Friday, March 29, AD 2024 9:19am

Trust Us, We Were Lying!

One of the arguments I’m starting to get very tired of is that when Senator Obama addressed Planned Parenthood and promised that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (thus cementing a more drastic pro-abortion regime than has ever existed in the US to day) he was obviously just scoring partisan political points, and that Catholics are not only ill advised to worry about FOCA passing and being signed but that if they do so they are actively behaving in bad faith by accusing Obama of supporting something he never really meant to do.

I don’t think it’s news to anyone that politicians often pander, and to anyone who doubted it in the first place it’s increasingly clear that the only difference between Obama’s “new politics” and the old kind of politics is that the “new politics” involves Obama being president. But even if it’s common knowledge that one of the good ways of knowing that a politician is lying is to see if his mouth is moving, I don’t see how we can even discuss politics if we don’t assume that the promises which a politician expressly makes on the campaign trial represent something which the politician at least thinks would be a good idea.

I don’t really doubt that if a some Republican presidential candidate were to get up in front of The American Nativist Association and announce that “the first thing he would do” about immigration reform would be to the sign the “Pure America Act” which would allow for the immediate deportation of all non-citizens and the sealing of the borders, that people would unhesitatingly call that candidate and dangerous yahoo and heap scorn upon him. Sure, such a bill would doubtless never pass congress, but the fact that he said he wanted to sign such a bill would be considered to be indicative of his character and policies.

If the tenor of the excuses for Obama’s FOCA promise was, “Look, I supported Obama, but the fact is that was an idiotic, divisive and dishonest promise that he made. Luckily, congress is better than that and we can hope that his advisers have now explained to him what a stupid thing that was to say.” I might be a little more open to listening. All of us who follow politics, even passionately, are (or at least should be) aware that “our” candidates often do foolish and even wrong things.

However, the general comment that seems to be coming in from Catholic Obama apologists is that it’s actively dishonest and inflammatory of the bishops and of individual Catholics to focus on Obama’s FOCA promise. I’m sorry but, “Trust me, we were lying,” is not among the more persuasive lines of argument I’ve heard of late. If there is someone acting in bad faith here, it’s not the bishops denouncing FOCA.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Henry
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 10:07am

It is an odd phenomena. A candidate makes a campaign promise, the promise is cited, and then the people citing the promise are accused of dishonesty for repeating the promise.

At the same time, I would say there is a hierarchy of plausibility in campaign promises, and the promise to sign FOCA is on the lower end of that spectrum. It was made 1) To a particular interest group once (rather than repeatedly), 2) When Obama still was scrambling for the nomination by running to Hillary’s left. Additionally, Obama, as far as I can tell, is a pragmatist. He wants to be re-elected, and knows that whatever marginal increased appreciation from his base he received from signing FOCA would more than likely be outweighed by a backlash among moderates.

BTW nice turn of phrase about the ‘new politics’. I’ve thought the same thing but hadn’t seen it phrased that way.

DarwinCatholic
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 10:20am

I agree that FOCA is probably fairly unlikely to pass. Now that Obama is out of the left-wing bubble, he’s having to find ways to please more than just the sort of activists one runs into in Chicago politics.

I’d see the most likely situation for it doing so being a situation in which flagship administration priorities are going down and it finds itself in need of shoring up its base. Then we could potentially see a certain amount of cultural left stuff rammed through.

But it was a massively stupid promise to make in the first place. (I have difficulty thinking of a GOP example extreme enough to give a comparison, but I think the “Pure America Act” suggestion comes close.) I suppose now that we’re stuck with him as president we must hope that he’s gaining wisdom, but color me unimpressed.

Gerard E.
Gerard E.
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 10:55am

Start the betting line in Vegas- which bishop is first to close the Catholic health care institutions in his see. Chaput is always a favorite. Brusky of Nebraska, natch. I could even nominate our Cardinal Rigali of Philly- got on phone with City Council in a flash over some meaningless Pro-Choice City Proclamation, removed next session. Been reading that our hospitals constitute one-third of U. S. of A. health care institutions. Would not be a good idea to institute nationalized health care with swamped public and other E.R.’s. Ball’s in your court, Mr. Obama. FOCA or hospitals- choose.

(Also- can’t wait for first video of bishop dragged off to jail on FOCA protest charges- at hospital, abortuary, etc. Can cut to sound of air flying from balloon, signaling end of Obama Presidency if it occurs.)

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 11:58am

I’d say the election in Georgia makes passage of FOCA much less likely, and not just because there is one more vote to sustain a filibuster. A President is never stronger than after he is first elected, and the defeat by a wide margin of Martin in the Senate runoff makes the election of Obama seem a bit less like a realigning election and a bit more like a fairly natural party switch after a two term presidency, especially with the economy in the tank. As a President is perceived more as a conventional politician and less like a political tidal wave, his influence diminishes. However, I do think there will be an attempt to pass FOCA, even if it appears unlikely to prevail, and I do anticipate that the Obama administration will always be a staunch foe of the pro-life movement, as they will amply demonstrate by Obama’s judicial picks. The election of Obama was a disaster of the first magnitude for the pro-life movement, and pro-lifers who voted for Obama obviously have, for them, much higher priorities than seeking to stop the legal slaughter of children within the womb.

Kyle R. Cupp
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 12:41pm

The promises we make speak of who we are.

jonathanjones02
jonathanjones02
Wednesday, December 3, AD 2008 4:46pm

Appointments matter – to the S. Court and lower courts obviously, but also throughout the federal branch. There are a whole host of policies that need advancement and protection…notification, military bases, wait periods, federal funding, forcing clinics/professionals to do or provide x or y……

Kurt
Kurt
Tuesday, December 16, AD 2008 5:41pm

You cite a blog I write for, I would hope you would honest about us.

I have always admitted that Barack Obama is pro-choice and that I disagree with him and consider it a legitimate reason not to vote for him.

I am all in favor of opposing pro-abortion legislation and supporting pro-life legislation.

You make the statement “FOCA is probably fairly unlikely to pass.”

That is all I have said as well. And certainly there have been others who do not agree with us and make claims that passage is days away.

Equally there is no right to lie about what FOCA would do. The great bluster was by the bishop of Arlington suggesting civil disobedience. To do so would first require his diocese to actually open a Catholic hospital, a ministry he has heretofore not maintained in his jurisdiction. Second, using the most extreme possible understanding of FOCA, he would have to file false Medicaid claims. Really, not the TV action that is suggested.

Tito Edwards
Tuesday, December 16, AD 2008 7:45pm

Kurt,

So tell me again why you support Obama (and vote for him)?

Dan
Dan
Friday, January 23, AD 2009 12:43pm

Obama just signed today a reversal of the abortion policy, now forcing our tax money to fund international abortions. So, the Obamanation has sadly begun. And sure, I’ll bet Hillary will make it a pre-condition that countries seeking aid be willing to provide this murder service. God have mercy.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top