Pope Francis’s Last Hope

By Andrew M. Haines | June 5, 2014

Michael Novak is worried “whether [Pope Francis] has a very good theory for how you get the poor out of poverty.”

I mean, [says Novak,] I don’t think the aim should be to keep the poor poor and feel sorry for them and give them alms; I think the hope for the poor is to help them to break the chains of poverty and become independent people of initiative and energy on their own, and I don’t see the Pope there yet.

My goodness, where to start? (That’s not a rhetorical device, either.)

Let me take a step back and mention that the Forbes article in question is the epitome of what many around here take to be the unbearable myopia of neo-conservative Catholicism. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure what those words mean. But I can point to examples when I see them—like the intimation that “a great love for America and [admiration for] many things” covers a multitude of old-world-style sins. According to Novak, John Paul II evolved tremendously in his appreciation for capitalism and the “virtues of the free market system.” This was a corrective to his somewhat stunted anthropology, which didn’t immediately see that to benefit from modern capitalism all one really needs are “diligence and intelligence.”

Fortunately for us, JPII ended up on the right side of history. For Francis, however, there’s little hope. (An ironic thing, really, for a man who’s already been named TIME’s Person of the Year.) Francis, as Novak rightly points out, doesn’t have a “very good theory for how you get the poor out of poverty.” He does come with his own charming traits, though: for example, “insisting that things like doctrine…while very important and not to be denied by him, [are] nonetheless not at the heart of the matter.” This is especially useful when working, say, to ensure that a new magisterium will face minimal opposition. To be sure, Francis is lightyears beyond the “finger-wagging disciplinarians that religious people have sometimes seemed to be.” Pope Benedict, Novak says, “probably had the best mind of our lifetime, an immense amount of erudition and learning…just the brilliance of the man, and the kindness… But that’s not Francis.” Francis’s forte is “so much mercy, and so much love,” but not so much sophistication. He escapes the peril of being too smart for his own good; but his naïveté will be an almost insurmountable hurdle.

Let’s be honest, there’s exactly one thing that would force the prevailing fates to judge Pope Francis with favor. And it sure as heck wouldn’t require something so original as coming up with “a very good theory” of anything. (Incidentally, he’s already done that a few places here.) In this regard, Francis and Benedict are more kindred than ever. And I’d venture to guess that, were Saint John Paul II here to weigh in on his behalf, he’d much prefer present company to those who would immortalize his legacy as one of a recovering statist.

Dylan Pahman

I was TIME’s person of the year in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_%28Time_Person_of_the_Year%29
http://palamas.info/ Fr Gregory Jensen

Stephen Moore (chief economist at the Heritage Foundation) and
Richard Vedder (a professor of economics at Ohio University) have an editorial in this morning’s Wall Street Journal (The Blue-State Path to Inequality States that emphasize redistribution above growth have a wider gap between lower and higher incomes) that speaks Michael Novak observation that concern for the poor is not enough, we need as well a “to help them to break the chains of poverty and become independent people of initiative and energy on their own.” Among other things they quote a Cato Institute report (“The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013) that “measured the value of all welfare benefits by state in 2012.” What the research found is that generally “the higher the benefit package” paid by welfare the higher the rate of income inequality. They aren’t arguing “that state redistributionist policies cause more income inequality.” But their research does “suggest that raising tax rates or the minimum wage fail to achieve greater equality and may make income gaps wider.”

They go on to say that they “believe these income redistribution policies fail.” After having spent “more than 25 years examining why some states grow much faster than others” they conclude that it “is nearly inescapable that liberal policy prescriptions—especially high income-tax rates and the lack of a right-to-work law—make states less prosperous because they chase away workers, businesses and
capital.” After offering some examples of the differences among states with different economic policies they observe that

“When politicians get fixated on closing income gaps rather than creating an overall climate conducive to prosperity, middle- and lower-income groups suffer most and income inequality rises. The past five years are a case in point. Though a raft of President Obama’s policies—such as expanding the earned-income tax credit and food stamps, and extending unemployment benefits—have been designed to more fairly
distribute wealth, inequality has unambiguously risen on his watch. Those at the top have seen gains, especially from the booming stock market, while middle-class real incomes have fallen by about $1,800 since the recovery started in June 2009.”

They conclude that the higher income inequality “is a reversal from the 1980s and ’90s when almost all income groups enjoyed gains.” Income inequality in “the United States has risen in each of the last three years and was higher in 2012 (.476) than when George W. Bush left office (.469 in 2008), though Mr. Bush was denounced for economic policies, especially on taxes, that allegedly favored ‘the rich.’” Novak is correct, good intentions are not sufficient to raise the poor out of poverty. As a practical matter, at least in the US, policies in the service of income redistribution don’t work.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory
Christopher Zehnder

Fr. Gregory,

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the book by Thomas Picketty, Capital in the 21st Century, which argues that income inequality has been growing since 1980, and not because of “liberal” redistributionist policies. Indeed, Picketty, it seems, thinks that redistributionist policies are necessary to reduce income inequality. Here is a review of the book by Paul Krugman:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
djpeters48

Micheal Novak is merely the godfather of an influential faction of GOP neo-liberals whose primary objective is to discredit the sensible and noble Catholic teachings on behalf of justice for working people and the poor. The ‘Catholic’ Democrats, followers of the late Ted Kennedy, play an identical role aimed at opposing Church teaching on the family and sexual morality. Neither faction deserves any support from faithful Catholics or genuine social conservatives.
http://palamas.info/ Fr Gregory Jensen

Christopher,

I’ve not read Picketty’s book, Some of the reviews I’ve read (like Krugman’s) are quite favorable. Other reviewers have suggested that Picketty makes a number of serious errors that compromise the value of the book. For example Donald Boudreaux’s review: http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111903301904579564170989136720

In any case, the point that Moore and Vedder are making is that even if we assume (as many including I suspect Pope Francis) income inequality is a moral problem, progressive policies that focus on wealth distribution have failed.

My own view is more in line with Boudreaux, I think the income inequality matters than the Improvements in “real living standards” for the vast majority of people. Or,as he puts it in his review: “Reckoned in standards of living—in ability to consume—capitalism is creating an ever-more-egalitarian society. … So regardless of how many more dollars today’s plutocrats have accumulated and stashed into their portfolios, the elite’s accumulation of riches has not prevented the living standards of ordinary people from rising spectacularly.”

Here’s the take away: Income inequality matters much less than standard of living. Rather than worry about the gap between the upper and bottom quintiles, we should be focused on improving the standard of living of everyone but especially those in the lowest global quintile.

But, if our concern is to lessen income equality-regardless of the economic fall out-then we need to come up with new policy proposals because the policies we have that focus on redistribution have failed.

While I don’t think Pope Francis has offered anything to improve the standard of living of the poorest of the poor-I don’t think he has to do so. While not without its flaws, I think the free market and especially a culture that values innovation have done a good job already. I also think we can do better and I am thankful to Pope Francis for making this so clear.

In Christ,

+FrG
Christopher Zehnder

Fr. Gregory,

So, in your view, the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few and the accompanying expansion of the political, social, and economic power of that few, are more than compensated by our ability to consume more stuff? Should wee be happy to be economically and politically powerless as long as we have our air-conditioned houses, smart phones, and pain-relief medicines?

And as to Moore and Vedder — the Cato Institute study can suggest, not that redistribution has failed, but that it has not been carried through thoroughly enough. For instance, a raise in the minimum wage might not be sufficient to offset an inequality gap — especially when the minimum wage does not keep up with the rate of inflation, and the growth in great wealth exceeds it.
http://palamas.info/ Fr Gregory Jensen

Christopher,

A couple of points.

First, for all its problems in the US-which both democratic and capitalist, even if imperfectly so- wealth and political power are I think like more diffused than in say Communism or a Medieval monarchy. We are none of us bond to the social condition of our birth even if positive change is harder for some than other.

Second, statistics on wealth inequality are deceptive because they assume membership in a given quintile is static. In fact, over the course of a person’s life annual income will likely rise and fall depending on his circumstances. One of the great myths-actually, let me be more direct, lies-is that membership in the upper quintile is fixed. It isn’t-people enter and leave the upper fifth on a regular basis (see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566),

Third, the fact that the vast majority of even the poorest Americans have access to “air-conditioned houses, smart phones, and pain-relief medicines” is a great blessing and one of the best sign of the ability of the free market to lift people out of poverty. The fact that people use their iPhones, for example, to look at cat pictures or pornography doesn’t in anyway take away from the fact that materially their lives are better off. That people fail to make better use of their prosperity is not the fault of the market but those who prefer to look at Facebook rather than read Scripture.

