Dear Friends,

Following the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 3590, the Senate Health Care bill, I want to provide you with an update on this important issue facing our state and country. I support more centrist reforms to lower health care costs but oppose the Senate bill. I want to tell you why.

More Centrist Reforms Were Rejected

I strongly support reforms to lower the cost of health insurance and cover Americans with pre-existing conditions. That is why I authored the Medical Rights and Reform Act, H.R. 3790. Under our centrist Reform Act, we cover Americans with pre-existing conditions and advance three major reforms:

1. The Medical Rights Act: Under our bill, Congress shall make no law interfering with the personal decisions that you make with your doctor,
2. Lawsuit Reform: By applying the lawsuit reforms (recently eliminated in Illinois) similar to successful California reforms, we could reduce defensive medicine, saving over $200 billion annually, and
3. Granting Americans Interstate Rights: Our bill grants the right to all Americans to buy health coverage from any state in the union, especially if you find a plan that is less expensive or more flexible for your family or small business. This improves choice and competition for each American.

Unfortunately, the Congressional leadership did not permit a debate on our bill. Instead, the House was only allowed one vote on the health care bill adopted by the Senate. I opposed this bill but it passed by a vote of 219 to 212 and will shortly be signed into law by the President.

Senate Health Care Bill Overview

Under the Senate bill, the Congress will increase spending by $1.2 trillion, including $940 billion for new subsidies, $144 billion for new mandates, $70 billion to administer the bill and $41 billion in unrelated spending. To attempt to pay for the bill, Congress will raise taxes, cut Medicare and borrow a historic amount of money. To pass the Senate, the bill also included the “Louisiana Purchase”, “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Gatoraide” that advantaged Louisiana, Nebraska and Florida over the people of Illinois.

Raising Insurance Premiums on Illinois Families

While the American people overwhelmingly want to lower health insurance costs, the bill increases costs because it requires Americans to buy health insurance that include new mandates for coverage. According to the Administration, individual insurance premiums will increase by 10% for over 600,000 people in Illinois. On average, Illinois individuals currently pay $2,499 annually for insurance. Under the bill, costs will go up at least $150 a month to a level of $4,299 annually.

On March 4, the Chicago Tribune reported that for “more than half-million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill’s provisions that double the tax on health insurers, drug makers and medical devices will all be passed on to patients in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums.

Raising Taxes on Illinois Families

The bill imposes 12 new federal taxes, imposing over $500 billion in new payments to the government, including over $23 billion in taxes on the people of Illinois. Among the new taxes was a new “Individual Mandate Tax” (IMT) of $2,250 per household or 2% of household income. The bill increases the Medicare payroll tax and does not adjust this for inflation. Therefore, like the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the new Medicare tax will soon reach most middle class families as inflation pushes more Americans into its bracket.

The bill also increases the capital gains tax. Most economists worry that too many businesses plan for the short-term, hurting long-term economic growth. That is why investments which are held for longer periods of time pay a lower capital gains tax. The Senate bill reverses this wise policy by imposing a new 3.8% tax on capital gains, raising the rate from 15% to 23.8% by 2013.

Raising Taxes on Illinois Small Business

Half of all people employed in Illinois work in a small business and over 80% of job losses during this Great Recession have been from small business employers. Nevertheless, this legislation requires the federal government to levy a new $52 billion tax on small businesses, even though unemployment now tops 12% in Illinois. The bill begins a new $2,000 tax on small business with over 50 employees. Over 21,600 small businesses in Illinois could be subject to this new tax. This tax applies to part-time as well as full-time workers. The follow-up Reconciliation Bill also includes an unprecedented extension of the Medicare tax to all non-wage income.

Putting Illinois Jobs at Risk

Both Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation estimated that the new taxes and Medicare cuts in the bill would cost over 600,000 job opportunities per year or an estimated 26,042 fewer Illinois jobs. The bill also has a number of budget gimmicks to hide spending. Once the Social Security Trust Fund, long-term health care and student loan gimmicks are removed, the bill adds $755 billion to the federal deficit or $2,460 in new debt for each man, woman, and child.

Here is a look at the estimated national job losses under the bill:

Cuts to Senior Health Care in Illinois under Medicare

The legislation stands for the principle that we should cut senior health care under Medicare to fund a new entitlement spending program. Over 40 million seniors depend on Medicare for their health care. Under the Senate bill, the federal government would cut over $500 billion from Medicare. This includes cutting over $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, cancelling the Medicare choice of over 120,000 Illinois seniors.

Here is a summary of the top Medicare cuts:

Increasing the Debt of Illinois

Under the federal Medicaid program for the poor, states must pay half of all costs. As you know, the State of Illinois has one of the highest deficits of any state, totaling over $12 billion. Spending on the Illinois Medicaid program rose 65% from $8 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2008 to now cover 2.4 million people. Under the Senate Health Care bill, Illinois would have to cover an additional 400,000 people, adding an additional $1 billion to the state’s deficit over five years.

Health care under Medicaid is already deteriorating. Over 9,000 doctors in Illinois refuse to accept Medicaid patients (28% nationwide), in part because it takes Illinois over 100 days to pay for services.

Expansion of the IRS

About the only jobs created by the legislation would be at the IRS. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the IRS would need to hire over 16,000 people – over 700 just in Illinois — to audit the American people and impose the new taxes and mandates of the bill. New IRS agents would verify if you have acceptable authority, fine you up to 2% of your income for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage,” confiscate your tax refund and conduct audits. Under the bill, nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than $66,150 for a family of four.

Conclusion

I voted against this legislation because it costs Illinois jobs, raises taxes and deepens the debt our children must one day pay. Unfortunately, the bill passed the House and is ready for the President’s signature into law. I wish that a more modest set of reforms could have been approved that did not have such harsh consequences for our economy.

The bipartisan discontent shows an awakening to the fact that these two parties do not present a choice between left (more government) and right (less government) but between north (big socially liberal government) and south (big socially conservative government). On the sliding scale of government size, no difference can be seen. Thus, the partisan rhetoric boils down to this: toward which agendas and constituencies would you like that irresponsibility directed?

Republicans have recognized this bipartisan discontent and see it as an opportunity to regain power. We hear talk from Republicans of them having lost their way and needing to return to their basic principles. The problem, however, is that Republicans have lost the trust of the people, and rightly so. The veil is falling and the people are no longer interested in allowing the federal Juggernaut to continue to grow in size and power, simply voting on who gets to sit at the wheel.

So, is there a long-term solution? I believe libertarianism offers one precisely because a true libertarian has one aim on a federal level, namely, to shrink the federal Juggernaut down to size and get it out of state business. The question, however, is whether disgruntled republicans and democrats can get past their issue-based divisions. Can bipartisan unity survive the utterance of the words “abortion,” “gay marriage,” “stem cell research,” “legalized marijuana”? I believe it can if a fundamental shift in perspective comes first.

The shift in perspective to which I refer is this: social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization are not to be solved on a federal level. If this premise is embraced, it becomes irrelevant to a federal election what one thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or any other state issue. The ideal presidential candidate would thus identify these issues as irrelevant because, if elected, the presidential duties will be restricted to those of military, boarder control, and international affairs, while all other matters will be issues of state; the candidate’s stance is thus as relevant as whether he/she is a Cubs fan. So long as voters agree on the need to put the fed in its place, they can put aside their differences on these and other hot-button issues because, if successful, the fed will not decide these issues; the respective states will. Bipartisan unity can thrive on a federal level, therefore, if parties call “truce” on hot-button issues as battles to be fought on a state level, and unite under the common aim of reducing federal spending and involvement in the private sector by pushing the fed out of state business.

Now, I realize that on many of these issues voters have an all-or-nothing mindset. Take abortion, for example. Many pro-life advocates think this issue is so serious that it merits an all-or-nothing stance and the federal government should ban it, full stop. I am certainly sympathetic to this perspective (see my post, Should Christians be One-Issue Voters?). However, a pro-life advocate needs to ask themselves: Would you rather have five, ten, fifteen, or more states in which the pro-life effort has succeeded? Or would you rather have what we have now? And the same line of inquiry applies to any other issue about which a given constituency is passionate.

U.S. politics has, unfortunately, become a zero-sum game. Every issue is to be decided at a federal level and imposed on all people of all united states. This situation is maddening, as it binds the hands of the people and escalates the hostilities that arise amid these issues precisely because voters feel helpless against the all-pervasive power of the federal government. Bad policies become bad policies for all, and the only retreat is (a) to wait, vote, and hope that something changes or (b) to flee the country.

