Category Archives: Politics

Transparency: it isn’t just for Catholics anymore

Posted on by | No Comments

I’ve been wondering for a while when we’d see this. From the Anchoress:

In New York, Queens Assemblywoman Margaret Markey routinely presents a bill which seeks to open a year-long “window” into the statute of limitations on child sex-abuse cases, allowing victims whose cases may go back as far as 40 years to bring suit for damages.

Because the bill has—until now—always been limited by Markey to impact the churches, exclusively, it routinely failed, or been shelved. It is difficult to pass a bill that essentially finds some sexual abuse victims to be more worthy of redress than others.

Markey seems to have figured that out; her new bill includes suits against secular institutions, and the previously silent civil authorities, among others, are reeling . . .

So, the secular institutional world may soon find itself forced onto the same learning curve that has impacted and the Catholic Church over the past few years; that world too may find itself finally forced to confront the filth that too often stays hidden. The confrontation—painful as it may be—will ultimately be for the good. . . .

As we begin to acknowledge that child sex abuse has long infected the whole of society, and not just the churches, we will be forced to take a long and difficult look at ourselves. Church-sex stories may be sensational, but these others will quickly come to seem dreary, mostly because they will indict not just those oddball celibates and religious freaks, but our cops, our doctors, our teachers, our bureaucrats—you know, the “normal” people, all around us, in our families, attending our barbecues and graduations, healing our wounds and teaching our kids.

Extending the “open window” to include secular sex abuse cases will impact the whole of society. We will be invited to look in and—seeing the width and breadth of the problem—will be forced to ponder the human animal and the human soul in ways we have not, and would rather not. It may bring home some uncomfortable truths: that “safety” is relative; that human darkness is not limited to various “theys” but seeps into the whole of “us”; that the tendency to look at the guilt of others has, perhaps, a root in our wish not to look at ourselves; that human brokenness is a constant and human righteousness is always imperfect.

Read the whole thing—this is important. I for one hope this bill passes, not least because it will expose the sanctimonious pretense by many outside the Roman church that this is only a Catholic problem. For all the agonies of what Fr. Richard John Neuhaus called the Catholic church’s “Long Lent,” and for all the opportunistic false charges that were levied, it does seem to have been a necessary cleansing that will leave the church stronger and healthier in the long run; perhaps this would indeed do the same for our society.

Random thought

Posted on by | No Comments

I only ask two things from those who disagree with me. I don’t ask that they claim not to believe me wrong; such a claim only dishonors both of us, and is dishonest besides. Nor do I ask them to censor themselves, which could only prevent true conversation. Rather, I ask that though they believe me wrong, they give me credit for being wrong in good faith and honest inquiry. And in addition, I ask that they be willing to listen honestly to my reasons for disagreeing with them, accepting the possibility that they might be convinced that I am in fact right after all. These are the things I seek to give in return to those who disagree with me, though I certainly do not claim to do so unfailingly or perfectly. They are, it seems to me, the necessary prerequisites for a truly open, honest, and constructive discussion; they are the characteristics we must have if we are to experience any kind of real and meaningful unity in the midst of our diversity.

Identity politics and the liberal fear of Sarah Palin

Posted on by | No Comments

Contempt and disdain for Sarah Palin, sometimes hysterical and violent, is practically a commonplace on the Left in this country right now. There are those on the Right who believe that contempt to be faked, a matter of political calculation, but I don’t think so; I tend to believe it’s truly felt, however unjustified I’m certain it is. I don’t see the evidence in the record to support it, but that’s because I don’t begin with the presupposition that conservative ideas are stupid; it’s also because I have no desire to believe her stupid, incompetent, malignant, a lightweight, etc., where many liberals clearly do.

The question is, though, if the Left honestly believes Gov. Palin is not to be taken seriously—which isn’t a unanimous opinion, but I do sense is held by the majority—why do they keep leveling every gun they can bring to bear on her? Part of that is probably contempt for the voting public, something akin to what we recently saw out of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown; after all, from the liberal point of view, if a majority of American voters actually chose to elect George W. Bush, there’s no telling what hyperbolically moronic thing we might choose to do next. Even if she really is as bad as they’re trying to tell us, we might go and vote her in anyway.

