David Gibson: April 2009 Archives

Which is which may depend on where you stand on this divisive issue. A new survey from the Pew Forum (main graf at right) shows that Catholics in general approve of Notre Dame's decision to invite and honor Obama at commencement by a nearly 2-1 margin--good news to those who approve of the invitation, I suspect.

But the good news to foes of the move may be that  weekly mass attenders disapprove by 45-37. (And they almost mirror white evangelicals.)

Interestingly, when asking just Catholics who have heard of the controversy, support for Notre Dame's decision goes up to 54 percent, but opposition also gains, to 38 percent.

What I think is actually most striking is how many Catholics are following the issue--over half (52 percent) have heard a lot or at least a little, which is not inconsequential for any story, and especially one that has received relatively little play in the secular press.

On the other hand, just 19 percent have heard "a lot" about it, which makes you wonder what the numbers would be if the Catholic public were better and more deeply informed.

In general, Obama's standing among Catholics remains high, as with the general public, though he is on increasingly shaky ground with regular massgoers.

Views on abortion and stem cell research, meanwhile, tend to mirror the general public, as has been the case. 

In reporting in the wake of 9/11, I did a piece on the skyscrapers of New York, and spoke with the people at the Skyscraper Museum, which was about to move to new digs at the World Trade Center when the towers were reduced to rubble. (The museum has since relocated nearby.)

I think it was someone there who noted that the shorthand verdict among historians of architecture was that the Twin Towers were the biggest skyscrapers in New York, the Empire State Building the most famous, and the Chrysler Building the most beautiful. Seemed to make sense then, and today, as that adage came back to me in the wake of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Sure, Chrysler hasn't owned the building in forever, and the upper stories behind the glorious Art Deco ornamentation are apparently a dusty unused attic, if I recall. But at the risk of getting sloppy and sentimental, they really don't build 'em like they used to.

BTW, writing this I imperfectly recall a similar adage about the four major basilicas of Rome: That St. Peter's is the largest, St. John Lateran the most important, St. Mary Major the richest (or most beautiful?) and St. Paul's Outside the Walls the...? Aiuto, per favore.

But he won't receive the prestigious medal, as he has already has it.

Instead the federal judge (appointed by Reagan) and author of several excellent books, especially his Newman-esque treatise on the development of doctrine, "A Church that Can and Cannot Change," will "deliver an address in the spirit of the award," which will not be given this year.

Here is the announcement from Notre Dame:

Judge John T. Noonan Jr., the 1984 recipient of the Laetare Medal, has accepted an invitation to deliver an address in the spirit of the award at Notre Dame's 164th University Commencement Ceremony on May 17. His speech will be in lieu of awarding the medal this year.

"In thinking about who could bring a compelling voice, a passion for dialogue, great intellectual stature, and a deep commitment to Catholic values to the speaking role of the Laetare Medalist - especially in these unusual circumstances - it quickly became clear that an ideal choice is Judge Noonan," said Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame. "This commencement ceremony, more than anything else, is a celebration of our students and their families. Judge Noonan will join with President Obama and other speakers in that celebration, sending them from our campus and into the world with sound advice and affirmation.

"Since Judge Noonan is a previous winner of the Laetare Medal, we have decided, upon reflection, to not award the medal this year." Noonan was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan.

In addition to his service on the federal bench, Noonan has been a consultant for the Presidential Commission on Population, the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the American Law Institute.

Noonan has served as a consultant for several agencies in the Catholic Church, including Pope Paul VI's Commission on Problems of the Family, and the U.S. Catholic Conference's committees on moral values, law and public policy, law and life issues, and social development and world peace. He also has been a governor of the Canon Law Society of America, and director of the National Right to Life Committee.

A pretty brilliant choice, IMHO.

Since everyone else is honoring the momentous, history-changing and completely fatuous journalistic landmark known as "The First 100 Days Milestone" of a presidency, let me dip my toe in the water. Or rather, let me cite some others who beat me to the deep end with insights--rather than mere scorecards--that I thought genuinely illuminate the often elusive nature of Obama's personality, and thereby, his presidency.

First off, mirabile dictu, is L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily that titled its analysis "The 100 days that did not shake the world." As John Thavis reports for CNS, the Vatican paper says Obama has "not confirmed the Catholic Church's worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas" and says the "the new president has operated with more caution than predicted in most areas, including economics and international relations."

"On ethical questions, too--which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops--Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed," the paper said.

