JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,833
- 2,220
I wish him good luck, as he tries to restore what was once a built in assumption in Christian America, but now is not in Pagan America. So who profits from trashing Christianity? Corporate Profits do, of course.
Pinkerton: Rubio for the Common Good—and Look Who Doesn’t Like It
Pinkerton: Rubio for the Common Good—and Look Who Doesn’t Like It
Sen. Marco Rubio’s idea of “common-good capitalism” makes obvious good sense, and yet, of course, not everyone agrees. Still, Rubio has started a valuable debate, and if he prevails, the Republican Party—and the United States—will be stronger.
In a speech to the Catholic University of America on November 5, Rubio made his case:
Does any of that sound politically risky? Or economically dangerous? In fact, it’s about as apple-pie as one can get.
And yet over at National Review, Kevin Williamson chose to drop an “f-bomb,” fascism. The Florida senator’s words are “the familiar moral basis of fascist economic thinking,” Williamson snapped. We can observe that such commentary says nothing about Rubio—and everything about Williamson. ...
In the meantime, Rubio has kept going. In another speech, this one to the National Defense University on December 10, he used the phrase “common-good capitalism” again, mostly in the context of strengthening our strategic security against China.
In particular, Rubio—who has long staked a strong position on China—argued that the dictates of free-market dogma can sometimes get in the way of national defense. Most obviously, we can’t have free trade with an opposing country; we didn’t, after all, keep trading with Nazi Germany during World War Two. And so today, Rubio declared, it’s particularly foolish to rely on China for the rare earth elements that we need for our tools and weapons. Thus he applauded the Trump administration’s efforts to reopen rare-earth mines that had been closed during the Obama administration; the goal, of course, is always to have a reliable domestic supply on hand.....
Then Rubio went even further, arguing that it should be our stated policy that a strong national defense means good jobs, at good wages, on the homefront. This is an idea with deep roots in American security thinking; it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, our commander-in-chief during World War Two, who declared in 1940 that American workers would build the “arsenal of democracy”; that is, we must be the leading nation making the wares of war, providing jobs for workers and strength for our warriors.....
As we can see, National Review seems to be hardening its face against Rubio; some are suggesting that he’s a fascist, others say he’s not nice enough to shareholders, and yet others accept a parody-feminist vision of industry. (In fairness, Rubio had a defender at the magazine; Fred Bauer helpfully opined that Rubio’s ideas are“far from radical.”)
Yet National Review’s overall stance against Rubio inspired Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule to issue a tart tweet:
And Rubio himself responded to VerBruggen:
In other words, Leo was in favor of a common faith, and believed in common values for the community, and yet he was also staunchly in favor of responsible private property and the properly regulated workings of the free market.
Leo’s Rerum Novarum is one of the foundational texts of the right-of-center Christian Democratic political parties across Europe; indeed, the ideas of Rerum have spread to the whole world.
As Rubio wrote recently in First Things, Leo’s vision “sees past our stale partisan categories and roots our politics in something larger: the inviolable dignity of every human person, the work he or she does, and the family life that work supports.”
Building from this tradition of economic balance and social harmony, Rubio has now added another component: the imperative of robust technology as a vital underpinning of national security.
As we have seen, not everyone likes what Rubio is doing, and yet even so, it’s clear that he’s playing a winning hand—for himself, and for his country.
In a speech to the Catholic University of America on November 5, Rubio made his case:
What we need to do is restore common-good capitalism–a system of free enterprise in which workers fulfill their obligation to work and enjoy the benefits of their work, and where businesses enjoy their right to make a profit and reinvest enough of those profits to create dignified work for Americans.
Does any of that sound politically risky? Or economically dangerous? In fact, it’s about as apple-pie as one can get.
And yet over at National Review, Kevin Williamson chose to drop an “f-bomb,” fascism. The Florida senator’s words are “the familiar moral basis of fascist economic thinking,” Williamson snapped. We can observe that such commentary says nothing about Rubio—and everything about Williamson. ...
In the meantime, Rubio has kept going. In another speech, this one to the National Defense University on December 10, he used the phrase “common-good capitalism” again, mostly in the context of strengthening our strategic security against China.
In particular, Rubio—who has long staked a strong position on China—argued that the dictates of free-market dogma can sometimes get in the way of national defense. Most obviously, we can’t have free trade with an opposing country; we didn’t, after all, keep trading with Nazi Germany during World War Two. And so today, Rubio declared, it’s particularly foolish to rely on China for the rare earth elements that we need for our tools and weapons. Thus he applauded the Trump administration’s efforts to reopen rare-earth mines that had been closed during the Obama administration; the goal, of course, is always to have a reliable domestic supply on hand.....
Then Rubio went even further, arguing that it should be our stated policy that a strong national defense means good jobs, at good wages, on the homefront. This is an idea with deep roots in American security thinking; it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, our commander-in-chief during World War Two, who declared in 1940 that American workers would build the “arsenal of democracy”; that is, we must be the leading nation making the wares of war, providing jobs for workers and strength for our warriors.....
As we can see, National Review seems to be hardening its face against Rubio; some are suggesting that he’s a fascist, others say he’s not nice enough to shareholders, and yet others accept a parody-feminist vision of industry. (In fairness, Rubio had a defender at the magazine; Fred Bauer helpfully opined that Rubio’s ideas are“far from radical.”)
Yet National Review’s overall stance against Rubio inspired Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule to issue a tart tweet:
The prospect of government acting to promote the common good has driven Conservatism Inc. into the arms of woke capitalism.
And Rubio himself responded to VerBruggen:
Why would I stop pointing to the obvious, that growth in American manufacturing jobs would help millions of working age American men finding good or better jobs. And why would that be bad for anyone?
In other words, Leo was in favor of a common faith, and believed in common values for the community, and yet he was also staunchly in favor of responsible private property and the properly regulated workings of the free market.
Leo’s Rerum Novarum is one of the foundational texts of the right-of-center Christian Democratic political parties across Europe; indeed, the ideas of Rerum have spread to the whole world.
As Rubio wrote recently in First Things, Leo’s vision “sees past our stale partisan categories and roots our politics in something larger: the inviolable dignity of every human person, the work he or she does, and the family life that work supports.”
Building from this tradition of economic balance and social harmony, Rubio has now added another component: the imperative of robust technology as a vital underpinning of national security.
As we have seen, not everyone likes what Rubio is doing, and yet even so, it’s clear that he’s playing a winning hand—for himself, and for his country.