I think there’s something else going on here, though, which sits a good deal more uneasily with liberal consciences, to say nothing of liberal political analysis. When Barack Obama won in November 2008, a good chunk of his appeal could be boiled down to identity politics: “Vote for me because I’m black.” It wasn’t simply an appeal to “racial”* minorities, though—this was also a good chunk of his appeal to white swing voters, breaking down into two related appeals. One was “Vote for me to help make history by electing America’s first black president.” The desire to see history happen, and to help make it happen, is powerful even in a vacuum; that’s why if you go to a baseball game and the visiting pitcher has a perfect game going through five, six, seven innings, you’ll find an awful lot of the home fans start cheering him on, hoping to see him pull it off. After all, there’s another chance for a win tomorrow, but to see a perfect game . . . who knows if you’ll ever have another shot? But of course, Sen. Obama’s win wasn’t in a vacuum, it was in the context of the long indignity of white-black relations in this country, and the history he made truly was profound.

The other element in play here, of course, was “Vote for me and prove you’re not a racist”; as many people observed, Sen. Obama offered himself in a very real sense as the answer to white guilt over slavery, Jim Crow, and “racial” inequality, and as the hope for a post-racial politics in this country. It hasn’t panned out that way, but that was part of his promise and part of his appeal; in voting for a black President, white folks could do something constructive about the ills that have been done to black folks in this country.

In 2012, however, that appeal is gone. The history is already made; it can’t be made again. America has already proven it will elect a black President. A great many swing voters have already proven to themselves that they are perfectly willing to vote for a black President; if they decide to vote for someone other than President Obama, no one can reasonably say it must be because they’re racists. That’s gone, and it can’t be brought back; it may be propped up a bit, but “re-elect” just isn’t as resonant as “elect”—and if you try to tell swing voters that once wasn’t good enough, they have to vote for him again to really prove they aren’t racists and their country isn’t racist, you risk making them very angry.

That said, even the echo of the appeal to history and identity politics may have some resonance, depending on whom the Republicans run against the President. If it’s another white guy—Pawlenty, Romney, Daniels, doesn’t much matter—then you can refashion it a bit as the Republicans wanting to turn back the clock, or something; sure, independents have already voted for a black President once, but isn’t that still more heroic than just another pasty GOP dude? Of course, Bobby Jindal could always decide to run, and he could win the nomination, and yeah, he’s a minority . . . but Indians and other South Asians just aren’t that big a presence in US identity politics, and their history in this country lacks moments like Selma and figures like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Jindal’s a minority, but not in a way that’s politically resonant (especially since he converted from Hinduism to a very American form of Christianity). His nomination would defang the “Republicans = racists” meme to some extent, but the Left could always claim that the GOP only nominated him because he’s not really black.

But if Sarah Palin (or, for that matter, Michele Bachmann or Liz Cheney) were to win the nomination . . . now that’s a kettle of fish of a different color. Now, all of a sudden, the appeal to history, identity politics, and guilt is powerfully back in play—but on the wrong side (from the Left’s perspective). All of a sudden, you have a candidate who can stand up and say, “Vote for me to help make history by electing America’s first female president”; you have a candidate who can go on TV and say, “Vote for me and prove you’re not a sexist.” The former would probably make some on the Right cringe a little, but far more would cheer her on; as for the latter, while I don’t see any conservative female candidate actually being so gauche as to say such a thing, she wouldn’t have to. Indeed, Gov. Palin could fire off volley after volley against the “old boys’ network” in Chicago and DC, and point out quite accurately that President Obama is a creature of those networks and has surrounded himself with their members; the principal point would be the true and important one that he’s just another machine politician doing politics as usual, but the undercurrent would have its effect.

Do I believe that Gov. Palin would consciously ask people to vote for her because she’s a woman? No, certainly not to the extent that Sen. Obama consciously used his skin color to political advantage; but her gender would be to significant political advantage nevertheless, just as his skin color was, and in ways that would really undermine the political foundations of his 2008 victory. This is particularly true given that, while there was no fair basis for calling John McCain a racist, one can make a pretty good argument that Barack Obama is a sexist, or at least that some of his closest advisors are. After all, just look at the way his campaign treated Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Look at the way they treated Sarah Palin during the general election. Look at the language they used, over and over again, and at the ways they depicted their female opponents. If President Obama ends up having to run against a woman for re-election, charges of sexism could get real traction with independents—and even some moderate liberals—and that could really hurt him.

In short, I believe the reason liberals have been hitting Gov. Palin with everything including the kitchen sink ever since her appearance on the national stage is that they think of things, and the current administration certainly thinks of things, in terms of identity politics—something conservatives are far less prone to do—and are used to using identity politics in their favor (as they’re trying to do again with the latest round of accusations of racism); but if the GOP nominates a strong conservative female candidate for the White House, those identity politics will rebound on them in a big way, and pose a definite political threat. That, I think, is the biggest reason for the Left’s anti-Palin hysteria: if she wins the GOP nomination, she’ll turn their ace in the hole into a low club.To which I say, good on her.

*The whole use of the word “race” to categorize people by skin color and continent of ancestral origin really galls me. IMHO, there’s only one “race,” and that’s the human race. Anything else is majoring in the minors.

(Cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin).

Why Mitt Romney is not the GOP frontrunner

Posted on by | No Comments

Never mind the polls, he’s nothing of the sort. This sums up why:

Put bluntly, President Obama has hitched his wagon to ObamaPelosiCare. Barring a major foreign-policy catastrophe (which is certainly possible; I’m still somewhat surprised we got no major attacks last year), and maybe not even then, it’s hard to imagine a scenario for 2012 in which his health care bill is popular and he himself is not—and at this point, that’s the only scenario under which a Romney victory is at all plausible. The fact of the matter is, however hard Gov. Romney tries to argue that his plan in Massachusetts was fundamentally different than the Democrats’ national plan, he just has no case; they both come straight from the Teddy Kennedy playbook.

Now, in all fairness to Gov. Romney, the field has shifted somewhat on health care in the last few years; as Stephen Spruiell points out, it wasn’t all that long ago that even the Heritage Foundation supported individual mandates for health insurance, something which is now universally opposed on the Right; Orrin Hatch even submitted a health care bill in the Senate which took that approach. The problem for Gov. Romney is, he took his cue from that and signed a health care bill into law—and now that his bill hasn’t reduced costs in Massachusetts (or helped much of anything else, really), and now that the political center has shifted to leave his accomplishment firmly on the political Left, he’s stuck with it. It’s possible he may be able to find a way to deal with that and put himself back within the conservative mainstream; but until he does that, he cannot with any intelligence be called the GOP frontrunner or anything close to it. As of now, the only thing one can reasonably call his presidential hopes is a mirage.

Good for Nebraska

Posted on by | 2 Comments

This is good news:

The Nebraska legislature has signed off on a bill that Governor Dave Heineman will sign today that could head to the courts and ultimately weaken further the Roe v.Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions. The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the well-established concept of fetal pain.

By a vote of 44-5, the Nebraska unicameral legislature this morning gave final passage to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Speaker Mike Flood.

One small step toward a more just and compassionate society.

Proposing a 28th Amendment (UPDATED)

Posted on by | 7 Comments

On Facebook earlier today, I wrote that I would like to propose the following amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff from any other law, federal, state, or municipal. All such exemptions are hereby declared null and void.

It was a spur-of-the-moment thing, but the more I think about the basic idea, the more I like it. I’m sure it could be written better, and no doubt would need to be in order to do what it’s intended to do; I think, for instance, that it should probably say that “Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff in whole or in part from any other law.” Whether it would be necessary to include sentences or sections applying to the other two branches of the federal government, I’m not sure, but I could see that. And more generally, I’m no constitutional-law scholar, so I expect there are probably other issues with my draft amendment. But I think the basic principle is sound.

More than that, I think this is important. I think Congress’ habit of exempting itself from the laws it passes, seen most recently with ObamaPelosiCare (if this is such a wonderful thing, why don’t they want to live under it?), is profoundly undemocratic, and utterly opposed to the spirit of the Constitution which our representatives are sworn to uphold. I think correcting this absolutely rises to the level of a proper constitutional concern.

The biggest thing that I believe justifies addressing this issue with a constitutional amendment, though, is that Congress will never voluntarily restrain itself. Indeed, it would be impossible to get this amendment to the states for ratification by the normal process, because Congress would never pass it; they’d never admit they were deliberately scuttling it, but that’s exactly what they’d do—and it would be a completely bipartisan effort, make no mistake about it. If we the people want this added to the Constitution, we’ll have to do it by the other process specified in Article V: two-thirds of our state legislatures will have to request that Congress call a national constitutional convention to propose this amendment to the states. (Should a serious effort be made to do so, Congress might capitulate and pass the amendment to prevent a full-out constitutional convention, but that would be fine, too.)

Trying to amend the Constitution is no small thing under any circumstances. Trying to do so as a grassroots effort would be to attempt a very great mountain indeed. But I think it’s worth doing, and I’m going to start talking to people, and writing about this wherever I can, to see if we can make this happen. I believe this is an important issue, and would be a change for the better for our nation; I believe it’s worth the trouble.

Thoughts?

Update: I’ve had someone pass on to me another version of the same idea:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

In some respects, I think that wording is better; the kicker, I think, is that any such amendment should make clear that not only is Congress forbidden in future from exempting itself from the laws it passes, but that all such provisions currently on the books are no longer operative, and thus that going forward, all the laws of the land apply to them, even those which previously did not.

A lyrical reaction to Sunday’s vote

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I have yet to find anything that better expresses my reaction to the passage of ObamaPelosiCare, and to the whole process leading up to it, than this. (Click on the title to see the video, which is the best part; courtesy of EMI, embedding is disabled.)

Here it Goes Again

It could be ten, but then again, I can’t remember
Half an hour since a quarter to four.
Throw on your clothes, the second side of Surfer Rosa,
And you leave me with my jaw on the floor.

Chorus:
Just when you think that you’re in control,
Just when you think that you’ve got a hold,
Just when you get on a roll,
Here it goes, here it goes, here it goes again.
Oh, here it goes again.
I should have known, should have known, should have known again,
But here it goes again.
Oh, here it goes again.

It starts out easy, something simple, something sleazy,
Something inching past the edge of reserve.
Now through the lines of the cheap venetian blinds
Your car is pulling off of the curb.

Chorus

I guess there’s got to be a break in the monotony,
But *****, when it rains how it pours.
Throw on your clothes, the second side of Surfer Rosa,
And you leave me, yeah, you leave me.

Chorus

Words and music: Damien Kulash Jr.
© 2005 OK Go Publishing
From the album Oh No, by OK Go

Put not your trust in princes

Posted on by | No Comments

Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord, O my soul!
I will praise the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.

Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.

The Lord sets the prisoners free;
the Lord opens the eyes of the blind.
The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down;
the Lord loves the righteous.
The Lord watches over the sojourners;
he upholds the widow and the fatherless,
but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

The Lord will reign forever,
your God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the Lord!

—Psalm 146 (ESV)

The proof of the pudding

Posted on by | No Comments

There are many on both sides of the political divide who believe that the passage of ObamaPelosiCare is basically final, pointing to other great entitlement programs of the past such as Social Security and Medicare. They could very well be right; it’s very hard to get rid of government bureaucracies once founded, as they have a way of creating their own constituencies. I remember Republicans campaigning on abolishing the Departments of Energy and Education; once they had the chance, they never even tried to follow through.

And yet . . . the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the health care “reform” package was sold on the promise that it would improve health care and reduce health care costs. Our president went around declaring that once the bill was passed, Americans would find out that we actually like it after all. Therefore, it seems to me that if it fails to deliver on those promises, there will be a sufficient political constituency to repeal this law (if one can refer to anything so bloated by a term which suggests organization and coherence).

As such, I’m guessing that if Robert Samuelson is right to declare that “Obama’s proposal is the illusion of ‘reform,’ not the real thing,” it won’t last long. If I’m wrong and it improves our health care system, then the public will accept the significant new government intrusion into our privacy and autonomy, and it will stick around. This situation has at least this potential merit: ideas will be judged by their consequences. That, if nothing else, is as it should be.