Thoughts on Obama’s Notre Dame Address

by Jim Wallis 05-18-2009

After weeks of controversy surrounding Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to receive an honorary doctorate as this year’s commencement speaker, we have seen both the American democratic tradition at its best and the worst examples of those who would rather wage culture wars than engage in that democratic tradition. Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, in his introduction of the president, reiterated the university’s position on life and abortion while also praising the president for coming in spite of the controversy: “Others might have avoided this venue for that reason, but President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.”

Some students and others exercised their right to publicly and peacefully disagree with the president on an issue of importance to our country. The health of our democracy depends upon the right of students to protest and dissent with the policies of our government and any administration with which they disagree. I hope, however, that there were not any protesters who were yelling so loud that they did not hear the words that the president spoke.

He confronted head-on the controversy surrounding his visit and also articulated a vision for how the people of our country can disagree with each other on fundamental issues while still finding common ground to work with one another on areas of agreement.

On abortion, the issue that fueled the controversy, the president said:

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually; it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions; let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women. Those are things we can do.

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

He also underscored another value of democracy: that we seek first to understand and be understood, even if we do not agree.

For too long in our country, generations have yelled past each other at “straw men” and engaged in battle with stereotypes of those with whom they disagree instead of taking the time to listen and understand others. The only way we will be able to progress in any kind of moral dialogue is to actually engage with those with whom we disagree, not just yell louder than them.

The president shared the story of the Civil Rights commission whose work formed the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and whose diverse and divergent members were able to find consensus on such a contentious issue. Former Notre Dame President Fr. Ted Hesburgh was a member of that commission:

… [when] they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal. And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

Perhaps this president’s willingness to confront controversy with an appeal to common values can also change the way we address other divisive and controversial issues. We live in a country in which we know everyone will not agree on everything. In fact, it is quite an accomplishment to even get half of the country to agree on anything. Our differences, and our ability to maintain this union in spite of them, are some of our country’s greatest strengths. It’s been a long time since I have heard a president be able to articulate so well a positive vision for how people of faith, and a nation as a whole, can work together to face the difficult moral issues of our time in both disagreement and unity.

Furthermore, despite all the media focus on the abortion controversy at Notre Dame, I found the presidents’ comments on the larger issues of faith, civil discourse, and public life to be quite significant. Click here to read the entire address.

Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners. To read more, see this article on bipartisan efforts toward finding common ground around abortion reduction in Sojourners Magazine.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics, Gender, General, Health

WitnessforPeace

Thanks Jim. Those are wise words from our President; I hope he lives by them. I admit that I'm disappointed that Obama has such close ties to Planned Parenthood, and would like to make its founder, Margaret Sanger, and her support for eugenics part of the discussion called for at Notre Dame. The Oxford Companion to US History whitwashes the Sanger/eugenics connection as a "pragmatic alliance." This is no more credible than a claim by liberal German Protestants that they emerged guiltless from WW II since their alliance with the Nazis was merely “pragmatic.” (A true example of a pragmatic alliance from that era is the U.S. and Russia--we acted on different military fronts, and are not stained by the atrocities of Soviet commissars and the punishment regiments that raped and plundered eastern Germany.) In contrast, Sanger and Planned Parenthood are forever linked with the abortion of lower class babies and children of color, which continues unapologetically today. http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

neuro_nurse

Margaret Sanger died in 1966.

WitnessforPeace

neuro_nurse wrote, in response to WitnessforPeace:
"That’s a much more effective argument – thanks."

You're welcome.
Blessings,

ando

That was a great response to Mr. Wallis' thoughts about Obama and abortion. I would think African Americans would be the most angered by abortion, because of t the racist roots of the movement.

BlueDeacon

Not quite. The modern Republican Party, which dominates the South today and is more "pro-life," was actually built on muted racial hatred (which most conservatives in my observation refuse to address). Most African-Americans as a result are indeed pro-life but hate conservatives with a passion.

WitnessforPeace

Few if any of the Africans and African Americans I know hate conservatives.

BlueDeacon

Go visit a black barbershop sometime, unnoticed -- you'll hear the vitriol. Do you think that a Jeremiah Wright is simply an anomaly? Nope -- he's closer to the rule.

letjusticerolldown

I think today, it is much more complex than that. Montgomery (where I am) is as much of a city defined by a black-white split as any in the nation. The city largely forgave George Wallace. I am not saying that your analysis is wrong. It is just missing a whole lot which in the final analysis makes it look/function differently than you describe. I only raise George Wallace as example of realities that make real-life much more colorful and complex than our storylines.

BlueDeacon

Actually, it really isn't that complicated. The conservative movement began to gain strength in the 1960s as a reaction, in part, to the civil-rights and anti-war movements, with both JFK and LBJ deathly afraid of it (which is why both presidents escalated the Vietnam War). It was Barry Goldwater who began to draw Southern whites to the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan who completed the transition -- and Reagan had a largely-ignored history of running racist campaigns.

As for George Wallace, by many accounts he was never as racist as he acted in public; even when he was governor in the 1960s he always had his back door open. In fact, he said after he finally allowed the University of Alabama to integrate he said, "We always planned to do it the next year anyway."

letjusticerolldown

And as George Wallace was not a one-dimensional caricature--neither is the southern, conservative white vote; nor any other slice of the electorate that we define. When I walk in the voting booth I select a Democrat or Republican. 307 (I'm making this up) variables go into my vote. Those variables can be aligned in an endless array of possibiliites. But in the end, I have to boil down my choice to Republican or Democrat. So then a state like Alabama votes 70% in support of Republicans and we make it to mean much more than it does. In a sense, such votes obfuscate the views of people as much as illuminates the perspectives.

The dominant storyline of our two-party process is "Who won?" It is not, "What decision did the democracy make?" The "Who Won?" storyline is inherently divisive.

BlueDeacon

According to the Washington Post, 80 percent of white voters supported GWB in 2004 while 90 percent of black voters went for John Kerry. I think the Southerners themselves might say a tad differently.

letjusticerolldown

And there could be potentially a third party candidate--who could carry 35% of votes (half black and half white) and carry the state. It would be hailed as evidence of a new day in Alabama--when in reality the only change would be the provision of a third choice that appealed to a large, independent, fiscal conservative, social traditionalist, compassionate government, problem-solving, pragmatic, Christian, black and white, vote.

The conclusions we draw are rooted in the options that were given. No Black man was elected as President until 2008. Not because the public would not choose; but because the public was never given the opportunity.

BlueDeacon

And there could be potentially a third party candidate--who could carry 35% of votes (half black and half white) and carry the state.

Not in our lifetimes. The division is still way too wide for people to come together because, frankly, too many whites still play the culture war game in the South. Bear in mind that Southern conservatism is, and always was, somewhat reactionary, which blacks generally are not.

letjusticerolldown

Put 100 voters, half black and half white, in a room with six political candidates. The Republican and Democrat parties have been euthanized.

JC Watts
Barbara Lee
Al Sharpton
John Edwards
Tim Pawlenty
Arnold Schwartzenager

Do you any of these candidates could fashion a middle-of-the-road campaign attracting about 15 whites and 15 blacks? i.e. Not a dominant campaign (like Obama) that attracts all of one racial block and part of the other.

Do you not see a significant number of blacks and whites with a range of common interests who will move in unity?

BlueDeacon

No, straight-up. Because effective political advocacy often requires beating up on somebody -- the cliche "hate sells" still applies.

WaveTossed

"It was Barry Goldwater who began to draw Southern whites to the Republican Party"

Ironically, Barry Goldwater was a social libertarian. He believe in equality not only for Blacks but for such groups as Gays. And I believe (though I might be wrong) that he was pro-choice.

He would be rolling in his grave over all of the current-day social conservatives and their calls for government intrusion into peoples' personal lives.

BlueDeacon

Everything you said is true -- he once said that someone "should kick [Jerry Falwell] in the ass" -- but he also came out against the civil-rights movement, and keep in mind that much of the opposition was justified by "states' rights," which Goldwater also believed in.

WaveTossed

Barry Goldwater was someone who was truly for states' rights. Whereas the Jim Crow believers were using states' rights merely as excuses to keep African-Americans from achieving their civil rights.

Nowadays, the same sorts of people who used to scream "states rights" are the same people who now want the Feds to pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment to prevent states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others from passing laws allowing Gay marriage.

When states' rights = denying rights, these people would support states' rights. When states' rights = acknowledging rights, these people now oppose states' rights. Barry Goldwater believed in states' rights on principle rather than as convenient excuses to deny people civil rights.

Back then (and still now), I disagree with what Goldwater said then about states' rights. This was because states were violating a Federal Constitutional right to vote. Still, I can respect Goldwater for his views even when I disagree with some of them.

WitnessforPeace

I am very glad to hear that!! Didn't Wallace get elected again as Gov. with black support after his sincere repentence?
Blessings

BlueDeacon

He did. But he had to because most whites were trending GOP anyway.