Separation of Church and State: What Does this Really Mean Today?

The recently passed HHS mandate requiring some (not all) Catholic institutions to cover their employees’ contraceptive costs as part of their health care package has brought under scrutiny a few fundamental pillars of American democracy and governance: separation of church and state; protection of the First Amendment; and equal access to health care services for all Americans. As I understand it, the main argument against this decision revolves around this second point about protecting religious freedoms. Critics have (deceivingly) framed the mandate as a rule that forces Catholics to violate their religious convictions and consciences on the issue of contraception and abortion. There are so many ways to attack this claim that I barely know where to begin.

First, I’ll just cite an important statistic: according to the NYT, 55% of Americans and 58% of Catholic Americans agree that employers at Catholic institutions should offer their employees health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. I have seen different variations of these numbers but the fact that Catholics are more supportive of the HHS mandate than the general public has remained consistent in every study and article I’ve read.

Second, I would like to highlight a key aspect of the mandate that most opponents prefer to ignore in hopes of strengthening their argument. According to the HHS rule, Catholic parishes or institutions focused on the preaching and/or teaching of the Catholic faith would be exempt from this mandate; it is only those institutions that provide public services (mainly hospitals and universities) that would be affected by the mandate. This is an important distinction to be made. Everyone has the freedom to choose his or her faith, but not everyone has the luxury to be picky when it comes to employment. If the opponents of this mandate truly believe that every single employee at a Catholic university or hospital is a devout Catholic, they’re out of their minds. In this job market, people will take work wherever they can find it. If you live in a small or medium-sized town with only one major university or hospital, that’s where you’re going to look for work. An administrative assistant or a janitor earning an hourly wage at a university or hospital should not be denied equal access to health care services just because her place of employment so happens to be affiliated with the Catholic Church. Critics of the HHS mandate are painting the picture of a conservative, Catholic family, dressed head to toe in their Sunday best, having condoms thrown at them and birth control pills shoved down their throats while receiving Communion. This is obviously far, far from the truth.

In addition to framing the mandate and the Obama administration, generally, as morally corrupt and religiously offensive, the Right has also deployed its favorite one-liner about “big government” to criticize the HHS rule. According to these conservative critics, the White House is (and I quote) “galloping” over the line between church and state in this decision. Going back to my exaggerated example of priests shoving BC down parishioners’ throats, the opponents of this mandate are acting as though the government is taking away free will in some fundamental way, when all it’s really doing is its job (evening the playing field for Americans by providing equal access to imperative health services). If you are a devout Catholic who is morally opposed to abortion, contraception, or any activity that prohibits child birth, then it is your inalienable right as a human being to not get an abortion and not use birth control yourself. [Likewise, if you are opposed to gay marriage, it is your right not to marry someone of the same sex.] But your personal moral judgment is not a reason to deny others the right to use these services. Just as the government has no right to force women to use birth control, your personal beliefs have no right to force them not to. Conservatives need to get past this notion of liberalism scorching the moral and religious foundations of this country, this idea that a gay couple getting married someone undermines their own marriage, or that a rape victim getting an abortion threatens the fabric of society or family-life. This is the 21^st century: women have premarital sex; they use birth control and get abortions. Atheists do this; Jews do this; Catholics do this. If conservatives want to really think about what’s ruining this country, they ought to look no further than the growing income disparity and endless cycle of war, to name a few.

