f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

  . . . . . . . .    The recent rash of articles asking whether sexism is the cause of Hillary Clinton’s failure to win the nomination for the presidency has the f/k/a Gang again frustrated by our pledge to avoid political punditry. As the besieged moderator of many weblog alter egos, I’ve decided to present links to a sampling of the materials on sexism and gender in the presidential campaign (with a few excerpts), quote at length below the fold from a particularly good rebuttal to the sexism charge from the Liberal Values Blog, and spend a little time asking what sexism is and isn’t and when playing the sexism card is inappropriate.

Here are links to a few relevant pieces dealing with the sexism/gender issue in the Democratic presidential primary campaign, which were published over the past week:

• “Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton’s Hopes Dim” (New York Times, by Jodi Kantor, May 19, 2008), where Geraldine Ferraro claims Obama is “terribly sexist,” and one Clinton supporter says “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.” In contrast, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, opines that “When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her,” and that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is faltering because of “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”
• [update: May 20th, 10 PM]: “Clinton chastises press for ignoring sexism” (CNN.com, May 20, 2008) Clinton “also said she doesn’t believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign. But the New York senator said sexist attitudes among voters and members of the media have been a constant detriment to her White House hopes.” [note: She wants the press to take the occasional actions of individual members of the public — e.g., the man with an “Iron My Shirt” sign — as seriously as the purported race-baiting tactics of her own campaign. It is not news that there are some sexists and some racists in America; it is news if a candidate is playing to one of those groups.]
  • update (May 21, 2008): For a serious response to the Sexism Charges, done with a humorous twist, see “My Sexist reasons for not voting for Hillary” (by Ouroboros, at Daily Kos, May 20, 2008). It provides an excellent issue by issue list of reasons why some of us won’t vote for Hillary.
• WAMC FM, my local public radio station, had a Roundtable segment yesterday, focusing on this week’s (poorly-phrased) question from Time Magazine, “Do women have an obligation to support a serious woman candidate?” You can find an array of answers from listeners in the Comment section of the WAMC Inside weblog.

• In “Clinton’s supporters decry sexism in campaign” Hillary1000 weblogger Donna Darko (May 16, 2008), claims “No voting block in my lifetime has been so utterly disrespected, vilified unjustly with accusations of racism, and basically had to endure endless harangues, while the Democratic Party and so called “progressive” coalition has shown more disrespect to women supporting Clinton than the Republican Party, treating Clinton supporters as second class citizens, especially if you happen to be named Hillary Clinton.”
• “The Feminist Divide Over Obama” (Time.com, by Amy Sullivan, May 16, 2008); and “Clinton’s ‘sexism’ dodge” (Boston Globe, by Scot Lehigh, May 16, 2008)
• Ann Althouse’s post “If Hillary is not to be the first woman President, is there a woman President on the horizon?” (Althouse, May 18, 2008), in which the opinionated law professor exclaims,

“I think people were open to the idea of a woman President, but Hillary Clinton did not suit us. We don’t want someone else like her. We want someone different. For starters, how about a woman who did not build her political career through her husband?”

• And see, “She Just Might Be President Someday,” (NYT, Kate Zernike, May 18, 2008; via Liberal Values Blog); and “Feminism Means Never Having to Say ‘I’m Toast’ ” (Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com, May 13, 2008; via Daily Dish)

• In his column today “The Sisters are Steamed” (May 20, 2008),” Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz says:

“On an emotional level, it’s easy to understand why many female voters feel they’re been robbed. For the first time in their lifetimes, they could see one of their own occupying the Oval Office. And, in the space of a few weeks, that dream began to evaporate.

“Had the contest gone the other way, certainly many African American voters would have felt they had been deprived of a historic chance to elect the first black president.

“But there is a certain degree of identity politics in this narrative, one that the media haven’t been shy about pushing this season. Should all women vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, and assume that men who oppose her are sexist (and women who back Obama are traitors)? Should all African Americans support Obama because of his race and assume that whites who vote against him are racist? Doesn’t that reduce both candidates to one-dimensional symbols and ignore the substance of what they have to say or how they would govern?”

The best succinct rebuttal to charges that sexism will be the cause of Hillary Clinton’s failure to secure the Democratic presidential candidacy can be found in “Sexism and the Clinton Campaign” (Liberal Values Blog, by Ron Chusid, May 17, 2008), where Ron Chusid says:

“I doubt anyone would say that there is no sexism at all, but this is hardly the major factor why Clinton is losing. . . . If Democrats were opposed to a woman president, they wouldn’t have given her this early support. . . . The problem is not that Democrats do not want a woman nominee. They just do not want this woman for reasons having nothing to do with her gender.” At the bottom of this posting [click “more” if you’re reading from our main page], I’ve provided extensive excerpts from Chusid’s piece.

Although his main topic is when racism and other forms of discrimination should be deemed unlawful, Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford offers some relevant thoughts in his recently-published book “The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse” (2008). Prof. Ford notes, for instance that:

[at 32 -33] “The success of the civil rights movement inspired many others to frame their struggles in similar terms. Feminists, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and the elderly are just a few of the groups who have successfully made explicit analogies to the cause of racial justice. . . . At best, these claims seek to extend the priciples underlying civil rights to new situations. At worse, these claims seem to define ‘bigotry’ so broadly that the losing side of almost any social or political conflict can claim to be the victims of racelike bias. Today almost anyone can play the race card by ,making claims of what I’ll call racism by analogy.”

“Chapter Two [of The Race Card] looks at the explosion of racism-by-analogy claims. . . . Because the law often offers little or no redress for garden-variety unfairness, many people are tempted to recast their grievance in terms that the law will recognize: in other words, to play the race card.”

[at 105] “Racism by analogy is both inevitable and problematic. We can’t banish analogy, but we must manage and limit it with attention to the significant distinctions among different forms of discrimination. In the abstract, racism, sexism, religious intolerance, bias against the aged, and contempt for the disabled all involve analogous wrongs — bias, intolerance, bigotry — and call for comparable remedies. But, in practice each involves different policy choices, different trade-offs, and different legal mandates.”

[If you’d like to sample more of this thoughtful, moderate book, see the first chapter here (New York Times, Feb. 6, 2008); and three excerpts from Slate.com.]

Of course, in this modest weblog posting, I’m not trying to figure out when the law should have remedies for sexual discrimination. The much more humble issue here is when, in general, it is appropriate to brand an action or result as sexism, and an individual — or vast sectors of our populace — sexist.

. . What is Sexism? . .

Our first task is asking just what sexism is. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2000) says sexism is “1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.”

Wikipedia’s entry on the subject explains further that:

“Sexism is a belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or more valuable than the other. It is also called male and female chauvinism and can also refer to a hatred or distrust towards the opposite or same sex as a whole (misogyny and misandry), or imposing stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women.

“Sexism refers to any and all systemic differentiations based on the sex of the individuals not based on their individual merits, and is commonly considered to be sex discrimination, which in some forms is illegal in some countries.”

And, a sociology reference site helpfully adds that sexism is:

“Similar to the dynamics of racism. Males are believed to be superior to females and when this belief is put into action it leads to females being treated as objects, the last to be hired, first to be fired, being paid less for equal work, etc.”

With the above definitions in mind, and drawing upon my own understanding of the subject (which has interested me for many decades – and had me “manning” the phones for the Women’s Campaign Fund 30 years ago in D.C.), I believe that sexism does not exist unless the actor/speaker has hatred or contempt for the other gender, or believes that one gender is superior to the other, or is attempting to maintain or impose stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women in order to limit their freedom by restricting the gender to particular roles.

I hope we can all agree on at least a few basics:

• Every mention of sex or gender, and everything sexual or sexy is not sexism (as Dahlia Lithwick pointed out at Slate.com in 2006, in a disagreement with lawyer feminists over a sexy woman in a clothing ad that appeared in a legal periodical; see our prior post).
• Every mention of a general gender difference is not sexism. And,
• Every outcome that is not favorable to a woman is not the product of sexism, nor is every outcome unfavorable to a male.

There are a few more things that seem obvious to me about sexism, the most important of which is that it is far too potent a charge to be made lightly by serious people or those who wish to be considered serious. This suggests to me that:

• Gender Joshing is not sexism (absent the requisite hatred, superiority complex, or intent to stifle gender freedoms) — not when women kid men about their refusing to ask for directions, flatulence, or preoccupation with certain female body parts; and not when men (who, by the way, bond with their equals and friends through banter and kidding and poking fun) playfully mention stereotypes about parallel parking or periodic crankiness of women, or the like.
• The gender-related rudeness, crudeness, or insecurities of a small minority of persons — much less their inadvertent lapse into jargon or turns-of-phrase that a minority of the other gender consider insulting, condescending or antiquated — should not be used to besmirch the actions of a much-broader group of people.

• If similar behavior has been aimed at, or could be expected, when the other gender is in a similar situation, claiming sexism is rarely called for. [Thus, in reference to complaints about the current primary campaign, note that John Edwards has been ridiculed for his pretty face and hair; Al Gore’s clothing got a lot of attention in 2000; males seeking the presidency have had their tears, ears, height and weight, and the timbre of their voices scrutinized and ridiculed; and Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson would surely have been urged to leave the race by now, if they were in second-place in the delegate count (with no real chance of catching up sans scandal), or appeared to be hurting the frontrunner’s election chances with their campaign tactics.]

In sum, absent indications of hate, or superiority, or freedom-limiting stereotyping, it makes little sense to play the sexism card. That is especially true when people of good faith have indicated significant non-gender reasons for their actions; and when a reasonable person would have expected similar behavior if someone of the other gender had been involved. As I have stated before at this weblog:

Those who worry about the continuation of old stereotypes need to pay very close attention to the new stereotypes they may be creating by their actions and positions. Being seen as thin-skinned, humorless proponents of iffy legal analysis and bad attitudes is scarcely the way to win over the hearts or the minds of those who might still want to perpetuate the unwarranted stereotypes. Indeed, it might just lose you a few allies or make them wary to come to your assistance every time you “cry wolf.” Even the most open-minded and fair people can find it rather difficult to think of whiners [sore losers or spoilers] as equals.

All this breathless punditry needs a bit of offsetting one-breath poetry, don’t you think? Here are a few senryu by members of our f/k/a family of haiku poets:

another argument unfolds the futon

………………. by W.F. Owen – Frogpond; Bottle Rockets

at the height
of the argument the old couple
pour each other tea

……… by George Swede – Almost Unseen (2000)

through the open door . . .
her smile doesn’t forgive
all my sins

. . . . by Randy Brooks – School’s Out (1999)

it’s pink! it’s purple!
sunset inspires
more bickering

………… by david giacalone – Frogpond Vol. XXVIII, #2 (2005); also, a haiga incorporating this poem

screen door between angry words

. . . . by Tom Painting – A New Resonance 2 & Frogpond XXI:1

sua sponte –
her honor
catches me staring

. . . by dagosan

Finally, as promised above, here are major excerpts from “Sexism and the Clinton Campaign” (Liberal Values Blog, May 17, 2008), by Ron Chusid:
(more…)

It’s Earth Day Plus One: Now it’s time to see whether we really want to make a difference — by changing our habits in a meaningful way, despite the inconvenience.

Earth Day –
recycled bottles
in a three-car garage

… by dagosan [April 24, 2005]

If politicians and the public were serious about achieving fuel economy — in order to save money and save Earth from greenhouse gases — they would start enforcing our speed limit laws and rollback the highway speed limit to 55 mph. [followup (July 4, 2008): see our post “speed limit politics“]

Fuel economy decreases rapidly above 60 mph, according to the FTC. And, as we reported on May 2, 2005, “driving at 10 miles an hour above the 65 miles-per-hour increases fuel consumption by 15 percent.” (See NYT, “Unmentioned Energy Fix: A 55 M.P.H. Speed Limit,” May 1, 2005)

supplemental update (April 24, 2008): Eartheasy.com‘s Fuel-Efficient Driving page tells us that “The keys to climate control are in your hands.” It states:

You can boost the overall fuel-efficiency of your car as much as 30% by simple vehicle maintenance and attention to your style of driving. Here are some tips on fuel-efficient driving that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, but could save you hundreds of dollars a year in fuel costs.

The Eartheasy piece succinctly summarizes this EPA fuel efficiency graph:

Drive steadily at posted speed limits. Increasing your highway cruising speed from 55mph (90km/h) to 75mph (120km/h) can raise fuel consumption as much as 20%. You can improve your gas mileage 10 – 15% by driving at 55mph rather than 65mph (104km/h). Note how quickly efficiency drops after 60 mph.

You can find more detailed and technical information at How Stuff Works.com. Its article “What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?” states, for example, that:

• “[F]or most cars, the ‘sweet spot’ on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.”
• “In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds.”
• “If you drive your car in the ‘sweet spot’ you will get the best possible mileage for that car. If you go faster or slower, the mileage will get worse, but the closer you drive to the sweet spot the better mileage you will get.”

