Governmental expansion and the principle of subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity holds that first, close, and small trumps last, far and large when it comes to the fabric of civil society, governmental control and influence, and the structures of familial and communal support. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has, of course, a major section on it. It states, in part:

The necessity of defending and promoting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”.

On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.

Subsidiarity, understood in the positive sense as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, entails a corresponding series of negative implications that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted. (par 186)

The principle of subsidiarity doesn't usually get the same sort of love and affection show to the principle of solidarity, but it really should, since they are close friends, even inseparable. Knowing a bit about the principle of subsidiarity is very helpful, especially during a time of serious economic and political turmoil and change. Consider:

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well. (par 187)

The Compendium does state, in the following paragraph:

Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. (par 188)

The key word, it seems to me, is "impossible." There are many decisions of prudential nature that go into assessing the need and place for economic stimulus and how it might affect any number of social institutions and structures, including those that are religious in nature. That, in essence, is the concern addressed in an essay, "More Government, Less God: What the Obama Revolution Means for Religion in America," written by W. Bradford Wilcox for the Public Discourse site. Wilcox, who is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, writes:

One unremarked and unintended consequence of Barack Obama’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—especially in health care, education, and the environment—is that the nanny state he is seeking to build will likely crowd out religious institutions in America. In other words, if he succeeds in passing his ambitious agenda, the Obama revolution is likely to lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe.

To fund his bold efforts to revive the American economy and expand the welfare state, Obama is proposing to spend a staggering $3.6 trillion in the 2010 fiscal year. Obama’s revolutionary agenda would push federal, state, and local spending to approximately 40 percent of Gross Domestic Product, up from about 33 percent in 2000. It would also put the size of government in the United States within reach of Europe, where government spending currently makes up 46 percent of GDP.

Why is this significant for the vitality of religion in America? A recent study of 33 countries around the world by Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde, political scientists at the University of Washington, indicates that there is an inverse relationship between state welfare spending and religiosity. Specifically, they found that

countries with larger welfare states had markedly lower levels of religious attendance, had higher rates of citizens indicating no religious affiliation whatsoever, and their people took less comfort in religion in general. In their words, “Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals.”

Read the entire essay. Then also consider this passage from Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical, Deus Caritas Est:

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (par 28)

• On one hand, this should be obvious... (Dec. 5, 2008, post on subsidiarity)
• The State Which Would Provide Everything | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | October 3, 2006

Comments

[M. L. Hearing]

Well, yes. It seems to me, though, the deeper issue is fear. Modern Western man is afraid--afraid of failure and insecurity in whateverever form--sickness, financial failure, having to work hard with his hands and back, poor "quality of life," death. True sudsidiarity (and maybe we should even go so far as to shoot for some kind of distributism) holds for us at least some insecurity and the possibility of failure. If we're not free to fail, we're not truly free. It is best for the Christian, as Lewis once said, to live in a state of "cheerful insecurity." As it is now, we'd rather have our soma and our putative security, which we've gained by handing things over to government and to the experts. We've learned to love the safety of our servitude.

[Augustine]

A bit of a tangent, but Dan Arnold has been stating since 2002 that no government action can stem the then upcoming financial crisis because of demographics: those aged between 45 and 55, the peak earning years, are dwindling (see http://www.thegreatbustahead.com/pi_article_feb2004.pdf).

He didn't mention this, but we all know why that age bracket is just now dwindling: contraception and abortion, to the tee.

Take that, Pelosi, births are actually good for the economy!

[Robert Miller]

Well said Augustine -- and M.L., too.

Clearly, Obama has a statist agenda. He would have government take the place of the large, anonymous corporations that control finance, major manufacturing and health care.

But let's think about it. If we had someone in power we could trust, wouldn't this moment present the best opportunity in seven decades to implement the distributist programme? Let the government liquidate the banks, auto makers and health insurance companies; cut mortgage principal owed to market value across the board; convert defined contribution to defined benefit retirement plans; and hold interest rates as near or below zero as possible -- as a matter of policy.

I know what the Liberal -- left and right -- arguments against these prescriptions are: they will materially "impoverish" us collectively. But they also will engender among us a solidarity that can support a genuine "subsidiarism" among us. In practical US politics, I'm sorry to say I don't think we can get there from here as Republicans (and obviously not as Democrats).

We seem to have forgotten Belloc's insight that the advanced capitalist polity is not different substantially from the communist. The latter is militantly atheistic; the latter is (worse, we have come to experience and realize)militantly agnostic.

