There are signs that America has grown weary of the fringe right hijacking of the national political discourse.
It began as a demonstration of outrage, over the official and corporate corruptions that led to the near-demise of the U.S. economy in 2008, complete with cute hats, and the appropriation of an iconic 1773 event of the American Revolution. Soon the Tea Party was co-opted by the opposition [Republican] party, and channeled into electoral politics, altering the nominal political landscape in the 2010 mid-term election. "Nominal" in the sense that, although more members of both houses of Congress had been Democrats before 2010, the practical political composition was only slightly more conservative following the election. Nominal, but certainly not insignificant. The Republican leadership in the House allowed Tea Partiers to control the flow of legislation, and thwart every White House initiative. What the rookies lacked in political acumen, they more than made up in vigorously pushing their cause - which had somehow morphed from rooting out corruption and waste, to running President Obama out of town on a rail. This strategic evolution had a kind of Rovian odor.
While paralyzing Congress, the Tea Party sought to blame the President for getting nothing done. So pleased with the success of their nihilistic efforts, the true believers failed to notice that some things did get done, and done well. But "regular" people not only did notice the improvement, they realized that even more would have been accomplished with more bipartisan pragmatism and less ideological posturing.
Blindly the Republican primary candidates trip over each other proving their conservative bonafides, flailing at one another for being "soft on socialism", or worse, "supporting big government", or worst of all, engaging in "class warfare." Despite robust coverage by all media outlets, participation has been declining as people realize these clowns aren't acting. Panic sets in at the thought that we could actually get stuck with one of them as President, should something happen to push the unemployment rate over 10%. Suddenly the "true believers" were sinking so fast in the polls, even Super PAC cash couldn't keep them afloat. Suddenly, Romney didn't seem that bad.
Or did he? The Maine caucus, held over the weekend, gave Romney a tepid victory over Ron Paul. Participation in the caucus was 2% - hardly inspiring. Romney bused in loads of college students, reportedly paying their registration fees, to assure a CPAC victory in Washington D.C. But Tea Party power was also in evidence at the conference, as keynote speaker Sarah Palin led the crowd in shouting down some Occupy disrupters by chanting "USA, USA." The grateful media took in the circus, and filled their column-inches.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Komen Shows No Charity In Policy Flap
The brouhaha that began with an underhanded attempt by Komen to separate itself from Planned Parenthood, and was aggravated by its disingenuous response to the predicable uproar, now has the breast cancer organization in full retreat. Although the full effect of the blowback on Komen will not be known for some time, the incident offers a look into several aspects of the charity industry, and more importantly, the abortion issue.
Starting with issues raised about the politics of charity in general, and Komen in particular. That Komen would, entirely on its own - that is, absent any public demand, attack a well established provider of services at the core of its foundational mission, without even expecting any backlash, suggests a shocking disconnect between its institutional management and the ministry suggested by all those pink ribbons. Its ham-handed public response to reactions from around the country reinforces that sense of bureaucratic isolation.
The amount of money Komen expected to deprive Planned Parenthood was relatively insignificant to both organizations. Komen contributes some $700 thousand annually to Planned Parenthood. Komen raised about $400 million in 2010; Planned Parenthood's 2009 budget was just over $1 billion.
Komen's action appears as cynical political maneuvering, ignoring its actual effect on womens health. Its public statements, following Planned Parenthood's protest of the cuts, reinforce that notion. John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, showed his primary concern when discussing the public outcry. “Why are they going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” [NY times]
The upper levels of the organization worry most about the PR issues, failing to express concern for the women facing deprivation of the medical services for which the organization ostensibly exists. When a charity needs lobbyists, when politicians hold management positions in a charity, when a charity protects its trademarks, that charity's primary function is no longer charity.
That is not a dynamic at play only in Komen. Human nature drives the tendency of all institutions to grow and self-preserve; even at the expense of their own missions. That is why constant vigilance is needed against the growth of institutional power [whether state power, corporate power, or even church power]. Any institution should be maintained at the minimum size required to accomplish its mission. Larger is not always better. Komen is large enough that its directors need to worry that the automatic warm fuzzy elicited by the sight of a pink ribbon could be jeopardized by its association with unsavory issues like unwanted pregnancy. The point is reached where a choice made benefits the institution at the expense of its mission, and a further point is reached when obscuring that choice begins consuming institutional resources. When the supporters of that institution are surprised to find those thresholds have been crossed, a correction will occur.
What about abortion?
The Komen incident has been exploited in the media by advocates on issues of women's health, reproductive rights and, in its most craven and hypocritical aspects, abortion. Perhaps it is fortuitous, in that this issue may be forced into the open, removing its ability to distort substantive aspects of the many proxy grounds on which this battle has been waged. Like the so called war on drugs, the war on abortion has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences, and those victimized would be relieved, should the issue instead be addressed head -on. Also like the war on drugs, the abortion fight has allowed its strategies to be determined by rhetorical absolutes, making civil rational discourse nearly impossible. A mere willingness to engage in dialog can result in condemnation.
The reason is that the concept of abortion cannot be codified in law. Every attempt to end the practice by law has stripped its sponsors of the worthy moral impulse to revere life that initiated it, always by the means used in the effort to achieve it. Some have caused the loss of access to broader health care, both by people getting abortions, and others dependent on affected abortion providing facilities. Some, having had an abortion, must live with both the effects of their action, and the hypocrisy of denying others that same choice. Some have, to avoid the taint of moral relativity, demonized perfectly reasonable candidates, in favor of scoundrels willing to utter the right words on that single issue alone. Is there any way to account the waste of lives and integrity? There is not, because moral issues are not well expressed in civil laws.
The circle of people who are, in the common sense, pro-life perfectly overlays the circle of people who are, in the same sense, pro-choice. All are revolted by the destruction of life, and all value free will as the strongest proponent of good character. In order to reduce the incidence of abortion, it may be necessary to remove it as an agenda item, substituting instead the conditions that create the demand for it. A recent NYTimes article about an abortion proxy fight taking place at Catholic universities described its efforts to deny health insurance coverage for birth control. Statistics cited in the article make it seem that 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. Will the effort to reduce that number be more successfully executed in devising criminal sanctions and insurance regulations, or in promoting respect for our selves and our neighbors?
Attacking the demand side of the abortion equation is the more difficult in some ways, because it must be done one on one, empowering individuals with the emotional tools to exercise the discipline required to conceive a child in the appropriate circumstances. This approach does not lend itself to bureaucratic formula, or statute. That is why religious organizations should not waste resources in this arena. Separation of church and state, embodied in both the US Constitution and the teachings of Jesus, are consistent with this ministry imperative; although refraining from lobbying can be very hard for large hierarchic churches. Thus, the members of the church are responsible for directing upper management to support ministry to individuals over lobbying for state power. Christian Individuals should use their own life experience, having received forgiveness, and share that grace, rather than rendering judgment.
It is not moral relativism, or politically correct, to say that the appropriate circumstances for conception differ greatly according to geography, economics or social class. Yet these variables do surely exert their influences, and cannot be ignored. A single rule binding on all must be either impossibly complex and unwieldy, or so broad and vague as to be useless. If a church says abortion is murder, that does not make it so. If court ruling says that abortion is perfectly alright, that does not make it so. Abortion of a fetus may be either of those things, as may be conception and bearing the child. The strength of my belief on the matter is not binding on anyone else.
Every morning is a gift of creation - of possibility - whatever your understanding of the creator. Conception of a child is also a gift of possibility, and the waste of creation is a sin, although not all sins are equal. To sweep away a developing fetus is not the same as to kill a college student by driving drunk. To kill in rage, or for profit, or even in self-defense - all are wrong, but to what degree? What about taking away the value of a life, but leaving a breathing person? What about starting a life that is hopeless? The state has laws attempting to define legal liability for many such situations, but they are of no help in accepting moral responsibility. That is the function of community - family, village, school etc [supported, in theory, by religious ministry].
Churches should work to mitigate suffering among oppressed people, and not cross into the civil arena trying to pass laws forcing behavior that conforms to its moral standards. The Catholic church is guilty of this when it denies communion to those voting for candidates that fail to meet its standards, and when it directly influences hospitals' and universities' health coverage. A church is not set up to fulfill the functions of government. By doing so, it impedes the government, while at the same time, compromising its own mission.
Starting with issues raised about the politics of charity in general, and Komen in particular. That Komen would, entirely on its own - that is, absent any public demand, attack a well established provider of services at the core of its foundational mission, without even expecting any backlash, suggests a shocking disconnect between its institutional management and the ministry suggested by all those pink ribbons. Its ham-handed public response to reactions from around the country reinforces that sense of bureaucratic isolation.
The amount of money Komen expected to deprive Planned Parenthood was relatively insignificant to both organizations. Komen contributes some $700 thousand annually to Planned Parenthood. Komen raised about $400 million in 2010; Planned Parenthood's 2009 budget was just over $1 billion.
Komen's action appears as cynical political maneuvering, ignoring its actual effect on womens health. Its public statements, following Planned Parenthood's protest of the cuts, reinforce that notion. John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, showed his primary concern when discussing the public outcry. “Why are they going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” [NY times]
The upper levels of the organization worry most about the PR issues, failing to express concern for the women facing deprivation of the medical services for which the organization ostensibly exists. When a charity needs lobbyists, when politicians hold management positions in a charity, when a charity protects its trademarks, that charity's primary function is no longer charity.
