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.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Fallout From Massachusettes
Let there be no doubt. The Republican victory in Massachusettes is a real stunner. It is impossible to overstate the enormity of this win. The spin from the left will be that Attorney General Martha Coakley ran a poor campaign, took her victory for granted, and didn't really bother to get out there and talk to the voters. She was ahead by 30 points and only by serious ineptitude did she manage to loose this campaign for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
I believe all these statements are almost certainly true. They do not however, do justice to the seismic event that has occurred. Start with turnout. Democrats worked hard during the last two weeks of the campaign and actually got large numbers of their voters to the polls. Massive turnout of disaffected voters in the suburbs and other locations also occurred. Somebody was angry out there and all of the last minute grass roots efforts by Democrats was not enough to overcome the excitement that had been generated for Scott Brown and the anger that was directed at politicians in Washington.
What is going on? The most significant problem of course is that too many people are still hurting. The existence of 10% unemployment means a lot of people are going to be upset no matter what anybody does. If I have no job, I'm not going to be happy with any activity in Washington until I have a job. Because of the unemployment picture several concerns surface that with lower unemployment would be less likely to create as much anger. People feel the government is spending too much money. They see the spending as creating debt for themselves and their children that is unacceptable. Bailouts are a problem because again, they have not helped the man on the street. Government has helped out banks and the wealthy, but ordinary people are still suffering. Health care has been trashed unfairly by too many politicians, but the arguments have resonance because however good an idea it might be, it is hard to see how it will help people find work. It is another indication that government is spending time on the wrong issues. When the unseemly wheeling and dealing to get health care passed is added to the equation, anger grows and government is blamed.
I disagree with the interpretation of just about every issue cited in the previous paragraph. I believe Republicans have distorted realities and stirred up poeple to come to conclusions which I don't believe are supported by the actual facts. Yet, the fact that I feel that way means nothing. I believe the previous paragraph reflects where a large part of the country is right now. Is it a majority? Not yet. It is more likely closer to the national split we have developed in this country since at least the Clinton presidency. The important point is it would be a terrible mistake for the Democrats to write-off Massachusettes as an unfortunate anomaly and try to move forward with business as usual.
What to do? I continue to believe the biggest failure of the Obama administration has been its inability to talk to the people about his agenda and convey its importance and why it is expected to produce positive results. I believed from the inauguration that Obama needed to begin something like Roosevelt's fireside chats and attempt to explain his plans in ways that really connect with the American people. While his inspirational rhetoric was instrumental in getting him elected, I believe at this point it may well be counterproductive. The fact that it can be dismissed with such disturbing slogans as 'even Hitler gave good speeches' should give one pause. Inspiration is good, but people need to believe that there is a meaningful plan that sounds like it could actually work.
What to do about health care? I continue to believe that despite the fact that the climate out there has changed, it is still imperative to pass a bill and get health care off the stage. In addition to everything I said in an earlier paragraph there is the feeling that government just isn't working. Of course that is because Republicans are being obstructionist, but nobody cares about that. Obama is the president, and he has a Democratic congress. It is his job to get something done. At the moment that something is health care. If some don't like it, and if additional deals need to be struck to pass it, so be it. It will add to the disgruntlement of some. However, it will create an achievement, and a passed health care bill will look a lot better than a failed bill in terms of government working.
Is there life after health care? Financial reform is critical. With the changed climate it would be a good time to bring Republicans and Democrats together to craft a bipartisan bill that can pass. It likely will not be what Democrats would produce on their own, but now is the time to reintroduce the concept of bipartisanship and find at least some Republicans willing to come on board. A lot of issues such as immmigration and energy may have to be scaled back or altered to account for new realities on the ground, but Democrats must show that they understand what people are feeling even if they believe their point of view represents a distortion.
Spending money is probably the clearest example of where the administration needs a new tack. How does one explain convincingly to voters that we share their concern about specnding and have every intention of reducing spending but that what has been spent so far and what may yet need to be spent are critical to the survival of the economy? Maybe better statistics will show the role the stimulus has had in averting a depression. Maybe evidence of how spent dollars have made a difference for individuals and families needs to be highlighted. Maybe also some honest admissions of spending that has gone awry and has been inappropriate may also be helpful. But spending, the economy, and jobs are front ansd center now, and I believe the selling job for what has been done and still needs to be done is as important or more important the any specific programs that may be implemented.
