Friday, 03.28.08
Catholics For Obama?
Photo by Flickr User Dave Kynknoord under a creative commons license
Why Obama matters
December 2007
A Catholic and conservative, Andrew Sullivan advocates for Barack Obama in this article.
The differences between the arguments that Douglas Kmiec and Andrew Bacevich have deployed to explain their support for Obama speaks volumes about how hard it is to generalize about Catholic conservatives, let alone Catholics as a whole.
Kmiec, a law professor who served as legal counsel to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has advanced the sort of arguments that moderate-to-liberal Catholics often make to justify their support for Democrats - namely, that Obama's positions on economics, education, and the environment, as well as foreign policy, are more consonant with Catholic teaching than McCain's, and that the pro-life movement ought to focus on changing the culture rather than changing the law. (His attempts to reconcile his leftward, Obama-ward turn with his work as an advisor to Mitt Romney have been a bit labored, as you might expect.) Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, makes a much more right-wing argument: His case for Obama is really just a case against John McCain, in which he argues that conservatism has lost its way and that only a complete electoral repudiation of Bush's Iraq venture presents any hope that the Right - and the country as a whole - will be weaned off its addiction to empire-building.
So Kmiec supports Obama with arguments that belong the muddy American middle, and Bacevich with arguments that belong to the Old Right - and this variation reflects, in microcosm, the diversity of the American Catholic population as a whole. Catholic America which has grown so vast and variegated that - as Jody Bottum has noted - it makes about as much sense to talk about a stereotypical "Catholic voter" as it would to talk about a stereotypical American voter. There are Catholic Democrats (who have been trending toward Hillary, not Obama), Catholic independents, and Catholic Republicans, and even those generalizations obscure more than they illuminate. (The upper-middle class Catholic Democrat in the Pennsylvania suburbs is very different from the Dorothy Day-reading Catholic Democrat doing community organizing in the Philadelphia ghetto.)
In a sense, you could argue that this diversity makes Catholics the ultimate swing vote, since as they go, so goes the country. But that's like saying that Americans are the ultimate swing vote: It's true without being particularly meaningful. From the point of view of political handicapping, it's better to try to figure out what particular subsets of Catholics are going to do, which in this case means figuring out whether there are more right-of-center Catholics who might cross over to vote for Obama than there are left-of-center Catholics who might cross over to vote for McCain. The answer might just tell you who will win in November: Kmiec could be a bellwether, but so could Obama's struggle to win over Catholic Democrats in the primary campaign.
No conservative's warObama's opposition to the bloody, futile Iraq War makes him the only adequate avatar of conservative principles in this election, writes Andrew J. Bacevich in this notable essay. |
Kmiec round-upKmiec elaborates on his reasoning here and in this interview . |
Conservative counterpointDismissing Kmiec's position as "vacuous" and "incoherent," Paul Mirengoff exemplifies the conservative backlash. See also William J. Dyer's rebuttal and one Catholic's critique of Kmiec's misguided values |
Fragmented blocThese letters highlight the mixture of positive and negative reader responses to Kmiec's endorsement. Scott Payne is one conservative who agrees. |
(11)
Probably worth mentioning Sen. Bob Casey's endorsement today as an addendum to this.
"As an independent Catholic"
Whatever that is, it can't be good. Neuhaus has to give up his Whig Thomism and fall in line behind B16 before he finds himself righfully described as an independent Catholic.
"Probably worth mentioning Sen. Bob Casey's..."
May his noble father rest in peace and not endure the sins of his son, the Philly fraud.
Perhaps this post should be titled, "Welcome to the Catholic Cafeteria."
It is not news that many Catholics in America pick and choose which elements of Church dogma they adhere to. And, let me state the obvious: in many areas of public policy, what the Church tells us falls far short of what is an essential part of being Catholic.
One may be pro-union, or pro-free trade. Pro school choice (vouchers) or pro-teachers union. The list of choices is pretty much without end. And one may find the faithful on both sides of each choice.
Except, I would claim, when it comes to being pro-life. To be for abortion means you can not be in favor of the sanctity of human life. Not as a Catholic should understand what this means.
If you are in favor of abortion, while I wish you were not, that is your right. But don't call yourself a faithful Catholic. You are not. If you doubt this, ask your priest, bishop, or the Pope.
Obama is an abortion on demand liberal. Period. Not excluding partial-birth abortions. If you are Catholic, this is where you must draw the line. The Church has been firm on this: that abortion kills a human being. From the moment of conception.
Life is our greatest single gift from God. Catholics should not support any candidate who is in favor of unilaterally taking this gift from those least able to defend themselves.
Douglas Kmiec did not serve as legal counsel to either President Reagan or Bush. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department (U.S. Assistant Attorney General). Thus his client was the United States, and he rendered advice to the Justice Department and the Executive Branch more generally.
"Legal counsel to the President" would better describe the head of the Office of Counsel to the President (also called "White House counsel") such as Fred Fielding in the Reagan Administration, Boyden Gray in the Bush I administration, and Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers and Fred Fielding -- again -- in the Bush II administration.
What Hillary Clinton did in 1999 when New York City's Roman Catholics were outraged and asked her to intervene against the hateful artform (paid for by tax money) that was aimed against their religion? Museum of Modern Art in Brooklyn exhibition displayed Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and surrounded by indecent images. Museum where this has happened was supported (back then) by our tax dollars.
So Hillary listened to the Roman Catholic concerns, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called the Virgin Mary painting "Catholic-bashing garbage", but she ignored them, and let it go in the name of free speech. White House Press Correspondent Joe Lockhart told the media that President Clinton supports his wife's position regarding the exhibit. If this art happened to target any other religion while being funded by the tax payers money at the same time, there would be a definite uproar.
September 26th, 1999-
Catholic Cardinal John O' Connor tells his congregation at St. Patrick's Cathedral that he is "saddened by what appears to be an attack not only on our blessed mother ...but one must ask if it is not an attack on religion itself and in a special way on the Catholic Church." He also supports "city officials" in opposition to the exhibit.
September 27th, 1999-
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running for the U.S. Senate against Guliani, states that, "I share the feeling that I know many New Yorkers have that there are parts of this exhibit that would be deeply offensive... I would not go to see this exhibit" but criticizes Mayor Guliani in saying that "it is not appropriate to penalize and punish an institution such as the Brooklyn Museum."
Reuters reported on Oct. 2nd 1999: - Roman Catholics sang hymns and handed out vomit bags Saturday to protest an art show with a picture of the Virgin Mary, her right breast made of elephant dung, while animal rights activists objected to art made of sliced up animals.
CBS reported: in this evening's news, while broacasting Hillary's words about not shutting down a whole museum over it, showed the picture at the center of the debate. An African-American or African woman is depicted as the Madonna. Then, surrounding her, there are shelacked splatters of elephant dung, and x-rated pictures.
I am really confused about her need for the Roman Catholics votes.
The Catechism (teachings) of the Roman Catholic Church state that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life,a "moral evil", an "abominable crime", and attaches the punishment of excommunication to it. It is hte number one cause of death in America. Those who claim to be Catholic should vote accordingly.
As a viewer of the "Slient Scream" in grammar school, I recognize the revulsion and deep emotional quotient of abortion, as well as the no room for interpretation stance of the Church.
But I reject the line in the sand view on evaluating candidates, as (thankfully)do tens of millions of other Catholic voters. Call us overly-nuanced, soft-change-the-culture moral relativists if you must, but there is a hard fact to confront here: casting votes strictly on a candidate's public stance on Roe v. Wade hasn't done the job, has it? It may fill a voter with moral righteousness (pride's still a sin, you know).
Here's the other trick: by electing politicians (from both parties) on that single criteria, one has very possibly contributed to more abortions occurring via other poor social policies advanced by "pro-life" candidates.
Seek moral clarity if you must. I have the vision from "The Silent Scream" etched in my mind, and I'll never think it's right and will judge candidates less on grandstanding and more on their policies to make it happen as seldom as possible.
Casey endorsed Barack because of a grudge against them because they didnt let him speak at a democratic convention.
Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which stated "all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted."
Alan Keyes said "Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide."
The conflict in Iraq will end someday-they either will be separate states, or hopefully unify. Whatever the case, the US troop presence is for now preventing a massive genocide in the region. But, at home there is a genocide that needs to be prevented too...abortion.
Newborn children are murdered every 22 seconds in this country. Barack Obama made sure that was the case in Illinois after he killed the BAIPA multiple times in the Illinois senate so Illinois hospitals can continue the sick practice of killing newborn children and leaving them in blankets in back rooms to die. BAIPA only passed after Obama left the Illinois senate.
This next election if pro-lifers are elected will have the chance to appoint conservative Supreme Court jusitces that will overturn the so-called "right to choose/murder," Roe v. Wade and end this holocaust!
I don't see how you could morally vote Obama if you are a Catholic.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/BarackObamaAbortion.htm
To those of you who still don't know your right from your left -- Catholic Conservatives For Obama.
You are not a Conservative. You are a Moderate Republican if I were to categorize you. And you are not a Catholic if you can so easily weigh the abortion issue lightly enough that you would vote for someone who most definitely believes in its legalization and funding. Perhaps you think that is a one-issue stand I am describing, but it is not -- issues should each hold a different amount of weight for each voter -- babies' rights to not be slaughtered in the womb holds some weight for you, but not enough to tip the scale. So, you are a menu Catholic, and I'm sure this is not the only dish you send back to be prepared differently. So you are not all about protecting the most vulnerable, most innocent and defenseless members of our society. But you are an independent thinker -- so go with that. That's OK -- call yourself that, but don't call yourself a Conservative Catholic. Embrace who you are! Come out of the closet as a moderate Republican who is moving a little (perhaps a lot) left this election. Love yourself for who you are! I give you permission. You don't have to explain yourself. If you try to do that, you only sound politically confused and insecure, like you need to make excuses to somebody like me or your parents. You don't have to. I'm young, and arty and live in New York -- I get it -- fitting in with the hipsters who feel so enlightened and energized by Obama is alluring. Go for it man! What do you have to lose? -- and look, if you call yourself Catholic, you'll actually have to go to Church -- and you don't want that -- oh no!
Senator Obama should co-sponsor the Pregnant Women's Support Act, Senate Bill 2410, sponsored by his endorser Bob Casey and more than 30 Democrats in the house. It would reduce the number of abortions by 95% in ten years by eliminating the pressures that push pregnant women toward abortion. It does not put legal restrictions on abortion so sincerely pro-choice people should not object to it.
Mr. Douthat, the mixture of Catholicism and presidential politics in fascinating enough to fill a bookshelf in the Vatican, so nice work in paring it down. As an independent Catholic, I often take glee in telling those on my left and my right that Philip Berryman and Richard Neuhaus are equally crappy Catholics; of course, it takes one to know one.
Posted by Vinny | March 28, 2008 1:43 PM