In reading both of Michael Novak's premier on books on capitalism, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism I was struck by Novak's tortured logic on the Catholic concept of Social Justice. For the Catholic neocon, such ethics should not be incorporated into government action, but should be virtually a private affair of the individual. To that end, he continuously expounds a great deal upon how laissez-faire capitalism supposedly ensures liberty for all.

Perhaps Novak's most glaring omission is that he makes virtually no mention of the great Catholic economic theorist Monsignor John A. Ryan nor his ghost-writing of the The Bishops' Program for Social Reconstruction of 1919.  Ryan himself is relegated to the footnotes in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and is not mentioned at all in 1993's The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Instead (and in all places, the chapter on Social Justice), Novak gushes over libertarian economist F.A. Hayek.

Indeed, Novak embraces Hayek's view of a very limited economic role for government (like Hayek, Novak describes himself as a Whig on economic matters.). Its only concern, he believes, should be the rule of law, while letting a "free market" correct itself when recessions and depressions occur. As I noted about the Austrian-born economist in an earlier post:

...he [Hayek] did advocate a laissez-faire approach to business, equating it with freedom and liberty. "The planning against which all our criticism is directed," he wrote, " is solely the planning against competition.") In this, the Austrian-born economist feared that New Dealism in America as well as the mixed center-Left economy advocated by Britain's Labour Party would fall short of a promised "utopia" which in turn would cause unrest and a ultimately a slide into strongman tyranny.

Novak's embrace of Hayek gives cover to those who invoke the free market to justify bad, even unconscionable behavior. Contrary to Novak's fear of collectivism or centralized state power, the real issue is arbitrary power --whether it is derived from the state or power economic interests. Arbitrary economic power can and often does cause hardship, denying the middle, working and poor classes their own sense of economic security in the form of meaningful employment, a job a home. It can also be closely linked to political persecution and governmental authoritatianism, as disproportionate economic power comes to distort politics and government. Again, as I noted earlier:

Hayek failed to recognize that the lack of an activist government creates a power void. Liberals have always understood that the federal government of the people needed enough muscle in order to deal with the excesses of centralized economic power of trusts, monopolies and polluters. In fact, a government built upon liberal democratic principles is the greatest deterrent to the centralized power of a plutocracy.

And this is why Monsignor Ryan's role and legacy in American Catholicism matters. He was someone who grew up during the age of Robber barons and of a labor movement still with little or no real bargaining power. Ryan was not a peripheral figure in American history. Ryan was not only one of the central theorists on economics for the Catholic Bishops, but arguably, he was one of the central theorists of liberal economics of his time. Simply put, Novak's avoidance of Ryan is mind-boggling. It is historical revisionism as serious as the ga-ga Christian nationalism of David Barton. Unable to square the facts of history with his ideology, he changes it to justify his desired political and economic outcomes.

Born of Irish immigrants in 1869 Minnesota, John A. Ryan was a champion of civil liberties and economic justice. Starting in 1900 and until his death in 1945 he wrote about the very liberal concept of the just distribution of profit in relation to contribution, merit and special talents (this will be discussed in greater detail in a future chapter). The aforementioned Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction, February 1919 called for a living wage as well as retirement insurance - a forerunner of what in 1935 was to become Social Security. And unlike Novak -- who treats anything to do with socialism as if it were the plague -- Ryan and the Bishops for whom he wrote for in 1919, were not afraid of crediting Fabian socialists when they developed a good economic idea that could be used to make capitalism fair and more meritorious.

This omission leads Novak to another startling conclusion:  On page 247 of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism Novak claims that third-way Catholic economics was never truly tried. However, there were many socialist concepts at heart of the New Deal. It was very much the essence of Monsignor Ryan's economics. Third-way thinking, with its emphasis on contribution being reciprocal to receipt was one of the justifications for progressive taxation. And more importantly, because it was part and parcel of the New Deal its ideals were instrumental in creating the modern middle class.

Why does Novak omit Monsignor Ryan from what he puts forth as a serious discussion on Catholic ethics and capitalism? I cannot answer that question because Novak doesn't say and I am not clairvoyant. I can, however, say one thing with certitude: if he had actually addressed Ryan's Social Justice legacy, Novak would have laid bare his own fallacious and often mendacious arguments.

But what does Novak think of progressive taxation and the role of a corresponding contribution to the common good? Well, this little screed from 2003 should give you a good idea:

From President Jefferson to President Theodore Roosevelt there was no income tax in America, and it never entered into the heads of the Democratic or any other party that a limited government should confiscate money from some Americans on the pretext of giving it to others. Nor that in so doing government should pry relentlessly into every item of income. (Where are today's civil libertarians on this massive invasion of privacy? What reasons could possibly justify this massive governmental intrusion into the most basic liberties?)

Perhaps if I equated progressive taxation with "confiscation" I too would want to avoid a serious discussion of Monsignor Ryan's economic theories. Besides, Novak is historically inaccurate: During the American Civil War our government instituted an income tax system as a means to finance the costs of the conflict. Obviously, the idea of an income tax "entered into the head" of Abraham Lincoln.

But perhaps Novak's greatest omission is a discussion of what leads many to socialism: laissez-faire, buccaneer-style capitalism. When "the sinners" who engage in capitalism do so without any sense of responsibility towards others, without any sense of receipt based upon corresponding contribution, that is when socialism becomes a viable option to more and more people. What Novak doesn't seem to get (or more probably does not want to get) is what Monsignor Ryan and other social justice Catholics have long understood: economic equity cannot be had on a purely voluntary basis, government needs some muscle to prevent bad behavior in the pursuit of wealth.

Herbert Hoover-by anyone's measure, no Socialist-once quipped during his ill-fated presidency, "The trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy."  Even a surface reading of Michael Novak's economic prescriptions quickly reveal that he gives the thirty-first president's keen observation the short shrift.

American Catholicism doesn't need any more Novaks channeling Hayek and politically aligning with the religious right.  Instead, it needs someone who puts the average worker-a far more important player in wealth creation than most stock holders-first. We need another Monsignor John A. Ryan.

The Catholic Right: A Series, by Frank L. Cocozzelli :


Part One  Part Two  Part Three  Part Four  Part Five  Part Six   Intermezzo   Part Eight   Part Nine  Part Ten   Part Eleven   Part Twelve   Part Thirteen   Part Fourteen   Second Intermezzo   Part Sixteen   Part Seventeen   Part Eighteen   Part Eighteen   Part Nineteen   Part Twenty   Part Twenty-one   Part Twenty-two   Part Twenty-three   Part Twenty-four   Part Twenty-five   Part Twenty-six   Part Twenty-seven   Part Twenty-eight   Part Twenty-nine   Part Thirty   Part Thirty-one   Part Thirty-two   Part Thirty-three   Part Thirty-four   Part Thirty-five   Part Thirty-six   Part Thirty-seven   Part Thirty-eight