. It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made." It is also a classic example of a weasel word, and we can add the pope to the list of those who are guilty of such intellectual dishonesty.
What is the pope referring to when he starts his paragraph with: "In this context?" He hasn't cited a single objective fact or defined a single-term---how could this serve as the context in which they continue to defend these theories? In the previous paragraph he stated: 1) Human beings are considered consumer goods, to be used then discarded; 2) we have created a throw away culture; 3) it is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression; 4) it is about something new; 5) exclusion has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; 6) the excluded are no longer a part of society; 7) the excluded are not the 'exploited;' and 8) the excluded are the outcast and the 'leftovers." Read it for yourself, page 46.
The pope claims that "exclusion" exists, but other than the commandment to say "thou shall not to an economy of exclusion," and the anecdote about the homeless person's death and the news reporting on the stock market, he pulls this term out of thin air, and claims that this is the context in which the "trickle down theories" are defended in accordance with the assumption that they bring about greater inclusiveness in the world. The pope says that it's "no longer simply about exploitation or oppression, but something new," and then just starts talking about "exclusion," without ever actually acknowledging the significance or causality. He doesn't say that "exclusion is something new," he says: "It's no longer about…, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live." Should we simply assume the pope's argument for him? And if we were expected to do so here, where else?
The pope writes that: "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting." Once again, which opinion? The pope claims that it "has never been confirmed by the facts"---but doesn't say that the facts have disproven this opinion, or that the facts show that some other opinion has a better record in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. Why not? Because none of what he is saying corresponds to reality---the opinion doesn't exist, he made it up, so the best he can say is that the facts have never confirmed this opinion---how could they? What types of facts should we consider when measuring justice and inclusiveness in the world?
The pope is playing jump-rope with the line between the absurd and the nonsensical---I get the impression that it's absurd, but it seems to fall short of the prerequisite of absurdity---mere coherence, and thus fails to rise above the level of nonsensical or meaningless. What does "greater justice and inclusiveness in the world" mean? That "trickle down theories" in one country were intended to bring about greater justice and inclusiveness in other countries---where they didn't apply? That Reagan's domestic economic policy was intended for the benefit of the Soviet Union, or Cuba, or North Korea, or Vatican City, or Sub-Saharan Africa, or the island nations of Oceania? And that they failed because the average slave in the Soviet Union did not experience greater justice or inclusiveness? The pope's implicit argument---to the extent that one exists---is that if a particular economic policy fails to bring about some undefined, but vaguely positive change in countries were it is neither accepted nor was intended to be, that policy has failed. The pope's flailing…and it's not like he didn't have time to think about this, or that he doesn't have a large staff to assist him.
Pope Francis then talks about the personal and emotional effect of this economic system, which he refuses to name, saying that the "culture of prosperity deadens us" to the suffering of others. He then moves to the section titled, "No to the new idolatry of money;" the pope writes: "While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."
This is not a legitimate form of argumentation; the first sentence is fine, but he follows it by simply assigning blame---with no evidence, no causal connection, with nothing but weasel wording. The pope says that this imbalance is the result of certain ideologies---which ideologies "defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation?" Remember, the market is only "free" to the extent that the government is not. If he means autonomy from government interference, I can think of only one---laissez faire capitalism---where on earth does that exist today? No existing economic system even comes close, but that does not stop the pope from claiming that these unidentified ideologies "reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control." If the pope spent the rest of his papacy studying the federal register---attempting to understand the various forms of regulation and control that exist in this country, which is the most capitalist---it is unlikely that he would have time for anything else. And yet he believes that governments are prevented from exercising any form of control?---this is weasel wording at its worst.
