What's Wrong With The Democrats

Hello, Democrats. Guess What! We just had an election. You lost. In a couple of weeks there are going to be significantly more Republicans running around in your Congress. Which part of this reality do you not understand?

The grousing about President Obama making a deal with Republicans is misguided and counter productive. The window for deal making is about to close. Dont forget, you just had two votes to try to enact the Obama tax agenda. They both failed. There is zero possibility that the results would be better after January.

Republicans actually gave up something in this deal. It is the first real bipartisan action in two years. Democrats got many things they have wanted that they cannot possibly get at a later time. Extension of unemployment benefits for thirteen months, small business tax breaks, and a reduction in the payroll tax are critical Democratic priorities. So the temporary extension of tax breaks for the rich may be a bitter pill to swallow, but guess what? That's exactly what compromise is. Each side likes part of it and dislikes other parts of it.

What is the alternative? Let all the tax cuts expire as of January 1? Do we really care about the problems of the middle class or not? Can we possibly want nothing to happen? In the process of dragging out this debate what is being accomplished? The opportunity to resolve other critical legislative issues is slipping away. There is a window for Don't Ask Don't tell, the DREAM Act, the new START treaty, and a few additional items, but the delay and the bickering is making it less likely each day that these items will get passed. Only one reason to continue this opposition seems plausible, and that would be the pursuit of a cynical political strategy.

That kind of thinking puts us right into the category of Republicans. Just say no. Maybe it is good politics. It worked for the Republicans. At least the Republicans don't really believe in government so maybe they actually believed that doing nothing was a positive thing. Democrats believe government is capable of helping others, and can even be a force for contributing to an improving economy. Are we really going to sit on the sidelines for the next two years to watch the economy continue to falter in the hopes of winning back a majority in the house? Shame on you, Democrats. I thought this was a party that really believed in trying to make things better for all the people.

Then there is the question of the budget deficit. It is interesting that everytime a proposal comes up that one doesn't like, the deficit is cited as the problem. No one seems to care about the deficit if they approve of the program. Republicans cry deficit when it comes to unemployment benefits, but see no need to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Moderate to conservative Democrats are so concerened about the deficit when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy but not for tax cuts for the middle class. The fact is the deficit is a real problem, but so is unemployment. This deal will be the last opportunity to try to strengthen the economy. I'm pretty sure we will not be seeing any infrastructure or job training bills in the new congress. It makes little sense to me to implement austere budget restrictions unless the economy itself is in better shape.

We have a deficit reduction panel which has just issued its recommnendations. There is of course difficult work ahead, but clearly the President will address the deficit in this year's State of the Union address. Work will begin in earnest. There will be much horse trading, and again much to like and dislike about the final result. It needs to be done, and Democrats need to be at the table to make the deal as fair as possible. That, however, is the work of next year. Now is the time to pass the tax deal to boost a weak recovery and get millions of Americans back to work. So don't bring up the deficit as an excuse to vote against the deal.

Much good has been accomplished under this administration over the past two years under very difficult circumstances. Much more can still be done in the next two years. If Democrats just want to be vindictive because of how Republicans acted the past two years then you are simply lowering yourselves to their level. The goal of government is to govern. The American people expect that to occur. The President is trying to govern and he deserves your support.

WikiLeaks Assaults International Diplomacy

I was surprised and disturbed by the lack of outrage over the extraordinary leaks coming out of the WikiLeaks operation. There are even indications of support or approval, including from some in the mainstream media. To me, the results of this leaking of information ranged from embarrassment and chagrin to dangerous tampering with the mechanisms of diplomacy and government.

Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.

The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.

Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?

The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.

There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.

While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.

On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.

What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.

The Campaign of Tom Perriello

It seems only fitting that I write a column about my nephew who is a Congressman in Virginia's fifth congressional district. Not only is he my nephew, but his campaign makes a great story. It is a story of a gifted young man who went into politics and was determined to do it his way. He had little interest in the political side of the equation and was primarily concerned with doing what he felt was in the best interest of his constituents in the fifth district. He worked hard, and campaigned tirelessly. This past summer he held more town hall meetings than any other congressman - listening and trying to explain why he felt the way he did about issues that were important to the district.

He was a progressive Democrat in a conservative district, but he didn't hide from his positions like many of his Democratic colleagues. He chose to highlight the benefits of the programs he supported and trusted that the people of his district would reward him for his hard work, his sincerity, and the strength of his convictions. He offers a shining example of how Democrats should have conducted themselves in the mid term elections.

There is only one small flaw in this great story. Tom Perriello did not win his race for reelection in the fifth district. The race was close. The final margin was less than 4%. He did significantly better than most other Democratic congressmen in similar situations, including those who tried to convince voters that they weren't really Democrats. Yet, It seems that the real story turns out to be that in this election it made no difference whether you ran from your beliefs or stood up for them. Democratic congressmen around the country fell victim to Republican and Tea Party candidates.

So is there anything we can take from what happened in this campaign Tuesday night? I believe that looking at the Tom Perriello we saw Tuesday night gives us some answers. He was able to stand on the stage and address the public with his head held high. He was clearly at peace and happy knowing that he had done a good job. There were no regrets. He believed in what he had been doing. He took the tough political votes without thinking about political considerations, but voting on what he believed to be the best interests of his congressional district.

So I believe that members of both parties still have much to learn from Tom's courage in Washington and in the campaign. Tom Perriello didn't win, but he had no doubts. He knew the terrible recession that would have followed without the stimulus and efforts to shore up the crumbling financial system. He knew energy independence required an energy bill, he knew Wall Street needed regulation, and he knew we needed to reform our health care system. He didn't flinch when it came to taking the tough votes, and he was proud to stand and explain the importance of those votes when questioned. Many could and did disagree with his prescription for the district, but no one could doubt his authenticity, his genuineness, and his desire to help the people of his district.

As we all waited together for election returns Tuesday night, Tom was indeed a tower of strength. He was busy comforting everybody from his youngest neices and nephews, to his Mom, to his campaign staff. He himself, however, was genuinely at peace and even happy about his two year stint as a congressman. He believes in his community and was honored to have been given the privilege of serving these people. The country needs more people like Tom, from whatever political persuasion, entering politics. Unfortunately, there are too few like him and our political discourse suffers as a consequence. Clearly there was no one, family or friend, who was with Tom Tuesday night, that was not filled with pride at his accomplishements

So, what's next. Many opportunities await Tom at this point. No decisions have been made yet, since the focus to the final moments had been on winning this election. Tom's future remains bright. He is destined to be a valuable contributor and leader in whatever endeavor he decides to pursue. The fifth district of Virginia is poorer this week, but the Tom Perriello legacy has just begun.

Congratulations Tom, for being who you are. There can be no doubt that your Dad is looking down with great pride.

Whither the Democratic Majority?

History tells us that in a mid term election the party in power in Washington will lose seats in Congress. History also tells us that when the economy is not doing well the party in power will be punished at the polls. A significant Republican victory then, seems pretty much inevitable. Add to that the success the Republicans have had in coopting the message for this election cycle, and it seems safe to say that the Democrats will have trouble holding on to their majorities in Congress.

In order to consider the possibility of at least mitigating the worst effects of this imminent disaster for Democrats, one has to have a pretty clear picture of what has happened over the past twenty months since the inauguration. The mood after the inauguration was in sharp contrast to the present mood in the country. It is almost hard to believe how many voices were raised in predicting the permanent demise of the Republican Party. The enthusiasm was short lived, there was no honeymoon, but what precipitated the downward spiral and can it be slowed or reversed?

Clearly the initial ebullience was not warranted and the failure of the economy to rebound rapidly made the continuation of the euphoria impossible to maintain. Yet, there were also mistakes and missteps on the part of the administration and the Democratic Congress that contributed to the current state of affairs. Unfortunately, the President's desire for bipartisanship turned out to be his first mistake. Once the Republican strategy was set to be non cooperative, the presidents efforts to appear reasonable and willing to compromise began to look weak and indecisive. The biggest ongoing failure has been the inability of the administration and Democrats to craft a simple message that explained the importance and value of the agenda they were working to implement. Another failure was the inability to get a large contingent of surrogates in and out of Congress on the road proclaiming the good news of the Obama agenda. Too often the president appeared to be a one man show trying to make reform take place all by himself. The Democratic Congress has been a party to failing to promote the Obama agenda. The lack of party unity in contrast to lockstep Republican fealty made criticism of the Obama agenda seem more acceptable. If even Democrats couldn't agree on the importance of the agenda, well, maybe it wasn't so good.

One also has to consider what Republicans have done that has worked so well for them. It is, of course, always easier to attack a policy than to promote one of your own. As mentioned, the unity they have mustered enabled them to stop or dilute much of the Obama agenda that might have helped turn the economy around more quickly. Republicans have been able to craft talking points that hearkened to a lot of the anxieties many people felt, and they have repeated them over and over until much of the public has accepted them as true. In contrast Democrats have had difficulty stating their positions on most issues in clear and succinct language. The Republicans however, have had no problem defining Democratic positions: wasteful spending, big government, socialism, bailouts, government takeovers, etc.

What can Democrats do now to minimize the damage? One of the big things is that in so many cases what the Republicans are saying and what they are running on simply does not square with reality. Over and over again it needs to be pointed out where their positions and their rhetoric simply are not true. Their figures don't add up. Democrats need to develop stronger talking points. They should not apologize for their achievements, but rather explain the benefits of health care reform, financial regulation, etc. They need to point out the problems with current Republican candidates and their dangerous policies and beliefs. Don't underestimate them, but hold them accountable and force them to debate the issues. If they refuse to debate don't let them off the hook even if you have to use the empty chair technique. If they are afraid to debate make sure the voters are aware of their fear of debating or of talking to reporters.

When voters make up their minds and cast their votes on November 2nd they need to consider a couple of additional factors. Yes, the economy is not doing well and too many people are out of work. Yet truth matters as you cast your vote. Despite constant rhetoric to the contray, the bank bailouts worked. As pointed out in "A Lonely Success: Don't Forget: The Bailouts worked" by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek on 9/27/2010, the government will recover around 90% of bailout funds. It turned out to be a bargain. It did prevent a collapse of our financial system. Some may say we should have let the economy fail and see how long it would have taken to recover. What president or administration would have wanted to be responsible for the pain that would have followed for millions of Americans? Things are bad, but a depression was clearly avoided. Would we really want to relive the history of that period just to say we avoided the dreaded bailouts.

You may also want to check out an article in the Los Angeles Times of September 20, 2010 by Garret Gruener. He argues that the Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthiest Americans. As a wealthy American he asks to be taxed. He suggests that additional tax revenues that are generated be used to invest in infrastructure and research. His point is that modest changes in tax rates for wealthy taxpayers don't make much difference in building new companies or stimulating new industries. After the Bush tax cuts the wealthy ended up saving much of it and middle class folks weren't able to afford to spend much additional money without borrowing excessively. That is part of what led us to our current economic state. The result has been a level of inequality that has gotten farther out of balance than just about any period in our history. Yet, the wealthy cry class warfare whenever these inequalities are pointed out. As Greuner says, we have forgotten what Henry Ford knew; that the economy needs not just investors but people who can afford to buy the cars he makes.


People are angry. The economy has not recovered. What do we do? Look at congress. The current policies many feel are not working or have not worked fast enough. Yet look at the Republican efforts in congress. Their performance has been clear and pretty much monolithic. They have refused to engage. They have obstructed everything. You may feel some things needed to be obstructed, but everything? Even policies like tax cuts for small business were resisted, despite the fact that this has always been a solid Republican proposal. They do not have a policy for making things better. They seem only interested in destroying a president and in seeking their own political gain. What do they offer if they come to power? Their only policy is tax cuts for the wealthy and the elimination of regulation. They have no plan to improve the country. Before you cast your vote in November make sure you are voting for someone who is more interested in you and your needs than in gaining power or serving corporate interests.

Conventional Wisdom II

Today we are going to continue to explore some political ideas that have taken on the aura of conventional wisdom. Many of these so called truths seem either incomplete or less than valid.

THE RECENT PRIMARY ELECTIONS REPRESENT A MAJOR TEA PARTY TRIUMPH

The media has covered the recent primary election Tea Party victories as if they represent a seismic shift in the election politics in this country. Make no mistake, the victories are important and significant and deserve to be treated as a meaningful phenomenon. They may yet turn out to be decisive and indicate dramatic changes for years to come. At the moment, however, they tell us little about what will happen in November. A number of Tea Party candidates have been able to defeat Republican regulars in some primary campaigns in which turnout has been extremely low. This feat is really not as difficult as it may sound. The Tea Party base is unquestionably highly motivated and is turning out in large numbers. They have been able to unseat some veteran party candidates. We just don't know what this will mean in November. They have probably already received as much support as is available to them. November is an entirely different ball game and if they do not win in Delaware, Nevada, and elesewhere the Tea Party may turn out to be a lot less than advertised. We just don't know at this time, but general election demographics and turnout are very different from primary elections. It is yet to be seen if these primary victories represent a sea change in Republican and national electoral politics. Stay tuned.

THE BEST WAY TO WIN AN ELECTION IS TO SAY NOTHING

Well we don't yet know if this will turn out to be true or not. We won't know until Novemeber. What's interesting however, is how many candidates are trying this approach. It says something about how far out of the mainstream a number of these candidates are that their handlers have to tell them not to talk to the press, to stick to a very narrow script, not to debate, and not to go anywhere that might force them to answer meaningful questions. Consider candidates in Nevada, Kentucky, Delaware, Virginia and others. Voters need to ask themselves if this is a tactic that is appropriate in a democracy.

ALL POLITICAL STATEMENTS ARE DESERVING OF EQUAL WEIGHT

In an effort to be even handed the "mainstream media" will take the most outlandish statements and compare them to statements of the opposing candidate which reinforces the notion that 'they all do it'. One strategy that seems to be working well is when criticized or attacked, immediately criticize the attack. One example is when the NAACP recently suggested that there were racist elements in the Tea Party, and went on to provide evidence of the truth of their statement. Immediately they were called racist for calling the Tea Party racist which they had not done. The main stream media however, approaches such stories by putting both positions on an equal footing so that the public once again perceives all politicians as the same. It is possible to distinguish extreme positions from those that are reasonable, or outright lies from slight exaggerations. The media is too lazy or fearful however, to make that effort and as a result the public suffers.

WALL STREET DISAGREES WITH OBAMA TAX POLICIES SO HIS POLICIES MUST BE WRONG

Somehow, Wall Street folks have been endowed with a wisdom that hardly seems warranted. Consider that it was their failures that brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Consider that they will always choose low taxes or no taxes, because it will always be in their interest to do so. Consider how many jobs they have shipped overseas because it was in their interest to do so. Consider how willing they have been to pay themselves enormous sums of money even as the economy was crumbling. Where is their credibility to indicate that they put the interest of their country over personal or corporate interests. I don't even believe they would try to make that case.

While it is certainly true that probably no one including the administration, economists, or the Federal Reserve know all the answers to reviving the economy, it has to be said that the President and his team have no other goal than improving the economy in this country. It is in their interest to have a strong economy even from a political perspective. They have no profit motive, and are therefore interested in making things better for all the people, and not just corporate interests. That does not guarantee that all their decisions will be correct, but it does suggest that when business puts its ideas forward they should be greeted with a great deal of skepticism.

UNCERTAINTY IN FINANCIAL REGULATIONS AND TAXES PREVENT THE ECONOMY FROM MOVING AHEAD

This statement, repeated ad nauseam on CNBC, essentially serves as a code for saying that once the Republicans win the November elections the economy will move ahead. I suspect that is probably exactly what will happen. We are also told that more than a trillion dollars is sitting on the sidelines that could be invested by business. Certainly there is anxiety about the future that causes businesses to hesitate when it comes to hiring and spending. Yet I thought one of the characteristics of business and making money involved a willingness to take risks. Business wants no government spending to stimulate the economy. They are in a position to prime the pump themselves with huge profits they have made in the past year or so. Yet, they sit on those profits. They could create a growth surge in this economy and improve the employment picture by spending and hiring. What are they waiting for? Can it be they may be waiting for that hoped for Republican landslide in November?

Conventional Wisdom

Fox News and other right wing media outlets have coopted the message for this election cycle, and their mantras have become commonplace even in the so called liberal mainstream media. Let's take a look at some of the more or less accepted truths of the current election cycle.

THE STIMULUS FAILED
Consider cash for clunkers, and the first time home buyers credit. These programs worked so well that when they ended everyone could see the difference in a reduction in sales of cars and homes. The only real question was whether these programs should have been extended. Also, one of the biggest problems has been the serious difficulties that states were having balancing their budgets. The stimulus saved the jobs of thousands of state employees and helped states survive the fiscal crisis. We saw so many politicians publicly attack the money sent to their states but then privately make use of every federal dollar they could get their hands on.

GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER CREATED A JOB
Consider policemen, firemen, teachers, and the military just to start. Think about how many people you know who receive government payroll checks. Consider that government is one of the largest if not the largest employer in the country. Its hard to even understand what that statement is supposed to mean, yet you hear it from Wall Street folks constantly.

THE DEFICIT MUST BE TACKLED IMMEDIATELY
Roosevelt listened to the deficit hawks and watched as the country began to fall back into depresion early in his second term. Are the deficit cutters seeking that kind of result today? Have we learned nothing from history? The deficit is a serious concern but it can be tackled once the economy is on more sure footing. Who better to tackle the deficit at that time than Democrats? Historically it is Republicans who have increased the deficit and Democrats who have cut it. Remember the one trillion dollar surplus not that long ago under President Bill Clinton? Have we forgotten what happened to that surplus and who was in power at the time?

THE HEALTH CARE BILL THAT PASSED IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND IS ALSO SOCIALIST
The health care bill that passed is almost the same as that proposed by Republicans when the health care bill failed in the early 90's. The bill is filled with Republican ideas and it includes no government run health plans - the public option was not passed. All health plans in the health care reform bill are run by private insurance companies, not the government

THE HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL HARM MEDICARE
First of all we need to remind everyone who loves their medicare that medicare, unlike the new health care reform program, is a government run program. Yet, no one I know is calling the Medicare program a dangerous socialist program that needs to be dismantled. Also, the health reform bill actually extends the solvency of the medicare prgram for several years. No medicare recipient will lose benefits because of the new health care reform package.

ALL POLITICIANS ARE THE SAME - CORRUPT, NOT TRUTHFUL, ETC.
While this is not necessarily a right wing notion it is one that pervades the average American's view of politics. In the 50's and early 60's we had much more positive feelings toward government and politicians. Many events have conspired over the intervening years to severely weaken our faith in government. We are not naive nor should we be. Yet we still need good people in politics, and we need to work harder at distinguishing the demagogue and charlatan from someone who is actually trying to make things better for all of us. Politicians are not perfect people any more than the rest of us, and often devolve into unhelpful partisan rhetoric and actions. Yet, good politicians care most about their country. They will come together for the common good rather than try to gain partisan advantage even when it may cause harm to the country. We see this happen when politicians come together as they did a number of years ago to solve the social security crisis. We saw it when President George H. W. Bush raised taxes when it was necessary even though it cost him at the polls. We saw it when George W. Bush with treasury secretary Henry Paulson did what was necessary to keep the economy from complete collapse, even though the demagogues raised their voices against it.

We need to look for true leaders today. We need leaders who are willing to reach across the aisles to get things done. We have many challenges in our country that require that everyone work together for the common good. Instead we find hostility and divisiveness, and politicians who encourage that troublesome climate. Come November, those who only want to rail against government should not get our vote. It is easy to tell us what is wrong in our country today, but we need to search for candidates who approach issues seriously. We need people who are not interested in sound bites or jumping on a bandwagon. We need folks who have thoughtful solutions to contemporary issues and are not driven by ideology or the flavor of the month. We can do better. We must.

The Blessings of Benedict XVI

The Holy Spirit in its wisdom has given us the reign of Benedict XVI to guide us through this difficult period in the Church's history. As usual, the Holy Spirit has demonstrated great wisdom, and the reign of Benedict XVI has brought many blessings for the future direction of the Church. Let me count some of the ways.

The previous Pope, John Paul II was by all accounts a rock star. His bigger than life image was known around the world and he was loved by many. Although he steered the Church in an unfortunate conservative direction, he had a commanding presence and no one doubted that he was in charge. It was almost as if the position of Pope had been created just for him.

No one, conservative or liberal would ever confuse Benedict XVI with a rock star. He has stumbled almost from the beginning. He initially described himself as a humble servant which is an appropriate role for a Pope. Yet he immediately began speaking harshly about the dangers of outdated issues such as modernism and relativism. In the beginning he appeared to reach out to both conservative and liberal wings of the Church, yet it seemed to be only conservatives who saw things move in their direction, though perhaps not as much as they would have liked.

Then, on his first trip to Germany he appeared completely befuddled when his academic treatise on Islam caused a huge stir. He seemed unable to comprehend how his words would stir up such a firestorm of criticism. A pattern quickly began to emerge which highlighted a certain ambivalence in his actions, and frankly, he showed himself to be a very human Pope. An early example was when he suggested to the bishops that maybe something should be done about making it possible for divorced Catholics to be more fully reconciled to the Church - maybe even considering the possibility of allowing them to return to the sacraments. When the conservative heirarchy created by the appointments of John Paul II showed no apparent interest in easing such restrictions he backed off. This new Pope was clearly not the same leader that was John Paul II.

He has continued to manifest a sense of contradiction in many of his actions. One of his more interesting moves has been his outreach to Anglicans to allow disaffected Anglicans to enter the Church as a separate ordinariate. On the one hand this manifests an exrtraordinaty step backward in ecumenism and public relations. It shows a continuing lack of sensitivity to pretty much everyone outside his small band of followers within the Church. Yet at the same time the ordinariate would provide this unique group of Anglicans with a trememndous amount of autonomy to operate according to their traditions within Roman Catholicism. Such a move, therefore, demonstrates that there is nothing sacred about the liturgy as it is currently celebrated. There is room for significant diversity. It also demonstrates that even celibacy can be optional under the right circumstances, opening the way for changes in that area.

The reintroduction of the old Latin or Tridentine Mass is also an example of the reality that different forms of worship can exist side by side. I have attended two Tridentine Requiem Masses for family friends recently, and it shows that it is not likely to replace the normal rite of today for the majority of folks. Many fairly conservative Catholics indicated to me that they would not want to go back to a service that cuts the people out of participation. But once again it shows that the two rites can coexist for those who prefer the traditional Mass - which is a good thing. It also illustrates that newer and more progressive rites are also possible since there can now be more than one way of worshipping within Roman Catholicism.

Primarily Benedict XVI has demonstrated all to well the humanness and fallibility of the papacy even if that may not have been his intent. He has fumbled as a leader in dealing with the sex abuse crisis in Ireland. Details now surfacing about what happened in Germany and Wisconsin show that even his own hands have not been completely clean. He serves as an enormously effective argument for moving away from a triumphalist, monarchical, authoritarian papacy. He and the current conservative heirarchy have highlighted how badly the Church's abuse of authority has eroded its ability to lead. Just recently he decided to refuse to accept the resignations of three Irish bishops following their part in the sexual abuse debacle in Ireland. He thereby confirmed,if there were any doubt remaining that it is business as usual at the Vatican and in the heirarchy over all. They will control the agenda and will remain non responsive to criticism from any quarter. They will continue to brook no dissent. The 'good old boys network' wiil prevail.

Some will point out that an infallible papacy does not preclude the kinds of weaknesses and failings highlighted here. Point well taken, but the point here is that too often the Church has operated as if it were above the law and can either not make a mistake or should never be brought to task if perchance it does make a mistake. That is why Benedict XVI serves as an important reminder of the qualilties that are desperately needed to build a better Church for the future. Those qualities must include genuine humility, a willingness to utilize all church resources from the lowliest parishoner to the the Chair of Peter itself, collegial exercise of authority, and a sincere ability to listen not only to Catholics but to all those of good will from other faiths and from no faith.

What kind of successor to Benedict XVI can we expect. I don't think it matters too much whether he be liberal or conservative. If he is bright, sensitive and able to understand the dynamics within the church he will find ways to move the church into the future. First on the agenda will be a change in the way the Church exercises authority. Lay persons will need to be consulted in all matters of importance. Bishops and pastors will not be appointed without meaningful input from the people involved. Transparency and accountability will be the order of the day. The ability to honestly admit mistakes and take meaningful steps to correct them utilizing all available resources will be critical. Admitting mistakes as they occur and not bringing up old mistakes from 400 years ago is what will be needed. The role of womern in the church needs to be dramatically enhanced, especially since they have been the glue that has held this Church together for so many centuries.

Thank you Benedict XVI for heading us in the right direction. Your obvious humanity has enabled you to be a blessing for all of us regardless of your intent.

In Media Stat Virtus

Aristotle for the most part was right. Virtue, truth, wisdom, does indeed generally occupy the middle ground. Government, especially a democratic government, is one area where this can be seen. Add to that the polarization this country continues to exhibit and moderation becomes even more critical if the business of this country is to move forward. The truth is that given our widely disparate philosophies and political viewpoints the possibility of forming consensus will necessitate compromise. I believe our current president exemplifies that middle position. Let's look at some important examples.