The last point I’ll make is in defense of President Obama and his administration. First, I would like to point out that Vice President Biden, Bill Daley, and other (males) close to Obama warned him of the potential for backlash on this. It was HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Obama’s advisor and long-time friend Valerie Jarrett (along with a number of female senators) who led the charge. I see this as a major thumbs-up for Obama’s ultimate decision to support the mandate. For so long, I have been disgusted that it has always been men making the decisions about women’s right to choose. The fact that this mandate (which, really, only affects women) was led by women only validates its necessity. Additionally, I would like to counter what many political pundits are saying about the mandate’s implications for Obama in the 2012 election. Everyone seems to agree that approving this mandate was a bad political move for Obama because it threatens his support from Catholic voters, many of whom are independent or live in battleground states, like Pennsylvania. Whether or not this will prove to be the case (and I think it won’t), I think it says a lot about Obama as a leader that he made a controversial decision like this knowing full well what the negative political implications could be. We elect Presidents to make decisions on behalf of the best interests of the American public; we do not elect Presidents to make decisions that are guaranteed to get them reelected. Joe Biden, who some (on Morning Joe) have called one of the best political minds in the country, warned Obama that this could bode poorly for him, politically. But Obama went ahead with it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Isn’t that kind of decision-making and leadership something we want from our Commander in Chief? I know it’s something I want. And if others don’t, they can go ahead and vote for Mitt Romney, who will never stand up for what he believes is best for the American people, but will instead be constantly swayed by whatever forces come his way.   

Obama Appearing More Presidential Against a Field of Incompetents and an Obstructionist Congress

This week, with the Republican primaries finally underway, the contrast between President Obama and the GOP field has become even more stark. First, I would just like to emphasize how extremely supportive I am of Obama's foreign policy strategy to scale back the military (making two simultaneous wars impossible) and refocus its efforts in the Asia Pacific region. For a young Senator from Illinois with very little foreign policy experience, Obama has really been on a roll. 

Second, and what this blog will focus on, is Obama's controversial appointment of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Given the history of past presidential appointments occurring during a Senate recess and the uncompromising, childish obstructionism that the Republican Congress has practiced during the past several months, it is unbelievable (and disgusting, frustrating, illogical... pick an adjective) how much criticism this decision has already received. I'm not feeling very creative today, so I will simply list all of the issues I have with Obama's critics:

1. Turning a Blind Eye to History: President Clinton made 140 appointments during recess; George W. Bush made 171; Obama has made 28. The numbers speak for themselves.

2. The GOP's Overly-Pliant Definition of "In Session": As I understand it, the Constitution says that recess is a time when Congress is not working. Working in D.C., I can assure you that no work has taken place on the Hill since before the holidays. This whole pro forma caveat, which allows the Senate to technically be "in session" without getting any business done is a joke. Just because one or two Senators read the newspaper in a hearing room for 30 minutes a day does not mean they are in session, ready to work and vote. Feigning offense at Obama's appointment is absolutely ridiculous when most Senators, if they're even in town, are probably rolling into the office at 10am, doing some catch-up on Espn.com, and going home at 5. If the Senate wants to be recognized as being in session, maybe they should actually attempt to get something done, such as... oh, I don't know... have an up-or-down vote on the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - like a certain President repeatedly asked for? Just a thought. 

3. Importance of this Appointment: Republican politicians consistently peg Obama as a Wall Street supporter and blame Democrats for supporting the bank bailout, yet they refused to vote on this important appointment. The Republicans agree that Cordray is qualified and largely bipartisan; they say it's not him they're against. They oppose the entire agency, which is intended to protect consumers against big banks. If this isn't the absolute epitome of hypocrisy, I really don't know what is. 

4. Blame Yourselves, Republicans: Yes, it was a bold (and perhaps unconstitutional) move, but the Republican Congress can blame no one but themselves for the way Obama acted - and will likely continue to act. I recently read an article supporting Pa's opinion that the Republican party's unique hatred of Obama is fundamentally rooted in race. I'm still not sure I buy into that assumption, but the article did provide a disturbing laundry list of ways that this Republican Congress has disrespected Obama and the Office of the Presidency that are historically unmatched - and unthinkable. I'm sure everyone remembers Rep. Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" during Obama's address to Congress some time ago. There's also John Boehner's rejection of Obama's request to speak at a joint session of Congress (which, I learned, was the first such denial in the country's history). And last, but certainly not least, is the entire debt/tax debacle that took place over the holidays. Republicans are calling Obama's Cordray appointment unconstitutional and claiming that he does not respect the "separate but equal" powers of the branches of government. But how many times has the Republican Congress blatantly disrespected the President? Mitch McConnell said, "Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power." Yes, that's true. Separation of power is important, and I am positive that ex-con law professor Obama agrees. But maybe the Republican party should consider taking their responsibilities, in general, a little more seriously and showing some respect for their Commander in Chief. I mean, really, what other choice does Obama have but to make decisions in this way?