That is not a dynamic at play only in Komen. Human nature drives the tendency of all institutions to grow and self-preserve; even at the expense of their own missions. That is why constant vigilance is needed against the growth of institutional power [whether state power, corporate power, or even church power]. Any institution should be maintained at the minimum size required to accomplish its mission. Larger is not always better. Komen is large enough that its directors need to worry that the automatic warm fuzzy elicited by the sight of a pink ribbon could be jeopardized by its association with unsavory issues like unwanted pregnancy. The point is reached where a choice made benefits the institution at the expense of its mission, and a further point is reached when obscuring that choice begins consuming institutional resources. When the supporters of that institution are surprised to find those thresholds have been crossed, a correction will occur.
What about abortion?
The Komen incident has been exploited in the media by advocates on issues of women's health, reproductive rights and, in its most craven and hypocritical aspects, abortion. Perhaps it is fortuitous, in that this issue may be forced into the open, removing its ability to distort substantive aspects of the many proxy grounds on which this battle has been waged. Like the so called war on drugs, the war on abortion has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences, and those victimized would be relieved, should the issue instead be addressed head -on. Also like the war on drugs, the abortion fight has allowed its strategies to be determined by rhetorical absolutes, making civil rational discourse nearly impossible. A mere willingness to engage in dialog can result in condemnation.
The reason is that the concept of abortion cannot be codified in law. Every attempt to end the practice by law has stripped its sponsors of the worthy moral impulse to revere life that initiated it, always by the means used in the effort to achieve it. Some have caused the loss of access to broader health care, both by people getting abortions, and others dependent on affected abortion providing facilities. Some, having had an abortion, must live with both the effects of their action, and the hypocrisy of denying others that same choice. Some have, to avoid the taint of moral relativity, demonized perfectly reasonable candidates, in favor of scoundrels willing to utter the right words on that single issue alone. Is there any way to account the waste of lives and integrity? There is not, because moral issues are not well expressed in civil laws.
The circle of people who are, in the common sense, pro-life perfectly overlays the circle of people who are, in the same sense, pro-choice. All are revolted by the destruction of life, and all value free will as the strongest proponent of good character. In order to reduce the incidence of abortion, it may be necessary to remove it as an agenda item, substituting instead the conditions that create the demand for it. A recent NYTimes article about an abortion proxy fight taking place at Catholic universities described its efforts to deny health insurance coverage for birth control. Statistics cited in the article make it seem that 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. Will the effort to reduce that number be more successfully executed in devising criminal sanctions and insurance regulations, or in promoting respect for our selves and our neighbors?
Attacking the demand side of the abortion equation is the more difficult in some ways, because it must be done one on one, empowering individuals with the emotional tools to exercise the discipline required to conceive a child in the appropriate circumstances. This approach does not lend itself to bureaucratic formula, or statute. That is why religious organizations should not waste resources in this arena. Separation of church and state, embodied in both the US Constitution and the teachings of Jesus, are consistent with this ministry imperative; although refraining from lobbying can be very hard for large hierarchic churches. Thus, the members of the church are responsible for directing upper management to support ministry to individuals over lobbying for state power. Christian Individuals should use their own life experience, having received forgiveness, and share that grace, rather than rendering judgment.
It is not moral relativism, or politically correct, to say that the appropriate circumstances for conception differ greatly according to geography, economics or social class. Yet these variables do surely exert their influences, and cannot be ignored. A single rule binding on all must be either impossibly complex and unwieldy, or so broad and vague as to be useless. If a church says abortion is murder, that does not make it so. If court ruling says that abortion is perfectly alright, that does not make it so. Abortion of a fetus may be either of those things, as may be conception and bearing the child. The strength of my belief on the matter is not binding on anyone else.
Every morning is a gift of creation - of possibility - whatever your understanding of the creator. Conception of a child is also a gift of possibility, and the waste of creation is a sin, although not all sins are equal. To sweep away a developing fetus is not the same as to kill a college student by driving drunk. To kill in rage, or for profit, or even in self-defense - all are wrong, but to what degree? What about taking away the value of a life, but leaving a breathing person? What about starting a life that is hopeless? The state has laws attempting to define legal liability for many such situations, but they are of no help in accepting moral responsibility. That is the function of community - family, village, school etc [supported, in theory, by religious ministry].
Churches should work to mitigate suffering among oppressed people, and not cross into the civil arena trying to pass laws forcing behavior that conforms to its moral standards. The Catholic church is guilty of this when it denies communion to those voting for candidates that fail to meet its standards, and when it directly influences hospitals' and universities' health coverage. A church is not set up to fulfill the functions of government. By doing so, it impedes the government, while at the same time, compromising its own mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)