 

So, we have an easy but significant fuel economy solution — with one big problem: human nature. Politicians don’t have the guts to call for any real sacrifices and we plain folk — myself included — like driving fast and getting to our destinations quicker. Of course, I’ve learned that no matter how much the f/k/a Gang nags, we don’t change many minds or habits.

Me. The only person I can control is myself, and I pledge today to follow the speed limit on all highways and (as explained below) adopt habits that will enhance my driving efficiency. In addition, I’m going to actively campaign for both the enforcement of our speed limit laws and the return to 55 mph as the speed limit on our highways. Of course, you are welcome to join the pledge.

A 2005 survey by the Governors Highway Safety Association confirmed what we already knew: almost every state allows drivers to regularly and significantly exceed the speed limit before they are stopped — and “Nearly all respondents reported a public perception that there exists a cushion above a posted speed limit in which officers will not cite offenders. The range most often reported was 5-10 miles per hour above the posted limit. “(NewsMax.com, AP, “Survey: Most States Allow Speed Cushion,” June 13, 2005; Survey Executive Summary). One news report noted:

“Authorities patrolling U.S. highways tend to give motorists a cushion of up to 10 miles per hour above the speed limit before pulling them over, says a survey by a group of state traffic safety officials. The group found that 42 states allow drivers to regularly exceed the speed limit before they are stopped. [Editor’s Note: only 47 states responded to this survey; at least one of the non-responders — New York — clearly also has the speed cushion.]

“This cushion truly exists across the country and in some cases is more than 10 miles above posted limits,” said Jim Champagne, the GHSA’s chairman.

“Law enforcement needs to be given the political will to enforce speed limits and the public must get the message that speeding will not be tolerated,” said Champagne . . .

. . . “Since 1994, 38 states have increased their speed limit, the report said. Congress in 1995 allowed states to raise limits above 55 mph in urban areas and 65 mph on rural roads.

“[And, yes, speed both costs and kills:] A study released in 1999 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated an increase in deaths on interstates and freeways of about 15 percent in the 24 states that had raised their speed limit in late 1995 and 1996.”

 

In 2005, I opined: “I hate to be cynical, but I don’t think there’s any chance that the American public — or their courageous leaders — will go along with lowering speed limits to 55 mph in order to save billions of gallons of oil a year.” This is another time when I would love to see one of my predictions proven wrong.

An AP article in yesterday’s Schenectady Gazette, like similar ones over the past few years, told of consumer angst over high gasoline prices but failed to mention anything about non-commercial drivers reducing speed to reduce gas consumption. See AP/Gazette online, “Drivers, eyeing gas prices now averaging $3.50 a gallon nationwide, say they feel squeezed” (April 22, 2008)

The only exception are trucking companies: “The American Trucking Associations on Monday said it will host a ‘fuel strategies workshop’ in June to help fleet operators cope with soaring prices. ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said fuel has now surpassed labor as the trucking industry’s biggest cost, prompting some companies to install devices that prevent drivers from speeding.” [And see, “Truckers Back a National 65-mph Speed Limit,” US News & World Report, March 26, 2008]

Since far too few drivers are likely to regulate themselves and slow down without an incentive, the first step is obvious (and easy): Our Governors and law enforcement officials need to bite the bullet and declare that — oh-my-god! — we’re going to enforce the speed limit; and then they need to do it. Filling depleted state coffers with the speeding fines will just be an added bonus — and should cover the extra cost of diligent, deterrent, habit-shaping enforcement.

– update (May 25, 2008): Rather than call for enforcement of speed limits, tough-on-crime politician Jim Tedisco, Republican leader in the NYS Assembly, continues to pander over the Memorial Day weekend, in the Op/Ed piece “To help achieve lower gas prices, make your voice heard” (Sunday Gazette, May 25, 2008).

Sadly, despite the use of alternative fuels and the purported switch to cars with better mileage, the Federal Trade Commission’s Oil-Gas webpage recently noted, “the Energy Information Administration forecasts that gasoline consumption will continue to increase through 2030.” (FTC Gasoline Column, March 7, 2008) However. there are things you and I can do individually today (and, hopefully, tomorrow) to reduce fuel consumption without buying a new car.