Closer to home, E.J. Dionne has a very good piece (posted here at TNR) in which he recognizes Obama's eschewing of labels but argues that he goes beyond and beneath a "whatever works" style of deliberate non-ideology. Dionne invokes Richard Hofstadter's distinction between intelligence and intellect and argues that Obama combines the two:

Intelligence, Hofstadter argued, is an "unfailingly practical quality" that "works within the framework of limited but clearly stated goals." Intellect, on the other hand, is the mind's "creative and contemplative side" that "examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines."    

But the best piece I've read is by the New Yorker's George Packer, whose commentary a couple weeks back, "Obamaism," brilliantly captures what for me--and I think much of the public, judging by the polls--is the real appeal of Obama: namely, that despite all the blur of activity and activism, and the infuriating of the left and even more so of the right, Obama is in fact a true conservative:

What underlies so many of Obama's decisions is an attachment to the institutions that hold up American society, a desire to make them function better rather than remake them altogether. Allowing the auto industry to die would create social havoc in communities around the country, and anything less than de-facto government control seems inadequate. So the President has risked a good deal of his political capital on the largest federal intervention in a sector of the economy since at least 1952, when President Truman seized the steel industry to avert a strike during wartime...Obama may not see a similar need to put the government in charge of the big banks, but he has also shown that he has no taste for such a disruption of the system--even if it were politically possible, and perhaps even if it were the most direct route back to financial health.

In his budget message to Congress, Obama invoked the value of fairness, but his budget proposals don't create government programs--such as guaranteed-income measures or large numbers of relief jobs--that would establish equality from the top down. Instead, Obama seems to recognize that nothing has shredded the civic fabric in recent years more than the harsh inequalities of finance capitalism and the market ideology of a generation of American politics. This is not the rigid mentality of an engineer of human souls; it's the attitude of a community organizer.

It's also a pretty good description of what used to pass for conservatism--a sense that social relations and institutions are fragile things, and that, while government can't create wealth or impose equality, at moments like this it has to establish a new equilibrium between individuals and huge economic forces, so that society doesn't crumble.

Packer goes on to critique--ably I'd say--what modern conservatism has become, and also why the Republicans (and I daresay conservative Catholics) are getting no traction with their over-the-top denunciations of Obama. It just doesn't fit with perceptions of reality. An NYT story the other day about GOP efforts to find a suitable label to denigrate Obama would have been hilarious if not so insidious. Saul Anuzis, who lost a bid to became national party chairman, said the party gained little traction with the "socialist" tag so he is starting to call Obama's policies "economic fascism."

"We've so overused the word 'socialism' that it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago," Mr. Anuzis said. "Fascism -- everybody still thinks that's a bad thing."

Maybe so. But they don't associate that with Obama. No wonder Arlen Specter went to the Democrats, and polls show the number of self-identified Republicans at a low of 21 percent, about half of those who ID as Democrats and independents. The GOP is re-defining what it means to be a minority in America as much as Barack Obama is.

Yes, that's right. According to PoliticsDaily's Kaitlynn Reily (see post below) it has come to this:

"At around 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, I heard the droning noise of a small plane and looked out my window to see one flying low over campus. It carried a banner behind it featuring a picture of an aborted fetus and words, in bold white letters, that described it as a 10 week abortion. The plane circled the boundaries of campus for at least two-and-a-half hours."

Apparently the plane banner is the work of an anti-abortion group, The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR). The South Bend Tribune reports that the CBR plans to fly the plane around for three hours a day until the May 17 commencement and will drive a similarly decorated billboard truck around the South Bend region. CBR spokesman Mark Harrington said the plane will switch between the billboard seen Tuesday and one that will read: "Abortion is Terror," which also will show a picture of a fetus.

"The pro-life community at Notre Dame is, in part, responsible for the invitation of Barack Obama," Harrington said by phone Tuesday. "If they were doing a good job of reaching the campus, it's unlikely Obama would have been invited." ... Harrington said CBR has tried to contact the campus in hopes of setting up a smaller "display" on campus, but Notre Dame "has made it clear they're not interested in inviting us."

Harrington said these kind of photos will help end abortion, "even if pro-life activists must show them over the objection of pro-life pacifists." Harrington said the demonstration will be peaceful.

That's reassuring. Will this bring a response from bishops or pro-life activists? Will the CBR effort be effective? A letter writer to The Observer, the UND student newspaper, is not so sure. And Kaitlynn Reily points to a student debate held at the university yesterday as an example of the fruitful exchanges that can happen: "The students were respectful to each other, all made good points and the audience of mostly students listened respectfully."

Coverage of that event here by The Observer.