The Political Consequences of Justice Kavanaugh's Confirmation

It has been a little over a month since the beginning of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process, and the fiasco is finally over. The 50-48 vote in favor of his confirmation on the Senate floor on Saturday, October 6th, brought him into the Supreme Court’s fold. This confirmation process has further accentuated the sharp divide between the political Right and the Left, given that the sexual assault allegations levied upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh were the main focus of the process: not from a sense of moral right and wrong, but from a political standpoint. Whether the allegation was true or false, Democrats, and particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein, clearly used the allegation of sexual assault made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as a political ploy. Their intent was to delay the floor vote on confirming Kavanaugh or to destroy his nomination before even making it there. At the same time, Senate Republicans claimed that the Democrats were pushing false claims against Kavanaugh. They stated that the Democrats, rather, were willing to take advantage of Dr. Ford in order to obtain a political advantage. Senate Republicans also attempted to push Kavanaugh’s confirmation to a vote before an official FBI investigation could take place into the sexual assault allegations, but were only stopped by Senator Jeff Flake, a pivotal vote in the confirmation. Flake stated that he was uneasy about voting for Kavanaugh before an FBI investigation could better ascertain whether the accusations were justified. Senator Flake’s move was a last-ditch effort to achieve some sort of unity between the members of both parties, but unfortunately, it failed; the ensuing FBI investigation became a major source of contention between the two sides, particularly in regards to its time restriction and scale. Regardless, the investigation seemingly found nothing that would potentially disqualify Kavanaugh from being placed on the Supreme Court. He was confirmed in the Senate almost completely on party lines. Only one Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, went against the rest of his party and voted in favor of Kavanaugh.

While the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh certainly has a conservative impact on American politics as a whole in the coming decades, it is uncertain what effects his confirmation will have on the upcoming midterm elections – especially congressional elections – in November. While the house was certainly expected to flip to Democratic control, the confirmation of Kavanaugh actually raises more questions about the upcoming elections than answers. Could Kavanaugh’s confirmation, another promise Donald Trump made on the 2016 campaign trail, be enough to energize the Republican base to vote with hearts reaffirmed by his kept promises? Or could this be what the Democrats needed, riling up their voting base’s anger at a Republican Party which they perceive does whatever it takes to keep hold of political power? It’s difficult to tell, however, whether the defeat in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight will raise or lower enthusiasm for Democratic voters in this election cycle. According to a Gallup Poll taken on September 27th, both parties’ voters are expressing a the highest enthusiasm for voting since 1994, with Democrats at 61 percent enthusiasm and Republicans at 58 percent. The most important figure, however, may not even have anything to do with the Democrats. The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll has just been released, showing President Donald Trump at a 51-percent approval rating among likely voters a day before the confirmation vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Odds are, that number will rise among conservative voters even further now that the Supreme Court has a solidified conservative majority. With a majority of Republicans aligning themselves with the President, it’s quite likely that with Trump’s increased approval rating, Republicans across the board may receive a bit of a bump in votes in their respective races.

At the same time, the Democrats have developed a tumultuous discord among their own party, with many Democrats adamantly opposed to appointing Nancy Pelosi, the current Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, as Speaker of the House.

Many Democratic nominees are being judged by voters with regard to their stances on Nancy Pelosi, which may very well lead to some lost votes from Democratic voters in close races during the midterms. This focus, combined with the red-state/red-district Democrats who voted against Kavanaugh in the confirmation vote, will make these toss-up races more interesting, because it may give a slight edge to Republicans running against Democrats in those districts.

However, the Republicans aren’t necessarily going to escape the Kavanaugh confirmation unscathed. Many voters on the Left will consider the confirmation of Kavanaugh as a violent push-through of an immoral man into the most important court in the land. This could ramp up the animosity that the Democrats already hold towards the Republicans, whipping them up into a frenzy that could cause some Republicans trouble in the polls in November. However, with President Trump’s approval rating as high as it is among those likely to vote, it may be difficult for the potential Democratic wave to take back as many seats in the house as they plan.

In all, the most likely case is that the Republicans will still lose control of Congress, albeit by many fewer seats than most expect, and they will keep a hold over the Senate, which is less contested, in this election cycle. Although many are expecting the Democrats to make huge gains in this cycle, there are simply too many factors in favor of the Republicans to completely write them off as losing double-digit seats in the upcoming elections. While many still hate the President and his political party, enough of the American people still stand behind him and the promises he has kept to his supporters. They could feasibly carry a few more Republicans to wins than most voters might think. The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, arguably the most important of President Trump’s promises, will certainly help Republicans to increase their approval ratings; these will, in turn, help with their election chances. Whichever way the elections in November go, the impact of Kavanaugh’s confirmation will certainly have a strong presence in politics for years to come. 

The Sexual Revolution: What Went Wrong

It seems that we are starting to subtly backpedal on many of the leaps towards progress we have made in recent history (particularly the 20th century) because we realize what we once thought was progress is actually destructive. The Sexual Revolution, in particular, stands out as a prime example of a reach for respect and equality that, in many aspects, took those virtues away. Many components of the Sexual Revolution have led to some of the most challenging problems people, and specifically young adults, face.