Finally, the left wing of the Democratic party needs to get on board and support this president. They need to recognize that some of their goals, however laudable, are simply not doable in the political climate of today. Masachusettes should teach that if it teaches anything. Those who think the answer is to propose more radical solutions are in league with those Republicans who believe the more conservative they become the more likely they will win. I believe the evidence shows this country can only be governed from the center. The squabble among Demograts has only served to further the confusion among voters as to whether the Obama program can really be positive if so many members of his own party are not supportive. The presidency of Ronald Reagan is a prime example. He did not govern as an all out conservative, especially on social issues. Yet conservatives supported him without question and he was able to implement a great deal of his agenda. Liberal Democrats can do no less for President Obama.
Bottom line - we have an electorate that is not convinced that the current program is the right one for progress in our country today. If Democrats continue to believe that by and large the president has the right formula for success, they need to figure out a better way to convey the importance of that agenda to the American people. Nothing succeeds like success, so progress and passing some of these program elements such as health care will be critically important. Equally important, however, is helping those disaffected voters understand just why this agenda is so vital and needs to be enacted during the next three years.
I believe all these statements are almost certainly true. They do not however, do justice to the seismic event that has occurred. Start with turnout. Democrats worked hard during the last two weeks of the campaign and actually got large numbers of their voters to the polls. Massive turnout of disaffected voters in the suburbs and other locations also occurred. Somebody was angry out there and all of the last minute grass roots efforts by Democrats was not enough to overcome the excitement that had been generated for Scott Brown and the anger that was directed at politicians in Washington.
What is going on? The most significant problem of course is that too many people are still hurting. The existence of 10% unemployment means a lot of people are going to be upset no matter what anybody does. If I have no job, I'm not going to be happy with any activity in Washington until I have a job. Because of the unemployment picture several concerns surface that with lower unemployment would be less likely to create as much anger. People feel the government is spending too much money. They see the spending as creating debt for themselves and their children that is unacceptable. Bailouts are a problem because again, they have not helped the man on the street. Government has helped out banks and the wealthy, but ordinary people are still suffering. Health care has been trashed unfairly by too many politicians, but the arguments have resonance because however good an idea it might be, it is hard to see how it will help people find work. It is another indication that government is spending time on the wrong issues. When the unseemly wheeling and dealing to get health care passed is added to the equation, anger grows and government is blamed.
I disagree with the interpretation of just about every issue cited in the previous paragraph. I believe Republicans have distorted realities and stirred up poeple to come to conclusions which I don't believe are supported by the actual facts. Yet, the fact that I feel that way means nothing. I believe the previous paragraph reflects where a large part of the country is right now. Is it a majority? Not yet. It is more likely closer to the national split we have developed in this country since at least the Clinton presidency. The important point is it would be a terrible mistake for the Democrats to write-off Massachusettes as an unfortunate anomaly and try to move forward with business as usual.
What to do? I continue to believe the biggest failure of the Obama administration has been its inability to talk to the people about his agenda and convey its importance and why it is expected to produce positive results. I believed from the inauguration that Obama needed to begin something like Roosevelt's fireside chats and attempt to explain his plans in ways that really connect with the American people. While his inspirational rhetoric was instrumental in getting him elected, I believe at this point it may well be counterproductive. The fact that it can be dismissed with such disturbing slogans as 'even Hitler gave good speeches' should give one pause. Inspiration is good, but people need to believe that there is a meaningful plan that sounds like it could actually work.
What to do about health care? I continue to believe that despite the fact that the climate out there has changed, it is still imperative to pass a bill and get health care off the stage. In addition to everything I said in an earlier paragraph there is the feeling that government just isn't working. Of course that is because Republicans are being obstructionist, but nobody cares about that. Obama is the president, and he has a Democratic congress. It is his job to get something done. At the moment that something is health care. If some don't like it, and if additional deals need to be struck to pass it, so be it. It will add to the disgruntlement of some. However, it will create an achievement, and a passed health care bill will look a lot better than a failed bill in terms of government working.
Is there life after health care? Financial reform is critical. With the changed climate it would be a good time to bring Republicans and Democrats together to craft a bipartisan bill that can pass. It likely will not be what Democrats would produce on their own, but now is the time to reintroduce the concept of bipartisanship and find at least some Republicans willing to come on board. A lot of issues such as immmigration and energy may have to be scaled back or altered to account for new realities on the ground, but Democrats must show that they understand what people are feeling even if they believe their point of view represents a distortion.
Spending money is probably the clearest example of where the administration needs a new tack. How does one explain convincingly to voters that we share their concern about specnding and have every intention of reducing spending but that what has been spent so far and what may yet need to be spent are critical to the survival of the economy? Maybe better statistics will show the role the stimulus has had in averting a depression. Maybe evidence of how spent dollars have made a difference for individuals and families needs to be highlighted. Maybe also some honest admissions of spending that has gone awry and has been inappropriate may also be helpful. But spending, the economy, and jobs are front ansd center now, and I believe the selling job for what has been done and still needs to be done is as important or more important the any specific programs that may be implemented.