The debate that was part of the recent General Petraeus hearings is a case in point. Democrats by and large do not support the president's policy. They believe the war is a bad idea and it is time to bring the troops home. Republicans believe the troops should remain until the job is done and if more are necessary they should be sent. The deadline to begin withdrawal gives aid and comfort to the enemy. On the one hand the government should just say Afghanistan is too difficult and go home. On the other hand, whatever resources are needed should be applied to win the war. These seemingly irreconcilable positions need to be forged into a coherent policy.

I believe the president has done that. Do I agree with every facet of it. No. Yet, he has shown a steady hand and proved he was in charge by his decision to fire General McCrystal. He has made clear that we will not stay in Afghanistan forever. A year from now we need to begin a transition. We need to stand up the Afghans. But notice he does not say we are leaving. We will honor our commitment, but maybe not with combat troops into the forseeable future. Will it work? Is it possible it will have to be retooled at some point? We will have to see. But to the Democrats he is saying definitively this is not forever, and to the Republicans he is saying we are committed to the surge and he has sent additional troops and given the generals pretty much free rein in the conduct of the war. He is standing in the middle. Nobody likes the position. It is not popular. But I would contend it is precisely the right position for a serious, determined president to take.

How about another example - health care reform. Republicans of course said no. Liberals were unhappy that the president didn't push for a public option or even a single payer system. Some even threatened to vote no because the reform package wasn't forward looking enough. Yet, once again, the goal was to accomplish something worthwhile, even if it might not be perfect. Those standing on principle would insure that nothing gets done. The middle is where something can and must be accomplished.

Financial reform is perhaps an even better example. It is an area where both parties actually want to be able to say they voted for some kind of reform package, even though what each side wants may differ in many respects. Democrats and Republicans were actually able to come together and craft a bill in this area, because they were willing to compromise. Republicans accepted a few things they didn't like, and Democrats gave up some things they really wanted. There is no other way to move forward.

The solution on other issues whether it be immigration reform, middle east peace, energy reform legislation, or many other issues can only be achieved through compromise. Yet, it is at the extremes where Americans seem to have settled. Cable television is one force that pushes us there. It is by exaggerating differences that news channels generate viewers. A look at the congress shows that there are almost no senators or congressman left who can be called moderate. Even the scriptures somehow seem to suggest that the Daniel Webster way is not acceptable. Jesus in very harsh language says that I wish you were either hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm I would vomit you out of my mouth. That's enough to make a moderate run and hide.

A word or two about the scripture quote seems necessary. Jesus was not talking about extreme views, be they political, economic, or even religious. He was talking about passion, intensity of feeling, determination. Although we seem to have forgotten this point, moderates can be passionate too. In fact I believe the passion and dedication of the moderate and the compromiser may be of a higher quality. Their passion is directed at getting things done, making things happen, moving the ball forward. Often at the extremes passion is directed at preventing the other guy from getting something done. It cultivates gridlock.

Hopefully we can agree that we've had enough of doing nothing. It is time to return to moderation in our politics. It is time to make progress in this country again, even if it be slow and plodding. Those who filibuster, stand in the way of the extension of unemployment benefits, etc. may not be so passionate. Maybe they are just afraid of change. The challenges of this generation are too great to stand still. Much needs to be done. Americans have always found a way to do what needs to be done. There has never been a more important time for us to put aside differences and angry rhetoric and find solutions to the many seemingly intractable problems on our plate. The goal should be not to win, or destroy the other guy, but to build a better future for all Americans.

Why Are Republicans So Mean?

Why are Republicans, especially right wing Republicans so mean? I am of course using the word 'mean' in its most technical sense, that is, 'not nice'. Let me start this discussion with my old friend Barry Goldwater, since he can be credited with initiating the current conservative movement in America. Whether he actually said it or not I'm not sure, but he certainly was considered to belong to the crowd who believed that 'The poor have a helluva nerve being poor'. That's a pretty mean statement but of course as a fan of Goldwater I never really believed he meant it the way it sounded. I certainly didn't consider myself mean, so I'm sure today's Republicans may consider themselves righteous, correct, just, patriots, or many other things, but definitely not mean.

Yet let's look at some of the basic positions being espoused by Republicans today. Let the banks fail - no bailouts. Let the auto companies fail. Send all illegal immigrants home. Stop awarding citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born here, even though that would be unconstitutional. The twenty billion dollar fund provided by BP is a shake down that we should apologize for. Don't provide extended unemployment benefits to out of work Americans. Don't regulate coal companies, oil companies, corporations or banks. Discontinue extended Cobra health benefit subsidies. Most of all, lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The list could easily go on and on.

Of course there are many legitimate arguments for these positions that don't involve being mean. The free market system will fix everything. Interference, especially by the government will distort the realities of what is going on and make things worse rather than better. If you want to help the 'small people', as BP does, you need to focus on advancing the interests of big business so benefits will at some point trickle down to these small people.

These arguments, however, tend to promote a culture of corporate welfare. We need to provide businesses with subsidies, tax breaks, free reign to operate in the market place, but we have no money to try to make things better for those in need. The deficit is a problem if we want to provide health care, unemployment benefits, or job training. Yet the deficit is not a concern if we need billions to fight wars overseas or to provide subsidies to small businesses. We want to tighten our belts because of the deficit, but if we need tanks and missiles somehow the money is there. The answer to every policy question is to reduce taxes and then reduce them again. It doesn't matter how many or what kind of services need to be cut as long as they don't include weapons for war or support for wall street. Recent data indicate that as many as 115 million widows in the United States are currently living in poverty, but this is not an issue that would create a blip on the radar screens of Republicans.

The question goes deeper than just a difference of opinion about ideology or philosophy. It too often reflects self interest. I have health care so I have no interest in making sure that others have it. I have a job so others must not want to work or they would have jobs too. I'll be fine in retirement without social security so don't ask me to support it with my money. Also, the idea seems to be that he who has the power makes the rules. I'm a powerful CEO and therefore government needs to do my bidding. Even the Supreme Court sees no problem with giving these powerful giants of finance and industry unfettered power to spend as much as they choose to control and ulimately dictate how government should operate.

Yet many Republicans, especially religious conservatives do tend to have a social consience and can even be quite generous in making contributions to help the poor. Their problem is with government, and they tend to feel that helping those in need is a job for the Churches and individuals. These conservative Republican policies, however, are hurting real people. In one of my recent blogs, "Accountability is Not for the Powerful", it was pointed out that we have the lowest record of distribution of wealth of any western country in the world. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Do these Republicans care about that? Is the goal to create a better world where everyone can earn a decent living for their family, or is it to make life more comfortable for those who already have more than they need?

It is true that government programs don't always accomplish what they are intended to, but maybe that's why we need Republican ideas to make programs better. I believe this president has genuinely been seeking that kind of cooperation. What we need to get away from, however, is Republicans designing programs only designed to help business. We need to agree that a balance is needed. Of course we need to support the success of business because the success of business is necessary if the 'small' people are to succeed. This was the real reason for the bailout of the banks. But we also need to design programs that will not make life harder for the people on Main Street but will instead actually assist them in being more successful too.

So Republicans, if you are not really 'mean', and do care about what happens to all our citizens, let's work together to craft policies that will further the interests of big business, but will also ensure that the rest of us get a fair shake as well. We could start by acknowledging the value and necessity of social security and medicare, and further recognize that even if the new health care bill is not all that it should be, reform is needed and working together it can be made better so that all our citizens can have affordable and beneficial health care.

Immigration Revisited

Clearly if there was ever an issue that cried out for more light than heat it is the issue of immigration. I recently heard a comment from someone on the radio that might perhaps shed a little of that light we need. This person pointed out that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are not coming to this country to walk on the beach or live the good life. They are coming to eke out a slightly better living for themselves and their families under very difficult circumstances, but circumstances that are still a little better than what they currently have. This individual, however, went on to say that the solution is to pass legislation that would discourage immigrants from sneaking into the country for this purpose. In other words he advocates tougher and more punitive restrictions such as those that are part of Arizona's new immigration law.

The person mentioned is clearly right in his analysis of what is going on. Immigrants, many desperate to feed their families believe that despite the dangers, the United States offers the promise of a better life. They have no illusions. They know it will be tough, and they know it won't be a land flowing with milk and honey for them. Their desperation however, propels them to try the only solution available. What should we do to 'discourage' their coming as this commentator recommends? Well, maybe North Korea provides an example. Their border is truly closed. Anyone approaching the border will be shot. That's pretty effective discouragement. We have seen what hapens when unsuspecting travelers wander across their border accidentally. They have been quite effective in securing their border.

It's good that we have a dose of reality. Knowing why these people are coming is useful. Assuming we are not interested in the draconian solution I mentioned above, how about another dose of reality? The vast majority of these people who are coming to our country are not bad people. They are not out to do us harm. They are part of the same human family to which we belong. No law can change the fact that they are entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us. And the reality is that they are here. At least 12 million are currently in our country. Again, for the most part they are working hard, and providing services to the rest of us.

As far as being illegal, illegal covers a lot of ground. We break laws every time we drive 50 in a 35 mile per hour zone. Underage drinking is a phenomenon that is rampant on college campuses - and it is illegal. Some of the rhetoric portrays many of these hard working immigrants as hardened criminals, which is not exactly accurate. Those who have come here and are committing criminal or violent acts should of course be prosecuted and returned to their country. But there are also plenty of legal citizens who are committing criminal acts and need to be prosecuted as well. The issuse of illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but all people need to be treated with respect and dignity and not lumped in with terrorists or other dangerous criminals. Whatever our political leanings I doubt that there are many of us who don't find something wrong with the separation of parents and their children because of their immigration status.

One notion that is also mentioned by those opposed to immigration reform is that these new immigrants are not interested in learning English. This notion makes no sense. Of course they want to learn English. How could it be that they don't want to look out for their own interests, be able to understand what's going on, or even be able to order a hamburger at a local restaurant. Those of us who have studied a language other that our own know this is not the easiest thing to do - especially for older people. I think, however, what is galling to some Americans is that these new immigrants may not want to be fully assimilated. They may not want to completly abandon their own culture. As an Italian American I went through the famous melting pot, and I melted. I can't speak Italian, I have no Italian culture to speak of other that eating Pizza and Spaghetti which is part of American culture. That is not a good thing. We should welcome the Hispanic culture and incorporate it into our own. Maybe more of us would actually be able to speak another language. What a great benefit that would be.

We are told that we must secure the border first. Some are disillusioned that when reform was tried many years ago the government failed to secure the border. All the more reason to work together to implement comprehensive reform that will be effective. Hopefully lessons have been learned and pitfalls can be avoided this time around. The missing link remains a willingness to work cooperatively to solve the problem. Too many want to use the problem to attack others, perhaps win elections, and maybe further their dislike of people different from themselves. The loudest voices seem to be winning the argument. They are winning so well that reasonable people, particularly those in the congress are afraid to even approach this hot potato issue.

Yet, these loudest voices are not voices of solution. They are only voices of anger, hatred, frustration, and distrust of any government solution. Some of their feelings may be justified. Their refusal to be willing to craft a compromise is not justified. Their way produces only more opportunity for continued heated rhetoric. It extends the time period for inflamed passions. It happened prior to the last election when they were able to shoot down the comprehensive plan proposed by President Bush and Senator McCain. They won. But we are no closer to a solution. The anger continues. Can that really be the goal? It is time to solve the problem. It is in fact the soluion of comprehensive reform that will help us identify and monitor those who are in our country, and this will provide greater protection for all of us. Let's take away one reason for the anger and destructive rhetoric in our midst. Let's craft comprehensive immigration reform that will work and that will remove one of the sources of disunity in our country. Opponents are correct that the federal government has failed to act. Yet many of these same opponents have worked hard to prevent the federal government from acting. You can't have it both ways. Congress, it's time. Step up to your responsibilities and solve this immigration crisis.

Accountability Is Not For The Powerful

Why is it so difficult to hold anyone accountable these days? Oh, if you or I break the law we will find ourselves being held accountable very quickly. Yet those who are really making the decisions in our world today do not seem to be playing by the same rules as the rest of us. If we have no claim on authority that is either divine, hereditary, or somehow comes with the position one holds we most assuredly will be held accountable. But for the real power brokers all around us, not only are they not being held to account, the notion that they should be held to account is simply not acceptable. Consider some of the examples mentioned below.

Let's start with the Roman Catholic Bishops who have been circling the wagons around Pope Benedict as continuing sex abuse accusations are revealed. Not only is there a lack of accountability, but there appears to be no sense that any accountability is required or even appropriate. Donald Cozzens in a recent National Catholic Reporter article says not to expect accountability from the last feudal system in the West. Accountablility offends the dignity of divinely appointed teachers of the Church. Calls for accountability are seen as attacks on the Church. Also, as princes in a feudal caste system they are answerable only to their sovereign, in this case the Pope. Cozzens further mentions that a well known Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, pointed out many years ago that those who see fit to judge the world and its standards need to be subject to judgement in the same manner. Yet, because of its adherence to an antiquated feudal structure, it will be very difficult for the Church to allow itself to be held accountable.

Corporate bigwigs on Wall Street have never gotten the message. They are worth billions and don't need to answer to anyone. If you saw them as they sat in front of Congressional oversight Committees, their faces were just dripping with arrogance and disdain as they made no attempt to answer any questions or even suggest that they understood why people were angry. These corporations represent the source of tea party anger as well as anger throughout the electorate. They continue their lack of sensitivity by strongly opposing the financial regulation bill. They seem to firmly believe that the government should give them everything they want even though they have failed to be good stewards of the largesse they have received from all of us in the past.

Oil company executives in the Gulf are another group that don't get it. BP CEO Tony Hayward said the size of the oil spill is irrelevent. His style is arrogant and confrontational. He noted that the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean and the spill is tiny in comparison. Apparently BP doesn't need to follow safety regulations. The reports coming out of the Gulf are increasingly disturbing, but it seems to be business as usual for the company. Can people still believe with Calvin Coolidge that what is good for business is good for the country?

The only place I don't see this sense of entitlement is in government. Yet, everyone is angry at government. Is it possible that some of this anger may be misdirected? Of course it is easy to criticize government. They make many mistakes and do many things wrong. Excessive partisanship has made getting things done nearly impossible. There are often unintended consequences even when they try to do something good. But I don't think government comes close to being the problem that the other culprits I've mentioned are.

Let's take a quick look at 'big government' that is so often cited as the problem. I recommend that you read Tom Schaller's article in the Baltimore Sun, dated May 18th and entitled "A Far Cry Indeed from Socialism". Data he points to indicates that of the 31 first world countries, taxes in the United States make up the lowest percentage of GDP. Of these same countries U.S. policies have the least distributive effect on income. Interestingly, those real socialist countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland seem to best espouse American values of hard work, effort and personal ingenuity. It is in the U.S. where who your Dad is counts more than what you personally bring to the table. Of 25 industrialized countries we are actually the least socialist. We have the lowest level of taxation, the lowest degree of distribution of wealth, and the highest level of poverty.

So, I would contend that our government is accountable to us, whereas Wall Street and major corporations are not. In fact our governemnt has the greatest accountability of all - democratic elections. It likely represents our best hope of bringing some accountability to the corporations and Wall Street tycoons who see themselves as above the normal rules of living in an interdependent world. I don't know what hope there is for bringing accountability to the Church, although that is also going to have to come from people in the pews demanding it and even withholding their contributions. As for government it might be helpful to tone down the continuing tirades against it. Destroying government is not the answer. The small government of the Libertarians will not get us where we need to be in the 21st century. The result will only be to give more power to Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, chemical companies and others. That is why these companies spend so much money to prevent serious financial and other kinds of regulations from being enacted. We need to work to make government better so that it can effectively advocate for the little guy instead of the giants of corporate America.

Immigration Reform, Now

The new Arizona law on immigration can be seen as a reaction to legitimate concerns arising out of violence and potential violence at the border. At the same time it can also provide the impetus needed for the country to move to meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. Hopefully, it will indeed serve as an opportunity to address an issue that we have failed to address for far too long. We know that the drug cartels have created a dangerous situation in the area, including the shooting of Americans for no apparent reason. Fear and violence is the order of the day. The border needs to be protected.

Yet, to most students or even casual observers of the constitution this new law seems draconian, an over reaction, and quite frankly unamerican. The situation has served to energize people to move at times in opposite directions. On the one hand, It seems that we are ready to have the authorities stop us with the notorious demand, 'papers, please'. In fact, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor the Arizona law which at the same time has sparked outrage, demonstrations, talks of boycotts, and even a response from the Phoenix Suns and the National Basketball Association. Once again it seems that the country is split down the middle in what ought to be the appropriate response to this new immigration crisis.

Many are already making vociferous protest. San Francisco has officially decided that no city officials will do business in Arizona. Many others have adjusted travel plans to avoid the state. Is econmoic boycott the answer? It seemed to work when the state refused to adopt Martin Luther King day as a holiday in the state. Even cities in Arizona are boycotting the law, so there is clearly no unanimity even within the state of Arizona. We have seen thousands upon thousands of Latinos and others take to the streets in protest. The Catholic Church has been unyielding in its opposition.

Legal avenues for attacking the constitutionality of this law are also being explored. Some lawsuits have already been filed and the justice department is looking into appropriate federal action. For one thing immigration appears to clearly be a federal issue and not one to be delegated to the states. One possible avenue would be for the government to file a friend of the court brief together with an already proceeding lawsuit. These avenues will play out over time, but the continued and ever growing polarization on this issue demands action now.

It's not as if this is a new issue. The problem has been festering for decades. The last real attempt under President Bush and with the strong backing of Senator John McCain, failed because of overheated rhetoric and commentators like Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is gone but the rhetoric is heating up again. How do we have a reasonable conversation about immigration? Do people want to solve the problem or do they want to use the issue to play partisan politics? How do we get away from the rhetoric and get something done? If the bill is brought up will we be faced with the outcries we had when Geoge Bush and John McCain tried to pass a bill? Or is it possible that we actually have a window of opportunity where something positive could happen?

Is it possible that despite the cacaphony of voices, we may not be as far apart on the goal as it may seem. We actually have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The bill that Senators Leiberman, Kerry, and Graham have been working on pretty much contains all the elements needed to resolve this issue once and for all. These elements include securing the borders, some kind of card that could be used to gain employment, a guest worker program, and a reasonable path to citizenship. The problem is we can't get the job done. Too many other issues need attention, such as financial reform and the energy bill. Besides, the fall elections are coming up and no one wants to address the issue now. It is politically a bad idea for both democrats and republicans. Should that really matter? The Arizona law and its fallout reflect the need. Something must be done. Isn't that why we send our representatives to congress? Courage and leadership are the only ingredients that are lacking at this time. Where will they come from?

I believe in compromise, but I also believe in results. If you are doing your job and lose it as a result of your efforts, so be it. The problem has existed long enough and it has now come to a head. I expect my representatives to go to work and resolve the problem before we have more laws like the one in Arizona, more demonstrations, riots, increased polarization, and violence. Now is the time. We have waited too long. America is waiting. The time to act is now. The American people hired this congress to solve problems. This one needs solving, and it needs solving now.

'Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice'

During the time when I was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, his remarks at the Republican National Convention in 1964 made sense to me. I actually still find them somewhat appealing, but it is all in the interpretation. If it means that liberty is so precious that one should be passionate in its defense and strive to protect it in every way appropriate, it makes sense. I'm pretty sure however, that what we are seeing from the far right as well as the far left is not what the good senator had in mind.

There is also the issue of how the current political climate compares to periods in our past. When this question comes up we often hear from historians about attacks on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and are told that the level of hostility may be considerably less than in earlier days. While this conversation may be historically interesting, it is of little value in the present context. I think it more important that we look at what is happening today and address the issues that we are facing right now.

First. Why are people so angry? We know that political polarization is not new, but it is festering at the moment, and often in an alarming manner. The recession and unemployment are legitimately driving discontent with conditions in the country. Fear of too much spending is also a big part of the equation, although it didn't seem to be as big a concern during the previous administration. Actually, by any reasonable analysis, the recession would be far worse if we had not spent large sums of money to ameliorate it. It has always been a principle of business that you have to spend money to make money. I'm not an economist, but the notion of tightening one's belt in the face of financial collapse seems to have been a major failure of the great depression. The point, however, is that this is a legitimate issue, but is it worthy of the intense anger and potential violence it has at times created?

Democracy thrives on lively debate, and differences of opinion. What we are seeing, however, goes far beyond healthy discourse. Threats against members of congress, and even acts of violence are not part of the democracy we pride ourselves on in this country. Talk of secession, taking up arms, and building militias to attack the federal government can only be characterized as extreme. Many of these people consider themselves patriots, yet what is patriotic about trashing your government? What ever happened to working within the system for meaningful change?

No doubt the group I am talking about represents a small fraction of Americans. It is also true that there has always been a fringe group of folks who represent and advocate extreme positions. What I find troubling now, is that these extreme positions are finding their way into the main stream of political discourse and action. This is not by accident, either.

It is a truism that bad things happen when good men (women) do nothing. What we are seeing today includes silence against these festering dangers, and even intentional or unintentional encouragement of some of the worst traits within us. There is a media bias, and well known commentators are encouraging and supporting some of the more extreme positions that are out there. Even worse is responsible officials and politicians are not making clear their opposition to such violence and extreme views. How many politicians challenged their constituents during town meetings and other venues telling them that some of their positions were not accurate? I can only think of two examples. One was in the campaign when John McCain told one of his supporters that Barack Obama was indeed an American, and recently when Senator Tom Coburn told a supporter that her information about health care reform was incorrect and even that Fox news was not always a reliable presenter of facts. So much more of this kind of statesmanship is needed. There are levels of discourse that should be challenged, and we need more responsible officials to make that clear.

The misinformation that is out there obfuscates legitimate concerns. There is also a legitimate concern that racist remarks, spitting, threats and acts of violence could escalate even more, since they are not being stongly repudiated. There is real danger, that a terrible tragedy might ensue, sooner rather that later. The Oklahoma bombing grew out of such misplaced anger. We don't want to see that happen again.

What can be done? As I mentioned, we have seen hints of what can happen, but these efforts need to be coordinated. The messages of people like Tom Coburn and John McCain need to be coordinated and sustained. Finally, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. How powerful it would be if Democratic and Republican leaders came before the media together and stated unequivocally, that such behavior cannot be tolerated. That there is no acceptance on either side, of the extreme positions that use falsehoods and calls to unacceptable behavior to pursue their causes. There are enough legitimate different positions on policy matters to argue about without resorting to falsehoods, threats and violence. Can we make common cause on this matter? Although,it seems unlikely given the current political climate, I believe we can. We are all Americans. We believe, not just in Virginia or Texas, but in the United States of America. We believe in our way of government. Let's send the 'crazies' back to the fringes where they belong.

Vatican Stonewalling

Recently, the news has been full of two embarrassing situations for the Vatican. First was the Irish sex abuse scandal and the failure of the Bishops to protect children. Then there was the news of a sex abuse crisis in Germany, and specifically in the diocese formerly headed by the current Pope, Benedict XVI.

What has been the Vatican reaction to these news stories? Have they come forward and admitted mistakes? Well, maybe. A few Bishops have even resigned. Several bishops have expressed regret. So the Church is moving in the right direction? Well, not exactly. Basically, we are continuing to see business as usual and even worse. The regrets we are hearing from bishops turn out to be merely a vehicle for expressing solidarity with the Pope and attacking those who would voice even indirect criticism of the Pope's actions prior to his becoming Pope.

I guess it is a nice sentiment to rally behind your leader, yet there are some real concerns. First, where is the concern for the victims - the young people whose trust has been betrayed, and the families who have suffered. There can be no doubt that protecting the church and its secrets has been far more important than protecting young people who have been entrusted to the care of the clergy.

The strategy is to blame the messenger. It is the fault of the New York Times, the media, and even petty gossip. Can the Vatican really be resorting to this type of defense? And of course, there is also the fact that The Pope is being persecuted just like the Jews have been persecuted in the past. Any criticism of the Vatican is not only unfair, but a shameful attack that must be condemned. This is a conspiracy by anti-Catholics to discredit the Pope.

Can the Vatican be so naive as to think nobody will notice their refusal to face facts, or do they just not care? Do they really believe they can ignore the facts and carry on with business as usual? And, could they in fact be right? Let's examine the situation. Nobody can doubt that the Church as an institution did everything they could to keep the sex abuse crisis quiet. They paid the victims. They threatened the victims with ecclesiatical punsishments if they spoke up. Bottom line - they acted like any large corporation. Though indefensible, it is at least at some level understandable. Tobacco companies were not going to admit they knew their product was dangerous. Restaurants are not going to tell people not to eat menu items that might be bad for their health.

So, the Church operated like any other large institution. One would have hoped for something better from the Church, but the fact is they chose and have chosen for generations to protect themselves. As Bishop and Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger was part of that church and part of that deception. No one can doubt that is true. Let's give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt and assume that as Pope he has not been part of the business as usual operation on this issue. All the more reason not to strain credulity by denying any knowledge or complicitness in earlier years of striving to keep this scandal out of the press, and even reassigning abusive priests to pastoral work.

Is there a way to restore credibility? I believe there is. What should the Vatican do at this point? How about a little candor? I would recommend that the Pope make a statement that includes something like what follows:

"We grieve individually and collectively as Church for the pain and suffering that has been caused to so many of our young people and their families. Clearly, very bad judgements were made by many in authority that has added to the harm that has been done to members of the body of Christ. I myself have been guilty of poor judgement at times in the past, and regret these lapses with all my being.

What must be done now is to ensure that such harm shall never again come to any of our members. Justice must be meted out to those guilty of doing harm to others. Structures must be put in place to deal with any future cases of abuse. Even more importantly, we must undertake an exhaustive examination of the operation of the church and the priesthood to determine if there are any changes that need to be made to ensure the safety of our young people and to preserve the integrity of the priesthood. Experts in every relevant field will be brought in to explore the structure and culture of the heirarchy. The church at every level and in every country will openly and forthrightly cooperate with all interested parties to address these issues in the most comprehensive manner possible. No facet of the operation of the church will be untouched including celibacy. We owe it to the faithful to study this issue in a transparent and open fashion and make what changes are necessary to hand over the legacy of the church in a healthy and holy fashion to its future members.

We will protect the church and lead it into the future, but not by hiding its secrets and its failings, but by putting the scrutiny of the light of day onto the activities of the church, and assuring future generations of a holier, healthier, and better servant church than we have had in this generation."

I believe such an announcement and appropriate follow through by this Pope would be well received by the faithful and the community at large. I believe it would almost instantly strengthen the credibility of the church and promote a vibrant future, and healthier church for all of us.

The Catholic Bishops and Health Care

Except for the colossal failure in the sex abuse crisis, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have provided many years of reasonable, moderate, and pastoral leadership. However, conservative bishops now appear to be in the ascendancy. It turns out that being a conservative bishop appears to mean a number of things that run counter to core gospel values. Abortion is the only issue that matters. Orthodoxy is a close second, and imperial and even repressive authoritarian rule is the leadership style. All of this points to the Bishops refusal to support health care reform in Congress.

Well, after all, the issue of abortion is paramount, and of course the bishops would support the legislation if only the Congress would adhere to its principled stand in every detail. First of all, legislation doesn't work that way. Legislation moves forward through compromise. But of course monarchical bishops have no concept of what that word means. The notion that a group of Roman Catholic Bishops can and should be determinative on a bill affecting all Americans, a majority of whom are not Catholic is rather ludicrous. Unless of course you are a Catholic Bishop who believes no one other than yourself has any ideas worthy of consideration or respect.

How far have we come from the spirit of Vatican II? Collegiality seems to be a forgotten or at least ignored concept. There seems to be little or no respect for other Christian Churches, religions, or other points of view. Another ignored tenet of Vatican II is the recognition of the primacy of conscience as taught in the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Is not the Church also to be understood as the people of God? We all have the spirit moving in us. Paul tell us that we all have our individual charisms. It wouldn't hurt the bishops to listen to the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God once in a while.

More basic than Vatican II however, is the message of Jesus in the gospel. We are told that we are here to serve, not to trample down the weak. What about the social justice cry of helping the poor? Do we no longer subscribe to the worth value and dignity of every individual? The bishops proclaimed health care a right and not a privlege. Have they forgotten? The opportunity to achieve success in obtaining this right for the people now exists after decades of failure, and the bishops are suddenly willing to stand as a road block and contribute to its ultimate failure. Is this the way our bishops reach out to aid the poor the hungry and those jobless and without health care benefits?

The Bishops have now gone even further. In the nations's capital they have decided to stop providing charitable services through Catholic Charities because of the new same sex marriage law. They have even withdrawn health insurance to all new employees rather than risk being tainted with providing health care insurance to a gay couple. Does a gay couple not need health insurance? Is their right to health care abrogated because of their sexual orientation? Is it permissible to deny them needed services because you disagree with some action they have taken? What game do you play when even those couples who are not gay will be denied help lest some crumbs of service fall into the hands of a gay couple? Bishops may want to reread the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the New Testament.

The Bishops have managed to turn the good news of Jesus upside down. They sit smugly in their palatial domiciles and basque in their certitude, even though we know that our ways are not God's ways. We can never truly be certain of what God expects of us. Yet, if we know anything for certain it is that we are called to serve the least among us. The Bishops have put the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed, side by side with abortion and homosexuality, and they have concluded that people don't matter. Yet when Jesus speaks of what he expects of us at the last judgement we are judged by whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, and ministered to the sick. In fact by ministering to those in need, Jesus tells us we are ministering to Jesus himself. Maybe the Bishops may want to reread a little of Matthew.

What immutable truth are these Church leaders upholding with their bizarre behavior? They are proving that they are in charge. Yet Jesus took a towel and washed the feet of his apostles. This was not meant as a quaint little ceremony to be repeated ritually on Holy Thursday evening. It exemplified a way of life that our leaders were meant to emulate. We are constantly humbled by the example Jesus gave us in the New Testament. How unfortunate it is that I see little to emulate in those who currently seek to be revered as leaders of the Catholic community.

The Health Care Summit: A Win for the Country

Just about every politician who was asked who won the recent health care summit, said that it was a win for the American people. As trite and self serving as that may sound I believe that in this case it may be true. Many pundits are saying that it was a failure or useless because no deal was reached. Yet, this was never a gathering that was expected to reach an agreement. We all knew that Republicans would not join with Democrats regardless of what concessions Democrats might make. Republicans believe their political fortunes are tied to saying no. Democrats, on the other hand, can not give up on health care if anything of their campaign agenda is to be salvaged.

I believe the summit did accomplish a number of things that are indeed good for the country. First of all it was a civil debate and a substantive debate. Keep in mind that this summit has followed months of non civil and non substantive debate. The meeting demonstrated that it is still possible for politicians in this country to speak to each other and act like grownups. Certainly there were a few Democrats and Republicans present who chose to continue the same old tired debate and recriminations, but on this day they were actually in the minority. Voters were able to hear cogent discussions of each side's arguments about health care. For many of us, I believe, it was the first time such meaningful arguments were heard.

What this civil debate demonstrated for those listening is that the extreme positions we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle do not represent with any degree of accuracy what the health care debate is really all about. The tea party and the Republican talking points that speak of death panels and government take overs are empty though perhaps dangerous rhetoric. Moderate and conservative Democrats who allow themselves to be talked in to voting no out of fear of losing their jobs are likely underestimating the American people. The summit will hopefully force responsible politicians to move away from rhetoric about socialism and focus on the legitimate differences that are worthy of their consideration.

The real substantive issues boil down to a surprisingly few but important points. There is of course the question of cost and whether in light of current economic circumstances and budget deficits, the country can afford such an expense. In regard to cost I would make a couple of points. First, there is never a good time to undertake such an expansion of health care. Clearly we have waited for decades and forces continue to be arrayed against its enactment. If health care reform is a good thing, then now is the appropriate time to act. Second, it strikes me that when it comes to money there is never enough money to help poor and middle class Americans. If there is a war to be fought there appear to be unlimited funds. If banks or corporations need to be bailed out the government has ample funds. If ordinary Americans are suffering or in need of help, however, we just can't afford to help them. Finally, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) says that this bill will actually reduce the deficit. It is of course possible that eventually the numbers won't add up, but CBO figures have been the neutral standard for both parties, so you can't accept the figures when they support your position, and ridicule them when they are not to your liking.

The second issue concerns the role of government and its appropriate degree of involvement. If, of course, you believe that government should have no role in health care or any other program to help Americans you will not like this or any health care bill. Yet we ought to at least be clear about what is actually involved here. If you want to talk about a government run health care program you might want to talk about Medicare. It is a government run program, yet, it is difficult to find many Americans who oppose it. Seniors in particular are adamant that their benefits in this program be protected. So apparently some government involvement is a good thing. In the case of so called Obama Care, there is no government run program. In fact the limited public option has been excluded from the bill. Government involvement here refers only to the regulation of private insurance policies. I repeat, we are talking about private insurance companies, not government programs. What is at issue is whether government should demand that insurance companies provide at least a minimum level of benefits to consumers. Government regulators inspect the food we eat, the water we drink etc. Do we want no accountablility of insurance companies? Can we really count on these companies to always protect the public interest with no oversight?

What happens now? Both parties will likely go back to their respective corners and resume the useless bickering. Democrats in the Senate will likely proceed to pass a health care bill through reconciliation. This procedure means that the bill can pass with a simple majority rather than a 60 vote threshhold. Won't that destroy everything that was accomplished through the summit? I don't think so. I think the summit because of its level of serious discussion has cleared the air and made forward movement possible. Some won't like it, but differences were aired and now the majority party and administration has a responsiblility to lead and govern. Just because Republicans have chosen to vote as a bloc to kill all administration legislation does not mean that Congress can shut down and cease operating until the next election.

Whatever the process, efforts at bipartisanship need to continue, but the determination of Republicans not to join should not prevent the administration from acting. Republicans not only had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but also had their serious ideas considered and included in the bill. As President Obama said, the voters elected the president and the congress to govern. Elections will take care of themselves. If the American people don't like what this administration does, they can vote them out. But worse than being voted out would be to do nothing.

Can Congress Legislate?

No! Can anyone govern these United States at this time? No! How did we get into this mess, and how long has it been going on? Can anything be done, and does anyone even care?

Gridlock in Washington is not a new phenomemon, and has in fact even been celebrated at times. There have been times when I have personally been grateful for gridlock when it prevented the other party from passing legislation I found disagreeable. Sometimes it is a positive thing to prevent government from moving too quickly or failing to consider all the possible ramifications of a particular policy. There is a value in having a loyal opposition.

Yet the constitution established our government on the concept of having the majority rule. There is a difference between slowing down legislation to ensure it makes sense, and simply stopping the government in its tracks. Even when Congress and the President actually shut the government down back in the 90's, it continued for only a few days. The government actually did go back to work. We have now turned the country upside down so that 41 Senators constitute a majority, and 59 or 60 Senators have become the minority party. I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Some will say that nothing has changed. It has always been this way. Every party takes advantage of the rules. This is somewhat true, but there are some differences. What has occurred here is a decision by the minority to simply kill every item of a president's agenda, even if they actually think that a particular part of that agenda might be good for the country. The nice thing about the present strategy is that if it is successful and Republicans win back the Congress, you can rest assured that the new Democratic minority (or is it a majority) will use the same tactics to ensure that Republicans will also be unable to govern.

Do we need a new political party? Perhaps. What needs to happen of course, is that both political parties come together and craft legislation that can pass both houses of congress. We have not even touched on the absurd practice of a single Senator placing an indefinite hold on all judicial or agency appointments. Undoubtedly, this is a good way to shut down all phases of government. The only way out of this failure of government is for Senators to choose to make decisions based on what is good for the country, and not what is good for their political interests. Unfortunately, there is little indication that anything like this is about to happen.

Yet it needs to happen. We are playing a game with the future of our country. Energy independence, health care, climate change, immigration reform, financial regulation, and how we respond to these challenges will determine the future of our country. The current plan for responding to these challenges appears to be to do nothing. That is not good enough. Our country will suffer from a failure to move forward in these critical areas. We will be unable to compete with countries like China and India on alternative energy technologies and other important innovative practices. We will fall behind. We will fall behind because we have created a legislative structure that is making it impossible to govern.

Are we going to allow this impasse to continue? Will winning political points remain more important than the general welfare of our country? Where will the leadership and courage come from to move us out of this predicament and bring some sanity back to government? Bi-partisan coalitions need to emerge to pass meaningful legislation. Arcane Senate rules need to be updated to facilitate movement in COngress. America is waiting.

Searching For The Truth

There was a time when most of us accepted simple facts as true without much question. If Walter Cronkite said there was an oil spill off the coast of San Diego for example, we felt confident in saying there was an oil spill off the coast of San Diego. If our teacher told us that Lansing was the capitol of Michigan we did not question it. I believe such acceptance of what we read or are told began to change with the Kennedy assasination. It was at this time that there appeared to be the beginning of ongoing conspiracy theories, including such questions as to whether men actually walked on the moon. We still accept many things as true, but often it's because these potential truths conform to our particular point of view rather than because they are backed up by any observable facts.

Take the Fox News Network if I may. On a recent news show, not a commentary or opinion show, the lead broadcaster began her news story by saying something like: After one year in office the Obama Administration continues to blame President Bush for leaving him a mess, particularly on the economy. The newscaster went on to talk about how every time there is a question about problems with the economy the Obama administration wants to blame George Bush instead of accepting responsibility for the problems we face. I repeat, this was a news show. However, this represents not an informational newscast, but an agenda driven program. First, the news anchor makes clear that it is not appropriate to blame George Bush for anything that is wrong today. That of course is an opinion, not a fact. Further, it is made clear that it is not appropriate to discuss anything that happened before Obama became President. How does one fix a problem if one can not explore where it came from? But Fox News makes it clear that nothing that happened before January 2009 can be discussed unless you want Fox News to label you as a whiner, complainer, and unwilling to accept responsibility for your own failures. Of course if you agree with this point of view, you may see this as a fair and balanced newscast, which is precisely why it is not. The news media has a responsiblility to report the news, not present a point of view carefully calculated to obtain your agreement.

One result of such a slanted news media is an inability to distinguish fact from opinion. The issue of trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in federal court comes to mind. Again, Fox news over and over questions why Abdulmutallab is not being charged in military court. The impression is given that this can only be because Obama is weak on terrorism. Their reporting makes clear that it is inappropriate to charge this man in federal court, and the fate of our country hangs in the balance if this decision is not changed. Clearly there is a group that believes this man should be tried in a military tribunal. However, when you add Fox news and other right wing media outlets pushing this agenda there is an overwhelming thrust to convince the American people that this position is the only one that makes any sense.

Yet, the facts simply don't support this position. How does one convey how distorted this position is when there is so much noise being made by those who are determined to undo this decision? Consider an article fron the Los Angeles Times of 11/29, 2009 by Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano incidentally has been a legal analyst for the aforementioned Fox News. Napolitano places some inconvenient facts on the table. The Supreme Court has five times challenged the constitutionality of George Bush's military tribunals and Bush lost each time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite for trying a foreigner in a military court of law. The usual method of trying such defendants is and has been in criminal court, and the track record of doing that has been good. Those tried in a criminal court include, Timothy McVeigh, Omar Abdel Rahmin (convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), Zacarias Moussaoui of the 9/11 attack, John Walker Lindh (known as the American Taliban), and Richard Reed (the famous shoe bomber). There was even the case of the Fort Dix six, five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade Ft. Dix in New Jersey.

It may be that Abdulmutallab should be tried in a military tribunal. However, one would have to prove that there were very unusal circumstances in order to propose such a transfer. The fact, which continues to be obscured by many media outlets, is that the usual and customary venue for such terrorists is federal court, and the courts have been quite successful in litigating these matters.

It just appears to be very difficult for the truth to be heard. There are those who appear to have no interest in truth or in facts. They have a point of view and they are determined to foist it on the public. They repeat their distortions over and over again believing that eventually every one will assume they are facts even though they aren't. When Rudy Giuliani said there had been no terrorist attack during George Bush's administration, but that there had been in Barack Obama's administration, he knew what he was saying. The fact that he was wrong did not matter, because if enough people continue to say what he said it will become conventional wisdom and will be accepted as fact. Only the mainstream media can challenge people on these kinds of utterances. In fairness to the media they actually did a pretty good job on Giuliani's comments, however, I continue to hear this kind of inaccurate statement being made as fact. It would be interesting to poll and see how many people believe that there was no terror attack during the Bush administration. Again, what does it take to pursue the truth?

Of course, the right wing has no monopoly on distorting the truth, but they do seem to have it down to a science. Unfortunately, the mainstream media still seems content to say that all sides are guilty of playing loose with the facts, suggesting that there is no difference between the two parties. Yet as long as distinctions are not made, Fox News and right wing politicians can repeat their clearly distorted assertions over and over again with impunity. As long as health care reform for example, can continue to be characterized as a government take over, without being challenged by the media, it is difficult for reasonable voices to be heard. An entire network posing as fair and balanced news is not informing the public but promoting an agenda. It is time the mainstream news media makes clear that what Fox News is doing is not normal reporting of the news, and it is not fair and balanced. Fox can operate however it chooses, but people need to be able to see it for what it is - a venue for right wing opposition to the current administration.