If sovereignty were returned to the state, a pro-life individual could protest abortion by leaving her pro-abortion state. Or, if she felt inclined to stay and engage in political activism, she could attempt to persuade voters in that state of the reasonableness of a pro-life stance. Such options are empowering because the individual is not bound by the given policy, full stop; she has the freedom to flee the given policy or to seek to change the policy. Even when choosing the latter, she is freely bound. (As a sidebar, we might add that such a model is additionally empowering because the task of persuading individuals in one state is far less daunting than the task of persuading the majority of voters in fifty states, plus representatives, plus the president, plus judges.)

As things stand, the difficulty we face is that if, for example, a Green push occurs on the initiative of a California-based group, it often occurs on a federal level. If successful, the country goes Green. Farmers in Iowa are forced to comply with the same Green regulations forced on pollution-producing cities such as Chicago, L.A., and New York. In a libertarian model, however, states such as California and New York, which have a significant social-liberal constituency, can push through as much of the Green agenda as they please. It will affect only their state. Those bound by such regulations in that state are willfully bound; and any who disapprove can go elsewhere.

Rather than forcing uniformity among states, the libertarian model allows the people to determine their individual (state) government on a small scale. If a state wants universal health care, they can push it through; and if the wealthy don’t want to pay for it, they can relocate. Poor economic policies will show their stripes and the state will suffer the consequences. States that embrace such policy will see their state crumble and their voters flee; states that function well will thrive. Such was the wisdom of the founding fathers.

The point of all this boils down to one hope: my hope is that what we will see is a massive bipartisan unification on the federal level; that voters will, in mass numbers, become libertarians in federal matters, and divide into issue-based parties at the state level; that hot-button issues will be pushed aside during federal elections as irrelevant red herrings, meant to divide voters and keep them in the stranglehold of a two-party system; and that only those candidates that campaign on the platform of retracting federal involvement in state matters will gain a hearing.

I am convinced that the only way of cultivating bipartisan discontent is for individuals to be non-partisan, federal libertarians and partisan members of their respective states. If agreement could be had on this, then real change could occur in which all non-military/non-international federal programs and spending could be dissolved and the will of the people could be done state-to-state. Wisdom would then be proved by her actions as states reap what their citizens sow.

All this can happen. But it requires that voters be a member of one party on the federal level and another on a state level; that they treat federal matters as wholly different than state matters; that they push aside partisan differences when it comes to federal elections because they have only one demand: get the feds out of the state!

In a post earlier this year, Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse, I made the following observation:

During the election season, I found that a great many professing Christians were abandoning conservative leanings in favor of an Obama presidency. Those in this category with whom I spoke personally had evidently been influenced by Jim Wallis, or a Wallis-like perspective. They professed to be adamant “pro-lifers” but argued that pro-life includes opposition to war, opposition to the death penalty, opposition to poverty, and so forth. Abortion is just one of many issues, so they argued. And, in the end, we have seen that voting strictly on the abortion issue does not change anything; it remains legal, so why waste a vote on that one issue when there are so many other issues on the table?

I made the point then that, for anyone paying attention, a great many things have change — specifically in the abortion arena — in a very short period of time “thanks” to Obama. Now that 100 days have passed, I make this point again.

The following is courtesy of the Susan B. Anthony List.

Several months ago, we told you about a 55-page report that the abortion industry submitted to the Obama-Biden transition team. The report listed the demands of the abortion industry for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

 Obama has implemented 10 of the 15 demands.

 Here are just some of the items on the radical pro-abortion agenda that President Obama implemented or is in process of implementing in his first 100 days.

 - Repealed the pro-life Mexico City Policy, allowing your tax dollars to fund international abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

 - Removed important conscience protections for medical professionals who choose to follow their conscience and refuse to participate in abortion procedures.

 - Increased Title X taxpayer funding (the slush fund for Planned Parenthood) to $307 million in 2009.

 - Restored $50 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), which funds China’s One-Child policy and other abortion providers around the world.

 - Increased funding for International Family Planning by 19% for a total of $545 million.

 - Nominated cabinet officials and judges such as Kathleen Sebelius, Dawn Johnsen, and David Hamilton, who will do all they can to advance the pro-abortion agenda.

Needless to say, the neo-evangelical montra “Why vote based on abortion? It doesn’t change anything” has proven itself to be a sad falsehood. I wish it had proven true.

Related Posts

Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse?

Should Christians Be One-Issue Voters?

Shame on Notre Dame

Are Conservatives Champions of Moral Values?