We need a Catholic politics. And we need a few good Catholic men to get it started.

[Neal Lang]

"But let's think about it. If we had someone in power we could trust, wouldn't this moment present the best opportunity in seven decades to implement the distributist programme?"

Ah, but that's rub, isn't it? Finding and putting "someone in power we could trust". Of course, we are all sinners, and as Lord John Acton aptly stated: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Personally, I believe the whole concept of subsidiarity is that when someone who is in "power" starts getting "corrupted", it is a lot easier to meet him "face to face" and punch him in the nose when he needs it if he local!

[Neal Lang]

"We seem to have forgotten Belloc's insight that the advanced capitalist polity is not different substantially from the communist. The latter is militantly atheistic; the latter is (worse, we have come to experience and realize)militantly agnostic."

"CAPITALISM: Capitalism can be described as a free-market system of economics. Economic liberty is the cornerstone of the free-market system. Economic liberty entails freedom from unnecessary government intervention in the market place, legal protection of private property, and the freedom to buy and sell almost anything at any time.

"Free-market thought has its origin in several sources including the work of the French physiocrats, the late Scholastics, and the British classical economists, notably Adam Smith. Classical economics (see Classical Economic Theory) later developed into various schools of economic thought. Three prominent schools include the Austrian school, the Chicago school, and the Virginia school (sometimes called the Public Choice school). The single defining characteristic unifying all three schools is a tireless defense of human liberty, particularly, economic liberty. Forceful admonitions against direct government involvement into the economy unites every free-market economist regardless of background and theoretical viewpoint. Free-market economists agree that, while the intentions of government may be honorable, intervention disrupts market processes by curtailing liberty and spontaneous development. Key thinkers include Adam Smith*, Ludwig von Mises*, Friedrich Hayek*, Milton Friedman*, Wilhelm Roepke*, James Buchanan, Gary Becker, and Michael Novak.

"CLASSICAL ECONOMIC THEORY: Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, best represents the school of classical economic theory. Classical economists were occupied mostly with the production of capital. These economists determined prices for goods not by consumer demand, as we do today, but by how much an item cost to produce (natural price theory). Because the science of economics began about the same time as modern natural science, the classical economists frequently employed scientific and philosophical ideas in their writing. Key thinkers include Adam Smith*, David Ricardo*, and John Stuart Mill*.

"ECONOMIC PERSONALISM: (see Personalism) Economic personalism is a new body of scholarship that attempts to integrate the principles contained in Christian social thought with the accomplishments of contemporary economic science. Economic personalists seek to produce an economy that is truly humane, one worthy of human dignity. Such an economic arrangement would have to not only respect human freedom, individual choice, human creativity, and the right to market initiative, but would also have to generate wealth.

"PERSONALISM: (see Economic Personalism) Personalist philosophy analyzes the meaning and nature of personal existence. Yet it acknowledges the mysterious character of human existence. This recognition, however, does not eliminate the possibility of investigating the mystery, but it does affirm that no theory or set of insights can ever fully explain human life. The human person is an infinitely complex subject. A distinct feature of personalist philosophy is that human dignity and the intrinsic value of persons are revealed in human experience. Personalist philosophers maintain that experience ought to be the starting point for the philosophical analysis of the person. Reflection upon experiences accents the unique aspects of being human, namely, consciousness and freedom. Personalist philosophers view persons as active beings with awareness of their environment, not unmoved, abstract, or rational entities. Key thinkers include Emil Brunner*, Pope John Paul II*, Emmanuel Mounier*, Martin Buber*, Max Scheler*, and Gabriel Marcel*." Dictionary of Terms for Free and Virtuous Society * RIP

Unlike Communism, Capitalism, can only become repressive when a big, powerful central government alines with big business and picks the "winners and loser". This should never occur in a truly "free market". This primary occurs when government determines that it is the best arbiter of how wealth should be distributed. Communism starts from this premise.

[Neal Lang]

"Let the government liquidate the banks, auto makers and health insurance companies; cut mortgage principal owed to market value across the board; convert defined contribution to defined benefit retirement plans; and hold interest rates as near or below zero as possible -- as a matter of policy."

Who will be willing to lend money when can government violents their terms in order to achieve some utopian redistribution of wealth? Allowing the banks and the "Big Three" to fail is really "Free Market Economics 101". The result will be a stronger economy in the long run. Having the government take over these industries is a formula for economic disaster. See Zimbabwe as an example.