One of the cardinal sins for a candidate seeking elected office is to appear out of touch with the members of their electorate. This is more difficult to avoid than you might think, because almost categorically the candidates are just that, out of touch.
Generally the candidates for higher office are drawn from a socially and economically elite who presently have no real life experience with the typical struggles of the people they seek to represent, and often never have. As such, it is not unusual for the candidate to do or say something to show just how out of touch they really are. Both the President and the republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, have recently done just that.
Mr. Romney’s gaffe in saying that he’s “not concerned for the poor” is troubling if taken out of context, but perhaps even more troubling if taken in its context. No one will ever fault you for saying you’re not concerned for the rich… in the words of Anthony Hopkin’s character in The Edge, “Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane”; but to try to endear yourself to the middle class by saying they are in a worse position than the poor, defies logic and wins you few friends, even in the middle class. The context makes it worse. Mr. Romney’s reason for being unconcerned is that the poor have a safety net, they’re being taken care of. Is that what Mitt thinks Americans dream of, being taken care of? The tragedy of our current state of affairs is that so many Americans need to be taken care of. Wherever you choose to place the blame for that, it is a matter for great concern. Solve the problem of a stagnant under-class and that increase in productivity along with a decrease in tax burdens will prosper all. I am not talking about unmerited wealth redistribution, in that regard the safety net is basically functioning; but that safety net will never be a comfortable place to live, and we need to figure out why we have segments of our population stuck there for years, lifetimes, generations. Mr. Romney, you’ve never been poor, it’s hell, even when you are “taken care of”.
Although the ruling came down from Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of HHS, there is no question that the source of the recent decision regarding the mandate for providing contraception came from the top of the administration. In this decision the Catholic Church will not be granted a waiver for the mandate to provide contraception for employees of its institutions, despite the fact that Church doctrine forbids the use of artificial contraception. Add to this the confusion as to whether this will also include the morning-after pill, which can act after conception, and you have the government requiring a religion to provide something that it fundamentally believes to be evil. I am not a Catholic, but neither am I a Muslim, and I would not condone mandating muslim institutions to provide their employees with bacon (even if there were health benefits!). I am neither anti-contraception nor anti-bacon, but having religious convictions, I can be in touch with those who so have their own strong beliefs. The President has shown himself to be out of touch with those whose religion trumps their politics. Remember his quote deriding Pennsylvania working class voters “clinging to guns and religion…” as if these things were just a vehicle for their bitterness? Like the Romney quote, it doesn’t really matter if he wasn’t saying that these people couldn’t be genuine in their love for their religion; the fact that he would say such a thing shows how out of touch he is with why these working class people love their religion (and their guns by the way!). That would be water under the bridge had He not used the recent prayer breakfast to rehearse his stump speech by using, actually misusing, scripture to justify his stand on raising taxes on the rich. He isn’t the first politician to use the Bible to try to convince voters that “God is on my side”, but I don’t recall it having happened during a prayer breakfast… I guess nothing is sacred. This is offensive to religious people regardless of their political position; the place to argue your policy is not in the place of prayer, rather this is the place to unite in asking for God’s blessing. Mr. Obama may not have even considered that there would be people offended totally apart from the politics of the comment, just as he is likely surprised by the vehemence of the Catholic response to the waiver denial; a denial that he will almost have to reconsider. In all these things he has shown that he is as out of touch with those of disparate religious convictions, as Romney is with the poor.
IMHO: Bill Clinton was able to appear to be in touch with the poor, because he had been poor. It would be unreasonable to expect Romney to abandon his wealth to appreciate the poor, or for President Obama to “find religion” and become a Catholic, or an evangelical Christian to understand their strong convictions. Experience is useful for empathy but not essential. Those who can take their eyes off themselves long enough to look upon the needs and burdens of the people they serve will understand their perspective and stay in touch. Unfortunately, selflessness is a trait seldom found in politicians, for that you need a leader… maybe we could find one of them.
According to a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a majority of American Catholics agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover free birth control. Yes, the Catholic Church is a religious institution but if it wants to partake in the secular marketplace, it has to play by the rules just like any other employer. The Church is out of touch with its members, at least on this particular issue, while the majority of Americans, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, agree with the President.
Of course the Catholic Church has never been a democracy where the flock leads the shepherds, but that being said, setting Church doctrine by poll results would be a dubious way to stay “in touch” with the laity. The poll you mention sets the majority you speak of at just under 6 in 10, while 4 in 10 disagree. In a denomination that claims followers of varying depths of devotion (including Ms. Sebelius herself), the Church cannot be faulted for setting a standard rather than reflecting one. There are other polls that show that only 17% of those who claim to be Catholic even attend mass regularly.
In the end it is not a question of whether or not the doctrine of the Church is correct or even popular. It is a question of whether the government can impose a requirement for a religious institution to violate its own conscience. The argument can be made that the free exercise of religion does not extend past the Church doors, and that the Catholic Church, or any religion, has no constitutional right to participate in institutions regulated by the government, but such a position might have dire consequences to the role of religious organizations in our nation. In the end I believe Obama will indeed fear the wrath of the minority and modify the decision.
I’m not saying that the Catholic Church should, or even could, alter its doctrine based on poll results. I’m merely pointing out that the decision in question is in line with what a majority of Americans, Catholics included, thinks is right, despite all the media hype.
Yes, one could argue that the mandate violates the Catholic Church’s right to the free exercise of religion. But on the other hand, waving the requirement would violate the right of countless employees to services that they are legally entitled to by a national mandate. The decision, in this sense, reflects the administration’s commitment to the separation of church and state.