The Dog Responds to Reader

A thoughtful reader provided some interesting feedback on the Pope Musings of last month. The Dog and I have not had much time to provide the reflective response that the feedback has deserved. When we have had time, we have forgotten that we still had that base to cover. Anyway, we opened up a box of dog treats and some Indian food from a local restaurant last night, and re-read the feedback. So here goes.

The reader began noting considerately that the posting had allowed him the opportunity to, in his words, “hold a mirror up to myself and to explore how I could feel such thorough respect for someone with whom I often disagreed strongly”, referring to Pope John Paul II. We appreciate that sentiment, as we think the same way. But too often, positions on issues seem to be based on reasons other than what right or wrong. It is difficult to respect people who clearly do not take their stands on issues based on their view of right and wrong.

For example, John Kerry last week voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So now he can say he voted for it, before he voted against it, before he voted for it. If John Kerry really was against the war during the campaign, as he said he was, then he should have remained consistent and voted against it again. If he was not against the war, then he was simply posturing during the campaign to energize his left wing base. The evidence suggests that unlike John Paul II, Kerry takes positions on life-and-death matters based on tactical political considerations, rather than on his core beliefs.

Just the other day, Kerry was in the newspapers condemning the proposal to close the Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, saying, “Otis is the number one base for homeland defense on the entire East Coast. . . . It simply makes no sense to close Otis in the post 9/11 world."

Otis (not to be confused with Otis the Frog Boy) is an F-15 base, and John Kerry recommended canceling the F-15 program in 1984. If John Kerry had his way, there wouldn’t even be an Otis Air Force base to close. John Kerry is not an example of the kind of man I can respect in a political disagreement. I do respect someone like Harry Truman (sorry to have to go that far back) because he actually believed that expanding the New Deal and forming the United Nations were the right things to do. I oppose both of these policies in general, but I respect Truman as a man. (This is an ironic example, because Truman couldn’t have been elected to the Senate if today’s standards were in place in the late 1930s, due to his ties to the Pendergast machine in Kansas City.)

Is there anyone else I can respect? Well, yes. On a personal level I have certain friends, including the reader, whose opinions I respect because they are thoughtful and come from a good place. I am always open to someone showing me how I might be wrong. But the political views promulgated by contemporary politicians seem to come less and less from a view toward what is best for the country and humanity at large. Too often, policy positions are based on what is good for the party, special interests, or worse, blind hatred toward people who hail from a different segment of society. The Democrat Party, as much as I can’t stand its current incarnation, is not unique in this regard. The Republicans can end sugar quotas tomorrow if they wanted to, but they won’t. The Central American Free Trade Agreement should be fast tracked as soon as possible, but it won’t be. I do, however, believe that the leftists in this country exhibit far more hatred toward conservatives than the other way around.

Hillary Clinton, oddly enough, is attempting to position herself as a reasonable person who actually bases her opinions on right and wrong. I can’t believe that I am writing this, but compared with Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and John Dean, she actually looks like a grown-up. If she can avoid outbursts in front of her extreme constituents, she may actually have a chance in 2008. Our money is on George Allen, though.

The reader also asks, “Is simply not caring what your detractors have to say always the best way to go?” No. I might have put that too starkly. Any good leader should consider all reasonable points of view. But I chose the word “detractor”, instead of “adversary” for a reason. A detractor is someone who attacks the person in question ad hominem. An adversary is someone who attacks the ideas put forth by the other person. A good leader listens to arguments against his ideas, but ignores the personal attacks. Harry Reid called George Bush a “loser” last week. Al Gore says he "betrayed" the American people. Kerry said Bush "F'ed up" Iraq (he used the original vernacular in Rolling Stone). When was the last time you heard George Bush refer to an opposing political leader with such language?

Policies should be based on certain bedrock principles. Those values should rarely change. If they do, they should evolve slowly and deliberately. Some of my core beliefs are: free markets are the best way of allocating resources and should be regulated with a light hand; rule of law – not of men - is the foundation of a successful society. People should be rewarded for working hard and taking risks, and not be given incentives to not work. Evil in the world exists all around us, and can only be defeated through strength and the credible threat of violence – whether from a policeman's or homeowner’s handgun, or from a B-52. (Some of the Dog’s core beliefs are: all squirrels are bad and should be chased; all dogs should be taken for a walk at least once a day; and the sofa is always more comfy than the dog bed. )

Our reader stated that my thinking was “inconsistent was when you were castigating American Catholics for criticizing (John Paul II) for not changing his views while at the same time criticizing America for imposing its views on the world. You called this hypocrisy. I don't see that. I see that as consistent, criticism of the Pope and criticism of America for unyielding positions and actions in world affairs. Again, maybe I didn't follow your thinking, but I took issue with that.”

My argument here may need restating. I was pointing out a double standard that I doubt many left wing American critics of the Catholic Church have considered. American leftists criticize America for imposing its views on the world. I understand that position, and it is a good basis for a debate. But at the same time, the same people criticize the Catholic Church for not reforming to align with the values of modern, American Catholics.

Catholics in most of the rest of the world, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Southern Europe, are far more conservative in their religious beliefs and follow Catholic dogma to a much greater extent than the average American Catholic does. So who are we to impose our values on the rest of the world? I don’t argue that the American Catholic’s viewpoints are wrong, per se, I just find it to be a double standard if at the same time they criticize us for promulgating freedom in the world. That is why part of my thesis is that if an American Catholic doesn’t like the core values and teaching of the Church, he or she might want to consider whether they are in the right church. If it is hubris to tell the rest of the world that they should adopt US-style democracy, isn’t it also hubris to tell the rest of the world to adopt US-style religious standards? I argue that the average person in Central America would be more upset with the US if Americans forced the Catholic Church to permit abortion on demand than they are about our opposition to the Kyoto Treaty.

The reader closed with the declaration, “And let the record show that the left has no monopoly on hypocrisy.” The Dog has so entered that statement into the record.