Said JD Vance on the new episode of Ross Douthat's "Interesting Times" podcast — audio and transcript at Podscribe.
Douthat was challenging him to coordinate his political thinking with his Catholicism. To quote a bit more of what Vance said: "I'm not saying I'm always perfect at it, but I at least try to think about, okay, there are obligations that we have to people who in some ways are fleeing violence or at least fleeing poverty. I also have a very sacred obligation, I think, to enforce the laws and to promote the common good of my own country, defined as the people with the legal right to be here.... [I]t's easy to get locked in sort of a left versus right, you know: The left respects the dignity of migrants. The right is motivated by hatred. I think far too many people, obviously that's not my view, but I think some liberal immigration advocates get locked in that view.... And... I think a lot about this question of social cohesion in the United States. I think about how do we form the kind of society again where people can raise families, where people join an institutions together where, you know, what I think Burke would've called the mediating layers of society are actually healthy and vibrant. And I do think that those who care about what might be called the common good, they sometimes underweight how destructive to the common good immigration at the levels and at the pace that we've seen over the last few years."
Posts
61 comments:
That’s a pretty profound observation on Vance’s part.
A very diplomatic way to put it. One of the problems I have with today's Catholic Church (which I have chosen to mostly ignore) is the notion that one must be a modern Dem/Progressive liberal to be a Catholic in good standing. One must believe in CAGW and open borders. I reject that outright.
As a Catholic, I'm not required to let 20 million complete strangers enter the country illegally and who then cause all sorts of unnecessary mayhem, violence and spending.
The Catholic Church doesn’t lift people out of poverty. It extols the virtues of poverty.
Maybe the better version of following Christ is to help those in other countries build up their own countries, so they don't feel they have to flee to the USA to give their families good opportunity for success and wellbeing.
Social cohesion as a nation is impossible for the contemporary United States - we lack common values.. But it can be found in smaller communities, organizations, social entities.
It's also very destructive to social solidarity when the politically connected can not only ignore the law, but can pay themselves handsomely to violate it using the tax dollars of those who are held to the law.
Douthat should take his dogma for a walk… a long one off a short pier.
"here are obligations that we have to people who in some ways are fleeing violence or at least fleeing poverty."
Vance and Trump are doing more for the 5 or 6 billion people living in violence and poverty than anybody has in my memory. They are trying to shut down the strategy of endless wars, of overthrowing any government of a country that manages to crawl up on his hind legs, Syria, Libya, and destroy them and leave them fighting among themselves in their rubble. The sanctions on Venezuela that produced the poverty there, that we put on them in an attempt to overthrow Chavez and then Maduro.
All of these policies by the US are the cause of so much of the misery these people are fleeing. And we can't take in six billion people. But we can stop burning their crops and destroying their homes and starving them with sanctions.
I was glad to hear Vance talk about why he didn't kiss the papal ring. I wondered about that.
This is a conversation between two Catholics who are (at least nominally in Douthat's case) on the Right. I was hoping for questions outside of the usual NYT complaints against the Trump admin. I was disappointed.
The collapse of the spiritual horizon in the West has affected the Catholic Church as profoundly as the mainstream Protestant churches. When one no longer takes seriously the prospect of a life after death, the whole project of the Church changes to a concern with material well-being, equality of material life, heaven on earth, so to speak. Within the Western (American and European) Church, it is clear that most bishops and cardinals and priest regard the African and Latin Mass traditionalist Catholics with a mixture of contempt and embarrassment. Liberation theology, like its secular political allies, becomes a justification for the will to power of an elite that seeks to reform away all traditional values.
More weaponized empathy. Use the Christian's sense of responsibility to help the poor and victimized to take away their democracy and establish what will functionally be a one party state and it won't be a state that is tolerant of Christians. Soon the American Christians will find themselves living in a country just like the one the immigrants were fleeing.
