John Zmirak's Quip on Dorothy Day
John Z comments on his own article in which he'd mentioned Dorothy Day in passing:
Well, I can't quite give you a full answer, since I found D.D.'s book so unpleasant I couldn't get through it. But what I have read of her, and seen of her movement, makes me queasy. To put it briefly, she seems to me the mirror image of Ayn Rand, and equally insufferable. I'm planning to slog through her book in pursuit of an article about her and Rand.
It strikes me that she didn't love the poor so much as poverty, and that her objections to the market economy were precisely that it produced wealth and middle-class comfort, which she seemed to detest. I'm reminded of Christopher Dawson's profoundly mistaken essay on Catholicism and the Bourgeois Ethic, and Amitore Fanfani's equally off-putting book on Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. I'm reminded of the Spiritual Franciscans, and all those who hold up ordinary Christians to monastic standards--goading them in the short run perhaps to heroism, and in the long run to despair or cynicism.
In general, any AUTObiography that makes me "feel unworthy to call myself a Christian" compared to the AUTHOR makes me deeply suspicious.
Any religious movement which becomes almost 100% heretical in the lifetime of its founder was probably built on sand.
But again, I'll have to goad myself to finish her book, with the promised reward of the essay: "The Two Insufferables: Ayn Rand and Dorothy Day." Stay tuned....
This is as humor-filled as any Zmirak essay, and in it he pinpoints what has always troubled me about Day. Like many leftist radicals, her left-anarchist followers seemed to believe that any system is preferable to the present one, therefore let us tear it down. Whereas her followers who are not as radical are continually in a sheepish "well-what-she-really-meant-was" mode. Neither one of these interpretations of Day's teachings strikes me as Catholic nor even coherent and is therefore most likely an utter waste of time in a world filled with great Catholic classics which I yet need to read.
Anyone enamored of Day from her writings would advise me to read them. What I have read of her comes across as the tedious rantings of an insufferable scold. If she was great for what she accomplished, then I've known many great people. If she was great as a writer, then I've read books by greater people and much better communicators. And maybe I should start my line of Pauli-brand books.
It sounds like Day and Rand are the flip sides of the same extremist coin. However, if I absolutely *had* to pick between the two, I'd pick Rand. At least she'd leave me alone.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I'm listening to the audiobook of Ayn Rand's *Atlas Shrugged*. If you take the book as a parable that she uses to explain her philosophy rather than looking for depth in the characters, it works much better. The thing about Rand is she is so *right* on some things and so utterly wrong on others. Then there are the things that she comes so *close* to being right about, but she misses the mark because of her atheism. So far, the book is overall very interesting. It is also very frustrating is you are a believer. There is a sterility to the book that comes from a lack of spirituality, I think.
Never got through Atlas Shrugged, but I read the Fountainhead.
ReplyDeleteRegarding being so right on some things and so wrong on others, Rand reminds me of another atheist, Murray Rothbard. The problem is that when you are an atheist you view the concept of freedom as license to do whatever you like. People like this remind me of a dog who is so excited to be let off the chain that he runs out on the road where he's immediately hit by a car.
A lot of people compare Day's philosophy to Chesterton, which I think is unfair to GKC. This seems akin to conflating the medieval guild system to the modern day labor movement. And after all, one of Chesterton's famous quotes goes something like "We thank God for beer (or maybe wine) by not consuming to much of it." One of Day's read "The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them up."
Thus I think Zmirak is quite insightful when he brings up "those who hold up ordinary Christians to monastic standards." Don't get me wrong; I'm all for mortification and sacrifice. But I'm reminded of the words of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei: "You should not want to make the world into a convent, because this would be a disorder. But don't convert the church into some earthly faction either..." Father Joseph has some good comments on that thread where he notes rightly that so-called "Catholic worker" folks are really just commies.
When did Murray Rothbard ever view freedom as license? Can you find a quote?
DeleteHere is Murray Rothbard's position on abortion:
Delete"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."
I would say that this is a pretty good example of giving license, ignoring the rights of the unborn child to justify abortion. But there may be better examples. If I find them I will post them here.
What a great thread!!!
ReplyDeleteJohn Zmirak's post is packed with juicy nuggets of insight. And I love that quote from St. Josemaria...I can think of a few people whose ideal is to make the world into a convent, and my! what prigs they are!
Why do y'all prefer a militant anti-Christian who's pro-capitalist (Rand) to a devout Catholic who's critical of some aspects of capitalism (Day)? This smacks of ideological tribalism.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which:
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_tools.htm
(or just go to www.thornwalker.com/ditch and click on my new column "Power Tools")
Zmirak's point is that they both possess styles that are grating, that's one I agree with.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I know of Day, she doesn't see anything good about capitalism. I would consider myself to be critical of some aspects of it, as I would expect most of my readers are.
If I were asked "where do you want to go for eternity: where D. Day went or where Ayn Rand went?" I'd answer Day in a heartbeat. IMHO she was a well-meaning person who experienced a real, sincere Catholic conversion and worked it into her left politics about which she was likewise passionate. Unfortunately, her "spiritual children" have little regard for the spirit of the organization she joined, i.e., the Catholic Church.
Rand was an intelligent person who went from bad to worse in her private life and went to her deathbed screaming "God is dead" in a more obnoxious voice than Nietzsche at the height of his syphilitic dementia. No soup for either of them....
Good piece, Andy. I haven't read the word "mulatto" in print in a long time. It's good to know that the American South is still down there, alive and kicking.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I've heard plenty of discussion about various planned parenthood underage stings over the last 8 or so years, so I don't know where you've been. I think Laura I. has even talked about them.
As far as Raimondo goes, I don't have time to waste reading him, but I hope he's not surprised that all his lefty buds have hung up their self-righteousness anti-war hats for awhile now that their guy runs the show. That was predictable as well as predicted.
I'm sure that there have been underage stings at abortion clinics over the past eight years. My point was that I never heard Ingraham or anyone on talk radio complain when Bush lavishly funded Planned Parenthood, which he did every year he was in office, usually with the assistance of a Republican congress. Making federal funding of Planned Parenthood an issue now that the Democrats are in power smacks of GOP cynicism and opportunism, rather than true prolife conviction. Thanks for reading, Pauli, but do try to read more carefully.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that I never heard Ingraham or anyone on talk radio complain when Bush lavishly funded Planned Parenthood, which he did every year he was in office, usually with the assistance of a Republican congress.Ahh yes, it's the return of Andy "nobody complained about this until I picked up the brave mantle of lone dissenter in the United States" Nowicki. Any of course would have a point if in point of fact nobody every raised a stink about this. Unfortunately for Mr. Me against the world, plenty of people have in fact pointed out the egregiousness of federal funding of planned parenthood, just as conservatives have been bitching about spending for about 8 years.
ReplyDeleteThere is of course a sliiiiiight difference between Bush and Obama's spending patterns: think of the difference between your slightly obese neighbor and the guy who lives downstairs from you who hasn't left his house in three months and who will need to have the fire department come and rescue him from his apartment.
But no, let Andy have his day in the sun. It's hard to hear the sound of other people's objections when the steady hum of one's sense of self righteousness is ringing so loudly in one's ears.
Yes, but both Ingraham and Arroyo should be grateful to have their motes identified which such precision. I suppose I should be grateful as well.
ReplyDeleteCranky, please point out to me when any talk radio host complained about Bush and the congressional Republicans (who held control during most of the Bush years)funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of some $200mil a year. There may have been an isolated case or two here or there, but I never heard it or heard about it.
ReplyDelete...and we have guys like David Frum running around tearing his hair out because all the Republicans ever talk about is the abortion issue. Cage match, anyone?
ReplyDeleteLet Cranky answer, please.
ReplyDeleteAndy, Laura Ingraham has discussed this on several occasions. I've only listened to her since about 2007, but she has brought this up before with Arroyo, and while Bush was in office. I have certainly heard complaints about the funding of planned parenthood over the course of the past few years, but I apologize if I can't quite chapter and verse the exact time and place when.
ReplyDelete"Quote," not "quite," obviously.
ReplyDeleteI certainly didn't listen to talk radio every minute of the day during the Bush years, but I think I listened enough to get the gist of what was generally being said. The only time I recall Bush getting raked over the coals was during the "amnesty" debate. Some grudging mention was made now and then about how his budgets were huge-- larger than Clinton's, in fact-- but this criticism was muted and certainly not dwelled upon as much as some vital issue like, say, Robert Byrd's past with the KKK. And only now with the Democrats in power again is there all of this "tea party" business and widespread complaints of "socialism" made by GOP hacks and their dupes.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that in some isolated cases Bush was criticized for keeping federal money flowing into the coffers of Planned Parenthood, but I certainly never recall hearing this line. In fact, the first time I ever found out about this fact was from browsing the Constitution Party's website back in '04. Rush, Hannity, and co. certainly weren't eager to let anyone know that this supposedly "pro-life" president was continuing the federal government's ongoing practice of using taxpayer money to line the pockets of abortionists.
Andy, that you didn't personally hear with your own ears is not exactly scientific proof. Also, there were various degrees of right-wing talk bitterness with Bush. Obviously Savage represented one extreme of anti-Bush right-wing talk, while guys like Hewitt and Hannity represented the other extreme. Somewhere in between were folks like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, the latter being especially critical of the President on Harriet Miers, immigration, the bailout, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis is all besides the point. Whether or not Laura and Rush were sufficiently anti-Bush enough to suit your tastes (and they'd probably have to be harder on him than Savage to suit your tastes), we have a much more radically leftist President in office right now. These exercises in self-congratulation may be meaningful to you, but quite frankly it's time to move on and address the real problems we're facing.
...And vague recollections of one talk radio host maybe saying something once or twice about it don't count for too much either, especially when you came on with such bluster in your initial post about how conservative criticism of Bush for funding Planned Parenthood was SO widespread among the GOP faithful, and that I was being ridiculous to represent things otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAs for present circumstances, I am certainly no fan of Obama or the Democrats, but I don't plan to become one of the GOP's useful idiots either.
Yawn.
ReplyDeleteSnore.
ReplyDeleteding-a-ling-a-ling!
ReplyDeletezzzzz
ReplyDelete