Thoughts on Obama's Notre Dame Address

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.

I hated all of the Jeremiah Wright bashing. The church that he leads does amazing things for the Kingdom of God in their community. It's not a vitriol church. If it was, I don't think that Willow Creek would have joint activities with them. However, it's not so much what Pastor Wright said, but the way in which he said them. As he went on his tour-de-force, he led with a sense of pride and arrogance instead of humility.

But I agree with you about the black community disliking republicans. I also think that the abortion issue is shifting into a multi dimensional position. For the first time, there are more Americans who consider themselves pro-life. This, while more and more begin to disassociate themselves with evangelicalism. Could God be answering our prayers on abortion, but doing so in a way that looks completely different than what was expected?

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.

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

Spoken like a true "culture warrior." Well, if you haven't heard, the war is over and we lost, in large part because we were so enamored of our agenda we became jerks in the process. And, truth be told, a lot of people voted for Obama precisely because they felt that Bush, and the conservatives who backed him, were on the verge of "ruining this country."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Am sorry about the delayed response. Traveled to Annapolis for the U.S. Naval Academy graduation, where, ironically, Obama was the commencement speaker and John McCain's son was a member of the graduating class. No discussion of abortion at that commencement!

I wish I had the magic answer to implementing the solutions, Squeaky. For 6 years, I served on the board of a foundation that had teen pregnancy prevention as its main goal. This was not a white-glove board; we actually went into the community to get to know firsthand the teens and the organizations working with them. The most effective programs we witnessed were those that actively promoted self-respect, encouraging the young women to believe in themselves and their abilities via community projects that typically paired them with strong women as role models. The programs that failed were those that just preached at the young women, whether they advocated abstinence or birth control.

Personally, I believe we've made "discarding" too easy in our society--discarding spouses via divorce, discarding virtue via casual sex. Both commitment and weighing consequences appear to be perceived as old fashioned.

Recommend reading "The Real Pregnancy Crisis" by W. Bradford Wilcox in the 22 May 2009 Wall Street Journal. You should be able to find it online at WSJ.com. Contains some chilling statistics on the number of children born outside of marriage in the U.S.

Good. I doubt that many people, regardless of the stance they take on abortion, would disagree with that. So, it seems there is room for discussion. Now how do you get both sides to the table?

If those are the solutions, what is your proposal to implement them?

"So why is the Catholic Church opposed to saving lives by using these cells which are going to be destroyed no matter what?"

That's a loaded question, but thanks for asking.

The Church, of course, does not oppose saving lives.

Aside from the fact that that an embryo is considered by Catholics to be a living human being, the Church also opposes in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and contraception based on the doctrine of the purposes of marriage

Absolutely!

See, we do share some common ground.

"When he reversed the Bush stem cell policy he said this, implying that this was an issue of 'science' vs. 'government manipulation and coercion' made the statement below. Talk about caricatures and strawmen.

"'This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.'"

I am not Catholic, I am Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church does not oppose embryonic stem-cell research. So I am unclear about why the Catholic church opposes this.

My understanding is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos that would be destroyed in any case; none of these embryos would ever be born. Using stem cells from these embryos can save lives. It's like the people who are brain dead who end up donating their organs so that others can live. I've signed up for donating my organs once I am gone.

So why is the Catholic Church opposed to saving lives by using these cells which are going to be destroyed no matter what?

I do see a significant difference between opposing abortion and opposing embryonic stem cell research.

"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.

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

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

Definitely agree with your point that "the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve." As stated earlier, the programs that I've seen work are those that involve young women in meaningful activities--creative, environmental, community-oriented--which inspire new interests and skills as well as self-respect. In the "old days" when I was young, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Candy-Stripers (hospital volunteers) fulfilled that purpose, but today, with the influx of different ethnic groups and cultural values, no one program or activity fits all.

Did enjoy USNA commencement. Attended in 2001 as a parent, and this one was different but also very special. Have interviewed candidates for 10 years, and was invited to pin on the shoulder boards by one of "my mids"--young Hmong woman who came here as a "boat person" and who has amazing courage, determination, and initiative.

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.

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?

He did have significant black support (I do not know the numbers). But then he was not running against Obama or Andrew Young either. He was a Democrat running against Emory Folmar, Republican. I won't label the man--but if you can imagine many blacks voting for G Wallace--you might imagine the alternative. And of course Wallace had been shot in his presidential campaign as well. This combined with a religious conversion, a softening-aging man, person with softening racial views who could manage to apologize, and a racism that was much more political calculation than ideological--was someone many blacks could vote for and some could actively support.

Definitely agree with your point that "the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve." As stated earlier, the programs that I've seen work are those that involve young women in meaningful activities--creative, environmental, community-oriented--which inspire new interests and skills as well as self-respect. In the "old days" when I was young, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Candy-Stripers (hospital volunteers) fulfilled that purpose, but today, with the influx of different ethnic groups and cultural values, no one program or activity fits all.

Did enjoy USNA commencement. Attended in 2001 as a parent, and this one was different but also very special. Have interviewed candidates for 10 years, and was invited to pin on the shoulder boards by one of "my mids"--young Hmong woman who came here as a "boat person" and who has amazing courage, determination, and initiative.

Thank you for your work with young women.

This is just the kind of work that I think is a great example of something people of all political viewpoints can come together on.

I think both sides have major trust issues, and one way to overcome that is to start working together on common goals. Certainly dealing with means of combatting unwanted teen pregnancy is a goal we can all work towards.

But it just goes to the point that the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve, and also the point that I think there is common ground we can find.

I'll check out your link--looks like an interesting article. When I was in Indiana, I was astounded by the number of my students who were pregnant outside of marriage, and that in a community where a church was on every corner. It's anecdotal, but it just seemed it was on a much higher occurrence than in other parts of the country--even those parts that didn't have a church on every corner.

Very good article, Jim. I am more or less along the same wavelength as yourself. In your article, however, I was left on my hunger, as I believe that the great barrier to finding common ground is the perception that there is no common ground. Each side sees itself as absolutely right. While I agree with Obama in calling for at least a modicum of humility in our opinions, there may legitimately come a time when certainty is called demanded. Karl Barth did not negotiate with the Nazis, for instance, he wrote the Barman Declaration. I am sure that a number of people believe that we are in a similar situation regarding the abortion debate. It seems to me that this great divide has to be addressed in any appeal to find common ground.