A bill in Minnesota to legalized suicide was tabled by its chief sponsor today after a hearing at which many opponents showed up to warn of dangers from the bill. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Another opponent, Kathy Ware, said the legislation sends the wrong message about people who are disabled and depend on others for care. She has a 21-year-old son, Kylen, who is mentally impaired and has cerebral palsy and epilepsy.
Ware said people seeking life-ending medication in Oregon have cited conditions shared by disabled people, such as being less able to engage in activities, losing dignity or losing control of bodily functions. The last reason particularly upset her....
As evening closed in, Eaton acknowledged that the matter was too complicated, with too many open questions, to be resolved that day.
“I don’t want any kind of vote,” she told fellow senators. “We’re not ready for it … it’s abundantly clear.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life encouraged their members to show up. Charlie Camosy, my fellow board member at Democrats for Life of America, wrote a terrific Star-Tribuneop-ed encouraging liberals in particular to oppose the bill, calling assisted suicide "an idea that loses its appeal as it becomes more tangible."
At Commonweal, Anthony Annett has a characteristically hard-hitting but, in this particular case, I believe overstated and in places unfair post called "Catholic Republicans Are Implicated in the Rise of Trump." He is, among other things, responding to our own Robby George's recent call for Catholics not to support Trump (and, in so doing, to prevent the Republican Party from being a reasonably effective even if obviously imperfect vehicle for some causes about which many Catholics care, including the pro-life cause).
The Trump phenomenon is, to me, extremely discouraging and most unwelcome. That said, I appreciate that it's also complicated and that the explanations for it are, too. (I've found folks like Rusty Reno, Ross Douthat, and Charles Murray helpful in understanding what's happening.) The argument in Annett's post is, basically, that conservative Catholic Republicans are "directly implicated in Trump’s meteoric rise. They actively supported the economic policies that fed the beast of insecurity, and they actively undermined the values embedded in the Catholic social tradition that might have acted as a bulwark against this narcissistic blowhard."
Readers can decide for themselves if Annett's descriptions of the policies he mentions, and their effects, are accurate and can determine whether they agree with his understanding of and claims about the implications for policy of Catholic Social Thought and of principles like subsidiarity. It does seem to be the case that many Trump voters are motivated in part by frustration having to do with their understandings of free-trade and other economic policies that Republicans (and, in recent decades, most leading Democrats) have favored. (Whether these voters are correct to think that Donald Trump -- or, for that matter, Bernie Sanders -- has an understanding of economic matters that would ameliorate their frustration is another matter.) Again, there are some commentators who have written thoughtfully on this. But, in my view, Annett paints too broadly, and neglects the many ways in which the loss of a "bulwark against this narcissistic blowhard" (and I certainly agree that Trump is one) is a result of civil-society-institution-and-moral-ecology undermining policies, values, and social changes that are more accurately associated with the Democratic Party and the left-liberal side of American politics. (He does, in one parenthetical sentence, acknowledge that "[t]he Democrats don’t have a stellar record here either. They have spent the past few decades favoring Planned Parenthood, Wall Street, and the 'creative class' over their traditional constituency." I'd call this a considerable understatement.)
Now, all that said: I agree with Robby and others that, on balance and all things considered, the Republican Party has been a useful vehicle -- and that's all, for me, a political party can and should be for Catholics: not part of our identity and not, in itself, an object of loyalty -- for several causes and on several issues that matter to me (e.g., school choice, judges, religious freedom, life, anti-communism, etc.) On some other issues (e.g., criminal justice, immigration, etc.), I would prefer different policies to the ones that Party generally promotes. If the nominee of the Republican Party, however, is Donald Trump, then it seems to me that it becomes unable -- disqualified, really -- from playing even this "vehicular" role (for me). I think the same is true of a Democratic Party led by Sec. Clinton (and, in effect, by Cecile Richards). And so, as I suggested in an earlier post, I'm becoming resigned to writing in my former governor, Mitch Daniels, and spending a fair amount of time praying the rosary and drinking Basil Hayden's (a good Catholic bourbon).