As the FTC consumer alert “Saving Money at the Gas Pump: A Bumper-to-Bumper Guide” (FTC Consumer Alert 2006) reminds us: “When it comes to stretching your gas budget, how you drive can be almost as important as how far you drive.“

So, please join me in my pledge to drive smart and increase my fuel efficiency. Here are some useful tips from the 2005 FTC Consumer Alert “Good, Better, Best: How to Improve Gas Mileage“:

On the Road: Drive More Efficiently

* Stay within posted speed limits. Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 miles per hour.
* Stop aggressive driving. You can improve your gas mileage up to five percent around town if you avoid “jackrabbit” starts and stops by anticipating traffic conditions and driving gently.
* Avoid unnecessary idling. It wastes fuel, costs you money, and pollutes the air. Turn off the engine if you anticipate a wait.
* Combine errands. Several short trips taken from a cold start can use twice as much fuel as one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm.
* Use overdrive gears and cruise control when appropriate. They improve the fuel economy of your car when you’re driving on a highway.
* Remove excess weight from the trunk. An extra 100 pounds in the trunk can reduce a typical car’s fuel economy by up to two percent.
* Avoid packing items on top of your car. A loaded roof rack or carrier creates wind resistance and can decrease fuel economy by five percent.

And, At the Garage: Maintain Your Car

* Keep your engine tuned. Tuning your engine according to your owner’s manual can increase gas mileage by an average of four percent. Increases vary depending on a car’s condition.
* Keep your tires properly inflated and aligned. It can increase gas mileage up to three percent.
* Change your oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you can improve your gas mileage by using the manufacturer’s recommended grade of motor oil. Motor oil that says “Energy Conserving” on the performance symbol of the American Petroleum Institute contains friction-reducing additives that can improve fuel economy.
* Check and replace air filters regularly. Replacing clogged filters can increase gas mileage up to ten percent.

To help keep myself on track, I plan to report back regularly with frank assessments of my compliance with this very doable but also somewhat daunting checklist of good driver practices in the fuel-reduction game. My first big test may come on Mother’s Day, when I drive the 220 miles to see Mama G. I’m going have to get out the door a bit earlier to stay on schedule while abiding by the speed limit. I’m looking forward to seeing my gas-savings at the pump driving the New York Thruway at 65. Watching all those cell-phoning, tail-gating fools pass me along the way might just inspire a senryu or two.

– for further related reading see our posts: “summer gas tax holiday: hot air from the panderpols” (April 30, 2008); Open Letter to Gas Whiners and Another Silly One-Day Gas Boycott –

update: See the op-ed column “Government at all levels can — should — take steps to help with gas crunch,” (by Joe Slomka, Schenectady Sunday Gazette, April 27, 2008). Among other good points, Joe says:

“I’m as mad about high gas prices as the next guy, but what I’m really mad about is the fact that this is a problem we created for ourselves and are doing virtually nothing to solve. And solving it would involve so little sacrifice. . . . What I’m talking about, mostly, is motorists — especially the ones who drive those guzzlers — slowing down.”

good news (but no excuse to speed): “As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars” (New York Times, May 2, 2008) “[T]here are some indications that the trend toward smaller vehicles will reduce the nation’s fuel use. In California, motorists bought 4 percent less gasoline in January than they did the year before, a drop of more than 58 million gallons, according to the Oil Price Information Service.”

more resources (May 3, 2008): For a lot of information and inspiration (and some great bumper stickers) zoom over to iDrive55.org – the Drive 55 Conservation Project.

And “carpool for a better tomorrow” with RideSearch.com.

Good news (May 8, 2008): Our local News Channel 13 in Albany, NY, had a segment yesterday called “Some drivers reduce speed to save gas” (wnyt.com, May 7, 2008), which points out that “Researchers say today’s cars are most fuel efficient at speeds between around 30 and 60 miles per hour. Mileage drops sharply at speeds above 65 as engines work harder.” The piece includes a poll asking whether you are slowing down due to high gas prices.

more good news (May 10, 2008): “Gas prices sends surge of riders to mass transit” (New York Times, May 10, 2008). “Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.”

update (May 16, 2008) Don’t forget the Sierra Club’s Memorial Day Pledge — “I can drive 55.” See our post.

p.s. What’s Your Carbon Footprint? A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases we produce. It is measured in units of carbon dioxide. Earth Day (or any day) is a good time to calculate your carbon footprint. At Carbon Footprint.com you can also calculate the (incredibly large amount of ) CO2 you’ll use by flying to a destination.

The pbs FRONTLINE show “Sick Around the World” contains facts, analysis, and a message that every thinking and responsible American needs to hear, see, consider, and act upon. In it, correspondent T.R. Reid examines the healthcare systems of five other advanced capitalist democracies — United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland — to see what ideas might help the U.S. reform its broken healthcare non-system. The show premiered last night but is available on demand to watch online (or, you can order a dvd for $24.95).

