Mirror of Justice

Obama's Catholic Advisory Board, Abortion, NARAL, and Criteria for Evaluating Candidates

Developing a new criteria for evaluating political candidates based on Catholic teaching is an intriguing idea, assuming of course that the criteria established (1) would focus on those issues on which Church teaching is most definitive and instructive, while remaining carefully open-ended and nuanced about those matters on which the Church teaches that prudential judgment is appropriate, and (2) places significantly greater weight on those matters that have the greatest priority as a matter of social justice (the bishops having consistently and repeatedly emphasized, for example, that human rights for the unborn is at the highest priority and cannot legitimately be categorized as merely one among a laundry list of political issues).

But, in the meantime, I’d ask that we not be distracted from the question raised in William McGurn’s article about the nature and purpose of the Catholic advisory council assembled by the Obama campaign. When anyone has the temerity to point out Senator Obama’s long-held positions on the question of the sanctity of life (which are extreme even by pro-choice standards, i.e., abortion as a litmus test for appointing judges, public funding of abortion, opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion, opposition to child born alive legislation, etc.), the Obama campaign and its supporters increasingly refer to the National Catholic Advisory Board as supposed proof-positive that Obama is not your ordinary pro-choice politician. But what if that Catholic panel itself is comprised mostly of ordinary pro-choice politicians? Doesn’t that mean that Obama’s creation of such a panel tells us very little about whether the vaunted “change” Obama promises has any room for the smallest and most vulnerable among us?

So, let’s consider again the 21 present or former political officials on that Catholic advisory board, and remember that 17 of them have a perfect or nearly perfect NARAL approval rating. Saying that these 17 have failed to stand up and be counted for the protection of unborn human life is hardly a matter of cherry-picking a single vote or how one characterizes a particular legislative choice. Nor does it turn on NARAL ratings for a single year or two.

So which of these 17 can be characterized as pro-life with a straight face? Come on, folks, does anyone truly believe that Senators Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Richard Durbin, or Patrick Leahy are secret members of Democrats for Life? Does anyone really believe that this crew is advising Obama to rethink his position on abortion or to change his plans to further embed abortion-on-demand into every aspect of the law and public policy?

Greg Sisk

Obama’s Pro-Choice Catholic Advisors

In an effort to woo back Catholic voters who have been disaffected by the Democratic Party’s pro-choice position on abortion and general disrespect for persons with traditional values and faith, Senator Obama’s presidential campaign has highlighted its appointment of a National Catholic Advisory Board. In various ways, the very existence of the National Catholic Advisory Board is regularly offered up by the Obama campaign as a shield to ward against criticism of Obama’s aggressively pro-choice record (calling for appointment of pro-Roe v. Wade justices, public funding of abortion, etc.).

Indeed, in an editorial in Commonweal, linked recently to Mirror of Justice, in response to a former Democratic Party official who characterized Obama as “the presidential candidate of a party committed to the preservation and extension of abortion rights,” Gerald Beyer argued that it “is interesting to ponder why so many distinguished Catholic public servants, activists, and theologians have endorsed Barack Obama, a Democrat, for the presidency.”

Accordingly, it seems only fair to accept Commonweal’s offer to “ponder” the matter further by exploring the membership of Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Board and asking whether it does portend a change of attitude by Senator Obama and the Democratic Party about the continuing war against the unborn in this country.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, William McGurn does just that and finds that the elected officials on this advisory board hardly reflect “change that we can believe in” on the question of human rights for unborn children. Herewith the opening paragraphs (you can read the entire editorial here):

You are the Democratic candidate for president. You want to reach out to Catholics. So what do you do when the majority of the elected officials on your National Catholic Advisory Council have the seal of approval from NARAL Pro-Choice America?

That's the position Barack Obama now finds himself in. A few months ago, his Catholic advisory council was announced with great enthusiasm, and Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) was listed as a national co-chair. His appearance at the top of the council sent a clear message: This campaign is determined to recover some of the lost Democratic sheep who have gravitated to the GOP over abortion.

This council does indeed include some Catholics whose pro-life credentials are impeccable, including Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar. But let us also stipulate the obvious: Of the 21 senators, congressmen and governors listed on the council's National Leadership Committee, 17 have a 90%-100% NARAL approval rating. Even Mr. Casey now enjoys a 65% NARAL approval rating.

A few weeks ago, noting the suggestion of prominent Obama supporter Ariana Huffington that the campaign should play the pro-choice card to appeal to Hillary Clinton voters, I ended that post by inquiring: “Will Catholics for Obama publicly repudiate any effort to win over Hillary Clinton supporters by campaigning as the abortion rights candidate?” Given that Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Board is weighted heavily with NARAL friendly politicians, I think we now know the answer to that question.

Greg Sisk

McCain, Obama, and Abortion: By Their Friends/Enemies Ye Shall Know Them?

In her most recent column urging Democrats to rally around Senator Barack Obama, Ariana Huffington argues that women who supported Senator Hillary Clinton can be brought over to Obama by emphasizing the abortion issue. Huffington argues that, comparing Obama and Senator John McCain on the issues, “nowhere is the difference more profound than with reproductive rights.” The rest of the column is devoted to “unmasking McCain” for his “reactionary record on reproductive rights” (translatation: McCain is genuinely and consistently pro-life):

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice.” . . . .

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent," proudly adding: "And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL" through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."

What's more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big judicial speech earlier this month was filled with coded buzz words that make it clear that, if given the chance, he'd replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

Hmm. Is running as the pro-choice candidate really the best way for Obama to win over those Catholics who voted against him by lop-sided margins in most of the Democratic primaries? Will Catholics for Obama publicly repudiate any effort to win over Hillary Clinton supporters by campaigning as the abortion rights candidate? Inquiring Catholic minds want to know!

Greg Sisk

NARAL Pro-Choice’s Endorsement of “Fully Pro-Choice” Obama

The abortion lobby calls it as they see it. You can view the video announcement here of this endorsement of Senator Obama as “fully pro-choice” with a 100 percent NARAL voting record, as contrasted with Senator McCain's 0 percent NARAL voting record. Rather than add any further comment at this point, I'll simply cite res ipsa loquitur.

Greg Sisk

The Indiana Primary and the Catholic Vote

Given that Senator Hillary Clinton was coming off the best two weeks of her campaign, while Senator Barack Obama was experiencing the worst two weeks of his campaign, Clinton’s slender victory in Indiana and landslide loss in North Carolina is nearly unadulturated bad news for her presidential aspirations. Sure it could have be a little worse. She actually could have lost Indiana. And, for a while last night around midnight, that possibility was looming large. Lake County, Indiana, where Obama was expected to do well (especially in Gary), came under the national spotlight for withholding reporting of votes for many hours after the polls closed. A win in Indiana may allow her to limp on for another week or two. But I don’t know of anyone outside of the Clinton campaign who still thinks she can find a way to the nomination.

As is often the case in politics, the significance of last night’s results depends in good part on how the expectations game was played. Only a month ago, before Pennsylvania and the return of Jeremiah Wright, Obama was expected to win North Carolina by 20 or more points and was thought to be at least even with Clinton in his neighboring state of Indiana. Thus, from that previous point of expectations, last night’s outcomes were unremarkable. But expectations after Pennsylvania and with the Wright controversy had changed dramatically, making anything less than a very good night for Clinton the equivalent of a great loss in the expectations game. And rewinding the campaign back a month in terms of expectations and comparative momentum would hardly benefit Clinton. Back then, she was on the ropes, before Pennsylvania breathed new life into her campaign — temporarily it now appears.

