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.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, November 5, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
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 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.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
