The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Another Election – and Another People? Print E-mail
By Hadley Arkes   
Tuesday, 23 October 2012

In the crisp air of October, it is very much in the air, whether people are talking about it or not. The coming election hovers over everything.  

The language has been overdone over the years, and so it may now be discounted when people say that this may be the most important election of the generation, the moment of a turning point. And yet it is. 

The “turning” is something close to a change in the regime itself – in our understanding of the rightful ends of government, the concentration and uses of political power, and the terms of principle on which we live together as a people. 

On the issues of abortion and marriage, I needn’t trouble our readers by saying again what they’ve read me saying for years. Except that certain things deserve to be said anew in every season. 

We have an administration marked in its character by a Chief Executive who would not protect a child who survived an abortion, lest that protection of a child born alive would call into question the whole corpus of “abortion rights.” 

That sense of things pervades his administration and finds expression in the regulations it routinely hands down, dealing with hospitals, insurance, and medical care.

If Mr. Obama gets one or two appointments to the Supreme Court, it is not merely that same-marriage is virtually certain to be imposed or that abortion becomes even more firmly fixed as part of the “established order,” quite safe from challenge. But rather, those “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage will become part of a new orthodoxy to be imposed, as a moral requirement, on institutions and persons, private and public. 

No organization that denies the rightfulness of these things will be seen as a “legitimate” organization. Catholic hospitals that will not house the surgery of abortion; doctors and nurses who will not participate in the “procedure”;  agencies of adoption that will not place children with same-sex couple;  justices of the peace who will not perform homosexual marriages, photographers who will refuse to take pictures at these events – all of them may be subject to sanctions of various kinds, whether losing licenses or being hit with penalties. 

In his famous speech to the Cooper Union in New York, in February 1860, Lincoln noted the hard moral insistence of the partisans of slavery:  Mere acquiescence in accommodating them was not enough. “Silence,” he said, “will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them.”   

What will make them feel safe and unthreatened? “This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right.  And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words.” Hence also the demand that a new “sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private.” 


           Lincoln by Matthew Brady, taken the day of the Cooper Union Speech

In other words, we have seen all of this before. It is work of a moral passion insisting on its recognition in every place, quite regardless of whether it is driven by a valid moral judgment, commending and condemning the right things.  

During the second presidential debate Mr. Romney was asked about contraception. He remarked that women ought to make their own decisions here without getting their employers involved.

We cannot expect him to take the moment to raise questions about the ethic of contraception, but I wish he could have said something closer to this: 

Women and men can buy contraceptives on their own, more cheaply through stores, than they can be bought through insurance;  and the only rationale for imposing this requirement on employers is that the people who have moral reservations on contraception are compelled to speak the words that renounce their own convictions. They are the words that put in place of their moral convictions the new orthodoxy of the Left.

The historian J.G. Randall complained years ago that Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had gone through Illinois in their famous debates, unsettling the countryside, and instead of focusing on what he regarded as the “real” issues – issues  such as the opening of western lands or improving conditions in factories – those two politicians agitated the countryside over that moral issue of slavery. And everyone knew that there were no answers to moral questions. 

Mr. Romney, in that second debate, looked into the camera and earnestly said that fixing the economy and lifting the condition of the middle class was  “what this election is all about.” But of course he must know – and he has more than intimated that he knows – that the election is about far more than that.  

And yet, we hear at every election, with the voice of J.G. Randall,  that “the economy” is the overriding the issue. Either the political class has come to believe that the economy drives everything else, or that it is the thing that people care about most of all. 

The pundits hold to that view even as many voters persistently show that they care profoundly about other things. But there was once a time when political men seemed able to talk about the questions that ran to the root of things, and find a public that took quite as seriously, as an issue, the terms of principle on which they lived as a people. 

And the haunting question is: when did we cease being that people?

 
Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College and the Director of the Claremont Center for the Jurisprudence of Natural Law in Washington. D.C. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.


Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (31)Add Comment
0
...
written by G.K. Thursday, October 23, 2012
That is a very hard question, in the sense that it cuts to the quick of a changing America. Perhaps it was the conflux of events in the late 60s - Vietnam War, political assassinations, unruly young men and women asserting their right to be immoral and offensive, corruption in government, seeming loss of fixed authorities in the mainline Protestant groups, and the gyrating "Spirit of Vatican II", etc. Beyond those years, it is Phillip Jenkins who justly characterized the 70s as a "Decade of Nightmares" which solidified the ruination.