First, one of the most visible effects of the Sexual Revolution is the widespread acceptance and prescription of “The Pill.” While the benefits and risks are widely debated, the medical community has accepted the birth control pill as Gospel. They use it as a band-aid solution for additional issues young women deal with while simultaneously promoting it as the most legitimate form of contraception (second only to the IUD). If so many women are on the pill, what is the problem? For one, many women begin taking birth control hormones as teenagers; according to one study done by Reuters, approximately “eighteen percent of teenage women ages 13 to 18 filled prescriptions for oral contraceptives in 2009.” The first time a doctor recommended hormonal birth control to me, I was twelve. Young women are hardly developed before they begin to take regular doses of hormones, which many of them will take for years on end. We do not even like to drink hormones in our milk, so why does it make any sense to put regular doses of hormones into our bodies for years without blinking? For many, the answer is fear.

Second, that fear of pregnancy and loss of respect for motherhood can also be accredited to the Sexual Revolution. While unplanned pregnancy was one of the great fears that led to the development of birth control and, in part, the Sexual Revolution, the irony of it all is that women are more afraid of an unplanned pregnancy than ever. The Women’s Movement that coincided with the Sexual Revolution put women in the workplace, which is monumental and ought to be appreciated. But the culture of working women led to many people looking down on motherhood as less than a career - as if women are not living up to their potential or succeeding if they become mothers. Young women are so afraid to have children because there is glory in a career, but shame in early motherhood.

Third, another destructive component of the Sexual Revolution is the liberal view of sexual relationships that led to modern day “hookup culture.” The increasingly lax view of sex has perpetuated it in the form of casual one-night stands. Attempting to eliminate emotions from sex has caused feelings around it, committed relationships, and interactions with the opposite sex to warp. Emotions only become more confusing and misunderstandings more likely to happen, especially if snapchat usernames are exchanged. As a result, kids are growing up with sexual pressure coming at them from all sides. Part of hookup culture is the expectations that society and we, ourselves, place on our peers and friends. Women are expected to have sex, but not too much sex. Men compete with their peers to be seen as sexually, and therefore, generally, competent. As a result, we are all boxed into some kind of shame, while our sexual actions and abilities are examined as some sort of measure of our value as people. This is why millenials do not have a clear idea of true feminine and masculine virtues. These virtues have been twisted into things that become toxic: in hookup culture, we are all just using each other.

Fourth, an offshoot of hookup culture is one of the most well-known effects of the Sexual Revolution: the increasing occurrence of sexually-transmitted diseases. It is estimated that one in four college students will contract an STD during their time at school. I mean, yikes. So gross. Nothing more to say about that one.

Fifth, there is less respect for religion, the sanctity of marriage, committed relationships, the unborn, and women. Things that we once saw as sacred are now seen as disposable, for they do not align with the way people want to have sex. Just like everything else in a culture of instant gratification, we want pleasure like our fast food (immediately! yesterday!), or if we are particularly patient, our Amazon Prime shipping (two days is tolerable, same-day is preferred). When we treat sex and love in this way, we cheapen it, we make it less valuable. We dilute the greatness of marriage when we try to imitate it, only resulting in a knock-off. When we women try to “have sex like men” we are just exhausting and hurting ourselves to even the score, just to say we are “equal.”

Sixth, a sub-effect of viewing people as disposable is a normalization of abortion, and therefore, an increase in abortion. According to the World Health Organization, approximately  40 to 50 million people are aborted each year; 125,000 people are aborted each day. This is the world’s greatest poverty; we run a 125,000 person deficit each day worldwide. The selfishness on part of our culture, large institutions with larger lobbying budgets, and the media prey on terrified women in difficult situations.

Seventh, and last, is another sub-effect of the objectification of people as a means to an end: rape culture. When we start to treat each other as disposable and worthless, we step into dangerous territory. People are complex, multi-dimensional, and full of value and potential for greatness. When we look at anyone and simply see an opportunity to fulfill our sexual desires, it is a massive oversight of the value another person carries. When we see other people as objects, our culture loses its humanity.

So, what are we to do? We should backpedal on destructive activities and change what we can to create a healthier view of sex in society. For example, the medical community should be encouraged to explore holistic medical treatment for ailments young women face. Natural Family Planning should be more accessible to all people and recognized as the credible pregnancy prevention and health tracking method it is. We need to start talking about sex and sexuality in a way that does not pose sex and morality as mutually exclusive. We must reframe sexual education so that it can be informative and not posed as a battle between abstinence and “Godless” sexual teaching. We have to start appreciating mothers for what they are: heroes who shape human beings through hard work and endless effort. We must start respecting each other, regardless of sexual rumors and reputations on college campuses. And, most importantly, we must make a conscious effort to view people as full of worth rather than just sexual potential.

These are big problems that require big changes, but if respect grows, so can solutions. Perhaps the “modern woman” will not have to use people to feel equal to men, and men will not use people to feel manly.

Catholicism and Secularism in Europe's Public Square

In early April, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech to his country’s bishops, urging them to use their Catholic faith to engage France’s political system. Macron’s speech comes amid debate over several controversial issues, like in vitro fertilization for lesbian couples and the future of euthanasia. It’s especially remarkable since Macron is no supporter of the Church’s teachings on either issue.  Nonetheless, he finds the Catholic voice valuable in the public square. In that regard, his statement has implications for political life beyond the Fifth Republic.

Macron’s viewpoint would be controversial in America.  In France, it’s about as revolutionary as the guillotine.  France prides itself on its secularism, and has for many year.s In 2004, the French government made it illegal to wear “conspicuous” religious symbols in government operated schools, which meant young Muslim girls couldn’t wear head coverings in public schools.  More recently, the 2016 “Burkini Ban” saw armed police force a Muslim woman to remove her clothing on the beach, for “not respecting secularism.”

The United States is not so tyrannically secular, but many Americans are quick to downplay the importance of faith in making political decisions. People give two key reasons for this decision. First, they argue that the First Amendment calls for a separation of church and state. Trouble is, it doesn’t. Instead, it asserts that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The purpose of the amendment was not to ban religious people from politics, but to prevent the government from establishing its own church or persecuting specific religious groups.

Second, people justify strict ideological secularism by arguing against imposition. In other words, they claim that while they personally believe in a particular religious doctrine, they don’t want to impose this view on others. Yet society has no hesitation about condemning other evils, like murder, theft, or child abuse. We have no qualms about telling people that something is wrong if we truly believe it is wrong. Personal opposition is just indecision, fear, or a lack of moral conviction dressed up as politeness. People are afraid they may be wrong, or they are afraid of being stigmatized or condemned for holding a belief that modern, liberal society deems unacceptable. And so they stay silent, depriving the public square of clear voices, informed by conscience and a sense of the common good.  In that regard, Macron’s speech serves as a call to action for religious people across the West.

In a diagnosis that is also applicable to America, Macron said, “What strikes our country is… not only the economic crisis, it is relativism, it is even nihilism.” In a world full of violence, confusion, pain, and nothingness, people are desperate “to hear from another perspective on man than the material perspective.” The Church can provide this perspective since it has a “voice which still dares to speak of man as a living spirit.”  If this is true in France, is it not truer in America?

The world suffers, obviously.  Our politics becomes ever more divisive, people on both sides of the aisle are concerned with “fake news,” and the #MeToo movement has revealed the prevalence of sexual assault in this country. Marriages are falling apart, there’s a raging opioid crisis, and it’s very possible that Kanye West will run for president. People can’t even talk about disagreements anymore, because everyone is furious and we don’t even agree about what truth is.  What we’re doing isn’t working.

This political moment needs the Catholic voice. We need a voice that is going to stand up and speak out. We need people to emerge from behind the façade of correctness in order to stand for truth.

This may be interpreted by some as a pointed attack on a particular political group. It isn’t. Because if Macron got one thing right, it’s that everyone needs to hear the Catholic perspective. This isn’t about Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. The Church’s perspective transcends those divisions. It offers an entirely countercultural message. That’s why this is so difficult for some people. News reporters would love to claim that Pope Francis is basically a Democrat. He isn’t a Democrat. He’s a Catholic. And to confine the ideological richness of Catholicism to one political movement robs it of its universality. That said, not every vote is justifiable.

The teachings of the Church aren’t easy. No one said they would be. That isn’t an excuse to disregard them. On top of that, too many people write off difficult teachings because they don’t understand them. So do your homework. Figure out why the Church teaches what it teaches. The result will often be more logical, applicable, rational and convincing than you ever imagined.

But bear this in mind, too: you can justify anything. You can even warp the Bible or Church teaching to do it. Just because some rogue theologian supports gendercide abortions doesn’t make them Christian doctrine. Find credible theologians, papal documents, and legitimate reasons that explain the truth, goodness, and beauty of Catholic teaching. And then go out into the world and be the hands and feet of Christ.

At the end of the day, we simply have to step back and realize we don’t have all the answers. Maybe, just maybe, the Church can help us out.

Core Principles

Since its foundation in 1843, the College of the Holy Cross has dedicated itself to educating young men and women in the Jesuit tradition. The core of the Jesuits’ humanistic mission has been to educate people in a variety of subjects, theories, and points of view. Through this community of open expression and free intellectual debate, students and people learn not only about opposing views, but also how to question and strengthen their own deeply held beliefs. 

Without this free exchange of ideas, the liberal arts mission becomes corrupted, as students self-censor their speech or become reluctant to express their opinions. While this particular trend has not manifested itself strongly on this campus, across the country a growing movement makes it permissible for people to condemn opinions that fail to align with their own.

With the current political environment encouraging activism against the Trump administration, opposite views get drowned out by the overwhelming presence of protesters. Acts of resistance immediately arise after the latest uproar at a Trump administration policy, tweet, or cultural issue.  This trend has bolstered anti-Trump activists. Seeing these acts of defiance and protests constantly in the news enables liberals who believe that they are a part of a movement that has overwhelming national popularity. Moreover, the protest and activism culture only serves to censor or quiet the voices of those supportive of the administration’s policies, because they feel as if they are vastly outnumbered. More importantly, the presence of progressive-led protests and the absence of conservative marches provide some conservatives with the belief that their views are extreme and not socially acceptable. The liberal activists and protesters who rightfully champion free debate and discussion have led to the subconscious censorship of conservative speech. However, more vocal ways of condemning opposing views have resulted from the production of subliminal messages during protests and marches.

Recently, the American left ridiculed Kanye West for being insufficiently anti-Trump. Facing backlash from the militant thought police of the left, Kanye tweeted that he respects the President because he has energy and can identify with that. Kanye also summed up the view of the liberal censorship with his tweet that said “you don't have to agree with Trump, but the mob can’t make me not love him…I don't agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.” He also articulated differences of opinion with President Obama over what his policies did for the city of Chicago and tweeted his support for the African-American critic of Black Lives Matter Candace Owens. Within minutes of offering his opinions, Kanye faced tweets and adverse reactions that questioned his mental health with the goal of undermining and delegitimizing his words.

If the leftist mob dislikes something, they will use any tactic, whether it is false accusations of racism, assertions of sexism, or allegations of unstable mental health, until it is gone. Like Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, or any non-white supporter of the Trump administration, Kanye is not considered a proper representative of the minorities’ opinions. Additionally, the critics who condemned Kanye’s Twitter dialogue with Present Trump for saying that presidents should not engage in policies debates with celebrities fail to mention President Obama’s relationships with the highest class.  Defenses of free thought, like Kanye’s, are crucial to the survival of the American republic. Without them, Americans will begin making political decisions without thinking critically about the issues.

The vilification of people for deigning to think for themselves contradicts the founding of America. The Founding Fathers created a republic through vigorous debate. That debate has continued throughout American history until the present. Institutionally, the offices of the presidency, the Electoral College, and the Senate were constructed in order to calm passing crazes and prevent popularity from subverting the nation. Now, in America’s current culture, people restrict their opinions or emulate the “popular class” in order to gain approval from others in society. This form of restriction of free discussion is equally dangerous because people lose their sense of individualism and begin the march towards a collective identity. Standing against the winds of popularity and social approval is necessary because difficult decisions, ideas, and policies are required to calm a crisis. While it is difficult to maintain one’s opinions in the face of overwhelming social pressures, it is necessary for effective and authentic discussions.

While Holy Cross maintains free intellectual debates, the world outside of Mt. St. James may not. Threats to one’s identity and beliefs will be ever-present as society will try to manipulate or eliminate them. Pressures to interfere with one’s beliefs emerge from partisan politics, trends in popular culture, and from all religions. However, the College of the Holy Cross has provided the same principles that, for the past 175 years, have succeeded in educating students with a strong sense of civic duty, personal identity, and Catholic principles. These principles—a thirst for knowledge, respect for passionate and free debate, and the strong sense of Catholic identity instilled by the College into every crusader—are essential for the survival and growth of the American republic. Armed with these tools every crusader will, when faced with obstacles to free discussion, conquer in the sign of the cross. 

Sex, Freedom, and California's AB-2943

In recent years, eleven states have passed laws banning the use (on minors) of “conversion therapy,” a medically debunked and morally bankrupt practice which seeks to change the sexual orientations of LGBT people. Most recently, California’s assembly passed a similar bill for adults, AB-2943.  Like the others, it’s enjoyed broad support from the mainstream left and various LGBT lobbying organizations, like the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the psychotherapist association for gender and sexual diversity, Gaylesta. The bill tells us a great deal about how certain factions in this country think about sex, sexual orientation, freedom, and human nature.  And while banning conversion therapy for minors is good policy, what the bill ultimately reveals isn’t pretty.

Every ban of “sexual orientation change efforts” relies on a very similar definition of the term.  In 2009, the American Psychological Association defined this term as “methods that aim to change a person’s same-sex sexual orientation to other-sex, regardless of whether mental health professionals or lay individuals are involved.”  That seems like a workable definition, because it means exactly what the term says. “Sexual orientation change efforts” means, well, actually trying to change a person’s sexual orientation. But the APA, apparently, wasn’t good enough.  According to more than 20 percent of state governments, and the lobbying groups which helped draft the bill, sexual orientation change efforts include “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”  This definition implies that human beings are slaves to their desires, and indeed little better than animals.

The devil is in the definition.  Efforts “to change an individual’s sexual orientation” include efforts “to change behaviors or gender expressions.”  In uniting these two efforts, the bills identify an aspect of personal identity—the unchosen sexual orientation—with particular behaviors or expressions.  The two form a logical continuum. If a person has a particular desire—say, being attracted to people of the same sex—acting upon that desire is naturally necessary.  In fact, trying to change the behavior is akin to trying to change the orientation.

That is, to put it nicely, absurd. It makes the human person a slave of sexual desire, entirely compromising any meaningful claim to moral freedom.  To be clear, I suspect that I agree with every one of the bill’s supporters on one point: sexual orientation isn’t freely chosen; nobody elects to be gay or straight or otherwise.  But their schema leaves no place at all for moral choice, the process by which a person chooses to pursue a particular course of action. They would have us believe that if a person is gay, his or her moral choice is already made.  Sexual behavior will inevitably express the orientation; there’s no conception that free choice would involve itself at all. Whether you have sex with someone is a matter of biological necessity, not a moral choice.

But this bit of legalistic mumbo-jumbo isn’t just stupid.  It’s also morally cancerous. What does it say about human beings to claim that sexual orientation inevitably determines—indeed, logically compels—a  person to have sex with someone else? It means the person can be identified simply with desire. Our sexual appetites become who we are, not a minor facet of our richer and more complex identity.  When moral freedom disappears, we have neither control over nor responsibility for our own lives. What separates rational human adults from wind-up toys, marching to the gear ticks of a prefabricated sex drive?  If AB-2943 (and a dozen bills just like it) gets it right, every single one of us is hopelessly imprisoned to our lusts. We can’t choose our behavior without denying who we are. This vision of the person doesn’t make us more ourselves.  Instead, it would reduce us to nothing more than animals. It claims that we’re subhuman, in the full sense of the word.

And yet, we dare to call it “liberation.”  That was the rallying cry of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, re-echoed by its heirs for decades since. With that term, our culture signifies a purely political liberty.  Since the type of person we sleep with is (supposedly) who we are, liberty becomes the right for our sexual desires to express themselves in actions. Freedom is expressive sexuality.  It can only be threatened from outside, either by government actions or by cultural norms which condemn particular sexual behaviors. In this regard, the moral objections of others pose a fundamental challenge to our liberty.  By condemning a behavior, they discourage sexual self-expression. Thus, we’re told that cultural norms imprison us, and prevent us from being authentically free. It gives the left a cudgel to hit the Christians with. So what if it defiles human dignity along the way?

Christianity decries this reduction of the person to his or her sexual orientation, and proposes a fuller understanding of human freedom.  Freedom intervenes in the logical progression from desire to action, claims the philosophical tradition of the Christian church. Freedom falls between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, between who we’re attracted to and whether we have sex with them.  After we experience a desire, but before we act upon it, there is a moment of moral choice. In that moment, the person finds himself addressed by the choice which lies before him. In the silence of the human heart, we come face to face with our consciences, with the stable and uncompromising moral truth.  And we possess the terrible freedom to deny, reject, or ignore that truth, and to live with the consequences of our choice. In the depths of who we are, free from both the pressures of our culture and the insistence of our flesh, we possess the capacity to choose for good or evil.

Assertions of traditional morality seek to influence this choice, but they do not try to undermine it.  For instance, the Catholic Church makes moral arguments, on the basis of scripture, tradition, and moral philosophy, that any sexual activity outside of the relationship of a husband and wife is gravely wrong.  By presenting a rational argument, the Church seeks to shape the moral lives of her people. Nonetheless, each person possesses the ability to reject the Church’s teaching, or to affirm it. The moral act will follow from this choice, whether one chooses to remain chaste or to violate the norm.  But the assertion of a moral claim has another purpose: it calls attention to our freedom, to the choice that we must make. If the Church deems an action illicit, but contemporary culture applauds it, the individual is presented with a moral dilemma, whose final outcome only he or she may determine. Controversial Christian teachings reveal the choices before us, and so they liberate us from enslavement to our appetites.

AB-2943 and its companions across the country don’t speak for every LGBT person, and I don’t claim that they do.  But the logic of these bills is the logic of the sexual revolution. It is the logic of our society, too: that we are freer when we enact our desires, that in fact those same desires make behaviors necessary. This is sexual predestination. The Catholic faith rejects this as the negation of our freedom. So does most anyone afflicted with a drop of common sense. We are not animals, or wind-up toys, or biological automatons. To claim otherwise is morally despicable; it’s the death knell of the trait that makes us human. Virtue or vice? Good or evil? God or nothing? That is the choice before us. We ought to make it freely.

Jumping the Gun

When news of last month’s tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL broke and details surrounding the calamity began to emerge, everyone was left in a state of shock.  We all bemoaned the shooter, we all prayed for the victims and their families, and no one was content.  Despite some Democrats’ assertions that Republicans don’t care about dead children and some Republicans’ claims that members of the media look forward to and secretly commend mass shootings, any loss of life—especially that of innocent children—is appalling and distressing, and everyone, regardless of political leaning, is left with an aching heart.  In times of heightened emotion and grief across our national landscape, it is natural to seek change, and almost all would agree that change in some form is necessary.  However, heightened emotion rarely translates into effective policy, and level of passion has no correlation to one’s level of moral authority or political expertise on any given issue.  Members of both sides of the political aisle are distraught by last month’s shooting: Republicans and Democrats both mourn the loss of the victims’ lives.  Everyone simply wants what they think is best for the country, and we owe it to one other to assume the best in each other’s policy proposals.  Unfortunately, the national conversation on the topic of gun violence has been permeated by the shaming of blameless politicians, the denigration of those with differing viewpoints, and the blatant mischaracterizations of opposing voices.  Nearly every American recognizes the need for change, but change can only prosper when standards of civility and decency are upheld and when we learn to assume the best in others.

Throughout CNN’s town hall on gun violence the week following the Parkland tragedy, survivors of the shooting directly compared Florida Senator Marco Rubio to the shooter himself, suggested that NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch doesn’t care about her own children, and lambasted both figures as “murderers” for refusing to succumb to some of their political demands.  Of course, everyone sympathizes with these children: it is difficult to imagine having to endure what they did.  But they arechildren.  No matter how much sympathy one may have for them, their suffering does not confer to them any sense of knowledge or proficiency pertaining to the gun debate.  They certainly have the right to voice their opinions and I am not claiming that they should be silenced, but the media’s tendency to rely upon the shooting survivors as if they are political experts is irresponsible and manipulative.  When CNN allows Rubio and Loesch to be slandered as “murderers” and equated to a school shooter without any warnings or repercussions, they are failing in their duty as objective and unprejudiced journalists.  Both the students’ falsified sense of authority and the media’s unquestionable one-sidedness are important to note before exploring some of their actual policy proposals, many of which are misinformed and overly broad.

The most common policy proposal advocated by members of the media, Democrats, and shooting survivors has been a ban of AR-15s (“AR” stands for “Armalite Rifle,” not “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle”), the weapon used in the Parkland tragedy as well as in other mass shootings in recent years.  As simple as such proposals may seem, they are utterly impractical and idealistic.  Essentially every rifle currently in circulation in the United States possesses the same key features as the AR-15, there are currently 8 million AR-15s already owned by Americans, and for every death caused by a ‘long’ gun like AR-15s, four deaths are caused by handguns; thus, even if such a ban were implemented, gun violence rates would not change drastically and millions of guns would still be in circulation.  Thus, any attempt to ban AR-15s would have to result in a ban of all semi-automatic weapons, which accounts for nearly every gun currently on the market—leading to what would fundamentally be a full repeal of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Would a blanket gun ban and full repeal of the Second Amendment have prevented the tragedy in Florida?  A 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study concluded that Australia’s gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate.  Similarly, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the implementation of the gun ban in Britain, there was initially a significant increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain expanded its police force.  However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban, indicating that blanket gun bans are generally ineffective and do not reduce levels of gun violence.

In early March, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a gun control bill providing nearly half a billion dollars to train certain school officials to carry weapons, raising the age at which Florida residents can legally purchase rifles to 21, extending the mandatory three-day waiting period to both handguns and rifles, and improving the ban on firearms ownership by the mentally ill.  The bill encompasses policies endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, and emotional and political pressure from families of the victims ultimately coerced Scott into signing the bill.  To be sure, the bill is not by any means ‘bad’ – training of school officials and enhancing the mentally ill’s restrictions to firearms are concrete measures that could prevent shootings in the future.  But, raising the age to purchase guns to 21 and implementing a waiting period are not necessarily constructive.  If an individual is deemed mature enough to serve in the military, to vote, and take on other responsibilities for adults, why should that individual need to wait three years to exercise his constitutional right?  Furthermore, waiting periods have proved to do nothing of consequence to prevent shootings.  The pressure Scott faced to “just do something” and “get something passed” has translated into a half-baked piece of gun legislation that will not only hurt Scott politically, but also do little to prevent shootings like in Parkland.

The point is that when politicians are pressured into passing legislation for the sake of passing legislation – especially when their political popularity is at stake – such legislation will almost always do very little to confront the issue at hand.  Impulse and policy proposals do not mix well, and in an emotionally heated and politically hostile national landscape such as our own, those who rely on instinct tend to mistake the passing of legislation for emotional relief, when in reality, such policies do very little to prevent similar tragedies.  In times of uncertainty and fear, we are best equipped to confront our nation’s most pressing concerns when we all come together, respect one another’s voices, and weigh all possible options.  Meaningful change takes patience, patience takes effort, and effort takes faith.  As we continue this crucial conversation, let’s learn to have a little more faith in each other: after all, we’re all on the same side.

Pope Francis and a Catholic Analysis of Gun Violence

In the memorable phrase of a disgraced conservative pundit, the Mandalay Bay attacks represented “the gruesome downside of American freedom.”  This argument gets trotted out after after every mass shooting: the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and most gun regulations would violate it.  Either tyranny, or 36,000 gun deaths per year. Liberals, on the other hand, call for new a new weapons ban or the repeal of the Second Amendment, and accuse conservatives of wanting kids to die.  The NRA causes mass shootings because it funds a system that ignores violence. Both sides, in their haste to point to blood on the other’s hands, ignore the deepening cultural crisis that produces mass killing after mass killing.  Catholic social teaching, by contrast, recognizes the moral collapse that lies at the heart of the political crisis, and illuminates how we can solve it.

No pope has issued an encyclical about gun violence.  There’s remarkably little in the way of Vatican documents on the subject.  What makes the social teaching of the popes compelling is not their concrete policy proposals, but their integral vision of the problems facing human society.  Benedict XVI and Francis both hold that no problem is purely technical. Instead, every crisis has cultural roots that run deeper than the material ones. That insight informs a Catholic analysis of gun violence in America.  That isn’t to say, however, that material circumstances don’t contribute to the problem of gun violence.

