December 26, 2005
SANTORUM'S MARRIAGE INITIATIVE....When the Senate barely struck a deal on spending cuts last week, most of the attention emphasized the detrimental effect the cuts would have low-income families, specifically those who rely on Medicare, child-care programs, child-support enforcement funding, student loans, and foster care programs. As it turns out, though, not all of the provisions in the bill cut spending; some programs got a boost.
For example, Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-Pa.) "healthy marriages" proposal was awarded $100 million for federally-funded programs that will allegedly help families stay together.
The new marriage initiative Mr. Santorum pushed will parcel out $100 million a year for five years to promote marriage through counseling and educational programs in communities with high rates of out-of-wedlock birth. About $50 million would be set aside for each year over five years for the initiatives encouraging fatherhood.
Now, as my wife can attest, I happen to love the institution of marriage. However, I'm less fond of Santorum's idea.
First, I vaguely remember the time -- I believe it was called the "1980s and '90s" -- when Republicans railed against the idea of social engineering. In 1993, Henry Hyde wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post (which is no longer online) in which he lambasted the Clinton White House for its alleged belief that government could use its power to interfere with family structures. Hyde called the very idea "exotic social engineering."
Republicans don't seem to believe that anymore. The right may not want to admit it, but the GOP over the last five years has embraced social engineering as much, if not more, than anyone since the Great Society. The marriage initiative, faith-based initiative, fatherhood initiative, abstinence-only programs ... social engineering is predicated on the idea that the power of the state can alter how people can and will behave. It used to be anathema for anyone who valued "limited" government. The Bush presidency didn't herald the end of the government's drive towards social engineering; it marked the end of worrying about it.
Second, some far-right supporters of Santorum's marriage initiative praised the new funding because, in part, "children who come from single-parent homes experience more poverty." This won't do; conservatives can't praise budget cuts for low-income health care and child-care programs, and then express concern about reducing poverty through government spending.
And third, there's the matter of where the federal funds will actually go.
Santorum boasted that grants will go to "faith-based organizations to carry out marriage promotion activities." Bush pursued a very similar approach through cabinet-agency grants in his first term. Guess who benefited.
President Bush has some new troops in his crusade to promote "healthy marriage" and teen celibacy with federal funds -- followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the controversial Korean evangelist and self-proclaimed new world messiah.
At least four longtime operatives of Moon's Unification Church are on the federal payroll or getting government grants in the administration's Healthy Marriage Initiative and other "faith-based" programs.
I'll be the first to defend the Moonies' right to create marriage initiatives, if that's what they want to do, but I'll also argue that they should do so with voluntary contributions from their fellow supporters, not the federal government.
It's the funny thing about faith-based grants; sometimes tax dollars will end up in the coffers of unpopular ministries.
—Steve Benen 1:10 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (54)
Nice to see his peculiar brand of hypocrisy still warrants money and attention when Congres gets "serious" about fiscal responsibility. After scorching the needy and the working poor, they pull this kind of egregious pork barrel stunt? Sigh. Santorum's recent 180-degree turn on Intelligent Design (two pithy editorials late) is all you need to know about the man's "moral convictions." I strongly suspect he is pro-family so he can hide beneath his mother's apron when confronted. His retirement from public life can't come soon enough.
Posted by: Sparko on December 26, 2005 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, those budget cuts are the real "War on Christmas" aren't they? Also, check around and find that many of the Right's social engineering programs involve using lies to make a moral point, such as exxagerating the fallability of condoms, psychological effects of abortions, etc.
Posted by: Neil' on December 26, 2005 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK
Andrew Sullivan summed it up best when he noted that today's conservatism looks a lot like yesterday's liberalism. They used to be against social engineering, nation building & big government....I don't know what you call Bush & the Republican run Congress but conservative isn't a term someone who understands it would be able to use with a straight face.
Posted by: Nathan on December 26, 2005 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
The funds will go to Santorum's North American Man-Dog Love Association, or NAMDLA.
Posted by: b on December 26, 2005 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
But we all know that this isn't REALLY an attempt at social engineering. It's an electoral ploy. Like the bridge to nowhere, but instead of providing jobs in Alaska, it's pacifying the "values conservative" part of the base. The actual intent isn't really to do anything about families, or to encourage them to stay together - it's to make the voter think that that's the goal.
Santorum's facing a tough re-election battle. He needs to show the base that he's still one of them. But he cant get all radical and nutty, because that's gonna energize the other side and turn off undecided voters. So, a little bit of money for a code word program is the best he can do.
Posted by: phleabo on December 26, 2005 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK
anyway, it's not "social engineering," it's "intelligent design"
Posted by: David on December 26, 2005 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
The right has always promoted social engineering. The entire time those on the right were parroting Reagans talking point that throwing money at social problems will not solve those problems they were throwing money into the prison industry and locking more and more of our citizens up.
The difference is the right throws money at the remediation of social problems, such as building and populating prison, rather than prevention through fully funding programs, such as Headstart, that keep folks out of prison.
Posted by: Chris Brown on December 26, 2005 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK
Considering the moonies have a history of performing arranged/forced marriages, I'd be very worried about their plans for "marriage initiatives." Especially with the assault weapon ban expiring.
Posted by: Drew Miller on December 26, 2005 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
As Benny Hill used to say, the marriage wasn't legal because the shotgun wasn't loaded.
Posted by: b on December 26, 2005 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK
What if the women who gave birth out of wedlock were never married? There'd be nothing to save.
Posted by: JR on December 26, 2005 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, but still, I'm a bleeding heart liberal from way back, a public school teacher in a poor rural district, and somewhere beyond politics there is a real world where kids' lives are devastated by divorce, poverty, and unplanned pregnancies and I don't see anybody on either side politically who really seems to care. It's gonna take more than extra headstart funding - I think it's going to take a real national debate about public and private responsibilities and I'm not sure either liberals or conservatives have any of the right answers - between them.
Posted by: leonard skinner on December 26, 2005 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK
Ah, yes, millions of dollars worth of grants for faith-based organizations to carry out marriage promotion activities.
Has anyone defined what a marriage promotion activity might entail? A "Three Cheers for Marriage" pamphlet? A "Jesus Wants You to Get Married" Chick Tract? A Las Vegas chapel's twofer sale? Would simple marriage-related promotion activitities count? Can you imagine the utter lack of accountability here?
Like other hundreds of millions this administration lavishes on its cronies, marriage promoting or not, this is nothing more than a super-sized slush fund of taxpayer dollars being spread around like so much campaign grease to right-wing zealots and shills for services performed.
Posted by: R.Porrofatto on December 26, 2005 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK
Rick's managed to alienate more Republicans than Democrats. His chances in 06 are slim but he'll still hand out pork where he can. How's the weather? It's Accuweather you like it or not.
Posted by: TJM on December 26, 2005 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK
Any mention of Henry Hyde needs be followed by a thorough washing out of the mouth with soap.
Posted by: ken melvin on December 26, 2005 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
Great, just what we need, more wingnut welfare for the Jesus demented satan worshippers (aka fundies).
Posted by: patriotBoy on December 26, 2005 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK
"... most of the attention emphasized the detrimental effect the cuts would have low-income families, specifically those who rely on Medicare, child-care programs, child-support enforcement funding, student loans, and foster care programs"
This is typical Drum stuff, so this author learned well from the expert. The logic is simple:
' Apples are red so these are really great programs.' No connectivity, a Drum tactic.
"...moonies right to create marriage initiatives, if that's what they want to do"
But, according to the author, only if his favorite programs are supported. His logic does not stand.
If marriage is good, and the author wants government involvement, then the author should support marriage training and incentives by the government. He either likes it or he doesn't, and he must explain why according to his theory.
Anyway, let me rephrase his argument according to another theory.
"Santorum is an idiot and I hate him, therefore we should subsidize the shoelace industry."
Why beat around the Bushes.
Posted by: Matt on December 26, 2005 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK
Republicans don't seem to believe that anymore. The right may not want to admit it, but the GOP over the last five years has embraced social engineering as much, if not more, than anyone since the Great Society. The marriage initiative, faith-based initiative, fatherhood initiative, abstinence-only programs ... social engineering is predicated on the idea that the power of the state can alter how people can and will behave. It used to be anathema for anyone who valued "limited" government. The Bush presidency didn't herald the end of the government's drive towards social engineering; it marked the end of worrying about it. But we all know that this isn't REALLY an attempt at social engineering. It's an electoral ploy. Like the bridge to nowhere, but instead of providing jobs in Alaska, it's pacifying the "values conservative" part of the base. The actual intent isn't really to do anything about families, or to enco8urage them to stay together - it's to make the voter think that that's the goal. Santorum's facing tough re-election battle. He needs to show the base that he's still one of them. But he cant get all radical and nutty, because that's gonna energize the other side and turn off undecided voters. So, a little bit of money for a code word program is the best he can do.
Posted by: Guy on December 26, 2005 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
Hey Matt, you peckerhead, the point is that one can be honest by being pro-government intervention (liberals) or anti-government intervention (honest conservatives). Or one can be a peckerheaded hypocrite like Santorum.
Posted by: b on December 26, 2005 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
If the Republicans were serious about encouraging and preserving marriage, they'd do something about the financial stresses on middle and working class families. Financial problems are one of the biggest marriage busters, and probably the only one amenable to government intervention. However, that of course would require raising taxes and offending corporate sponsors, so it won't happen. Instead, we get this kind of idiotic window-dressing.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN,PhD on December 26, 2005 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK
Dr. Allen is absolutely right. My colleagues who handle divorces tell me that financial stress is one of the biggest marriage "busters." Some guy loses his job, has trouble finding another, and his wife takes a walk. The kids drop into poverty. The traditional solutions have been varous government programs aimed at helping the poor pay bills. The better solution is an economy with a lot of good paying jobs. Since a lot of our industry has hightailed it to Asia, we have fewer and fewer good jobs. We are shocked we have marriages in trouble?
There is a related problem. Women generally do well in "service" jobs such as law, medicine, nursing, teaching school, handling basic office functions, etc. They are going to college in increasing numbers and are finding jobs when they graduate. On the otherhand, fewer and fewer young men are going to college. There are fewer and fewer "male oriented" jobs for them when they get out.
For all of you who think otherwise. It is the economy stupid.
Posted by: Ron Byers on December 26, 2005 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
Relevant excerpt from Henry Hyde op-ed follows. As you'll see, his argument implies that only the party that wins the popular vote gets to socially engineer. He was commenting on the Gergen hire.
"The Clinton administration's fundamental difficulty has been that its leaders, from the president on down, believe their own rhetoric. They really believe that garnering 42.8 percent of the popular vote signaled a sea change in American politics. They really believe they have a mandate to engage in all sorts of exotic social engineering, on institutions ranging from the military to the traditional family. They really believe that the past 12 years have been a time of stagnation, drift and gridlock."
The best part of the piece, however, is where Hyde decries the Clintonite creation of a "nanny state" that would tell Americans how to run their lives rather than letting them just live life (as, presumably, Hyde's Republicans would -- yeah, in some bizzaro parallel dimension....):
"Certainly the commitment to an ever-expanding nanny state, which is the leitmotif of so many Clinton administration initiatives, gives one pause. Have these folks really thought through the legacy of the Great Society and its impact on the poor? Why, in addressing a serious social problem, is their first instinct usually to create a new government program?"
Yeah, Republicans -- their first instinct is NEVER to create new government programs or expand government power....
From Henry J. Hyde, "It's Not the Spin Control -- It's the Policies," Washington Post, June 4, 1993, page A25.
Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on December 26, 2005 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK
Matt writes: "If marriage is good, and the author wants government involvement, then the author should support marriage training and incentives by the government."
Good grief Matt, you now want the government to define what a good marriage is? Right down to relavant ingrediants? And design training programs? Oh, I'm sure the government is not only capable of doing this, I'm sure the government could satisfy every creed and religion. Gee whiz, what a dream world.
R.Porrofatto, in a post above, issues you a challenge Matt. "Has anyone defined what a marriage promotion activity might entail? ....Can you imagine the utter lack of accountability here?"
Posted by: little ole jim from red country on December 26, 2005 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
My marriage would be strengthened if my wife would go get me a beer now. Can I get a grant?
Posted by: b on December 26, 2005 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK
A list of Compassionate Capital grantees can be found here. The links lead to further details.
No doubt anyone going over the list closely could pick out a few choice items that would make a good political slant.
As for the "Moonies," I wasn't aware that there were certain religions that made you ineligible to work for the government.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 26, 2005 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK
tbrosz: you changed the question. It's not that practicing a certain religion makes you ineligible, it's that there are real problems with throwing a bunch of tax money at a religious organization. How do you hold them accountable? You gonna get them to agree ahead of time and for all time to: the same definition of a good marriage? The relevant parameters? Acceptable hiring practices? Otherwise, they hire who they want and define marriage any way they want. Anyway at all.
Posted by: little ole jim from red country on December 26, 2005 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK
Republicans don't seem to believe that anymore.
Republicans don't believe anything, they only have talking points. That's why their "beliefs" change so often.
Another example of this is when John "Crisco Kid" Ashcroft went after Washington's physician-assisted suicide law-- state's rights were only for maintaining a segregated South.
Posted by: Riesz Fischer on December 26, 2005 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK
tbroz,
The moonies 'religious organization' is sheep's clothing covering up a fascist political organization dedicated to making 'Rev.' Moon dictator of the world. This handout to them is payback for the millions in donations to the GOP and unwavering support for the GOP from The Washington Times.
Wake the fuck up already.
Posted by: joe on December 26, 2005 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK
Matt wrote:
If marriage is good, and the author wants government involvement, then the author should support marriage training and incentives by the government.
But how does that take us to the point of concluding that Santorum's particular choices for government involvement (which is what is being discussed) should then also be favored?
It doesn't.
Your fallacy is equating the set of all "marriage training and incentives by the government" that are possibly available, with the package that is proposed by Santorum.
Posted by: Swan on December 26, 2005 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK
Does anyone have an idea of what "marriage training" would entail?
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on December 26, 2005 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK
As for the "Moonies," I wasn't aware that there were certain religions that made you ineligible to work for the government. Posted by: tbrosz
For Republicans, the Rev Moon is God's Ambassador
Moonie leader 'crowned' in Senate
Julian Borger in Washington Thursday June 24, 2004 The Guardian
The US Senate was used for a bizarre ritual in which the Rev Sun Myung Moon, the head of the Unification church, was "crowned" and declared himself the messiah in the presence of more than a dozen Republican and Democratic members of Congress, it was reported yesterday.
"Emperors, kings and presidents ... have declared to all heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's saviour, messiah, returning Lord and true parent," the 85-year-old Korean "Moonie" cult leader told several hundred guests at the meeting in one of the Senate's office buildings on March 23, according to the Washington Post.
According to a transcript of the event, Mr Moon declared: "I am God's ambassador, sent to Earth with his full authority. I am sent to accomplish his command to save the world's six billion people, restoring them to Heaven with the original goodness in which they were created."
The glittering event in the Senate's Dirksen building reflected Mr Moon's extraordinary influence in US politics. He owns the conservative newspaper the Washington Times and the US news agency United Press International.
His fiercely conservative attitudes towards homosexuality and pre-marital sex have won him the endorsement of leading Republicans, including the president's father, George Bush, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general, who participated in one of Mr Moon's "prayer luncheons" days before the president's inauguration in January 2001.
To his followers, this made Rev Moon King of America. Here are some photos of the crowning.
Tbrosz, if not a loyal devotee, certainly appreciates all the money Moon has spent
propagandizing his rightwing agenda.
Posted by: Mike on December 26, 2005 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK
As one who worked tirelessly for passage of the Oregon Death With Dignity act - TWICE - I have to point out the error made above in attributing that forward thinking initiative to Washington state. Oregon also, back then under John Kitzhabber, a trauma surgeon and Governor-in boots-and-blue-jeans, the Oregon Health Plan assured quality basic health care for all citizens.
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2005 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK
By the way: the second time Death With Dignity went before the voters, it passed with a higher percentage than the first time. Oregonians are an obstrepperous lot, and they don't like being told what to do, especially by the Catholic church. (Oregon is the least religious state, and Lane County, home of the UofO in Eugene, is the least religious county in the state. This was evidenced about eight years ago when Lane county DA Doug Harcleroad created a national firestorm when he had a murder suspects confession to a priest audiotaped.)
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2005 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK
Where is Paul-3. He is an Oregonian. I am certain he can weigh in on the assertions I just made.
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2005 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK
Wake the fuck up already.
You're asking tbrosz to wake up?
tbrosz is chubby and silly and he doesn't want to wake up.
Posted by: Charlie's Auntie on December 26, 2005 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK
"Medicare" -> I think you meant Medicaid.
"...conservatives can't..." Of course they can. They want to cut programs that will *actually* benefit poor people, while increasing the money that goes to their "faith-based" poverty-pimp constituents. It's perfectly consistent.
Posted by: Nancy Irving on December 27, 2005 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK
I'd still like to know what Rick Santorum considers to be acceptible "marriage training."
I mean, maybe we have a legitimate reason to consider his own family life rather too unstable for him to be making recommendations to others. Like when his wife had a miscarriage -- which is traumatic enough, surely -- but which so discombobulated the Santorums they persuaded the doctor to let them take home the miscarried fetus, which they named Gabriel Michael. And then they spent two days lighting candles for it, and having their chidren pray at it and sing songs for it. What I've always wanted to know was if they stuck it in the refrigerator at night ...
So if that's Rick Santorum's idea of "family values," or "building solidarity in a marriage" -- I really don't think we should be, umm, subsidizing it as halfway sane and normal American taxpayers.
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on December 27, 2005 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK
jim:
...it's that there are real problems with throwing a bunch of tax money at a religious organization. How do you hold them accountable? You gonna get them to agree ahead of time and for all time to: the same definition of a good marriage? The relevant parameters? Acceptable hiring practices? Otherwise, they hire who they want and define marriage any way they want. Anyway at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, this is pretty much true for most tax money we throw at social problems. Try and get any two education professionals to agree on what defines a "good education."
As for the rest, I don't support Moon or any other religious nut, but don't see his ideas as doing any more damage than the irrational ideas that the radical Left has brought to the table over the past seventy years, and that are routinely taught and advocated in our colleges and think tanks. So far, the Moonies haven't generated any real dictators. The Left, on the other hand, has, and a number of nations are still recovering from that particular religion.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 27, 2005 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK
tbrosz:
Jim Jones? David Koresh? Do and Re from Heaven's Gate?
Surely you jest ...
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on December 27, 2005 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK
The Left, on the other hand, has, and a number of nations are still recovering from that particular religion.
And yet, 30 years on, our neighbors to the south are electing one leftist after another to lead their countries...
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 27, 2005 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK
tbrosz:
"The radical Left"? Brought *ideas* to the table?
Which ideas -- that weren't embraced by the culture to begin with?
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on December 27, 2005 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK
Not to be selfish, but...well it is $100 million.
If the prerequisit is that you must be married in order to stake a claim, then there is a just reason for my enduring a relationship (and sharing the remote control) with my sometimes better half.
That said, either small or large bills are O.K. by me...
PK "smilingly" sends...
Posted by: PK on December 27, 2005 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK
(Comment also posted on CBR)
America's fundies might want to learn some lessons from, of all places, Israel. For the last 30 years or so a few ultra-orthodox parties have used savvy political skills to extort funding for their schools and other social organizations from the mainstream political parties, in exchange for the crucial handful of votes needed for a majority in the Knesset. Sometimes they've demanded non-fiscal prizes too, such as enshrining various Sabbath or kosher rules into law. Rabbis turned into political operators and patronage czars instead of offering spiritual leadership.
The result? Sure, they got their money, and their symbolic victories on other fronts. But they also alienated a generation of non-Orthodox Israelis from religion, just at a time when, in the US and elsewhere, young Jews were becoming increasingly interested in the wisdom and rituals of their faith. In the last election an avowedly secular party did surprisingly well, basing its appeal entirely on hatred of the ultra-orthodox, and ironically itself provided the swing-votes securing Mr Sharon's parliamentary majority.
Lesson: Involving religion in politics corrupts religion as much as politics.
Posted by: BC on December 27, 2005 at 4:26 AM | PERMALINK
So far, the Moonies haven't generated any real dictators. The Left, on the other hand, has, and a number of nations are still recovering from that particular religion.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The corresponding term for "the Left" is "the Right". You may have noticed that the Right has produced its fair share of dictators, and dozens of nations are still recovering from the trauma of being ruled by right-wing fascists - notably Iraq.
A corresponding term for "the Moonies" might be... Actually, I'm having trouble thinking of any bizarre left-wing religious cults run by mad plutocrats who use their billions to aggregate political influence. Or any left-wing religious cults at all, really. Christian Science, maybe? And yet they seem pretty harmless.
Wait, I know - Rastafarianism! Now THERE's a religion that should apply for some faith-based initiative grants!
Posted by: brooksfoe on December 27, 2005 at 5:35 AM | PERMALINK
We've tried social engineering on several occasions in everal countries. The results have been disappointing, especially as a quick fix for any social problem. Social change is glacial or generational and more often than not, the results are unforseen and unintended. I don't like being so pessimistic, but take a look at the efforts of federal and state governments to implement even modest changes in states such as Mississippi.
Posted by: Tim Matthewson on December 27, 2005 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK
Here's an example of a faith based remedy supported by lil' Rick. Santorum's jaw-dropping level of hypocrisy and constant spins on issues have even begun to affect the True Believers.
Posted by: Deckko on December 27, 2005 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK
I'd still like to know what Rick Santorum considers to be acceptible "marriage training."
Will this "marriage training" involve the use of "marital aids"?
Posted by: Stefan on December 27, 2005 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK
As for the rest, I don't support Moon or any other religious nut, but don't see his ideas as doing any more damage than the irrational ideas that the radical Left has brought to the table over the past seventy years, and that are routinely taught and advocated in our colleges and think tanks. So far, the Moonies haven't generated any real dictators. The Left, on the other hand, has, and a number of nations are still recovering from that particular religion.
As for myself, I don't see any liberal professor's ideas as doing any more damage than the irrational ideas that the radical Right has brought to the table over the past seventy years, and that are also routinely taught and advocated in our colleges and think tanks. So far, the college crowd hasn't generated any real dictators. The Right, on the other hand, has, and a number of nations are still recovering from that particular religion.
Posted by: Stefan on December 27, 2005 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK
Christianity spawned the original socialist movement, which arose in the guise of feudalism in the decaying Roman Empire.
It works like this--as the expiring Roman Empire was in its death throes, wages and prices fluctuated wildly. By this time most of the local magistrates and Imperial officials were Christians, and their response to the misery generated by extreme market place swings was to impose severe wage and price controls.
The idea of a "just price" for every service or commodity became established. Instead of allowing market forces to react to supply and demand, a local authority would consult a book of custom on what the "just price" of anything should be, or even refer to an ecclesiastical court for help.
Of course, wage and price controls never work very well, so the system became even more rigid.
To prevent competition, it basically "froze" people in whatever occupation they happened to be doing. If you were a farmer (as were most people) not only were you to be tied to the land forever, but so with your children and grandchildren. People could not even freely choose to move to cities, they had to get a permit!
Only two societies still practice such rigid controls, Russia and China. Some reports suggest that in Russia the peasants are finally being allowed to move to urban areas, but in China the rule is old-school. You must get permission from the party to do anything, even have more than one child.
I guess there are a lot of reasons to hate and fear the dynamism of raw capitalism. It treats humans and their skill levels as a commodity and lets the cruel market system crush the unwary and the inefficient.
But capitalism is the most dynamic effector of social change and technological progress ever wrought. So, in its own sphere, has been Christianity. Christian capitalism, however, is a huge oxymoron.
I know someone will object to the notion that Christianity promoted technological progress, so I will quickly re-read historian R.H. Tawney's thesis on why Europe became the great hotbed of technological modernism.
Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 27, 2005 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK
how conservative are these ideas?
"Government needs to help families work out their problems." - Rick Santorum on the Daily Show July-2005
"The state has the right to regulate the use of birth control by married couples." - Rick Santorum on CNN July-2005
Posted by: thisspaceavailable on December 27, 2005 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK
I think when you wrote
"the detrimental effect the cuts would have low-income families, specifically those who rely on Medicare" you used "medicare" to mean "medicaid".
Recall this is one of the things that totally flipped John Di Iulio (sp?) out about the Mayberry Machiavellis.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on December 27, 2005 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
Santorum probably believes that children are not born with a strong impulse to be either monogamous or heterosexual. Successful civilizations spend a lot of time, effort, and the judicious use of incentives in order to encourage monogamous heterosexuality and nothing else.
When civilizations cease having the will to maintain this necessary social grooming, they move into their end stage, to be replaced by more vigorous, newer, natalist civilizations.
Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 27, 2005 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK