John Q. Allman here for RADIO USA; welcome
to Let's Talk. Today my guest is Senator Paul Church.
Senator Church is running for president of the United States and
has some issues he'd like to discuss with you. Before we open
the phone lines, Senator, I'd like you to say a word about the
flap over your standing as a Roman Catholic. Senator Church, welcome.
Thank you, John, and hello to all the good people out there.
I'm pleased to address a dimension of my candidacy that has become
an issue in this campaign, namely, the fact that I am a Roman
Catholic who takes seriously my religious obligations and the
moral teaching of my church.
People ask: What do I see as the proper relationship between
my faith and membership in the church, and my responsibilities
as a public figure and political leader?
First let's be clear: You are electing a person, not a robot
-- a fully formed individual with a distinctive set of experiences,
ideas, convictions, attitudes and, yes, values and principles.
While it is you I will be elected to represent, it is I who will
be making a thousand judgments and decisions on your behalf. While
I will never forget my obligation to serve your interests and
represent your concerns, those interests and concerns will be
filtered through my personality and view of the world. Any politician
who tells you otherwise, who presents herself as nothing more
than a mirror of "the people," underestimates your intelligence.
Do such politicians really expect you to believe that they will
compartmentalize their own values and convictions? Do they think
you want or expect them to leave their soul, heart and mind behind
when they serve in public office?
I would be unable to represent you, much less myself, were my
faith and political convictions not closely intertwined. Indeed,
I would be different from so many of you if I left my deepest
convictions behind when I made political decisions. If my faith
convinces me, as it does, that human life is sacred, that the
privileged have a special obligation to the poor, that politics
must serve the cause of justice and peace, then I would be perjuring
myself to ignore these principles in the performance of public
service. They must inform my decisions.
So, Senator Church, it seems clear that your faith will make
a definite difference in how you would run the country.
That's correct, Mr. Allman. Most politicians seem terrified to
acknowledge that they have a faith that could make a difference
in public life. At the same time, I recognize that as a public
servant I am answerable to you as well as to my conscience. Like
any politician, I will try mightily to persuade you, and your
elected representatives, that my personal convictions lead directly
to wise and just policies that serve the good of all.
That's quite a task you've set for yourself, Senator. What
if you can't persuade me? I'm not Catholic, by the way, and might
not believe your choices best serve my interests.
I hear your concerns. I realize other, competing convictions
and principles might enjoy greater popular support -- or you and
other citizens might agree on principles but disagree on how best
to realize them through specific policies and laws. In such settings
politics, the art of compromise, earns its reputation as a corrupter
of souls.
But these dilemmas also provide the opportunity for politics
to recover its reputation as a noble calling, as the means of
forging an underlying unity and sense of purpose among Americans,
whose dazzling variety of racial, religious and ethnic backgrounds
-- and whose diverse views of the world, and of politics -- we
proudly celebrate.
This quest for unity within diversity demands a "politics of
the common good." Let me explain what that means and how we can
build a political culture around it.
A moment ago I alluded to "wise and just policies that serve
the good of all." Policies and laws that serve only narrow special
interests, and that do so at the expense of others, almost always
fail the test of "the common good."
The "common good" is an idea as old as the republic. Despite
our reputation as rugged and radical individualists, we Americans
also boast a long and distinguished history of coming together
in voluntary associations -- churches, charities, private schools,
unions, political parties -- to advance the interests of the ommunity
and to serve the neediest among us. The 19th century French politician
and writer Alexis de Tocqueville, whose tour of the United States
in 1831 (to study the American penal system) led him to write
his classic assessment of Democracy in America, powerfully
captured the generosity of spirit and commitment to the common
good that defines the American character. Tocqueville devoted
many pages to providing vivid examples of Americans' social conscience
in action. He also noted that America's egalitarian spirit and
democratic institutions "awaken and foster a passion for equality
which they can never entirely satisfy." Yet each generation of
Americans strives anew to embrace that larger purpose.
Whoa, you're getting a little deep here. But tell our listeners
how the idea of the common good applies to you as a president
who is also Catholic.
Certainly. Commitment to the common good is one of the cornerstones
of Catholic social teaching. The central question of our political
discourse, according to the U.S. bishops, should not be: "Are
you better off now than you were four years ago?" Rather, politicians
must ask: "How can we -- all of us, especially the weak and the
vulnerable -- be better off in the years ahead?"
Some may respond that the common good is best pursued not by
government but through the so-called private sector and the non-governmental
institutions and agencies. Certainly government must not assume
the duties and responsibilities of local communities or the family.
Indeed, subsidiarity -- that is, respect for the proper autonomy
of each level of society in meeting those needs it is equipped
to meet -- is another cornerstone of Catholic social teaching.
Yet the federal government remains a critical player. It sets
the tone and direction by supporting local initiatives and meeting
needs that require resources beyond the capacity of the local
or state governments. In addition, federal law establishes a framework
within which all citizens can pursue the common good. And the
national political culture, in short, fosters a set of values
and priorities that give shape and meaning to the rough-and-tumble
of daily politics.
The president in particular can become the catalyst of a politics
of the common good. I would do so by articulating a vision of
the common good and setting forth concrete policies and proposals
to achieve it. Of course I would invite and expect vigorous argument
about the vision and the proposals. There is no way round the
negotiations and compromises that constitute governance in a plural,
democratic society.
But I would never fail to promote my deepest convictions, even
-- especially -- on those occasions when my responsibilities as
a leader of a diverse constituency require me to enforce laws
and accept compromises that do not fully honor those convictions.
Can you be a little more specific, Senator? This talk is
nice, but our listeners need to hear exactly how the common good
might apply for various issues they have some interest in.
Well, let me review some of the principles and political goals
I have articulated throughout this campaign -- principles and
goals that Catholics, and many other Americans, will recognize
as resonant with their deepest moral and religious convictions.
Together these items form the substance of my view of the common
good.
First and foremost, I believe human life is sacred. Every individual
life, at whatever stage of development, health or decline, possesses
an inherent dignity and worth that no one can or should violate.
The dignity and inviolability of human life is the cornerstone
for sound domestic as well as foreign policy. The refusal to discriminate
on this question -- to favor some lives over others -- will shape
my decisions on everything from health care to the proper use
of U.S. military force, from public education to the war on terrorism.
My policies shall never reflect the view that American lives are
inherently more valuable than Iraqi or Pakistani or Brazilian
lives, or that hale and hearty lives deserve more protection than
terminally ill patients, or that the lives of prisoners and criminals
are somehow less precious than the lives of law-abiding citizens.
Clearly my outlook on these matters is shaped by my Catholic
faith. With the church I proclaim that we Americans are not free
to abandon unborn children because they are seen as unwanted or
inconvenient; to turn our backs on immigrants because they lack
the proper documents; to turn away from poor women or children
because they lack economic or political power; to ignore sick
people because they have no insurance.
Some heavy issues here! And I see that our phone lines are
blinking madly. Let's let our listeners join the conversation
now, shall we? Hello, you're on Let's Talk.
Hi, this is Amy from Roanoke. Are you trying to tell me that
if you're president, all of a sudden our country has to follow
Catholic teaching? I left the church when I got divorced, and
I don't want it shoved down my throat, thank you very much.
Hi, Amy, and thank you for your comment. I'd like to point out,
however, that these ideals and principles I've just mentioned
echo not only the teachings of the major religious traditions
of the United States, including Roman Catholicism, they ring true
to defining American values as well. The observance and protection
of fundamental human rights follows from the pronouncement, enshrined
in our Declaration of Independence, that all people are created
equal. In addition to the right to life, each person has a right
to the conditions necessary for living a decent life -- food and
shelter, education and employment and health care. As we debate
the specific policies and laws needed to ensure these rights,
we cannot lose sight of this quintessential American aspiration
to leave no person behind -- even as we develop economic policies
to enlarge the middle class. A society will be judged by how it
treats its weakest, most vulnerable members. This was the clarion
call of Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey, and it has been invoked
countless times, by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Nor can we, as the richest nation on earth, fail to respond
to the deeply troubling fact that more than 30,000 children around
the world die each day as a result of hunger and disease. More
than 30 civil and regional wars, fueled by the easy availability
of arms, cause additional suffering, displacement and death. Crushing
international debt and underdeveloped economies plague two-thirds
of the world.
We also hear a good deal about the benefits of globalization
and free markets. Yet globalization in its current unregulated
mode offers no answer to the millions of "have nots." The global
corporations must recognize that it is in their self-interest
to lift all boats -- to prevent the political instability, resource
depletion and environmental degradation that accompanies poverty,
underdevelopment and war.
We have another call, Senator; go ahead, sir.
Yeah, hi, this is Raphael from Santa Rosa. I'm a first-time
caller but a long-time listener. So now you make us responsible
for saving the world? What about those terrorist creeps who hate
us? You want us to save THEM? Give me a [beep] break!
Hello, Raphael. I should clarify that the United States is not
alone responsible for the welfare of the suffering masses. Yet,
as the world's acknowledged superpower, we must re-examine our
economic and diplomatic policies -- the kind of aid we deliver
to our allies, the incentives for social change we attach to the
aid, the relationship between our military, cultural and economic
presences in foreign lands.
And when it comes to exercising American influence, our first
principle must be "do no harm." Enlightened, constructive engagement
with other peoples and governments has no chance if our reputation
is one of aggressor and exploiter.
Accordingly, the first step is to restore our historic presumption
against the use of force. The doctrine of pre-emptive war may
sound reassuring to a nation gripped by an unprecedented sense
of radical vulnerability in the wake of 9/11. But the violation
of international laws and norms; the abrogation of civil liberties
and human rights, even in the name of self-defense; the refusal
to exercise restraint, especially when the location and nature
of the enemy is unclear -- all these policies of the current administration
are sowing the seeds of future deadly conflict of unimaginable
proportions.
Leading with massive force is literally a dead-end policy. To
understand why, we must ask: Who or what is our enemy? Who opposes
our deeply held values -- political self-determination, equality
under the law, freedom of speech and assembly, religious freedom,
the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person?
The customary answer today is "terrorists." Our enemies are
those who hate freedom, those who despise our values -- yesterday,
atheistic communism; today, Islamic radicalism. They detest, we
are told, the American way of life and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Certainly we have our enemies, or, as Raphael calls them, the
terrorist creeps. They are formidable, not least because they,
too, claim to be inspired by a moral vision, a truth, for which
some are willing to give their lives. But these enemies have arisen
in reaction to something. Whatever popular appeal they enjoy comes
from the strength of their moral critique, not from their wanton
violence.
Thus the more accurate, the more radical answer is this: Our
real enemy is the systematic violation of human rights around
the world and whatever corporate practices, intellectual fads
and government policies that ignore or, worse, abet those violations.
Our real enemy is our own complacency, dearth of imagination and
failure of nerve in the face of awareness that two-thirds of humanity
lacks reliable access to clean drinking water and adequate health
care; millions of women and children are systematically excluded
from the full protection of just, comprehensive and enforced laws
protecting human rights; a massive global trade in arms enables
violence to reign as our way of settling conflicts; the income
and opportunity gap between rich and poor nations, and between
the elites and the masses within most nations, is widening.
Yes, terrorists are our enemies. But until we devise humane
and just policies to address the root causes of terrorism, our
grandchildren will be chasing a new generation of bin Ladens around
the world.
I don't know if Raphael will agree with that response, Senator.
It strikes me that it would be impossible for us to realize those
high ideals you trumpet in a world of limited resources and competing
claims. And, like Amy mentioned earlier, I wonder how can you
be true to church teaching without imposing Catholic beliefs on
the majority of Americans who are not Catholic, not to mention
the Catholics who themselves disagree with you.
John, I think the most direct answer I can give you and Amy would
be to explain how a Catholic politician might negotiate the difficult
issues of abortion, war and peace, and economic growth.
The political discourse surrounding abortion (and also stem-cell
research using human embryos) is impoverished, with each side
giving no quarter to the other. Polarization, division and ill
will are the result. Pro-life Catholics increasingly rely on brittle
denunciations and virtual excommunication of pro-choice Catholic
politicians. In knee-jerk reaction, pro-choice Catholics fall
back on the unimaginative rhetoric of defiance: My Catholic faith
is a personal matter. I don't tell bishops how to bishop; they
should not tell me how to govern.
The problem with this response, of course, is that it fails
the integrity test by rendering the faith and moral convictions
of the politician irrelevant to real-world decisions and public
life. A pro-choice Catholic who takes seriously the teaching of
the church would respond differently, by indicating how the principles
and values of Catholic social doctrine inform his or her reasoning
and formulation of a specific position.
For example, one often hears pro-choice politicians say that
abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." A Catholic politician
who acknowledges a woman's right to decide for herself whether
abortion is the taking of a human life must explain that he is
respecting the priority and inviolability of conscience -- another
Catholic moral principle. Yet this is not enough. The Catholic
politician must attempt to shape opinion, to persuade women and
men that abortion is, as the church teaches, a grave moral evil.
Even as he upholds the law that permits women to make that choice,
the Catholic politician must expound the reasons why abortion
must indeed be "rare." Why abortion is to be avoided.
Of course, the pro-choice politician risks offending his constituency
if he challenges its moral reasoning. Such political courage may
ultimately cost Catholic politicians at the polls. The price of
integrity can be high.
Well, Senator, that response indeed may cost you some votes.
But we have Father William from Texas on the line. Perhaps he
can speak in your favor. Go ahead, Father.
Senator, I absolutely cannot speak in your favor on this
issue. A "pro-choice Catholic" is a contradiction in terms! Your
stated position plays havoc with the coherence of Catholic teaching
on the question. In the strongest possible terms I urge you to
reformulate your position on this matter, literally, of life and
death. I also wonder if you would waffle on other issues that
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in fidelity
to the example of the Holy Father, has taken unambiguous positions
on, such as the need to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Thank you, Father. Catholic teaching on war and peace does indeed
shape my thinking on the use of U.S. military might. I am not
a pacifist, nor does my church require me to be. There is such
a thing as a just war -- and the war against terrorism, if it
is conducted ethically, qualifies. I would not hesitate to use
military might in a just cause. But my church, my faith and my
own moral reasoning set that bar quite high. War must truly be
a last resort: diplomacy, dialogue, targeted sanctions, third-party
intervention by the United Nations or other governmental or nongovernmental
mediators -- all these and other nonviolent measures must be exhausted,
tried again, and found wanting.
In order to defend our nation, it may be necessary to wage war.
But my administration will prefer to wage peace -- to devote resources,
talent and time to cross-cultural exchange, collaboration, relationship-building
across national borders. We have much to learn from other cultures,
just as we have much to offer. Partnerships in science and technology,
economic development and education will be a priority. Strategic
investments in key regions -- a Marshall plan for the Middle East,
for example -- are down payments on a table and sustainable peace.
So, too, are renewed efforts to strengthen barriers against the
proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction; this, too,
will be a priority of my administration.
We have another question, Senator. Joe, from Michigan, go
ahead.
Yeah, hi. I lost my job a few months ago and now all I can
find is part-time work that doesn't pay beans. So what are you
going to do for me?
Joe, I realize Americans vote their pocketbooks, or so goes the
conventional wisdom. So be it. I encourage Americans to think
of economic, physical and psychological security as interrelated,
however. In the long run, the middle class grows and the economy
flourishes because it serves people, incorporating greater and
greater numbers while providing meaningful and productive jobs,
fair salaries and ample benefits.
Tax policy must be designed to strengthen and expand the middle
class, but the government cannot ignore the crying need for affordable
and accessible health care for all Americans. I will propose measures
to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, as well as policies that
extend health care coverage to children, pregnant women, workers,
immigrants and other vulnerable populations. To rectify the weaknesses
of welfare reform, I shall propose tax credits, child care, health
care and safe, affordable housing for those who have moved into
work in low-wage jobs.
Such plans and proposals are ambitious -- some would say radical
-- not least because they make the unfashionable demand that privileged
and affluent Americans take their share of responsibility for
the common good. In my administration those currently left behind
will become a priority once again -- not by returning to the welfare
state or failed attempts at social engineering of the past. Rather,
I will strive to persuade corporate and political leaders that
job training, concern for human social and economic rights, reform
of international commerce and globalization must be our priorities
if our affluence is to survive the new era of global interdependence
and integration.
Senator, we're almost out of time, so let's wrap things up.
You've given our listeners plenty to think about. As for me, I'm
trying to work out those economic policies you threw out. They
do strike me as pretty radical. Do you have any final words?
If my proposals are radical, I trust they will be sufficiently
radical. My Catholic faith as well as my American patriotism demand
no less from me.
Scott Appleby is director of Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute
for International Peace Studies.
(October 2004)
