#379: The Money Scam

As we move from the Christmas season into Epiphany, one look back suggests how far we have YET go to honor the Christmas promise of Peace.

Traditionally, Christians celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents on the Fourth Day of Christmas, December 28 (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2012-12-28).  Thus for centuries Christians have used the Christmas season (December 25 to January 5) as a time to not only celebrate the birth of Jesus, but also to honor the suffering of innocent children as well. 

But this year, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, some people are dishonoring those children with disingenuous arguments and self-serving proposals.

The NRA leadership says “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This reminds me of the popup on my PC screen from a company offering, for a fee, to rid my computer of the very virus that same company had sent to my computer!  The scam is: cause the problem so you can offer to fix it.

If banning combat-style weapons is not a practical option, it is mainly because there are already 300 million guns owned by private citizens--some of them bad guys.  So now the NRA offers a solution (armed guards in every school) to the very problem they have promoted for decades: widespread easy legal ownership of weapons designed for mass killing.

It’s an old Fascist trick, of course.  In 1939, the Nazis invaded Poland in response to a supposed Polish attack against a German radio station, which in fact they had themselves faked. Hitler said: “In order to put an end to this frantic activity no other means is left to me now than to meet force with force.” Sound familiar?

The NRA is of course the main lobby for the weapons industry--and their efforts over the years have enabled the flood of weaponry that that now engulfs us.  Having succeeded in shaping a nation literally armed to the teeth, they now conveniently trot out the hypocritical notion that the only solution is more weapons in more places.

Supposedly appealing to common sense, they compare guns in schools to banks with armed guards. security in American airports, power plants, courthouses, sports stadiums and Secret Service agents.  But all analogies limp, and this one too: mostly those people have chosen to put themselves in harm’s way.  Would the NRA have us accept that the same is true of our schoolchildren?  That parents place them in harm’s way? That going to school, like being President or handling massive sums of money, inevitably brings a high risk that requires armed protection?

The underlying worldview is obvious: there is no such thing as a safe place, there is only a well-protected (i.e well-armed) place.  This implies that we are all in harm’s way, all the time, everywhere.  The inevitable alternative is armed protection for everyone at all times.

This idea of a fortress-culture, constantly threatened and vulnerable and surviving only by the force of arms, reflects a vision of lawless society unmatched even by the towns of the “wild west” (where, e.g., schoolmarms were not armed, and people checked in their guns on arrival).  It denies the long-held notion that in a civilized society public safety is the norm, and that police are capable of protecting the citizenry from widespread violence.

This repugnant vision surrenders all hope of a peaceful society in which the average citizen can “hang up his gun at the sheriff’s office” and live secure from lethal attack. As both social vision and practical program, this approach is a scam.

Criminologists know from long study that there are three ways to protect the public against the kind of mass violence that struck Newtown.

First, we can better identify and control people who pose a threat to themselves and to others.  Time after time the killers turn out to fit the profile typical of sociopaths: reclusive, socially maladjusted loners, usually young white males, unable to function among their peers.  We have repeatedly failed to identify such people and provide the treatment, help, and control they need before their behavior becomes dangerous. (The NRA is at least right on one point: our media and video-game culture, by fetishizing gun violence, probably makes such people even more dangerous.)

Second, we can prevent the ready access of such people to victims.  No doubt this may mean tightening security in key places, including schools.  And given the entire NRA-fueled flood of guns in America, it may even require armed guards (after all, while I never purchased the virus spreaders’ “solution,” I still had to pay someone to fix my PC).

Third, we can reduce the ability of dangerous people to inflict harm.  The actual damage they do depends on the lethality of their weapons--and today’s weapons are far more lethal than any in our history.  The same week as the Newtown attack, a man in China armed with a knife attacked a school, stabbing 22 children.  Four were seriously hurt, but none died.  The main difference between that outcome and the 26 dead in Newtown was the weapon itself.

To get serious about protecting our citizenry, we must address all three of these conditions.  We must build a civil society where (1) dangerous people are identified and their behavior is controlled, (2) reasonable security systems are in place, and (3) weapons of mass murder are no longer a commonplace threat.

Behind such common sense principles are some controversial truths.

First, this is not a Second Amendment problem.  For one thing, the right to bear arms is no more absolute than any other right; it can be limited and regulated in the interest of public safety.  But more importantly, the Second Amendment applies to gun owners, not to gun makers or gun sellers. As Justice Scalia explained in his majority opinion in the Heller case:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 Thus:  A citizen’s right to bear arms does not give any particular weapons manufacturer the right to make or sell any particular weapon.  In short, citizens can bear whatever arms they can buy--but combat-style weapons should never be on the market in the first place!

The old IRA bumper sticker read, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” But where do outlaws get their guns?  Obviously, they get them from the same gun makers everyone else does!  The only reason bad guys have combat-style weapons is because we allow their manufacture and sale to the general public. The real issue here is not gun control at all—it is the regulation of gun commerce.

Second, it takes no genius to explain why such weapons are on the market, in defiance of all logic and common sense.  The answer is: money.  The industry for which the NRA lobbies is perfectly content to sell us more weapons to prevent the very carnage that its previous sales made possible--but it is not willing to curtail any sales that limit its profits, and it spends millions annually on the lobbying to protect those profits.  The sad truth is, we are governed by leaders who have already been bought by an industry for which trafficking in arms trumps public safety.

Third, the money behind guns reflects a much deeper problem than mere private sales to individual consumers.  The attachment to guns is deeply imbedded in our public policy as well.  Since World War II, the U.S. has consistently been the world’s largest manufacturer, seller, and trafficker of all weapons from handguns to nuclear missiles.  Many of the world’s trouble makers (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) rely on the firepower of U.S. weapons.  Many of the world’s trouble spots are fueled by “Washington bullets.” Weapons building brought the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression, and we have been the world’s arsenal ever since.  Indeed, worldwide U.S. weapons sales tripled in 2011, to $66.3 billion--more than three-quarters of the global total!

  The horrific truth is that our inability to stop the spread of guns is merely the byproduct of living in “Arsenal America.”

Fourth, people who tell us the problem is the “monsters” out there are deceiving both themselves and office.  While it is true that we cannot create peace and security by eliminating all evil, we are nonetheless wrong to buy the notion that America’s widespread violence is inevitably built into human nature.  This crisis is not natural, it is national.  No other civilized nation comes close to our violent crime rate, and few allow the sale of combat-style weapons.  Americans typically live in a bubble that defines our life in our own isolationist terms, without reference to the experience of other countries.  But in this case, to ignore how other countries have achieved the secure, pacific life we are failing to provide is nothing less than criminal blindness.

In future Decembers, the remembrance of the “Holy Innocents” will include not only those babies in first century Israel, but those schoolchildren for whom modern day America was a death trap.  We dishonor them, their families, their peers, and ourselves if we do not finally insist that their lives are more worth more than all the money in Arsenal America.

 © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#341: Warfare—or Justice?

As Warren Buffet makes the rounds promoting his new book, the old issues re-surface. So I am replaying this post from September 2011:

More than a year before the next presidential elections, the battle lines are already being drawn--and one phrase in the air seems likely to command increasing attention over the next 12 months. That phrase is “class warfare.” It’s a charge already being leveled against people as diverse as President Obama, billionaire Warren Buffett, and Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren. And it strikes me that this phrase offers a timely, even a perfect test-case for Catholic voters.

We Catholics now represent the largest “swing” voting group in the country. In 2004, Catholic John Kerry lost that swing to George W. Bush, but in 2008 Obama won the Catholic majority from John McCain. In both cases, the Catholic vote swung to the winner. So now when we hear talk of “independent voters,” we can think “Catholic voters.” And I like to think this means “independent-minded” as well. I would hope Catholic voters are Catholics first, and party supporters second--that our Catholic values trump party platforms and political preferences.

But it wasn’t so long ago that Catholic voters were largely working class, and many of them knew class warfare up close and personal (think “No Irish Need Apply”). And since the Democratic Party was, in the public’s eye, the workers’ party, Catholics were often bloc Democratic voters. In 1960 JFK won 80% of the Catholic vote.

Since then, Catholics have changed their class profile, emerging as among the best-educated and best-paid groups in America. The class profile of the two major parties has also changed, so it’s understandable if Catholics get confused about the issues and struggle to link their faith to their vote. It’s no longer as simple as checking the ballot for (D) or (R).

And when people start talking of “class warfare,” that makes matters even more confusing. It’s a serious charge, and demands a serious response. To get the clarity informed voting requires, we need to ask two things: What does class warfare mean? What should we think about it?

“Class warfare” sounds a lot like “class struggle,” the Marxist label for the process of workers wresting the means of production from the owners. But in today’s U.S. politics, “class warfare” has become a code word, like “socialism,” for any proposal to redistribute wealth within the population, especially through government action and taxation. It’s not about the workers seizing control of factories and companies, it’s about how much of their personal wealth rich Americans get to keep.

So what are the facts about the distribution of wealth in the U.S.? And what does our Catholic faith tradition have to say about it?

Frankly, the facts are surprisingly simple and obvious. For the last 40 years, the U.S. gap between rich and poor has steadily grown, because real wages for most have failed to match inflation, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed soaring dividends, salaries, and bonuses. The U.S. bishops, a dozen years into this trend, were already expressing concern in 1983:

Our economy is marked by a very uneven distribution of wealth and income. For example, it is estimated that 28% of the total net wealth is held by the richest 2% of families in the U.S. The top 10% holds 57% of the net wealth. If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentration of ownership of financial wealth is even more glaring. In 1983, 54% of the total net financial assets were held by 2% of all families, those whose annual income is over $125,000. Eighty-six percent of these assets were held by the top 10% of all families.-- (US Bishops Economic Justice For All [EJA] #183)

By 2010, the situation was even worse, as the gap just kept growing, according to a UC Berkeley analysis:

“In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.”As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s…On the other hand, billionaires have never had it better. --http://integralcatholicsocialteachings.blogspot.com/2009/08/income-inequality-worst-since-1917.html

Is anyone who criticizes this trend engaging in “class warfare”? I suppose that is mainly a question of definitions, but let’s suppose we accept “class warfare” as the label for a debate about income distribution, income inequality, and income redistribution? In that case, two things stand out.