I am not a blind, unthinking, radical Obama supporter by any means. I have disagreed with his policies and criticized his decisions in the past. In fact, I actually mailed him a letter of dissatisfaction when he decided to extend the Bush era tax cuts. [I actually just re-read it... and it was really harsh. I'm glad I wrote a positive message of approval to whitehouse.gov this morning.] One of the major criticisms I once had of Obama was his reluctance to put up a strong fight. As the Republicans continue to show, Washington politics is often a dirty game. If you want to get things done and follow through on your election promises, you cannot always prioritize reaching across the aisle and making political friends. Sometimes you need to play hard-ball, and I think that is exactly what Obama is starting to do. Regarding the Cordray appointment Obama said, "I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class." This is presidential; this is strong; this is what America and the middle class needs. When put up against boring, wish-washy Romney, religious-zealot Santorum, or slimy Gingrich, Obama's odds of winning reelection are lookin' preeeetty good. 

Assessing Newt's Staying Power and My Illogical Support for Romney

This morning at the gym, as I enjoyed one of my favorite parts of the day (working up a sweat during MSNBC's Morning Joe), I had a realization: something inside me subconsciously really wants Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. Every time another candidate battles with him at the top of the polls, I find myself really frustrated and hating the competing candidate. This is not without good reason, of course: how can you not hate Herman Cain? [Caveat: Looks like he is finally taking himself out of the race. Who wants to bet on when he formally withdraws? I say Monday. Also, his campaign is terribly managed. Obviously he is too incompetent and made too many mistakes to stay at the top of the polls for long, but dropping out is like a not-so-subtle confirmation of the White affair.] 

I wasn't sure I could despise someone more than Herman Cain, but then along came Newt Gingrich. When Newt started surging in the polls, I didn't take it too seriously. Newt's personal background is not exactly the clean picture of Christian morality that most Republican candidates would like to paint, and he is more of a Washington insider than Obama - the president. Putting my personal assessment of Newt aside, the most important and relevant consideration is whether or not he proves to have staying power. The Romney campaign recently decided to make a concerted effort to directly and indirectly attack Newt on his policies and flip-flopping, a significant change from its strategy thus far. In the past few months, all Mitt Romney and his campaign had to do was sit back and wait for the "flavor of the week" (Bachmann, Perry, Cain) to shoot himself or herself in the foot enough times to fizzle out. But now, this obvious shift in strategy to actually attack the front runner could potentially be interpreted as some kind of validation of the competitiveness or legitimacy of Newt Gingrich and his electability. Is the Romney camp actually afraid that Newt could actually stay on top for another month?

If they are afraid, they shouldn't be - and they must have missed the last ridiculously arrogant and offensive remarks good ole' Newt made. The fact that Newt was a lobbyist seems pretty indisputable, to me, but he has been defending this claim for weeks. In his most recent explanation of receiving over $1.5 million to give advice to Freddie & Frannie, Newt said that he didn't even need that money: he was raking in $60,000 per speech. And on top of that, he alluded to being a celebrity. 

I talked about this in my last post, so apologies for repeating myself, but Newt Gingrich is the exact opposite of what the Republican base thinks it wants. He has championed himself on being the most "professorial" politician in decades; Republicans have not stopped criticizing Obama for being professorial since he entered office. He has considerable ties to big bankers; Republicans won't lay off Obama for receiving money from Wall Street. He brags about his income when the very people the Republican party is trying to attract are those that are struggling in this difficult economic time! And beyond the absolute hypocrisy of it all is the fundamental insensitivity of these types of comments. If I stay at this job for a full year, I will have made less than half of what Newt bragged about making from a single speech. More now than ever, income is a touchy subject for most Americans. So why would someone running for president think it was a good idea to basically throw something like this in the face of millions of Americans? The implications of candidates' mistakes, missteps, and scandal usually take about a week to be reflected in the polls, so I guess we'll have to wait and see if Newt's remarks had as big an impact on Republican voters as they did on me, but I can only hope this was his bullet in the foot.

