Sunday Talk Soup and the Economic Idiocy of NYC Mayor De Blasio

The quoted sections below come from Sunday's ABC This Week transcript, available here. I was listening to the audio podcast while I was focused on another task yesterday, when I heard someone rebuke Marco Rubio with a crackpot version of Christianity. Now I get rather annoyed when "progressives" try to use Christ to fit their odious political philosophy; I wrote my own take complementing a fine essay by FEE's Reed in this post;  I have been critical of Pope Francis (see here and here) and others (see here and here). I interrupted what I was doing, hoping the moderator would identify the speaker at the end of the interview--and he did--one of the most nauseating "progressives" in the country, namely De Blasio. I'll comment after excerpts.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Pope Francis coming to the United States this week, his first visit to the United States, the first pope ever to speak to the Congress.
I know you agree with the pope on the issues of abortion and marriage. Many conservatives have criticized him for his views on climate change, income inequality. Rush Limbaugh even suggested he's a Marxist.
One, do you agree with that criticism?
And what do you hope to hear from the pope this week?
RUBIO: Well, I'm a Roman Catholic. For me, the pope is the successor of Peter he's the spiritual head of the church, who has authority to speak on matters, doctrinal matters and a -- and theological matters. And I follow him 100 percent on those issues, otherwise I wouldn't be a Roman Catholic. And so I believe that deeply.
The pope, as an individual, an important figure in the world, also has political opinions. And those, of course, we are free to disagree with. He obviously opines about this views of the church's role or the -- what we should be doing with the climate or things of this nature, on the economics.
Those are issues that -- that the church talks about as regards to their social teachings, or their j sorry, the -- the way you balance government with society.
On the social teachings, essential issues, like the sanctity of life and things of this nature, those go deep to the theology of this -- of the faith. And I do believe -- those are binding and I believe strongly in them.
On the economic issues, the geopolitical issues, the pope is just trying to bring people together. That's his role as a spiritual leader. And I respect that very much.
I have a job as a United States senator to act in the best interests of the United States and of our people. And from time to time, they -- that may lead to different opinions about different things.
But I have no problem with the pope and I wish he would meet with dissidents in Cuba when he's there this week, but I would reserve judgment to see what he says when given the chance to address the public there.
My hope is that he will discuss human rights and freedoms.

Limbaugh's conclusion is incompetent and absurd. In fact, as a bishop/cardinal, Pope Francis earned a reputation as an opponent of (more Marxist) liberation theology. I think we should note that if prior Catholic popes as well have been critical of some purported excesses of the markets, they have been far more critical of socialism. Barron has a relevant discussion:

One of the most significant constants in that tradition is a suspicion of socialism, understood as an economic system that denies the legitimacy of private property, undermines the free-market, and fosters a class struggle between the rich and the poor. The modern popes, from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, have all spoken clearly against such systems...Fr. Robert Sirico, Michael Novak, Arthur Brooks, and many others are therefore right in suggesting that Catholic Social Teaching does not represent a tertium quid beyond capitalism and socialism; rather, it clearly aligns itself against socialistic arrangements and clearly for the market economy. 

I wish that Rubio would have answered more directly (no, Rubio does not share in the pope's political opinions). This is my take of what he said, within my pro-liberty perspective: the Holy Father's leadership is in faith and morals. Whereas the Pope is right to point at individual responsibility and charity in our dealings with others and in wise stewardship of God's gift of this world and its creatures, the Pope should not focus on the means to those ends or buy into disingenuous Statist rhetoric. The State use of force has historically been unjust (consider unnecessary wars and imprisonment) and ignores the importance and role of free will and the voluntary associations for the common good.

 STEPHANOPOULOS: And you say this trip is a tremendous moment for New York.
What are you most excited about?
And I wanted you to respond. You heard Senator Rubio earlier in the program...
DE BLASIO: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- talking about the pope's trip, making a distinction between the pope's teaching on social issues and his teachings on economic issues.
DE BLASIO: I would strongly urge Senator Rubio to go back and reread "The Sermon on the Mount." Clearly, the core of Catholic teachings and Christian teachings talks about the economic realities that people face, and has for thousands of years.
So I was very surprised to hear them make that separation.
Let me give you two sentences from His Holiness, talking about trickle-down economics he says, "This theory, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and the sacrolyzed (ph) workings of the prevailing economic system, meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
That's Pope Francis talking about something that's been at the core of Catholic teachings for 2,000 years. I'm surprised Mr. Rubio doesn't understand that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you say to those conservatives about this, who says this is not the pope's area of expertise?
DE BLASIO: I think the church has always devoted itself to talking about fairness in every sense, including economic fairness. I think that's one of the foundational concepts of the religion. And His Holiness has captured the imagination of the entire world, Catholic believers and non-believers and people of all faiths, because he's talking about what a moral structure looks like that actually is inclusive.
That's the power of this pope. Yes, he is an incredibly compelling personality and communicator. But it's his ideas that are actually calling people to a different kind of world order.
And I think, when he comes here to a country he's never been to before and talks before the United States Congress, I think it's going to be one of those moments we look back on and say this was a moment where American society and politics are to change.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about politics for a minute. You have not endorsed a presidential candidate yet. And I wonder if you're caught between your head and your heart.
You worked for Hillary Clinton. But you line up, as I said earlier, with Bernie Sanders on a lot of the big issues.
So how are you going to decide? What more do you need to know?
DE BLASIO: Well, first of all, I'm very proud to be a Democrat right now because the Democratic field is talking about income inequality, talking about how to help working families, how to restore the middle class, talking about the rest of taxation, I think, quite honestly and forthrightly. The Republican field is not only attacking each other, they're offering very divisive visions about this country that I think are actually going to turn off a lot of the American people. 

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, De Blasio is not a practicing Christian/Catholic and is the last person who should be hypocritically judging other Christians (one of Jesus' most notorious sayings). Second, Jesus most emphatically did NOT confound His ministry with a political mission. He repeated pointed out His Kingdom was in heaven, not earth. (I've covered this point in numerous cited posts and in numerous FB posts, including one republished over the weekend). I will, however, point out again how Jesus rebuked the envious brother who asked him to settle what he considered an inequitable division of his father's estate with his brother; Jesus reminded him of the grave sin of coveting his brother's goods. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever Jesus would take a rather dim view of envying a rich man's goods and stealing them, even if it was rationalized in terms of redistribution to the poor.

For this piece of work to lecture on the Sermon on the Mount? This guy is absolutely clueless on the meaning of the Beatitudes (the poetic segment of the Sermon), which literally has nothing to do with poverty in the common sense of the word; Jesus is really speaking of the preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven, of a humble, contrite presence and spiritual development through the trials of  this life before God; if wealth presents a false idol to worship in place of God, better to be rid of this corrupting condition of wealth. For further discussion of this point, see here.

De Blasio forgets a key point I've raised in my posts: Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God unconditionally--not to love one's neighbor. This is not to say that charity is unimportant, but Jesus is unmoved by ostentatious plays of charity, prayer, etc.--and I'm fairly certain that Jesus would prefer voluntary charity of the pro-liberty followers to morally hazardous State redistribution by professional bureaucrats at gunpoint. Just because we of the pro-liberty persuasion don't believe in the use of force doesn't mean that we are insensitive to the plight of the poor; as the above-referenced Arthur Brooks pointed out, conservatives generally give more of their income to charity than social/modern liberals. (Apparently "progressives" think their part is to vote for the tax collectors to plunder the other guy's pocket.)

Let De Blasio put lipstick on the pig of Statist public policy failures; his smug moral self-superiority is based on an economically illiterate state of denial.