But while last night’s close contest in Indiana and lopsided result in North Carolina reflect a significant shift in the ebb and flow between the two candidates, a closer look at the results (at least in Indiana) suggests a remarkable and continuing stability in the general trends of the Democratic primary vote by demographic groups. The more things change in the prospects of the two candidates, the more they stay the same in terms of how different segments of the electorate have responded to their candidacies.

In series of posts over the past couple of months (here, here, and here), I’ve charted the Catholic vote in the Democratic primaries, documenting the overwhelming advantage that Clinton has enjoyed (and disadvantage that Obama has suffered) among Catholic voters. In the two states that held elections yesterday, Catholics were a smaller segment of the primary electorate, as compared with such earlier primary states as Rhode Island (55 percent), Massachusetts (45 percent), Pennsylvania (36 percent), California (34 percent), and even Ohio (23 percent).

North Carolina has a very small Catholic population, such that Catholics were only about 8 percent of Democratic primary voters yesterday. Thus, North Carolina doesn’t fit the same profile as those previous primary states with substantial Catholic populations and venerable Catholic communities, among which Senator Clinton has compiled huge margins. Clinton did win the overall Catholic vote in North Carolina, even while the state was going by a large margin for Senator Obama, but only by 51-48 percent. Clinton’s margin among white Catholics climbed up to 58-41, which is a bit closer to the larger Catholic margins experienced elsewhere.

By contrast, the basic Catholic voting pattern remained in place in Indiana, although it was somewhat less pronounced than in most previous contests. In Indiana, Catholics accounted for 19 percent of Democratic primary voters. Clinton carried that Catholic vote by a 22 point margin (61-39 percent). While that is a comfortable victory by any estimation, it does fall short of the more than two-to-one and even close to three-to-one rout of Obama among Catholic voters that we have seen in prior state primary votes.

What might account for the reduced Clinton margin among Catholic voters in Indiana, as compared with such nearby states as Pennsylvania and Ohio? At least three possibilities suggest themselves.

● First, perhaps Obama’s free fall among Catholic voters has bottomed-out. If this is true, while Obama still faces an up-hill climb to secure Catholic votes, the incline may not be quite as steep as previously.

● Second, because Indiana lies in Illinois Senator Obama’s backyard, the demographic results in the Indiana primary may be anomalous. After all, for purposes of divining national trends, no one places much weight on how Obama fared among various demographic groups in his home state Illinois primary (where he still lost the Catholic vote to Clinton, but by a closer 50-48 margin).

● Third, the overall Indiana Catholic vote results may indicate a unique “South Bend Effect.” In South Bend, home of the nation’s leading Catholic university, Notre Dame, the unusual mix of demographics created interesting and conflicting tugs and pushes with respect to the Obama and Clinton candidacies. Catholics generally have moved toward Clinton in big numbers (and, in addition, South Bend has a larger blue-collar population, another pro-Clinton constituency, than the average college town). By contrast, affluent white liberals and young people, more prevalent of course in university communities, have gone heavily for Obama in Democratic primary votes. Yesterday, Obama did win St. Joseph County, in which South Bend is the county seat, but by the modest margin of 53-47 percent. By comparison, Obama won Monroe County, where the University of Indiana-Bloomington is located, by 65-35 percent. We would hypothesize that Obama’s margin among non-Catholics in the South Bend area was substantially larger than 53-47 (observing also that almost a quarter of South Bend’s population is African-American, a constituency that has voted for Obama by nearly 90 percent). Thus, Obama probably lost the Catholic vote even in St. Joseph County. But the margin of defeat for Obama among Catholics in South Bend-St. Joseph County presumably was smaller and thus may have had the effect of diluting the heavier tilt toward Clinton among Catholic primary voters elsewhere in Indiana. Our friends at Notre Dame may have a better sense of the reality on the ground there yesterday. If there was a “South Bend Effect” at play yesterday in Indiana, it is not something likely to be replicated elsewhere in the country.

Whatever the reason, and it may well be a combination of all three of these theories and others, losing the Catholic vote in Indiana by only 22 points, rather than 30 or 40 points as elsewhere, should hardly be grounds for celebration in the Obama camp.

Whether the few remaining primary contests will shed any further light on our subject — by way of either confirming the continued and substantial Catholic deficit for Obama or showing that the gap may be narrowing — is hard to say, but I think doubtful.

West Virginia holds its primary next week on May 13, but it is among the ten states with the lowest levels of Catholic adherents (only about 6 percent).

The populations of Kentucky and Oregon, which hold their primaries on May 20, are only about ten percent Catholic. Still, given that Catholics traditionally have leaned Democratic and also tend to turn out to vote more reliably than most other groups, the Catholic portion of the primary vote may be somewhat higher. Oregon offers an interesting political case for other reasons, as those of us who do empirical work on religious demographics recognize it as one of the most secular states in the union (and, not incidentally and also consistently with other voting trends during this primary season, therefore looks to be a lock for Obama).

Looking ahead to June 3, Montana (with just under 20 percent) and South Dakota (with nearly 25 percent) have robust Catholic populations, which again may prove to be an even higher proportion of the Democratic primary voting electorate. And, of course, there is Puerto Rico on June 3 as well, which is overwhelmingly Catholic (85 percent), but also overwhelming Latino, a community that has not warmed to Obama.

But it now is hard to see a fully-fueld Democratic race racing along all the way to June 3. First, Senator Clinton may recognize the realities of the situation and drop out. Second, the super-delegates may shift to Obama in sufficient numbers to give him the majority of the delegates, thus ending any remaining suspense. Or, third, Clinton may stay in the race and plug along, but receive increasingly less attention from either pundits or voters — much as was the case with Governor Mike Huckabee, who stubbornly refused to withdraw from the GOP contest, even though it was clear that Senator John McCain was too far ahead to be denied the Republican nomination.

So, at least until Clinton pulls the plug on her campaign, we’re on to West Virginia next week. But it’s hard to believe a meaningful contest will carry on much beyond that.

Greg Sisk

John McCain: Living His Faith, But Private About It

Recently, I shared at some length here at the Mirror of Justice (here, here, and here) my impressions after listening to the interesting observations on faith and private and public life offered by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Compassion Forum held before the Pennsylvania primary. In another post on the trends in the Catholic vote during the Democratic primaries, I noted that “Senator McCain chose not to participate in the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this month, saying that he takes a more private approach to his religious faith. We will have to see whether McCain then is able to convince faithful Catholics that he respects their perspective, values their communities, and understands the centrality of religious faith and observance in their lives. McCain’s ability to speak directly to working class and non-urban Catholics has not yet been tested.”

In a column in today's Wall Street Journal, “Getting to Know John McCain,” Karl Rove confirms McCain’s insistence on remaining very private about his faith, but argues that “if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.” The column relates stories (always shared by others and rarely mentioned by McCain) about how McCain’s faith shows itself in what he does say and do in private, dating back to his years as a prisoner of war . Herewith some examples:

Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.

Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.

Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.

One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.

