The Roots of American Alienation

After the 2016 elections, many tried to explain what happened. Some theories are not convincing since they seem to hide a darker reality of which we dare not speak. Others appear a bit too simplified to explain what we experience in daily life.

To start the process of understanding our crisis, we need a clear vision. One book that manages to sift through the simplifications and penetrate some dark mysteries is Alienated America, Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse (2019) written by journalist Timothy Carney.

Straddling the Line Between Two Americas
The book does not aspire to be a major scholarly work of sociological analysis. Although well documented, Mr. Carney lets others do the heavy lifting. He borrows liberally from the theses of sociologists like Charles Murray and Charles Putnam, who have convincingly described the emergence of two separate Americas after the 1960s.

One America consists of a more vibrant sector that prospers with its networks and social institutions. The other is a shattered, dysfunctional America lacking sufficient community links and well-constituted families.

Mr. Carney manages to straddle the line between the two Americas in observing the 2016 elections. We can identify with his observations, experiences, and anecdotes. He describes vividly how a massive collapse of civil society is destroying the America we once knew.

The book raises important questions about where we went wrong in our society and culture. More importantly, it also provides insights upon which we might ruminate and ponder.

The Concept of Alienation
The concept of alienation is one such point to ponder. Mr. Carney makes use of sociologist Robert Nisbet’s definition of alienation as “The state of mind that can find a social order remote, incomprehensible, or fraudulent; beyond real hope or desire; inviting apathy, boredom or even hostility.”

Large sectors of America are alienated. This notion helps explain the great disconnection of those all across the political spectrum who no longer participate in civil society. No one prevents them from associating with others, but they have lost their desire or interest in being part of a social order.

The author invites us to think about the causes for this alienation—whether it be hyper-individualism, social media, trade policies, lost jobs, opioid abuse, secularization, or the Sexual Revolution. He shows how all these influences have played their role in fragmenting America, although they are not the causes.

Not Collapsing but Disintegrating
Mr. Carney goes to great lengths to prove that the real cause of our crisis is the collapse of civil society. “America is the land of opportunity because it is the land of civil society,” he affirms.

Those opportunities are now dying out.  In some places, the moral institutions of family, community, and faith are not just collapsing but disintegrating before our eyes.

The gravity of the problem is highlighted by the fact that restoring civil society cannot be done by simply bringing back jobs, government programs, or tweaking the system. In many places, there is no system upon which to build. In others, individual self-interest reigns supreme.

This is especially true in areas where the family is in shambles. Without this basic social unit, no society can be rebuilt. Consequently, communities are also missing. There are no longer those intermediary associations that protect the family and its members from an intrusive state.

The Disintegration of Religion
However, Mr. Carney has the courage to say that the most important cause of alienation is the collapse of religion. He rightly proclaims it as “the largest and most important institution of civil society.”

From his purely natural perspective, he notes that the church has always been America’s indispensable institution. Tocqueville said that Americans value their churches as the first of their political institutions. Where churches are shuttered, communities crumble. The author does not hesitate to say that “The erosion of civil society is largely [due to] the collapse of churches.”

This makes sense. Religion is the institution that establishes and maintains the norms of right and wrong. It should defend the natural law, which is so well laid out by the Ten Commandments. Society will maintain order to the extent that it follows this objective law suited to the nature God gave us so that we might prosper.

Mr. Carney’s vision is limited to his sociological treatment of the subject. Although a Catholic, he does not enter into the role of the Church as the guardian of the moral law. He does not consider the supernatural action of grace that facilitates enormously the practice of virtue in common.

He only deals with the decay of this institution which clashes so violently with our self-destructing culture.

Abandoning God
Hence it should be no mystery as to why so many Americans are alienated. We have abandoned God and violated his law. Historically, this turning away from God has always had drastic social and economic consequences. Of course, The Washington Examiner journalist does not put it in these almost biblical terms. However, his conclusion does give special meaning to the culture wars since one side seeks to call Americans back to God and his law.

The author’s more immediate conclusion is that the moral wasteland of an alienated America explains the victory of President Trump, who appealed to those who feel that society does not make sense anymore. He makes a compelling case that the alienated vote—especially the vote of the unchurched—favored the president.

The Other America
Mr. Carney also presents the other America: those who are not alienated. This is an America in which the moral institutions of family, community, and faith survive. Its properly constituted families all but guarantee some degree of prosperity. These families build networks and vibrant faith communities.

Their rates of divorce, drug use, criminality, and other negative social indicators are all low. These successful families tend to cluster themselves as elites in exclusive neighborhoods or super zipcodes. They might also be found in certain closely-knit ethnic and rural communities with strong personal ties.