Those two fateful decades brought together the fateful events that has led to the moral decay of our culture and politics.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, October 23, 2012
Mr Arkes,
Great Article,Round three debate,Romney
"Romney cleaned his clock again"
Vote!
Jack
0
...
written by Manfred, October 23, 2012
"And the haunting question is: when did we cease being that people?" Thank you for an excellent article, Dr. Arkes.I would respectfully suggest the year 1968 was the tipping point when Humanae Vitae was issued and was immediately challenged. Cdl Dolan admits that the Church hierarchy has not taught "sexual morality" for "forty-four years". The "Dual Magisterium" of "Catholic" theologians was established to counter the Magisterium which promptly caved as it had lost its intellect and its nerve. The issue was contraception which led to abortion with aberrosexual marriage (and quickly followed by incest, polygamy and eventually bestiality) coming in the back door. As Paul says in Romans, as men advance in sin God allows their consciences to become dull so that they do not realize the enormity of how decadent they have become. Why even Obama is suitable to be invited to the Smith Dinner by a Catholic PRIEST.
0
...
written by Dave, October 23, 2012
We often say the great change occurred in the 60s, and I think there is much merit to the argument, but I would put it another way: it was in the 60s that the great change emerged. In my view, the great change occurred decades earlier, in the 30s, when by electing and re-electing FDR the American people ratified FDR's view that the purpose of Government was to provide for the material well-being of the American people. Recall the Four Freedoms. When the 60s broke out -- women's liberation, the student revolts, the sexual revolution -- those clergy who opposed the revolution were marginalized and reviled by the Establishment; the universities were either feckless in their opposition to the revolutions or, more properly, really aligned with them; and ordinary Americans were dazed and disoriented, by rock, by Vietnam and the revelations of lies and deceit, by the riots, and by everything else that indicated that everything once held as dear and true was under siege or had been rejected by the very children they had raised. Now those who led the student revolution of the 60s are overseeing their own children, students, and proteges in carrying out the premises they themselves had brought to the fore: we are in the second or third generation of this revolution of values and morals. There's more to write, about the fecklessness of the Church in stemming the tide and steering her faithful correctly while announcing Good News in the public square, but since the Church was not part of Prof. Arkes' article, I say no more at this point.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, October 23, 2012
@Manfred: breaking bread with the other side is "keeping the peace", nothing more nothing less,do not forget all the children the "MILLIONS" of dollars will help from the event! We get stuck "In the weeeds" we forget the core reason for these
"Important" events.

I do not agree that contraception has all the "Blood on it's hands" as you listed,CONTRIBUTED< YES,however you take it took it to the extremes my Friend. The decay of a culture is far more complex and has more working parts. I apreciate your take as always,
God Bless,
Jack
0
...
written by Jacob r, October 23, 2012
Those of us who are younger aren't so troubled by nostalgia. (Our America is pretty ugly so we won't spend decades wasting time, feeling bad about the great ol America we lost.)

Don't take it the wrong way, but the Church is blessed that time is passing, at least to have a chance to get better, because these old American Catholics who will brook all dissent in service to some god called America or Diversity are the plague of the Church.
Something like that is the name of their god and the Church is for them just one small component to their cultural milieu. And they hang around the Church to pester and hinder true believers despite working directly against them outside of it. The idea of suffering for the Church or educating new Catholics is utterly foreign and preposterous to them.
0
...
written by Grump, October 23, 2012
Professor, I was disappointed but not surprised that the three presidential debates amounted to little more than extended TV commercials.

Although there were no TelePrompTers, both men sounded canned and rehearsed, constantly repeating hackneyed mantras from the stump. Romney's beat to death the "23 million people who can't find jobs" and other well-worn numbers while I lost count of how many times Obama called his opponents remarks "not true" and otherwise bragged about killing Osama.

The all-important social issues got very short shrift. Romney, ever juggling his etch-a-sketch, reversed his pro-abort stand to "pro-life," but let's add an asterisk for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Same-sex marriage was never brought up, nor homosexuals in the military -- would Romney defend DOMA or bring back DADT? -- we'll never know. Had Santorum been the GOP nominee or Ron Paul, it would have been much different. Ideology would have taken center stage. Instead, what we got were arcane references to tax policy and bromides about how to "create jobs" and lots of meaningless visuals that trumped substance.

