How do we "suit up" for the game.

I read with interest the article by William McGurn that appeared in the WSJ on 19 May 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269063343832561.html.

Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?

I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.

I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.

These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?

Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.

A Letter to Both Candidates

Below is a letter I drafted and mailed to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama:

I want to congratulate both of you on the nominations you received from your respective parties. My reason for writing to you is to give you some thoughts that I have had for some time on the nature of politics in this country. Please understand I am not writing to ask for anything or to request a specific action on any policy number. I would hope you would count this as one more voice in this campaign.

First, please let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a 44 year old Caucasian male. My wife and I live on the northwest side of Chicago. We have no children but we have been taking care of my wife’s mother in our home since December of 2002. We live in what could be classified as a middle or upper middle class community in Chicago. My wife and I have both experienced job loss. I was unemployed from August of 2002 and found full time work as a law librarian in April 2007. My wife was unemployed from April 2006 to September 2007. I took a pay cut of $20,000 to enter my new field of librarianship. During this time, we were able through God’s grace to keep our home and health insurance.

I want to let you know that for myself, I feel that neither political party has much to offer me, either economically or socially. The problem is the partisanship I see manifest in both parties and brought into sharp focus during this summer’s conventions. I realize that conventions are meant to rally the party faithful it should be no surprise that there are little signs of national unity at these conventions.

My alienation from the political process stems from the fact that many ideals that I hold are not honored or respected by one party or the other. Thus, I don’t feel I belong in either party. For example, I am person of deep and abiding faith. The Catholic faith was one of my bulwarks during my protracted unemployment and I don’t believe that a woman has the right to an abortion. This makes me suspect among many Democrats and progressives. I also try to hold a strong position on the church’s option for the poor and social justice. This makes me suspect among many Republicans who might think I have common cause with them on social issues. I believe in a strong commitment serving the nation, especially in the military. The profession of arms is not honored among many progressives. I see this attitude in the way military recruiters are often treated and the fact that ROTC program are not found in many universities. I grew up as a child of the labor movement and think that labor unions can have an important role in commerce. I am hearing more strident voices from Republicans on ways to thwart union organizing. I could go on and on with other examples.

The problem as I see is it is that both parties have allowed the more doctrinaire elements to set the tone of the discussion and have allowed the demonization of the opposition. I, like many Americans, question our role in the world and think that we should act in a more humble fashion. Many on the right often take this as America bashing or America hating and would question my patriotism. I also think that personal responsibility and initiative are the bedrock of which our nation’s economy is built. Many on the left would say that I want to continue to oppress those in our country and other nations to satisfy and sustain a capitalistic system.

I wish that both sides could treat each other with more civility and recognize the inherent goodness of the other. I saw no such civility or humility in both parties’ convention and that is shameful for such a great nation. As leaders in your party you must start to not only “distance” yourself from the more strident and radical elements of your party but to start pressuring these so called surrogates to tone down their rhetoric for the sake of moving our country forward.

I feel that harsh words towards the opposition and the ad hominine attacks are even more detrimental to the ability of the next president to govern because they are often wrapped up in the flag, a sense of patriotism or freedom for the economically or socially downtrodden.

Both of you have the power to fundamentally change the nature of political discourse in this nation. I have no illusions that often times, the loudest and most strident voices are the ones with the most to lose if public policy does not go that way. I also know that these voices are also the moneyed interests and that modern day politics run on money. It is real leadership that can tell these voices that their strident rhetoric is not helping the nation. The time is coming when it won’t matter who has the upper hand politically because neither side will be able to get anything done, and that is when our nation will begin its slow decline to irrelevancy. We may seeing the start of that irrelevancy, with a resurgent Russia, a China that has now taken its place on the world stage through its Olympic spectacle and the enrichment of oil rich countries of the Middle East through petro-dollars. The time for bold action is now, not at some future date when a “comfortable” majority is in place.

I have no illusions that there is very little chance of this letter ever crossing your eyes. I l don’t live in a battleground state and I don’t have the financial resources that would make you want to listen to me. All I can hope is that some junior staffer on your campaign may see this and become food for thought.

At one time, I had great hopes for the political process, but I grew up watching the Watergate hearings and since then, my confidence and connection in politics as they are done in this country has become more tenuous and irrelevant.

I’m hoping one of you can change that.

Should I trust Lanny Davis?

Lanny Davis’ article in the 31 July Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745984626098717.html does more to convince me that Hillary Clinton should NOT be Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate. The key issue for me is the ability to control Bill Clinton personally and to a lesser extent, the Clinton’s desire for power.

It was quite evident during the primary that Hillary could not control Bill. If she could not do it then, why should we trust Lanny Davis when he basically says that things would be different if we only knew them as Davis knows them?

I further believe that with Hillary in the vice president’s office, we would have a continued state of campaigning for the presidency, with her as the candidate. We have had had eight years of that with George W. Bush; we don’t need another four or eight years.

But the most important fact that leads me to believe that Hillary is not the right choice for vice president is the fact that she cannot keep her supporters in line. In other words, she cannot exert what used to be called “party discipline” on all these various supporters who have been very vocal (like Mr. Davis) of their unhappiness with the way the primary season ended. If Hillary cannot control these people, how in the world will she control Bill and his entourage? If all this vocal unhappiness is being done with her approval (albeit with enough plausible deniability), doesn’t that speak volumes to the idea that Hillary is no real change agent but somebody willing to continue with politics as usual?

Hillary Clinton and Her "Supporters"

Michael Kinsley's essay that appeared in the July 11th 2008 edition of Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1821662,00.html is right on target.

I am getting so tired of Hillary Clinton's supporters threatening to 1) stay home on election day 2) vote for John McCain 3) support some other third party candidate. I find it especially galling that they keep demanding that the 18 million voters who supported Mrs Clinton be heard. I'm not hearing that from John Edwards' supporters or Bill Richardson's' supporters or any of the other Democratic contenders.

What Mrs. Clinton's supporters must realize is the following 1) they lost because they had poor strategy and poor cohesion amongst the campaign leadership 2) they failed to keep Bill Clinton on a short leash 3) if they decide to pout and not support Barack Obama, do they think they will get a better deal in terms of moving a progressive agenda forward from John McCain? If they do, they are sadly mistaken and finally and most importantly, if Mr. Obama loses because of their lackluster or nonexistent support, it will come back to haunt them because many in the party will consider them and by extension Mrs. Clinton a pariah and not want to have anything to do with them because Mrs. Clinton could not exercise effective discipline over these so called "friends".


NB: Portions of this letter appeared in the August 4th Edition of Time magazine

Barack Obama gives back contribution

In today's Chicago Tribune, there is a story about Senator Obama donating $16,500 to charity from his campaign because the money came from donors linked to Tony Rezko

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama_08jun08,1,6033901.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true

It's a nice gesture, but one that lacks substance given the amount of money his campaign is raking in. He'll make that money up in no time.