There was a time when a liberal arts education meant something. People went to college to become well-educated, well-rounded individuals. Liberal arts colleges offered the opportunity to be educated in the full spectrum of academic disciplines, thus forming students into well-educated, well-rounded individuals. At some point, however, this mentality was replaced with the pragmatic view that one goes to college simply to get a better job. This pragmatism, for many, has usurped the desire to be well-educated. — As a college Professor, I can testify that the majority of my students are far more interested in Twitter and ipods than they are in learning. — Courses are hoops through which students must jump in order to get a piece of paper that will (so they are told) open the door to a brighter tomorrow.

Yet, those of this pragmatic mindset are slowly realizing that the same piece of paper can be had via community college — and at a significantly lower price. As a result, private liberal arts colleges report diminishing enrollment. (As anecdotal evidence, I can report diminished enrollment in my part of the country reaching between 10% and 19%, while local community colleges report a 33% increase in enrollment.) This is bad news for private liberal arts schools. Many have been forced to cut faculty and staff, and with the current economic situation, these cuts have skyrocketed. Schools have gone into survival mode, indefinitely covering course loads at half the cost (and without benefits) by using adjuncts. And this can be done indefinitely due to the flood of naive graduate students who think they are getting a foot in the door, when in fact they are victims of drastic measures on the part of local colleges.

To be sure, the economic crisis hits private liberal arts education from every angle. The cost of private liberal arts education is difficult to stomach for most. Even parents who retain a love of liberal arts education are losing jobs and resources, which forces pragmatism and increases the appeal of educational alternatives for their children, such as community college. Colleges’ endowments decrease in value as the market plummets and the dollar loses value. Alumni giving also decreases in lean economic times. And this affects incoming grants, which are often based in large part on the percentage of alumni giving back to the school. Needless to say, the fiscal losses increase exponentially.

Combine the aforementioned pragmatism with the current economic conditions and you find a clear explanation of why a great many liberal arts colleges are getting hit by the perfect storm. The market for well-rounded, rigorous education has diminished, costs have increased, and economic conditions cut into the schools’ funds on every front.

As a result of all this the academic job market has become cutthroat. The flood of newly graduating PhDs face not only seriously diminished openings but find themselves up against seasoned applicants who have recently been laid off due to college cut backs.

A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education gave the straight dope on the academic job market, writ large in its title: “Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don’t Go.” The author, Thomas H. Benton, concludes that there are only four conditions under which he would recommend that someone pursue graduate education in the humanities with a view to the professorship:

1. You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else.
2. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.
3. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household.
4. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold – such as a high-school teacher – and your employer is paying for it.

Benton’s conditions speak for themselves.

Were this situation not bleak enough, a new set of clouds are on the horizon, which could well render a deathblow to many private liberal arts institutions. We all know that Obama is big on federal funding for education. But it has also become abundantly clear that Obama is in favor of federal funding for State institutions only. This has come across loud and clear (a) in the explicit bailout/stimulous opposition to aid for private Christian education, and (b) in Obama’s (shameful and hypocritical) opposition to vouchers in Washington D.C., which — let’s face it — simply ensures that no federal money may go to schools that do not fund teachers’ unions. (Heaven forbid anyone get a good education on the tax payers’ dime!) Obama has also made clear that he wants the federal funding of education to continue well beyond high school to the person’s first job. This would mean extending federal funds through college and graduate school.

What does this mean for private liberal arts colleges and graduate schools? It means that these private institutions, which are already struggling to compete with the growing pragmatism of the average student and the current economic realities, will be dealt a deathblow by the federal government. The pragmatism that asks “Why pay twice as much for a liberal arts education, when I can get the paper I need for half the price?” will now ask “Why pay for a private liberal arts education when the government will flip the bill if I go to a federally funded school?” In short, the government will become the greatest opponent of private liberal arts education if Obama gets his way.

Now, before we accuse Aristotle of bigotry, let’s hear him out. His reasoning is this. The poor are prone to resent the rich, which, in democracy, can lead to a tyrannical mistreatment of the wealthy. For those offended by this claim, rest assured that Aristotle’s class criticism cuts two ways: the rich, says Aristotle, are prone to greed, which can lead to a tyrannical oppression of the poor.

Aristotle harbors no naive or idealistic notions about correcting this class warfare; he takes it as given. His goal instead is to find a political system that naturally counteracts it. The middleclass, argues Aristotle, are less prone to class warfare than either the rich or the poor. Unlike the poor, they do not detest or resent the rich; unlike the rich, they are not inclined to oppress the poor. This is not to say the middleclass is virtuous. But it is to say that, whatever vices the middleclass may have, they are less likely to be vices of class warfare. A middleclass democracy can therefore serve as a social stabilizing force.

What I find rather interesting about Aristotle’s position is that colonial America was functionally Aristotelian. Allow me to explain.

In colonial America, only landowners had the right to vote. While the rationale may have been different than Aristotle’s, functionally this voting model ensured precisely what Aristotle had envisioned. When only land owners can vote, then the clear majority of voters will be middleclass. Lower-income land owners can vote, as can wealthy land owners. But the wealthy will be in the clear minority, and low-income land owners, while having sway, will not outnumber the middleclass. Middleclass America, therefore, functionally becomes the ruling class in the colonial democratic system.

While I harbor no delusions that we might one day return to the democracy of colonial America (and thus, this post may serve no point other than airing some practical wisdom), I must admit — anticipating a charge of bigotry for this admission — that I think Aristotle may be onto something. It does seem that we are witnessing class warfare in the U.S., which is generally unhealthy and unhelpful. And functional middleclass democracy could well remedy such ills. Moreover, a middleclass democracy would address (to an extent) Plato’s complaint with democracy, namely, that it gives the most power to the least wise. A middleclass democracy, while not nearly as wise as Plato (or I) would prefer, would increase nonetheless the overall level of education among voters relative to our current non-colonial democracy.

But alas, it’s unlikely that such change could ever be enacted in the States. If it came to a vote, the least wise currently have the most power, and a little propoganda would easily overcome right reason.

I hope more conservatives — specifically those of religious conviction — will muster the courage Newt displayed last night and be equally candid about this administration. You can see the complete interview with Gingrich here: Newt interview.

Postscript: I have often wondered why Newt would not make a viable presidential candidate — in fact, I asked numerous people that very question during the last election. Whenever I’ve heard him speak on economic policy, foreign policy, or any other matter, he has proven far more insightful and informed than the majority of political talking heads. The reply is always that he comes with too much baggage, and most who say this have in mind an affair he had some years back.

No doubt a moral failing such as infidelity calls into question a person’s character and should be a source of concern for voters. However, such concerns typically fall to the side of social conservatives, usually those of religious stripes (a fact demonstrated during the Clinton fiasco). Yet, such religiously-minded conservatives also believe in the reality of conversion by which a person is genuinely transformed by God. Newt is a Catholic convert, who is unashamed to speak about his new-found faith. To my mind, this fact should offset, if not undo, the worries that his past infidelity might stir in religious conservatives. Just a thought.

In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and partner with you in meeting common Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you, there have been times America’s shown arrogance, and been dismissive, even derisive.

The context of the comment was a two-sided remark, meant to suggest that there has been mutual fault. Not only has America been arrogant, dismissive, and derisive, but, “in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious.” In short, Obama called for both sides to put aside the past, acknowledge that we have each done wrong, and commit to working together.

Were President Obama’s comments appropriate? Was this a much-needed act of public contrition?

Without question, Obama’s comments were postured as an act of public contrition; and, for my part, I think it is appropriate for public figures to admit fault and demonstrate contrition. However, Obama’s speech was no act of contrition. Obama’s speech was a public derision of George W. Bush’s foreign policies, falsely postured as public contrition. And that is what is most objectionable about Obama’s remarks.

When saying that the U.S. has been this or that, Obama did not mean he has been this or that. He meant that Bush was this or that, and, by association, Bush supporters have been this or that. In other words, Obama’s comments were a public, and indeed international, derision of the former administration; a public, and indeed international, derision of U.S. citizens who — whether rightly or not — supported Bush; and a public, and indeed international, shifting of blame. And were this not contemptible enough, Obama had the audacity to couch such public derision and blame-shifting as contrition.

Obama could have said that we need to put aside the past, along with whatever mistakes have been made on either side, and move ahead in unison. Such comments would have been perfectly acceptable and communicated that we have a new administration, while also avoiding showing public contempt for the former administration. But Obama did not choose the high road. He chose arrogance; he chose public contempt; he chose to ostracize on an international stage those who are not of like-mind with him.

If one wants an example of arrogance on an international level, one need look no further than Obama’s own words.

Now once again today you tried to spread the blame around. You spoke about an international recession, international crisis. We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologizing. Like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet, you created 30,000 public-sector jobs. Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt, and when you repeat in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like Brezhev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know and you know that we know that it’s non-sense. 

Hannan was later interviewed by Sean Hannity. Now, for those who dislike Hannity, I am sympathetic. He is too partisan for my liking. Nonetheless, his interview with Hannan is worth watching, as Hannan, who was apparently a supporter of Obama during this last election cycle, is very clear about the misguided trajectory of the Obama administration. 

When asked about universal, socialized healthcare, Hannan’s warning was clear: “If you get nothing else from what I’m saying this evening, please do not make that mistake. If there are any Congressmen watching this who think, ‘Yeah, it might be a bit fairer; yeah, it would be a bit sort of cozy.’ I promise you, [universal healthcare] is worse for doctors. It is worse for patience. It is worse for tax payers.” To be sure, this is not partisan speak. This is not a member of the GOP criticizing some Democrat’s agenda. This is a European politician who is all too familiar with European-style healthcare, warning the U.S. to beware of the universal healthcare push.

He goes on to encourage a return to small government over against the current Europeanization push. His comments are pointed:

What made your country great, what made your people strong and prosperous and free was that it was small government right from the beginning. Right from the Declaration of Independence there was a distrust of the concentration of power and a confidence in the freedom of the individual. People will always make better decisions for themselves than administrators will make for them. And when you lose that — if you Europeanize yourself under the illusion that it’s a bit hipper and a bit nicer and cuddlier and will make you more popular in the world — you will throw away what made people actually respect you, not least because they understand that it’s what has underpinned their own security.

The full interview can be viewed by clicking here. You can read Hannan’s blog at www.Hannan.co.uk.

Needless to say, Catholics and Christians everywhere are outraged. And this outrage has been public and unabashed in the hope that the University will repent (lit. change its mind).

One could argue in Notre Dame’s defense that the invitation was not extended to Obama, per se. The University has a standing invitation to the U. S. President to speak at commencement; and thus, the invitation was extended to whomever occupies that office. That Obama received the invite is incidental.

The difficulty with this reply is twofold. First, the University has gone above and beyond its standing invitation in choosing to honor the President with an honorary doctorate. This act indicates an honoring of Obama himself. Second, the standing invitation does not bind Notre Dame’s hands. If anything, it provided Notre Dame an opportunity to make a very bold statement as a Catholic institution concerning the President’s appalling policies on abortion and human experimentation. Notre Dame could have taken the opportunity to notify the Whitehouse that it withdraws its standing invitation in explicit protest against the President’s anti-life policies. In fact, as a Catholic institution, it was obligated by Creed and conscience to do so. But they did not.

Now, granted, Notre Dame is in an awkward position. As a university, it is concerned with enrollment and donations, and these economic times have been extremely difficult on academic institutions. Whatever Notre Dame had decided, there would have been lash back. Either Notre Dame would be subject to outrage from pro-choice advocates and Obama supporters, or Notre Dame would be subject to protest from faithful Catholics and Christians who see the university’s actions as the height of hypocrisy. Notre Dame chose the latter. They took the wrong road.

However awkward the decision, the fact remains: for a Catholic University, the right decision is obvious — even if awkward. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame should be concerned with the approval of the Church and those faithful to her. Yet, Notre Dame has chosen the wrong path. They have chosen to stand publicly against the Catholic Church with which they claim affiliation. They have chosen to alienate and outrage faithful Catholics and Christians everywhere, leaving the university only the approval of nominal Catholics and those outside of and indeed against the teachings of the Catholic Church. They chose to shame those who were once proud graduates of this Catholic university. In short, they have chosen death over life, the world over Christ.

If a university can apostatize, no doubt this is an act of apostasy on the part of Notre Dame.

Related Links

Rev. Robert Sirico, “My Letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins”

P. J. O’Rourke, “Stem Cell Sham: The President as Sophist”

Robert George, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”

“Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding”

“Health Workers’ ‘Conscience’ Rule Set to be Voided”

“Pope Benedict Strongly Rebukes Pelosi over Abortion”

“Catholic Bishops Warn Obama They’ll Fight on Abortion”

“Catholic Bishops Plan to Forcefully Confront Obama”

Related Posts

“Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse?”

“Should Christians Be One-Issue Voters?”

“Are Conservatives Champions of ‘Moral Values’?”

]]> http://forthecommongood.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/shame-on-notre-dame/feed/ 0 forthecommongood