Finally, the left wing of the Democratic party needs to get on board and support this president. They need to recognize that some of their goals, however laudable, are simply not doable in the political climate of today. Masachusettes should teach that if it teaches anything. Those who think the answer is to propose more radical solutions are in league with those Republicans who believe the more conservative they become the more likely they will win. I believe the evidence shows this country can only be governed from the center. The squabble among Demograts has only served to further the confusion among voters as to whether the Obama program can really be positive if so many members of his own party are not supportive. The presidency of Ronald Reagan is a prime example. He did not govern as an all out conservative, especially on social issues. Yet conservatives supported him without question and he was able to implement a great deal of his agenda. Liberal Democrats can do no less for President Obama.
Bottom line - we have an electorate that is not convinced that the current program is the right one for progress in our country today. If Democrats continue to believe that by and large the president has the right formula for success, they need to figure out a better way to convey the importance of that agenda to the American people. Nothing succeeds like success, so progress and passing some of these program elements such as health care will be critically important. Equally important, however, is helping those disaffected voters understand just why this agenda is so vital and needs to be enacted during the next three years.
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Obama Presidency After One Year
Every time President Obama speaks about an issue he plans to tackle, he invariably mentions that it will not be easy to achieve success. Perhaps unwittingly he has accurately described his first year in office. Clearly, nothing has been easy. The question arises as to what if anything has gone wrong, and what hope, if any, there may be for the future.
What is perhaps most striking is the current reaction to issues that Obama ran on that were supported by a significant majority of Americans. It is almost hard to remember that among the more popular issues of the campaign were closing Guantanamo, focusing on the war in Afghanistan, and Health Care. Did Obama botch these once popular issues, have conditions in the country changed, or are there other forces at work that have created so much contention on once popular goals?
That famous vast right wing conspiracy comes to mind. Initially there were a few weeks of comity with this White House. There were bipartisan meetings with the President. There was talk of working together to solve a variety of problems. Then almost on cue there was not a single Republican who could find anything good to say about what the President was trying to do. I must say that it is impossible to believe that every Republican Senator and Congressman believe exactly the same things, yet there was suddenly no deviation from a rigid set of talking points. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen a gathering of two or more people where everyone agreed on anything. Democrats have certainly run the gamut of the political spectrum on their views in this congress thus far. Can Republicans be that uniform or are they the victim of some sort of mind control. Frankly, the one thing that Republicans apparently did agree on is that it was in their political interest to 'just say no', and they have.
The partisanship seemed to start with the venerable Rush Limbaugh insisting that he wanted this president to fail. Which Congressman was it who said if we can defeat the president on health care it will be his Waterloo? The first order of business, the stimulus package, garnered no House Republicans and two Republican senators. One of these senators, Arlen Spector, saw the handwriting on the wall in terms of the intended Republican strategy. He switched parties because he was so uncomfortable with where his party was headed.
Just a word on the stimulus bill. It clearly could have been better. It has not been as effective as it might have been. For example, I think most would agree that more infrastructure spending would have improved the bill. Yet, despite the naysayers, it has also clearly worked. Together with Federal Reserve policies, it has brought us back from the brink of depression, the economy is actually rumbling along pretty well at this point, and there are signs that job creation may not be far behind. Frankly the evidence is that Republicans were just wrong on this issue, but facts don't seem to be their concern.
As for the war in Afghanistan conditions have changed. We are experiencing more casualties and it is now clear that this is going to be a far more difficult endeavor than many originally believed. Interestingly, this is the one area where there is at least some Republican support. The verdict on where this war is going is still a long way from certain. As for health care we have been inflicted with everything from death panels to the oft repeated maxim that the government is engineering a takeover of the health care system. The truth plays little role in the debate. What is most amazing is that while there are legitimate reasons to be critical of this health care bill, the real issues are not what are being discussed. Why worry about facts when misinformation seems to be pretty effective in derailing health care.
Lest this turn into an entirely partisan column a few words need to be said about the administration's failures in this first year. Clearly the administration has lost control of the message. First of all, the president needs more heavy hitters out promoting his positions. At times he has seemed to be the only person defending the work of his administration. He also needs to do a better job of explaining in simple terms why he is doing what he's doing. The president does a great job with the big picture and inspirational language and vision, but in trying to explain to dare I say 'Joe the Plumber' why a particular initiative would be good for him, I don't think the president has been able to make the sell. Nobody was better at explaining complicated issues in a way that made sense to the rest of us than Bill Clinton. Also, while Republican discipline and lock step posturing has in my mind been disturbing at best, Democrats have self destructed by not being able to move forward on any issue. The unseemly horse trading on health care has done nothing to further their aims. Even Bill Clinton produced greater party unity during the first year of his administration. If the Democrats cannot work together to get health care passed at the beginning of this administration maybe they really are not capable of governing.
What will year number two be like? Better. Health care will pass soon. It will be far from perfect, but it will move the ball forward dramatically. The Democratic Congress will finally have a major accomplishment and even those who don't like it will recognize that something significant has occurred. The economy will continue to improve, and the unemployment rate will begin to go down, albeit slowly. People will feel better about where they are going and consumer confidence will improve. The most important factor, results and success, will finally move the president's ratings in a positive direction. The November elections may not benefit from this improvement since the changes may not come soon enough. However, congressional gains by Republicans may be at least minimized, and the changes will give this president a second chance to be a successful president and to earn a second term.
The one caveat is the foreign policy area. Conditions are difficult around the globe right now, and will remain unpredictable well into the future. Republicans are unfairly attacking the president as being weak. The former vice president is shameless in his ongoing critiques. I believe, however, if the president demonstrates a firm hand in dealing with issues as they arise, and shows some results perhaps with North Korea and even Iran some of the criticism will recede and an awareness will grow that one can be firm and unyielding and at the same time be willing to negotiate and explore non military options. No one said it better than John Kennedy, "We shall never negotiate out of fear, but we shall never fear to negotiate."
What is perhaps most striking is the current reaction to issues that Obama ran on that were supported by a significant majority of Americans. It is almost hard to remember that among the more popular issues of the campaign were closing Guantanamo, focusing on the war in Afghanistan, and Health Care. Did Obama botch these once popular issues, have conditions in the country changed, or are there other forces at work that have created so much contention on once popular goals?
That famous vast right wing conspiracy comes to mind. Initially there were a few weeks of comity with this White House. There were bipartisan meetings with the President. There was talk of working together to solve a variety of problems. Then almost on cue there was not a single Republican who could find anything good to say about what the President was trying to do. I must say that it is impossible to believe that every Republican Senator and Congressman believe exactly the same things, yet there was suddenly no deviation from a rigid set of talking points. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen a gathering of two or more people where everyone agreed on anything. Democrats have certainly run the gamut of the political spectrum on their views in this congress thus far. Can Republicans be that uniform or are they the victim of some sort of mind control. Frankly, the one thing that Republicans apparently did agree on is that it was in their political interest to 'just say no', and they have.
The partisanship seemed to start with the venerable Rush Limbaugh insisting that he wanted this president to fail. Which Congressman was it who said if we can defeat the president on health care it will be his Waterloo? The first order of business, the stimulus package, garnered no House Republicans and two Republican senators. One of these senators, Arlen Spector, saw the handwriting on the wall in terms of the intended Republican strategy. He switched parties because he was so uncomfortable with where his party was headed.
Just a word on the stimulus bill. It clearly could have been better. It has not been as effective as it might have been. For example, I think most would agree that more infrastructure spending would have improved the bill. Yet, despite the naysayers, it has also clearly worked. Together with Federal Reserve policies, it has brought us back from the brink of depression, the economy is actually rumbling along pretty well at this point, and there are signs that job creation may not be far behind. Frankly the evidence is that Republicans were just wrong on this issue, but facts don't seem to be their concern.
As for the war in Afghanistan conditions have changed. We are experiencing more casualties and it is now clear that this is going to be a far more difficult endeavor than many originally believed. Interestingly, this is the one area where there is at least some Republican support. The verdict on where this war is going is still a long way from certain. As for health care we have been inflicted with everything from death panels to the oft repeated maxim that the government is engineering a takeover of the health care system. The truth plays little role in the debate. What is most amazing is that while there are legitimate reasons to be critical of this health care bill, the real issues are not what are being discussed. Why worry about facts when misinformation seems to be pretty effective in derailing health care.
Lest this turn into an entirely partisan column a few words need to be said about the administration's failures in this first year. Clearly the administration has lost control of the message. First of all, the president needs more heavy hitters out promoting his positions. At times he has seemed to be the only person defending the work of his administration. He also needs to do a better job of explaining in simple terms why he is doing what he's doing. The president does a great job with the big picture and inspirational language and vision, but in trying to explain to dare I say 'Joe the Plumber' why a particular initiative would be good for him, I don't think the president has been able to make the sell. Nobody was better at explaining complicated issues in a way that made sense to the rest of us than Bill Clinton. Also, while Republican discipline and lock step posturing has in my mind been disturbing at best, Democrats have self destructed by not being able to move forward on any issue. The unseemly horse trading on health care has done nothing to further their aims. Even Bill Clinton produced greater party unity during the first year of his administration. If the Democrats cannot work together to get health care passed at the beginning of this administration maybe they really are not capable of governing.
