Jake Weisberg adds an important element of analysis to the question of what on earth has happened to conservatism. The GOP establishment is now exactly like the old Democratic establishment, he argues, catering to various interest groups, and thereby increasing government’s power and reach. He refers to the Cato Institute’s latest paper on Bush’s spending explosion, which I really, really recommend. Jake notes that Cato examined the 101 biggest government programs that the GOP promised to abolish in 1995. Under unified Republican rule, those programs have seen their budgets grow by 27 percent. If you read the Cato paper, you’ll see that Bush’s pretense at mending his ways in his second term are phony; and that the spending explosion goes far beyond defense or homeland security. I keep waiting for conservative outrage. But when you read Jake’s piece, you realize what has really gone on: many of these people are being rewarded by this system. Why would they complain? Thank God for Cato and the handful of principled conservatives left in Washington.
MORE ON CONSERVATISM: The emails keep coming in on my “Crisis of Faith” essay. The debate continues here.
CURRAN ON BENEDICT: A great piece in Commonweal by the theologian then-Ratzinger punished, Charles Curran. (Yes, I’m proud they advertize on this site. I’m linking to the piece because it’s a really persuasive one.)
CAFETERIA CATHOLICISM ON THE RIGHT: I don’t think anyone could consider this NRO piece by David Oderberg as a terribly nuanced work of theology. But he does point out that the late Pope (and his successor) hold many views anathema to the American right. John Paul II went a long way to moving the Catholic position on the death penalty to one of almost outright opposition in all cases (compare that to how swiftly our president signed death warrants in Texas); and he opposed war in almost all circumstances as well (ahem). His push to the extremes on these issues were of a piece with the push to extremes on the end-of-life (defining a feeding tube as not a medical procedure), on women priests (making it impermissible even to discuss the subject) and clerical celibacy and contraception (making these prohibitions the equivalent of “infallible teaching”). John Paul II was not a liberal or a conservative as we understand those terms in secular society. But he was an rigid absolutist, pushing the boundaries of what is mandatory in the body of doctrine known as Catholicism and drastically reducing the space for personal conscience or dissent on lesser moral or prudential matters. The new Pope was deeply involved in this “creeping infallibilism” and attack on conscience and dissent as well. Some argue that the “life” issues are paramount. But isn’t the death penalty a “culture of life” issue? And isn’t war a matter of life and death? The truth is that the late Pope made things just as difficult for conservative Catholics as for liberal ones. Each wing has dissented in its own way, although the liberals have tended to worry more about it. (I didn’t see much hand-wringing at NRO, for example, over the Iraq war. I did see a lot of invective directed toward the Vatican.) My own view is that dissent on some moral teachings is perfectly compatible with being a Catholic, as long as you don’t differ on the central tenets. What John Paul II and Benedict XVI have done is drastically increase the scope and content of those central tenets until there’s little oxygen left for conscience, dissent or theological freedom. That was and is the problem. Only more oxygen will allow the church to breathe and grow. Conservatives and liberals would benefit from the debate.
The Dish 