As Mike Hale said yesterday in his tv preview for the New York Times:

“… This fast-moving and entertaining hour starts from the premise that the American health care system … is a failure. And Mr. Reid makes the case (in about 10 minutes per country) that other capitalist democracies have not just cheaper more equally available health care, but also better care over all, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates. …”

Seeing nations comparable economically to our own, where the people and government take for granted that universal coverage and access to quality health care is a basic human right, where no one need ever fear going bankrupt because of a health care crisis, and where doctors do not demand to be rich in order to practice their profession, was enough to put real tears in my eyes (tears of hope and of shame for our nation). Of course, the show demonstrates ably that Universal Coverage does not have to mean Socialized Medicine: “Reid finds out it’s not all ‘socialized medicine’ in the rich capitalist democracies he visited. But he also finds out they don’t trust health care entirely to the free market — they all impose limits.”

Here are links to some of the materials available at the Frontline website for Sick Around the World:

home + introduction + watch online + five countries + interviews + analysis + join the discussion + q & a with t.r. reid + teacher’s guide + readings & links + dvd + transcript + press reaction

Check out the analysis of several health care experts, who tell us what lessons we can learn from the other nations. And, in 7 o 10 days, you’ll be able to print out a transcript of the show.

If you like Pope Benedict’s open-hearted, brother’s-keeper approach to social justice (see our prior post), or if you liked the message of Michael Moore’s film Sicko, but have been looking for a presentation that is sarcasm-and smirk-free to share with family and friends, Sick Around the World is the answer.

waiting undressed
for the new doctor –
cold feet

thin walls
the doctor gives someone else
bad news

… by dagosan

One final point: several of the experts interviewed were quite skeptical that our politicians will actually find a true solution to the American health care crisis. They noted that neither Obama nor Clinton is offering true reform and that universal coverage is unlikely to solve our nation’s health care crisis without greatly reducing the excessive cost of American medicine. We all need to make sure that the debate and movement toward universal health care is informed with the lessons that are there for us to learn from other economically-advanced democracies.

Two years ago this week, I wrote a piece about Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical “God Is Love,” noting that Conservative Catholics seemed to be ignoring his message of social justice and charity, while they claim to be the only true Catholics and take positions on immigration, minimum wage, universal health care, and many other social issues that are inconsistent with the teachings and spirit of the Church and Jesus Christ.  With Benedict’s arrival today in the USA for a get-acquainted visit, I’m going to reprint the entire posting here, and hope that Benedict continues his message of caritas and the need to live your faith when acting in the political realm.

update (April 5, 2012):  From my retiree rocking chair, I’ve been waiting to see when Conservative Catholics, such as Rick Santorum, will start supporting universal health care for all Americans.  Both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Bishops (e.g., see here) have declared that health care is a fundamental human right.  Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed the Church’s position in November 2010, insisting that “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care.”  And, see Daily Kos (Feb. 18, 2012)

Catholic Conservatives Ignore Benedict on Political “Caritas”

(originally published April 19, 2006)

Pope Benedict XVI has apparently disappointed America’s “conservative” Catholics by not coming out swinging on their favorite issues. (Washington Post, “Pope’s 1st Year Lacks An Ideological Edge,” by Alan Cooperman; npr, “New Pope Surprises American Catholics,” by Greg Allen; April 19, 2006). Well, I’ve finally read Benedict’s first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est“(”God Is Love”), dated Dec. 25, 2005, and I’m pretty sure America’s Catholic conservatives are disappointing their Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI cover of America (March 13, 2006)

Ever since learning late last year that the Papal Letter, Deus Caritas Est [”DCE”], discusses “caritas” or “charity,” and the relationship between justice and charity, I’ve been waiting for conservative Catholic webloggers to analyze DCE — hoping to see how Catholic teachings affect their stance on important public policy issues. I’m especially interested, because prominent law professors — including Steve Bainbridge, MoJ’s Rick Garnett, and Deans Thomas Menger (St. Thomas Law School) and Mark Sargent (Villanove Law) — have insisted that we need a revival of serious that is “unapologetically and actively committed to discerning and expressing distinctively Catholic approaches to law and lawyering.” (our prior post)

Call it an apostate’s natural suspicion, but the lack of discussion by conservative Catholics (and Catholic conservatives) — of DCE made me suspect that the Encyclical might have called for a bit too much caritas in the public sphere, or too high a level of commitment to charitable politcal activism by laypeople, for their liking.

What pushed me into actually finding and reading the DCE text, in fact, was Prof. Bainbridge’s discussion last week about the minimum wage, in response to was an article by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, dated April 11, 2006.) (our prior post) Steve’s thoughts were endorsed by Volokh Conspiracy’s Jim Lindgren. At Prof. B’s, VC, and WM, there were dozen of Comments, and the basic tone was so uncharitable and unloving — so miserly and spiteful — regarding the poor in America, that I decided it was time to see if Benedict XVI could help me figure out the issues. What the Pope had to say made my suspicions about a Catholic conservative cover-up appear quite justified.

Is Deus Caritas Est relevant to debates on issues such as minimum wage laws? I believe it absolutely is — for the Catholic faithful and for those who see in the core teachings of Jesus a universal ethics of human connection, interdependence, and responsibility. In summarizing Catholic teaching on caritas and justice, on the roles of both the Church hierarchy and the faithful, the Encyclical calls for an active, engaged commitment among the laity to improve the plight of the poor — not merely through Church institutions and personal acts of charity, but also by using political processes in the public forum. (Such a “distinctively Catholic approach to law and lawyering” is one that Your Editor would welcome at American law schools.)

Here’s what I discovered in Benedict XVI’s first encyclical letter, Deus Caritas Est:

The Letter first addresses at length the subject of God as love. Benedict eventually turns to the topic of “Jesus Christ – the incarnate love of God,” and explains that Jesus has “truly united” love of God and love of neighbor. Benedict explains [para. 16], for example, that through the parable of the Good Samaritan:

“The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized, yet it remains concrete. Despite being extended to all mankind, it is not reduced to a generic, abstract and undemanding expression of love, but calls for my own practical commitment here and now. The Church has the duty to interpret ever anew this relationship between near and far with regard to the actual daily life of her members.”

Benedict closes the section with this reminder:

“Lastly, we should especially mention the great parable of the Last Judgement (cf. Mt 25:31-46), in which love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life’s worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.”

jesus/moneychangers

Before you protest that this pious love-your-neighbor stuff belongs in the context of each Catholic’s personal life, please read on.

Part II of the Letter, titled “Caritas” begins by describing the centrality of charity to the essence of the Church. It then attempts to clarify the relationship between charity and justice. After dismissing the Marxist rejection of charity, Benedict nevertheless states [para. 26] (emphases added):

“It is true that the pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the State and that the aim of a just social order is to guarantee to each person, according to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community’s goods. This has always been emphasized by Christian teaching on the State and by the Church’s social doctrine.

“Historically, the issue of the just ordering of the collectivity had taken a new dimension with the industrialization of society in the nineteenth century. The rise of modern industry caused the old social structures to collapse, while the growth of a class of salaried workers provoked radical changes in the fabric of society. The relationship between capital and labour now became the decisive issue—an issue which in that form was previously unknown. Capital and the means of production were now the new source of power which, concentrated in the hands of a few, led to the suppression of the rights of the working classes, against which they had to rebel.”

After “admitt[ing] that the Church’s leadership was slow to realize that the issue of the just structuring of society needed to be approached in a new way,” the Letter notes that the illusion of a Marxist panacea for injustice has vanished. However [para 27]:

“In today’s complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church’s social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church: in the face of ongoing development these guidelines need to be addressed in the context of dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live.”

An editorial in Catholic Weekly, “A More Excellent Way” (Feb. 13, 2006), explains the Church’s role “with respect to justice”:

[note from your editor:] “Jesus Was a Liberal“

“The letter also makes a familiar and necessary distinction between the charitable work of the church and that of partisan, ideological movements. It affirms that justice is primarily the work of the state.

“With respect to justice, the church’s role is that of teacher and critic. It hands on its social doctrine, guides consciences and helps identify the goals of authentic justice in society. ‘The church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contributions towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically,” Pope Benedict writes.

While not replacing the state, ’she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.’

A similar explanation can be found in Greg Sisk’s posting at Mirror of Justice. The curious mind has to be wondering, “Well, if the Church’s insitutional role in achieving justice — defined by Benedict as “guarantee[ing] to each person, according to the principle of subsidiarity, his share of the community’s goods” — is indirect, who and how will the just society be achieved?

Benedict tells us the Church wants “dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live.” Naturally, he also expects that it is individual Catholics who will be the most receptive, who will have the most highly-enlightened consciences, and will in the forefront in securing justice and social caritas.

