Americans, whatever their political persuasions, hold the office of the Presidency in high esteem. I think that sometimes we substitute hope where the reality of change should be obvious.
I was struck the other day. Late night talk show host David Letterman expressed concern to his guest Rachel Maddow about President Obama's untruthful assertions about Mitt Romney's position on the auto bailout.
“Here’s what upset me last night; playing fast and loose with facts,” Letterman said to Maddow. He went on to rehash what President Obama said during Monday night’s debate regarding Romney’s position on the auto bailout which he detailed in a 2009 New York Times op-ed entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt“.
“Now, I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying,” Letterman said. “And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.”
President Obama certainly misrepresented Governor Romney's position on the subject and I understand Mr. Letterman's disappointment. I must admit that I do find Mr. Letterman's shock shocking since the same President seemingly misrepresented the obvious truth about Benghazi, a much more important issue on his show just one month prior sans the host hand-wringing.
Double standards aside I commend Mr. Letterman for his sentiment even if his expressed wish for candidate lying seems odd. Leaving all that aside as well, I understand what he is getting at. We Americans have such esteem for the office that we superstitiously expect the very office these men hold to elevate them above any such baseness.
Not to single out the current occupant of the office as a singular offender, it must be said that many men of various political persuasions have fallen short of the dignity of the office by treating truth as collateral damage in the larger campaign of the their own destiny.
We Americans have a tendency to do this. We think that some of the nobility of office George Washington held washes off on the likes of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. But offices have no such nobility.. What we really think or rather choose to believe is that the virtue of men like George Washington bequeaths to his successors through some presidential virtuistic osmosis.
This assumption is patently false and fortunately not shared by the framers of the Constitution who did not entertain such a pious delusion. Instead, they assumed the flaws of man as a given and wisely restricted the power of government, a branch , or a man while at the same time they sought the wisdom and humility of men like Washington.
But it seems today that we do the opposite. We confer the wisdom and humility of men like Washington on men who haven't a tenth of the virtue while systematically removing and restrictions on their power or hubris.
The wisdom of Washington led him to say "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
The current holder of the office said "If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost."
While both statements may seem like innocuous political piety, they are not.
One respects freedom of religion over the whim of government, one does not. One respects the fire and one does not. The question we should ask of those who believe one or the other. Which is most likely to burn you?
Comments
Post a Comment
Well said, Pat. We have lost all sense of the purpose of our government. Dangerous servant, indeed.
Um, Pat, did you mean to say “Butt Offices?” You might wish to do a quick edit, there.
In true Romney fashion Pat, you write “Americans, whatever their political persuasions, hold the office of the Presidency in high esteem.” yet without a trace of irony deliver blog entries entitled “Obama: Kill Babies or I’ll Hurt the Poor”. Esteem indeed, unless the particular president disagrees with imposing religious beliefs on the American public (or is a Democrat) in which case the Catholic media arm of the Republican party, the NC Register, will consistently deliver ample doses of statements and opinion which lack even the slightest hint of esteem for the office of the president.
-
There should be no disagreement that Obama’s actions saved the American auto industry. As a business person, you should know that they needed the cash to pay their bills while in bankruptcy because if they couldn’t pay their bills, they wouldn’t get loans. The government, in fact, went looking for private sector lenders to help with the cost, but because of the recession none of them - not even Bain Capital - would bite. That’s the point. As Romney said “There’s no question but that if you just write a check that you’re going to see these companies go out of business ultimately.”
Gotta love those Butt Offices!
Posted by Zeke on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 12:04 AM (EST):
In true Romney fashion Pat, you write “Americans, whatever their political persuasions, hold the office of the Presidency in high esteem.” yet without a trace of irony deliver blog entries entitled “Obama: Kill Babies or I’ll Hurt the Poor”. Esteem indeed, unless the particular president disagrees with imposing religious beliefs on the American public (or is a Democrat) in which case the Catholic media arm of the Republican party, the NC Register, will consistently deliver ample doses of statements and opinion which lack even the slightest hint of esteem for the office of the president.
_______________________________________________________
Just so we can follow your logic you claim that respect for the office means never pointing out when the man supports murder?
The President didn’t save the auto industry. He saved the unions. GM and Chrysler went through bankrupcy and ignored the bond holders, who should ahve been first in line. Union members gave up nothing. Non-union workers lost their pensions. Employees of many dealershp lost their jobs. Owners of those dealership lost their businesses. GM and Chrysler still owe the tax payers $40 Billion which will likely never be repaid.
What’s your point Paul? Are we better off with an auto industry or not? Would you prefer that these companies, and the millions of direct and indirect jobs, not exist now?
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/21/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/
-
Many employees lost their jobs, and many businesses went under. Did Romney have a better idea he didn’t share with us, one that Bain Capital not propose? Bond holders, as with any investors, knew the risks. It’s called capitalism.
Anon,
Well, it seems your candidate supports “murder” in many cases - rape, incest, life of the mother, war, the death penalty, and abortion without exception until he decided to run for President. Seems Archbold neglected to point that out conveniently. Does that help you follow my logic? Clearly, Romney will say whatever he feels that religious zealots want to hear to get their vote. And the gig is up - the majority, including Catholics, see through the deception.
To zeke
I never suggested that we would be better off without the auto industry. The auto industry would have survived without the government bailout. The choice was the process. The President choose to sacrifice non-union workers, dealership employees and owners and bond holders tin order to benefit union employees. He picked the winners and losers rather than letting the legal proves play out.
Bond holders knew the risk but had the reasonable expectation that their legal rights would be respected. They were not.
Zeke,
You ignored my question. How is it inconsistent to respect the office while pointing p
out the occupant supports murder?
The issue list you provide mixes up murder with licit killing. Romney does support abortion but less than Obama. The difference between the two of them is large and undeniable.
Anon,
Pointing out that the the President supports our Constitution and the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, while Catholic teaching does not, would be a good example of showing respect and esteem for the office. Divisive rhetoric that suggests he personally likes to kill babies is not. And it’s absurd.
-
Polls show that only 20% of Americans want abortion outlawed in any circumstance. Labelling 80% of the population as murderers may play well for the fire-and-brimstone crowd, but it’s not helpful politically. How is abortion in the case of rape more licit than otherwise? Romney supports the heinous statements of Richard Mourdock, who asserts that pregnancy in the case of rape is a gift from God, yet would allow abortion in such cases. In any event, Romney has supported a woman’s right to abortion his entire life, until he sought to become the Republican presidential nominee. The difference between him and Obama is only as large as he says it is, and you choose to believe him.
Zeke,
Support for unjust laws is not noble. It is evil. If he supported slavery when it was legal would have been justified using your relativistic metric?
Paul,
Of course you didn’t suggest we’d be better off without the auto industry, but your claim that it would have survived and emerged from bankruptcy without intervention is contrary to the analysis of virtually every economist and business analyst.
-
The facts are that direct government involvement to provide capital to GM and Chrysler, when none was available from the private sector, including Bain Capital, saved the industry. The Randians out there hate this fact, but it is undeniable.
Zeke,
The number of people that support murder does not justify it. If you want to sugar-coat what it is go ahead but it changes nothing.
Romney is not great, just much less evil than BO.
Anon,
Well, I can’t disagree with you, but that’s how laws are enacted in a democracy. The reason that even Romney fails to adopt the Republican platform of banning abortion for any reason, is that it’s a non-starter politically. I may not like the guy, but he’s certainly not politically naive. And here we go again, labelling 80% of Americans “evil” simply because they disagree with your particular religious beliefs. By this standard, a huge percentage of Catholics who don’t oppose contraception or abortion are likewise evil.
-
The challenges the the country faces cannot be solved by simply banning abortion, and besides, this is not even in the President’s power. Do you feel that abortions will stop occurring if it was banned? The evidence from every other nation on earth that has done so shows otherwise. All that results in are more unsafe abortions and resulting deaths of women. As you observed, it changes nothing.
Zeke,
I guess by your poor standard those that supported slavery were not supporting evil. Your moral touchstone is relative because that allows you to act as you desire.
Your words plainly show how you value a baby’s life.
Anon,
Do you think there was more support for slavery by Christians or atheists?
We didn’t need the Bible to eliminate slavery, in fact, we got rid of it despite the fact that the Bible condones it. Catholics consider using a condom evil. Some Muslims consider educating girls evil. If morality wasn’t relative, we’d live in a society based on ancient scribblings of semi-literate desert dwellers, and stone homosexuals, adulterers, and heretics to death.
Zeke,
You assert the usual anti Catholic lies. If you want to try and refute the Catholic faith you must first state what She really teaches, not impute your false propaganda.
Anti slavery was based in Christianity. The bible does not endorse chattel slavery. Enough of this rabbit hole you want to go down. The truth is you support legalized murder. There is no excuse for that. Period.
Posted by Zeke on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 2:20 PM (EST):Anon,
We didn’t need the Bible to eliminate slavery”
********
You don’t need it to overturn Roe vs Wade, either.It’s a civil rights issue that can stand on its own.Just like segregation.
Hi Kathleen,
Slavery and segregation were indeed civil rights issues, since our Constitution grants certain rights to people. Even then, it was a long time coming! But it seems that the only way Roe v. Wade will be overturned is if Christians can convince the courts that embryos are people. I just don’t think that scenario is very likely. Persuading the courts that a newly fertilized embryo is a person deserving the same civil rights as me or you, or that using hormonal birth control to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is murder, as Catholics believe, just doesn’t seem likely to happen. Can you imagine the implications of it?
Zeke,
By the time a woman suspects she’s pregnant & actually goes to an abortion clinic, the unborn child has a beating heart & in many cases has had a beating heart for some time.I think you know this.
Don’t use the “embryo” ruse, please. I see that everywhere online.It’s just a device to turn the discussion away from the human rights of the pre-born child.
People of faith may hold their own views, but religion is not necessary to enact civil rights legislation.Bringing religion into the discussion is also a device to steer away from the subject at hand, which is the legal protection of the child & welfare of the mother.
Agreed Kathleen, in fact I would guess that the majority of the time, the woman doesn’t even realize that she’s pregnant until there is a heartbeat. But that doesn’t change my point though - call it an embryo or pre-born child, you advocate that from the moment of conception, heartbeat or not, this life has the same rights as you and me. And am I incorrect that you and the Church liberally use the term “abortifacient” to describe hormonal birth control, and consider this murder? This is not even remotely a civil rights discussion, this is religious dogma run amok. Don’t you find it odd that if a faithful couple wants to use IVF to have a baby, Catholics tell her she can’t; yet if she was raped and becomes pregnant, you tell her she must?
-
What I also think you miss, sadly, is that this extreme position alienates even those like me who are uncomfortable with later-term abortions, including many fellow Catholics who use hormonal birth control. I also find it odd that you state that religion should not be part of the discussion, especially the comment about protection of the welfare of the mother. How does preventing a mother from getting an abortion in the (admittedly rare) cases of rape and danger to her health, advance her welfare? You wish to impose your particular religious views, over those of other religions, or no religion, on her and the entire country. That’s un-American.
-
I’ve asked this before but you never seem to answer: what do you think that criminalizing abortions under the guise of human rights will accomplish? Does this in any way even remotely solve the problems our country faces?
Gee Zeke, US bankruptcy law used to be 1) Bondholders had first dibs on a bankrupt company. King O rewrote that one. 2) Secured creditors were second on the list. Not no more. King O rewrote that one. 3) Unsecured creditors (including UAW (Communist Party USA) workers) were last on the list. King O took care of his own.
I used to have a good, salaried job in the auto industry. Not today. I used to have a good pension. No more. Health insurance? HAHAHAHAHA. My Communist Party USA neighbor (UAW) still has his job, with hefty raises. He still has his pension and health insurance (paid for by somebody else.) If I could kill him, I would. If I could get my fingers around your neck…...
As for the “What would we have done?!?!” the US auto industry would be years ahead of itself because the morons who drove said industry into the dirt would long ago have been run off. People who know how to design and build cars and run companies profitably would have picked up the pieces and formed new/old car companies whose products would have knocked your socks off. Ain’t gonna happen here. King O will see to that.
Maybe China, not here.
Zeke,
Good Morning!
Again, I’m talking about reversing Rowe vs Wade. You are turning the discussion in all different directions.I’m not talking about contraception or “test tube babies.” That’s not about Roe vs Wade.
My comment was that Roe vs Wade can & should be overturned through human/civil rights arguements, not religion. Period.
You keep bringing religion into the conversation.If you are a secularist, please defend abortion on demand through that viewpoint.Interjecting religion is just a device to obscure the subject at hand-the child’s & mother’s civil rights & welfare.
Thank you.
Hi Kathleen,
Yes I understood that, and thought I made that clear when I wrote: “you advocate that from the moment of conception, heartbeat or not, this life has the same rights as you and me”. You wish to redefine the definition of a “person” under the Constitution. That’s the secular civil rights argument, is it not?
-
Your assertion that a fetus has the constitution civil right to life seems to be drawn from the 14th amendment. Not only does the amendment state that it applies to persons “born” in the United States, in the Roe v. Wade decision the court explicitly rejected the “fetal right to life” notion. That said, on what grounds do you believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
-
Once again you mention the welfare of the mother. You seem to be ignoring my previous post (and questions posed to you) again, where I wrote: “How does preventing a mother from getting an abortion in the (admittedly rare) cases of rape and danger to her health, advance her welfare?”
Zeke,
We already have feticide laws, which in my state are enforced.It’s not a huge leap to extend those for protection of all preborn children.Right now protection is only granted to “wanted” children.How do we morally defend that type of discrimination?
Legally,extending feticide laws to protect all preborn is not so hard, politically, we have a long road ahead.Just like slavery & later on segregation, there’s got to be enlightenment & a change of vision.I live in the South & can attest to seeing huge changes regarding civil rights just in my lifetime.There’s hope, but it may take another generation or two.
Rape & health of the mother are separate topics.If you’ve been following these discussions, I think you know how those are dealt with.
Kathleen,
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, I think it’s an enormous leap. But you raise a very good point - feticide is a crime when it is against the mother’s will, so consensual abortions are exempt. So yes, the distinction between wanted and unwanted feticide seems strange. Then again, even Romney and Ryan won’t campaign on a total ban on abortion, because they know what the polls say.
-
Personally, I have no problem with (properly applied) feticide laws. It’s not inconsistent with the pro-choice stance. But as more of these laws get passed, we can see the unintended consequences emerge. Women are increasingly facing murder charges when their pre-born child dies. Currently in Indiana, a Chinese immigrant attempted suicide when her boyfriend impregnated her then abandoned her. The infant was delivered by caesarian and the mother survived. However the infant died a few days later, and this distraught woman is facing a possible life sentence. We can easily imagine where granting fetuses constitutional rights will lead – mothers criminalized for smoking, or drinking, or not wearing seatbelts if they suffer a miscarriage.
-
Oh, I understand the rape and health of the mother discussions here. If I remember correctly, you adamantly oppose abortion in those cases, so I don’t see how that is a separate topic at all. I think your alleged concern for the welfare of the mother in those cases, despite repeating it, is bluntly no concern at all. I can see why you chose to duck the question yet again. I suppose you could rephrase it, but then it would no longer be a civil rights issue.
Zeke,
Moms who abuse drugs during pregnancy already face intervention by the state to protect their unborn child.This can range from substance abuse treatments,civil commitment, or termination of parental rights once the child is born.In states where there’s serious alcohol abuse & fetal alcohol syndrome, intervention can be taken, too.Canada has a more humane system in place where social workers/nurses make home visits to expectant moms who have addictions but still want to retain parental rights.
Moms who do not restrain their young children in vehicles or injure them while driving impaired face legal charges.Smoking may be next.
Please don’t disrespect me by presuming a lack of concern for women in high risk pregnancies or rape.There is nothing in my posts to indicate that.Charity assumes the best intentions in others.
I don’t show disrespect in conversation to you, just very differing views.Please reciprocate respect in kind.Agreeing to disagree is reasonable.
Thank you.
Kathleen,
No disrespect intended, but if you want to repeatedly claim that preventing a woman from an abortion in high risk pregnancies or rape somehow enhances her civil rights, or that this is because you are concerned for her welfare, you’ll have to explain it better, because it doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps my wording was disrespectful, probably due to my frustration posing plain questions to people who reply without answering them.
Zeke ,
No offense taken.If you don’t believe abortion harms a woman or that an unborn child deserves human rights, we’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
If we can agree on, at the very least banning abortions after the 24th week-or at some point close to that-great. At least we ‘ve made a step towards a kinder world.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.