miles to go in Massachusetts
In a Commentary piece yesterday I offered my analysis of the shocking Senate election in Massachusetts. It was, I am convinced, a long-overdue manifestation of independence on the part of the state's voters, who have been held in thrall for years by liberal ideology and Kennedy mystique. That's progress.
It was also a reminder that American voters, even in true-blue Massachusetts, resent the idea that their representatives in Washington might ignore their wishes and enact a sweeping federal policy-- like health-care reform, in this case-- despite heavy public opposition. With the arrival of Senator Scott Brown on Capitol Hill, the unpopular plan is apparently dead. That's progress, too. (As C.S. Lewis pointed out, when you realize that you're headed in the wrong direction, the best way to make progress is to turn back.)
However, I hope no one who read my analysis concluded that political sanity has returned to Massachusetts. We have a long, long way to go before a healthy political climate is restored. Consider:
Senator-elect Brown is not pro-life. On the issue of health-care reform his vote may benefit the pro-life position; the state's largest pro-life group saw that as reason enough to endorse his candidacy. But Brown did not appeal for pro-life support, did not use pro-life arguments, did not mention pro-life issues. On the contrary, while his opponent Martha Coakley made her unswerving support for abortion the #1 issue in her campaign, Brown did his best to dodge the issue. He may now suspect that he won despite the support of pro-lifers, and liberal journalists will encourage him toward that conclusion. Republican consultants will tell their candidates to imitate Brown's campaign strategy, avoiding the abortion issue. Already the new Senator from Massachusetts is being touted as the ideal GOP candidate: populist in approach, patriotic, conservative on fiscal questions, and silent on social issues. In the long run, the upset in Massachusetts is more likely to benefit the "big tent" Republicans than the pro-life movement.
Liberal ideology is alive and well-- and dangerous! Although Brown was an attractive candidate and Coakley was a dud, 47% of the voters still chose the Democratic candidate, whose appeal was fully sympathetic to the 'culture of death.' In one of America's most heavily Catholic states, nearly half of the electorate backed a candidate who suggested that faithful Catholics should not work in hospital emergency rooms. Fortunately Coakley was not elected to the Senate, but she remains Attorney General. The state's top law-enforcement officer sees no problem in suggesting that religious freedom must bow before the needs of the abortion industry.
The Church remains silent. The majority of voters in Massachusetts are not registered in any political party. These independent voters swung the election for Scott Brown, demonstrating that they have finally escaped the magnetic force of the Kennedy family. But what will replace that influence? There's an old common-sense principle in politics: You can't beat somebody with nobody; you can't beat something with nothing. For 45 years Ted Kennedy offered a vision of what the political system should accomplish, and Massachusetts voters embraced that vision. When Martha Coakley put forward a very similar vision, the voters rejected it. But Scott Brown had no compelling vision. The Republican Party-- in Massachusetts, at least-- has no vision at all. And politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Someone will provide a new vision: a new model for politics. Who will it be? As I explained in my book The Faithful Departed, the Catholic Church was once, not too very long ago, the dominant force on the local scene, and set the agenda for discussion of public issues. But for more than a full generation now the Catholic influence has been waning, and Church institutions have been co-opted to serve the purposes of a secular liberal ideology.
If ever there was a time for a genuine Catholic revival in Massachusetts, now is that time. But it won't be easy; we have miles and miles to go.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($20,363 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: richardols3892 -
Jan. 25, 2010 9:45 AM ET USA
As a veteran of 12 years in the Air Force, who was a prisoner interrogator in Vietnam, I'd like to inform Steve214 that it is not he who defines what is or what is not torture, but U.S. Field Manual (FM) 2-22.3, "Human Intelligence Collector Operations." The manual specifically prohibits many "enhanced interrogation techniques," including "waterboarding."
Posted by: Steve214 -
Jan. 23, 2010 11:06 AM ET USA
Reference Sheepcat's comment. Here's an easy test to see if something is torture: do people volunteer to undergo it? A number of reporters, and others, have volunteered to undergo it: but nobody volunteers for real torture such has having their fingernails pulled off by pliers or having molten lead poured into their ears. Indeed, military pilots are sometimes water boarded as part of their training (to resist interrogation). Water boarding is not even close to being torture.
Posted by: tim.moore1408 -
Jan. 23, 2010 1:02 AM ET USA
When bishops become bishops, and shephard their flock; when pastors become pastors and serve their flock, when all ordained become men of God and seek to do His will, then the Church will begin to regain its moral leadership. And until all of them get on board with the Magisterium, we will continue to be Kerried and Pelosied in the continual death march.
Posted by: Minnesota Mary -
Jan. 22, 2010 10:40 PM ET USA
Phil, you are so right that Brown's victory will embolden the pro-abortion Republicans and the "Big Tent" philosophy. I fear that the future platform of the GOP will make no reference to being pro-life.
Posted by: The Sheepcat -
Jan. 22, 2010 10:38 AM ET USA
Brown is not pro-life. He's also pro-waterboarding, and far too many conservatives are giving him a pass on his flimsy claim that waterboarding is not torture. Yes, miles and miles to go.