Mark Silk, over at Religion News Service, has some pointed, and excellent, comments about Bishop Paprocki's speech in conjunction with the Red Mass in LaCrosse, Wisconsin over the weekend. I shall be responding to Bp Paprocki's remarks myself tomorrow.
This election will not be decided on foreign policy issues. Very few elections are. This tells us more about the electorate than it does about the presidency. Most U.S. presidents spend as much if not more of their time on foreign policy concerns on a daily basis than they do on domestic issues. (Most non-U.S. heads of government have to spend a disproportionate amount of time on their relationship with the U.S. president!) Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. role in the world is unique and often uniquely challenging.
How has Barack Obama handled those challenges? I would give him a B+. He promised to end the Iraq War, and he did. This may not feel like an achievement. The end of the Iraq War felt like Dunkerque, more of an escape than a victory. The decision to go into Iraq was a tragic mistake and getting out of there then became the least bad option. That said, Obama seems to have managed the withdrawal well, Iraq has not descended into civil war – which is no small accomplishment – and the U.S. no longer has a scarlet “I” on its diplomatic forehead.
Yesterday, at Mass, I noticed I could not shed a persistent cough. By nightfall, it had turned into the flu and, despite a hit of Nyquil, this morning finds me still feeling very ill. If I feel better later, I shall post something but, for now, back to bed.
Wednesday, I argued that George Weigel was complicit in the secularization he denounces because he, and others like him, have been reducing religion to ethics for many years now. It has been suggested to me that I tease out precisely what I mean by this idea of reducing religion to ethics.
The American Ur-text of the phenomenon of reducing religion to ethics is a text often cited by those who seek to demonstrate how profoundly religious the American founding was, George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which we find these words:
At Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Fred Rotondaro lays out the big picture on income inequality. I wish he had been on CNN last night. They had someone from the Wall Street Journal who made the point, factually correct but grossly misleading without context, that the wealthy have been paying a great and greater share of federal taxes in recent decades. He failed to note what Rotondaro points out - they are paying more because they have garnered almost all of the income growth in hte past thirty years. The middle class is not paying more because they are not making more.
Meghan Clark is fast becoming one of my favorite young theologians. She has a post up at PoliticalTheology.com about entitlements that makes, with greater theological sophistication than I am capable of, one of the points I have been trying to make here: Yes, people, as people, are entitled to food, shelter and health care. She also usefully debunks the "false dichotomy" between person/private charity and government assistance. Good stuff.
It was clear that the strategists in Mitt Romney’s campaign thought that they had something damaging on President Obama when they released a copy of a tape, made fourteen years ago, in which Barack Obama, then a state senator, told an audience that he was in favor of some level of redistribution, at least enough to “give everybody a shot.” The Romney campaign released this video in response to the emergence of Romney’s now infamous “47%” comments. Alas for Romney, not all “secret” tapes are created equal.
I do not need to add anything to the large body of commentary about why Romney’s comments were wrong about the facts, and morally offensive to boot. The fact that you have prominent Republicans distancing themselves from Mr. Romney’s comments tells you all you need to know about their political consequences. But, I am more interested in why the Romney campaign thought the Obama tape about “redistribution” would serve as an effective counter. After all, government has always been involved in some kind of redistribution of wealth. That is what taxes do, take from some and give to projects or programs that will benefit others.
Following on Richard Cizik's article at R & P, over at Patheos, Greg Metzger has his interview with Brian McLaren, another evangelical leader who is looking to expand the range of the evangelical voice in the public square and who understands that such an expansion is mandated not by politics but by the Gospels. Good stuff.
Over at America magazine, Vince Miller has the story - a speech by Ryan that has been hiding in plain sight in which Ryan shows just how ideologically motivated he is. And his ideology is not Thomistic, it is Randian. Curious to see what Ryan's RC apologists will make of this!
Over at the splendid new blog, Millennial, Robert Christian takes down Mitt Romney regarding his dismissive comments about the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax. You can read this passionate, well-reasoned post here.