* * *

[I]n 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

Query: Will circulation of such stories through the grapevine make any difference? Should Senator McCain be expected to speak more directly to religion in the public square, as did the Democratic contenders at the Compassion Forum earlier this month?

Greg Sisk

Spring and Fall and the Catholic Vote in the Presidential Race

In response to my post charting the trends in the Catholic vote during the Democratic Presidential primaries, Steve Shiffrin argues that “[w]hat the Democratic primaries show is that Obama loses the Catholic vote to Clinton. That data shows little about how Obama would do with the Catholic vote against McCain.” I appreciate his kind response to my posting (it's nice to know that someone actually read it), and I acknowledge his forceful point.

Looking at the data alone, Steve is right — mostly. How Democratic primary voters allocate themselves among Democratic candidates would not ordinarily tell us much of anything about how those Democratic primary voters would respond to a later general election between one of those Democratic candidates and the Republican contender. Still, looking only at the data in this remarkable case, the lop-sided distribution of the numbers — showing Senator Obama losing the Catholic vote by margins that now exceed 40 points — and the persistence and stability of similar numbers from state to state do suggest something quite powerful and enduring is at work here. An empirical scholar seeing such a dramatic slope of the data in one direction would hypothesize that a significant variable (or set of variables) is at work, some powerful influence that may serve as an explanatory model.

While the data by themselves are only descriptive — showing, as Steve rightly says, only that Senator Barack Obama loses the Catholic vote to Senator Hillary Clinton — the insistent and more interesting question is what has caused these sizeable loses. What has influenced Catholic voters to turn away from Obama in such overwhelming numbers and will those significant factors translate into influences on voting trends in the different context of the fall election? On this question of influence, we move away from empirical analysis (absent a better set of well-measured variables and a better specified model with which to work than is available through exit polling results at present) and into the realm of interpretation and judgment. Here our opinions and impressions, which may be better or less informed, will play a substantial role in our evaluation of what is happening on the ground in the Democratic primaries — and why.

So I’d invite our readers to ask the following questions and answer them for yourselves, based on your own observations of the candidates, information about the campaign, and knowledge of the Catholic electorate (which of course is hardly monolithic, as Steve rightly says):

• What are the variables giving rise to Clinton’s huge victories over Obama among Catholic voters? Are Catholic voters powerfully attracted toward Clinton, meaning that these primary results reflect little aversion toward Obama (and thus tell us little about how these voters will respond in the general election should Clinton then drop out of the picture)? Or are Catholic primary voters strongly turned-off by Obama, finding him unpalatable as a candidate?

• If it is the latter, are these causes of alienation from Obama likely to persist into the fall election? Indeed, is it possible that additional factors relevant to this estrangement will emerge or be emphasized in the fall campaign, factors that were not fully explored in the Democratic primaries or on which there was little contrast between the Democratic candidates?

• And, finally, even if the Catholic margin against Obama’s candidacy is a direct rejection of him as a candidate for reasons that have continuing resonance in the general election, is Senator John McCain likely to fare better on those factors and become an acceptable (or at least less objectionable) alternative for these voters?

If the answers to these interpretive questions are unfavorable for Obama, to a greater or lesser degree, then the large margins of defeat for Obama among Catholic voters in the primary may well presage a dismal outcome for him in the November election (at least among Catholic voters, who usually side with the winner).

In my prior postings (here and here), I’ve offered my own tentative analysis, impressions, and speculations on some of these matters. I won’t repeat that here. Yes, I do agree that every prognostication in such a dynamic phenomenon as a political campaign is risky, and thus my attempts to extrapolate from the data into the future are fairly subject to debate and disagreement or dismissal. Still, if those in the Obama campaign believe his landslide losses among Catholic voters in the primaries carry no message for the fall election, I gotta tell ya — I think they are whistling past the graveyard.

Greg Sisk

Continuing to Chart the Catholic Vote in This Year’s Presidential Race

After a six-week hiatus in voting (but not the slightest pause in campaigning), yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary provides confirmation of marked trends in the Catholic vote for president during this election cycle. Looking at the exit polling in Pennsylvania, patterns in Catholic responses to the Democratic candidates that had emerged earlier in the campaign became more pronounced. Depending on who survives to become the Democratic nominee, the growing body of voting data could presage the most lop-sided outcome among Catholic voters in a fall presidential election in a generation. Given that the Catholic vote has gone with the winner in seven of the last eight presidential elections (here), as goes the Catholic vote so may go the nation.

As outlined in my March 22 post here at the Mirror of Justice, throughout the Democratic presidential primary season, Senator Hillary Clinton has out-polled Senator Barack Obama among Catholics by increasingly wider margins. Setting aside the result in Illinois (where favorite son Obama lost the Catholic vote but by a closer margin) and a few states with small Catholic populations, Clinton has carried the Catholic vote by about two-to-one in such states as Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, and Ohio. In these past contests, Clinton’s margin has risen to nearly 3-1 among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass.

In my prior posting on the Catholic voting trends six weeks ago, I noted that the next important data-point on this subject would be Pennsylvania. So what happened in the Keystone State? Senator Clinton’s victory among Catholics in Pennsylvania was nothing less than a rout of Senator Obama. As shown by the exit polls, among Catholics generally (who constituted more than one-third of Democratic primary voters), Clinton prevailed over Obama by more than two-to-one and by a margin of 40 points (70-30). Among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass, Clinton’s victory over Obama was nearly three-to-one and by a margin of almost 50 points (74-26).

In the election coverage last evening, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider highlighted the continuing and growing Catholic margin of victory for Clinton over Obama, while observing that he had yet to see a persuasive explanation for this phenomenon. The difficulty in pinning this down may be that no one thing by itself explains Obama’s worsening “Catholic problem.” Rather a mix of overlapping and interacting factors may be at work, some based on substantive concerns and others grounded in general impressions about Obama’s cultural attitudes, social position, and political conceit.

One attempt to explain away the Catholic vote data that was offered early on by the Obama camp can now be definitively rejected. After the California primary in early February, the Obama campaign suggested the Catholic margin was simply a proxy for Clinton’s overwhelming margin among Hispanics. But once the campaign shifted to states like Ohio and Rhode Island with small Hispanic populations, the significant Catholic preference for Clinton (or disinclination toward Obama) persisted. Now adding Pennsylvania to the mix (where Hispanics were only 3 percent of primary voters), the sharp break toward Clinton and away from Obama in the Catholic segment of the electorate appears to have solidified and plainly is independent of the leanings of the Hispanic Americans.

In the earlier posting, I suggested demographics may well play a role in explaining why Obama has failed to attract Catholic voters in the primary campaign, but going deeper than strong Hispanic support for Clinton. Obama’s mainstays of support have been African-Americans and affluent white liberals (especially in college towns), among whom relatively few Catholics are to be found. By contrast, Clinton’s vote has been anchored in the traditional lunch-bucket Democrats of the working class, who in states like Massachusetts, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania are disproportionately Catholic.

But those demographic observations simply describe the phenomenon and do not really explain it. Why is it that Catholics, of whatever class or geographic location, are either attracted to Clinton or repelled by Obama (or both)? And the answer cannot be found in such recent episodes as Obama’s controversial association with a black liberation theology pastor or his unscripted characterization of small town people as “clinging” to guns and religion. These episodes have likely further embedded voting tendencies among Catholics and have made it more difficult for Obama to overcome his negative standing in that segment of the electorate. But the pattern in Catholic voting had emerged before those controversies, so they at most strengthen but did not create the trends.

In my prior musings, I suggested that a partial explanation may lie in the uneasiness felt by many people of faith, including church-going Catholics, with the sometimes messianic style of the Obama campaign. The self-reverential feel of the typical Obama campaign event may be off-putting for many people who do not look to a politician to find a savior. With some exceptions during the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama continued his practice of holding huge rallies with adoring crowds, while Clinton more often went to smaller venues and engaged directly with more people. Did this make a difference? Perhaps.

In a similar way, Obama’s approach to religious faith and communities, welcoming as it has been, still may not have resonated as well with many Catholics and other persons of faith. Last week, I shared my impressions (here) of the Compassion Forum in which both Senators Clinton and Obama participated and offered interesting thoughts about religion, values, and public life. I noted that Obama tended to emphasize the instrumental role of religion, focusing on the use of religion and faith communities in community organizing and to achieve political ends. By contrast, Clinton addressed the value of religious faith for its own sake, as a part of daily life and as a source of inspiration and hope. Might it be that Catholics, for whom the relationship with the living Christ is embodied in the Eucharist, were left unmoved by Obama’s description of being drawn into a particular church for reasons of its political and social activism in a community? Seen in full context, Obama did not neglect the salvific and personally uplifting aspect of religious faith, but the primary political anchor of his remarks may not have connected with the distinctly transcendent and worshipful place of religious faith for most believers. While Catholics have a tradition of putting their faith to work for the common good, including political work, those political views and activities flow out of but do not define our faith. Politics is not the reason for what we believe nor are political activities central to our faith.

In any event, what do the Pennsylvania and earlier primary results portend for the future with respect to the important Catholic swing vote in this closely-fought presidential election? Given the remarkable stability of the trends in the Democratic primaries since January, I would expect that the Catholic margin toward Clinton and away from Obama will continue throughout the remaining contests. But what of the November election, once the Democratic nominee has been confirmed?

Senator Obama remains the most likely nominee, if somewhat less likely today than he was yesterday. Should that happen, Obama now looks to be the weakest presidential candidate offered to Catholic voters by the Democratic Party since 1984. Looking at recent elections, Bill Clinton carried the Catholic vote twice in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore barely won the Catholic vote (52-47) in 2000, and John Kerry lost it by a small margin (47-52) in 2004 despite being a professing Catholic. In comparison with Kerry and Gore, who still could barely attract half of the Catholic vote against George W. Bush, Barack Obama begins with a staggering disadvantage among Catholics. Barring a seismographic shift in the electorate in the next six months, Obama does not appear to be a plausible bet to win the Catholic vote. Based on current evidence, the real question could be whether Obama’s level of support among Catholics may dive down toward the one-third basement level that has been the best he could hope for during most of the primary season. If present trends continue, Obama might rival (or fall below) Walter Mondale’s dismal showing among Catholics (estimated at around 43 percent of the Catholic vote by many, although Gallup pegged it even lower at around 39 percent). In sum, Obama as the nominee could convert the old-style “Reagan Democrats” into “McCain Democrats.”

To be sure, many Catholic Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries will come home to the party if Obama is the nominee. But present indications are that many will be unwilling to do so and that the cultural alienation from Obama felt by most Catholics will not fade away easily. And, of course, a large segment of the Catholic population left the Democratic Party way back during the Reagan years, giving any Republican nominee a solid Catholic base from which to begin. While premature to do anything more than note the possibility, the strong Catholic tide away from candidate Obama that has become a flood during the primaries might not only affect the outcome of the presidential race but begin to sweep away Democratic candidates further down the ticket. The electability concern could go beyond the top of the ticket. Still, election prognostications are always risky, especially this far out, although the Catholic voting trends have been remarkably stable for several months now.

By contrast, if Senator Clinton should run the table in the remaining contests and convince the super-delegates to swing the nomination to her, where then will Catholic voters go in the general election? In that event, Republicans had better hope that Clinton’s overwhelming margin in the Catholic vote in the Democratic primaries is more of a movement away from Obama than an attraction toward Clinton. Given that these Catholic voters have already made an initial commitment in Clinton’s direction by casting primary votes for her, separating them away from her as the Democratic nominee for the November election will be a difficult task for the Republicans. Of course, Senator McCain might still win the overall Catholic vote without these Democratic primary voters by holding Catholic Republicans and taking Catholic independents. In particular, Clinton has not done well with independents, tending to succeed better in states in which only registered Democrats are permitted to vote in the primary. But McCain's pitch to Catholic voters may be more difficult if Clinton is the opponent.

If he hopes to win the Catholic vote against Clinton, McCain would have to convince Catholics that, despite her victories with Catholic voters during this spring, he really has more in common with them than does she. That’s not an impossible task, as who would have imagined a few months ago that Hillary Clinton would become the flag-bearer for culturally-conservative and working class Catholic Democrats. And, of course, the abortion question may emerge as important again in the fall, a subject that for obvious reasons has not been prominent in the Democratic contest where neither Clinton nor Obama have shown acceptable respect for the sanctity of human life and both take positions on the far left of even their own party (here). Nonetheless, Clinton has proven to be a powerful contender for the Catholic vote. Who’d a-thunk it!

Moreover, whether it is Obama or Clinton, the Catholic trends in the Democratic nomination race may fall away if Senator McCain fails to convince Catholic voters that he is a worthwhile alternative. He has to appeal not only to the Catholic Republicans that already are falling behind him, but also to the working class Catholic Democrats who could be attracted to him on cultural and national security issues, notwithstanding a weak economy. On the one hand, early indications are that McCain is well positioned to pick up those Catholics who have found Obama unappealing and who have been further estranged by his belittling comments about “bitter” people “clinging” to religious faith in small towns. On the other hand, Senator McCain chose not to participate in the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this month, saying that he takes a more private approach to his religious faith. We will have to see whether McCain then is able to convince faithful Catholics that he respects their perspective, values their communities, and understands the centrality of religious faith and observance in their lives. McCain's ability to speak directly to working class and non-urban Catholics has not yet been tested.

Whatever happens, I think we can agree that this has become very interesting election year — much more so than anyone would have expected back on New Year’s Day.

Greg Sisk

The Compassion Forum (3): Clinton and Obama on the Sanctity of Human Life . . . or Not

Earlier this week (here and here), I posted my personal impressions about the unscripted, fascinating, and sometimes personally revealing observations of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about religion and faith and public life, during their participation in the Compassion Forum hosted by Messiah College in Pennsylvania on Sunday evening.

At the time of my first post on Monday, I noted my surprise and disappointment that this remarkable exchange had received so little public attention. As the days of the week have passed, this unprecedented dialogue about religious values in American politics has continued to be neglected by most of the media. Sigh. Unlike most commentators, Daniel Henniger of the Wall Street Journal did give it considerable play in a column today, concluding: “Some bloodless analysts have said for several years that Democrats had to say this [speak to the values of religious citizens] to win because, you know, a lot of people ‘go to church.’ And yes, what candidates seeking votes say may be false, faked or fantastic. What remains is the fact that these two, in competition for votes, have conferred political legitimacy and respect on this swath of America.” I agree that the forum was a step forward in conferring political legitimacy on people of faith as full-fledged members of our polity.

In this which will be my last post on the Compassion Forum, I move from the candidates’ general observations about religious faith in their lives and in the public square to the most prominent and controversial issue of public importance that implicates moral values—the sanctity of human life and protection for the unborn. To be sure, these Democratic candidates would resist the Catholic understanding of this subject as the foremost human rights issue of our day. But the Catholic witness for the sanctity of human life is clear and resolute, however politically inconvenient it may be for one of our two great political parties.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has aptly said that “abortion is the central social issue of this moment in our national history—not the only issue, but the foundational issue; the pivotal issue.” And Catholic teaching on responsibility in political life is consistent and continuing. The American bishops’ statement on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (Nov. 2007), has been misleadingly cited by some as subordinating abortion in moral importance as a political issue, by selectively quoting the bishops’ phrase that “[a]s Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” In so saying, the bishops explained that “[a] candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.” In other words, being right on a central issue does not necessarily mandate support. By contrast, however, the bishops emphasized that being wrong on a central issue could well preclude support: “[A] candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”

The singular importance of protecting human life as an obligation for those in public life has been a clear teaching of the Church in America for many years. As the American bishops had previously stated, in words the parallel the most recent statement:

Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. . . . But being “right” in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the “rightness” of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

So, on that preeminent question of human rights and the legitimately disqualifying intrinsic evil of supporting legal abortion, how far have the national Democratic candidates come toward respecting the sanctity of human life? Sadly, the Compassion Forum in Pennsylvania last Sunday shows the two who remain in the race have not come very far at all. While one of the candidates now acknowledges that the pro-life movement is composed of people of good faith and vaguely suggests a moral dimension to the issue, without amplification or any apparent consequence, nothing of substance appears to have changed.

During their separate appearances at the Compassion Forum, each candidate was asked directly whether he or she “believe[s] personally that life begins at conception?” And each candidate struck out on this soft-ball pitch. In 2004, despite a long history of enthusiastically defending legal abortion, presidential candidate John Kerry did allow as how he personally believed that life began at conception. Now given that he was in political trouble at the time and on the path toward losing the Catholic vote, Kerry’s belated confession of faith in unborn human life was regarded skeptically by many observers. But, on Sunday evening, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama could even hint at any personal opposition to abortion.

Senator Clinton responded by echoing the wooden and evasive phrase from Roe v. Wade itself, saying “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.” If any element of the abortion debate can be reduced to a simple and objective scientific query, it is whether life begins at conception. The answer is indisputably “yes.” As anyone with even a little scientific understanding must admit, from the moment of conception, a distinct and unique genetic organism comes into being. And that individual life is plainly human (as opposed to some other species). The pro-choice movement instead must shoulder the heavy burden of persuading us that this human life is not worthy of protection, but it cannot rationally deny that it is human life.

Clinton then proceeded to inform us that her pro-choice views were based on her “personal experience” from visiting “countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.” The contrasting examples she adduced were China, with its practice of “forced abortions and forced sterilization” to prosecute its one-child policy, and Romania, where women “were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state,” which included criminalizing abortion. Senator Clinton did not elucidate how these peculiar and extreme examples were supposed to inform the abortion debate in the United States. One may readily agree that the government should not force women to “bear as many children as possible,” and use secret police to aggressively enforce that mandate, without endorsing the radical abortion-on-demand regime that prevails in the United States but which is followed almost no where else in the western world.

Senator Obama’s answer to the question of when life begins was not much better, and indeed seemed feckless to me given the gravity of the matter. Affecting humility on the moral dilemma, he began by saying “[t]his is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” Thus he wobbled from the question of “when life begins,” for which a simple biological answer exists, to the question of when that life is worthy of value, which apparently he suggested might be “when the soul stirs.” And when does the “soul stir” for Senator Obama, so that we may confidently give legal protection to that life? In the third-trimester? At birth? When the baby is able to smile? When the child’s first word is spoken?

Most importantly, if Obama truly does not know the answer to the question of when life begins, then shouldn’t he come down on the side of protecting that putative life until its absence is clearly established? Because the choice is literally life or death for an entity that may be a member of our human family, and given that Obama says he harbors uncertainty about the answer, why would he then favor allowing termination of what he admits could be a human person?

In any event, Obama immediately thereafter fumbled back to the same posture as Senator Clinton, when he too referred to the unborn as having “potential life.” Despite his professed irresolution, he apparently has answered the question of when life begins, and not in a way that values unborn life.

Senator Obama did offer words of forbearance for those of us who disagree with his position on abortion, which was more than Senator Clinton provided. Obama said that we should “recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.” Candidly acknowledging that efforts to find common ground could only go so far and that at some point there is an “irreconcilable difference” between the opposing sides on the abortion debate, Obama also said “those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.” Of course, we pro-life citizens do not exercise our constitutional rights of expression and democratic governance by the benevolent grace of politicians, but it’s still nice to be accredited by Senator Obama as legitimate voices in the public square.

In addition, Senator Obama adverted to “a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down.” But given Obama’s unwillingness to affirm that human life may be at stake, the nature of this “moral dimension” was less than clear. Or that it makes any difference. Beyond words, what exactly does this recognition of a moral element mean to someone like Obama who is asking to lead our nation? Is there any evidence that this “moral dimension” to abortion or the “moral weight” to “potential life” that he acknowledges has any consequence for Obama’s approach to public policy on the question?

An overwhelming bipartisan majority of Americans and their representatives in Congress oppose partial-birth abortion, a horrifying practice that a majority of the Supreme Court later characterized as the equivalent of infanticide. But Senator Obama (and Senator Clinton) have been indifferent to this atrocity. During this campaign, both Clinton and Obama have castigated the Supreme Court for not intervening to overturn the democratic actions of their fellow members of Congress who had provided some minimal protection to late-term unborn children. In fact, both of these candidates have emphasized that they would appoint justices and judges who would allow no such constraints on abortion, leaving the license unrestricted at any stage of pregnancy or for any reason. When serving in the Illinois legislature, Obama even blocked legislation that would have required health care providers to give medical care to aborted babies who somehow survived the procedure. Both candidates would also devote taxpayer funds to paying for abortion. How exactly do any of these positions give credence to Obama’s ascription of “a moral weight to [to “potential life”] that we take into consideration”?

To be sure, both Senators Clinton and Obama said that they hoped to reduce abortions, each specifying efforts to encourage adoption and reduce teenage pregnancy as the means to that end. But neither of these candidates for the highest office could bring him or herself to say, even as a matter of personal moral trepidation, that abortion takes a life. Thus, we may be sure that neither will be motivated in political office to pursue action on this subject for the purpose of enhancing the value of human life and resisting the culture of death. Accordingly, with respect to the sanctity of human life, the gulf that separates the national Democratic Party and its presidential candidates from those of us who raise our voices on behalf of the unborn remains very wide indeed.

Greg Sisk

The Compassion Forum (2): Clinton and Obama on Religion in Public Life

During the course of their separate appearances at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania on Sunday evening, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked for their thoughts on the very propriety of the forum itself, devoted as it was to discussion of religion and public life. The contested place of the religious voice in the public square has been a subject of animated debate in both popular and academic circles over the past couple of decades. Many of the members of this Mirror of Justice blog have been leading figures in that important discussion, most prominently our own Michael Perry, whose several books on the subject are essential volumes in any library on religious expression in public life. (In one side-line of my academic writing, I have offered my own thoughts on this subject in the context of what I called the “quintessential religious witness in the public square” of Pope John Paul II (here).)