What will year number two be like? Better. Health care will pass soon. It will be far from perfect, but it will move the ball forward dramatically. The Democratic Congress will finally have a major accomplishment and even those who don't like it will recognize that something significant has occurred. The economy will continue to improve, and the unemployment rate will begin to go down, albeit slowly. People will feel better about where they are going and consumer confidence will improve. The most important factor, results and success, will finally move the president's ratings in a positive direction. The November elections may not benefit from this improvement since the changes may not come soon enough. However, congressional gains by Republicans may be at least minimized, and the changes will give this president a second chance to be a successful president and to earn a second term.
The one caveat is the foreign policy area. Conditions are difficult around the globe right now, and will remain unpredictable well into the future. Republicans are unfairly attacking the president as being weak. The former vice president is shameless in his ongoing critiques. I believe, however, if the president demonstrates a firm hand in dealing with issues as they arise, and shows some results perhaps with North Korea and even Iran some of the criticism will recede and an awareness will grow that one can be firm and unyielding and at the same time be willing to negotiate and explore non military options. No one said it better than John Kennedy, "We shall never negotiate out of fear, but we shall never fear to negotiate."
Friday, December 18, 2009
Abortion Politics (4th in a series of Church related articles)
I did not intend to write another article on abortion. It is so difficult to write about this topic since no one wants to talk about abortion. Most people interested in this subject simply want and expect everyone to act and think the way they do. I have had many Catholic progressives tell me that I can talk about almost anything, as long as I don't even get close to the topic of abortion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that abortion turns out to be the whole ball of wax. If there can be no discussion on this topic, then we have already ceded the operation of the Church to the more and more conservative American heirarchy. We are saying that they can call the shots. We are deferring to their authority which was in fact the subject of my last blog entry.
I am also forced to broach this topic at this time because of the Bishop's current involvement in the struggle over health care. I have heard many progressives agonize over the involvement of the bishops. These honest souls wonder if they are being hypocritical by wanting the Church involved in social justice issues and issues of war and peace, but are uncomfortable with church involvement on this issue. Let me explain my position as clearly as I know how to both progressives and the conservative bishops.
Catholic theology has always been known for its ability to make distinctions. Scholastic philosophy as espoused by Thomas Aquinas carefully makes important distinctions in its understanding of moral and dogmatic issues. Our Bishops are ignoring that heritage and plowing ahead, obfuscating issues as it suits their purpose. Perhaps they are just plain ignorant of Catholic theology, or perhaps they are just determined to have their way even if it represents faulty thinking. They are advocating for their position, but they are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Let's explore the distinction between doctrine and politics or legislation.
Current Catholic teaching on abortion is quite clear and has not changed during my lifetime. Some like to point out that church teaching on abortion has not always been what it is now. That is interesting, but I don't think it is that relevant to the situation today. The Church clearly teaches that abortion is always wrong, even to save the life of the mother. That's pretty unequivocal and leaves essentially no wiggle room.
The politics and the legislative issues involved in the abortion debate, however, are another matter altogether. Let's just start with the obvious. No bill that I know of that is part of the bishop's political agenda bans abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger. Just on that one point we see that there is wiggle room in the legislative area. If that is so, can one say for example, that if you believe that legislation should also have an exception for the health of the mother, that you can be denied communion? The Bishops are treading on very thin ground when the issue is politics and legislation. While the Church can state what it believes about faith and moral issues and expect assent, it is another matter to say what legislation in these areas should look like. That is and should be the role of politicians and the consensus of the community.
Yet, it is precisely the legislative arena where the battle of abortion is being fought. The current amendment the American Bishops are demanding be included in the health care bill includes exceptions for rape and incest as well as to save the life of the mother. That does not represent Catholic moral teaching that we have just enunciated. Clearly, moral teaching and legislation are two different things. Bishops can insist on moral teaching, they cannot demand adherence to a specific legislative approach.
You might say that the Church and Church leaders have every right to engage in the political arena, and I would basically agree with that position. Those Catholics who recall Church involvement in Civil Rights and other social justice issues are instinctively correct when they are uncomfortable with saying the Church should stay out of politics. The problem, however, is that if you are going to play politics in this country you have to play by certain rules. The Church has every right to lobby for its position as does every other person and group in this country. They must recognize, however, that once they enter that realm they are functioning as any other group. They have a right to be heard, but they have no right to impose their will on the community, or leverage their power to get what they want. Their legislative position represents just one possible approach to dealing with a complex problem. Do they need to be reminded that everyone in this country is not Catholic and does not accept or need to accept whatever position the Church puts forward? To expect every Catholic legislator to adopt the Church's legislative position in every instance negates entirely the role of legislator. People make such decisions for various reasons, and religious beliefs is only one of those reasons.
