I have been following the whole "Pope approves condoms story" and I came across the phrase "conventional wisdom" somewhere in one of the articles. If I recall, the author was attempting to say something like "everyone knows that condom use prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS". But does it really? Is the "conventional wisdom" actually wisdom at all, or is it our wishful thinking, hoping to convince ourself of a desired outcome so we can have "it" our way?
In America education, the definite "conventional wisdom" is that the more money you throw at schools, the better they will educate their students. This is categorically false. According to some, those countries that produce more educated kids spend less on education than we do. More locally, however, is the staggering case of Washington, DC schools. Almost every year, DC schools spend more money per student than any other district in the nation...and its students still underperform. There are a lot of factors in how a school educates its students. Money isn't really that high on the list. All you need to do is look at Catholic schools, which on average spend $2-3K less per student than their public counter parts, and whose students routinely perform at levels equal to or higher than public schools students (I won't even get into homeschooling, where families spend many, many times less with better results). However, its easy for us to say that schools need alot more money, because throwing money at a problem is easier than buckling down and actually fixing it.
Similarly, conventional wisdom is that the government must somehow be the impetus behind making sure that everyone has healthcare. On paper, it sounds great. You know, "free" health care, that everyone can get, insured by the government. But that is not the reality. As is evident in the UK and other government health-care systems, care is rationed due to lack of resources (be they financial resources or medical resources). In practice, not every one is covered. On this end, I remember sitting through one of my pointless grad classes, in which the professor (no conservative, that one) proceded to ask us what the biggest tragedy over Princess Diana's death was. I was about to raise my hand and say "A real humanitarian, Mother Theresa, was overlooked because of Diana's death", when he answered his own question: it took the ambulence--in downtown Paris--three hours to reach the scene of the accident because of all the red-tape. He then went on to say that if it happened in NYC, she'd have been in the hosptial in 20 minutes, and would have lived. It is easy for us to say let the government fix it, because then we don't have to actually think about what to do. It just doesn't work that way.
In a related example, in 2009, the Holy Father went to Africa, and on the plane trip there, he made some discouraging remarks concerning condoms (I believe he said that they actually made the AIDS problem worse). The press lambasted him on it the entire trip (never mind that the Africans rejoiced at his messages and he was roundly hailed as a hero in all the countries he went to). What was missed in the one sided conversation were actually pieces of information: the only country in Africa with and AIDS epidemic that has seen some improvement is Uganda, which adopted an abstinence and fidelity based education system, which was hugely successful. Contrast that with the other nations, which have used an internationally-sponsored condom-based approach. These nations have seen their AIDS rates increase, despite handing out prophylactics like they were food. How is this happening when "conventional wisdom" shows that condoms stop the spread of diseases? Well, as Professor Rhonheimer (a Catholic priest who is an expert in moral theology) points out, the perception that the risk is mitigated leads people to engage in more risky behavior could lead some people to engage in more risky behavior, negating the "benefits" of the condom. This would make matters worse. So, why is condom use to prevent illness such "conventional wisdom"? Just like prior examples, condom use is the easy way out. It is much harder to have to abstain from your lusts than give in. Thus, we need to find a way to overcome that problem (not getting HIV/AIDS while still giving in to your lusts).
What do all these examples have in common? To me it is simple: the proponents of these tidbits of "wisdom" have failed to look at human nature. Government largess creates ample possibilities for bribery, theft, kickbacks, and pork-barrel spending that grossly inflate the amount spent on any given program. This is true in education and government-run health-care. The same is true with the whole condom thing. You can't tell me that some guy is going to get this piece of latex with the promise "you won't get a girl knocked-up, or get HIV, 99% sure" and not say "I best be responsible in how I use this amazing piece of human ingenuity". No, human nature says that he'll indulge in his every lustful desire, because he can (and not get punished for it).
What is ultimately ironic about these bits of "conventional wisdom" is that they are relatively new in origin: prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish proverbist once wrote: money is the root of all evil. Governments before the 1800s never took it upon themselves to do the job of local entities, because it was obvious that private entities were more effective, a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas called "subsidiarity", but which in reality goes back to Augustine and possibly Plato or Aristotle. From the time of Constantine, "conventional wisdom" held that all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, were evil because they encouraged intrinsically evil behaviors (like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality). There is nothing "conventional" about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment