The E'er Good Pundit

A blog concerned generally with the finest points of politics, popery, poetry, and punditry, from the perspective of a convert to the Roman Catholic religion.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Sigh. Went into mourning when I heard the news, and only now do I raise my eyes from my folded, tear-soaked sleeves, so that I may lecture you Americans on what you have done.

*************

First, however, a musical dedication is due. This is my tribute to Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, and all the formerly pro-life sell out Democrats whose made this abomination possible.

*************

As loyal readers may remember from a post I, Atobe, wrote in the heady, hopeful days of the Scott Brown campaign--alas, we dared to dream that a once-in-a-lifetime upset might slow the universal health care juggernaut!--despite the peculiar ways of we Japanese, I have long admired America as the last holdout against European- (and Japanese-) style socialism. But when Obamacare takes effect, Americans will, for the first time if I've not forgotten anything, be forced to buy something by their government. Though I am no libertarian, the government has no business interfering with health care, and is not justified in taxing some citizens to subsidize the care of others. The woes to come from the centralized planning and regulation of such an immense industry will surely be sad and staggering, but even they are not my main concern. By the very nature of its mission, the political order should not see health care as a good it is entitled or due to provide.

As Aristotle saw it, the end of government is to pursue the highest human good, happiness, as only it can. By defining virtue as a way of life in accordance with the demands of virtue and reason, he made this vague end a little more concrete by tying the human good to natural excellence. Governments should, according to Aristotle, promote a way of life which encourages moderation, justice, and the appreciation of the goods of the soul. Again, for you Americans, this may seem rather high-minded and vague, 1. Aristotle knew the life of the mind was not for everyone, but certainly thought more would take it up in a well-ordered society than one overcome by a materialistic mania. And 2. As Christians, we attempt to live according to a piety which allows us to worship and contemplate a First Cause of the Universe (akin to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover in more ways than one) in a manner accessible to men and women in every walk of life and philosophical ability (Nietzsche called Christianity "platonism for the masses"). We know that we live against the ways of the world, but its nice to not have the government against us as well.

Even setting aside the incalculable harm done by the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State, the American government becomes more hostile to would-be livers of the good life every day. What kind of example does our regime set--and I am still not to Obamacare-as-Obamacare yet--when, under an unimaginably huge national debt, it continues to enact and accrue entitlements under every new Congress? Americans have a knack for getting into credit card debt and investing in houses they can never pay for, and their government is not setting any better example (given its support of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, Uncle Sam has long encouraged this vicious behavior). Is there not something disgusting in a Nation whose own regime leads the way in such shameful immoderation? Even if there were never any consequences from such behavior (I'm not an alarmist, but there will be some sooner or later), a Nation with such spending habits is sick in its very soul. Even as parents, I should hope, teach their children the value of a yen dollar and the value of an honest day's work, your regime acts as if it deserves what it cannot afford. Though the CBO claims Obamacare will save the government money, I will not fall for it for a second. [Bay Staters will recall the comically under-budgeted Big Dig, which was still poorly done. Just recently I was in my car driving through Boston, and a piece of concrete from the tunnel's ceiling nearly landed on the roof. Were it not for my dexterous chauffeur, I, Atobe, might have been done by a government boondoggle!] This massive, unaffordable entitlement, intended to provide for the health of the body, eats away at the strength of the Nation's soul.

Socialists will object that health care is a basic "right", a prerequisite for happiness which the government is uniquely able to provide. I don't deny that health care in itself is a good, but it is not necessary for human happiness. In Plato's Republic, Socrates praises the medicine taught by the followers of Asclepius, which was simple and intended for those with essentially good health. I left my Republic back in Tokyo, but I re-found this quote here:

Asclepius...taught medicine for those who were healthy in their nature...but were suffering from a specific disease; he rid them of it...then ordered them to live as usual....For those, however, whose bodies were always in a state of inner sickness he did not attempt to prescribe a regimen, or...to make their life a prolonged misery...Medicine was not intended for them and they should not be treated, even if they were richer than Midas.

Harsh, but Socrates makes, or implies, a point we moderns have wholly forgotten. Descartes notwithstanding, we are never going to conquer death. We can prolong our lives, even double their lengths, but the danger is that mere life might become the end in itself. Contrary to the common wisdom, I argue that not only health care, but education, the building of roads, and the maintenance of order and the apprehending of criminals only serve a secondary good: they allow us to live normal lives without undue fear or worry. This secondary good is not worthwhile because it allows us to accumulate wealth, live cozy lives, and watch The Prince of Tennis, no. These measures are only justified insofar as they create the conditions in which we can attain virtue, and attain the highest and the best good, intimacy with God. Anything which distracts from the realization of these goods has to go. Concerning you Americans and your brand-new, swanky government medicine, does anyone dream that the government undertaking such herculean efforts so that a few citizens may live a few years longer does not send the message that the chief, if not the only goods, are bodily? I, Atobe, need not elaborate on the evils which will come from creating an entire bureaucratic caste commissioned with regulating health care; they will speak for themselves in but a few years.

My, that was quite a rant! I dredged up all that stuff without even raising the old conservative worries about government's (in)ability to manage the health care industry, the inevitability of rationing, the utter phoniness of the executive order stopping the bill from funding abortions, and the burden on taxpayers. Others, your Atobe is aware, have already made them. But someone needed to remind his dear readers that this is merely the latest leg in their national rat race after comfort and ease. Chase after the ephemeral for a good 80 or 90 years, and then die after a life devoid of worth and virtue. That is the American Way.

Given the advances in the technology of health care, it was probably inevitable that such an industry of scale would eventually come under the control of government. Republicans are already campaigning for a repeal, but while I trust their sincerity, liberal politics doesn't allow second guesses. By the time the G.O.P. controls Congress, court historians will have already written Obamacare into the ladder of American progress, and the mere suggestion that it was a mistake will produce no more than an incredulous gape (though I do hold some hope that the Supreme Court could strike it down; we can only pray and hope). But today's loss of freedom shall remain an evil to recall painfully for generations into the future. Much can be said of the wonders of modern medicine, but ultimately, it is a luxury, and a luxury with the worst side effects. Decreased dependence on the family, the straining of social security systems, I could go on and on. Perhaps I am a hypocrite; the Atobes probably receive better medical care than President Obama himself, but a truth is a truth. We have compromised our souls for our bodies, and we will reap the consequences. Sob... Atobe shall now be crying off. But even in the moment of defeat,

Be awed at the sight of my prowess!

8 Comments:

Anonymous Julia said...

Atobe (and Leslie), you should consult the Catechism before you dismiss health care as a right based on your reading of the Republic. CCC 2211 clearly states that the political community has a duty to ensure "the right to medical care", in keeping with a country's institutions. Now, the particulars of how that should be done is something reasonable people can debate. I think it's reasonable to reject the idea that government should be the direct provider of health care. But to entirely dismiss it as a right is not in keeping with the Catechism.

7:24 PM  
Blogger Atobe said...

I am not sure how I should respond, but I cannot envision any way for the government to ensure this supposed right without creating a soulless bureaucracy and devaluing the good. Modern medicine seems to have too large an economy of scale to ensure a right to it without reaping the woes of a major violation of subsidiary.

But as far as the Republic you may be right; Plato might just wring my neck for taking his considerations too seriously, but such is Atobe.

8:48 AM  
Blogger crusader88 said...

My only thought to help out my pal is that the cost of health care may be too high because of previous government involvement, as Ron Paul among others often claimed. If that is true, the government may have made care more accessible by becoming less involved.

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Julia said...

Allowing health insurance to be bought across state lines and enacting tort reform I think would be good starts at reducing the cost of health care. As for not knowing how to respond, Atobe - sometimes our personal political biases blind us to the truth. The Catechism, and thus the Church, says medical care is a right. By saying medical care is a "supposed" right, are you indicating that you are among those who pick and choose what they care to follow among Church teachings?

12:47 PM  
Blogger Atobe said...

Not among teachings which have been specifically promulgated as binding, but I highly doubt that passage of the Catechism is infallible. It does, after all, teach Vatican II's innovative doctrine on religious liberty, which goes much farther than the traditional belief that the state ought not impose Catholicism, but is neither bound to respect errant worship and the promulgation thereof. According to the Catechism the Inquisition, one of the most helpful institutions in Church history, is clearly condemned (CCC 2107). To ask me to accept a document which teaches that as infallible is audacious indeed.

Also with regards to government, CCC 1927 reads:

It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

However much I, Atobe, a loyal subject of Emperor Akihito, like the universaity aspect of a traditional empire, this is clearly not what is meant. Julia, this is a bald endorsement of world government, whether by the UN or international bureaucracies of one sort or another! Yes, war is an evil to be avoided, but surely preventing world government is reason enough to justify war in itself! But here the Church seems to be condemning sovereigntists who want to limit international involvements to temporary, nonbinding cooperation.

Is is even possible that a thinking Catholic could find CCC1927 binding? Is it impious to disagree with such a travesty of a statement? Is there anyone with eyes to see who does not realize that this is merely an insertion to lend authority to globalism? There are no authoritative footnotes to previous documents; it this passage is authoritative, it was promulgated out of the blue in the backwaters of a huge document! CCC 2211 cites an apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II; while I am unsure of it's weight, it also affirms the new religious liberty, so we should be wary right there.

On these grounds, milady, I hold that CCC 2211 cannot be binding on Catholics.

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Julia said...

The Catechism is the authoritative teaching of the universal church, so while it may not have the level of divine revelation, it should receive the religious obedience of the intellect and will of the faithful. In Fidei Depositum, John Paul II declared it "to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." Rather than dismiss it on account of your personal interpretation of history (and personal interpretation of certain passages within the Catechism itself) you should humbly work at understanding and accepting what it teaches.

4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our government is run by a bunch of no-talent hacks.

8:52 PM  
Blogger Atobe said...

While it certainly has a high level of authority, I cannot imagine a Catholic being accused of disobedience solely on the grounds of doubting an applicative/interpretive passage in "a sure norm for teaching the Faith". Again, high authority, but there are, again, proclamations with much higher authority which clearly contradict the Catechism. A favorite among Traditionalists, as against the Catechism's take on religious liberty, is good old Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

Proposition 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion that the light of reason has drawn to judge to be the true religion.

Now, if you can figure out how to reconcile that with the passage from my earlier comment, even one so wise as I cannot. However good most of the Catechism is, it certainly contains passages tainted with modern liberalism, and is not appropriate to use as an anti-Traditionalist bludgeon.

~~~

And yes. I, Atobe, pity your pathetic American government. If Obamacare looks sad now, my, what shall it be when it's in full swing?

12:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home