Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Very odd indeed.

I am tired of people giving equal weight to issues such as abortion and the environment. The 2003 DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger of the CDF makes that perfectly clear.

If Senator Obama were pro-life, then I could respect Kmiec’s decision. Absent that, no Catholic should ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate, no matter their views on other parts of Catholic social doctrine.

Well, Doug’s a serious scholar, but as for his political analysis, consider that, as you note, he said he didn’t want someone who was “faking” conservative principles—and supported Romney.

He may just not like McCain: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/03/kmiecal_reactions.php

Plenty of conservatives don’t like McCain, including this blog’s owner.

Call me a cynic, but somehow I think Barack Obama’s campaign ... “got to” this loud Catholic Kmiec.  I wonder if he’s a convert; most born n bred Catholics are comfortable enough in their religion not to publicly proclaim it so often (no offense Bainbridge) and they understand that what is borne in the soul is much more important than that publicly professed.  Plus, the evangelization—the need to convince others, Catholic or not—of the beliefs in their own teachings is absent in the confident Catholics, I think.

I won’t say he was paid or promised a position, but we’ve seen that Obama though inexperienced is indeed a politician through and through—his joining the “black” church, he admits in the book, was as a “helper” to his political career.  So let’s not take steps to make the man a saint just yet.

If the Democrats want to win, they go with Hillary, who indeed has the best shot at McCain.  Kmiec really has nothing to lose—if Obama wins and he was promised, Kmiec wins.  If Obama loses, Kmiec wins in that the Republican traditions and values that seem more akin to his own, also win.

Ok, ok… call me a cynic.  But a wise one, naturally!

I had never heard of Doug Kmiec before today.

And if he had endorsed McCain, I wouldn’t have seen it discussed all over the place today.

Well, Marx was right about one thing - Religion IS the opiate of the masses.

He was obviously stung by Obama’s reference to his grandmother as a typical white person.

I keep looking for some of that wonderful Obama rhetoric, but all I hear is platitudes and vagueries.

Frankly, I was so perplexed at this “conversion” that I must call into question the thought processes of Mr. Kmiec.  If he honestly wants a Democratic victory to set the table for a conservative resurgence in 2010, 2012 and 2014, then he should say so.  If he really thinks that President Obama would be better for his interests than President McCain, then clearly he is either not a conservative or is terribly confused.

No, religion is not the opiate of the masses.

Pro sports is. Football (oval or round varieties) particularly.

I think it’s reasonably plausible to think that Obama has a good Presidential personality, able to listen and look for plausible and acceptable ways to get a lot of people on board, and that Romney did, too, and that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain does.

That’s broadly my thought process, in thinking that if I face a Clinton-McCain choice, I will go for McCain - neither has a good Presidential personality, and McCain is closer to my views.  And I have not decided what I will do if/when I have to choose between Obama (considerably to my left, but a good personality for the job) and McCain.

If Prof. Kmiec had said that he believed that ending the war was a moral imperative that trumps all other issues, and left it at that, I could understand. That would be a coherent, if highly contestable, position.  It’s the rest of his endorsement that doesn’t make sense. How can such an intelligent man write that he expects Obama to “cast his net widely” so he can appoint people of “open-minded views?”

There are many sensible reasons for someone to have a Romney>Obama>McCain set of preferences.  Just none of them are consistent with Kmiec’s stated set of preferences, unless he’s found Cass Sunstein very persuasive, but then he should be forthright and say he was incorrect to support Romney. 

Dave S., one can certainly argue that McCain is incapable of being president, but then that reflects poorly on Kmiec’s 2000 endorsement.

I’m not usually a stickler for spelling, but in this case the very least thing you could do is spell Barack Obama’s name right in your first mention of him.

Personally, I think that Kmiec started with the premise that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, vote for McCain.  I understand that, I’m in the same situation.  So he was looking at the Democrat candidates and trying to decide if either of them was worthy enough to actually vote for them, instead of sitting the election out.  And looking at Obama he’s decided that, on net, he’s just barely good enough to vote for.

I think he’s deluded himself, but I understand how he got there.

Short answer: Hair.

Long Answer: Make a choice based entirely on physical attractiveness and use extensive education to rationalize the choice.

I’m with Bob R.  Preppiness is the attractor, Obama finishing second to Romney on that score.

As to Kmiec’s claims about pre-emptive war, he might at least acknowledge that there were significant differences of opinion among Catholic thinkers on that score.  To suggest that there is only one right answer, and he’s got it, is darn close to the famous “everyone knows,” meaning “I can’t prove it but all my friends think so.”

Could be a simple case of looking out for self-interests. He thinks Obama is going to win it all and he wants a job in the new administration and is unprincipled enough to do a 180 without a blush.

Kmiec was pimping Harriet Miers 24/7 during that fiasco: TV, radio, NPR, News Hour, etc. Just one guy with great people judgment recommending another guy with great people judgment, wright?

Iraq could not be a preemptive war (and George did say it wasn’t) since we had been at war (non preemptively) with Iraq since 1991.  We had troops on its territory and aircraft overhead for 12 years.  A resumption of an existing war after violation of a temporary cease fire by one party is not preemptive.

Is “the church’s social teaching on wages, education, issues of family, culture, responsibility toward the environment, the reduction of mindless or excess consumption” to be implemented at the point of a gun? Just once a millennium I’d like to see one of these “good catholics” speak up on where the virtue lies in seizing goods against the owners’ will, to support bureaucracies dedicated only in principle to wages, education, &c;. The Church is welcome to exhort me to give, serve and share. The one who seizes my livelihood to accomplish this is no Catholic, but a socialist, and my foe no matter which way his collar turns.

I think the case that the Iraqi invasion was not justified bu Catholic just war theory is quite solid, and without serious opposition.

That being said, how that would make Romney the candidate of choice continues to escape me.

Actually, I’m beginning to wonder if he was placed in Romney’s camp for another reason other than helping him win the nomination. Since Mitt has quit the race, it appears he has chosen an appropiate time to return to person he was actually supporting all the time. Just a thought!

Re.:  “Is “the church’s social teaching on wages, education, issues of family, culture, responsibility toward the environment, the reduction of mindless or excess consumption” to be implemented at the point of a gun?”

No.
When one of Jesus’ followers tried to protect him in the garden by cutting off a soldier’s ear, the story goes, Jesus reattached it, turned to his friend and said, “No.  Not like that.”

Catholics believe we’re all free to accept—or reject—Christ’s teachings.  It’s the choice we make in our beliefs that free us and provide the richer life.  And we can’t make those choices for others, anymore than we can “earn” our way in.  (The purgatory teaching is pretty much history, and the plenary indulgences and penances and rules can be thought of more as guidelines that will only help you in enriching your faith.) Either you accept and “get” the message and all the goodness that flows from it, or you don’t and you ultimately lose out.  But force somebody into goodness by telling them what to do with their own property, or taking it by force?  Not the true Catholic way.  We can hope, teach, provide examples, advocate, encourage, and help lead the way, but we can’t do the work for somebody else, or cut off their ears because they don’t hear the message.  No.

Re. opiates:  seems to me those truly religious people are doing more in more small ways than all the drugged out, turned off people who either preach empty promises, or give up and give in, knocking the choices of others.  Of course, they’re free to do so, just as the angry are free to blame religion for all their own troubles.

Prof. Bainbridge:

In Barack Obama’s brief stint in the Senate, he had the opportunity to vote on both Roberts and Alito’s nominations. He voted no on both.

Worse than that, actually, he voted to filibuster Alito.

Skip:

Personally, I think that Kmiec started with the premise that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, vote for McCain.  I understand that, I’m in the same situation.

I take it, then, that you either didn’t vote for McCain in 2000 or now admit you made a mistake in doing so.  Kmiec has done neither, and it’s not as though McCain himself has changed all that much from then to now.  Kmiec simply cannot be taken seriously.

Yup, I didn’t vote for him in 2000.  Although at the time it was more because he seemed, well, just a little nutty like Perot.  With Bush I had low expectations, but I didn’t expect him to actively make things worse.  I expected him to be basically ineffective and I was OK with that.

With McCain this time around I think he will make things actively worse, and enough so that it may be better for him to lose so we can possibly get someone in to start repairing things in 4 years.

From what I read I think Prof. Kmiec simply does not understand what a hard core leftist Obama really is. Obama is in fact the hardest left candidate in National politics since Henry Wallace. He does not hide it very much either. His speeches are full of sound and fury signifying nothing, but if you stay focused through them, you will eventually hear that Obama wants socialism at home and surrender abroad.

Now Prof Kmiec may not like McCain, but that does not mean he should back Obama. There is a lot to be said for staying home and keeping your mouth shut.

Kmiec probably looked at Romney’s real life record - where he’s been a moderate who only paid lip service to the bizarre beliefs of the wackaloon right - and figured he’d be a competent president, something we haven’t had since January 20, 2001.  Kmiec probably has a genuine regard for this country, unlike most movement conservatives, and he’d rather see someone with real ability as president than follow the dictates of his party.  He looked at the GOP field first, and picked Romney.  With Romney out of the way, he sees Obama as a better bet than John McCain, who is entering his second childhood and can’t keep his facts straight.

It’s no big mystery.

Preach, Comatus!
To Mary: I agree with what you said regarding the will, but I think you missed Comatus’ point. In order to make wages “just” or provide education, government must use force. To provide public education, government must take money from one person and give it to another. In order to enforce a minimum wage, government must use force to prevent a firm from offering a lower wage and a potential employee from accepting a lower wage. I think public schools are a waste of money and are destroying the minds of our youth. But if I were to reduce my taxes in protest, I would be fined and if continue to resist, jailed, and should I continue to resist, killed.
If the Catholic Church believes that government should provide these things, it tacitly sanctions violence. Read Frederic Bastiat’s The Law for a clearer exposition of “legal plunder.”

Perhaps Doug drank some of Andrew Sullivan’s Koolaid…

Kmiec should have indulged himself with one of Professor Bainbridge’s prized Cabs! 

Or perhaps a fine Feddie bourbon!

I despise McCain as well, but I’m voting for him. Better that than an outright marxist like Hillary or Barack. Christians--and I am one--are too easily confused by lefty rhetoric. The so-called similarities between Christianity and Marxism are only apparent--not real.

An article appeared in the Weekend WSJ a couple weeks ago about college kids spending their Spring breaks working for the Obama or Clinton campaigns instead of boozing it up or working.  Almost all of them asserted that they had convinced their Republican fathers to support their chosen Democratic candidate. 

I don’t know anything about Kmiec’s family, but it wouldn’t strike me as improbable that the same dynamic might apply here (if such persuasion is commonplace).  It would explain Kmiec’s baffling logic.  I make no representations about the WSJ article; the reporter may have been too lazy to verify the abrupt parental political conversions.

From what I read I think Prof. Kmiec simply does not understand what a hard core leftist Obama really is. Obama is in fact the hardest left candidate in National politics since Henry Wallace.

Seriously. Maybe Kmiec fell and suffered brain damage or something.  It’s even stranger than the goofy Paulbots who jumped ship for Obama.  Or maybe he’s gone all David Brock.  Oh well, win some, lose some.  We’ll get more than we lose in the end.  (Sorry, I know this isn’t McCain turf, but I have hope that y’all will come around by November.)

GAWD, now Fox News has teh Obamessiah on the tube.  MUTE!

@King Diamond:  Love the nom de blog.

"Better that than an outright marxist like Hillary or Barack.”

Oh, brother.

I noted this myself and came to a conclusion:

Ultimately the audacity of hope has manifested in Kmiec’s writing as the rhodomontade and drivel of the intellectual.

http://thekeymonk.blogspot.com/2008/03/senseless-sensibilities-doug-kmiec-file.html