Catalyst

Outrage Before Breakfast!*#%$@&*!

Washington, DC, January 24, 2008

Three news items have given me a furious start on the day.  No need for caffeine.  In case you missed them:

Dateline: The White House.  The Bush administration is pushing to conclude this summer “a long term security agreement” with the Iraqi Administration which would guarantee U.S. military bases and major troop deployments on Iraqi soil for decades to come.  The Iraqi foreign minister speaks of this agreement openly as a treaty, while the Bush Administration insists that it is not a treaty.  Why?  As a treaty, it must, by law, go to the Senate for ratification.  There it will trigger a heated national debate and it will not be ratified.

A treaty it is, going much farther than any other security agreement.  It obligates U.S. forces to resist any unrest that might threaten the current government of Iraq.  This will reinforce the faction of the current government that favors privatizing Iraq’s oil industry.  According to a soon-to-be-released analysis of the Iraq situation by Pax Christi-USA and the Center of Concern (www.coc.org/election2008), this type of “U.S. backing for the Al-Maliki government is viewed as interfering with the possibilities for reaching an Iraqi political solution.”

What this shows the people of the Middle East and should show the citizens of the U.S. is that, despite all the president’s disclaimers, it is about the oil and always has been.  This is clearly not what this country or the world wants or needs.  Unless the national and global uproar can stop this “security agreement” before it gets off the ground, we will have to chalk up one more loss for democracy, transparency in government, and peace.

Dateline: South Carolina Airwaves.  The Clinton campaign aired a new radio ad in South Carolina yesterday repeating the attack on Obama claiming that he admired Ronald Reagan and suggesting he supported Reagan’s economic policies.  This attack has been confronted publically by objective analysts and demonstrated to be categorically wrong.  Senator Obama’s words were taken out of context and misconstrued.

To make that kind of mistake once in the fast pace of a political race could be an honest accident.  But to repeat the charges after they have been so thoroughly discredited and you know they are a distortion is nothing more than a dirty, dishonest political attack.

My vote was Hillary’s to lose.  This type of tactic is just what will cause her to lose it.  If this type of politicking continues, we may well have to chalk up one more loss for integrity in government and leadership for the type of change that can restore the nation to our best values.  I consider the promotion of this new radio ad “One small attack on truth, one large boost to cynicism about U.S. politics.”

Dateline: Capitol Hill.   Congressional leaders this morning signed off on a bi-partisan stimulus package in an effort to stop the slide of the U.S. economy into recession.  Republicans gave up their refusal of tax rebates to lower income families; Democrats gave up their demands for extended unemployment benefits and increased food stamps.  Both embraced a higher-than-expected $70 billion tax break for businesses.

Let’s duck the deluge of hype and the façade of ‘bipartisan compromise’ that are sure to accompany this agreement and reflect honestly for a moment.  It is a well-publicized fact that the food stamps and the extended unemployment benefits would have been the quickest stimulus to the economy.  They could have been implemented quickly and would have provided money that would have been spent immediately.  The tax rebates to individuals and businesses will take 6 months to implement.  The “sense of urgency” to get a political solution here apparently doesn’t translate into a sense of urgency about fiscal stimulus.

Tax stimulus to businesses could promote the creation of new jobs by the Fall, but such tax relief has at least as good a chance of financing investment in technologies that eliminate jobs.  We now have decades of experience with that dynamic.

Those in need of food stamps and unemployment benefits are, of course, the people in our society most vulnerable to harm from an economic downturn.  Our politicians don’t seem to share their sense of urgency about food or shelter or economic security.

Chalk it up as one more case of the most vulnerable in our society being elbowed aside.  Will government of the moneyed, by the moneyed, and for the moneyed never perish from the earth?

Posted by James E. Hug, SJ - President

A Global Vote for the Next U.S. President?

Are you tired of hearing the same old, same old from the candidates during the primary debates?  Do we need some fresh insights?  Important as withdrawal from Iraq is, are there not other pressing foreign policy issues that we need to hear about from the candidates?  Here’s an idea for you.  Everyone in the world should be able to vote for the President of the United States because U.S. policy has such a pervasive and sometimes negative effect of the whole world.  Radical?  But it makes a point and speaks to the (mis)use of U.S. economic, political and military power not only in other countries but also in multilateral institutions.  The debates might get more interesting too, if people from other parts of the world had input.

In an era when the U.S. has ignored its international treaty obligations (think Geneva Conventions and nuclear non-proliferation), tries to manipulate multilateral institutions (think the U.N. Security Council), throws around its military might (think Iraq and Iran), and ignores its global obligations (think climate change), it is no wonder people of the world are saying “basta,”  “enough already.”

A key question, mostly ignored during this Presidential season, is how should the U.S. participate in international relations?  How and when should we engage in multilateral negotiations for the global common good?  What are our obligations to international treaties, those we have signed and those we have not?  What is really in U.S. self-interest in this globalizing world?  Are there limits to national sovereignty?  If so, what are they and when do they become operative?  Does Catholic Social teaching have anything to say to these questions?

And critically, what do our candidates, both republican and democratic, think about these and so many other issues of foreign policy.

Check the Center of Concern’s Election 2008: Voting the Common Good (www.coc.org/election2008)  for some discussion of these key issues in the third issue brief “International Relations: Vote the Global Common Good.”  While you’re there you may also want to check other Election 2008 Resources “Common Good Framework” and “Immigration.”   Be informed, be engage and vote the global common good for the good of all of us.

Posted by Maria Riley, OP - Senior Advisor, Global Women's Project.

Immigration: Cracking Down on "Illegals" or Welcoming Strangers?

I do not understand the passion around the immigration issue in the country today!  And the most venomous anti-immigrant voices with all their denunciations of the so-called “illegals” are coming from people claiming to be religious and Christian!

Without getting into partisan politics, I was particularly disheartened by GOP candidate Fred Thompson’s proposal reiterated in the Republican debate in South Carolina to put an end to the sanctuary movement.

As a Christian theologian and believer, I find this outrageous, practically blasphemous.  What Thompson, and the many others who claim Christ while denunciating "illegals," are actually showing the world is the weakness of their faith.

The heart of the Judeo-Christian message is “Welcome the stranger in your land.  Remember, you were once strangers in a strange land yourselves.”  The core message of the New Testament authors is the forgiving, all-embracing love of God.  Jesus spent his life in ministry to the outcast and was put to death for his insistence on the loving forgiveness of God.

Forgive me for wondering how Protestants (or Catholics for that matter) on the political Right can so easily forget (or ignore) Paul’s insistence that the law does not and cannot save us.

With attitudes like this, we have a long way to go in generating a fruitful and thoughtful discussion on immigration today.

If you’re interested in a different take on immigration, please check out the Center’s new resources on immigration at www.coc.org/election2008.

Posted by James E. Hug, President, Center of Concern.