How the left and conservatives generally feel about migrants is probably not as important as what each group thinks about America. The left thinks of America as somehow belonging to the world. In their view, the U.S. isn't really a nation -- i.e., a people -- but rather is akin to a wealthy institution whose purpose is to provide financial support to other countries and serve as a welcoming host to anyone in the world who wants to live here. Vance made the point at his speech at the RNC last summer that Americans ARE a people, with a distinct national, ethnic identity, and as such we're entitled to our own state, with secure borders, and a government that serves to promote the interests of its own citizens. This is what America First is really all about: resisting the efforts of the international left to deny America effective national sovereignty.
Vance needs to strengthen his nuance by not being so wishy-washy rhetorically.
Vance is not ready yet to snatch the pebble from Trump's hand.
Even if you think we have a moral obligation to welcome people fleeing oppression, you must accept we have an obligation that we do NOT also welcome their oppressors.
Instead of importing victims we import the conflict, and a new local war zone.
Quayle said...
“Maybe the better version of following Christ is to help those in other countries build up their own countries, so they don't feel they have to flee to the USA to give their families good opportunity for success and wellbeing.”
The whole idea of a “city on a hill” - whether the original in the Bible or John Winthrop’s vision - is to be a role model and an inspiration, not a destination.
I'm old enough to remember when importing all the hard working motivated people from poor countries was another form of colonialism.
I always hoped Trump would shift the Overton Window of acceptable topics and enable people with more temperate, persuadable speech to run with them.
Looks like it has come to be. Huzzah.
Things political figures can't say: Jesus was a terrible economic thinker.
phantommut said...
“Even if you think we have a moral obligation to welcome people fleeing oppression, you must accept we have an obligation that we do NOT also welcome their oppressors.”
Just because Group A is relatively powerless and is being oppressed and slaughtered by Group B does not mean that Group A necessarily shares our values. Group A may end up happily oppressing others given the opportunity and power.
Douthat was challenging him to coordinate his political thinking with his Catholicism.
Did Douthat at any time explain how Vance's views conflict with his Catholicism? Because they make perfect sense to this Catholic and I don't see any conflict.
Ampersand said...Things political figures can't say: Jesus was a terrible economic thinker.
Lots of people ascribe economic policies to Jesus but, while some of his parables involved people working for money, there was nothing in his message that could be described as an economic program.
Immigration controls on the numbers of people allowed in and the conditions they must satisfy in order to get in are the default standard for the vast majority of countries in the world. The United States is under no moral obligation to allow unlimited immigration.
Vance's position is logically and morally fine. And there is nothing in the teachings of the Catholic church, as opposed to the political and business positions of Catholic leaders, that require him or any other Catholic, to think otherwise. The moral precepts in the Bible and Catholic doctrine are guides on a personal level, not administrative how-to manuals for country leaders.
Just more evidence of Vance's bad faith and instrumentalization of Church teaching to justify unchristian policies. At least that is what the deacon who preached the homily at the mass I attended last Sunday seemed to be saying. Although he named no names when he talked about people instrumentalizing Christian faith for evil ends (e.g., opposing unrestricted immigration), I have no doubt that Vance, a recent convert who has entered the public debate by citing theological principles, was the target of the deacon's opprobrium. The bishops and the clergy are still not ready to accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council to the laity should use its professional training to bring Christian principles to bear in the public square. Apparently the true Christian needs to set aside his or her own professional training and uncritically accept the policy prescriptions of the bishops when seeking solutions to complicated social issues.
Although he named no names when he talked about people instrumentalizing Christian faith for evil ends...
We had to leave our (Methodist) church over stuff like that. I go to church for timeless messages, not the politics of the day.
“Just more evidence of Vance's bad faith and instrumentalization of Church teaching to justify unchristian policies.”
Another example of a know-it-all mook who doesn’t understand the meaning of words like “sovereign” or “sustainability”.
