Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
More Than a Touch of Malice
When Barack Obama first announced that he intended to force all employers, including Catholic institutions, to provide contraception and abortifacients as part of the healthcare package they offer their employees, my friend Michael Barone observed that the President “was spitting in the eyes of millions of Americans and threatening the existence of charitable programs that help millions of people of all faiths”; and, presuming that the President could not possibly have intended to stir up a hornet’s nest, he suggested that his decision in this matter must have been a function of ignorance and isolation. This was my first instinct as well. It seemed foolish – guaranteed to alienate a constituency that had supported Barack Obama in 2008 and had hailed his election.
We know a bit more now. We know that the President did not act on impulse, that he took his time in making this decision, and that he sought advice from a range of individuals within the Democratic Party. Vice-President Joe Biden and William Daley, who was then Obama’s Chief of Staff, both profess to be Catholic, and they strongly advised against doing anything that would antagonize the Catholic bishops and the laity. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House and current Democratic minority leader, were also consulted. They, too, profess to be Catholic, and they fiercely advocated imposing this burden on all employers providing health insurance for their employees.
The decision appears to have been made before the New Hampshire primary. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why, at the debate in New Hampshire in early January, George Stephanopoulos – who pretends to be a journalist but is still obviously nothing more than a Democratic operative – repeatedly pressed Mitt Romney to spell out where he stood on the question of contraception. Stephanopoulos’ disgraceful performance, which drew boos and catcalls from the crowd, is an indication that Obama and at least some of his aides thought that they had something to gain by injecting this question into this year’s campaign.
On the face of it, President Obama would appear to be shooting himself in the foot. Why would he risk losing the Catholic vote? One could, of course, argue that his aim was to excite the feminists and give them a reason to turn out in November. As a rationale, however, even this seems a bit lame. The benefit that the President proposes to provide is insubstantial. The administration’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the pill and other birth control devices are not free. But the expense involved is not great. Among those who are employed and have healthcare insurance, no one is hard put to come up with the paltry sum required.
This suggests that there can be only one reason why Sebelius, Pelosi, and Obama decided to proceed. They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both. They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.
Last week, when, in response to the fierce resistance he had deliberately stirred up, the President offered the bishops what he called “an accommodation,” what he proffered was nothing more than a fig leaf. His maneuver was, in fact, a gesture of contempt, and I believe that it was Barack Obama’s final offer. From his perspective and from that of Sebelius and Pelosi, the genuine Catholics still within the Democratic coalition are no more than what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots,” and, now that the progressive project is near completion, they are expendable – for there is no longer any need to curry their favor.
In his piece in The Washington Examiner, which I link above, Michael Barone mentioned Obama’s decree with regard to contraception and abortifacients in tandem with a brief discussion of the President’s decision to reject the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. He was, I think, right to do so – for there is no good reason that any student of public policy can cite for doing what the President did. Cancelling the pipeline will not delay or stop the extraction of oil from the tar sands in Alberta, and the pipeline itself would pose no environmental threat. If the President’s decision had any purpose, it was symbolic – an indication to all that he cared not one whit about the plight of the white working class and that he was capable of punishing those whom he does not like and more than willing to do so.
In 2008, when he first ran for the Presidency, Barack Obama posed as a moderate most of the time. This time, he is openly running as a radical. His aim is to win a mandate for the fundamental transformation of the United States that he promised in passing on the eve of his election four years ago and that he promised again when he called his administration The New Foundation. In the process, he intends to reshape the Democratic coalition – to bring the old hypocrisy to an end, to eliminate those who stand in the way of the final consolidation of the administrative entitlements state, to drive out the faithful Catholics once and for all, to jettison the white working class, and to build a new American regime on a coalition of highly educated upper-middle class whites, feminists, African-Americans, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and those belonging to the public-sector unions. To Americans outside this coalition, he intends to show no mercy.
Mark my words. If Barack Obama wins in November, he will force the Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and the bishops, priests, and nuns who fostered the steady growth of the administrative entitlements state, thinking that they were pursuing “the common good,” will reap what they have sown.
In the end, politics has as its focus persuasion. Our difficulties are a function of policy, not of mismanagement. If we are to stop Barack Obama in 2012, we will have to find a standard-bearer who can articulate a compelling argument against the administrative entitlements state and, by means of persuasion and praxis, reverse our democracy’s inexorable soft despotic drift. Let us hope that one or another of the remaining candidates rises to the occasion.
ADDENDUM: This post is intended as a sequel to two earlier posts on related subjects: American Catholicism’s Pact with the Devil and American Catholicism: A Call to Arms.
Published in General
“More” than a touch of malice, I agree. Barack Obama is the final and complete manifestation of the progressive politician. Leftists have been working for decades within our institutions (educational, religious, and media) to produce exactly a president with his background and mindset. He is the progressive messiah standing above the rest of us with his god-like perspective. Is it any wonder why progressives have elected for a full-court press of their objectives?
God Save the Republic!
So, we have to choose between Romney and Santorum. I suspect that Romney is the one who better understands budgets and management. Santorum is a man of firm principles. Neither is consistently eloquent (and that is an understatement). We shall see. ·2 hours ago
Both would continue to grow government. In 2000 if Gore had won 9/11 would still have happened and the Dems would have been discredited for a generation or more. As it is Bush won. I can not help but think this in the long run was not the best outcome for that election. Certainly the government is no smaller for it.
Dr Rahe,
There are alot of conservative Protestants out here just praying that the Catholic Church has some fight left in it. Our efforts have been diluted as most of our churches went off the rails some time ago.
The Presbyterians stripped Onward, Christian Soldiers from the hymnal in 1990, don’t expect much from that quarter.
… this issue … has nothing at all to do with contraception and everything to do with the Constitution.
That, I take it, is the real gravamen of this issue. It is not, first and foremost, an attack on Catholics or their church. It is a full assault on the citizen-sovereign, and thereby a full assault on the very foundations of constitutional democracy. This should be the central issue in the coming election. Where oh where are the grownups in the Republican party?
That’s nice an’ all, but in all my conversations about this, I have repeatedly come back to the point that the reason this issue is important has nothing at all to do with contraception and everything to do with the Constitution. So go ahead and use this issue as an opportunity to explain the church’s teaching on contraception, but if you ignore the Constitutional aspect, you’re playing right into the President’s hands.
In the end, he won’t care if Catholics still support contraception. He’ll have managed to impose his will on the nation at large, in spite of the Constitution, and he’ll start looking for the next thing he can force us to do. ·4 minutes ago
No, I had no intention of glossing over the primary Constitutional issue. However, there are too many Catholics out there who, apart from that, can’t see what the big deal is.
Regardless, the mandate must be resisted. It’s too bad that the deadline is well after the (re)election.
That’s nice an’ all, but in all my conversations about this, I have repeatedly come back to the point that the reason this issue is important has nothing at all to do with contraception and everything to do with the Constitution.
That’s correct, just as his desire to raise taxes is out real fairness.
I’m reminded of a passage from Genesis 3:1, Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made.
“In 2008, when he first ran for the Presidency, Barack Obama posed as a moderate most of the time. This time, he is openly running as a radical. His aim is to win a mandate for the fundamental transformation of the United States that he promised in passing on the eve of his election four years ago and that he promised again when he called his administration The New Foundation. ”
I ask myself why he would be so blatant and answer because he can. If he loses it will only be because of the racism of America.
Dr. Rahe,
Your analysis is completely correct. What is important now is that those who are turned off to Obama be turned on to his opponent. ABO (Anyone But Obama) needs your support. This is the response from people that we all should want. Everyone should commit to writing a blank check in their mind to the committee to defeat Obama in 2012. Harry Reid must go down with him or they will play obstructionist games with the Senate. So long Barach and Harry ASAP.
Regards,
Jim
There are alot of conservative Protestants out here just praying that the Catholic Church has some fight left in it. Our efforts have been diluted as most of our churches went off the rails some time ago.
The Presbyterians stripped Onward, Christian Soldiersfrom the hymnal in 1990, don’t expect much from that quarter. ·2 hours ago
Onward, Christian Soldiers dropped! Terrible!
I respectfully disagree with Dr. Rahe’s post about the President’s reasoning on this issue. First, I believe that President Obama would prefer to face Sen. Santorum in the fall than Gov. Romney. It is not just conincidental that Sen. Santorum won the caucuses right after this decision was announced. Second, and more importantly, if he loses this argument on religious freedom grounds, he wins on constitutional ones. This is wrong because the president cannot tell a business what products to provide at what price. A well-informed citizenship is key to a well-functioning democracy. If the president told the Washington Post that they had to distribute the print version of their paper to everyone free of charge, we would not say that is wrong because it takes away freedom of the press. Instead, we would say the government cannot tell a business what to do. If the result of this struggle is that religious groups get a waiver from the requirement, we have lost the policy argument. I believe that is why President Obama directed this – to win the policy agrument war by losing the religious freedom battle.
