Last week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gave us their view (pdf) on what our priorities should should be in the budget debate:
The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources.
The question is whether that moral claim must be answered by politics and coercive redistribution or by personal commitment and Christian charity. I prefer a model where the state is modest – no government can feel "compassion" – and frees up the space for Christians and people of good will of all faiths and none can help those around them. In that sense, I'd like compassionate conservatism to be put out of its misery. Amy Sullivan fears austerity has killed it:
The days of Stephen Goldsmith and John DiIulio and even George W. Bush are over just as much as those of the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans. There are two dominant responses to tough economic times – redoubled altruism and redoubled libertarianism – and the Tea Party adamantly stands for the latter.
What I find troubling about this formulation, again, is the notion of the government redoubling altruism. It's a fundamental category error, in my view, although I do believe that in the current climate, the burden of austerity should fall on those most able to shoulder it, and we should do what we can to protect the truly vulnerable. Hence my support for universal healthcare. In some ways, I think the current Great Recession makes it more, rather than less, vital.