Politics after the Government Shutdown
Conventional wisdom tells us that Congress has kicked the can down the road. We will be continuing government by crisis in a few weeks. Nothing has changed, and those willing to shut the government down and default on our debt will be just as willing or even more willing to do so in a few weeks.
We are also told that Republicans are frightened about being primaried on their right. They will go along with damaging tactics for fear of losing their seats in Congress. Already challenges are being posed to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for his role in averting default. Other moderate Republicans are in the cross hairs as well.
Let me suggest that circumstances might not be so dire. First I have to say that one reason for the continuing gloom and doom comes from the 24 hour cable news cycle. Hyping the crisis as much as possible gives them something to talk about and keep us entertained.
This is not to say that serious difficulties do not remain. Yet, it is unlikely that Republicans want to go through the disaster of the last few weeks again so soon. Even the staunchest Tea Party Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz are likely to proceed in a different fashion. They will go to their base, talk about how they stood up to Obama Care and would have won if others had supported them.`Even if they were to try to shut down the government again Republican leaders would simply not allow it this time.
It is true, however, that the can has been kicked down the road, so what does Congress do? The joint congressional committee is being chaired by Senator Patty Murray, and Congressman Paul Ryan. The first thing they should not do is seek some grand bargain. It's not in the cards at this time. Their goal should be to keep the government open until after the 2014 Congressional elections.
If Patty Murray says Democrats will never agree to this provision - take it off the table. If Paul Ryan says the House of Representatives will never pass this idea - drop it. Find common ground on a few things. Fix the worst aspects of the sequester. Insist that Republicans go along with some small measures for enhancing revenues. Push Democrats to accept reasonable changes to entitlements such as the chained CPI already offered by President Obama. Maybe even make a few minor changes to The Affordable Care Act that will actually strengthen it rather than damage it. Pass the budget, keep the government operating, and declare victory.
Assuming all that happens, and I'm counting on it, what happens with the 2014 election? Can Democrats win back the House of Representatives? If Republicans did shut down the government again in January and default on the debt in February I believe Republicans would lose their majority in the House of Representatives. Since I don't believe that will happen, it means that favorable ratings for Republicans will rise since they can't go down any further. Many Republicans will hold on to their seats especially because of the extreme gerrymandering of Congressional districts. As an aside, responsibility for drawing these districts must be given to independent commissions in every state.
I do believe Democrats can make some inroads into Republican numbers in the house. If they target certain districts where the message of the irresponsibility of Republican Congressmen can resonate they may pick up as many as 10 seats. In addition, with the help of business leaders demanding more reasonable governing, more moderate Republicans can be prevented from losing their seats and more conservative primary candidates can be defeated. There is the potential to wind up with a somewhat more moderate House of Representatives in the 2015 Congress.The Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands.
It's a long time until the election and conditions can change quickly.. However, as damaging as the last few weeks have been to government, I believe there are some real opportunities here. People have come to see government as more important in their lives than Republican rhetoric had led them to believe. Despite the dismal launch of Obama Care, its favorable ratings actually rose during the shutdown. If problems can be speedily corrected it could become a permanent fixture of our lives along with social security and medicare..
While the Tea Party will continue to engage in heated rhetoric and obstructionist efforts, I believe reasonable Republicans have had enough. We need two responsible political parties in Washington. We may just be a little closer to that goal after the debacle of the last few weeks.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
A Government Shutdown Tutorial
1.Why is the government still shut down?
* Because Republicans still believe they can win
2. What do they want?
* They want to overturn issues that have already been settled by the democratic process -
like the Affordable Care Act
3. Why won't Democrats negotiate?
* Democrats say they won't negotiate 'with a gun pointed at their heads'. Tea Party Republicans
are indeed holding the government hostage. It would be like saying that they will not let the
government operate unless they stop sending out Social Security checks. Is this a legitimate
subject for negotiation, or should it be decided by elections, the courts, and the legislative process?
4. How can this stand off end?
* There are only two possibilities. Republicans pass a clean continuing resolution (CR) or Democrats
give in to their demands
5. Why is it so dangerous to negotiate at this time?
* It represents government by crisis - resolving this crisis simply puts it off until the next crisis. The
CR's are only designed to last for a short while - maybe 2 or 3 months. The debt ceiling will only be
extended for maybe six months. The same battles then begin all over again. The correct process
is the normal budget process. Both houses of Congress have passed budget bills - that is the
appropriate vehicle for negotiation
6. Republicans say they will open little pieces of the government - why not go along?
* This is an arrogant and insidious ploy to choose between different government workers and
different agencies of government. This small group of legislators will decide who is important and
who is not. They are not only opting for a government by a minority, their way would actually
introduce a new form of dictatorship where this elite group of legislators will make the
rules for everyone. The desires of the majority would be disregarded. What they are doing is
turning the Constitution on its head.
