Out of Africa

Africa has been much in the news lately, much of it bad news. But this week's Washington summit brought some good news too. Most of us think of the continent as an all around basket case and with some justification. Africa remains home to an alarming number of the desperately poor, many of them without access to electricity, clean drinking water, effective public health infrastructure, or much in the way of schools. But the summit put a spotlight on some remarkable progress over the last twenty years or so. Economic growth has averaged almost 5%. Extreme poverty is down in percentage terms, though with a growing population the absolute numbers are still up. Infant mortality is down. Anti malaria and aids campaigns put in place by George W. Bush have had dramatic results and to his credit Barak Obama has continued and expanded them. Foreign aid is notoriously inefficient and wasteful but there are some other success stories there. Millions of Africans have electricity today they wouldn't have without aid. An Electrify Africa bill passed the US House with over whelming bipartisan support but is bogged down in the Senate over global warming concerns. Some senators want funding restricted to green energy projects. That's misguided. Bjorn Lomborg, the "skeptical environmentalist", estimates that $10 billion spent on green energy could lift 10 million Africans out of poverty, but that same $10 billion spent on gas based electricity could lift 90 million people out of poverty, a ratio of 9 to 1. Global warming alarmism gets in the way in other areas too. Secretary of State John Kerry frets that expanding Africa's food supply will have a high carbon footprint. Tell that to the mother of a malnourished child with respiratory problems from cooking on an indoor fire using dung for fuel. In any case foreign aid is a relatively small part of the solution. The big payback comes from better governance. Schools have been getting better in Africa, and accessible to more children, especially girls. That brings with it all sorts of benefits, as the West has long recognized. Less corruption and improved rule of law are attracting more investment. As President Obama correctly points out, foreign trade is increasing rapidly, but has made little progress within the continent. It is easier for Ghana to sell its produce in China than in Nigeria. Reducing barriers to intracontinental trade could produce an immediate and lasting burst of prosperity. It could also produce a peace dividend. Protecting lucrative trade routes can be a powerful incentive for resolving international disputes amicably, and for maintaining internal security. It is in our best interest to see progress in Africa continue. A more prosperous Africa is not only a more attractive trading partner, it is also more able to put in place the sorts of public health infrastructure that will make outbreaks of infectious disease more easily contained. Then we can all breathe a little easier. None of this is assured and there is a lot that could go wrong. A lot is going wrong and there is every reason to expect that to continue. But for all the genocidal massacres, the implosion in Libya, Ebola, and Boko Haram, Africa has made progress. There is also every reason for optimism the progress will continue, maybe even accelerate. Africa isn't going to become South America any time soon but it could happen. It may take several generations, but a generation ago who would have thought we would be hosting this kind of Summit in Washington this week? Who would have thought so much of it would be a celebration of progress? Who would have expected good news out of Africa?

Ice Bucket Morality

There is a growing objection to the ice bucket challenge on the grounds ALSA supports embryonic stem cell research. As a Catholic I believe embryonic stem cell research is clearly wrong. Whether supporting ALSA is wrong is not so clear. The ethical arguments pro and con are closely reasoned and I don't want to wade into them except to say that the issue revives an ongoing debate about whether and to what extent Catholics can or should work with people who disagree with us on serious moral concerns. I generally come down on the side of finding areas of common interest and working to common goals. It happens all the time. I was at a meeting yesterday to promote legislation regulating payday lenders. There were two Jews at the table, two Baptists, one Methodist, and one Catholic, me. I expect some of those there are at some level pro choice. But we could all agree that predatory lending is a bad thing and we will have to work together to do anything about it In odd numbered years when the legislature is in session Lynne and I participate with a group that loads up the parish bus and goes to Austin for Catholic Advocacy Day. We put on tee shirts and call on members of the house and senate in support of the Texas Catholic Conference legislative agenda. Not everyone in the parish thinks we should be doing that. Some don't think the church has any business lobbying at all and some of the issues are quite controversial, like immigration. If you want to start an argument in a room full of Catholics just bring that up. In fact I don't always support everything on the TCC agenda but I bite my tongue and advocate for the things I do support. We never get everything we want but we always get something. Every pope at least since Leo XIII, the pope who founded the Diocese of Dallas, has preached social justice. We are called to get out in the world and do something about the ills that plague our society. Every four years, in sync with the presidential election cycle, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops publishes a pamphlet called Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship. There should be a new one next year outlining the issues the bishops think are important and what their positions are on them. Some of those will be controversial too and if you want to know what the bishops think it should make for a good read. One thing will stand out. They don't think you should leave your conscience outside when you go into the voting booth. The bishops will also likely reiterate their position that some things, direct abortion among them, are intrinsically evil and can never be condoned. But when I take my conscience into that voting booth I will inevitably be forced to choose among candidates who do condone abortion, at least in certain circumstances. The alternative, to not vote, merely allows someone else to choose for me. Which brings me back to the ice bucket challenge because it involves choosing one life over another. Some will argue it is a false choice because there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. That is true but it is also true that the millions being raised through the challenge would almost certainly not be raised without it. Much research that will be done would not be done. Millions condemned to death by ALS who might have had a chance at life will die. Others will argue that it is a choice only God can make. I would argue that it isn't God who is choosing, it is man. So what do we choose?