Mathematics After The Fall

When I registered in Kentucky, I faced a dilemma. Illinois has an election-day open primary. Sure, according to the official rules you has to declare a party to vote in a primary. But, and it’s a big qualifier, you can decide at the polling station! You or I can walk up and say “I’d like to be a Republican today.” The official marks that down, and you or I get a Republican ballot. This allows people like me to officially register as independents, but vote as desired. I consider this an Open Primary.

Kentucky, on the other hand, has a closed primary system. I can’t decide on Election Day which ballot I desire. I had to make a choice when I registered, or by December 31 before the primary. This posed a dilemma, because neither party represents me well. After some consideration, I registered as a Democrat. Part of that is where I live. The Highlands is heavily Democratic, meaning the Democratic primary is far more important. I wanted more voting power. To a small extent, my position is historical. Democrats populate my family, like my parents and my Catholic grandmother. Grandma went to the 1984 Democratic National Convention as a delegate from Pennsylvania. We never really discussed this issue, since I was 13 when she died, but I suspect she was pro-life.

More surprisingly, even as an adult, I’ve generally been Democratic. This surprises a lot of people, because of abortion. It should surprise no one that I strongly support the Consistent Life Ethic. Abortion is homicide, slaughter, murder. The only acceptable number is zero.

The reason and the problem, the real problem, is that I grew up in Pennsylvania, one of the centers of Democrats for Life. In Pennsylvania the parties make more sense. Back in the 1980s, I would have said that the pro-life party in PA was the Democratic party. That was true; over 100 Congressional Democrats in 1978 were pro-life. Now there are perhaps 30. Yet in Pennsylvania, the parties are mixed. According to the National Right to Life website, Democratic Senator Robert Casey has a stronger pro-life record than Republican Arlen Specter. Six of the ten Pennsylvania Democratic Congresspeople caucus with Democrats for Life. (This includes the Representative of my parents, John Murtha. There’s a wry story here. Because my grandmother, my mom’s mom, was an important Democrat, the wedding attracted some attention. As a state Democratic representative, Mr. Murtha sent a gift.)

At least in Pennsylvania, the abortion debate is still open. In many other issues, the Democratic Party protects the weakest. Why does it here? In some ways, abortion is a means to equality, but it’s parity, not justice. Now, women can kill as men do, and they do. That is not the equity I desire. It’s not the equality anyone should desire. I firmly refuse the lesser standard of parity that pro-abortion groups propound. Happy, healthy, loving, intimate relationships don’t need assassination. Much of my professional career is devoted to ways to help women and men nurture happy, healthy, loving, intimate relationships. Why would I ever set a lower goal?

As of this evening, I’m an official paying member of Democrats for Life, though in thought I was long ago.

Yes, I know that title makes little immediate sense. For a few of you, it’s an Easter hymn in Lent. For most of you, it’s that the primary process is nowhere near over. Given the closeness of the contest between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, there are many primary and caucus battles forthcoming. Not knowing until the convention appears increasingly likely. Nevertheless, there is a reason forthcoming.

My Democratic choice is clear: Barack Obama. His speeches are spectacular. His rallies continue to grow. Today, more than 18,000 packed Seattle’s Key Arena for Obama, with another 3,000 forced to wait outside. For him, people voluntarily make good music videos. His capacity to motivate is unmatched in this campaign. Senator Clinton lags behind. I could write about experience and intelligence, but those appear elsewhere. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are both highly intelligent, highly accomplished people, though Obama went to Harvard Law School, while Clinton went to Yale.They both easily achieve the criteria for Congress. Their policy positions are similar. (I do have problems with many policies, which will wait for a general election comparison. Obama receives an advantage in my mind, but it wouldn’t override leadership issues.)

In this contest, there are sharp demographic divides. Blacks support Obama; Hispanics and Asians support Clinton. Females support Clinton more than males. Most importantly, and most interestingly, the generational divide is vast. The gap between Boomers and the younger generations, Gen X and Millenials, has been discussed for years. Now we have reached the key political juncture. When I see a Democratic op-ed, I look for the author’s age. People over 45 are more likely to support Clinton, while those younger tend to support Obama. The Courier-Journal this week published a representative piece. The mother, a female Clinton supporter, is 67; the daughter, a female Obama supporter, is 36.The daughter, Ms. Lorenza Munoz, writes a great statement:

To my mother, Clinton embodies all the struggles women in her generation have faced. Clinton’s intelligence, seasoned political skills and life experience as a wife, mother and career woman have convinced my mother that she is the better candidate. “I had hoped that you would want to help break that glass ceiling, if not for your generation then for your daughter’s,” she said to me the other day. “You are not giving a chance to a woman who has fought against men all her life.”

I admire Clinton; I do not see her as a fighter for the needs of today’s women. To me she inescapably represents the generation whose mantra was “We can have it all.”

That’s not true. We can’t raise kids, have a happy marriage and advance in a killer career at the same time. And I don’t understand why abortion has been the most important issue for feminist leaders of Clinton’s generation, while things like affordable, good-quality day care, equal pay, jobs that have flexible hours and real maternity-leave benefits were put on the back burner.

The Boomer world treated women very differently than the world of many Gen X adults, and almost all Millenials. In the world of current college students, females do better in education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “Women continued to earn more degrees than men in academic year 2002–03, about 58 percent of all degrees. Women earned 60 percent of all associate’s degrees, 58 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, and 59 percent of all master’s degrees.” Thirty-five years ago, during the time of Boomer women, women received about 44 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. Back then, girls needed extra educational support; in the next generation, many places will need what this article from Time describes: affirmative action for boys.

At least in opportunity, my title makes sense. The Strife is largely over. An urban or suburban woman under 25 generally sees women doing better in school. She has plenty of opportunities for exercise and sport. She has few restrictions in clothing or sexuality; every pair of short shorts with a logo across the butt is evidence of personal freedom. She likely attends a college with more women than men.

Instead of barriers, she sees the resources of the world rapidly and wastefully disappearing. Almost all evidence points to increasing temperatures and weather variability; whether caused exclusively, primarily, or trivially by humans, the trends command attention. Gated “communities” with oversized houses are dominated by energy guzzling automobiles. Government dominated by Boomers engages in a massive monetary transfer away from Gen X and Millenials. Instead of program examples, I’ll talk about numbers. The US government has debt of roughly $9,200,000,000,000.00. There are a lot of zeroes in Nine Trillion Dollars. The debt growth pattern has not been linear. As shown on the blue chart below from this debt clock page, from the end of World War II to the early 1980s, the figures remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. Then the Boomers entered politics. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account. The numbers went from about 2 Trillion to 9 Trillion. That obligation is passed onto my generation, and the generation I teach.

The so-called stimulus package, which includes money for seniors that pay no taxes, will be funded by more government debt. The millennial female will get $600 in the summer. For that temporary benefit, which will cost money to print and mail, she’ll get much more than $600 to pay later. Effectively, the Clinton generation purchases their happiness from her. And me.

Is there any wonder people of my age don’t want a dynastic Boomer, warring against Strife already o’er, and stealing our resources to do so?

In an effort to think about the upcoming Presidential race, I decided to examine the stated duties in the primary source, the US Constitution. As you may or may not remember, the Executive Branch comes second, after the Congress, and has a lot less text. And a lot less duties. Section 1 describes qualifications for the rank. The duties appear in Sections 2 and 3:

Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s not very much. I see this as a call for certain qualities.
The President I desire shows leadership. Military command is helpful, but the person should show the ability to command. With that, and the need to receive Ambassadors, commission Officers, and choose Executive Branch leaders, I consider the qualities of a director primary. I look for her or him to have the ability to rally people for a cause, demonstrated integrity, varied experience, wisdom, and honor. That honor is adherence to what is right and proper.

Specific policies are secondary, since they serve only as evidence of adherence to proper ideas. For a member of Congress, policies are primary, since their job is to make bills and laws. That’s not the case here. As I post my thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election, this is my basis. I think.

In three weeks, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate for President, John Kerry. I’ve been asked about this by several people. The pithy answer I’ve given is that “I’d rather vote for a bad man than an evil one.” To work through my thoughts on this important issue, and provide some ideas for other people who may be making their decisions, I thought I’d journalize a little.

In my mind, there are three factors when considering a candidate: policy statements, credibility of statements, and personal honor. The first one is usually easy to determine. The second is important and straightforward; while one might make statements on this or that, what probability exists of followup? What does the record say? The third is a little trickier. One theory of government suggests that a representative is solely an instrument of voting, and personal qualities don’t matter. This seems strange. Lots of issues arise in a House or Senate not in a position paper, and the general principles of a person guide these situations. For an executive, there are also qualities of leadership: Does he motivate well? Does he represent my company, the USA, appropriately? Do we follow him?

Let’s start with the last, because a lot of the hatred in the country arises from this area. There are differences. As young men about my age, Kerry served his country in harm’s way. Bush maneuvered into a comfy assignment, then performed at most the minimum requirements of that duty, with a puzzling gap. Kerry came back and became a well-spoken advocate, including the famous line “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Bush has a hazy history of never-denied drug use and a drunken driving arrest. Given my stance on alcohol, DUI is a really big thing. Kerry served as a public prosecutor. Bush served as a baseball owner, a job acquired suspiciously, and hung around with oil barons. In character, I prefer the Northerner.

As little as I like the Texan, character is not sufficient to overcome big policy differences. Let’s move to issues. I’ll begin with the most talked about set, life issues, abortion (with euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research). Several bishops have stated that my vote for Kerry puts me outside the state of grace necessary for Communion. This is a very interesting and innovative doctrine, in the sense that it contradicts a whole lot of tradition. For instance, the current Pope personally gave communion to a leader of the Italian pro-abortion movement three years ago, and I doubt the Pope is supportive of abortion rights. Cardinal Ratzinger, another person not known for liberalism, provided background in a note reprinted in
L’espresso. Ratzinger concludes, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

There are three critical points here. First, life issues are very important. Ratzinger notes that they are more important than the general issue of war, or the death penalty. Second, I do not support abortion. I’m trying to assist in bringing speakers to illuminate the Catholic position, and hold a large prayer service on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. That decision was two years less one day before I was born. Third, the standard of “Proportionate Reasons” is fairly difficult to meet. Proportionate Reasons are an Objective (or intrinsic) moral evil of equivalent gravity. Both size and badness are important.

For instance, the application of the death penalty by Bush while he was Governor is not sufficient. State-sanctioned cold-blooded murder is not uniformly prohibited by Catholic thought (although it is in mine); in the case where such tactics are needed to protect society, the action is permissible. Nevertheless, the application in Texas does not meet this standard. Jails are quite sufficient; were there really over 150 needs to protect society? Furthermore, the Texas judicial system applies the penalty in a capricious and unfair manner. The evil might be objective, even. But the sheer count is not equivalent to over a million a year. Instead, let’s look at three real reasons.

1. Voting for Bush is not fully pro-life with the Church position. The President has repeatedly suggested an exception for force or health.
   CNN’s Voter Guide explicitly states this, which also came up in a 2000 primary debate and the NARAL guide for 2000. His decision on
   stem cell research can best be described as Solomonic. Despite Republican control of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, very little progress has been made. It is difficult to take abolition statements credibly. In last Friday’s debate, the President resorted to code words about Dred Scott instead of outright elimination when he had the chance. Tonight, Bush refused to directly answer the question about Roe v Wade, twice. Voting for the Texan is proportionate reasons anyway, making the debate impure from the start.
2. The occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein did many evil things, including the use of chemical weapons in the 1980s and the invasion of Kuwait. The world is better with him not in power. Nevertheless, the justification and methods were both highly improper. The administration’s justifications have fallen like dominoes. Material cooperation with al-Qaeda? False. Weapons of Mass Destruction? False. What is it now, corruption in the oil-for-food program? If I recall, false witness is one of those commandment things, and thus objective moral evil. Torture is intrinsic moral evil, too. Most importantly, failing to provide adequate support and protection for the Iraq population is objective moral evil. Iraq has over 20 million people, and right now one cannot say they have a functioning government or adequate safety. That’s clear moral evil. It’s of proportionate scale. If not, how big a country would we need to ravage? Iran? Italy? Indonesia? India?
3. Market fundamentalism. Over a century of Catholic moral teaching has explicitly talked about the evils inherent in some types of business practice. Practices that reduce humans to units of production, the “economic man” hypothesis, are inherently evil. They deny faith by collapsing everything to rationality. To me, the preface to Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad may have caused more damage than Roe v Wade. (Go look it up.) The multinational corporation, acting without personal responsibility, is incredibly dangerous. Treating money numerically, without considering the lives of those behind the decisions, denies humanity. We’ve seen the problems of Asian currency destruction, Long Term Capital Management, Enron, and Arthur Andersen. World economics is a large enough scale to be proportionate.
   It’s very easy to ignore these problems, because they don’t necessarily affect daily life. The supporters even appear benign, since they make no direct challenge to religion. I speak out against the economists, and the Kapitalists, which the Bush administration supports. Market fundamentalism is agnostic, since it doesn’t care about God or reduces the Lord to cost-benefit analysis. I consider that objective moral evil. How is that Christian?