Since my last post on this issue, assisted suicide legalization proposals in both Nebraska and Maryland has been defeated in committees. Great news!
Let us hope for the same result in Minnesota, where the Senate’s Health, Human Services and Housing Committee is holding a hearing on the "Minnesota Compassionate Care Act" (SF 1880). Charles Camosy published a great essay in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, presenting the "liberal" case in opposition to legalizing assisted suicide. Among other great things, he writes:
Against the individualist approach, liberals focus on how policies impact vulnerable people who are pushed to the margins. In a youth-worshiping and capitalist culture, older people are understood as a drain or burden on their families and society. Hardly surprising, then, that older people would feel “tired of life” and seek a way out. But it is diabolical to make it easier for vulnerable people on the margins to kill themselves. Good liberals must absolutely affirm the goodness of their existence — especially when the surrounding culture can make them feel unwanted and burdensome.
We've been blessed and honored at St. John's Law School to have had, within the last month, visits to our Colloquium in Law and Religion by Professor Robert George (who gave a paper on "Religious Liberty and the Human Good") and Professor Mark Tushnet (who discussed his skepticism about religious accommodation in this recent piece). Two men; two rather different sets of views; a perfectly equilibrated set of perspectives for a seminar on such matters.
MoJ readers are probably aware that I am strongly opposed to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I have been sharply critical of the character of both of these candidates, as well as many of their policies and proposals. I believe that they are unfit to be President. But I am opposed to hatred directed towards anyone--including Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. Each of them, like every other human being, is a precious individual made in the image of likeness of God. Even in criticizing their character, as I believe we must do in view of the fact that they are seeking high office, we must bear that in mind.
In view of what is now happening to Mr. Trump, I must add this point: He, like every candidate, has a right to give his speeches and hold his rallies without disruption. Efforts by MoveOn and other leftist groups to prevent him from speaking are utterly disgraceful. Moreover, Mr. Trump (notwithstanding his own shameful statements about "punching people in the face") has the right to personal safety. That is an absolute right. Criticism of him and his policies is legitimate and necessary; but hatred directed towards him is unacceptable and dangerous.
It's true, alas, and shameful, that Donald Trump's rhetoric about "punching people in the face" and so forth, and the tactics of some of his particularly overheated supporters, bring to mind the rhetoric and tactics of the fascist parties of the 1920s and 30s. That is among the many reasons I have forcefully and publicly spoken out against the Trump campaign, including in a recent public appeal by a group of Catholic thinkers to our fellow Catholics and all citizens of goodwill. But it is equally true, and every bit as shameful, that the hard left, including many Bernie Sanders supporters (though, it must be emphasized, without encouragement of any sort from Senator Sanders himself), employ vile rhetoric and engage in acts of intimidation that also call to mind the rhetoric and tactics of those fascist parties. The clashes between the Trump people and the left-wing radicals are beginning to get violent and I fear that they will escalate. More memories of Europe in the 20s and 30s. On Friday night, the hard left (urged on by MoveOn.org and an organization styling itself "People for Sanders") succeeded in a deliberate effort to shut down a Trump campaign rally in Chicago by deploying intimidation tactics and creating an atmosphere in which the threat of violence was palpable. That is fascism. And its effect will be to reinforce the narrative Mr. Trump has so successfully pressed about the need for a strong leader who will stand up against those who have been assaulting American values, undermmining America's interests, stifling America's public debate, and threatening the basic freedoms of ordinary Americans. (One more thing, the hard left honed its techniques of intimidation by using them successfully over the past decade or more to shut down dissenting speech on campuses and to enforce ideological conformity. Those of us who earn our daily bread in university environments are all-too-familiar with the kind of thing that went on in the streets of Chicago last night. You can expect more of it.)
I am enjoying the conversations (and the scenery, and the weather, . . . ) at Pepperdine University this weekend, thanks to the hospitality of Profs. Michael Helmand and Bob Cochran, and the University's Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics. Our own Amy Gelmen is about to take the podium, to talk about moral obligations of bystanders to those in danger.
This morning, I moderated an interesting panel on Criminal Law matters, at which Prof. Barbara Armacost (to mention just one presenter) shared thoughtful remarks on the phenomenon of solitary confinement. Before that, I had the honor of introducing the keynote lecture on "The Just Limits of Love" by Prof. Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Yesterday, there were two panels on the by-now familiar-to-law-folks debate about accommodations of religion and "third-party harms." I spoke, along with Profs. Fred Gedicks, Nathan Chapman, Mark Scarberry, Chad Flanders, and Doug NeJaime. A good time was had by all. In my remarks, which were directed to the recent paper published by NeJaime and Prof. Reva Siegel, I contended -- drawing on this paper, from about ten years ago -- that the mere fact an accommodation claim involves an issue that is "culture-war" salient or in "democratic contestation" does not provide a (principled) basis for denying the claim.
In the latest issue of Books & Culture, there is a review by Prof. John Witte of Samuel Moyn's new book, Christian Human Rights. Like everything Witte writes, it is well worth a read. Here's a bit:
Human rights norms ultimately need Christian or comparably sturdy religious or philosophical narratives to ground them, and to adapt and apply them to the culture of each local community. There is, of course, some value in simply declaring human rights norms of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” or “life, liberty, and property”—if for no other reason than to pose an ideal against which a person or community might measure itself, to preserve a normative totem for later generations to make real. But, ultimately, these abstract human rights ideals of the good life and the good society depend on the visions and values of human communities and institutions to give them content and coherence—to provide what Jacques Maritain called “the scale of values governing [their] exercise and concrete manifestation.” It is here that Christianity and other religions must play a vital role. Religion is an ineradicable condition of human lives and human communities. Religions invariably provide many of the sources and “scales of values” by which many persons and communities govern themselves. Religions inevitably help to define the meanings and measures of shame and regret, restraint and respect, responsibility and restitution that a human rights regime presupposes. Religions must thus be seen as indispensable allies in the modern struggle for human rights, along with many other philosophical, moral, cultural resources. To exclude them from the struggle is impossible, indeed catastrophic. To include them, by enlisting their unique resources and protecting their unique rights, is vital to enhancing the regime of human rights.
The review is appreciative, but critical (persuasively so, I think). Check it out.
What happened last week in Minnesota is the way it was supposed to be. Republicans gathered precinct by precinct in school classrooms, churches, and public libraries to talk with their neighbors. With a record-setting turnout, we Minnesotans chose Senator Marco Rubio as our candidate for President — by a rather large margin. It was a commanding win for Rubio. And Donald Trump didn’t even finish second in Minnesota, but was left behind as a distant third.
Of all of the candidates, Marco Rubio began by offering an uplifting message of a diverse America moving forward into a new century. For many of us who believe that an understanding of the common good, respect for life, personal character, and a vibrant faith that informs conscience are the standards by which the Ship of State should navigate, Rubio was a shining star in this crowded field.
Yes, what happened in Minnesota is the way it was supposed to be. But as proud as I am to be a Minnesotan today, that simply is not the way it has been anywhere else. Or the way it will be in the future. Of 23 states (almost half), Rubio has won only one (along with the territory of Puerto Rico).
Utilitarian economists, skeletons of schoolmasters, Commissioners of Fact, genteel and used-up infidels, gabblers of many little dog’s-eared creeds, the poor you will have always with you. Cultivate in them, while there is yet time, the utmost graces of the fancies and affections, to adorn their lives so much in need of ornament; or, in the day of your triumph, when romance is utterly driven out of their souls, and they and a bare existence stand face to face, Reality will take a wolfish turn, and make an end of you.
