Open Letter to Barack Obama
2008 November 17
I was pleased to be one of the initial endorsers of this open letter to president-elect Barack Obama, spearheaded and drafted by my co-blogger at Vox Nova, Henry Karlson. Additional signatures and supporters here.
I’m glad this doesn’t say anything about war. It would be terrifying if pro-life Christians also made it their agenda to de-militarize the world.
Michael – Agreed!
As a Catholic who has run for president in the past three election cycles (www.voteforjoe.com), not only do I agree with the crux of this letter, but I exhort pro-life people to go a step beyond. We have to go to the streets day in and day out and create a climate of sustained social unrest, like what was created in the South to end the practice of Segregation. This will work, but it will take guts—and faith.
Long time lurker here …
While I agree w/the pro-life sentiments expressed in the letter, there’s more than just a little paradox to the situation you find yourself in.
1. You’re an anarchist who voted. (I get it … it’s a tough call. You’re still trying to drop your statism in the toilet, where it belongs mashed into an amorphous ball of brown crap along w/your dinner)
2. You’re a Catholic who voted for Obama. (I get this too … it’s a tough call. You went w/the wannabe socialist b/c he may bring about the redress of the social climate that would make abortion unnecessary)
But now …
3. You’re now an catholic anarchist who is left to engage in political supplication to the presidential authority. Comedy gold.
I’ll try this again … this time w/out any sarcastic attempts at humor that can be misread.
I don’t get where you’re coming from w/your participation w/this letter.
I’m a long time lurker. I’m a PhD. Candidate in English (medieval lit & critical theory). I’m a father of 6 in my early 30’s. I’m a Catholic, currently drawn to the theologies of The Radical Orthodoxy but w/a general fondness for the liberationists. I’m an anarchist of a decidedly socialist persuasion, influenced as such by people as diverse as Bakunin, Goldman, Tolstoy, Chomsky, and even Cavanaugh.
How is it that you can reconcile your “radical” Catholicism and anarchism w/such a blatant act of supplication to the undisputed figurehead of the United STATE of America?
“Act of supplication”?
I don’t read the letter in the same way you do. I signed on because it’s a statement that we Catholics oppose the FOCA. That’s all. I’m not sure how you see it being in conflict with “radical Catholicism” to register my opposition.
It’s more than just a statement the we oppose FOCA (and embryonic stem cell research). It’s also an attempt to reach out, which is the reason why its a decent piece of epistolary rhetoric. The following sentiment is supplication:
“We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.”
Underlying this sentiment is the assumption that his power is legitimate, when it’s simply another extension of illegitimate statism. At this moment, you’re pleading for him to listen to you, like a peasant going on bended knee before the King’s court.
Moreover, there is no common ground w/Obama on FOCA … he’s already said he not only supports it but will move to implement it asap. Any dialogue w/us has been decided by Obama’s siding w/our opponents. On this issue, what you’re asking here is for Obama to lie to the people who voted for him in order to appease either those who didn’t OR those who did in spite of his stance on FOCA (and related issues). Asking a wildly popular politician to do this strains political reason.
As such, this is ONLY a show of support for Obama.
Instead of the above paragraph, a more radical response to Obama’s support of FOCA (and related issues) would have done far more to highlight more tangible ramifications of his support for FOCA and its passage, like: loss of your votes in the future and civil disobedience in the form of a refusal to pay taxes.
Underlying this sentiment is the assumption that his power is legitimate, when it’s simply another extension of illegitimate statism.
No, it’s not an assumption that his power is legitimate. It is an assumption that he has power and, legitimate or not, will affect the lives of most people on the planet.
At this moment, you’re pleading for him to listen to you, like a peasant going on bended knee before the King’s court.
It’s a plea for him to do the right thing with the illegitimate power that he has. That’s all.
On this issue, what you’re asking here is for Obama to lie to the people who voted for him in order to appease either those who didn’t OR those who did in spite of his stance on FOCA (and related issues).
Again, what the letter is asking is for Obama to act in favor of human life.
As such, this is ONLY a show of support for Obama.
I don’t see it in such black and white terms. What does “support” mean? Do I “support” him? I would support Obama taking actions that save lives.
Instead of the above paragraph, a more radical response to Obama’s support of FOCA (and related issues) would have done far more to highlight more tangible ramifications of his support for FOCA and its passage, like: loss of your votes in the future and civil disobedience in the form of a refusal to pay taxes.
I have called for civil disobedience in other blog posts on the matter. What is interesting is that many of the republicatholics who signed the letter would probably have approved of such “radical” language.
Back from a holiday break …
The letter begins w/a note of congratulations, prayer, and praise for his campaign. So, from the start, the letter is clearly framed w/in a rhetoric of the legitimacy of his power. Within this framework, the letter pleads w/him “to do the right thing” and “act in favor of human life.”
Again, he ran on a “platform” that included his support for FOCA and the ringing endorsement of NARAL. Were he to back on these things, you’d have him turn him into a liar and a cheat. And for what? In political terms … jack squat (or worse, political suicide & further national division*). He already got your support (i.e.: vote) and the support of the democatholics despite his stances on these things. He also would risk alienating all the pro-abortion people. It is clear, from a political perspective that the letter will than likely fall on deaf ears.
The content summarily dismissed, the only thing left for him to get out of the letter is the spirit (for lack of a better term) contained therein, saying “hey you’re a swell guy; you promised to end partisanship and unite the country; that’s a good thing for Presidents to do b/c we love the USA.”
I also “support” Obama saving lives. Perhaps now that he’s away from those pesky golf links and back in Chicago, he’ll take some time out to make a statement about the recent attacks on Gaza.
...
“I have called for civil disobedience in other blog posts on the matter. What is interesting is that many of the republicatholics who signed the letter would probably have approved of such “radical†language.”
Of course they would have … they are still Catholics after all. One would think that every Catholic would support that sort of language.
Indeed a republicatholic could very easily ponder the following: it would be really interesting to know whether the democatholics who signed on would have approved that language, or are they really Obama-supporting democrats first and catholics second?
This is the same thing they’ve been hearing for ~8 yrs now, and it would be fair turnabout to swing it around. However …
It would be wrong. It’s well past time to stop throwing fellow catholics into state-constructed boxes. There’s no such thing as a republicatholic or a democatholic … there’re just Catholics. Falling into that trap has blunted the power and muffled the voice of the Church in American society, and it has to stop.
*not that I care about national unity mind you … I want national disintegration and the disintegration of the nation-state form altogether, which is, naturally, yet another reason why I find your (anarchist) participation in the letter all the more confusing.
I liked the letter.
I am an anti-abortionist. It is sad to see that so many women had their unwanted baby aborted but so many other women want babies desperately but cannot have one. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.