The Pope’s Support for Immigration and His Tacit Approval of Free Market Enterprise


Pope Francis is visiting the United States. He’s made several appearances, including a White House visit and an address before the United States Congress. His criticism of free market enterprise, of a capitalist economy, is well-known. Some have wondered whether he fully understands the unique expression of capitalism in the United States. It’s true, his views have been shaped by his experience coming from Argentina, which could not differ more extremely from political and economic arrangements in the U.S. But I wonder if he understands more than these commentators think.

Pope Francis Addresses Congress-2015.09Today, while speaking before Congress, Francis lauded the importance of an immigration policy that welcomes those seeking to improve their life circumstances. He called for, or commended, a humane and just policy that would allow movement across our borders. He was speaking to the U.S. Congress where the debate about immigration and border control is intense. The Pope weighed in on that debate. While his remarks were delicate and deferential, he did encourage adoption of an immigration policy that is welcoming.

Of course, he offered no detailed proposal for our border policy. Nor did he even hint at one. That would be a form of meddling that would be politically disruptive and unbecoming of a prominent religious leader who is visiting from outside the United States and enjoying the hospitality of gracious hosts. At any rate, there is little fodder here for left-leaning politicians to exploit in support of their open-borders preference. There’s nothing in his remarks to suggest that we should adopt this or that particular policy about border control.

What I find it interesting is this. The Pope urges hospitality toward those who simply wish to make a better life for themselves, while also adopting a negative posture toward a free market economy. The Pope recognizes the advantages that life in the U.S. affords those seeking greater economic opportunity. For the most part, immigrants from the south aren’t seeking political asylum; rather, they desire economic prosperity that is not available to them in their home countries. Capitalism, despite its shortcomings, is the engine that drives prosperity in this country. And the idea that a capitalist society such as ours should, as a matter of justice and hospitality, find ways to assimilate immigrants looking for a better life is tacit approval of capitalism.

This approval goes deeper even. For the Pope considers it morally commendable for this capitalist society, which has so much to offer legitimate immigrants, to share the fruit of an economy that increases opportunities for prosperity. This is tacit agreement that capitalism is not intrinsically motivated by greed, or essentially dependent on greed for its sustenance.

In addition, it is not accidental that the desirable fruit of our economy is the product of a free market system. I believe such a system is the only system that could bear such fruit. The alternatives, especially Marxist alternatives, are barren in this regard. The gross failure of economies south of our border explains why there is such a flood of immigrants into the United States.

The Pope’s concern for the poor and his efforts to galvanize collective efforts aimed at eradicating poverty is admirable. Free market enthusiasts argue that capitalism offers the greatest hope for achieving this ambitious goal. I concur. I suggest that the Pope, perhaps unwittingly, advocates for a qualified version capitalism when he urges us to share the fruit of our economy with those seeking a better life for themselves.

I would add that what is good for our economy is good for any economy. In fact, the poor of Central and South America would benefit even more fully if they could enjoy the fruit of a growing economy such as ours—without leaving their own countries. The Pope is uniquely positioned to work toward this goal. He hails from Argentina and is head of a church that dominates that part of the world that lies south of our borders.

The Pope has urged humane acceptance of immigrants. It is at least as humane to create opportunities for them that do not depend on immigration. And a successful policy for border control should include measures that would encourage the spread of capitalism from Mexicali to Tierra del Fuego.

Advertisements

Karl Marx Is Dead—And So Is Dialectical Materialism (for the most part)


Nietzsche famously said, “God is dead.” His great intellectual forebear, Karl Marx, was born on this date in 1818, just five years after Søren Kierkegaard, who has the same birthday. Marx is perhaps the best-known atheist of the 19th century. He grew up in a German-Jewish home. But it is said that he converted to Lutheranism when he was only six years old. Either it didn’t take, or it didn’t last.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

He was a militant atheist during his college years at Bonn and Berlin. He was drawn to a group called “the Young Hegelians.” A major figure of this group was Ludwig Feuerbach, who influenced Marx and probably inspired much of the atheist element in Marx’s “dialectical materialism.” For Feuerbach, God is nothing more than a projection of the human imagination. Religion is but a dream. And it is a dream with a mixed reputation. It expresses the guilt and remorse characteristic of the human condition, and then pretends to offer a solution. Humans find it pretty hard to escape this fantasy, since it serves a useful purpose.

Marx extended the motif, calling religion “the opiate of the people.” More drug than dream. The corrective he envisioned would replace the need for a beneficent transcendent being with a social arrangement that would ensure tranquility and economic stability. His dialectical materialism provided the metaphysical framework for his communist utopianism. As materialist, he asserted that all is matter, including the human person. But his materialism affirms an evolutionary history that leads dialectically to utopian finality, where society progresses from “each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The path to this ideal condition would be painful but necessary. It would be mediated by revolution.

Sadly, this much of the Marxist vision has been realized; but its glorious outcome has been more nightmare than dream. Neither Marx nor Feuerbach offered any real arguments against the existence of God. Instead, they embrace the nonexistence of God as a kind of article of faith. They imagined that all who believe in God do so without objective warrant. But pervasive belief in God must be explained—and got rid of—somehow. Thus they offered psychological and sociological explanations for religious belief. This created space for Marx’s theoretical speculations, which gained surprising traction in his day. His dialectical materialism is mostly a thing of the past. Communism has been exposed as a vicious means for dictatorship rather than equality. But the attitude persists that religion is a private matter that tends rather to debase humanity than to realize humanity’s highest aspirations.

This is a powerful catalyst for secularism. If religion is ungrounded, the most it can offer is private solace. But the heart grows restless with solace that has no objective ground. And so humanity turns to substitutes, seeking always to make a better life without God. It matters not whether God is dead—as Nietzsche proclaimed. What matters is whether the heart appropriates what reason supports. Our need for spiritual solutions to pervasive problems is some evidence that spiritual solutions do exist. But that possibility can only be taken seriously if evidence for religious truth is considered fairly and objectively. No path to a better world is worth trying if it doesn’t start there.

As I noted in a previous post for today, Søren Kiekegaard sought to awaken recognition of these facts about humanity and spiritual values. Too bad Marx didn’t listen to Kiekegaard.

Why Would a University of Chicago Professor Call Obama a Marxist?


Maybe he knows something we don’t. Or maybe he knows something we secretly suspect. A lunch companion of Barack Obama’s reportedly claims that Obama is a Marxist.

Here’s what James Pethokoukis writes today for U.S. News & World Report:

A while back I chatted with a University of Chicago professor who was a frequent lunch companion of Obama’s. This professor said that Obama was as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States. Now, I tend to quickly dismiss that kind of talk as way over the top. My working assumption is that Obama is firmly within the mainstream of Democratic politics. But if he is as free with that sort of redistributive philosophy in private as he was on the campaign trail this week, I have no doubt that U of C professor really does figure him as a radical.

Believe it or not, there are people in America who would dearly love to have a Marxist in the White House. Bill Ayres may be one of those people. Almost certainly the Reverend Jeremiah Wright would be delighted, since he is himself an advocate of liberation theology. I’m not a lunch companion of Barack Obama, but I do know something about liberation theology. It is a fundamentally Marxist ideology with a religious veneer. A major goal of leaders in the liberation theology movement is to radicalize people on the lower end of the economic spectrum by causing them to believe that they are oppressed and entitled to redistributed wealth.

Now we can hear in Obama’s own words that he is a redistributivist. He told a now-famous plumber named Joe that he wants to “spread the wealth around.” His plan for doing this is to penalize the success of some people to provide handouts to the less successful, without regard for the work ethic of the parties involved.

I can’t shake the suspicion that Barack Obama’s students days and his years as a budding politician were framed by a radical ideology. This would explain many of the few things we actually know about Obama.

%d bloggers like this: