Speaking Salient Truths versus 'Scoring Points'

Hello All,

A few thoughts on the present colloquy between Michael and Robby. 

1. The first point is that it's probably worth maintaining, at least as a regulative ideal, the goal of neither attempting to be, nor even of conceiving of ourselves, as 'liberals' or 'conservatives,' at least as those terms are conventionally employed in contemporary American political discourse.  Indeed it has long seemed to me one of the great virtues of Catholic social and political thought that it proceeds from a coherent normative orientation toward the world, in such a way as often renders it at odds on various critical matters with most if not all of the dominant secular political parties and orientations, which latter do not appear to operate under any constraints of theoretic coherence.  Most conspicuously, of course, the tradition of Catholic social and political thought has tended in recent decades to find itself at odds with Democratic Party platforms in respect of such pre-birth 'life' issues as abortion and stem-cell research, and with Republican Party platforms on such post-birth 'life' issues as capital punishment, elective war, and the social safety net.  And that means, it seems to me, that most Catholics will tend not to be able to think of themselves as univocally 'Democrat' or 'Republican.'  (I for my part used to fantasize about founding something that might be called a 'Christian Socialist' party, save that I'd want to make clear that the 'socialism' I'd have in mind would be some form of 'market' socialism, while the 'Christian' I'd have in mind would, for these political as distinguished from ecclesial purposes, be such as to embrace all, in the wonderful Vatican locution, 'people of good will.'  That would doubtless include hundreds of millions of our Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, and ... sisters and brothers.  This party, as I dreamed of it, would have been pro-life both before and after the birth of the living being, and would cherish all forms of life on the earth, while viewing the human form of life as the 'steward' or 'servant' form.  But enough of that for now.)  

2.  The second point is that it would seem to be quite consistent with, if not indeed a mandate of, our participation in the Catholic community of faith that we participate in that community's 'prophetic' function in addition to its sacramental and liturgical functions.  Now I for one have often recoiled, perhaps as a consequence of a (non-politically) conservative temperament, at the oft-seeming self-flattery involved in locutions like 'our prophetic mission' and so forth, at least when heard from people whose involvements with their faiths seemed to be more or less like the involvements of casual sports-viewers with their televisions.  But the fact is nevertheless that our Church acts as a witness and as a light unto the world, and certainly one altogether legitimate channel through which it does so is by providing a voice to the unjustifiably voiceless in our larger polity.  Affording that voice, it seems to me, is not 'point-scoring' for a political party or political block in any cheap, gamey sense unless one's aim is to advance the cause of that party or block, as distinguished from that of those unjustifiably voiceless of God's creatures on whose behalf the Church is charged with the task of speaking.  Now there can surely be times when one judges that the cause of a particular political party or bloc is more in snych with the cause of one's Church than is that of another.  And so there can often be times when one might (a) reasonably 'take sides' with that party or bloc on the relevant 'issues,' buth also (b) in so doing for a sustained period of time, risk confounding the ally in that side-taking with the Church itself.  I therefore tend to think it's incumbent on all of us to take special care to avoid the ever-present danger that is (b), while recognizing and prudently acting upon the sensible course of action that is (a).  And one sign that one is not adequately avoiding the pitfall that is (b) would presumably be that one overlooks the errors of the political groups with which one is making common cause while triumphally trumpeting the errors of those political groups with which one is not. 

3.  Finally third, I think it fair to recognize, prior to any leap to the conclusion that somebody has fallen into 'trap (b)' as I've just characterized it, that there are times in the political life of our nation where the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, or other errors of one political party or bloc can be more abundant, or conspicuous, or dangerous, or otherwise salient than at other times, and than those of other political parties or blocs.  There is no doubt what ever that the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democratic Party in particular were especially evident in the early and mid-1990s, for example.  Many who know me know that I fulminated quite furiously about the silencing of Governor Casey in the 1992 Democratic Party Convention.  (I still do!)  They also know that I was so disgusted by regular dissembling on the part of President Clinton, on a multitude of non-trivial political 'issues,' in the mid-1990s that I actually wrote in the name of Casey in the 1996 election, rather than vote for the Democratic candidate on whom I had quite given up, or the Republican candidate who I'd always found exceptionally dark, sinister, and opportunistic.  (Asked whether the stance on abortion would matter to him in his selection of a running mate, some of you might recall from that time, Dole replied something like, 'no more than if he is left or right handed.')  But to all appearances as I perceived them, something truly 'flipped' in the later 1990s.  The idea that an all-out constitutional crisis should be opportunistically induced, all in order to score gratuitous political points in respnse to an undisciplined man's excruciatingly embarrassing if not indeed disgusting sexual blunder, by an opposition political party many if not most of whose seat-holders in Congress had been serial adulterers as well as serial husbands themselves, was just too much to tolerate any longer.  For me, that marked the day that this party officially became a grave danger to the governability and long-term existence of our thus far remarkably successful experiment in pluralist republican democracy.  And things have only grown worse from that quarter since those days, all while the Democratic Party has landed a multitude of 'pro-life' members in Congress and has just wrought the Stupack Amendment (which many appear to believe goes much further than any constitutionally plausible Republican 'pro-life' measure of recent years).  If you add to all this the fact that Republican leaders, members of Congress, and 'grass roots' rank & file have since the summer routinely been (a) lying - yes, lying - about the President's place of birth, about the President's taking 'In God We Trust' off of the coinage, about health insurance legislation of the kind for which the Bishops themselves have been calling for decades, and a multitude of other important public matters, all while (b) whipping up paranoid fantasies and seditious intentions which actually are inducing armed - yes, armed - crazies to attend 'tea party' rallies, and (c) literally shouting down and shutting down public fora - including not only 'town hall' meetings, but the floor of the House of Representatives itself - to prevent people from taking part in public deliberations, ... it grows very difficult indeed not to view today's Republican Party, which looks more like a sibling, within the same holding company structure, of Fox 'News' every day, as Threat One to the governability and longterm sustainability of our polity.  What is Threat Two?  Why, right now, that might well be the Democratic Party, which appears to be owned in significant measure by a Wall Street consortium.  And while Michael, I, and many others here are attending to the clear and present danger that is the RNC, I have no doubt - and no worry - that Robby and many others will attend to that momentarily lesser danger that is the DNC.  I say thank goodness -- and Robby et al -- for that.

Thanks for the rippin' conversation,

Bob