Exactly, too many too fast. And it was a problem in 1900 too. Italian gangs, Jewish gangs, Chinese gangs. All artifacts of poor assimilation.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Douthat was challenging him to coordinate his political thinking with his Catholicism. To quote a bit more of what Vance said: "I'm not saying I'm always perfect at it, but I at least try to think about, okay, there are obligations that we have to people who in some ways are fleeing violence or at least fleeing poverty.
It is at this point you realize what the purpose of the Catholic Church has always been.
The only purpose of the Catholic Church was to harness the teachings of Jesus and use them to maintain control of the serfs. It has been a tool of the elite and a political force since it's inception.
Look at all societies with Catholicism as a foundation. They tend to marxist and communist social contracts with much more centralized control over people.
Open borders is just one of the many things the Catholic Church is used to push that further the needs of the globalist elite.
As the Italian lady remarked about the Pope's strictures on birth control, "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules".
tim maguire said...
Ampersand said...Things political figures can't say: Jesus was a terrible economic thinker.
Lots of people ascribe economic policies to Jesus but, while some of his parables involved people working for money, there was nothing in his message that could be described as an economic program.
Thus the Catholic Church was formed to provide political leadership to the followers of Jesus.
Possible tell, "mass" vs "Mass".
Here is a good test, try to get an eye exam within a couple days like you always could in the past. It turns out that among these millions of new migrants Joe let in and regularized with a stroke of the pen, there weren't any optometrists. Strange that.
I keep hearing that the long waits for medical appointments, even for optometrists, is because of the "pandemic."
The "pandemic" excuse sounds a lot to me like the Biden "stutter" excuse. "How many fingers am I holding up!"
Even moderately affluent enclaves, suburbs, and gated communities as expressed in their zoning laws, arduous processes to get building permits, and more, universally express a preference for the social cohesion of the existing residents, regardless of whether the existing residents are progressive or conservative. They don't want "immigrants" in their affluent enclave who are not like them, unless they are coming in temporarily to clean and watch the kids.
"I really do think that social solidarity is destroyed when you have too much migration too quickly."
Many in Ohio felt that way when the likes of Vance's relatives migrated from Kentucky, West Virgina and Tennessee
And the people left behind? Emigration reform to mitigate progress at both ends of the bridge, throughout, and collateral damage.
Baby Lives Matter
Some of the bad economic thinking in the Christian gospels:
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin."
Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one 's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
There are many other examples . Jesus seems to have regarded himself as the herald of a soon to occur spiritual transformation of such great importance that wealth accumulation was a distracting waste of time.
That is bad economic thinking, as the intervening two millennia should have demonstrated.
So now the Left's complaint is that Vance isn't willing to make America a Catholic theocracy? Am I correctly understanding the situation?
I don't remember the early Catholic Church berating the Roman Empire for trying to resist barbarian invasions, but if there's such writings out there, please do share.
The US has immigration laws. As an elected member of the Executive Branch, JD Vance's job, one who swore an Oath to God to do, is to uphold and enforce those laws.
And that means deporting every single illegal in the US. To do less would be a failure in his duty to the Almighty to keep his oath
"Many in Ohio felt that way when the likes of Vance's relatives migrated from Kentucky, West Virgina and Tennessee"
The last socially acceptable racial prejudice.
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
That one was addressed to a particular person, Jesus had other rich followers who he didn't tell to sell everything and give to the poor. The other two sound like pretty good life advice to me.
“Although he named no names when he talked about people instrumentalizing Christian faith for evil ends...”
I first thought of the Episcopal bishop who refused to work with refugees, or the various other denominational groups that encourage or enable illegal aliens to break the law by coming here.
Jesus called upon us to the help the sick, the poor, and the hungry. He said nothing about letting immigrants into your country so they can have cars and eat hot cheetos.
Open was never a "Catholic value" until the rich and power in the 1990s started pushing it because of "cheap Labor". Funny dat.
As for Vance's statement. Its good that he's not an open borders guy and feels some connection with the native born Americans who elected him. But he's far too defensive. Or maybe he was trying head off Ross Dougnuts objections. Y'know Ross, "the conservative" pundit, who always agrees with every sacred liberal/left value and position.
And BTW, "help refugees" doesn't require you bring them to the USA and make the citizens. You could allow to settle in some other country and support them. And neither do have to import millions of 3rd worlders into the USA in order to feed them or provide them medical care.
This is obvious. All this "we must help the poor migrants" is just claptrap to hide the power elite's desire for cheap labor and demographic change. The R's hate labor unions and want an unending supply of exploitable workers. The D's hate white people and want Demographic change that will give them power forever.
Ampersand, he's talking about how you should live your life to save your soul. It has nothing to do with economics.
I wish he had been asked where the annexation of Canada and Greenland fit into his social cohesion theory.
Render unto Caesar. The American government, elected by the American people, has chosen to have a national border and to have rules on citizenship and who can be present in the country. I get very annoyed at these appeals to Catholicism on the question of immigration.
If Vance was misguided enough to believe his Catholic faith compelled him to support open borders, he would still have a civic duty to "Render unto Caesar." The Constitution obligates the Administration to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The proper role for Vance, in that scenario, would be to push for legislation changing the law. He can vote however he wants. But whatever the law is, he must obey his Constitutional oath.
In any event, there is nothing "Catholic" about open borders. Encouraging foreigners to cross deserts with little food and water, and with owing tens of thousands to coyotes and cartels, is not compassionate. It's not Christian. Distorting asylum law to let non-eligible economic migrants stay is not Christian. The "Catholic" view, properly understood, is to treat individuals with dignity, as children of God. That doesn't mean you bend over backwards for migrants by trashing the law and tearing apart the nation's communities.
I haven't been keeping track, but the financial cost of illegals should be somewhere around 300 billion last year. The social and civic costs are hard to estimate. There have been a few studies in Europe (that I haven't been able to fully comprehend), but the social costs are high.
And for Christ's sake Readering do you really need to be that dense?
"Douthat was challenging him to coordinate his political thinking with his Catholicism." Yeah, just like they always challenge "Catholic" lefties. Anyway, what's to coordinate? 1. Being Catholic doesn't require or justify breaking his oath of office or subvert the actual laws of the USA; and 2. Catholic social policy itself depends on civic solidarity--can't have subsidiarity without it.
Rocco commented on my earlier post about the deacon's homily that "I first thought of the Episcopal bishop who refused to work with refugees, or the various other denominational groups that encourage or enable illegal aliens to break the law by coming here."
I actually did consider that possible interpretation of the deacon's comment, but it seemed inconsistent with the thrust of the rest of his homily. When I spoke with him in a rather terse conversation after mass, I should have asked him to name names. Or perhaps I should have expressed agreement by saying, "Yeah, that female Episcopal bishop sure is abusing Christ's teachings to suit her political agenda."
What I did note was that while many of these clerics express a desire to accompany sinners and marginalized people, they seem highly selective about which sinners and marginalized people to accompany. I told him that not only did I, a sinner not favoring open borders, feel marginalized and unaccompanied, but that I had felt like his comments had trampled me and kicked me to the side of the road. I most certainly did not feel "seen" or "heard." I forgot to ask him where I was suppose to get my scarlet V to wear next week when I come to church.
"I wish he had been asked where the annexation of Canada and Greenland fit into his social cohesion theory."
Where does fighting wars on the other side of the planet, which is a core Democratic Party policy, fit in? You know, stuff that is actually happening.
Quayle and phantommut make good points: if we have a religious obligation to help the poor, there are other ways of doing it than spending and wasting vast amounts of money to destabilize their society and our society. And not all illegal or legal immigration is about helping the poor: there are nefarious players both in originating nations and our own.
i just got back from fishing in Casper Wyo..
yesterday, as i was driving across the Pine Ridge, i was listening to KILI 90.1 FM (The Voice of the Lakota Nation),
and they had a show about the Apache Stronghold group's fight to stop the Oak Flat copper mine project..
(copper; for, you know, things like electric motors and wires)
needless to say, the Apache Stronghold is TOTALLY opposed to this transfer of Tonto National Forest land known as Oak Flat to Resolution Copper.
[that's RIGHT, it's NOT on their res; the spokes maiden said that the San Carlos res "wasn't their home", and that it was "just a POW camp".. and that ALL of Arizona was
a) sacred
and
b) theirs
]
The spokes maiden explained, that her tribe (of which she "technically wasn't a member of") had been fighting this copper mine deal, for "over 500 years" (!!!!)
She REPEATEDLY stated, that NATIVE people should NOT have to deal with INVADERS, that were coming here to rob and steal. She felt that ONLY NATIVE people should be allowed to own property in (or exist ON) 'sacred land'.
it was VERY interesting.. I had to Keep Reminding myself, that she was NOT a NAZI white supremacist..
She was a Socialist red activist.. So it was ALL just fine..
(i think i have that right?)
oh, meanwhile; i caught 3 trout in Custer St Park (SD), before breaking my 4wt rod on Sunday..
on Monday, i fished the Grey Reef section of the North Platte in Wyoming.. i counted 16 trouts longer than 15" (most in the 17-19" range), and quit counting smaller trouts at 10..
Those were all trouts brought to the boat, not counting ones that shook the hook
Readering said...
“I wish he had been asked where the annexation of Canada and Greenland fit into his social cohesion theory.”
No need to ask. Trump/Vance are not calling for the mass resettlement of foreigners or outsiders into those areas.
If anything, both have top level governments that for a long time have not served the interests of the people living there.
I'm old enough to remember when importing all the hard working motivated people from poor countries was another form of colonialism.
The "Brain Drain", it was called. Like all meritocracies, it was detested by the kind of people who get their positions through graft, political pull, having the proper skin color, and mouthing left-wing pieties.
that's RIGHT, it's NOT on their res; the spokes maiden said that the San Carlos res "wasn't their home", and that it was "just a POW camp".. and that ALL of Arizona was
a) sacred
and
b) theirs
The Apaches are colonialist invaders who came down from Canada only fifty or a hundred years before the Spanish conquistadores. They were fearsome warriors, and among the world's most cruel and inventive torturers. They massacred the Hopi, Zuni, Pima, and other peaceful tribes who had lived here far longer, raped their women, enslaved their children, and seized large portions of their ancestral homelands. They have no more ethical claim to any square inch of this state than I do.
One could conclude that coordinating Catholicism with governmental power is a violation of the First Amendment.
Jaq - just to make sure it's said - USA boycotting Venezuela did not destroy Venezuela. Venezuela going full commie, seizing the means of production, and destroying free enterprise destroyed Venezuela. It's the same outcome that has happened every time Communism has been tried.
As it's used today, there is no such thing as "Native" people. Not unless, perhaps, they spontaneously just materialized there one day. Otherwise, all humans (except maybe "Lucy" in the Olduvai Gorge) migrated from place X to place Y. Stop with the inferred permanent original ownership assertions implied in that term.
Vance is right. I never thought I'd see the day when we had a vice president who'd read Chesterton -- or at least read or talked with people who had read Chesterton.
Northeastern Ohio was once (theoretically) part of Connecticut and was settled by Northerners. Southeastern Ohio was settled by Southerners and has more in common with West Virginia or Kentucky than with Cleveland, Cincinnati or Columbus, so while Vance's immediate family may have moved in from out of state, there were "hillbillies" like them already in Ohio from the earliest settlement of the state.
"It's the same outcome that has happened every time Communism has been tried."
So you are saying that it would have been the same had we not imposed sanctions then? So why did we bother? I think that whatever would have happened was their lookout, up until we imposed sanctions, which made things worse, and increased the flow of economic migrants to the US.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.