winning Bearing the Cross and TaylorrnBranch’s Parting the Waters. (The expertrnon King’s plagiarism is, of course,rnI’heodore Pappas of Chronieles.)rnAs to the “Puritan-Lockean Synthesis.”rnKing’s dream (when it wasn’t ofrnother men’s wives or of socialism) wasrnof cash. At the welfare rally in Washington,rnD. C , where he gave his famousrnspeech, King said that America had “givenrnthe Negro people a bad check,” returnedrn”marked ‘insufficient funds.'”rnBut in our country’s “great vaults,” therernwas plenty of money to recompensernblacks for sla’er and discrimination,rnand he was there to claim it. So whenrnKing talked about justice rolling downrnlike a “mighty stream,” he meant arnstream of income. Yet he representedrnsomething more pernicious than redistributionism.rnHis cultural impact wasrnto help secularize, and finally to supplant,rnChristianity, so that today King’srnbirthdav gets more attention in the publicrnsquare than Christ’s. Neuhaus knowsrnall this, and et he writes: “Like MartinrnI ,uthcr King, Jr., John Paul has a dream”:rn”democratic capitalism.” But democraticrncapitalism—ncoconese for socialrndemocracy—is never mentioned by thernPope.rnI ust how capitalistic, by the way, isrnI democratic capitalism? The “businessrneconomy,” Neuhaus writes, doesrnnot “appeal to the moral imagination”rnin the wa socialism docs. “Profit seeking”rnis “neither pretty nor edifying.” ButrnTrotsk itc communism? Now there wasrna great ision: “Ir’ing Howe spoke alsornfor man- Christians,” says Neuhaus,rn”when he declared, ‘Socialism is thernname of our dream.’ No one in his rightrnmind dreams about capitalism.” Oh?rnMan Americans dream about havingrntheir own businesses, while few of usrnlong for the liquidation of the kulaks.rnMore broadly, the capitalist dream isrnof secure private property, free capitalrnand labor markets, minimal taxes, smallrngovernment, and sound money. This isrna just economic system, without thernthieyer’ of special interests or the tyrannyrnof the state. But to Neuhaus, fourrn”eminent Americans” have “in this centur”rnhelped us think through “the ideasrnthat can sustain a free society”: JohnrnDewc, \4ilter Lippmann, John Rawls,rnand Richard Rorty. So our guides arernsupposed to be: a social engineer whornwrecked American education, a progressivistrnpamphleteer who got us intornWorld War I, an egalitarian who measuresrnall societies by the happiness ofrntheir bums, and a popularizer of anti-rnWestern dcconstructionism.rnIt is just not respectable, saysrnNeuhaus, to be against “big go’ernment,”rnand he denounces “libertarians”rnwho advocate a “free and unfetteredrnmarket,” equating them with the “radicalrncapitalists” the Pope criticizes.rnNeuhaus seems to have no knowledgernof the Late Scholastic theologians,rnwhose vision inspired the economic corernof this papal document. (Not that thernPope’s “radical capitalists” are strawmen;rnleft-libertarians like federal appealsrnjudge Richard Posner vainly seek to linkrnfree markets and free sex.)rnNeuhaus reserves special derision forrnpalcolibertarianism, a “confused minglingrnof market economics and what isrntoday called ‘paleoconservatism.'” Confused?rnThis was the hallmark of the preneoconrnmodern right, the prewar OldrnRight, 19th-century conservatives likernIbcqucville, and most of the FoundingrnFathers, all of whom advocated economicrnfreedom and traditional social institutions.rnUnlike the author of the ene’clical hernclaims to endorse, Neuhaus offers nornfundamental critique of Wa.shington’srnplanning and redistributionist schemes.rnHe thinks it just fine that ever since Kineoln,rnAmerican politics has exalted anrnantisubsidiarity principle: state aggressionrnagainst every institution of society.rnI’hese days, not even the smallest momand-rnpop grocery store in rural Wyomingrnis immune from the dictates of a dozenrnfederal agencies. The Pope, on the otherrnhand, insists on subsidiarity: the idearnthat the state may not interfere with thernauthority of community, family, business,rnand church. And he criticizes thernneocons’ beloved welfare state for causingrna “loss of human energies,” an “inordinaternincrease of public agencies,”rn”bureaucratic ways of thinking,” and “anrnenormous increase in spending.”rnThe Pope does not suggest, asrnNeuhaus says he does, “that the democraticrnidea is integral to a theologicallyrnand historically informed understandingrnof human nature.” Democracy hasrnits uses for the Pope, but it is not in itselfrna high moral principle. n fact, saysrnJohn Paul II: “Those who are convincedrnthat they know the truth and firmly adherernto it are considered unreliable fromrna democratic point of view, since theyrndo not accept that truth is determinedrnby the majority.” The Pope is indictingrnthose who elevate democracy over religion.rnBut Neuhaus claims the Pope isrn”here throwing down the gauntlet tornthose who claim that religion poses arndanger to democracy,” as if the latterrnwere more important than the former.rnNeuhaus says he believes in the “SocialrnGospel,” identifying it with “thernChristian project in history.” In “thernChristian scheme of things,” he claims,rn”we enter the Kingdom of God by thernpermission of the poor.” Ridiculous: wernenter the Kingdom of God throughrngrace, and because we have kept thernfaith and lived it. Wc have duties to thernpoor, of course, but they are hardly thernsum and substance of Christianity. ForrnNeuhaus, however, “our most elementaryrnduty of love” is “for our neighbor.”rnSo much for the Gospel and its injunctionrnthat we are first to love the Lordrnour God with all our heart and mindrnand strength.rnNeuhaus pays little attention to thernfact that the encyclical, although itrntreats political economy, is a religiousrndocument. As such, it is full of pastoralrnadvice for the businessman in the pew.rnThe Pope defends the free marketrnagainst socialist attacks, but he warnsrnbusinessmen that they arc responsiblernto more than the price system. Consumersrnmay demand abortions, raprnrecords, or sex books by Madonna, butrnno decent entrepreneur may seek to fillrnthat demand. Capitalism flourishes onlyrnwithin a moral order. That docs notrnmean, pace Neuhaus, that we need thern1964 Civil Rights Act, but rather thatrnbusinessmen should keep an eve on eternityrnwhile meeting their earthly needs.rnThat is the challenge to the Christianrncapitalist—not making MLK a culturalrnicon.rnNeuhaus misses most of this, yet hernnever passes up a chance to denouncernanyone to his right, including those whornsympathize with the Church of the timernbefore Vatican II. He defines “modernity”rnas a virtue and “holding outrnagainst modernity” (which he ascribesrnto the Council of Trent) as an evil. Thisrnis a most un-Catholic position. Perhapsrnhe adopts it because neoconservatism isrna modern phenomenon. It is understandablernthat he should want to assurernneoeonservatives that their well-paidrnmissionary, Richard John Neuhaus, isrndoing well. Whether he is doing good isrnanother matter.rnMARCH 1993/29rnrnrn