The author tends to agree with the conclusions of Charles Murray and Robert Putnam who portray this other America as almost immune to the moral crisis that devastates the nation. Such communities survive in enclaves and bubbles that seem to mock the alienated.

A Generalized Crisis Affecting Everyone
From a material perspective, this evaluation might appear to be true, for there are rich neighborhoods and excellent schools. These visible signs perpetuate the idea of a better life.

However, from a spiritual perspective, this conclusion ignores the upheaval of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s which devastated relationships and public morals. No family is exempt from the effects of this vast destruction. Social networks might mitigate its effects, slow down the processes of decay, or change the way social rot manifests itself. However, it does not change the generalized crisis affecting everyone.

Indeed, all is not well in the other America. Studies show that unhappiness is a universal postmodern phenomenon that respects neither education nor income level.

More Not Less Social Capital
By framing the debate in terms of social network haves and have-nots, it is hard not to construct a class struggle narrative. However, Mr. Carney resists the temptation. He sees the need to create more social capital—not less—between the social classes.

He laments the formation of “elite bubbles” that cluster those in leadership positions within exclusive neighborhoods, thus depriving other areas of the organic leadership structures they need.

Efforts to help the less fortunate are further hampered by a militant egalitarian culture that leads elites to what he calls “infertile virtue.” They suffer from an unwillingness to spread good habits and practices lest they reveal their advantages. Delegating such tasks to the government avoids this embarrassment.

In addition, the author stresses the need for involved local communities fortified by religious ties, as these have proven rich in social capital and innovative in providing solutions.

A Need for Spiritual Regeneration
However, it is one thing to point out the need for leaders and local communities; it is another to create them. Thus, Alienated America proposes a return to a society where everyone gets along without resolving the essential differences that caused the problem in the first place. Such solutions try to satisfy everyone but usually convince no one.

Nothing can avoid the conclusion that this is a moral crisis and not an economic one. We must return to God whom we have abandoned. The Church with her immense treasury of social teachings has a vital role to play in any eventual restoration of the social order. The more we flee from such solutions, the more we deceive ourselves and adopt schemes that increase the ranks of the alienated.

The role of the alienated in the 2016 elections should give us pause to ponder the kind of America we need. What ails us will not be easily resolved. It will take much courage and a resolve to suffer in order to set things aright

How Socialists Will Usher in a New Hell on Earth

Americans are a generous people ready to lend a hand to those in need. When God blesses us with prosperity, we naturally want to practice acts of charity to help the less fortunate.

However, this charitable spirit is now threatened. There are those who hate this charity and desire to destroy the structures from which these material blessings flow. Indeed, we may face the coming hell of an America without charity.

One might ask what kind of heartless person could be against helping the poor. How could such people exert enough power in America to extinguish the light of charity?

“I Don’t Believe in Charities”
The answer comes from an anecdote of a popular political figure who spoke at a United Way charity benefit dinner many years ago

“I don’t believe in charities,” he said gruffly, adding that he did not “believe in the fundamental concepts on which charities are based and contend[s] that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for charity programs.”

The outspoken figure was then-Mayor Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. The comment was quoted in a 1981 New York Times article that recently resurfaced. As the ranks of socialist politicians are increasing, ideas like this one now blanket the nation and are gaining some traction.

Some might object that it seems exaggerated to link the comment of Bernie Sanders to the demise of charity in America. The Vermont senator is known for his outspokenness that may not always reflect socialist thought.

However, socialists do not “believe in the fundamental concepts on which charities are based.” By their toxic ideology, they are the natural enemies of private charity, and above all Christian charity. Thus, we do well to fear the terrible specter of a socialist America without charity.

No Such Thing as Socialist Charity
Indeed, socialist charity is an oxymoron. Most socialists hold that charity is a capitalist structure used to keep the poor downtrodden. Socialist literature is hostile to charity. Ironically, the greater the charity, the greater is the hostility since they do not want charity to solve social problems. They want the government to take control.

“Seize the charities!” writes Patrick Stall on the radical Jacobin website. “Private charity will never cure capitalism’s ills.”

There are three reasons why socialists hate charity.

A Toxic Egalitarian Ideology
First, socialists hate charity because their egalitarian ideology demands economic equality above all things. To them, all inequality is unjust. Charity will always participate in this injustice since there can be no charity when everyone is equal.

When someone aids another, it presupposes that one person has more than another. Worse yet, this person has excessive wealth that might be given without harming his or her fortune. Thus, superfluous wealth, inherited wealth, and accumulated wealth are hateful because they represent an unjust system of excess that exploits the worker and facilitates inequality … and charity.

This is why socialists seek state ownership or regulation of the means of production. It is better to refuse the goodwill of the rich than perpetuate this system. It is better to overtax the rich and allow the government to redistribute these “ill-gotten” funds than to allow the rich to give them freely.

The Humiliation of Receiving
Socialists also hate charity because it creates receivers of aid. Socialists hate the idea of contingency. They cannot bear the idea of people accepting gifts from others because they believe the needy are always victims of injustice. The poor can never be the victims of misfortunes, disasters, or their vices. Thus, socialists believe charity humiliates the poor who are forced to ask for what is rightfully theirs. Private charity perpetuates the structures of poverty. The poor must demand the fruits of another’s success as a right not as a gift.

Moreover, the nature of charity creates another injustice in that it distributes wealth to the poor unequally. Those who receive support must “humiliate” themselves by asking for aid conditioned by the decision of the givers who give as they will. Rather than favor a system in which the needy are dependent on the wealthy, even if the benefits the poor receive from the rich are better, socialists prefer to construct huge government programs to distribute equally scarce tax dollars.

Socialists Hate Social Harmony
Finally, socialists hate the idea of charity because it undermines their concept of history as class struggle. The socialists do not want the harmony of the social classes but want to pit one class against another as a means of bringing about major social change. Their system presupposes and desires class strife.

To do this, they must break any links between the social classes, especially those of charity. Normally, the rich and poor live separate lives with little contact between them. Charity manages to unite rich with poor by creating bonds of affection. The rich extend compassion to the poor whom they seek to help. The poor on their part respond with gratitude to those who help them. These rich personal relationships have historically united the social classes that would otherwise be divided.

Socialists hate these mutual relationships and prefer the cold machinery of the state. Consistent with their class struggle philosophies, socialists desire to create disharmony. By using the power of the state to distribute wealth, socialism destroys the bonds of charity and replaces them with resentment. The rich resent being overtaxed and forced to help the poor. The poor see government assistance as entitlements and thus have no gratitude. This attitude breeds resentment when there are not enough benefits—as often happens.

This resentment on both sides facilitates the class struggle that will bring about further socialist change.

An Incapacity to Understand Charity
All these are natural reasons why socialists hate charity; they are based on a misguided and distorted vision of the world.

However, the greatest obstacle to the socialist acceptance of the concept of charity is much more spiritual and theological. From their limited materialist perspective, socialists cannot understand true charity. They cannot grasp the enormous scope and efficacy of Christian charity. They only believe in power and self-interest; they cannot admit an order in which people might freely help one another for a higher cause. Socialists do not think of helping their neighbors since they do not recognize others as neighbors but only equal comrades. They erroneously think that only cold, brutal state systems can ensure the proper distribution of wealth—although they usually distribute corruption and misery as well.

The True Nature of Charity
The Church teaches that charity is that habit that disposes us to love God above all things and love our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, we who gratuitously receive blessings from God become capable of gratuitously giving to others without expecting anything in return. By grace, we overcome our selfishness and our repugnance of suffering to help others. We become capable of deeds that are beyond our fallen human nature. This action multiplies our capacity for giving, and in doing so it allows us to achieve things that are admirable, heroic, and sublime. This explains the incredible accomplishments of the saints and heroes who performed marvelous deeds and transformed society.

This spirit of charity gave rise to Christian civilization. Ancient pagan culture nor even today’s neo-pagan culture has been or is able to practice charity to the high degree achieved by the Church. This is due to the limitations of defective first principles that do not recognize our human dignity as endowed with an immortal soul.

There is no greater social unity than that produced by Christian charity which perfects the practice of justice and allows us to put the greater good over the lesser. It serves to quell the desire for personal gain and disordered passions. The practice of Christian charity creates a true union of heart and mind as all is directed toward the love of God, the source of all Good. Thus, we see our neighbors as brothers and sisters in Christ and not as faceless wards of the State.

A Hell on Earth
The socialist worldview could not be more contrary. Socialists deny any contingency on God and his Providence and embrace the state completely. A socialist society is a materialistic society without a higher purpose or meaning. Since the structure of society determines individual conduct, there can be no moral responsibility for one’s acts—including infanticide. Since the primary injustice is inequality, society is doomed to an eternal class struggle against the natural accumulation of property. Such an immoral society built on resentment is a hell on earth—and this happens whenever socialism is fully implemented.

Thus, the rise of socialism in America today represents a grave danger to the America we know and love. The rhetoric of socialist politicians must not deceive us. Wherever socialism rules, charity is suppressed. Should socialism triumph in America, we will then see the establishment of a cruel and savage hell without charity