Certainly, there is much to endorse in the Commonweal post, by my colleague Cathy Kaveny, to which Michael links here. A few thoughts, by way of friendly amendment:
We should not forget that culture-war rhetoric, a "Manichean world view," and a "take-no-prisoners-and-admit-no-doubt strategy" is at least as prevalent on the left as it is on the "Religious Right." It could well be that this election saw "the middle" move from the GOP to the Democrats in part because of what they perceived (with the help, of course, of a media not bothered by the Democrats' rhetorical extremism) the Republicans' rhetorical excesses and policy overreaches. Still, the Democrats' base has long been and remains as animated by loathing, by "good and evil" talk, and by "admit no doubt" as any right-wing pundit or blogger.
Cathy suggests -- and I wish I could agree -- that this election shows that "the viewers" are saying that "[a] delight in demonizing the opposition" has to go. Certainly, it *should* go. But, this delight is at least as prevalent among Democrats as among Republicans, among "liberals" as among "conservatives" (read both "The Nation" and "The National Review"; both "Kos" and "The Corner"), and so it is not clear why a move to the Democrats entails or reflects any sweeping rejection of the "demonizing" strategy. (It reflects, I suspect, war fatigue, and disgust with Foley and Abramoff. Sadly, it probably does not reflect moral revulsion over excessive interrogation tactics.)
While I would not want to abandon the power (both rhetorical and descriptive) of John Paul II's "Culture of Life," I can certainly join Cathy in hoping that people and politics are animated in the future by a careful engagement with "Deus caritas est." That said, it is not clear to me that such an engagement will or should lead reasonable, thoughtful, nuance-seeing Catholics to abandon or mute efforts to protect unborn children from abortion and to correct the constitutional-law errors that, at present, hinder such efforts.
I agree entirely that Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law is a powerful work, one that, were it read by all citizens and policymakers, would dramatically improve things. But, I would be surprised if Professor Glendon did not prefer the Republicans' approach to abortion over the Democrats'. And, again, the "humane" and "gradualist" approach endorsed in that book requires for its success -- indeed, requires for its initiation -- the correction of the Court's removal of abortion from the arena of dialogue, persuasion, and compromise. Let's agree that our approach should include carrots as well as sticks, that it should be sensitive to nuance, that it should not be tainted by demonization -- can we also agree that a necessary first condition for all this is for those on the abortion-rights side of our politics to repent of having enshrined in the Constitution their own exclusionary demonization of pro-life citizens?
UPDATE: Here's something else, by Ryan Anderson, who blogs at First Things:
And that is a lesson to take away from this election. Mud-slinging, attack campaigns, partisan politics, and the blame-game work in a handful of cases in the short term, but making positive, clear, consistent, defensible arguments, with charity and prudence, will prove more successful long term. (It should be noted that George Allen in
Virginia
did the former and not the latter. He also lost.) Catholic bishops can lead the way. It isn’t a question of Republican or Democrat; it’s a question of certain moral truths and the common good. The clear principles of Catholic social thought and the rationally accessible—and highly persuasive—lines of argument from natural-law philosophy provide better grounds for discussion of how to order our lives together. Morlino, Chaput, and Sheridan know this. The electorate seems to be listening and responding.
This is also why a Republican like Michael Steele was able to perform so remarkably well in the blue state of
Maryland
. Moving into the future, particularly the 2008 election, this will be the trend. Politicians from both political parties will be more conservative, including Republicans, who, during their two-year exile, will sober up and embrace more fully the basics of political conservatism. They will lead the way with clear, positive, and rationally persuasive arguments making the philosophical case for a principled conservative polity—and social issues will play a central role.
[Phillip Carter, the author whose piece is referenced below, is an attorney and former Army officer, writes on
legal and military affairs. He recently returned from a year advising
the Iraqi police in Baqubah with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. What follows is from the Opinionator, New York Times online:]
[A]t Slate, Iraq war veteran Philip Carter details the impact of
Rumsfeld’s disastrous tenure on Iraq and the larger the war on terror. “Rumsfeld’s failures transformed the Iraq war from a difficult enterprise into an unwinnable one,”
Carter writes. “Make no mistake: These were not tactical failures, made
by subordinate military officers. Rather, these were strategic errors
of epic proportions that no amount of good soldiering could undo. Blame
for these strategic missteps lies properly with the secretary of
defense and his senior generals, and, ultimately, with the White
House.”
Perhaps most important, Carter says that after Sept. 11, 2001, “The
Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to articulate a successful strategic vision
for the war.” Carter continues:
Consequently, America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and
East Africa since Sept. 11 have lacked strategic coherence. There is no
sense that the sum of these small victories would equal a larger
victory over al-Qaida [sic] or terrorism generally.
Indeed, Rumsfeld’s dominance of the cabinet and the Bush
administration may have guaranteed that America chose the entirely
wrong paradigm for the past five years. Notwithstanding the spectacular
violence of the Sept. 11 attacks, America might have done better had it
not chosen a war paradigm to fight terrorism and instead chosen to
employ a comprehensive array of diplomatic, intelligence, military, and
law enforcement approaches.
Rumsfeld has blood on his hands — American and Iraqi
blood. He also directly ordered and personally monitored the torture of
military detainees. He secured legal impunity for his own war crimes,
but that doesn’t mean the Congress shouldn’t investigate more fully
what he authorized. He remains one of the most incompetent defense
secretaries in history (McNamara looks good in comparison). But he is
also a war criminal: a torturer who broke the laws of this country. The
catastrophe in Iraq will stain him for ever. His record of torture has
indelibly stained the United States.
What does the 2006 election mean for Catholic participation in American
political life? I think this country is sick of endless war – literal
war and metaphorical war. Political commentators say that the midterm
elections were a referendum on the war in Iraq, which is spilling the
blood of both Americans and Iraqis with no clear political objective
and no clear exist strategy. In my view, it is also a referendum on the
culture wars: the take-no-prisoners-and-admit-no-doubt strategy of the
Religious Right, which ended up being nothing more than a pathetic
mirror image of the same strategy used by the secular Left twenty years
earlier. I hope that the resounding defeat of Rick Santorum signals the
end of this way of rhetorically framing controversial moral and social
issues in both the Catholic Church in America and in American political
life more generally. The way the theocons framed and defended the Iraq
War was strikingly consonant with their framing of controversial
domestic issues. I think – I hope – the viewers are saying that it’s
this prophetic (and perhaps apocalyptic) frame that has to go.
1. A Manichean world view: it’s Good v. Evil, the forces of light v. the forces of darkness. And by the way, WE are GOOD.
2.
A delight in demonizing the opposition: who could see anything good in
the forces of darkness? How could the forces of darkness have any point
worth considering whatsoever?
3. An inability to recognize
hard questions, and to acknowledge good faith disagreement about
difficult moral and political issues. To Catholic culture warriors, the
question of stem-cell research, or the Terri Schiavo case, weren’t even
hard questions. The very suggestion that they are hard questions proved
your moral turpitude.
4. An ends-justifies-the-political-means
mentality. If what it takes to rid the world of Saddam is prevarication
on WMDs, so be it. If what it takes to save Terri Schiavo is to violate
settled principles of federalism, so be it.
5. An inability to
see nuance, or to take into account anything but one moral principle at
a time. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Nothing else
needs to be said. Therefore it should always be illegal, even in cases
of rape or incest. If you think the question of the woman’s consent to
sex is at all relevant to the legal status of abortion, you’re the
enemy.
6. A preference for the stick rather than the carrot –
after all, you can’t fight a war with a carrot. Support marriage by
banning gay marriage; don’t provide married couples with the social
support and other resources they need to make their commitment stick.
Be pro-life by banning abortion, not by voting for social services that
will prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You can’t argue someone out
of a culture war mindset – on either side. You can’t make someone see
nuance if they don’t want to see it. It’s a waste of time to try and do
so. But maybe social conservatives who aren’t culture warriors – who
see distinctions, who see some good in their misguided political
opponents — might find a way of working together with social
progressives of the same ilk.
For Catholics, I suggest the following:
1. The theological model should be Benedict’s Augustinian Deus Caritas Est
– not John Paul II’s “Culture of Life v. Culture of Death.” The culture
of life v. culture of death language too easily feeds Manichean
tendencies present deeply present in our culture.
2. The legal model on abortion and marriage issues should be Mary Ann Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law.
It also should be the rhetorical model. It is humane, gradualist, and
more concerned with the role of law as a teacher than law as police
officer. I quote my colleague Don Kommer’s blurb on the back of my copy
of the book:
“This book is dynamite. It blows to bits the
often-heard contention that compromise on abortion policy is impossible
in a divided society. The experience of other nations equally sundered
along religious and moral lines shows that it is possible to craft an
abortion policy marked by compassion for pregnant women and respect for
unborn life. The argument of this book is graceful, elegant and
persuasive. One reason for its persuasiveness is the author’s sympathy
for the commitments and concerns of both sides for the abortion
controversy.” She appeals to their deepest convictions, as well as to
the general values of American society, to show that somewhere between
the extreme positions of abortion on demand and no abortion at all a
sensible and sensitive policy favored by most Americans is to be
found.”
The book was written nearly twenty years ago. I am not
sure that Professor Glendon still endorses its approach. But I think it
is worth taking a second look at.
My colleague Elizabeth Brown brought the following study my attention. This seems so self-evident to me that it's difficult for me to understand why (as Elizabeth pointed out) most corporate boards today still only have one woman on them. I've often wondered if the Church might have handled the sex abuse allegations differently if there had been more women in higher administrative positions in the Church (whether or not they were ordained priests) hearing these stories. I wonder if the perspectives of people who might have been able to more easily identify with the victims than the alleged perpetrators might have contributed to a different institutional approach to the problem.
Board Composition Study Finds Enhanced Governance With Three or More Women on Board
A fundamental change in the boardroom and enhanced corporate governance can result from three or more women serving on a corporate board, according to a report released Oct. 25 by the Wellesley Centers for Women.
The report, "Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance" is based on interviews with 12 chief executive officers, 50 women directors, and seven corporate secretaries at Fortune 1000 companies. It finds that corporations with three or more women on their boards tend to benefit most from the women's contributions, which include:
providing different perspectives,
raising issues that pertain to multiple stakeholders,
expanding the content of board discussion, and
raising difficult issues, which results in "better decision-making."
The report notes that a woman's presence on a board "can and often does" result in "substantial contributions ... [but the] magic seems to occur when three or more women serve on a board together." It concludes that "having three or more women on a board can create a critical mass where women are no longer seen as outsiders and are able to influence the content and process of board discussions more substantially." According to Vicki Kramer, one of the study's authors, "This study strengthens [women's] case for the importance of moving beyond tokenism."
The report authors conclude that "diversity is an issue of governance and that increasing the representation of women on every board is a good governance issue."
The study, funded by the TIAA-CREF Institute as well as several foundations and individual contributors, is the first research study that tries to determine whether it makes a difference how many women served on a board.
Julian Velasco responds to Karen Stohr's most recent comment on ectopic pregnancies:
Karen Stohr asks, “What grounds are you using for saying that the craniotonomy/salpingostomy constitutes the physical act of killing the baby, whereas a hysterectomy/salpingectomy does not?” She then adds, “In order to argue that the former are grave moral wrongs, you would *also* need to argue that they are intentional killings, that death is the aim.” I disagree with this method, but let’s play it out.
As for her first question, she seems not to appreciate the import of the use of the term “physical act” and uses it as she might use the term “act.” As I read it, however, “physical act” means the uncontextualized act undertaken by the actor. I would say (with Richard, I think) that there is a difference in the physical acts between the craniotonomy/salpingostomy and the hysterectomy/salpingectomy based on the directness of the action's impact. The former, which action is taken on the baby and directly leads to the baby's death, is killing. The latter, which action is taken on the mother and only indirectly leads to the baby's death, is merely letting the baby die. (In order to argue that a salpingostomy is merely letting the baby die, you would *at least* have to remove the baby perfectly intact from the mother. I do not see how the argument can be made for a craniotonomy at all.) But even if the argument on her first question fails, then we are left with the conclusions that both are killing (not that neither is), and that both are immoral if intentional.
So we move on to intention. I think that one need not establish that “death is the aim” (i.e., end, goal, desire, etc.) in order to establish an “intentional killing.” That is the whole point of the principle of double effect. One might have a perfectly noble aim and still be limited in the means they may choose to achieve it. In a craniotonomy/salpingostomy, one is intentionally killing the baby for the sake of the mother. The intent to kill is there, albeit an intent with respect to means, not an intent with respect to ends. In a hysterectomy/salpingectomy, on the other hand, one is not intending the death, either as the means or as the end. One merely knows that the death will result. Without more, knowledge is not enough to impute moral culpability.
So even using Karen’s method, a craniotonomy/salpingostomy constitutes an act of killing that is intentional. The death may not be desired, but there is a morally significant difference between “not desiring” and “not intending.” On the other hand, a hysterectomy/salpingectomy at most constitutes an act of killing (and that is disputed), but certainly not one that is intentional.
The CNN exit polls to which Eduardo links do not appear to support Amy Sullivan's conclusion that "the God Gap" has disappeared in American politics. According to the CNN polls, of the 17% who said they attend church "more than weekly," the GOP enjoyed a 60-38 edge; of the 28% who said they attend church "weekly", the GOP was up 53-46. And, of those who said they "never" attend church, the Democrats won 67-30.
That said, the Catholic numbers were interesting. It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that running candidates who profess to depart from the Democrats' positions on "social" issues (in the context of an unpopular war, congressional corruption, and popular minimum-wage ballot initiatives), is a good way for the Democrats to retain more Catholic voters, including Catholic voters who attend Mass.
I noticed that, in Missouri, the "God Gap" seemed slightly more pronounced, and the GOP Senate candidate won among Catholics. At first, I wondered if Amendment 2 -- which creates a constitutional right to create cloned embryos for research purposes and which was promoted by a dishonest, but very well financed effort -- had an effect. Apparently not. According to this article, Catholics split evenly on Amendment 2. And, of course, the Democratic candidate, Claire McCaskill, who is Catholic, nevertheless strongly supported the Amendment -- and, this support clearly helped her win the Senate seat.
Yesterday, the God Gap all but disappeared. Americans who attend
religious services on a weekly basis voted 51 percent for Republican
candidates and 48 percent for Democrats, a statistically meaningless
difference. Nationally, Democrats made modest gains among two important
groups of religious voters--they matched Bush's 2004 advantage with
Catholics (52-47) and improved upon Kerry's 21-point deficit among
evangelicals. (The exact percentage of the evangelical vote isn't known
because, for some inexplicable reason, not every state's exit poll
appears to have included a question to identify such voters.)
UPDATE: Actually, CNN's exit poll data shows Democrats doing even better among Catholics (55-44).
Gordon MacDonald is a leading evangelical pastor and author. He also knows something about dramatic and scandalous falls from positions of spiritual leadership. Back in the 1980s, while he was President of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, he confessed to an adulterous affair. This experience makes his reflection on Ted Haggard's fall even more poignant. Aside from grieving the suffering of Haggard's wife and children, MacDonald predicts that this will be the end of the National Association of Evangelicals as we know it:
Ever since the beginning of the Bush administration, I have worried over the tendency of certain Evangelical personalities to go public every time they visited the White House or had a phone conference with an administration official. I know it has wonderful fund-raising capabilities. And I know the temptation to ego-expansion when one feels that he has the ear of the President. But the result is that we are now part of an evangelical movement that is greatly compromised—identified in the eyes of the public as deep in the hip pockets of the Republican party and administration. My own belief? Our movement has been used.
There are hints that the movement—once cobbled together by Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga—is beginning to fragment because it is more identified by a political agenda that seems to be failing and less identified by a commitment to Jesus and his kingdom. Like it or not, we are pictured as those who support war, torture, and a go-it-alone (bullying) posture in international relationships. Any of us who travel internationally have tasted the global hostility toward our government and the suspicion that our President's policies reflect the real tenants of Evangelical faith.
And I might add that there is considerable disillusionment on the part of many of our Christian brothers/sisters in other countries who are mystified as to where American evangelicals are in all of this. Our movement may have its Supreme Court appointments, but it may also have compromised its historic center of Biblical faith. Is it time to let the larger public know that some larger-than-life evangelical personalities with radio and TV shows do not speak for all of us?
If anyone is looking for things to do in the Twin Cities on Friday, be sure to stop by our symposium on "Catholicism and the Court: The Relevance of Faith Traditions to Jurisprudence." Here is the schedule of speakers.
If you were unable to attend the Journal of Law and Religion/Hamline Law School Symposium on Law and Religion on October 6, you may be interested to know that Dr. David P. Gushee's presentation, Evangelicals and Politics: a Rethinking, is available by podcast on the Hamline LawSchool website,
Other speakers' presentations from that conference will be available at this podcast address at later times. Dr. Gushee's presentation will also be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Law and Religion.