One, there are fighters on both sides: those defending the poor, and those defending the wealthy. Second, there seem to be two sets of rules. Those on the “poor” side are attacking the behavior and special treatment the wealthy get (Warren Buffett called it “coddling”) to urge a change in the status quo. But the “wealthy” side has been attacking the character of the poor as a way of blocking any change.

Thus one TV commentator describes this as a war of the “productive classes” attacked by the “moocher classes.” John Stossel likewise sees a conflict between the “makers” and the “takers.” Another pundit refers to welfare recipients as “parasites.” Nebraska Atty. General John Bruning compares “stupid welfare recipients” to scavenging “raccoons.” Ann Coulter argues that the U.S. welfare system creates “generations of utterly irresponsible animals.” Even warfare has rules, but so far only one side is playing fair.

So given the facts about U.S. wealth and the way people are fighting over it, what are Catholic voters to think? Once again, the answer is surprisingly straightforward. In a word: Catholic Social Doctrine has consistently opposed wide income gaps between rich and poor, and has consistently approved actions to redistribute wealth. Leo XIII first set this position in 1891, and he was seconded in 1931 by Pius XI:

Each class, then, must receive its due share, and the distribution of created goods must be brought into conformity with the demands of the common good and social justice. For every sincere observer realizes that the vast difference between the few who hold excessive wealth and the many who live in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern society-- (Quadragesimo Anno #58).

Vatican Council II (1962-1965) repeated the same basic position:

Excessive economic and social inequalities within the one human family, between individuals or between peoples, give rise to scandal, and are contrary to social justice, to equity, and to the dignity of the human person, as well as to peace within society and at the international level--(Gaudiam Et Spes #29).

This position reflects a main principle of Catholic social teaching: “The Universal Destination of Material Goods,” and this combines with another principle, the “Preferential Option for the Poor,” as the U.S. Bishops explained in 1983:

As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental "option for the poor". The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.-- (EJA #87)

These two principles establish “Catholic” economic priorities that many Catholics have never been taught:

The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.-- (EJA #94)

This leads to a clear Catholic mandate to support changes, even government policies, that redistribute wealth:

Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.--(The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church #303)

Does this mean the Catholic Church has been waging “class warfare” since 1891? I think not. Instead, I agree with the U.S. Bishops in saying:

The "option for the poor," therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community. The extent of their suffering is a measure of how far we are from being a true community of persons. (EJA #88)

From the Catholic viewpoint, this is not class warfare; this is a fight for justice. And, as Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed in his very first encyclical, God Is Love: “The Church…cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”

So each of us must ask ourselves, and even each other, the next question: if the fight for justice is underway, which side are you on?

©Bernard F. Swain PhD 2011

#290 The Missing Antidote

On most social issues, Catholics’ opinions today reflect the rest of the population. In an age when Catholicism struggles to sustain its distinct identity, we have largely failed to establish a distinctive social platform among our people. I suspect that on many issues vital to America’s social and moral well-being, the problem is not that Catholics have rejected Catholic Social Teaching (CST). The problem is, they never knew what CST was.

Did most Catholics know their bishops, their pope, and virtually all the world’s bishops opposed the invasion of Iraq – and did they know why?

Did most Catholics test George bush’s assertion that Iraq was a “just war” by using the Catholic criteria for a just war?

When Catholics hear attacks on illegal immigrants, do they know CST calls migration a human right?

When Catholics here that healthcare is “a privilege, not a right” – do they know CST says the opposite?

When a mine disaster pits management against its critics, do Catholics know that CST always favors people over profits?

When policy critics attack “redistributing wealth” as “socialism,” do Catholics know that, in the face of income inequalities, CST labels redistributing wealth “justice,” not “socialism”?

Do Catholics know CST defends the right to private property – but says owners must always use property to serve the common good?

When America cuts back its nuclear arsenal, do Catholics know CST unconditionally condemns the use of nuclear weapons?

When America renounces “first use” of its nukes, do Catholics know CST forbids even the threat of nuclear attack?

When Catholics hear about “family values” do they know CST regards the human race as a single family – so that racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant attitudes all violate true family values?

Do Catholics know CST does not recognize “success” in war (whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else) as a moral justification?

Facing venomous debates about “Big” versus “Small” government, do Catholics know CST says size does not matter, but favors government that promotes the common good and a just social order?

I’m afraid that there is a yawning chasm between the vision of CST and the world view of many Catholics. Too many of them get their social values from secular society – from party politics, or media “pundits,” possibly from friends and family. If I’m right, on most social issues, millions of Catholics do not know their own faith.