7. What is being accomplished by the government shutdown?
* Nothing. The Congress is already agreeing to provide back pay to all employees currently
furloughed. While they remain at home they are providing no services to our country or to
the people
8. Why not send these people back to work so they can at least earn their pay?
* That would end the fight that the Republicans seem to want to have. Refer back to question 1.
9. How can these Republicans care so llittle about their country and the damage that is being done to the
American people? How can they continue to allow this to happen over and over again?
* I can't answer that question
10. What can I and others do?
* Demand action by Congress. Insist on a clean CR to fund the government long enough to
negotiate their way out of a budget impasse. Demand the critical debt ceiling be raised and
not held hostage to more political gamesmanship
Friday, October 19, 2012
Obama Wins Second Debate but the Election is Not Over
President Obama by all accounts was aggressive and focused at Hofstra University in the latest presidential debate. He was the consensus winner of this second debate, though not by the margin by which Romney won the first debate. So he did what he had to do. Did he therefore stop the bleeding? Do things now revert to where they were before the Denver debate with Obama holding a pretty comfortable lead? We really don't know. However, new NBC polls from Iowa and Wisconsin show Obama with leads similar to those he held before the first debate.
Governor Romney's best argument was that things have not gone so well during the past four years. Unemployment is still high, and the economy is not where it needs to be. This is pretty much an indisputable argument, though it is one that every American is already well aware of. At the same time an increasingly credible case can be made that we are now seeing a definite turnaround in the economy. Unemployment is down below 8%, housing seems to be coming back, profits are high, and the market is doing very well. Even consumer confidence is improving.
Clearly then, things could be better, but maybe they are actually beginning to get better. While Romney makes a good case for how bad things are, does he really have the answers to more jobs and an improved economy? Is it reasonable to stick with the current occupant of the White House now that things may be getting better. Should we stick with the policies that have begun to make that difference, or take a chance on the supposed business acumen of Mitt Romney?
Once again we are faced with the choice between a government that wants to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and roll back regulations as a way of moving the economy forward. The problem with Mitt Romney's plan is that this is the policy the George W. Bush administration used to help create the great recession we have experienced.
The alternate choice is a government that believes in protecting the most vulnerable among us and making sure that we all have an equal chance to get ahead. This prescription from President Obama has actually worked better that many people realize. We are now beginning to see the fruits of these efforts. The stimulus was instrumental in saving thousands of jobs at the state level for teachers, policemen, and firefighters. The proof of this reality is that when the stimulus ran out we saw state governments slash jobs resulting in the public employment sector becoming a major contributor to the unemployment rate. The auto bailout also saved thousands of jobs both in the auto industry and in related industries. Additionally, the contrast with what has happened in Europe is instructive. Europe's insistence on severe austerity measures has made a bad situation worse. Targeted government investment seems preferable. If there is a criticism it may be that we failed to create enough stimulus.
What happens on the campaign trail now? There is one more debate, but I believe there will be less interest in it and it will likely have limited impact. The remainder of time before the election will be taken up with negative adds, appeals to the base, and the ground game of getting voters to the polls. Who has the advantage here? Many say the Republicans are more energized to vote against President Obama. Maybe so, but the stakes couldn't be higher for those who believe in a government that seeks to help the disadvantaged and promote fairness for all Americans. The Republican party and too many of their candidates are working hard at the state and national level to implement extreme policies on social issues and in governing. There are more than enough reasons to get to the polls and make sure every voice is heard. We cannot allow the super pacs to determine the outcome of this election with an overload of deceptive advertising. The Obama campaign is credited with an outstanding ground game for getting out the vote. This may be the most crucial factor of all.
Unfortunately our country remains heavily polarized and there appears to be no immediate way to resolve this conflict. We must continue to fight for policies that support all of our citizens. We must say no to those who see the 47% as standing in the way of implementing a narrow and rigid vision of what they believe the world should look like.
