Thanks for this. I write as a Catholic and a Plough reader who is broadly on the Right but sceptical about neoliberalism, digital technology etc. To me, Vance seemed to be in the right about all this because one of the key problems with our current system is that neoliberalism allows the very wealthy in the West to enrich themselves by reducing their costs (by moving production overseas and importing cheap labour) at the cost of the wellbeing of their poorer compatriots (who lose their jobs and have their living standards reduced and their cultures disrupted by mass immigration and consumerism). The solution is therefore to seek the wellbeing of the nation as a unified community. This involves various measures which are currently viewed as being Right-wing but could just as well be adopted by the Left because they are about improving the condition of America's working class.
As a father I am responsible for the wellbeing of my own family, and I think I will be judged according to how well I have served them. This does not mean I can exploit other people's children to the benefit of my own, or that I can neglect other people's children when they happen to be under my care, but my first responsibility is to my own. Put another way, if I were to seek to serve other people's children to the same degree I serve mine, I would be depriving my own children of something they have a right to: the devoted protection and help of a father dedicated to their specific wellbeing. This is subsidiarity, as expressed in private family life.
Isn't it the same with rulers? The US President (and his VP by extension) is the father of the American family. His duty is to his own children. If he allows their interests to be made subservient to those of other people's children he is failing in his duty and depriving them of something they have a natural right to. This is subsidiarity in public national life. Of course he mustn't exploit other people's "children" or harm them unduly, but if push comes to shove he is on the side of his own children.
I appreciate that I'm coming at this at a different (ok, a lower) level from you, but I can't say that I think I'm wrong yet.
Thanks for such a detailed response! This happens to be almost exactly what part two is about - what is the state, whether the state is like a family, what is the common good, and so on. The key point is that political life is, for Thomas ordered by different rules than our personal lives, but I’ll need to lay out what that means for it to really make sense.
One reason why (like charity itself) these can't really be covered in isolation from each other, or in short form is because, as you outline, the basics of how Vance sees the ends of politics are, in the world we live in, so intuitive it can be hard to see another way to understand them.
And (which I perhaps should have brought out in this section) this was illustrated by many of the responses from Vance's critics, who subscribed to the same framework - nature vs grace, self interest vs complete self sacrifice - albeit from the opposite point of view. This isn't how Aquinas would have seen it.
I'll get to finishing it as soon as possible - you may, of course, not agree with those conclusions either, but as I said I think your queries are logical ones, and it will provide the basis for a fuller discussion.
"And it began, not coincidentally, with the Thomistic political tradition’s greatest defeat; with the fall of the republic of angels, six centuries ago. It was in the aftermath of this defeat that the Catholics began to forget the second reason why Vance’s citation of the ordo amoris made no sense at all. "
I'm genuinely puzzled by this part of the text. What is being referred by it?
Beautifully considered and precise—a heartening rebuttal to manifest self-interest.
Thanks for this. I write as a Catholic and a Plough reader who is broadly on the Right but sceptical about neoliberalism, digital technology etc. To me, Vance seemed to be in the right about all this because one of the key problems with our current system is that neoliberalism allows the very wealthy in the West to enrich themselves by reducing their costs (by moving production overseas and importing cheap labour) at the cost of the wellbeing of their poorer compatriots (who lose their jobs and have their living standards reduced and their cultures disrupted by mass immigration and consumerism). The solution is therefore to seek the wellbeing of the nation as a unified community. This involves various measures which are currently viewed as being Right-wing but could just as well be adopted by the Left because they are about improving the condition of America's working class.
As a father I am responsible for the wellbeing of my own family, and I think I will be judged according to how well I have served them. This does not mean I can exploit other people's children to the benefit of my own, or that I can neglect other people's children when they happen to be under my care, but my first responsibility is to my own. Put another way, if I were to seek to serve other people's children to the same degree I serve mine, I would be depriving my own children of something they have a right to: the devoted protection and help of a father dedicated to their specific wellbeing. This is subsidiarity, as expressed in private family life.
Isn't it the same with rulers? The US President (and his VP by extension) is the father of the American family. His duty is to his own children. If he allows their interests to be made subservient to those of other people's children he is failing in his duty and depriving them of something they have a natural right to. This is subsidiarity in public national life. Of course he mustn't exploit other people's "children" or harm them unduly, but if push comes to shove he is on the side of his own children.
I appreciate that I'm coming at this at a different (ok, a lower) level from you, but I can't say that I think I'm wrong yet.
Thanks for such a detailed response! This happens to be almost exactly what part two is about - what is the state, whether the state is like a family, what is the common good, and so on. The key point is that political life is, for Thomas ordered by different rules than our personal lives, but I’ll need to lay out what that means for it to really make sense.
One reason why (like charity itself) these can't really be covered in isolation from each other, or in short form is because, as you outline, the basics of how Vance sees the ends of politics are, in the world we live in, so intuitive it can be hard to see another way to understand them.
And (which I perhaps should have brought out in this section) this was illustrated by many of the responses from Vance's critics, who subscribed to the same framework - nature vs grace, self interest vs complete self sacrifice - albeit from the opposite point of view. This isn't how Aquinas would have seen it.
I'll get to finishing it as soon as possible - you may, of course, not agree with those conclusions either, but as I said I think your queries are logical ones, and it will provide the basis for a fuller discussion.
"And it began, not coincidentally, with the Thomistic political tradition’s greatest defeat; with the fall of the republic of angels, six centuries ago. It was in the aftermath of this defeat that the Catholics began to forget the second reason why Vance’s citation of the ordo amoris made no sense at all. "
I'm genuinely puzzled by this part of the text. What is being referred by it?