Fourth, I’m not sure that we are economically or politically powerless. But if we are, then it is because we have chosen this state for ourselves. We have easy and free access to vast the amount of information, we can communicate across great physical and social distances, have better health and longer lifespans than our great-grandparents. If I decide to use all this to sit in my air conditioned house and watch Dancing With the Stars rather than educate myself about political or social issues whose fault is it but mine?

Fifth, there have always been economic and social elites. This is an anthropological constant and I can’t think of one political system that has done away with them. Your suggestion that the Cato study redistribution “has not been carried through thoroughly enough” is wishful thinking. Do you want everyone to make the exact same wage, live in the same house, wear the same clothes, eat the same food? I doubt you do.

But really, what would a just distribution of wealth look like? To my knowledge, no one has ever put a dollar amount forth or been able to identify what percentage of income each person should have.

Finally, I’m not powerless either economically or politically. And I’m not because of the decisions I’ve made in my life. Yes there are people who have more money than I do or are more able to influence events than I can. But having less power in some arenas doesn’t make me powerless, it just makes me different.

In Christ,

+FrG
pdxcatholic

As a college educated woman who is not just living in poverty, but living on the street, I find it more than a little frustrating to read all this analysis about what is causing income inequality but see nothing being done about it. The average person (including the Sallie Mae customer service rep I spoke with today) doesn’t seem to have a clue about my economic reality; specifically, that even if I managed to acquire a job, it would not pay enough to house me and allow me to make payments on my debt. And I’m not alone in that regard. I’ve spoken to a number of homeless people who are still on the street, even with full-time work. When people realize that the deck is stacked so heavily against them, and that they have no real chance of meeting even their most basic needs through steady employment, they tend to stop trying. That, in my mind, is the real tragedy.
Christopher Zehnder

Father,

The market, through advertising and through what economic actors choose to manufacture, encourages the misuse of prosperity that you, I think, deplore. It encourages the hankering for mere luxury. It is called seduction. The market forces appeal even to the basest passions of human beings, and why? To fulfill the mere economic end of making a profit. This is an aspect of the “free market” that its proponents gloss over.

Your powerlessness is political and it arises simply from the fact that great wealth wields great influence — compared to which your influence is non-existent. How much influence do you think you wield, with your one vote? Or your calls to your congressman? Or your letters to the editor? Sure, we might be able to organize a popular resistance, but that is very, very difficult. On the other hand, it is very easy for capital to direct its resources to the purchase of politicians — and, sadly, to the seduction of the masses.

Of course, you are clearly not battling the interests of the very wealthy. Rather, it appears, you are their ally.

It may be difficult to come up, here, with a direct dollar amount that would constitute a just wage. We would have to seek to discern what material goods a family needs in a given time and place, living modestly, to achieve its purpose — not in great luxury but in due dignity. One of the evils of income inequality is that money that could go to raising the wages of families to sustainability only grow the incomes of the wealthy. And, I would suppose you knew this, it is getting increasingly difficult for families to maintain their middle class status in the United States — despite the air conditioning and smart phones. They can buy baubles, but they cannot achieve any real economic stability and security — the necessary material foundations for a healthy social order.

Paul Krugman in the article I cited above, writes: “Real wages for most US workers have increased little if at all since the early 1970s, but wages for the top one percent of earners have risen 165 percent, and wages for the top 0.1 percent have risen 362 percent.” Anyone who thinks this represents a true valuation of economic worth and not a raw exercise of power is, at best, very naive. But, I suppose it’s all right — because we can gawk at our smart phones in air-conditioned rooms — and live longer than our this grandparents, because of modern medicine. That is, if one can afford it. But, then, aspirin is cheap…
Christopher Zehnder

I share your frustration. As the father of college graduates and children poised to go into college, I understand whereof you speak. As the father and mother of seven children, supporting them on one income, my wife and I feel the crunch in a different way.

Analysis is necessary if action is to proceed effectively. However, action is needed — but what are we to do? A group, 99Rise, passed through my town in California on their way to the state capital, Sacramento. They are demanding a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of big money in politics. This, of course, is not sufficient, but it may be a beginning — a focused agenda; something the Occupy Movement did not have. I think it is important to support such groups to the degree each of us can. The web address of 99Rise is: http://www.99rise.org/