Controlling the overseeing of the coercion of the regulation of..., etc., etc.

A quick, non-scientific comparison, with emphasis added:

Pope Benedict XVI: "The development of peoples is intimately linked to the development of individuals. The human person by nature is actively involved in his own development. The development in question is not simply the result of natural mechanisms, since as everybody knows, we are all capable of making free and responsible choices. Nor is it merely at the mercy of our caprice, since we all know that we are a gift, not something self-generated. Our freedom is profoundly shaped by our being, and by its limits. No one shapes his own conscience arbitrarily, but we all build our own 'I' on the basis of a 'self' which is given to us. Not only are other persons outside our control, but each one of us is outside his or her own control." (Caritas in veritate, 68)

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI): "Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." (Listen to audio)

Dingell has reigned—uh, served, in the House of Representatives since 1955 (at the age of 29), which means he has probably never had a real job (actually, he ran his own law firm for a short while), or done much other than pass laws, ride the gravy train, and create legislation aimed at helpin—I mean, controlling people.

Dingell has since issued a statement explaining that his comments were taken out of context by "right-wing blogs," saying,

"If one were to listen to the entire interview, and not just a clip creatively chopped up for political gain, it is obvious that by ‘people’ I was referring to the insurance companies who we must do a better job of overseeing."

Ah, overseeing. Whew. I feel much better now that you obscured what you clarified earlier. And who, I wonder, is going to be overseeing you, Mr. Dingell? And now that the federal government "oversees" the education industry, the automobile industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, and the health-care industry, what is next? (The Democrats already run the dissident nun industry and the pro-abort Catholic politician industry, so perhaps they'll next go after the Catholic publishing industry?) The fact is, Dingell's use of such language—whether meant for private citizens or (until recently) privately owned insurance companies—is plenty revealing. But, then, I have strongly believed and remain more convinced than ever that the "health care bill" has about as much to do with health care as legal abortion does with preserving a woman's "right" to privacy; such a line of argumentation only makes sense to those with a certain ideological perspective.

Speaking of abortion, I fully understand and support the commendable efforts made to fight the passage of the "health care" legislation on the basis of life and human dignity. (See Archbishop Chaput's most recent column, "A bad bill and how we got it," for more.) But it mystifies me (well, not completely) that, with only a few exceptions, the U.S. bishops and other Church leaders either ignored or gave short shrift to other key principles of Catholic social doctrine, including the principle of subsidiarity. Is it because it's a strange-sounding word? Because most people, including many Catholics, are clueless about it? Because, well, we want (or so the American people are told) universal health so badly we should be willing to turn a blind eye to a host of serious economic, social, and political problems inherent to a bill the length of Encyclopedia Britannica? It really is about control and the technocratic obsession with massive planning and glorious social structures meant for the clueless plebs who should be happy to fund it all and have bread and circuses.

Back in November 2009, I interviewed James Kalb, author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command, the title of which should catch the attention of anyone concerned about what is happening inside the Beltway. Kalb, a Catholic and an attorney, had this to say in response to my question about the importance of the principle of subsidiarity (which makes star appearances in his book):

Subsidiarity is needed so society can function effectively. More importantly, it's needed so human beings can be treated like human beings.

People in positions of power--top political leaders, bureaucrats, businessmen, experts, media people--don't like things to go their own way based on how they look to the people on the spot. They like simple overall schemes that are easy to understand and control from above.

Self-interest is part of that. Ambitious people like to run things. It's natural for someone who's risen in a competitive society to think he knows better. Also, simple general schemes seem clearer and more rational, and therefore more just.

It turns out though that putting bright people in charge of everything doesn't solve all problems. The world's too complicated, and other people know too much. If you try to reduce everything to a simple scheme you make things worse.

Specialized expertise doesn't tell you what to do on general issues, and it usually doesn't exist on particular local problems. On many points people, organizations, and localities have to do things in their own way and by their own lights. Then the decisions are made where the knowledge and concern exist that let people make them intelligently and attentively.

So most decisions should be decentralized and pushed down to the local level, with support from above when needed or useful. For example, education isn't a special expertise that only a few people in the country know about. Lots of people everywhere understand it as well as anyone does. Parents, teachers, and students care more about it than top officials do. So why centralize it as much as we do now?

Beyond effectiveness there's the question whether human dignity allows people to be reduced to components of an overall controlled scheme. Subsidiarity prevents that by making particular men and their connections to others the center of social life. That way people live their lives as much as possible through institutions and relationships they participate in and feel connected to. Even if subsidiarity were less efficient than centralization it would be worth having for that reason.

Read the entire interview. And now back to Benedict XVI:

A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. (par. 57)

Perhaps I'm completely wrong about the "health care" bill. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised (yep, I cracked up just writing that sentence). Perhaps this will be a model of legislative genius based squarely on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, and the dignity of life (okay, now I'm in complete stitches). If so, feel free to bring it up down the road. But I have a difficult time believing that adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy is going to foster freedom or increase personal responsibility. And how does requiring someone by law to have health care insurance increase personal freedom and responsibility? Why not require them to eat only certain foods on certain days, drink such and such drinks on these days, and exercise so many hours each week? After all, if the federal government is raising and educating your children, running your business, selecting your health care, handling your finances, and building your car, why not also regulate your diet, drink, church attendance, sneaker size, and home decor preferences?

Finally, some food for thought from Chesterton, from his book, Robert Browning (1903):

The sin and sorrow of despotism is not that it does not love men, but that it loves them too much and trusts them too little. Therefore from age to age in history arise these great despotic dreamers, whether they be Royalists or Imperialists or even Socialists, who have at root this idea, that the world would enter into rest if it went their way and forswore altogether the right of going its own way. When a man begins to think that the grass will not grow at night unless he lies awake to watch it, he generally ends either in an asylum or on the throne of an Emperor.

Related Ignatius Insight Articles and Book Excerpts:

• The Religion of Liberalism, Or Why Freedom and Equality Aren't Ultimate Goals | An Interview with James Kalb
• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley
• Liberal Democracy as a Culture of Death: Why John Paul II Was Right | Dr. Raymond Dennehy
• Religion and Socialism | Peter Kreeft
• The Comprehensive Claim of Marxism | Peter Kreeft
• "Certain Fundamental Truths": On the Place and Temptations of Politics | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• On Being Neither Liberal nor Conservative | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Dingell is my rep in Congress. Can you believe it? One of the worst imaginable. A true penance. He is being opposed by an upright man, Jack Lynch. JL ran against Dingell last time, as a total unknown, and he still pulled 1/3 of the vote. JL is a strong Catholic, goes to Christ the King, I think.

[Shaun G]

Your objections to the health reform legislation that have to do with subsidiarity presume that a less centralized system could perform the task equally well.

But it seems to me that whenever you have a service that must be performed regardless of the recipient's ability to pay -- be it an emergency-room doctor treating a heart attack, a firefighter putting out a house fire, or a police officer responding to a burglary -- then the service provider is going to get stiffed unless everyone is required to pitch in, either by mandatory private participation (e.g. insurance) or mandatory public participation (e.g. taxes).

So I guess I'm wondering ... are you opposed to any sort of mandatory pay-in -- or do you simply think that the principle of subsidiarity should point us to have a mandatory pay-in at a lower level of government (e.g. state)?

[Brian J. Schuettler]

If Dingell had been at the Constitutional Convention he would have favored an American Monarchy. He, and his fellow democrat travelers, think they have created one ex post facto. He is sadly mistaken and Ed's new rep, come the next election, will be, God willing, Jack Lynch.

[LJ]

Your objections to the health reform legislation that have to do with subsidiarity presume that a less centralized system could perform the task equally well. - Shaun G

"The task." That is something that very few spoke very little about during this debate over control of the "system" but it will become the most important issue of all as time goes on. In fact, if it had been thoroughly discussed as a priori to this debate over control, the outcome may well have been different.