The pope has offered conservatives a clear choice, and judging by the reactions to the pope's exhortation, it's a choice that many conservatives still refuse to acknowledge…
The relevant section of the exhortation begins on page-44, and is given the title, “Some Challenges of Today’s World”---with the politico-economic portion encompassing paragraphs 52 through 60, and, roughly, pages 44 through 50. The four sub-sections are titled: 1) No to an economy of exclusion; 2) No to the new idolatry of money; 3) No to a financial system that rules rather than serves; and 4) No to the inequality which spawns violence. You should immediately notice that the pope’s argument in inherently negative---it offers a laundry list of vague concepts to say “no” to, but very little in the way of solutions, or things to say “yes” to. The ultimate testament to the pope’s effective use of weasel wording is reflected by the fact that most (if not all) articles and reports on his exhortation mention capitalism; however, a search of the document reveals that the pope never actually mentioned capitalism (although he did mention consumerism four-times). By never actually identifying capitalism as his target, Pope Francis left the shell of capitalism superficially intact---and yet, in everyone’s minds, the content was completely sucked-out. If nothing else, that was an impressive feat...
The pope began the portion of his exhortation that has drawn so much attention over the last week by asserting: “In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history"---praising steps being taken in certain fields “to improve people’s welfare,” but then reminding his audience that: “The majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day...diseases are spreading...lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity." He finished this paragraphed by blaming this "epochal change" on the "advances occurring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life...which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.”
If you attempt to derive meaning from this assessment without adding your own interpretation of the words---i.e., without adding words that are fundamental to the meaning you ascribe, but don’t actually appear on the page---you will begin to understand the effect of weasel wording. Try to defend the pope without saying: He simply means that…(insert imported generalization) (or) He's talking about the fact that…(insert imported fact). The pope has given the impression that he is describing something new, and that he is leading us to the source of this sinful condition, but in reality he is vaguely describing a set of conditions that have always been applicable to humanity, and mixing them in with the recognition that technology is rapidly advancing---no causal connection has been established, or even attempted.
Pope Francis then moves to the section titled, “No to an economy of exclusion,” and states: “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
The only type of economy in which this choice is open to the people, in which following this “commandment” is possible, is a free market. Unless Pope Francis is addressing an audience of totalitarian dictators---the leaders of societies in which the nature of the economy is open to the discretion of a single individual---it must be the case that he is referring to a scenario in which each of us make this decision, individually and as ordinary citizens; and what is only type of market that allows ordinary citizens to make such decisions as individuals?---a free market! The pope’s focus on general “injustice” serves one purpose---to separate freedom from justice; to entice you to reject freedom in the name of justice. This is evidenced by the fact that Pope Francis used the word, “inequality,” eight-times, but never once mentioned the word “equality”---no doubt a conscious decision, as inequality is an effective instrument of blame, and equality is a false concept that has never existed and never will, and thus makes the use of inequality so effective---it implies an injustice where no justice is possible.
Take a moment and think about the concept of exchange in a free market; if everyone were equal in every respect, nobody would have something that someone else wanted, and thus no trade or exchange would ever take place. If both parties to an exchange were fundamentally equal, how could the exchange make them both better off and still equal---on what grounds would the exchange be justified? Imagine two businessmen of the same profession who are operating according to the same rules and with roughly equal resources---in a momentary state of equality; if one of those businessmen makes a bad investment, and his business fails, while the other makes a wise investment and his business expands, is it proper to focus on the inequality that such a scenario creates---vilifying success on behalf of failure, or should we instead focus on the prosperity that wise decisions create---so that it may be reproduced in the future? The pope never mentioned equality because there is no historical example of such a thing ever existing, and, remember, the Church has a very long historical record---why no equality in those societies Pope Francis? Nothing even resembling an answer was ever given, as the pope confined himself to the role of critic on this issue.
He continues: ”How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.”
If the homeless person represents despair, the stock market represents prosperity, and the news represents the focus of society, does the pope believe that dwelling on despair rather than promoting prosperity is the answer? Can you end despair without creating prosperity? Keep in mind that he is speaking to the world; in what regard is a “news item” the proper measure of “exclusion,” and in what regard is whether or not you “stand by when food is thrown away” a measure of “inequality?” How is the pope monitoring every newscast in the world on a daily basis while also monitoring the deaths of homeless people from exposure, and where does he hear of these deaths if not some form of news? And if the death is a news item, is it no longer a case of exclusion? What does it even mean to “stand by when food is thrown away?” If the pope is content with presenting his argument in the form of questions, then I’m content with presenting my response in the exact same fashion. This is a case of rhetorical reciprocity.
After condemning the affairs of the newsroom and your dinning room, the pope moved forward with the recognition that: “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.” As a consequence of what exactly? Which laws leave people "excluded and marginalized?" What does he mean by possibilities---that which is metaphysically possible, or that which is simply statistically-likely? And possibilities in accordance with what? What is no longer possible? What means of escape did they once have? Escape from what? And to where? No answers…
What does he mean by everything, and what does he mean by today? These are weasel words. "Everything" allows the reader to interpret anything; is he referring to the laws of competition and survival of the fittest within the context of laissez faire capitalism? Or within the context of African warlords? Or within the context of "Chinese state-capitalism," where the concept of government force is combined with the concept of the market? No answers…."Today" is also an equivocation, as it gives the impression of: "today in contrast to earlier days," but that is only to be assumed from the context---why does the pope simply give the impression of a change, without actually identifying a contrast by pointing to an example of when it was different and in what way it was different? If it is this way today, how was it yesterday? How was it, for example, at the historical height of the Vatican's authority---when it was blessing the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, or sanctioning the divine right of kings? Were people not "excluded and marginalized" then?
You should notice that the pope did not say, "the laws of free competition;" what then does he mean by competition? Prior to the period he intended to delineate by the word, "today," did men not compete? Or, can the clue be found in the word, "law;" does he intend to say that, prior to capitalism, men were banned from competition---by law? What does it mean to say "the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest?" These are not laws of man; they are laws of nature---God's laws. The condition in which these laws would be most applicable to man or to society would be anarchy---not capitalism, and certainly not the various mixed-economies---mixtures of capitalism and socialism, which, at present, define the vast majority of the world's economies.
If man is banned from competition, he is not free; but if "everything comes under the laws of competition and survival of the fittest," then he has no rights. The pope is importing---via weasel words---the concept of anarchy, of man living in accordance with the law's of God's nature, while giving the impression that he is describing some contemporary form of capitalism. The pope describes competition as a society where the "powerful feed upon the powerless." In what way are they powerful, and in what way do they feed? How did they become powerful? Are they politically powerful, and use the force of law---legalized force---to take from, or "feed upon," those without such power---the "powerless?" Or are they economically powerful, and use persuasive appeal to mutual benefit in order to orchestrate volitional exchanges---and thus only "feed upon" the powerless in the sense that they've been comparatively more successful in such exchanges than others have? Was John D. Rockefeller "powerful" in the same sense as Fidel Castro or Benito Mussolini? Did he "feed upon the powerless" in the same sense that Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong did? What is the fundamental difference between them? What is the difference between a businessman and a bureaucrat---or the IRS and Wal Mart? Economic power versus political power.
Pope Francis continued: "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised---they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the 'leftovers."
Apparently, in better days (when?), "it" (what?) was "simply about exploitation and oppression"---is this where the pope hopes to return us? "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods"---by whom? In what way? "To be used and then discarded"---is this simply how they are "considered," or are they literally being "used and then discarded?" And if the latter is true, how are they used and how are they discarded? "We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading"---to whom does "we" refer? Humanity? If so, to where is it spreading---Mars? If "we" does not refer to humanity writ large, then to which societies does it specifically refer? This rambling rant was most likely intended to simply set the mood for the next paragraph (No. 54 of the document), in which the pope uses his pulpit to take a shot at Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies were given the misnomer of "trickle down economics;" Pope Francis is offering conservatives a choice: Me or him? Reagan also offered a choice, but more on that later...
The pope asserts: "In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by fact, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” As opposed to the trust which is codified in all other, unfree systems---which places that trust in bureaucrats? Capitalism is fundamentally an expression of distrust in those who wield political power---which, once again, means the power to legally use force, and which is the unique power of the government---representing the only true monopoly. Is he saying that since you can't trust the results of freedom---those who succeed in gaining economic power in a free market---you should accept a system where no such power exists, by placing that power in the hands of those who wield political power?