“Professor Rahe, you have absolutely nailed this. President Obama has gone from thinly veiled progressivism to outright contempt, not just contempt for the Constitution, but for the people themselves. He is indeed rubbing our noses in it, and is on par with Lenin derisively asking how many divisions has the Pope. My own sense is that he’s over reached on this one and (hopefully) awakened an electorate that will hold him accountable in November. “You may be right. I overheard three women in a department store complaining that the government needs to stay out of their business. 2 of them were African American. I felt hope for the first time in a while.
Thanks for this.
I agree entirely, and I worry that he is not. I ought to have a firm opinion about Santorum by Tuesday. It helps to meet these guys. And who knows? Maybe Romney is made of sterner stuff than is visible.
“I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty.”- JFK.
The Democrat Party is doing the Full Mussolini now. Hey, maybe the bullet trains will run on time. ·10 minutes ago
…and if forced sterilizations, abortions and a one-child policy ensues then probably more accurate to say the Full-Mao-nty. ·5 hours ago
At least the Chinese realize it. They finally banned the sale of this, but not until one of my students bought one for me over there…
I agree entirely, and I worry that he is not. I ought to have a firm opinion about Santorum by Tuesday. It helps to meet these guys. And who knows? Maybe Romney is made of sterner stuff than is visible. ·14 minutes ago
This is why I suspect the Wisconsin recall election is so important. It will tell us important things about how much change the electorate is willing to take.
If Obama wins in November he will do all that Professor Rahe predicts but he won’t stop there. Having been validated by the electorate he will go on to things we can’t imagine now. Think of Fidel Castro’s first speech after the defeat of Batista, “We don’t need elections, the people have spoken!”
The Obama version will be “We don’t need the Constitution, the people have spoken!” He may even decide we don’t need any more elections, because, “The people have spoken and…I won!”
This is a brilliant point. Also, if you say that it is not unconstitutional to have a law (like a law against sodomy), you must be planning to pass such a law. Because they will pass any law that they can think of and get away with passing.
Two reasons seem more able to move men than one reason alone. I agree that the President’s stirring up contention over payments for contraception and abortion is a display of contempt. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, attributes his action to an election-year strategy of distraction from the deficit and national debt, and that seems likely, as well.
This brief piece nails it. Perhaps only a convert such as the author would have had the temerity to speak with such clarity, giving the Catholic hierarchy a well-deserved tongue-lashing for their open connivance with Democratic politicians over the decades. Actually, most of the recent bishops and other Catholic clerics have been more pro-Democrat (Hesburgh, Bernardin, McCarrick, etc., etc.) than they have been pro-Church IMHO. As the late Tim Russert used to say, explaining his allegiances, “Born Democrat, raised Catholic.”
What a disastrous formula.
It’s a shame this thread has run out. This is such an important issue that I would like to see Ricochet keep Professor Rahe’s piece, and perhaps subsequent pieces on the same subject, front and center on its home page. Perhaps its own thread? Possible? Desirable?
Note the recent claims, from Glenn Reynolds and others, that this—it’s only contraception, after all—is a mere distraction from the real issue, alleged to be the economy. Obama and his operatives may have intended it to distract, but, as Rahe and others point out, it’s no mere distraction: it could not be more important. Can there be only one real issue? Aren’t we capable of keeping two ideas clearly and simultaneously before us?
It goes beyond the Church, though, doesn’t it? This is an assault on civil society aimed at replacing it with government.
I’m in the middle of reading “Coming Apart,” and one of Murray’s more striking points is that the decline of religious participation in Fishtown to roughly 1-in8 persons has had terrible effects on all of the voluntary civil efforts in the neighborhood, both religious and non-religious.
Into that vacuum, government is ready to step. If the elimination needs to be pushed along, so be it.
The problem I see is that any solution to our debt and therefore our entitlement problem will be painful to a good portion of our electorate. And, while this takeover of our health care and through it mandating anything by attaching it to health care may be enough to beat the liberals, the conservative’s cure may so alienate the electorate that it will be difficult to stay in office. It will require an inspired leader to take us through this troubled time and have the general electorate accept the cure. Is he out there?
The tax deduction described at CashInTheHand.org eliminates this problem. Read “Vision For America” & “A Vision for Health Care in America” & “Two Problems with Every Tax Deduction Passed by Congress”. This tax deduction puts the money to buy health insurance and health care in the hands of the individual. The individual decides if they want birth control, not their employer, not the state and not the federal government. Read “How Health Insurance Works” and “Health Insurance and Pre-Existing Conditions” to see how to cover people with pre-existing conditions. One post is copied below: