Category: Politics

He is not our worst ex-president — that would be Jimmy Carter, affectionately known in Springfield as “History’s greatest monster — but he’s trying his best to claim the title:

[Clinton] said he had met “two great popes” in his lifetime, John Paul II and John XXIII. Clinton said he recognized that John Paul “may have had a mixed legacy,” but he called him a man with a great feel for human dignity.

This from the guy who is primarly remembered for messing aroud with the White House help:

Specifically, 53% of Americans named “Monica Lewinsky” or the “affair, adultery, sex scandal” as the most memorable moment of President Clinton’s eight years in office, more than four times the number who cited “the economy” (12%).

UPDATE: As I typed this, Drudge has posted the full quote:

“[Pope John Paul II] centralized authority in the papacy again and enforced a very conservative theological doctrine. There will be debates about that. The number of Catholics increased by 250 million on his watch. But the numbers of priests didn’t. He’s like all of us – he may have a mixed legacy.”

Getting carnal favors in the Oval Office, standing up for 2,000 years of Christian truth…it’s all pretty much the same, right?

One of my best friends studied under a strictly orthodox professor at a prestigious Catholic university, and that scholar did not like America. He is well-known in Catholic intellectual circles for his critique of the American founding, which, he says, was flawed because it is rooted in secularism.
That is not enough to conclude that he dislikes America. A nation’s political arrangements will reflect its character, sure, but that isn’t the only component. But this professor rejects American society in many respects. He condemns the superficial way people relate to one another. He decries its music. He condemns our fast food, and it bothers him that we Americans have no room in our hearts for metaphysics.
I met this professor in person twice, and he is quite engaging and personable. His contempt for his motherland is nothing if not rational, although tinged with elitism. Indeed, I agree with many aspects of his critique. Most American popular culture is vulgar garbage. Far too many of our fellow citizens revere rootlessness, and I certainly would not defend what passes for food on many dinner tables.
But where the professor’s critique breaks down is his choice of Italy as an exemplary nation. Now, I love Italy, as it happens. I’ve been there a couple of times (our honeymoon was in Rome), and my wife and I could easily spend several months happily touring and eating our way around the peninsula. I show my kids books with Italian art, and often I cook Italian food.
Yet to anyone looking with Catholic eyes, Italy has some serious problems as well. Italy maintains a deeply Catholic culture, but it is dying. I don’t mean that it is changing into something else. I mean it’s literally dying: the Italian birthrate is 1.2 children per adult woman during her life. Other social indicators are better than the States — their abortion rate is very low, as is the divorce rate (which reflects traditional attitudes toward marriage, true, but also widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and cohabitation.) Italy has tons of priests, and more Italians go to church than in any other European country, save perhaps Ireland.
Yet it is the birthrate that is the most telling statistic. It shows that, far from being the generous and people-oriented people the professor would like them to be, Italians are deeply selfish, content to wallow in the vita bella without perpetuating it. They care about their cultural riches the same way the prodigal son cared about his father’s wealth: as a source of stimulation and amusement, not something to be protected and nourished.
So it would seem that the professor, while ostensibly approaching the matter from a Catholic perspective, has very little to stand on here. America — largely Protestant, and officially secular — has a higher level of religious committment than Catholic Italy, which teaches religion in state-run classrooms. The source of his antipathy must lie elsewhere.
But it is not for me to probe his psyche. Rather, I have to ask: if you’re that deeply dissatisfied with the U.S., and you think another country is a utopia, why not move? He has taught in Italy before, and speaks fluent Italian. If being in Italy is good for your soul, and America is hazardous for your spiritual health, well then, isn’t the choice obvious?
Personally, I don’t think I would want to leave America even if I agreed with the professor’s critique. If you think your nation has gone astray, you ought to love her the same way you might love an alcoholic mother: with sadness, to be sure, but always with prayers and actions directed at reforming her character.

As Merle Haggard famously sang, “If you don’t love it, leave it.” Thousands of Americans are taking him up on that offer, and none too soon. If you think you are too good for America, I, for one, will not convince you otherwise. Take your revenge on Bushitler and AmeriKKKa! Deprive us of your intelligence and moral certitude!
Unfortunately for Pete, these folks are moving to Canada. Given the close-run scare the Left received in the last Canadian elections, they should be lobbying for our American moral betters to move north.

When Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union, “enemies of the state” would often appear in public to recant their “crimes.” When Ivy League presidents mention uncomfortable truths about human sex differences, they pretty much have to do the same thing:

“I have long been aware of the many challenges women face in pursuing academic careers, but in the past several weeks the nature and extent of these challenges have been made particularly vivid to me,” said President Summers. “It is time for Harvard to step up and affirm in strong and concrete terms its commitment to the advancement and support of women pursuing academic careers….”

Does anyone seriously think Harvard has been discouraging women from seeking tenure?
As far as I know, nobody has taken the time to refute Summers’ original point: men tend to be overrepresented at the left and right ends of the bell curve when it comes to math and science aptitude, so they will be overrepresented at the elite levels of those disciplines. (They also make up a higher proportion of the remedial students.) That doesn’t mean “women can’t do math or science.” It simply means that fewer women have the capacity to do those things at the highest levels of achievement.
Also, it’s a well-known fact that women give birth, and many of these mothers want to care for their children full-time, at least while they (the kids) are young and helpless. This is great for the kids, but it can put one’s career in slow-motion for a while.
And what’s wrong with that? In the grand scheme of things, what’s more important — being a good mother, or being a good Harvard professor? (Hint: dozens of societies have succeeded without Harvard professors, but no society has figured out how to perpetuate itself without mothers.)

The Iraqi elections are over, and by all accounts they have been successful: fewer murders than expected, and millions of people showed up, including many Sunnis (though personally I don’t care if ex-oppressors get all pouty and decide not to play.) The winners will then build a new Iraqi constitution, which will pave the way for a permanent government later this year.
Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from the Democrats who asserted that “the security situation” precluded Iraq from having a fair election. They were to see an additional “miserable failure” they could hang around the Bush administration’s neck. They should rehearse a few phrases for the news shows tomorrow morning, such as, “I’m glad I’m wrong,” “Boy, those dark-skinned people can really surprise ya sometimes!” or “Maybe the president is onto something with this ‘democracy’ thing.”
The left-wing blogs, usually a leading indicator of the next crackpot party line the leading Dems are about to take, have already started moving the goalpost: “This Election is simply, in my estimation, an exercise in pretty pictures” (Daily Kos). Or this choice quote from the Democratic Underground: “I can’t believe the Iraqis are buying into this ‘democracy’ bulls—.”
Given the intelligence, wit, and sensitivity of Catholic Light readers, I don’t need to point out the high irony of people calling themselves “Democrats” yet dumping all over democracy itself. To them, the Constitution is a sacred document when it refers to free speech and press freedoms, but infinitely malleable when it comes to gun rights, property ownership, religious expression, states’ rights, or commercial activity. Democracy is good as long as Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are elected by left-wing constituencies, but bad if it means George Bush and Tom Delay. In fact, any political phenomenon can be evaluated not in terms of justice or goodness, but whether it advances your ideology.
To the Iraqi people: may God bless you and your country, and may you defeat the enemies of your freedom and well-being. Ignore those who would rather you live under someone else’s boot — a situation they would never accept for themselves or their families. Millions more are cheering for you.