The notion that Church leaders can blackmail Catholics or Catholic politicians to fall in line with their political agenda bespeaks the old ways of Catholic Europe. In Ireland or Italy or other such countries the Church may have been able to force its will on the politicians, but this is not Europe. Even in Europe their power is waning. No one can prevent a bishop from denying communion to a politician or telling his flock that they will be guilty of serious sin if they support particular legislation. Bishops may be able to do that. But they will also be wrong. Legislation goes through a process of compromise and determining what is possible. It represents the recognition of all points of view within a pluralistic society. Politicians have to develop legislation that meets the needs of all peoples.
Again the Church can push for any legislation it deems appropriate, but politicians, Catholic or not, must exercise their consiences and their political skills to craft legislation for all. No bishop can or should attempt to compell a politician to take the bishop's legislative lead. In doing so the Bishops seek to kill the whole idea of a marketplace of ideas for forging consensus. This is a democracy, so I say to the bishops, back off. Even if you win any temporary victories, over time you will have done harm to yourselves and the Church. You will have further damaged your credibility and lessened any meaningful influence you might have on the community at large.
I am also forced to broach this topic at this time because of the Bishop's current involvement in the struggle over health care. I have heard many progressives agonize over the involvement of the bishops. These honest souls wonder if they are being hypocritical by wanting the Church involved in social justice issues and issues of war and peace, but are uncomfortable with church involvement on this issue. Let me explain my position as clearly as I know how to both progressives and the conservative bishops.
Catholic theology has always been known for its ability to make distinctions. Scholastic philosophy as espoused by Thomas Aquinas carefully makes important distinctions in its understanding of moral and dogmatic issues. Our Bishops are ignoring that heritage and plowing ahead, obfuscating issues as it suits their purpose. Perhaps they are just plain ignorant of Catholic theology, or perhaps they are just determined to have their way even if it represents faulty thinking. They are advocating for their position, but they are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Let's explore the distinction between doctrine and politics or legislation.
Current Catholic teaching on abortion is quite clear and has not changed during my lifetime. Some like to point out that church teaching on abortion has not always been what it is now. That is interesting, but I don't think it is that relevant to the situation today. The Church clearly teaches that abortion is always wrong, even to save the life of the mother. That's pretty unequivocal and leaves essentially no wiggle room.
The politics and the legislative issues involved in the abortion debate, however, are another matter altogether. Let's just start with the obvious. No bill that I know of that is part of the bishop's political agenda bans abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger. Just on that one point we see that there is wiggle room in the legislative area. If that is so, can one say for example, that if you believe that legislation should also have an exception for the health of the mother, that you can be denied communion? The Bishops are treading on very thin ground when the issue is politics and legislation. While the Church can state what it believes about faith and moral issues and expect assent, it is another matter to say what legislation in these areas should look like. That is and should be the role of politicians and the consensus of the community.
Yet, it is precisely the legislative arena where the battle of abortion is being fought. The current amendment the American Bishops are demanding be included in the health care bill includes exceptions for rape and incest as well as to save the life of the mother. That does not represent Catholic moral teaching that we have just enunciated. Clearly, moral teaching and legislation are two different things. Bishops can insist on moral teaching, they cannot demand adherence to a specific legislative approach.
You might say that the Church and Church leaders have every right to engage in the political arena, and I would basically agree with that position. Those Catholics who recall Church involvement in Civil Rights and other social justice issues are instinctively correct when they are uncomfortable with saying the Church should stay out of politics. The problem, however, is that if you are going to play politics in this country you have to play by certain rules. The Church has every right to lobby for its position as does every other person and group in this country. They must recognize, however, that once they enter that realm they are functioning as any other group. They have a right to be heard, but they have no right to impose their will on the community, or leverage their power to get what they want. Their legislative position represents just one possible approach to dealing with a complex problem. Do they need to be reminded that everyone in this country is not Catholic and does not accept or need to accept whatever position the Church puts forward? To expect every Catholic legislator to adopt the Church's legislative position in every instance negates entirely the role of legislator. People make such decisions for various reasons, and religious beliefs is only one of those reasons.
The notion that Church leaders can blackmail Catholics or Catholic politicians to fall in line with their political agenda bespeaks the old ways of Catholic Europe. In Ireland or Italy or other such countries the Church may have been able to force its will on the politicians, but this is not Europe. Even in Europe their power is waning. No one can prevent a bishop from denying communion to a politician or telling his flock that they will be guilty of serious sin if they support particular legislation. Bishops may be able to do that. But they will also be wrong. Legislation goes through a process of compromise and determining what is possible. It represents the recognition of all points of view within a pluralistic society. Politicians have to develop legislation that meets the needs of all peoples.
Again the Church can push for any legislation it deems appropriate, but politicians, Catholic or not, must exercise their consiences and their political skills to craft legislation for all. No bishop can or should attempt to compell a politician to take the bishop's legislative lead. In doing so the Bishops seek to kill the whole idea of a marketplace of ideas for forging consensus. This is a democracy, so I say to the bishops, back off. Even if you win any temporary victories, over time you will have done harm to yourselves and the Church. You will have further damaged your credibility and lessened any meaningful influence you might have on the community at large.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Authority in the Church (3rd in a series of Church related issues)
Authority or the defiance of authority is certainly a favorite topic of mine. I could write volumes on this particular topic. Suffice it to say, I don't have much use for authority. So if this article seems somewhat biased and anti-authority, it's probably because it is. Oh, I'm sure there is a legitimate role for authority figures, I just haven't figured out yet what it might be. I do know that during my years in the seminary I was taught that the very worst argument one can use to prove your point is an argument from authority, eg. 'the bishops said'. I heartily concur.
The Church is a heirarchical institution and would appear to have a legitimate claim to exercise authority through the episcopate. The New Testament certainly references 'episkopoi' or bishops who seem to legitimately exercise authority. Yet it is also clear that this authority was not absolute. The Apostle Paul had no trouble rebuking Peter, ostensibly the first Pope, and even prevailing in his arguments about the Church's mission to the gentiles.
While in general someone needs to be in charge in any institution, the Church also manifests a very egalitarian structure at the New Testament level. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that all goods were held in common among early Christian communities. Paul speaks of various charisms within the community, so that each member was valued and had something to offer. The Second Vatican Council stressed concepts of collegiality and the Church as the People of God, ie. the Church being not just the Bishops and heirarchy, but all of us being Church. A lot of bishops today would like to pretend these concepts don't exist, but just because a Bishop may have the power to refuse communion to members of the people of God does not mean this is not an abuse of power.
Church leadership in recent years has incrasingly been guilty of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a serious offense because of the imbalance between the heirarchy and those of us in the pews. We often hear that the Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorial repressive regime. Bishops are expected to exercise pastoral leadership. There are clearly some Bishops who need to ask the question as to whether their actions are truly representative of the way Jesus would exercise leadership.
Even conservatives don't practice or subscribe to blind obedience. We know that many feel free to ignore the Church's position on capital punishment or its current understanding of the just war theory. The social justice teachings of the Church are similarly ignored. I know a very active member of the Church whose religious philosophy is to the right of Archbishop Burke, the former head of the St. Louis Archdiocese, but she certainly doesn't follow a conventional philosophy of blind obedience. She actually delights in challenging priests and even Bishops if she does not believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Is it only progressives who must blindly adhere to their religious superiors? It certainly makes life easier if everybody simply follows the leader. it is unquestionably a much messier Church if we actually are expected to listen to each other, but it does have the advantage of valuing all its members. Pray pay and obey is just not good enough. Church leaders need to be challenged in every aspect of church governance.
The Church is not the only organization that emphasizes the need for strong discipline. The military and the FBI would be two examples. In fact years ago the FBI actively sought ex-seminarians to enter the bureau because they knew their training in discipline and obedience were similar to that of the bureau. And isn't that the point? Does the Church really see itself as a military organization? Even soldiers have had to learn that they can be liable for following unjust orders. The notion that personal consience and thought should cease with the publication of Humani Generis or the Pope announcing that there can be no further discussion on women priests or mandatory celibacy flies in the face of the world we live in. It might make life easier, but church leaders are going to have to recognize that ideas come from throughout the Church. Lay people are part of the Church too, and as an educated community have a stake in the future of the church.
Primacy of consience is actually a Catholic tradition embedded in the documents of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted from the writings of American theologian John Courtney Murray attests to a Catholic's obligation to follow his or her individual consience. Why then are Bishops denouncing individual Catholics for doing so? Again, church leaders would like to pretend that this is not part of the legacy of the Church but it is. The Church has made clear that you must follow your own consience. That consience is to be formed by Church teaching, but that does not mean that a Bishop can say that if your consience disagrees with Church teaching that it is a faulty consience. As Americans living in a pluralistic society we have a point of view that is sometimes not shared by Rome. Maybe it is Rome that needs to listen to us, just as they did at Vatican II. America has something to offer the Universal Church, even if Rome has determined to dilute American thought by appointing Bishops in this country who are sworn to do Rome's bidding in all things.
As in any strong organization, those with power hold the cards. If Church leaders want to be repressive they can. They can stifle the faithful, punish politicians and others. Lay people and simple clerics are at their mercy. Rome and the bishops can continue to move the Church down a dismal path until finally the spirit moves them and change comes to the Church as it did with Vatican II. This is precisely why I said at the beginning that abuse of power is such a serious sin. By its very nature it implies that there is really nothing a victim can do about it. The victim of abuse, as in the sexual abuse crisis is at the mercy of the one exercising power. That is why he who has the power has the greater sin. But this too shall pass.
The Church is a heirarchical institution and would appear to have a legitimate claim to exercise authority through the episcopate. The New Testament certainly references 'episkopoi' or bishops who seem to legitimately exercise authority. Yet it is also clear that this authority was not absolute. The Apostle Paul had no trouble rebuking Peter, ostensibly the first Pope, and even prevailing in his arguments about the Church's mission to the gentiles.
While in general someone needs to be in charge in any institution, the Church also manifests a very egalitarian structure at the New Testament level. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that all goods were held in common among early Christian communities. Paul speaks of various charisms within the community, so that each member was valued and had something to offer. The Second Vatican Council stressed concepts of collegiality and the Church as the People of God, ie. the Church being not just the Bishops and heirarchy, but all of us being Church. A lot of bishops today would like to pretend these concepts don't exist, but just because a Bishop may have the power to refuse communion to members of the people of God does not mean this is not an abuse of power.
Church leadership in recent years has incrasingly been guilty of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a serious offense because of the imbalance between the heirarchy and those of us in the pews. We often hear that the Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorial repressive regime. Bishops are expected to exercise pastoral leadership. There are clearly some Bishops who need to ask the question as to whether their actions are truly representative of the way Jesus would exercise leadership.
Even conservatives don't practice or subscribe to blind obedience. We know that many feel free to ignore the Church's position on capital punishment or its current understanding of the just war theory. The social justice teachings of the Church are similarly ignored. I know a very active member of the Church whose religious philosophy is to the right of Archbishop Burke, the former head of the St. Louis Archdiocese, but she certainly doesn't follow a conventional philosophy of blind obedience. She actually delights in challenging priests and even Bishops if she does not believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Is it only progressives who must blindly adhere to their religious superiors? It certainly makes life easier if everybody simply follows the leader. it is unquestionably a much messier Church if we actually are expected to listen to each other, but it does have the advantage of valuing all its members. Pray pay and obey is just not good enough. Church leaders need to be challenged in every aspect of church governance.
The Church is not the only organization that emphasizes the need for strong discipline. The military and the FBI would be two examples. In fact years ago the FBI actively sought ex-seminarians to enter the bureau because they knew their training in discipline and obedience were similar to that of the bureau. And isn't that the point? Does the Church really see itself as a military organization? Even soldiers have had to learn that they can be liable for following unjust orders. The notion that personal consience and thought should cease with the publication of Humani Generis or the Pope announcing that there can be no further discussion on women priests or mandatory celibacy flies in the face of the world we live in. It might make life easier, but church leaders are going to have to recognize that ideas come from throughout the Church. Lay people are part of the Church too, and as an educated community have a stake in the future of the church.
Primacy of consience is actually a Catholic tradition embedded in the documents of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted from the writings of American theologian John Courtney Murray attests to a Catholic's obligation to follow his or her individual consience. Why then are Bishops denouncing individual Catholics for doing so? Again, church leaders would like to pretend that this is not part of the legacy of the Church but it is. The Church has made clear that you must follow your own consience. That consience is to be formed by Church teaching, but that does not mean that a Bishop can say that if your consience disagrees with Church teaching that it is a faulty consience. As Americans living in a pluralistic society we have a point of view that is sometimes not shared by Rome. Maybe it is Rome that needs to listen to us, just as they did at Vatican II. America has something to offer the Universal Church, even if Rome has determined to dilute American thought by appointing Bishops in this country who are sworn to do Rome's bidding in all things.
As in any strong organization, those with power hold the cards. If Church leaders want to be repressive they can. They can stifle the faithful, punish politicians and others. Lay people and simple clerics are at their mercy. Rome and the bishops can continue to move the Church down a dismal path until finally the spirit moves them and change comes to the Church as it did with Vatican II. This is precisely why I said at the beginning that abuse of power is such a serious sin. By its very nature it implies that there is really nothing a victim can do about it. The victim of abuse, as in the sexual abuse crisis is at the mercy of the one exercising power. That is why he who has the power has the greater sin. But this too shall pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