This brings me to the second half of my blog title: "My Illogical Support for Romney." Again reiterating a previous post, I have been somewhat critical of Obama and largely disengaged from the political scene for the past couple of years but, more recently, my Democratic fervor has intensified, making me somewhat obsessed with following every move on the campaign trail and here in Washington. In addition to simply being fascinated by this roller-coaster ride of a primary season, I am genuinely concerned about the future of our country. To say that Obama inherited a colossal mess is an understatement. Despite his efforts, Obama has not been able to help our country rebound quickly enough - resulting in his current historically low approval ratings. With a still struggling economy and job market and Republican-controlled House unwilling to compromise on anything, Obama has been set up for a rougher road to reelection than most incumbents face. 

But what I have come to more whole-heartedly believe is that America desperately needs Obama to win in 2012. A Republican president would only add to the deficit, widen the gap between the rich and poor and lead us blindly into another war. With these fears in mind, you would think I (and other Democrats) would be inclined to support the most ridiculous Republican candidate out there, the one with the smallest chance of defeating Obama. So why, then, have a become a subconscious Romney supporter? Aside from Huntsman, Romney stands the best chance at beating Obama: he's competent, good looking, and moderate enough to win over independents and maybe fiscally-conservative Democrats. But if he's the best competition, shouldn't I (shouldn't we all) be rooting against him?! Maybe my fear of Newt or Rick Perry as president far outweighs my fear of Obama being beaten. I don't usually push for comments on my blog (as I assume very few people read it), but I wonder: Is it more logical to indirectly "support" Romney or to vehemently oppose and hate the one person who has a fighting chance at beating Obama?

If We Wanted a President that Couldn't Read, We Would Have Elected Palin. Nice Try, Herm

I mentioned in my previous post a new trend that is permeating the country and, more specifically, the Republican party. This trend is multi-dimensional, with one clear dimension being a deliberate shift away from intellectualism. While I'm sure this shift has been going on for years, I think the first time I really noticed it was during the 2004 Presidential race between Bush and Kerry. I'm sure that in every debate, Kerry felt like he was arguing with a seven year-old, whose responses were no more substantial than a snotty "nuh-uh" and a stuck-out tongue. Bush memorized his one-liner talking points, hunched over his podium, exaggerated his drawl and threw in a few "y'all's," while Kerry -- one of the smartest politicians out there (and rumored to be the next Secretary of State, FYI) -- had a comprehensive understanding of the issues. But, as we all know far too well, Bush and Kerry's stark difference in experience and intellect was not the deciding factor in the '04 election. Instead, it all boiled down to the "who would you rather have a beer with?" question. [I, and I'm sure most people reading this post would say Kerry, but we are not representative of the country.] Americans found Bush, the simple minded Texan who grew up on a ranch, more likable and easier to relate to than Kerry, the "boring" and stiff New Englander (who was actually qualified to be president).  


Next came the Sarah Palin phenomenon. In her infamous interview with Katie Couric, Palin failed to name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads to keep up with global affairs. When asked to name just one, Palin stumbled, uttering "all of 'em, any of 'em"... okay, aka none of them. While this clip got plenty of attention in the media and on SNL, just a few years later Palin was seriously being considered as a (somewhat) viable GOP candidate -- without even entering the race. How soon America forgets...


And that brings us to Cain, the Hermanator. Cain has made so many major gaffes in recent weeks that I was shocked when yet another surfaced this morning. (Seriously, what does his staff do with their time?) In a speech in New Hampshire yesterday, Cain riled the crowd in defending his blatant lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. Cain, per usual, blamed the media for blowing his mistakes out of proportion; referencing his disturbing and deplorable interview regarding Libya, Cain said that the media measures his every pause, when all he's trying to do is take a moment to think!! (Yeah right). Cain then asked the crowd, "who knows every detail about every country or every situation on the planet?" (Well, no one. But anyone -- especially someone running for the highest office in the country, perhaps world, should know a little bit about China and Libya). 


But the Cain Train didn't stop there. His next memorable quote went something like this: "We've got plenty of experts! We need a leader, not a reader!"


...Seriously? 


I'm sure we can all agree that reading should be a prerequisite for any president, so I won't elaborate too much on this point. What I really want to go back to is this shift away from intellectualism, and what it implies about the American people. Why is it acceptable that politicians like Bush, Palin, and Cain can get away with -- and even be proud of -- their lack of knowledge? Why do our most intelligent politicians like Kerry and Obama have to hide their intellect and "dumb down" all of their speeches? I consider myself to be largely aware of what's going on in the world, but I would pray to God that my president knows more about it than I do! Why don't other Americans feel the same? 


And, of course, all presidents have a Cabinet and are surrounded by experts. But if they don't have a solid grasp of the issues, themselves, they are just puppets doing whatever their group of advisers tells them to do. And if they aren't smart enough to pick up a newspaper once and a while, what makes us think that they will choose advisers who are well-intentioned and just? Socrates said something along the lines of "one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best." Bush declared war in Iraq not because he thought it was right or best; he didn't think about it much at all. Bush probably had little to no understanding of Middle Eastern history or politics, so simply did what Cheney told him to do -- and we should expect nothing more from Herman Cain. 

Concerned and Confused

As this is my first entry in my new blog, I'll give a brief explanation of what compelled me to revisit Blogspot after nearly two years, what I'll be writing about, and why you should (or maybe should not...) bother to read it. 

I have always been interested in (and usually passionate about) politics. If you have ever joined a family dinner at my house, you know that this really wasn't much of a choice. Liberalism is as synonymous with Henderson as butter is with Paula Dean. Given my political upbringing, I'm sure you can imagine how ecstatic I was to finally reach voting age -- and cast my first ballot for one of the most exciting and rhetorically-gifted politicians in modern history: Mr. Barack Obama. Not only is Obama a fellow Illinoisan who gave me an autograph and handshake back in the day, he replaced a puppet president with a corrupt administration and made history as America's first African American president. 

Despite my initial enthusiasm for this seemingly perfect politician, my "hope" for "change" was soon brought to a halt when Obama failed to take advantage of his Democratically-controlled Congress, making little progress on social and (particularly) economic issues early on. And once the Republicans took control of the House, the likelihood of the Obama administration making true changes plummeted. The Republican party made it clear that they will do anything they can to make Obama look like a failure; we all know John Boehner uttered these words practically verbatim. For that, I can't blame Obama too much. But I can blame him for wasting those precious many months of a Democratically-controlled Congress. For wasting this opportunity, I began to sort of resent the man I once idolized. 

But just when I was about to give up hope on my President, my party, and our political system, in general... Enter the GOP primary candidates. 

After just a few short weeks of seeing these clowns (starting with Palin and Trump, moving to Perry and Bachmann, and now Cain, Gingrich, and --gasp, Iowa!!-- Ron Paul??) dominate the news coverage, my political fervor was back! For those of you who I most frequently pester via phone and/or email with my political ranks (Pa, I'm pretty much talkin' about you), you know that my interest in the Republican primary race has gone from casually paying attention to being more-or-less obsessed. Now, don't get me wrong: I am not obsessed with the candidates, themselves, but more-so the bizarre trend that is sweeping through the Republican base -- and, perhaps, through the entire country. 

The historical definitions of Democrats and Republicans are no longer useful. With the significant economic and military stress our entire nation is under, more radical factions of both political parties have emerged. And despite how insane and unreasonable I think the Tea Party is (and, to be fair, how insane and unreasonable others think the Occupiers are), these two movements really say a lot about the current political and social landscape of our country. Discontent in America may not lead to an historic political uprising as it did in Egypt, but it will undoubtedly have a major impact on the 2012 election. While part of me is purely fascinated in this new and largely undefined trend, part of me is absolutely terrified that it will somehow result in an overly radical or grossly incompetent new president. The mere thought of a Herman Cain or Ron Paul as leader of the free world is practically too much to digest -- so maybe blogging about it will help assuage my fears!! Or increase your's?