www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Poll: Who won the Republican Debate tonight?

Gordo,

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that our current president is articulate and confident?

Joe

It seems that everyone is assuming that Hillary Clinton is going to get the Democratic nomination. I think that is unlikely. I would be willing to bet that Obama gets it and that he will make mince meat out of of the Republican nominee, whoever that turns out to be. I doubt I'll vote for Obama, in fact I'm almost certain that I won't. But, I think that 2008 is going to be another bad election year for the Republicans. I also expect the democrats to pick up several more seats in the house and senate. For true conservatives, this could be a good thing though. It will be seen as a chastisement of the neo-conservative leadership in the Republican party and in 2012 we may get a true, principled conservative again.

Joe

I do not care about either of the two Democratic front runners, and I do not care for the Republicans at all at this juncture of history. I think I will have a hard time voting for either major party.

I am not sure what to do.

I will pray and see what is availabe in 3rd parties come election time.

If someone who is not one of the big three (Guiliani, Romney, McCain) gets the Republican nomination, then I might vote Republican. Otherwise, I will either vote for a third party candidate or stay home.

Joe

Joe,

No. I think he is confident, but not as articulate as I would like to see him as a sitting president. This is not a question of intelligence, and I will only point out that, despite how others make fun of him, his GPA was higher than Kerry's or Gore's. My sense is that either his mind moves faster than his mouth, OR he is always second-guessing his words, so he stumbles when he speaks. I personally like George W. Bush and think he is genuinely a decent man. I think he is confident, but sometimes he borders a bit on appearing cocky to our metrosexually dominated mediaculture.

That's what I meant. Sorry to be unclear!

Gordo

Some people are not as articulate as others. I admit, I have not voted for the president either time (and would not vote for him if he could run again).

But fact that he doesn't have sharp presentation skills should not necessarily disqualify him from leadership.

Maybe in this age where image often trumps substance in campaigns, it is possibly a good thing that someone can win without being really sharp from podium.

Gordo, okay that makes sense. And I agree, confident, but not articulate. And you are right, that people gloss over the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale. You know, of course, that I do not think highly of his performance as president, though I suspect you are right that he is a decent man, personally and has some ideals. I constantly have to remind myself that politicians are human beings and sinners like you and me and that I have no more right to try to peer into their souls and judge them as I do anyone else.

Joe

Joe and Lance,

I often wonder what his presidency might have been like had there been no 9/11 (and subsequently no war with Iraq). Truly this was the definitive event of his presdiency and virtually everything else in his presidency (for good or for ill) has been predicated on his firm commitment to ensure that this never happens again (or at least not on his watch). It is a burden no leader would ever want, at least not a leader with all of his marbles in play.

God bless,

Gordo

No question, Gordon, that the war is going to be the defining issue of his presidency. Indeed I would not want that burden.

I have disagreed that attacking Iraq was the proper response to 911. I think the war has opened up a whole new set of problems, not easily solved. Besides being against the war, I have also felt that it has been poorly prosecuted.

But even if President Bush was right about the war, there are still plenty of other things for me to disagree with him on. Simply because a president has to deal with war, does not mean he should get a free pass on everything else.

I am very critical of the administration. But I do pray for the president every day. I am making every effort when I comment on the President or the policies of his administration to do so with respect and make my criticisms about the policy, not the person.

Thank you, too, Gordon, for engaging us and challenging us in a respectful way. Lately, I have not had much of a stomach for politics.

Amen.

George Bush has not really goverened as a true conservative in every aspect of his presidency. If anything, the powers and reach of the federal givernment (that was a typo, but there was probably something Freudian going on as well! ) has been expanded. The Republican Revolution of the 90's was predicated on the ideals of restoring constitutional governance to the US. The federal powers since reconstruction (after all that "unpleasantness"...I am a Virginian, after all!) have trumped states rights to the point where the original founders would not in many ways recognize their country! The notion that the federal government should be paying for or mandating education, welfare, how an employer manages the leave of its employees, etc etc goes far beyond negotiating treaties and providing for a national defense.

IMHO, if Minnesota wants to subsidize healthcare for every man, woman or child in the state, it is their business. If Kansas wants to use tax dollars to subsidize welfare for all unwed mothers, by all means! But why should someone in Florida pay for the welfare of someone in Arizona or New York? I favor the principle of subsidiarity - leaders govern best when closest to the governed. Return to local accountability.

I know that no one seems to be articulating these ideals much anymore. And I do not believe that they can change overnight. But things can change incrementally.

I would wish for a candidate that can eliminate the taxes that oppress people and families (perhaps even eliminate the federal income tax altogether).

Protect life. Protect liberty. That is the role of the federal government. Everything else belongs to the states.

The candidate who comes closest to articulating that, and has a reasonable chance of election, has my vote.

Gordo

It is good when brothers (and sisters) live in peace.

I believe the only problem with our response to Arab terrorism is that no one realized how big a problem it is. The President seems to have some grasp of it when he speaks of it as a long term problem. Yet, if we are truely to confront Islamic Arab terrorism it is going to take a much bigger effort than American troops can alone address. Without a Catholic stand against the Muslim advances I think we will be forever in battle and under attack. Even with Cahtolic solidarity, more or less, we have not been particularly successful. Almost the only thing the President could have done was to move into Iraq with three or four times as many troops as we did but that probably would not have solved the problems. Awareness of the problems does not mean solution to them.

The only policy decision I strongly disagree with the President over is his drug assistance program for those on medicare. It is way too costly and invites enormous abuse. It will hasten the collapse of at least part of Social Security I suspect. I will benefit by it but my children will suffer because of it.

I don't see any candidates that excite me yet. Time will tell.

CDL

Gordo:
I agree with your commitment to the principle of subsidiarity, since it is a foundational principle of Catholic social teaching. My understanding of subsidiarity is that matters should be attended to by the lowest level of authority that is capable of addressing them. In some cases, there are urgent matters of the common good (another foundational principle of Catholic social teaching) beyond negotiating treaties and national defense that state and local governments have either been unable to address or have refused to address. I for one am thankful that the federal government has intervened in matters of public welfare-had it not, my family and many other poor families would have suffered even more than they did in the wake of the Great Depression. Indeed, many deaths may have been prevented over the years by federal welfare programs. I agree it is better that such assistance be handled at the level that is closest to the people, but when local and state authorities either refuse or or unable to address such needs, it is not a violation of the principle of subsidiarity for the federal government to involve itself. I would also ask, why should we bind ourselves to the Framers' visions of the world? There were many great men among the Framers, but they were indeed sinful men, just like you and I. Also, there world was quite different from ours, in many respects. I personally couldn't care less whether or not the approach that we decide to take to government squares with that of a group of men who legitimized slavery in the Constitution itself, limited voting to white men, and did not trust common people like me to choose by direct popular vote the President and senators.

Ryan

Ryan,

You bring up several very interesting points. I will attempt to respond to a few of them as best I can.



Very good points. The Great Depression was a result of the "tyranny of the marketplace" and the federal government intervened to coordinate and provide assistance during a time of great crisis. (My family also benefitted.) Was this legitimate? I am inclined to agree that it was as a temporary solution. But it also became something of a permanent fixture. Ultimately it should not be the government, but the Church and private associations that are the dispensers of charity. Government should be the last resort. The truth of the matter now is that we are not in the Great Depression, and individuals, states and businesses are milking the federal system. As I mentioned, I favor a weaning of these different entities from their dependency on the federal government.

I will also point out that if states are unwilling to provide welfare for its citizens, they are free to move to another state that does. We see this kind of migration right now, as people come to states with more generous state-sponsored welfare programs. BUT, I want to say, welfare ultimately is state mandated "charity" that is hardly virtuous or even charitable for that matter. I would personally rather have more of my tax dollars to donate to the non-profits and the churches that provide assistance to people in need.



Despite the fact that our leaders do take oaths to uphold the Constitution, I'm not advocating a complete return to the worldview of the founders. That is neither possible nor, in some cases, advisable. But just because slavery is acknowledged in the Constitution, does not mean that we should disregard the founders clear intent as it pertains to everything else. The Republic (it is a republic, not a pure democracy) was established to protect life and freedom from the tyranny of the state. After the tyranny of England's hold ended and independence was won for the colonies, limited powers were granted at the federal level to help ensure that principle of subsidiarity survived in the bonds of national union. Reconstruction, the New Deal and the Great Society are all examples of the whitling away of the rights of individual states in deference to the national/federal government. I think it is problematic to equate programs such as these as examples of Catholic Social Teaching in action. To be sure, their stated aims were in many ways, but not their means.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo:

Of course we are not in the Great Depression. However, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is very great-disgustingly so in my view. While we are fortunate to live in a country where it is not the case that people starve to death on a daily basis, I do not think the suffering of so many in the face of such obscene luxury, as is the case in the USA, is acceptable.

I agree that charity should be the work of the Church and individuals. I also agree that it would be preferable for you to have more of your own money to use in charitable causes. However, depending on the charity of the Church and private individuals can be problematic in a society such as ours where cohesive communities that facilitate the connections needed for such charitable action to be put into action barely exist. Furthermore, everyone would need to be as generous as you are, and I assure you that is not the case!

In spite of your response, I'm still not really interested in the intentions of the Framers and the Founding Fathers. They lived in a world very different from our own and their actions were historically and contextually conditioned (which is not to say that ours are not-but our context is quite different). I do not subscribe to the idea that the colonies lived under the tyranny of the British. My own personal belief is that the British colonists in America were among the most free people in the world at that time and that the idea that the British were horrible tyrants was propaganda used to further the cause of those who stood to benefit financially from independence. The Framers were deeply flawed men who were mistaken about many things, just as are men of all generations. I do not defer to them as being any wiser than many people I currently know. I think our history of having elevated them to the status of demi-gods is a mistake and borders on the sin of idolatry.

I agree with you that much that the federal government has done that I support really is not a matter of Catholic social teaching in action. However, I'll still take the results. I would also ask you to consider if your own political philosophy is entirely shaped by Catholic social teaching. I suspect it's not-just as I'm sure mine is not. For example, you mentioned your objection to the role government has taken in imposing regulations on businesses with respect to leave for employess. You must have FMLA in mind. While Congress and President Clinton certainly did not have Catholic social teaching in mind when they passed FMLA, it seems to me that FMLA has been good both for employees and the family members they have cared for when utilizing FMLA. I think the good achieved on behalf of the employees who could take leave and still come back to a job, as well as for many family members for whom they have cared, far outweighs any hardship imposed on employers-hardships that many large employers greatly exaggerate in my experience. To me, such a policy seems perfectly consistent with the principle of thed common good, which is just as basic to Catholic social principle as is subsidiarity-perhaps more so. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, as I understand it, upholds the rights of the government to regulate businesses to guarantee the dignity of employers and to protect the common good. Such government regulation is often necessary to curb the excessive greed of employers and their indifference to the needs of anyone other than their own stockholders. In my experience, large employers are very cold when it comes to the needs of their employees. Several years ago, I used FMLA because I was suffering from peripheral neuropathy and it was not being treated properly. I often had difficulty working my entire forty hours because sometimes the symptoms of the neuropathy made it nearly impossible for me to get more than about 3 hours of sleep. Had it not been for the FMLA of 1993, I would have lost my job. Thousands and thousands of American employees can share similar stories. Is it really better to allow employers (especially those with the resources to work around such minor inconviences) to discharge such employees at the expense of the public good?

Ryan

Dan,

It reminds me somewhat of the Battle of Lepanto . . .

-- John