Nobody "defends trickle-down theories;" the pope might've researched this disparaging term before regurgitating it. Thomas Sowell, of the Hoover Institute, (a former marxist who is now one of the most articulate defenders of the free market) wrote that, while opponents of "tax cuts for the rich" and other non-confiscatory or non-redistributive economic theories refer to them as "trickle down," advocates of those theories never have: "No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories, including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental 1,260-page History of Economic Analysis. Yet this non-existent theory has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena. It has been attacked by Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton and Professor Peter Corning of Stanford, among others, and similar attacks have been repeated as far away as India. It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made." It is also a classic example of a weasel word, and we can add the pope to the list of those who are guilty of such intellectual dishonesty.
What is the pope referring to when he starts his paragraph with: "In this context?" He hasn't cited a single objective fact or defined a single-term---how could this serve as the context in which they continue to defend these theories? In the previous paragraph he stated: 1) Human beings are considered consumer goods, to be used then discarded; 2) we have created a throw away culture; 3) it is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression; 4) it is about something new; 5) exclusion has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; 6) the excluded are no longer a part of society; 7) the excluded are not the 'exploited;' and 8) the excluded are the outcast and the 'leftovers." Read it for yourself, page 46.
The pope claims that "exclusion" exists, but other than the commandment to say "thou shall not to an economy of exclusion," and the anecdote about the homeless person's death and the news reporting on the stock market, he pulls this term out of thin air, and claims that this is the context in which the "trickle down theories" are defended in accordance with the assumption that they bring about greater inclusiveness in the world. The pope says that it's "no longer simply about exploitation or oppression, but something new," and then just starts talking about "exclusion," without ever actually acknowledging the significance or causality. He doesn't say that "exclusion is something new," he says: "It's no longer about…, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live." Should we simply assume the pope's argument for him? And if we were expected to do so here, where else?
The pope writes that: "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting." Once again, which opinion? The pope claims that it "has never been confirmed by the facts"---but doesn't say that the facts have disproven this opinion, or that the facts show that some other opinion has a better record in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. Why not? Because none of what he is saying corresponds to reality---the opinion doesn't exist, he made it up, so the best he can say is that the facts have never confirmed this opinion---how could they? What types of facts should we consider when measuring justice and inclusiveness in the world?
The pope is playing jump-rope with the line between the absurd and the nonsensical---I get the impression that it's absurd, but it seems to fall short of the prerequisite of absurdity---mere coherence, and thus fails to rise above the level of nonsensical or meaningless. What does "greater justice and inclusiveness in the world" mean? That "trickle down theories" in one country were intended to bring about greater justice and inclusiveness in other countries---where they didn't apply? That Reagan's domestic economic policy was intended for the benefit of the Soviet Union, or Cuba, or North Korea, or Vatican City, or Sub-Saharan Africa, or the island nations of Oceania? And that they failed because the average slave in the Soviet Union did not experience greater justice or inclusiveness? The pope's implicit argument---to the extent that one exists---is that if a particular economic policy fails to bring about some undefined, but vaguely positive change in countries were it is neither accepted nor was intended to be, that policy has failed. The pope's flailing…and it's not like he didn't have time to think about this, or that he doesn't have a large staff to assist him.
Pope Francis then talks about the personal and emotional effect of this economic system, which he refuses to name, saying that the "culture of prosperity deadens us" to the suffering of others. He then moves to the section titled, "No to the new idolatry of money;" the pope writes: "While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."
This is not a legitimate form of argumentation; the first sentence is fine, but he follows it by simply assigning blame---with no evidence, no causal connection, with nothing but weasel wording. The pope says that this imbalance is the result of certain ideologies---which ideologies "defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation?" Remember, the market is only "free" to the extent that the government is not. If he means autonomy from government interference, I can think of only one---laissez faire capitalism---where on earth does that exist today? No existing economic system even comes close, but that does not stop the pope from claiming that these unidentified ideologies "reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control." If the pope spent the rest of his papacy studying the federal register---attempting to understand the various forms of regulation and control that exist in this country, which is the most capitalist---it is unlikely that he would have time for anything else. And yet he believes that governments are prevented from exercising any form of control?---this is weasel wording at its worst.
The pope has offered conservatives a clear choice, and judging by the reactions to the pope's exhortation, it's a choice that many conservatives still refuse to acknowledge…
RSS Feed