Governor Romney's best argument was that things have not gone so well during the past four years. Unemployment is still high, and the economy is not where it needs to be. This is pretty much an indisputable argument, though it is one that every American is already well aware of. At the same time an increasingly credible case can be made that we are now seeing a definite turnaround in the economy. Unemployment is down below 8%, housing seems to be coming back, profits are high, and the market is doing very well. Even consumer confidence is improving.
Clearly then, things could be better, but maybe they are actually beginning to get better. While Romney makes a good case for how bad things are, does he really have the answers to more jobs and an improved economy? Is it reasonable to stick with the current occupant of the White House now that things may be getting better. Should we stick with the policies that have begun to make that difference, or take a chance on the supposed business acumen of Mitt Romney?
Once again we are faced with the choice between a government that wants to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and roll back regulations as a way of moving the economy forward. The problem with Mitt Romney's plan is that this is the policy the George W. Bush administration used to help create the great recession we have experienced.
The alternate choice is a government that believes in protecting the most vulnerable among us and making sure that we all have an equal chance to get ahead. This prescription from President Obama has actually worked better that many people realize. We are now beginning to see the fruits of these efforts. The stimulus was instrumental in saving thousands of jobs at the state level for teachers, policemen, and firefighters. The proof of this reality is that when the stimulus ran out we saw state governments slash jobs resulting in the public employment sector becoming a major contributor to the unemployment rate. The auto bailout also saved thousands of jobs both in the auto industry and in related industries. Additionally, the contrast with what has happened in Europe is instructive. Europe's insistence on severe austerity measures has made a bad situation worse. Targeted government investment seems preferable. If there is a criticism it may be that we failed to create enough stimulus.
What happens on the campaign trail now? There is one more debate, but I believe there will be less interest in it and it will likely have limited impact. The remainder of time before the election will be taken up with negative adds, appeals to the base, and the ground game of getting voters to the polls. Who has the advantage here? Many say the Republicans are more energized to vote against President Obama. Maybe so, but the stakes couldn't be higher for those who believe in a government that seeks to help the disadvantaged and promote fairness for all Americans. The Republican party and too many of their candidates are working hard at the state and national level to implement extreme policies on social issues and in governing. There are more than enough reasons to get to the polls and make sure every voice is heard. We cannot allow the super pacs to determine the outcome of this election with an overload of deceptive advertising. The Obama campaign is credited with an outstanding ground game for getting out the vote. This may be the most crucial factor of all.
Unfortunately our country remains heavily polarized and there appears to be no immediate way to resolve this conflict. We must continue to fight for policies that support all of our citizens. We must say no to those who see the 47% as standing in the way of implementing a narrow and rigid vision of what they believe the world should look like.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The Case Against Mitt Romney
Last week Mitt Romney won the first Presidential Debate. There was a clear consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike. To my recollection going back to the first Kennedy Nixon debate, I don't believe there has been a debate where there was a winner so clearly defined. Romney was aggressive, confident, and gave fairly clear and concise answers. Almost every one would agree that President Obama was not on his game. The latest polls showing Romney now even with Obama reflect that fact.
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Archbishop Lori and the 'Fortnight for Freedom'
Archbishop Lori, Baltimore's new Archbishop, has embarked on a new program called 'Fortnight for Freedom' as he espoused in his Baltimore Sun editorial of June 27th. The Archbishop has taken his concerns about contraception in the new health care policy and has construed it as an attack on religious liberty. Yet, the Archbishop himself in his editorial, references real attacks on religious liberty in countries like Iraq and Nigeria, which actually demonstrates that the Archbishop's current program in the Archdiocese of Baltimore is a tempest in a teapot. There is no vendetta, no discrimination, no hostility to the Catholic Church on the part of the US government. The President has made repeated efforts to reach out to the Bishops to resolve their differences. There are legitimate differences here, but they are policy differences, not attempts to deprive Catholic institutions of freedom.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
What's Wrong With the President
There is a significant minority that is determined to make Barack Obama a one term president. This group finds our current president so offensive and unacceptable that their rhetoric has often escalated to vitriolic levels. What terrible actions has this President taken that has so riled a portion of the population? What is it about this president that has produced such intense emotional responses?
Let's review some of the statements that are being made about this president. Start with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's now famous statement that the number one priority for the Republican party would be to ensure that President Obama would be a one term president. Apparently this is more important than fixing a problematic economy. This president has been called a socialist and even a Communist. Even his birth in the United States has been questioned. He has been accused of being a Muslim and not a real American. To this group of Americans he is seen as 'other'.