Indeed, advances in weapons technology magnify the impact of mass shootings.  Pope Francis writes of technological advance, “Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing guarantees that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used.” It’s an observation that holds true of almost any sphere of technology—-biological, information, genetic and, yes, weapons technology.  The rapid development of weapons technology has placed tremendous power in the hands of almost every citizen who desires it. In terms of pure technical power, modern weapons make it easy for a single person to cause immense suffering.

The shallow logic of American politics meets this technological advance with one of two solutions. On one side is the “conservative” logic, memorably expressed in the wake of the Newtown shooting: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  To prevent killings, we ought to put armed security guards in schools and give every teacher a Glock 9mm. It’s a deterrent approach to the problem: give good people guns, so they can kill the bad people with guns. On the other side is the liberal logic, demanding repeal of the Second Amendment, or bans on many firearms.  If you make buying guns illegal, people will stop committing murder. Both proposals proceed from the same false assumption: gun violence is a technical problem, and it can be solved by technical means. We assume that Parkland happened because a bad guy got a gun, and a good guy didn’t have one.

A Catholic analysis finds this answer too simplistic.  School shootings don’t happen simply because people can get their hands on more powerful weapons than they could in 1900, 1945, or 1990.   Although not referring to gun violence, the words of Benedict XVI are insightful: “It is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”  We cannot put the Second Amendment in the dock for Parkland, or Las Vegas, or Newtown. The problem primarily concerns moral culture. Francis makes the same point: “our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.”  Moral culture is collapsing, not developing, and it kills people as it falls.

First, a toxic individualism prevents society from establishing moral ideals, desirable characteristics which individuals ought to pursue.  We believe that the norms toward which society directs us prevent us from being individuals; we must rebel against them to be more authentically ourselves. Society has no right encourage us to be courageous, just, or selfless.  But, since we will nonetheless imbibe these ideals to some degree, society shapes our consciences, and works to constrain us from within. As a result, we can ignore the conscience, too. It is shaped by the preferences of others, and is consequently worthless.  It becomes legitimate, even necessary, to ignore the moral ideals that try to impose themselves upon our lives. In this regard, American culture makes people vicious, and begins to predispose them towards violence.

Second, unbounded individualism makes us consider others valuable only as far as they are useful.  By definition, this trait makes ultimate what is good for me. This applies what Francis calls a “use and throw away logic” to other people.  Because we care about other people only when they’re useful for us, we can ignore their suffering whenever they’re inconvenient. As Francis writes, “This is the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted.”  When we can ignore the damage done, our culture encourages the worst sorts of violence. We collectively ignore the innocents killed by drone campaigns abroad, the unborn and elderly whose lives are snuffed out by abortion and euthanasia, and the mentally ill whose lives “death with dignity” laws help to end. None of their suffering matters, as long as we can’t see it.  So kill the people who are inconvenient—but keep them out of sight, and call it “choice” or “dignity” or “precision strike.” Our vicious individualism has made killing the innocent a human right, or even a moral necessity.

Finally, and most obviously, our culture exults in blood and death.  The entertainment industry makes a killing by glorifying violence; take a look at cinema, games, or trashy novels to prove the point.  I suspect that all of this desensitizes us, but that’s not the heart of the problem. Most kids who play Grand Theft Auto don’t go shooting up schools.  More dangerously, the fascination with violence inevitably shapes our cultural ideals. It’s one thing to call a veteran’s courage and self-sacrifice heroic.  The trouble is, we don’t do much of that. Instead, in film or in reality, we lionize people for how many people they’ve killed. Americans ogle at the “Mother of All Bombs,” and go gonzo thinking about how many bad guys get zapped when it goes off.  We love people and machines that kill efficiently; they’re our favorite entertainers. Can we really wonder why nineteen-year-olds murder their classmates?

The collapse of American moral culture means that technical solutions won’t cut it.  For the Right, the “good guy with a gun” is worthless after Parkland. It relies on the virtues of courage and self-sacrifice: risk your life to save the lives of others.  But since non-judgmentalism claims freedom from such social norms, it’s impossible for society to inculcate them. The Republican solution relies on a citizenry both armed and virtuous—that is, good people with guns.  There are exceptions, of course, but a moral crisis doesn’t make good people.

In some regard, this explains the appeal of the liberal solution: get assault rifles out of the hands of the citizens.  But since the roots of the crisis are cultural, random killings won’t stop because people can’t buy assault rifles. You don’t need an AR-15 to slaughter dozens; a handgun does just fine.  Substantially reducing crime by banning guns would require banning almost every firearm imaginable, and repossessing the hundreds of millions currently in circulation. Confiscating legally acquired weapons is politically indefensible; banning the sale of the vast majority of guns is politically impossible.  

A Catholic analysis of American gun violence perceives the problem in all its intractable depth.  It makes us eschew the logic which promises utopia through a single policy proposal. At the same time, another Catholic principle forbids inaction.  John Paul II writes, “Every person...can come to recognize the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree.” The right to life is primary. It makes profound demands of us, and it must shape our freedom.  Furthermore, the infinite value of every life means that no reform that prevents a single death is worthless. Recognizing this, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for limitations on high capacity magazines, substantial regulations on the purchase of handguns, universal background checks, and increased resources for mental health.  The right to life demands every possible solution.

American culture makes mass shooters.  In order to “be ourselves”, we deny the authority of any moral ideal, preferring to be who we are than who we ought to be.  Our culture encourages us to be vicious if that expresses who we are. Similarly, our vicious individualism justifies the worst kinds of violence: killing is acceptable so long as it helps me.  Finally, death and violence have become our idols, worshipped almost daily in the news or on television. Parkland, Newtown, and Las Vegas aren’t a problem that minor policy changes can prevent.  Cultural trends of recent decades have destroyed the moral framework of society in the name of liberation, and given us a society uniquely vulnerable to violence. We are paying the price of freedom in the blood of other people.

The Democratic Tea Party

Since the election of Donald Trump as the forty-fifth President of the United States, liberals and Democratic activists have denounced everything the President has said or done. Their zealotry  has resulted in a record number of declared Democratic candidates for the upcoming midterm elections in 2018. However, these candidates, and the vocal #resistance movement, have successfully shifted the Democratic Party even further to the left. As a result, the Democratic Party has dramatically reduced its chances of success in the 2018 elections.

Within the past month the Democratic Party of California demonstrated how hostile its base is towards politicians who even consider working alongside the President. Politicians like California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, are condemned for being insufficiently liberal, and have adapted their policy preferences accordingly. Last month, California’s Democratic Party refused to endorse its senator of twenty-six years at its convention, where her challenger Kevin de León amassed seventeen percent more delegates. Although Senator Feinstein began her career without the expressed approval of her party’s convention delegates, this year’s convention demonstrated that her record—which couldn’t be called anything close to conservative—isn’t sufficiently progressive for her party. The surge leftward by the Democratic Party ensures a hostile primary and general election for their senior senator and the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. More likely than not, Senator Feinstein will overwhelmingly win re-election, but the resources given to her to ensure her political survival will be allocated from financially strapped candidates who need the party’s support. Additionally, the overwhelming number of declared Democratic candidates for House seats held by Republicans could lead to them losing House seats that they should win.

The overwhelming vigor and ardent activism of California Democrats could potentially lead to them becoming the minority party in the House again due to the California primary system, which states that the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general election. The nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party is that their multiple candidates will split the vote of their base, while only the Republican candidates advance to the general election. This isn’t a baseless fear; according to Politico, there are at least sixty-seven Democratic candidates running in the fourteen Republican-held districts in California. The strongest path Democrats have toward retaking the House is by winning several House races in California.  If that fails to occur, their chances fall dramatically.

Democratic optimism isn’t isolated to California; there’s even talk of a “Blue Wave” in Texas. For weeks leading up to the state’s primaries, media and Democratic activists insisted that their voters would outnumber the Republicans, thanks to their candidates’ newfound liberalism. National Democrats believed that the way to win Texas, and the House, was through a more liberal agenda. However, in the days preceding the vote even Democrats acknowledged that their strategy was not working as the Democratic Party targeted its own House candidate, Laura Moser.

Despite all the propaganda, it turned out that “blue wave” predictions were a wash. Without much effort, Republican Ted Cruz won twice as many votes as his now general election opponent Beto O’Rourke. While Democratic turnout was at a historic high, it failed to overcome the Republican dominance of the state, demonstrating that the liberal strategy of the new Democratic Party needs rethinking if Democrats are to succeed in winning races in Texas this fall.  Although they consider their progressive agenda to be the solution to their electoral woes, the Democratic Party’s radical agenda will bring losses in 2018.

While their animosity to President Trump and his conservative policies can motivate Democratic supporters, their radical liberal agenda will fail to convert moderate voters. Concerning the issue of abortion, the Democratic Party has become intolerant of any positions other than pro-choice. Previously, pro-life Democrats have faced primary opponents and have subsequently lost. The Democratic Party is  currently funding a pro-choice progressive primary challenger to a pro-life Democrat from Illinois, Representative Dan Lipinski. By primarying a moderate Democrat, the Democratic Party officials admit that their party has no place for moderates and asserts that they are willing to risk a House seat for a candidate that supports their uncompromising stances.

Democratic candidates have  also adopted a more radical view on immigration. The party now believes that arbitrary and haphazardly drawn borders are not incongruent with American democracy. Furthermore, while the overwhelming polling  data indicates popular support for action on immigration, public opinion should not be the basis for any policy. The foundation of America’s republican system decries arbitrary and shifting passions in favor of the written law. While Americans recognize the charitable and compassionate aspects of the Democratic immigration plan, they also believe that security from intruders and respect for immigration laws are far more important. The belief that immigration policy should be made out of compassion and not by existing laws or our regard for our national security will not be electorally beneficial to Democrats in 2018.

The ever present lurch of liberalism by the Democratic Party has already alienated voters with moderate views on abortion and immigration. By shifting left and adopting even more radical policies, more voters will be unable to support the new Democratic Party. Like the Tea Party movement, the progressive march leftward will put the Democratic Party at risk of losing seats and with them a very winnable midterm election.