Good Grief. When did Matthews go so far off the deep end. Creative Minority Report has the story at God, Chris Matthews, and the Death of Perspective
This story reminded me of a post that back from the blogging dead Louisiana Catholic Blogger Astonished, Yet at Home! had a few days back that I so wanted to comment on at The Good of an Obama Presidency . He said in part:
Finally, a great good for Catholics in light of the Obama victory is a realignment of the political landscape. We have pictures of a center-left but faith friendly national politic emerging. Now is the time for a new fidelity to the Gospel of Life, a shedding of the party first mentality, and a creativity in our apologetic in defense of the Gospel of Life for a new political generation. We have realized that occasional anti-abortion rhetoric combined with a disregard for the poor and just war doctrine failed as both an electoral strategy and as a measure of our own integrity in public life. Now is the time for us to divorce ourselves from anger, restore our faith and hope in the Lord rather than the powerful, to hopefully recover our joy in our witnesses and public discourse, and to finally be authentically pro-life.
Now there is a lot I disagree with here. Also perhaps Astonished can clue me in on McCain's disregard for the poor strategy. Also the fact that Joe Biden just like last years was talking and promoting a plan to divide Iraq into three Countries I guess gets sort of missed by the Just War Advocates.
Anyway besides Chris Matthews we had leading "Faith Friendly" Democrats at the Washington Post Call Governor Palin a Slut, demand the media ask Palin if her Husband would be the real VP (submit to your Husband you Know) , and basically slander a great part of the Chrisitan Electorate.
Hmmm call me doubtful about this new grand environment. Needless to say we are seeing what is happening in California right now.
In the end I very much agree with what was be best Catholic Social Justice observation of the year over Mirrors of Justice by this respected Notre Dame Law Prof:
It seems to be a premise of many of these "for whom should Catholics vote?" discussions that "on every issue that matters, other than abortion, the election of Sen. Obama will actually yield meaningful policy actions that are edifyingly in concert with the Church's social teaching, while the election of Sen. McCain will actually yield meaningful policy actions that are distressingly in conflict with the Church's social teaching." But, this premise is false.
It is false because it ignores, or at least downplays, the political, social, cultural and economic realities that will almost certainly prevent dramatic changes with respect to most matters, and so it overestimates the "good" stuff about an Obama administration that, it is proposed, outweighs the "bad" stuff. It is also false because Sen. McCain's views (or, more precisely, the policies likely to be pursued by his administration) on a number of matters -- not just abortion -- are, in terms of consonance with the Church's social teaching, preferable to Sen. Obama's. Or, so a faithful, reasonable, informed, non-duped, non-Republican-hack, Commonweal-and-First Things-reading Catholic could conclude.
It's a sad thought, but . . . I'm not sure that productive conversations -- even among friends -- are possible so long as this false premise is assumed.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Chris Matthews Fears a Sarah Palin Theocracy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
James,
This is cheap blogging by linking me to Joe Biden. If you missed it I was a reluctant vote for McCain in large part due to the Democrats' hypocrisy on just war - I keep reminding my liberal friends they are not the peace party.
What did you actually disagree with in the post? That Obama is more faith friendly than the radical left? That we should insist on the consistent life ethic John Paul II preached? That we should maintain partisan anger, choose the same old GOP over the Gospel, that we should strike up that magical balance of inauthenticity and joylessness?
All I am saying it is idiocy to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result, and that the world does not end with Obama's presidency - it gives the pro-life movement an opportunity to examine its failures and regroup. In my posts in the next week, I will deal with the hope for saving the GOP, the Dems, the unborn and the poor.
While waiting anxiously for such posts, would you please explain to me John McCain's or any prominent Republican not named Huckabee or Brownback love for the poor plan, or at least a let's throw them a bone plan? Even a good Catholic Republican like Michael Denton is saying the GOP needs to learn something about concern for the poor. And I thought I heard you say as much during your Huck days.
I am not trying to link you to Joe Biden. However Bidens postions were often ignored or glossed over by the people that had problems in that arena with Iraq.
As to Obama we shall see. I am not sure How he is more Faith Friendly than lets say Kerry or GOre or CLinton was.
I also do not think the world will end with a Obama WHite House.
McCain's concern for the poor was shown in many ways. Particually in his leadership on Immigration Reform. We have about 12 million people ans their assorted families living in the shadows and in a perilous situation. He took arrows for that and sadly many Catholics failed to take notice or even talk about it
And to be certain I don't miss the mark, Chris Matthews styled Hardball is allegedly the tone that Obama and many of his supporters supposedly reject. Time will tell on this, but Obama is a professing Christian with a born again expereince and supports federal funding for faith-based charities. While I have problems with Obama's Christian vision and his approach to government, I imagine the Madelyn Murray O'Hare crowd have many problems with him too.
And I can tell you that I was an evangelical pressing for a restored Christocratic America defined by my views of Christ at the time. This is not uncommon among evangelicals, regardless of whether or not they would use such words themselves. Tagging Palin as the embodiment of these fears may be extreme, but such fears of the Religious Right's extremes are legitimate, especially for a Catholic who does not want Evangelical Jesus directing our foreign policy towards Armageddon.
You are right on McCain on immigration, and the same could be said for Bush, although both pandered to the right while moving toward the center on immigration.
What about the working poor? And is McCain a typical country club Republican in regards to his blindness to lesser peoples' plights?
"And is McCain a typical country club Republican in regards to his blindness to lesser peoples' plights?"
What exactly is McCain Blindness. What are examples of that
Tell me what exactly he sees. Again, I ask, how about the working poor - you know those making less than 5 million? But I am putting the burden of proof on you, not to defend McCain, but to defend the average GOP leadership, not the Hucks and Brownbacks. Consider Bush's aloofness initially after Katrina. The poor are not a GOP concern because they are not part of their winning coalition.
"The poor are not a GOP concern because they are not part of their winning coalition."
We had a word for such nonsense when I was growing up on a ranch in east Texas. I won't repeat it here, but that there's a full load of it.
I'm not here to defend the GOP because, quite frankly, I'm not a Republican and have become quite disenchanted with that party. Nevertheless, I'm sick of the canard that Republicans and/or conservatives don't care about the poor while Democrats do.
Name one program for the poor that President Bush cut. You can't. In fact, from faith-based initiatives to "No Child Left Behind" to immigration reform to our Africa AIDS policy to the first expansion of an entitlement program by any president since LBJ with the Medicare prescription drug coverage, this Administration has expanded or created more programs and, indeed, has been MORE liberal in its policies toward the poor than Bill Clinton's Administration was.
Jay,
I am not saying Kanye West was right when he said George Bush hates black people. I am saying he didn't care to be a proactive president when the job demanded it. The poor in New Orleans is not the GOP demographic,
I am grateful for Bush's compassionate conservatism he seldom gets credit for, wish there was more of it although I can't figure out the measure of compassion in discerning Who Would Jesus Bomb?, and I wonder if my candidate in this last race, John McCain, would have declared war on those Bush initiatives.
To say there is not a typical country club arrogance among Republicans reminiscent of a Let Them Eat Cake sense of privilege would be a whitewashing of my experience working in GOP campaigns. I am not praising the Democrats for their messianic regard for the poor, far from it, but the toe the line Christians do harm to the brother they can't see in the womb when they show no regard for the brother they can see - Christ in the poor.
" am saying he didn't care to be a proactive president when the job demanded it. The poor in New Orleans is not the GOP demographic,"
Oh give me a break Tbpby. On the night of Nagins relection he went out out his way to say Bush stood by New Orelans and kept his promises
"To say there is not a typical country club arrogance among Republicans reminiscent of a Let Them Eat Cake sense of privilege would be a whitewashing of my experience working in GOP campaigns. I am not praising the Democrats for their messianic regard for the poor, far from it, but the toe the line Christians do harm to the brother they can't see in the womb when they show no regard for the brother they can see - Christ in the poor."
The label "Country Club" Republicans is so 1980's Can we can come up with a better tag than that.
I really don't get how Democrats and others were taken by Obam and his cloudy talk on the poor
Yeah the Obama Folks were making the Homeless a big part of their campaign(sarc)
At the end of this election cycle we had several POlticiaisn on the GOP side in the thick of Catholic SOcial Justice Issues and barely a peep from the Democrat side.
I am just calling a spade a spade
My goodness, how quick we are to strike down any criticism of the GOP's political disposition towards the poor. Regardless of whether you are tired of hearing the same criticisms, I'd like to know if you see any legitimacy of challenging the GOP to a more consistent life ethic and more proactive policies toward the poor, that seems to be the real issue here. And while there are certainly GOP politicians in the thick of social justice issues, shouldn't there be a more organized effort to make this a party issue?
Ryan,
I agree with you there should be. Of course what benefits the poor and what polcieis is a matter of dispute also.
Regardless I am not seeing my CO0ngressman (about to reite GOP) slashing programns to the poor left and right
Further this needs to be attacked on the BOth the Federal and STATE level. In fact the progrqams on the State level is important
I guess we are all a tad defensive because this election Cyclc many of felt that certain people in the GOP got ZERO ( a big fat one ) attention or discussion from Catholic Soccal Justice Catholics despite standing up on some crucial issues
So criticize the GOP sure. BUt I have to tell you for a much of folks that talk about how Catholic Principles are beypnd party there were times GOP folks seemed to be ignored or worse had their postion misrepresented
THe parties shall be and should be criticized. But is anyone going to have the guts to look in the mirror
"The label "Country Club" Republicans is so 1980's Can we can come up with a better tag than that."
No kidding. How many "country club" Republicans do you reckon showed up at those huge Sarah Palin rallies? By contrast, how many "country club" Republicans publicly jumped onto the Obama bandwagon in the closing weeks of the campaign?
It's amazing how deeply ingrained some of these myths about the Republicans "being for the rich" and the Democrats "being for the poor" really are.
Palin is why I voted for the ticket. She is authentic on abortion, thus atypical of the GOP. But how do her policies help the poor?
Nagin praising Bush - that's excellent cite sourcing. The fact is that Bush showed up for New Orleans after he blew it on Katrina. He should get credit for his late efforts in NOLA and blame for his aloofness in the storm.
Look, I am a social justice Catholic (except among the social justice Catholics who dismiss me as too much of an anti-abortionist.) I have praised McCain and Bush where they bucked the party line and opted for the poor. But those times are exceptional tokens and not well received by the conservative movement.
And why is it that the conscientious in the Democratic party can form a pro-life minority when the conservative Kool Aid drinking apologists for the GOP have failed to lift up a coherent voice in the GOP? Why no Republicans for Social Justice? It is easier to spin token measures and random examples as an apologist for the party than to be critical.
James, you were backing Huck in the first place. Is it because he was different towards the poor or more useful in getting the votes of the poor and the middle class?
Reagan identified the heart of the conservative movement as libertarianism. Make fun of the term country club Republican as outdated, but consider how few unborn have been saved during our uncritical slavery to the GOP, doesn't it seem that we have attached ourselves to a conservatism of national power, corporate wealth, and individual selfishness. Have we failed in conserving the common good and the dignity of human life? Why be the apologist for continued failure?
Post a Comment