No amount of factual information appears to be able to change the minds of this element of the electorate. They have accepted conspiracy theories with no basis in fact and have hardened their views of this president. This week's Time magazine indicated that there has been a 13% increase in the purchase of ammunition because word has gotten out that it is going to become more difficult to buy ammunition. The blogosphere is working ovettime to crank out some of the most bizarre notions which are readily digested by this hardcore group.
Also, what about the current investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder? The President has invoked the use of executive privlege regarding some subpoenaed documents. The arguments about executive privlege go back to President George Washington and the founding of the republic. There has never been a president who didn't believe in such a privlege and there has never been a congress that didn't have problems with it. Yet in this case we have heard calls for resignation, impeachment, accusations of lying to congress. This group seems determined to magnify the smallest issue and make it seem far more important than it is.The irony is that the Attorney General could well be protecting the activities of the Bush Administration, as the program in question began under President Bush.
The reality is that the Obama Presidency has been about as main stream and moderate as it could possibly be. The President did pass a stimulus bill which of course is very mainstream policy for Democratic politicians. Libnerals wanted him to nationalize the banks in the wake of the financial crisis but he refused to do so. He did pass a health care reform bill, but that has been a policy goal of every President going back to Richard Nixon. His sin seems to be that he was actually able to get it passed.The law he did pass represents a conservative model pushed by Republicans and signed in to law in Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney. In foreign policy he has pursued many of George Bush's policies and escalated drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He pursued and got Bin Laden. He has incurred the wrath of many liberals who find him far too conservative. At most he could be considered center left, but he is not an extreme president by any stretch of the imagination.
There of course is and should be legitimate opposition to this President's policies. You can listen to CNBC any day and learn that Wall Street has a very different vision of how to turn this economy around. I believe their view is short sighted and lacking in concern for the average American, but it is a legitimate opposing political view. As mentioned, liberals have been very tough on this President, especially in the foreign policy domain and on almost every other issue, wishing he had gone farther than he did. Also there are sincere religious people who have disagreements with this president on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
While opposition to this man's policies are understandable and not innappropriate, the reactions and responses we are seeing from this one segment of the electorate is so far out of proportion to the actual facts. Why has President Obama encountered such violent opposition and even hatred from this significant minority? Of course we know that the opposition could not be an issue of race. It cannot be that the opposition is coming from a group of citizens who believe that the election of an African American to the presidency in this country cannot be allowed to stand. It cannot be that there are citizens who see the 2008 election as illegitimate because a black man was elected. It cannot be that there are those who are even more incensed because President Obama is not only black but of mixed race. It cannot be that the lack of respect and decorum shown this president even by other elected officials has anything to do with this President's race.
I wonder then, what the real reason could be.
Let's review some of the statements that are being made about this president. Start with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's now famous statement that the number one priority for the Republican party would be to ensure that President Obama would be a one term president. Apparently this is more important than fixing a problematic economy. This president has been called a socialist and even a Communist. Even his birth in the United States has been questioned. He has been accused of being a Muslim and not a real American. To this group of Americans he is seen as 'other'.
No amount of factual information appears to be able to change the minds of this element of the electorate. They have accepted conspiracy theories with no basis in fact and have hardened their views of this president. This week's Time magazine indicated that there has been a 13% increase in the purchase of ammunition because word has gotten out that it is going to become more difficult to buy ammunition. The blogosphere is working ovettime to crank out some of the most bizarre notions which are readily digested by this hardcore group.
Also, what about the current investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder? The President has invoked the use of executive privlege regarding some subpoenaed documents. The arguments about executive privlege go back to President George Washington and the founding of the republic. There has never been a president who didn't believe in such a privlege and there has never been a congress that didn't have problems with it. Yet in this case we have heard calls for resignation, impeachment, accusations of lying to congress. This group seems determined to magnify the smallest issue and make it seem far more important than it is.The irony is that the Attorney General could well be protecting the activities of the Bush Administration, as the program in question began under President Bush.