Was it appropriate to ask presidential candidates to share their views on religious faith and values in public life? While one would not expect politicians to offer reflections that rise to the quality of academic discourse, the responses of the Democratic presidential candidates may be revealing of how this public debate has moved over the years. Vigorously if imperfectly on the part of Senator Obama, and more haltingly on the part of Senator Clinton, their openness to religious participation suggests that we may be witnessing the beginning of a break from what then law professor and now federal judge Michael McConnell identified as a secularist “hold on mainstream thinking” about religion in the elite sectors of American society. The “Naked Public Square,” against which Richard John Neuhaus warned so eloquently many years ago, is becoming better clothed, even among the left-leaning political demographic that had seemed most insistent on denuding the public square of the religious witness.

In yesterday’s post offering my general observations about the candidates’ responses on questions about religious faith at the Compassion Forum, I shared my impression that Senator Clinton more readily and more comfortably connected with the spiritual dimension of faith as central to the lives and identity of so many Americans. Unfortunately, she faltered badly, in my view, on the central question of whether the subject was appropriately raised in the first place. When one of the moderators claimed that “there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with the conversation that we’re having here tonight” and who “believe religion already has way too much influence in political life and public life,” Senator Clinton was immediately solicitous of those objections. She characterized this as “a fair question to ask” and said that she understood “why some people, even religious people, even people of faith might say, why are you having this forum? And why are you exploring these issues from two people who are vying to be president of the United States?” Still, she did conclude that “we want religion to be in the public square,” saying that “[i]f you are a person of faith, you have a right and even an obligation to speak from that well spring of your faith.” But, she insisted, people of faith must “do so in a respectful and inclusive way.”

By responding as she did, Senator Clinton gave considerable credence to the persisting anti-religious impulses of too many in her political party. By stating that it is fair for some to question whether it is proper even to host a forum that allows candidates for the nation’s highest office to share their views on faith and values, she suggested that the exclusionary secularist viewpoint is a legitimate one that deserves consideration, even if on balance but only after careful consideration she had decided to participate in the forum. Reflecting the antipathy to religion in liberal elite circles, Richard Rorty once argued that speaking of religion in the context of public policy should be sharply rebuked as displaying “bad taste” in polite company. While clearly struggling to find a way to do so Sunday evening, and succeeding in other ways, Clinton seemed unable to completely shake off a similar aesthetic discomfort with the topic.

In sum, in this passage from the forum, Senator Clinton offered a less than enthusiastic invitation to people of faith to participate in the public square and indeed set out terms by demanding that they do so in a “respectful and inclusive way.” While most of us desire to be as respectful and inclusive as possible in expressing our religious (and non-religious) views, short of compromising our principles, Clinton did not suggest a similar qualification on participatory rights for anyone else engaging in public discourse.

In contrast, Senator Obama began his response to the same question by rejecting those “elements, many of them in my own party, in the Democratic Party, that believe that any influence of religion whatsoever in the public debate somehow is problematic or violates church and state.” Instead, he explained, “[w]hat I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith.” Obama continued: “And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God.” Yes, it is unfortunate that Senator Obama felt obliged to toss out the canard that Republicans would abolish separation of church and state (in a passage not quoted above) and that he self-referentially cited his own writings about the essentiality of religious references to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights movement (in the passage quoted above), instead of giving credit to such scholars as Stephen Carter who brought that point front and center in our modern public debate about religion in public life. Nonetheless, and importantly, Senator Obama offered a ringing endorsement of religious participation in the public square and did not hesitate to separate himself from the secular exclusionists.

Unfortunately, after having done so, Obama too felt obliged to suggest special constraints on the religious voice, saying that, in the public square, we have to “translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everyone.” As with Senator Clinton, Obama did not explain why people of faith are required to speak in a different voice, one that is “universal” and “appeals to everyone” before being heard. And having just defended the use of openly religious references, Obama’s insistence that religious language be translated into a universal style was somewhat contradictory. As Obama’s closing remarks in response to this question suggest, his concern apparently is to preclude “a certain self-righteousness,” as when a speaker implies he has “got a direct line to God,” a claim that Obama characterized as “incompatible with democracy.” But by thereby carving out forthright claims of religious truth from discourse that is appropriate for the public square, isn’t Obama’s invitation to people of faith significantly limited? Dr. King certainly claimed Biblical sanction for his views about the equality of all people. Nor, as Obama said should be expected of people of faith, did Dr. King "allow that we may be wrong" in thinking people of color were entitled to fundamental human rights.

While both Senators Obama and Clinton said that they welcomed the religious voice in the public square, and Obama did so in forceful terms, they also felt obliged to suggest that religious participation should be controlled and constrained, in a manner that we do not demand of others. Stephen Carter once wrote that a “cultural discomfort” emerges “when citizens who are moved by their religious understanding demand to be heard on issues of public moment and yet are not content either to remain silent about their religions or to limit themselves to acceptable platitudes.” By demanding “inclusive” or “universal” language or warding against claims of God-given truth as “incompatible with democracy,” is the Obama and Clinton invitation to people of faith effectively conditioned upon their willingness to utter “acceptable platitudes”? I don’t think either of them, and Obama in particular, mean to be so restrictive. But they appear conflicted in their instincts and have not yet thought through what it would mean to regard people of faith as first-class citizens in the public square. And neither Clinton nor Obama appears to be comfortable with what Stephen Carter referred to as the role of “prophetic religious activism,” observing as he did that “[t]he religious voice at its more pure is the voice of the witness.” But maybe that's to be expected. Clinton and Obama are politicians seeking power, and politicians seeking power are seldom comfortable with prophets.

In the next day or two, I’ll move from observations about the general subjects of religious faith in personal and public life as addressed at the Compassion Forum and offer my comments on how the candidates responded to questions about abortion and the sanctity of human life, which sadly if not unexpectedly was the nadir of the evening.

Greg Sisk

Clinton, Obama, and the Compassion Forum: Impressions From an Outsider

Last evening, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential candidates, appeared at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania to address matters of faith, values, and public policy. Today, the news media has focused on the latest name-calling between these two candidates — one being called an "Annie Oakley" wannabe and the other a San Francisco "elitist "(and as a Republican I am tempted to think that both may be right). Even when acknowledging the event, the New York Times felt obliged to begin its account by reporting that the candidates “exchang[ed] frosty glances Sunday night as their paths briefly crossed on stage.” As a consequence, very little attention has been given to the fascinating, and sometimes deeply substantive, discussion about faith and life and politics that unfolded in Pennsylvania last night. Given that this blog is devoted to religion in public life, I have presumed to attempt to fill in some of the gap with my personal impressions of this exceptional episode in American political life.

Now some might cynically dismiss last night’s forum as nothing more than another political event, and one that was carefully staged to arrest the Democratic Party’s declining support among people of faith in recent years. Of course, the forum was a political event, constructed around the ongoing race for the presidential nomination and featuring the two surviving candidates in one party. Nonetheless, I think a fair observer should acknowledge that this forum, both as it was planned and as it developed last night, was something more than a grimy campaign operation engineered to score political points.