How do I know? Not because any conservative weblogger has told me! I know because Benedict tells us explicitly in Deus Caritas Est:

“The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.” [21] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility. [22] Even if the specific expressions of ecclesial charity can never be confused with the activity of the State, it still remains true that charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as “social charity”.[23] (emphases added)

I dare you to find either the sentence “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful,” or the clause “charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as ’social charity,’” in any of the political, economic, or religious commentary and punditry of the leading conservative Catholic webloggers. Indeed, you won’t find them on any obscure weblogs either (except for the Edmund Rice Justice Bulletin, which looks a little lefty to me).

You can learn more about the Catholic notion of “social charity,” and “social justice” here. For example, the Catholic Catechism tells us that “The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.” Also, “Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work.” And, “The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities,” because economic “differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods.”

Of course, any Catholic conservatives (or libertarians) who have read this far are already shaking their heads and thinking: (a) true justice can only come from the free market and its economic principles; (b) charity is a private matter and only the smallest government can be a just government; (c) the American form of government is as just as humankind will ever achieve, and doesn’t need more tinkering — especially of the welfare-state variety; or (d) no matter what you say, it’s immoral to take/tax money that I earn and redistribute it to poor people.

Pope Benedict anticipated such reactions. In DCE, Benedict therefore reminds the Faithful:

The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves. [para 28a]

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics… The problem [what justice is] is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests. [para 28a]

Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.

The Church . . . has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.

[The] Encyclical Ut Unum Sint emphasized that the building of a better world requires Christians to speak with a united voice in working to inculcate “respect for the rights and needs of everyone, especially the poor, the lowly and the defenceless.” [para. 30]

Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs.

The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. Part of Marxist strategy is the theory of impoverishment: in a situation of unjust power, it is claimed, anyone who engages in charitable initiatives is actually serving that unjust system, making it appear at least to some extent tolerable. . . . What we have here, though, is really an inhuman philosophy. People of the present are sacrificed to the moloch of the future—a future whose effective realization is at best doubtful.

Perhaps most tellingly, Benedict tells ideologues of the Left and the Right: “One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes.” [para. 31b]

That’s strong stuff. It seems directly relevant to political issues ranging from the level of the minimum wage, and the creation of universal health care rights, to the treatment of illegal (but otherwise law-abiding) immigrants.

 

When it comes to issues of social justice — and social caritas — it seems clear that Jesus was indeed a Liberal. Living past 30 didn’t change that, and I’m sure the past two millennia haven’t either. The Sermon on the Mount, with its Eight Beatitudes, deserves the full respect of stare decisis. Jesus didn’t have a means test when he distributed the loaves and fishes. When the multitudes were hungry, He fed them — he didn’t tell them to figure out for themselves how to fish, or how to swim.

 

Conservative Catholics like First Things’ Richard John Neuhaus may be disappointed to see Benedict XVI playing the role of pastor now, rather than “enforcer.” But, even old cynics like myself believe that The Job often dictates the role that an incumbent must play. No job calls for the love of pastor and shepherd — and conscience for the faithful — like the papacy. I just hope the faithful are listening to Deus Caritas Est and will choose to live up to its call for political action in the name of social justice and charity.

 

afterthought (April 20): When it comes to feeding (or clothing, sheltering, healing, educating) the poor, the working poor, or even His more-comfortable “neighbors,” Christ was no Cafeteria Catholic. Can we say the same for America’s Catholic conservatives? Are they disappointing Jesus and His current Vicar, Benedict XVI? Are they leaving the social-justice heavy lifting to the non-religious (like myself), who they so often claim can have no solid moral foundation, and to the Liberal Catholics, who they so often deride as not really being Catholic at all?

larger Albany Times Union/Barbara Cummings – see our most-recent discussion of tax whiners:
ghosts of tax days past (Scrooge was surely a tax-whiner)

From the early 19th Century, Japanese Master haijin Kobayashi Issa offers a few closing haiku:

they curse the first snow
like it’s a beggar…
rest stop

 

in vain
the baby bird begs…
a stepchild

 

Great Japan!
even a beggar’s house
has a summer banne

 

even birds
make their nests…
beggars under the bridge

 

autumn wind–
a beggar looking
sizes me up

they must have kids–
bridge beggars
calling fireflies

deutzia tree–
among gods and beggars
it blooms

 

a pretty kite soars
a beggar’s shack
below

Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue