In response to Rick: The most serious problem with Trump is not his policy prescriptions. Several of them are awful; in my view, a few, like infrastructure rebuilding and probable Supreme Court appointments, have positive elements. But it is not enough to predict or hope that the awful announced policy prescriptions would be blocked by others--even if that would likely happen. (I realize Rick isn't adopting that position but is just saying it's reasonable.) The fundamental problem is Trump's personality: the man exhibits a narcissistic disorder, obsessed with his own status and avenging slights, and reflexively doubling down in response to any criticism or challenge. The latest confirmation--small but striking, and the latest of many--was his remarkable post-convention monologue last Friday, in which he said he didn't care about Ted Cruz and then proceeded to spend 10 minutes revisiting what Cruz did and the revenge that he, Trump, would take. There is absolutely no telling what Trump might do with the day-to-day powers of the Presidency, including the keys to the nuclear codes. We would be in virtually uncharted waters.
If Trump is elected, then even if other actors would block his bad policy initiatives, there would be no way to avoid putting the day-to-day power of the office in his hands. There is no way to avoid saying, "This is the man who will make the crucial judgments in whatever (unknowable) crises arise." In that sphere, military and other actors would presumptively obey his orders, some of which the press might not learn about in time to speak against them. Some officials might resign rather than enforce them, but that dynamic puts us on the short road to constitutional crisis. In addition, the day-to-day power of the office includes public statements; his have been especially erratic, and toxic both in the immediate sense and to the long-term health of public discourse. No other actor--Congress, bureaucrats, press--can stop those, or their effects. They are inherent in electing him.
So ... if the argument "I don't will the bad things in Trump" depends upon a prediction that others will prevent those bad things, then one is in fact willing the day-to-day outrages and fiascoes that clearly, by nature, cannot be prevented. #NeverTrump.
This argument does not entail voting for Hillary. Of course, those who think the Democrats are wrong on most issues will be disinclined to vote for her even to avoid Trump. That's not my situation: I am a Democrat who thinks that party's positions on many issues are better for the common good. But I nevertheless have a serious struggle. That's not because Clinton's personality flaws are as bad as Trump's: however significant, her flaws are not in his category. It's primarily because of two (for me) very serious issues--familiar but sadly becoming even more pointed this year. First is the further intensification of the party's abortion position. As a pro-life Democrat, I put a high priority on strengthening social supports in order to reduce economic pressures to abort; but the party's new attack on the Hyde Amendment, and its increasing tendency to view abortion as in no way regrettable, make the conflict for pro-life liberals more serious than ever.
Second, as a religious freedom advocate who also supports some of the policies that have come in sharp conflict with religious tenets (policies like sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws and the Affordable Care Act), I am disturbed by having seen first-hand the unwillingness of more and more Democratic leaders to support any accommodations that would meaningfully balance these two goals--particularly accommodations that would allow faith-based service organizations to follow their tenets while continuing to do their work helping others. This dynamic has become very powerful, very suddenly, and there are reasons to think that the Clinton executive branch will be even less inclined to accommodate than the Obama executive branch has been. (Note that in some cases, such as hiring based on religious belief by groups receiving federal grants, Obama has preserved freedom for religious organizations to maintain their faith-based nature, against intense pressure from anti-accommodation progressives. I have no confidence that Clinton will do the same.)
But even with these serious (in my view) problems with Clinton's likely policies, I cannot in conscience vote for Trump. I can't tell myself it would be OK--even on balance--because others will check him in in office. There will be pervasive features of his presidency that they can't check. So if I ultimately cannot vote for Clinton, the only options for me would be to vote third-party (I'm not attracted to the current ones) or write in someone.
This is a pretty long-winded assertion of my judgments, and I know we don't want election discussion to take over the blog. But in responding to Rick's suggestion about avoiding Trump's problems, I thought I should explain my thinking more fully.
My colleagues at Democrats for Life, Kristen Day and Charlie Camosy, spell it out in the L.A. Times. The platform not only attacks the Hyde Amendment, they point out; in addition, it calls for repeal of any regulation impeding access to abortion, acknowledging no considerations on the other side, and removes the 2012 platform's endorsement of religious liberty in the context of abortion. A bit more:
The abortion plank in the 2016 Democratic platform effectively marginalizes the voices of 21 million pro-life Democrats. It means the party that is supposedly on the side of justice for the vulnerable no longer welcomes those of us who #ChooseBoth; that is, those of us who want the government to protect and support prenatal children and their mothers....
The Democratic Party's abortion stances have already caused many to leave the party, and many more will drop out because of the platform wording. The percentage of extreme abortion rights advocates is increasing in the party, but only because the total number of Democrats has shrunk to its lowest level since the Hoover administration.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Very quickly after being sued in federal court (the suit that Rick recently noted), the Iowa Civil Rights Commission revised its brochure on public-accommodations issues under anti-discrimination laws, to say that churches were not places of public accommodations (except in unusual cases). The new language:
Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public. For example, the law may apply to an independent day care or polling place located on the premises of the place of worship.
Since there was a lot of publicity about the earlier language and the lawsuit, it's right, it seems to me, to note the change, and how quick it was.
Jim Gaffigan, the comedian, has been on talk shows recently as the second season of his great TV series has begun. NPR recently replayed and posted an interview he did last September with Teri Gross on "Fresh Air." A bit:
[GAFFIGAN:] You know, I need the concept of mercy for me to have some semblance of self-admiration. So in real life, I'm probably somebody who is more devout. That's not to say that I'm a well-informed Catholic. You know, I'm still in idiot, you know? Like, I know that Colbert could quote Thomas Aquinas and all this, but I'm somebody who - you know, because it's a necessity for me on a personal basis. I need it because I'm a lunatic.
GROSS: When you say you're a horrible person and a lunatic, what do you mean?
GAFFIGAN: I mean that I'm somebody that - you know, I think stand-up comedy is this - it's this kind of indulgence and narcissism. And you're on stage and because stand-up comedy is one of the few meritocracies in the entertainment industry, there's some kind of - at least for me, there's some kind of idea of control. And my faith kind of keeps me in touch with the idea that I'm not in control of things. And when I'm in touch with the idea that there is a higher power and that there is, you know, other factors at work, it - it kind of quells my narcissism. And a lot of the teachings really kind of keep me grounded. But, you know, the reason I say I'm a horrible person is I don't want myself to be presented as somebody who's a great Catholic. You know, it's, you know - the idea of being a practicing Catholic, it's - for me, it's like - I need a lot of practice, you know what I mean?
When he said basically the same thing on Bill Maher's show (this clip, start around 2:00), Bill responded, "Why do you take on yourself more burden than life gives you anyway?" (I.e. "why go around thinking that you sin?"). It was a perfect skirmish between the theistic imagination and what Reinhold Niebuhr called "The Easy Conscience of Modern [Secular] Man." I think Bill Maher is often very funny, but watching his show, it's not clear he thinks he's ever gotten anything really wrong.
The Christian Science Monitor began a seven-part series today on "How the push for gay rights is reshaping religious liberty in America." A central theme of the first article:
In their campaign for equal rights in America, gay men and lesbians have argued persuasively that they are being targeted simply because of who they are – and who they love.
Many religious conservatives are now making a similar appeal. They argue that their faith is an essential part of their being, and that attempts to belittle their faith or confine it to the four walls of a church is to consign them to second-class citizenship.
The piece quotes John Inazu and me among others. One of my quotes continues the theme of seeing parallels between the two sets of claims, gay rights and religious freedom:
“Just as it was unsympathetic to gay and lesbian couples to say, ‘Keep your relationship totally private,’ it is also highly unsympathetic to the religious believer to say, ‘You have a legal right to follow your belief in church but no right in any other realm of life, like charitable organizations or the workplace.’”
As veteran MOJ readers know, I've elaborated on the case for protecting both sides here and (joining with Doug Laycock) here.
The whole series should be worth reading. The Monitor has devoted the resources to examining these issues in detail as the New York Times has done, but the first installment suggests it will present the religious-accommodation side more fairly than the Times did.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
California is on the road to passing legislation, aimed at religious colleges' sexual-conduct policies for students, that would create serious conflicts for many of the state's Catholic and evangelical Protestant colleges. I've done an "explainer" article for Christianity Today that describes the bill (it's had a number of permutations) and its likely impact (students at these colleges would face a serious danger of losing their "Cal Grants," which are state educational grants, up to $9,000 yearly, for students from modest-income families). The article is in descriptive rather than normative format, but it aims to make the bill's likely consequences clear.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
This Crux article, by a researcher at a Georgetown initiative on Christian-Muslim relations, criticizes the USCCB for not emphasizing, in the Fortnight for Freedom, that the violent or harassing targeting of Muslims is a central religious-freedom problem. (Various Catholic groups, and prominent lay Catholics like our own Robbie George, have given it prime emphasis in recent months.) Here's what the article says about the USCCB:
At its most basic level, Islamophobia is a religious freedom issue. American families can’t go to their houses of worship without fear of them being sprayed with bullets or graffiti. Men and women feel they must change the way they dress to receive fewer stares and the threat of assaults. Children are bullied at school because they are Muslim.
This is a reality that should alarm all Americans, especially Catholics concerned about issues of religious liberty.
But Islamophobia is not an issue at the forefront of the USCCB’s agenda or the Fortnight for Freedom campaign. The only reference to Muslims in the materials on the USCCB’s Fortnight webpage was in an article reposted from National Catholic Register, which spoke about “militant factions of Islam” that “kill Christian believers” in the Middle East.
Is this accurate? I share the author's premise that religious-freedom claims of various faiths tend to stand or fall together, and thus the freedom of Muslims (and Christians) must be vigorously protected. But I haven't followed this year's Fortnight, or the bishops' statements generally. If the piece is accurate, what is the explanation?