The reality is that the Obama Presidency has been about as main stream and moderate as it could possibly be. The President did pass a stimulus bill which of course is very mainstream policy for Democratic politicians. Libnerals wanted him to nationalize the banks in the wake of the financial crisis but he refused to do so. He did pass a health care reform bill, but that has been a policy goal of every President going back to Richard Nixon. His sin seems to be that he was actually able to get it passed.The law he did pass represents a conservative model pushed by Republicans and signed in to law in Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney. In foreign policy he has pursued many of George Bush's policies and escalated drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He pursued and got Bin Laden. He has incurred the wrath of many liberals who find him far too conservative. At most he could be considered center left, but he is not an extreme president by any stretch of the imagination.
There of course is and should be legitimate opposition to this President's policies. You can listen to CNBC any day and learn that Wall Street has a very different vision of how to turn this economy around. I believe their view is short sighted and lacking in concern for the average American, but it is a legitimate opposing political view. As mentioned, liberals have been very tough on this President, especially in the foreign policy domain and on almost every other issue, wishing he had gone farther than he did. Also there are sincere religious people who have disagreements with this president on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
While opposition to this man's policies are understandable and not innappropriate, the reactions and responses we are seeing from this one segment of the electorate is so far out of proportion to the actual facts. Why has President Obama encountered such violent opposition and even hatred from this significant minority? Of course we know that the opposition could not be an issue of race. It cannot be that the opposition is coming from a group of citizens who believe that the election of an African American to the presidency in this country cannot be allowed to stand. It cannot be that there are citizens who see the 2008 election as illegitimate because a black man was elected. It cannot be that there are those who are even more incensed because President Obama is not only black but of mixed race. It cannot be that the lack of respect and decorum shown this president even by other elected officials has anything to do with this President's race.
I wonder then, what the real reason could be.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Equality for Gays
A recent Church Bulletin included a letter from Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington. The letter was regarding the organization called Catholics for Equality, and the letter was in response to inquiries the Cardinal had received seeking clarification concerning this organizartion. The letter seems to be an appropriate pastoral response to these inquiries, and I really can't argue with what he had to say about the organization.
I would however make three points. First, the Cardinal makes the point that the organization has no official status as being connected to the institutional Church. I'm not really familiar with the group so I can't say whether that is a status that they are seeking. I would say that it has every right to call itself Catholic since it represents Catholics with a particular point of view or mission. Just as groups arise like Democrats for Reagan or Republicans for Obama this group represents Catholics who are pushing for equality for gay and lesbian citizens. There may also likely be a group of Catholics for female priests. Catholics are in fact a wide microcosm of society and have a wide range of views, which are not contained within the dictates of institutional language.
Second, the Cardinal articulates official Catholic doctrine that essentially states that it is OK to be gay. I wonder how many Catholics have really understood that point. As the Cardinal says, whatever your sexual orientation may be, you have to follow the moral law. So the Church comes up with a typically strange position that it is OK to be gay as long as you don't have sex. I guess that ties in with their whole notion of sexuality. That it is basically bad except to make babies, and it is far better to be celibate. Celibacy for priests after all, has worked out so well over the centuries. At any rate, I think it is instructive and should be more widely known that there is no condemnation of homosexuality or individual homosexuals, only homosexual acts. Maybe some evangelical groups could benefit from studying this concept.
The significance of this doctrine is that there really is no place in Catholic practice for the condemnation of homosexuals or discrimination against them. In fact, in his most important point, the Cardinal proclaims the value and dignity of every human person. In this vein he is following Pope John Paul II and his frequent eloquent assertion on the worth, dignity and value of every human person. It is such a beautiful doctrine, if only we would see some sign of that in the Church's response to issues relative to Gays and Lesbians. We know the Church's clear position. Isn't it time we saw some of its compassion, understanding, and support? I'm pretty sure that is precisely what Catholics for Equality is trying to provide.
For example, can we do more than have our Churches set up tables after Mass to get Catholics to sign petitions to support a referendum to overturn Maryland's Same Sex Marriage law? We know of the discrimination against homosexuals. We know of the Matthew Sheppards' of the world. Do we know of the Church speaking out against such discrimination? We know how many young people who are gay commit suicide. Yet when an organization tries to reach out to minister to such people we have clarified for us that this is not a Catholic orgaanization. We know that young gays are bullied terribly in school, but do we hear any outcry from the church concerning this issue? Gays are discriminated against in the work place, in housing, and in the military. Where is the voice of the Church speaking out against such injustices?
Now that we know with great clarity what the Church's position is, can we see some of its efforts to promote fairness, justice, and acceptance of those individuals who are valued and have dignity and are gay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
