Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
A follow-up as the debate enters its final stage
Thousands of you read, responded to and shared my August piece about the health care debate and Catholicism. We are now in the final phase of the Congressional process and some things are clearer than they were then. Catholic Church leaders wanted undocumented immigrants included in the bill. They are not. Sadly, the Church stands almost alone among organizations in this country in its concern for the undocumented. They wanted universal coverage, and to the surprise of many, it looks like it will happen.
But, though the House bill does not fund or encourage abortion services, the bishops and most Catholics wanted specific language keeping abortion out of the bill entirely, and making it impossible for a future administrative action to change this, effectively bringing the Hyde Amendment into the bill and codifying it in a way that is stronger than its current status. This still could happen, as pro-life Democrats take up the cause. But what if it doesn’t?
The US bishops have a clear answer: Kill the bill. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops began a massive final push on health care this past weekend, hitting 17,000 parishes with a bulletin insert and email campaign to be distributed over the next few weeks. The bishops’ final stand on the absence of strong enough pro-life language: “If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”
But what of universal coverage? What of help for the uninsured, some of whom die and suffer for lack of medical care?
In September, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, expressed a very different view, equally grounded in Catholic teaching. Having lived for 16 years in the US, Cardinal Martino said … Continue reading Health Care Reform and Catholicism Revisited
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
A Catholic convert calls on his Church to be a positive force in extending health care to all
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:37-40)
People of faith are not of one political party or the other — not all conservative or all progressive, all right or all left. But most people of faith believe as a core principle that we should love one another and care for one another — that this is how we express Divine Love.
Can we agree on this: Can we agree that it’s a scandal that tens of millions of Americans live in fear of getting sick, because of the ruin it might bring to their lives? And that many of the rest of us are only a layoff away from the same situation? This is not a statement of rights. This is not an argument for exactly how to extend to those people the security of universal coverage. But can we agree that it is for the Common Good that this be done?
It upsets me how little I’ve heard from religious leaders. Most notably, what I’ve heard from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. While the bishops have gone on record multiple times in favor of universal coverage, their recent focus on attacking the current proposals gives the impression they are hostile towards the whole effort. I know the bishops want universal coverage. I’ve read the urgency of their … Continue reading For I Was Ill and You Cared For Me
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
As I write about William F. Buckley, I can’t help thinking of my dad. They were alike in many ways, and my father introduced me, through the TV screen, to Buckley. I once told Buckley that he’d played a huge role in the formation of my political thinking—as I’d been watching “Firing Line” since it appeared on PBS when I was 9 years old—and he said, “Well, that’s a frightening thought.” Of course, it was a frightening thought. Why was a 9-year-old watching a political debate show led by this devout intellectual with the vocabulary of a … well … the vocabulary typical of no one at any education level? Cause of my dad. My atheist dad.
My father may have been against religion, but his ethical example, his dignity, and his love and respect for nature and his fellow man were spiritual practices if ever I’ve seen them. I know I got part of whatever religious core I have though him. And he and the author of “God & Man at Yale” shared many values.
Bill Buckley is best known for starting the magazine National Review, and, largely through that publication, for leading a revitalization of conservative politics in America. But there has always been a tension within conservatism between what Buckley represented and what at one time called itself the “Know Nothings”—anti-intellectual, often anti-immigrant, populism.
The conservatism William F. Buckley stood for was a heartfelt belief in individual liberty, collective responsibility and a healthy respect for traditions. His was not a politics of fear. It was a thoughtful and a decent politics. One that he was more than happy to defend against reasonable opponents.
Buckley’s “Firing Line” was no relative of the modern split screen scream-fest, with surrogates of Left and Right speaking from memorized talking points, bullying their way to … Continue reading Faithful Departed—William F. Buckley Jr.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
For families divided by politics, gathering together this holiday season provides both challenges and opportunities
I worry about the holidays this year. My relatives are an eclectic bunch, pretty evenly split—to use crude and somewhat useless political labels—between the Left and Right; our religious diversity includes a Catholic (me), Mormons, evangelicals, United Church of Christ members and a few who are unaffiliated. Throw in my surrogate family (that’s a story for another time) and you add Presbyterians, Jews and Buddhists. As we gather around our family table and share letters and cards this post-election holiday season, I will be looking for opportunities to be a healing force.
My family is like millions of others in the United States who come together this time of year for the holidays and struggle to put their passionate differences aside for a few hours. This Thanksgiving will find supporters of McCain and Obama—and a fair number of Clintonites whose Obama support was begrudging—gathering to share a family meal.
Of course, every election has winners and losers and there is always disappointment for some. But this election has been different for two reasons. First, it’s a major shift—generationally and ideologically—that has left many feeling left out of the party, so to speak. Second, this has been one of the uglier presidential campaigns in modern history. There are plenty of hurt feelings all around. A lot of fear got stirred up.
In couples counseling, it’s an axiom that the most toxic thing to a relationship is not when the partners disagree, or even fight, but when they stop respecting each other. For several generations now, there has been little trust and respect in the political sphere. Both sides have demonized the other, have assumed ill motives on their opponents’ parts.
But of all relationships, the deepest and oldest, next to … Continue reading Forming A More Perfect Union
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
A new TV ad campaign by the United Church of Christ (including the Congregationalists) shows a conservative church with a velvet rope and bouncers turning away anyone who is gay, non-white or weird looking. The ad says, “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we. No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here.”
CBS and NBC have refused to air the ads. “Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations,” says CBS, “and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.” NBC, home of Will & Grace and Queer Eye, just said it was “too controversial.”
You can see the ad at http://www.stillspeaking.com/default.htm
If I were a member of a conservative church where only blonde heterosexual couples in blue suits and pink summer dresses with perfect children were welcome, I’d certainly get the message from this ad that I was being criticized. I could understand if a network feared their wrath and didn’t want to show it for that reason. What’s disturbing about the CBS response is that they cite the executive branch’s opposition to gay marriage as the reason it’s “too controversial.”
So apparently, they’re saying that since the President opposes gay marriage, this is the official baseline for our society, and it is a challenge to our government to suggest that being loving and welcoming to everyone is the Christian way.
CBS’s reasoning would be more disturbing if it weren’t so idiotic. But it is troubling that two of the three major networks balked for whatever reason.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
November 7, 2004
I did not work for Kerry, though I was hoping he’d win. I’m in politics, and I used that as an excuse—I was already working for the cause, so I didn’t need to also work for Kerry. But the truth is I had no desire to. When Dean was running, I found time to help his campaign; somehow, I didn’t find that same time for Kerry. This despite my intimate knowledge of the stakes involved.
I have been in formal and informal meetings these last few days that inevitably turn into post mortems on the election, and several times I’ve heard people echo my reaction: annoyance at the fact that I ever let myself be OK with Kerry being the candidate. When this whole thing started, Kerry was down near the bottom of my list (just above Gephardt). I made myself see things as positively as I could and hoped his wishy-washy style was tied to his role as a senator—that once he was President he would change gears—but I honestly doubted it. The flip-flopper charge against him started in the Dean campaign and I agreed with every word. Sure it’s hard to have to defend a Senate record, with all the inevitable compromises. But many aren’t as muddled as Kerry’s, and maybe the Senate isn’t the right pool to pull presidents from. Maybe it happens so rarely for a reason. But in the end, I speculated that Kerry might be the Democratic Party’s Gorbachev, the old party machine member who could act as a transitional figure to the new generation. The truth is that right down to the end, through the convention, the debates, his comeback, Kerry never stood for anything. He was the grownup, the smart one, the vet, the not-Bush. That was about the extent of … Continue reading I did not work for Kerry
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
This is really fascinating and made me feel a lot better. There have been all these maps all over the media showing the vast red expanse and little strips of blue on the northern coasts. This map is the real story though. Regions are distorted to match area size to population, and shades of purple represent mixed red/blue for areas where the vote was close, most of which show as red on other maps even though the republicans won my a narrow margin. Note that there are many areas that are heavily blue-Democrat and only a very trivial number of areas that are solid red-Republican. I looked them up on the non-baloony version of the map and the one near the top left that looks like a Star Trek Federation badge is Utah, and the vertical line to its right a bit is the vertical strip of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and northwest Texas.
The site where you can find this and the other views, and commentary about the statistics, is here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/.
I sure wish our media treated things like this with an approach of helping people understand the data, rather than just spewing misleadingly simplistic facts.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
Whether Bush wins and is a lame duck or loses and is blamed for the loss, we are perhaps about to witness the end of the Republican Party as we know it — the coalition of fiscal libertarians and social conservatives. The combination has never made sense and only worked when they were united against Communists and 60s radicals, which is now irrelevant. It is only the support of the fiscal conservatives and traditionalists that has given the radical right a legitimate voice in American politics these past few decades.
About 3/4ths of Americans are liberal on social issues and I believe we are about to embark on an extended run of responsibly liberal governance that will bring us back in line with Europe and the rest of the “developed” world. I was talking with a friend from England last night and she said that while, of course, there are people and politicians in Europe who have radical right views, they know they have no shot at controlling the government and overturning liberal values like the social welfare contract and choice and gay rights. Not to get too blue-skyey, but I see us picking up the thread we let go of in the morass of the 70s and continuing our political evolution: reaffirming society’s responsibility to its weaker members, reengaging the world community, rejoining the environmental movement.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
This is fascinating. Pat Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, decided not to endorse anyone this election, but instead run separate endorsements from the individual editors. Buchanan, while he disagrees with Bush on most things, decides to endorse him anyway. But the number two, Executive Editor Scott McConnell goes the other way. Altogether, the editorials break down: 1 for Bush, 1 for Kerry, 1 for Nader, 1 for the Libertarian, 2 for the Constitution Party, and 1 for staying home. They’re all interesting, and from these links, you can check out all the others. Given, there’s an unsavory anti-immigrant angle in some of it, but putting that aside, there is fascinating material in here supporting my long-standing and oft-reiterated view that there is nothing conservative about this president. The Kerry endorsement is here: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html. Equally interesting to me, as a former Green leader and long-time proponant of decentralism is the Nader endorsement, http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover2.html,which asserts that his anti-corporatism is pure small-c conservatism.
Politics
by Phil Fox Rose
To the Editor,
In Jonathan Alter’s October 18, 2004 Newsweek column, Try a Slice of Humble Pie, he says: “From the outset, Bush has treated John Kerry like a terrorist”.
The proper logical construction is not that Bush treats Kerry like a terrorist; it’s that Bush treats anyone who disagrees with him, anyone who sees things differently, as “them”, the Other. The woman who asked the debate question about whether he had made any mistakes, the media, the terrorists, Democrats, non-Fundamentalist Christians, cabinet members who’ve criticized him, are all evil, out to get him (and goodness in general.)
A tactical benefit of seeing one’s enemies as “them” is that it allows one to maintain a facade of civility while waging battle using inhuman tactics. There is no strategic difference between Abu Grab and the Swift Boat ads; they both assume an any-means-necessary approach justified by the ends.
Bush doesn’t treat John Kerry like a terrorist; he sees John Kerry as a terrorist. To George W. Bush, if you are not with him, you are against him, and if you are against him, you cannot be a righteous person. This way of thinking in anyone is dangerous; in the leader of the free world, it is catastrophic.
Phil Rose
New York, New York
|
Hosted by
|