Instead, persons of all faiths and political backgrounds should be encouraged that this great political party has begun to recognize the electoral folly of aggressive secularism and is taking considered steps to display greater respect for persons who take religious faith seriously. Through the largely balanced questions posed by the moderators and religious leaders in the audience, and the good faith (pun intended) cooperation of the two candidates who appeared, the forum well-served the purpose of exploring the religious sensibilities of the candidates and their views on the role of religious faith in public life. And for those of us who study religion and public life, it certainly was compelling television.

After watching the forum last night, and reviewing the transcript today, I offer below some observations from the perspective of an outsider. Because both of these candidates have long since disqualified themselves from receiving my own vote this November (on the sanctity of human life, genuine educational reform as the greatest engine for social progress, the necessity of free trade to world economic health, etc.), I have no dog in the ongoing and increasingly rough and tumble fight for the Democratic Party nomination. And while the conventional wisdom until a month ago had been that Senator Obama would be the more formidable opponent to Senator McCain this fall, prognostications have become considerably muddier in recent weeks and neither appears better positioned today against the Republican candidate. The thoughts that follow are openly impressionistic, which may be appropriate for a forum that was somewhat touchy-feely in nature (and I mean that in a good way).

In a departure from prior candidate meetings, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared separately last night, offering their thoughts at greater length, without interruption, and with less of a need to play one-upmanship on the other candidate. They responded to questions in a conversational manner, moving more easily from one subject to the next and following up with additional pertinent thoughts that later occurred to them. They each spoke about how faith has been present in their lives, sustained them in times of difficulty, affects the manner in which they make decisions, and influences their public policy positions. While face-to-face debates between political candidates serve an essential purpose in identifying the central issues, sharpening the differences, and testing the candidate’s ability to perform under pressure, last evening's more tranquil and dignified venue was a refreshing change and was especially well-tailored to the nature and content of this forum.

As someone who has not generally held a positive view of Senator Clinton’s personality over the years, I was surprised to find myself captivated by, drawn into, and even moved by passages of her narrative. She left that positive impression on me, not only through her words, which were well chosen but do not read as especially eloquent in the transcript printed today. Rather, I was taken with her calm and open demeanor, friendly and yet dignified exchange with moderators and questioners, and earnestness when speaking. Between the two, Clinton appeared more comfortable in addressing the personal dimension of faith, even as she attempted (admirably in my view) to shift the discussion away from a focus on herself to relate how she had been moved by the faith of others. Indeed, her stories about other people of powerful faith were most attractive and revealed a comfort in sharing the spiritual limelight with others. Telling the story of a woman whose son and grandson were murdered on the streets of Philadelphia, Clinton said that this person knows “God is with her,” even while not understanding why these tragedies have happened. “Determined to be the person that she believes God meant her to be,” this woman rises each day with “a smile on her face to go to her daycare business,” which Clinton aptly describes as a “moment of grace.”

By contrast, while certainly not visibly nervous, Senator Obama struck me as awkward of speech and manner at several points during the evening, appearing to struggle to find the right words. He also tended more often than Clinton to fall back on sound bites or pre-packaged themes from his campaign (although neither candidate went too far astray from the subject at hand). Perhaps this measure of uneasiness reflected his self-consciousness about these sensitive questions given the criticism he has received in recent days about some of his less than sensitive statements about people of faith. Fearing that he would step on another land-mine, Obama may have been unduly cautious, thus leaving an impression of less than complete comfort. While I found Senator Clinton to be personally inviting and thoughtful, Senator Obama came across to me as sometimes leaden in his expression, gamely trying hard but not quite succeeding in finding the right voice for the occasion. Please understand I do not mean to say that he made any serious mistakes or faltered badly, or that he failed to make significant contributions to the discourse. Rather, I found that he was simply unremarkable, not manifesting the confidence and eloquence that has regularly been on display when he speaks before an approving crowd at a campaign rally.

On substance, both candidates spoke to the importance and support of personal faith and to how their faith influences their political views. Neither faith nor works were neglected by either. That being said, their faith narrative varied markedly in emphasis. Senator Clinton spoke more directly to the importance of personal faith for the individual within a community of believers, that is, to faith for its own sake. Senator Obama focused more on the “social Gospel” of church-connected social service and political activities. Thus, Clinton began by saying how she had “felt the presence of God in my life” since her childhood and saying that “I don’t think I could have made my life’s journey without being anchored in God’s grace and without having that, you know, sense of forgiveness and unconditional love.” By contrast, Obama moved immediately to speaking about political organizing and political topics, saying “I am a devout Christian, that I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago, that nobody in a presidential campaign on the Democratic side in recent memory has done more to reach out to the church and talk about, what are our obligations religiously, in terms of doing good works, and how does that inform our politics?” Indeed, Obama explained that he had been drawn to church through “the social gospel, the need to act and not just sit in the pews.”

Immediately following the forum, the instant pundits also identified this difference in focus, which they saw as to the advantage of Obama. They opined that Obama had succeeded by speaking more directly about how his church involvement and political activities were intertwined. In my view, these commentators miss the point yet again and fail to apprehend how these contrasting approaches to discussion of faith are likely to be received by most people of faith. For most people of faith, the transcendent reality lies in the faith itself, bringing about a transformative relationship with God. For Catholics, faith is centered on salvation through Christ, renewed through the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To think of faith as a primarily a tool for social services and political platform positions is to mistake the effect for the cause. While the Democratic Party has lost ground with people of faith in part because of its political positions on social issues that are antithetical to orthodox or traditional values, its principal error has been a tone-deafness about the central role of a vibrant faith in the lives, the very identity, of many people. Certain core political issues certainly matter to people of faith and may be central to electoral choices. But one must begin by understanding the person as a person of faith before moving directly to the political. In my view, Clinton better connected with the traditional sense of religious faith during the forum. While by no means ignoring that personal faith dimension, Obama devoted his primary attention to the political implications. I think that's a meaningful difference, and one that may resonate.

As it appeared to me as someone not present but watching carefully on television, the atmosphere in the auditorium also changed between the two appearances, in a manner somewhat parallel to the different emphases on dimensions of religious faith. During Senator Clinton’s session, the audience appeared very attentive, was respectful and quiet, as they carefully and sympathetically considered her words. Applause was restrained, from the moment of Clinton’s entrance and throughout her dialogue with her interlocutors. The room was quiet, almost reverential at points. I had the feeling, or at least that was the disposition I was surprised to find in myself, that people were captivated with Clinton’s narrative about her own faith and about the faith she has found in others. They wanted to listen and were reluctant to intrude.

By contrast, when Obama entered the room, his supporters not only loudly applauded but boisterously cheered his entry, while he glad-handed down the aisle. The more demonstrative nature of Obama’s supporters in the crowd, occasionally breaking into the conversation with applause, was sometimes jarring to me. Moreover, I had the impression that Obama sensed it as well, as he appeared on more than one occasion to frown when the dialogue was interrupted by applause, perhaps appreciating that this animated political style was out of place in this dignified and thoughtful setting for careful reflection on faith and values. Rather than drawing energy from the applause, Obama sometimes appears unsettled by it and became more halting in his answer immediately afterward. Or so it seemed to me. The very fact that the candidates appeared separately and were able to develop their answers at greater length, without the need for a snappy and aggressive back-and-forth with an opponent, presumably was designed to break the political rhythm and allow for thoughtful engagement. Obama's supporters in the crowd appeared unable to depart from a rally style and adapt to this alternative venue.

Interestingly, my substantative reaction to the candidates’ views on the propriety of even having such a forum was nearly the mirror-opposite of my impressions of their religious faith narratives. Moreover, I was greatly disappointed and even alarmed by the clumsy and evasive remarks by each on the most important human rights issue of our time, the sanctity of unborn human life. But closing this over-length posting for now, I’ll save commentary on these other points for separate posts in the next couple of days.

Greg Sisk

Prosecuting Crime, Seeking Justice, and Protecting the Innocent

From the perspective of a person of faith, and a citizen of this country, I have been deeply distressed by the decline in recent years of prosecutorial discretion as the wise exercise of power in the pursuit of justice. Too often, and especially at the federal level at least from Washington, D.C., the policy has sometimes appeared to be that every case referred by law enforcement should be prosecuted and every conviction should be emphasized by seeking the maximum sentence. Politicians, of both parties, have made the situation worse by enacting mandatory minimum sentences to prove to constituents that they are tough on crime, resulting in the incarceration of millions of Americans, some for relatively minor and first-time offenses. Seeking the just result in a particular case in terms of the human factors involved has become more difficult and less valued.

Under the traditional understanding of prosecutorial discretion, a prosecutor was encouraged to consider whether seeking a criminal conviction, even when the evidence supported it, was the best course of action or instead whether alternatives measures, including forgoing prosecution, were mandated by justice. And the prosecutor had the original burden of ensuring that innocence was protected, taking the affirmative steps to investigate whether a prosecution was supported by more than the bare minimum requirement of probable cause. The ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function (Standard 3-3.9(b)) advise that a prosecutor is not obliged to pursue all charges that the evidence might support and may exercise discretion to decline to prosecute based on such factors, inter alia, as “the prosecutor’s reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty,” “the extent of the harm caused by the offense,” and “the disproportion of the authorized punishment in relation to the particular offense or the offender.” How often do we hear about the exercise of such discretion today?

A contemporary practitioner of the traditional form of prosecutorial justice may be found in Craig Watson, the new district attorney in Dallas, Texas, whose election as a reformer demonstrates that the public is receptive to the idea.

In the on-line reason magazine, Rodney Balko writes:

In 2006, Craig Watkins became the first African-American elected district attorney of any county in Texas history. More interestingly, the 40-year-old Watkins was elected in Dallas County, where the DA’s office has long been known for its aggressive prosecution tactics. A former defense attorney, Watkins says the Dallas DA’s office has for too long adopted a damaging “convict at all costs” philosophy, an argument bolstered by a string of wrongful convictions uncovered by the Texas Innocence Project in the months before he was elected. Watkins ran on a reform platform, and pulled out a surprising victory against a more experienced Republican opponent.

You can read more here.

Hat-tip to David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy (here), who concludes that "Watkins certainly seems like a fair-minded breath of fresh air, who takes the biblical injunction "tzedek, tzedek tirdof" (justice, justice thou shalt pursue) seriously." And here's one Catholic who can only say "Amen!"

Greg Sisk

The Corrupting and Incendiary Danger of Words of Racial Enmity

I appreciate Eduardo Peñalver’s posting on a version of black liberation theology, which I agree provides about as good of a defense of Dr. James Cone’s rhetorical choices as could be made (while thoughtfully acknowledging that he may be needlessly inflammatory). As with others who have expressed concern here on the Mirror of Justice about recent racially-charged statements in the public square, I have been aware that some advocates of black liberation theology liberally invoke terms of violence and hatred against white people, which they then insist should be understand to refer not to human beings of a particular ethnic background but instead as proxies for opposition to oppression. But I don’t think we can give people a pass when they deliberately choose words of hate, especially in the context of race, even if they try to distance themselves from the force of those words by qualifying and explaining. Humpty-Dumpty’s claim that words may be redefined to mean whatever the speaker wishes is always a doubtful proposition, because words belong to an entire community. But the claim of facile redefinition is especially dubious when the words are used in an incendiary manner, not to be more precise in categorization, but to be provocative and confrontational.

If a person regularly speaks about the evils of “white people” and the need to work for “the destruction of the white enemy,” he or she cannot legitimately plead innocence when the words are taken in their plain meaning. In fact, I’m not convinced that every one of these speakers are really all that surprised or upset when their words are taken so plainly. In any event, a person who uses such hateful rhetoric, even if he or she begins the journey by redefining terms in a particular way, may find that resort to such language is corrupting of attitude. Let’s look again at the words by Dr. Cone that I quoted: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. . . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.” Dr. Cone did not speak here about “whiteness” as some generic representation of an oppressive system, although the presentation as a whole spoke of oppressors (without suggesting a more narrow definition than "white people"). He spoke of opposing “white people” and then followed up by characterizing them as the “white enemy.” Whatever may have been originally intended when the theological terms were being defined in the quiet of an academic office, such rhetoric cannot be contained, especially when introduced to the public.

Moreover, am I being unfair if I worry that the explanation of precise redefinition offered to justify shocking words of hate toward “white people” may be, at least on occasion, something of a sly wink by people who are well aware of how their words are being received by the audience? Despite having said on a number of occasions that his critics have no standing because they haven’t carefully read the black liberation theology of Dr. Cone and others with the diligence he has devoted, Rev. Jeremiah Wright appears to have understood the message quite plainly, quite crudely in fact, without any clever qualifications. Pronouncing himself a serious discipline of black liberation theology, Rev. Wright then chose to rant about AIDS being created by government scientists to kill black people and white supremacist government conspiring to sell drugs in black neighborhoods to oppress minorities. If the linguistic manipulations of this version of black liberation theology lend themselves so readily to this extremist nonsense, even by a supposedly sophisticated and well-educated church leader, doesn’t that suggest this approach is dangerously irresponsible?

Greg Sisk

Words of Shame, Hard Truth, and Even Anger are Not the Same as Words of Hate

For Catholics, and especially for those of us who are lawyers, we always remember the words of St. Thomas More as he was led to his execution: “I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” A Catholic certainly may and indeed should be a patriot, but he or she may never elevate nation above God or blind his or her eyes to national sin.

Thus, it is right and proper to express shame when it is warranted. We all are ashamed of our national history of racism. We all are ashamed that the most dangerous place for a baby in this country is in his or her mother’s womb. I think we all should be ashamed that our nation abandoned the people of southeast Asia in the spring of 1975, condemning millions to death, hundreds of thousands to exile, and millions more to tyranny. I think we all should be ashamed that when genocide stalked through Rwanda in 1994, our nation (and the rest of the world as well) did nothing. I’m sure we all could add further to this Hall of Shame. To love our country and to be proud of America does not mean that we deny or forget the occasions on which we were ashamed of our country.

In this same way, and on these same subjects, we as people of faith are called to speak the truth, including saying hard things about the path our nation has taken, statements that may not always be well-received by our listeners. In so doing, we of course have to be careful not to assume that our opinion is always consonant with the Truth. We must maintain some humility. And we must always resist any temptation toward deception or manipulation. If for tactical political reasons we tell lies desig