This long, excellent post at Front Porch Republic by the progressive policy analyst Lew Daly is a good example of how the traditionalist right and alternative leftists have more in common than you might think. Excerpt:
But the direction of all my work, at bottom, is toward a new family economy, something I believe we can achieve only by fundamentally reformulating American politics around ideas of community wealth and family economic protection. This is a politics that leverages families and communities against market compulsion using the resources and regulatory power of a conservative or "subsidiary" welfare state--one that supports and protects traditional social structures but does not usurp their functions or alter their God-given purposes. I argue for a family-based economy and a community-minded protective state, and it will be obvious to many that such a politics of community control and family economic protection derives, most broadly, from Catholic social teaching. But it can also be found among certain Protestant traditions, most notably the Reformed social tradition of Abraham Kuyper, with its American heritage in the upper Midwest.
More:
No religious person can seriously deny that many aspects of American culture threaten family life and the common humanity that binds families together in communities and as a citizenry. I agree that some "social issues" and related policies have weakened family life and coarsened American culture imprudently if not unjustly, and I support recent progressive efforts to develop "common ground" on reducing abortion, strengthening marriage, and developing a new moral regime of bioethical regulation. These efforts reflect a significant evolution beyond the culture wars of the past. Yet even as we begin to establish more common ground on these important social issues, a much bigger threat, pressing deeper and deeper against the structure and very cohesion of family life, has gone unchecked for decades and threatens us on a massive scale.That threat, of course, is the American brand of unregulated free-market capitalism--an economic power structure in which families grow more and more vulnerable and unstable even as the drive to commodify family functions and consumerize children and young adults erodes the moral and psychological well-being of our home lives, removing the last significant counterweight to raw acquisitive market forces and selfish greed.
What happened to America? The most basic trends are well-known among analysts and increasingly understood in public opinion: we've experienced a massive upward redistribution of assets, income, and security, leaving perhaps eighty percent of American households with little or no stake in the appreciating wealth of our society and none of the stability that comes with sufficient assets, good jobs, and a strong social safety net for when things go wrong. The average family is working more hours, for lower wages and fewer benefits, with less security and less public support in times of need. On average our children and our elders are the least well-supported such dependents in the advanced world.
If the left can open its eyes to how the decline in traditional sexual and social morals have led to deleterious consequences for society, and the right can do the same thing about the effect of American capitalism on the family, then maybe we can start getting somewhere worth going. Anyway, this is a discussion worth having, and not just on blogs.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Ruth, if you have the guts... or anyone else... I won't argue here, because Rod has the right to control his own blog...
But you can come argue at mine...
www dot salem-snooze dot info
Oh, and when we're done, you'll be on my side. It is inevitable.
Snoozer,
If I want to be condescendingly lectured at by someone who assumes I'm an evil idiot, I have a daughter who will perform the service gladly.
If I want to be condescendingly lectured at by someone who assumes I'm an evil idiot, I have a daughter who will perform the service gladly.
Ruth, I'm with you, I have one too. My sons are never ready to do this, oddly. (They seem to reserve all their snarky remarks for their father, and because the lot of them, sons and daughters, seem to be afraid of him, always behind his back.)
Lord Karth, I know we don't agree often, but on the point you made about the "commoner family" being on one side, and State and Corporation on the other, YES.
symeon: Take, for example, a pharmacist. We "crunchy cons" think it's best for a pharmacist to own his own pharmacy, to control its money, to own its things and to use it himself by benefiting others. But given the market advantages Walgreens, WalMart, etc have in this capitalist economy, it's almost impossible for a pharmacist to open up his own pharmacy, forcing pharmacists to be employee This is where the complaint about capitalism lies, and your average capitalist says, "well, it's cheaper that way." Sure, but is is better for society?...
This is what I have been harping about for a while now in these economy threads - a *labor glut* and *economy of scale* are killing "commoner families" (love that phrase.) It's ridiculous to blame it on "the sexual revolution." First came the industrial/corporate attack on regionalism and subsidiarity, *then* came the sexual displacements. As Bertold Brecht said in The Threepenny Opera, "First comes the grub, then comes the morals." I believe the English Distributists said the same thing.
Piling regulations, demands for insurance (personal and business), absurd child labor laws, risks of lawsuits, etc. all favor the "big box" corporations, and put the individual owner at serious risk for business failure. Corporations have the lobbyists, the money, and the economy of scale - and the first thing they do is grind the small business owner into nonexistence.
Meanwhile, Republicans are still arguing about "serial monogamy," sex, and TEH GHEY. Fiddle while Rome burns, IOW.
RE:
All currency is fiat currency-- even gold is only valuable because we decide that it is. And if you think specie-based currency has never led to economic debacle, then I have half a dozen counter-examples I can immediately cite. So toss the red herring back out to sea.
--
You are perverting the definition of a fiat currency. Not all currency, is fiat currency. If I gave you a choice between an ounce of copy paper, or an ounce of gold bullion, which would you choose? It would take an idiot not to recognize the difference. Gold is a commodity, valuable outside any system of government, due to its scarcity and beauty--hence it is desirable. A fiat currency only has value within a determined system, and is easily manipulated by a central power. It is not desirable beyond being a medium of exchange.
If you will please read my previous post again, you might this time comprehend that my interest lies in the ethical implications of fiat currency, within an economic system. I was not commenting on its impact on the solvency of an economic system (Although solvency could be impacted by ethical choices. Still, it is a secondary concern.). So, even though you may have plenty of examples of specie-based currency causing "economic debalce," they really have nothing to do with my last post.
Lastly, I ask that you keep an open mind. I would never ask you to throw a thought or idea out to sea. Debate is only worthwhile if it is driven by conversation. Please, follow your thoughts with some concrete reasoning and I will respond accordingly.
And because you seem to have it out for gold, I leave you with a quote from a young Alan Greenspan, from his paper, "Gold and Economic Freedom":
"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.