The third debate about foreign policy should have delineated marked differences but Romney, not willing to appear as a warmonger, agreed with virtually everything Obama said and failed to grill him on the Libya fiasco. In other words, he played it safe. If Romney is elected, we can look forward to America, Incorporated. If Obama is re-elected we can look forward to Amerika. Neither prospect is comforting.
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 23, 2012
Prof. Arkes, I do not understand why you write, "Of course, Romney must know" that the election is about more than the economy. This is not apparent. On the contrary, he has not educated the people on non-economic issues: he has not explained Pres. Obama's extreme record on guns and on abortion; he has barely spoken of the Supreme Court; he has refused to defend marriage except in the most tentative, subjective fashion; he has expressly rejected the idea that he should defend the liberties of Chick-Fil-A; he has objected to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders; he has barely spoken of the pro-life cause (he included only one line in his convention speech); he has said "there are many things I like about Obamacare"; and his Massachusetts record would make him a Democrat anywhere outside leftist strongholds.

Obama is worse. Is that reason to put the GOP stamp of approval, either explicitly or by default, on so many leftist positions? That Romney will be different after the election is so flimsy a hope as to be vain. And have we not had enough of vain hopes with GOP presidents? Better to await a candidate who can be trusted to start rolling back leftist achievements rather than accommodating ourselves to them. And a balanced budget will be an ephemeral accomplishment if the destruction of our families and freedoms continues.
0
...
written by Athanasius, October 23, 2012
I seem to recall reading fairly recently that the leftist precursors to today's Democratic party (circa 1930s & 40s), in order to bring about their socialist paradise in America, specifically targeted sexual morality and Church authority as two obstacles to their plans, so they embarked to covertly undermine them. It took a few decades, but the 60s and 70s proved the tipping point. That is when we became a different kind of people. And it is scary.

I think the solution has been given to us. By really educating Christians on the Theology of the Body, we can begin to restore sexual morality. Further, if we can really show how our sexuality is really a model for us to understand Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride, then we can begin to restore Church authority.

It will be an uphill battle. Let's bring it on, my friends.
0
...
written by Other Joe, October 23, 2012
Dave makes some excellent points, but as one who was there, I believe the dynamic of revolution was shaped by two important, but rarely discussed factors. The first was a general collapse of authority. This happened in all parts of society, but especially in churches, in families and in school. I believe this was a delayed reaction to total war. People were tired of being ordered around. Books such as Catch 22 caught the sense of stupidity and contradiction that was common to orders issued by untouchable and distant persons for unknowable reasons. The war produced millions of examples and every returning GI had a share of stories wherein SNAFU played a deciding role. The second factor was that many and perhaps most people believed that the end of human life through nuclear war was probable and immanent. The dying culture had no reasonable answers to the questions of those who feared losing everything in the name of assorted abstractions - and "everything" meant any and all. Society (world-wide) experienced a collapse of values. The Enlightenment flavored message of the Catholic Church in the 1950s had no compelling answers to nuclear holocaust and secular objectivism - hence Vatican II. The answers were there all along, of course, but what was lacking (is still lacking) is confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide and support church authority. In a world that has lost its connection to the font of morality, morality is needed above all else. We are going to have to go back to first principles to find our way out. The concept of secular ethics is oxymoronic.
0
...
written by Louise, October 23, 2012
Excellent column. Is this the one we were awaiting on the Al Smith Dinner or will there be another?
I guess we could say that it goes back to Adam and Eve but more recently it seems that Our Lady warned us of all this at Fatima. Russia's atheistic errors have indeed spread throughout the world via many routes.
Spiritual renewal is the only viable response. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that Satan told St. John Vianney that if there were three priests like him in the world at the same time he would be defeated. If anyone knows the correct quote, please supply.
BUT, Mr. Levy, I couldn't disagree with you more that we should wait for a better candidate. Look at the damage that has been done in three short years! It has been warp speed demolition. I really think that Romney will reverse some of that damage even though i too have my reservations about him. At least we know the direction that the President is pursuing and giving him four more years to complete the tragedy is a horrifying thought. This is no time for utopianism.
0
...
written by Fergetes, October 23, 2012
In reading the column and comments, I am reminded of Blessed John XXIII's remarks at the opening of Vatican II. (I believe that I first read this quote on these pages from someone else commenting on a previous column.)

"....We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church's rightful liberty were concerned."
0
...
written by Just a mom, October 23, 2012
"There once was a time... and we ceased being that people." It is all too sad. I would love to see Prof. Arkes and Fr. Schall write about the role of faithful Catholics/Christians in post-Christian societies.
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 23, 2012
I am not surprised at Louise's response, but it is hardly utopian to ask for a candidate better than a progressive who happens to understand economics. Otherwise, we are saying that it is enough for a candidate to slow down the left's advance without stopping it (much less reversing it).

If you want more Souters and O'Connors on the Court, if you want marriage to go undefended, if you want to concede that the federal government's power to regulate is by and large unlimited, vote for Romney.

The damage to our liberty has not come mainly from the Democratic Party, but from the unwillingness of the Republican Party to fight against the Democratic Party. Ike accepted FDR's programs; Nixon accepted the Great Society (and added programs of his own); Bush I and Bush II accepted the liberal program, too, and expanded upon them. Now here we are, with Obama as president and on the verge of a second term.

How did we get here? Through the GOP's repeated concessions to the left. It's painful to admit. But we won't help our cause by voting for yet another GOP candidate who is nothing more than a less extreme Democrat, and who either won't oppose the left or actually agrees with the left (except when it comes to balancing the budget).
0
...
written by Matt, October 23, 2012
I think the thing to keep in mind is that this is not primarily about politics or parties, but, rather, a steep decline in our culture and morals. In short: It's us. Our leaders, in a democratic society, reflect our collective values... and those have become disconnected from the source of Truth. We cannot look to a politician or a party for our collective salvation. We should instead pray, pray, pray for God to touch the hearts of His people before we get ourselves into a world of hurt.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, October 23, 2012
@Matt
Dear Matt,You really broke it down to what
really matters,"pray",you are so correct

Prayer is really the true answer to all
this banter.
Jack
0
...
written by debby, October 23, 2012
Dear Prof. Arkes,
I have a question to pose to your ending question - When did politicians stop defending, promoting, endorsing, espousing, believing in THE CONSTITUTION? As a prof of that document, do you think the two questions are related? And Matt and Fergetes are spot on - why do we always buy into the mass depression as if WE DID NOT HOLD OUT ANY HOPE FOR THEM? i mean really, how can our Faith face the darkness of our world if it is not Armed in Truth, Pulsating with Hope, Willing to Die for the Sake of the Name Above All Names? i mean, how can any Catholic who receives His Graces act just like the rest of the world? This is not the time for hand-wringing and down-cast countenances! This is the time to be excited to be the one who has the very medicine to cure the sick and dying around us. Come on, guys. Let's do this better. HOPE IN GOD. BE IN GOD. HE IS THE VICTOR! AND WE ARE HIS!
0
...
written by Hadley Arkes, October 23, 2012
I've been tied up all day in teaching and then hosting a speaker at Amherst, and so I'm catching up late with all of the comments. It may not be wise for us to comment on the comments, as I've been drawn at different times to do. But I must say that I've been deeply touched by the currents of soul springing from these comments today. I share almost all of the sentiments expressed in this gathering of letters. But I'd post a warning about making light of our choices: A President should be more than an Elector for the Supreme Court but if Mr, Obama gets one or two more appointments, that is the end for the issue of marriage. People may speculate as to whether Mr Romney will disappoint us. I don't think he will; but in the case of Obama there is no trace of doubt that the appointments to the Court would be a disaster for us and the things of moral consequence we care about.

I'm so pleased to hear the voices of Manfred and Grump and Louse and Debby and the friends reassembled here. Manfred picks out 1968 as a critical turning point, and there is no doubt about the turbulence and violence of that year. I lived through the disruptions of the campus at Amherst in 1969 and 1970, but I'd arrived here in 1966, and it was all very much in the air at the time. It was clear to me that I was already part of a different generation, even though I was still in my mid-20's. I was anchored, evidently, in a world now vanishing.

I would make the plea to Debby not to make the Constitution the lodestar. As Lincoln reminded us, the Union is older than the Constitution, More important are the moral principles that gave rise to the Constitution. Lincoln drew on Proverbs: a word fitly spoken is like an apple of gold in a frame of silver. The frame was made for the apple, not the apple for the frame. The Constitution was made for the Union, not the Union for the Constitution.

It's curious that people on the Left who deny moral truths will treat the Constitution as though it were an absolute truth, the central moral truth in their lives. I think we have to be careful not to make the Constitution an idol in that respect. The task may be to cultivate a political class more like the Founders in the sense that the members understand the principles that were there before the Constitution--the principles that would be there even if the Constitution weren't there.

But then the anchoring point of satisfaction for us: that the Church has become, in our time, the main sanctuary for preserving that moral reasoning of the Natural Law, the reasoning understood by the Founders, even as the currents of relativism have been eroding all other institutions.

And so let's be grateful for that family we see gathered around these columns in the Catholic Thing, this coming together of writers and their friends, for they form the body of the Church. Thank you all for writing, and God bless.
0
...
written by Facile1, October 23, 2012
"And the haunting question is: when did we cease being that people?"

We ceased being that people when the love for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" became more important than the love for God.

All sin is idolatry --- whether it is the love for animals and/or things (paganism), the love for humans (humanism),
or the love for self (narcissism).

Only one love is psychologically healthy and that is the LOVE for the TRUTH (which is God.) When one loves the
TRUTH, one cannot (will not) escape God. When one truly loves God, love for one's self and others follow. It is
only when one truly loves GOD FIRST can one put one's love for anything else in its proper place --- whether it's love for living things, love for individual freedom or love for country.

This is the good news!

This is the same problem! It comes with every generation.

We know the answer and the solution! PRAY and teach the people you love how to pray.

Pray to God that He will protect you from yourself.

Pray to God that He will protect those you love from themselves.

And always give THANKS for the time you were given here on earth to pray for yourself and others.

Trust that God (who endures as always) will give you (and others) the COURAGE to enter peaceably into HIS joy.
0
...
written by Austin Sims, October 24, 2012
I believe Romney will appoint prolife justices to the court if he can. A woman has come forward and accused Romney of trying to to talk her out of an abortion when he was pastor even though she was ill. As for the debates, he was trying to persuade independents of swing states...and all the moderators are known liberals. The best is the enemy of the good and to stop government funding of Planned Parenthhood is a good...please vote and get every despairing conservative to vote too.
As Fr Neuhaus used to say, "we can still turn this around!"
0
...
written by bpuharic, October 24, 2012
It's ironic the good Bishop quotes Lincoln on slavery, given that the Catholic Bishops of the time told Catholics they were not bound by the Emancipation Proclamation to free their slaves. Catholic leaders seem to be reluctant to address the limits of their position. If a Catholic employer can impose his views on employees, can a fundamentalist Muslim employer do the same? Why not? If this holds, we'll have a hodgepodge of 'moral issues'. A secular employer who pays for only 1 child's healthcare, for example. Are Catholics ready to support that? The only logical position is that we are all equal before the law.
0
...
written by Louise, October 24, 2012
My dear Mr. Levy, if your strategy is to wait this out and send a message, to whom are you sending that signal? The Republican body politic is not a sentient being with a long memory...it is mostly a rapidly changing demographic. There is no central brain to think about your nonvote and change because of it; there is just a new set of voters with their own perspective. Indeed, politically,we only have the present moment in which to act and attempt to accomplish in that moment the most good that can be achieved with the particular set of circumstances presented to us. I share all your frustrations with the Republican modes operandi but what i have come to realize is that parties are made of people and you could found a whole new party with founding principles just as you like them and they could be changed by the next election! It's simply human nature we are dealing with and we are always going to be facing the imperfect situation. I hope you will reconsider. Your vote has never been more important.

Hadley, I hope you will continue to comment on comments as is your wont because that is what makes TCT so wonderful...having stellar personalities such as yourself mixing it up with the rest of us; it's so very Catholic.
0
...
written by markrite, October 24, 2012
Mr.Arkes has hit the REAL nerve center of this coming election: and to me that is the necessity of cleansing the White House of a VILE and DESPICABLE person (who may sit in the presidency through chicanery and deception)by responsibly exercising the voting right which willl enable that outcome. The PROBLEM for me is the SCARY CHARACTER of too many exercising that voting right.They seem more and more like a "mob", especially the Democratic party "FAITHFUL." If one will read last year's book by Ann Coulter, "DEMONIC," IT SHOULD BE VERY APPARENT WHERE THIS NATION MAY BE HEADED. And because of that crisis which she, among many others, have alluded to, it MAY be already too late. I pray not. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 24, 2012
Louise, I'm not recommending "sending a message" to anyone, but simply not supporting progressive candidates like Romney. Sometimes it is better that the GOP lose a presidential election in order to have a better GOP presidency four years later.

Looking back, was it better for Bush I to win in 1988? We could have had a better candidate in 1992 who would have governed for eight years and done more conservative things. Looking back, was it better for Bush II to win in 2000? Again, four years of Gore followed by a more conservative GOP candidate in 2004 could have helped the country more. It is not utopian to think that the GOP could have nominated someone more conservative than a "compassionate conservative" (i.e., a progressive).

I am fully aware of the damage that Democratic presidents can do (e.g., opening the door to Revolutionary Iran in 1979), but I am also aware of the damage that progressive Republicans do when they concede ground to the left either expressly or by default. What has been the result of Nixon's, Bush I's, and Bush II's continued expansion of government? And how did their Supreme Court nominees turn out overall? Was it good or bad that Bush II led the party to expand Medicare? Where did his over-spending get us?

Let's go back a little further. Was it better for the country for Ike to win in 1952? He wasn't even a registered Republican before running for the presidency. Among other grievous mistakes he made, he accepted FDR's domestic program and nominated awful justices (e.g., Warren, Brennan). Might it have been better to put up a more conservative candidate in 1956 after four years of Stevenson? It is difficult to say, but, again, history suggests that it may be better sometimes for the GOP to lose a presidential election.

There is nothing utopian about my position. It is based on the hard facts of the last sixty years of presidential politics. You can argue that this election is somehow different from every previous election. But it's hardly clear to me that more is at stake in this election than in earlier elections, which led to GOP acceptance of the New Deal, the Great Society, and so on. Indeed, it is exactly because of those previous elections that we have arrived where we are now.

And it is far from clear that electing a progressive Republican - yet again - is the way to save ourselves.

(Please note that I have said "more conservative," not "perfectly conservative." I object to voting for progressives, not moderate conservatives.)
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 24, 2012
Prof. Arkes: Thank you for the deeply insightful instruction on the Constitution, particularly that it followed rather than preceded the Union. Thank you also for the other comments. I share Louise's appreciation for your unassuming entry into the forum, from which I often learn just as much as from your articles.
0
...
written by Louise, October 24, 2012
Mr. Levy, I say this respectfully but your post is full of coulda, shoulda, woulda, that is not backed up by the present reality. Consider that in the last election our country pretty much did what you are suggesting we do this time--we passed over a somewhat liberal Repub in favor of a ubber-liberal Dem. Did that get us a more conservative Repub this time?
What your analysis is missing is the moral deteriororation of the voting populace which is the subject of the article on which we are reflecting. The Dems mostly seem stuck on passing immoral laws which contribute to the moral deterioration, since law is instructive. so waiting it out only seems to make it more and more difficult to get that candidate you want, not more likely.
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 24, 2012
Louise, it seems that you want to avoid serious consideration of our political history (earlier than 2008, anyway). I cannot force you to do it, but I refer you again to the questions I asked above, which are grounded in historical fact, not present fancy.

Since you have raised the question of the 2008 election (which is entirely appropriate, I hasten to add) consider this. Conservatives were terribly demoralized after eight years of the progressive Bush II, which was one of the several biggest reasons that McCain lost, but now you want us to embrace a candidate who is even more progressive. I am not sure what different result you hope for this time after Romney's time in office. And supposing that Romney serves two terms, as did Bush II, how will conservatives be any better positioned to defeat the next Obama in 2020?
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 24, 2012
Louise, I do appreciate your responses, however, and please have the last word. I will check again later to see what you have written, if you choose to reply. And, sincerely, I hope very much that you are right.
0
...
written by James, October 27, 2012
Interesting 'coincidence' that S.Spiegelberg's LINCOLN movie is set to premier the FRI after election day.....Are the rest of us uniformed about something?.....As those professional/master social manipulators of Hollywood do nothing---from 'please pass the butter' on up---without some other Machiavellian reason.....Talk about a huge amount of power within the hands of an unelected few (i.e. elites)....We can only hope that the portrayal does justice to President Abe Lincoln's memory!.....peace/jmch.
0
...
written by Louise, October 27, 2012
Mr. Levy, I don't want you to think I was ignoring your kind post but I wasn't sure how to use that most precious gift called the "last word"! All I can say is please reread this article and consider carefully the power of your vote and its ability to affect our country at this most important time. It's much easier to preserve than to rebuild. And as this article points out, those who know how to rebuild are becoming scarce. I have no crystal ball. I share your frustrations. Sometimes it seems that all we can do is keep our finger in the dike. We get the cadidate that majority of voters select...that's the reality we have to deal with. All that being said, surely we will meet again in a future comments section!
0
...
written by Mr. Levy, October 29, 2012
Thanks very much, Louise. And I look forward to the next time.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner