In mid August, while I was innocently vacationing in
Northern California, the message you see below made its way into my mailbox:
“...THE POPE’S CONFESSIONAL GUIDELINES... So I went to confession on Saturday evening
before Mass and started with the usual…
“Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It’s been 4 weeks since my last
confession.
Last night, I beat the crap out of an Obama supporter."
The Priest responds, "My son, I'm here to forgive your sins, not to
discuss your community service.”
(Note: The piece, at least the version sent me, doesn’t
describe what the Pope’s “confessional guidelines” are or what they do.
However, you’re going to have to do some pretty serious arm twisting to convince
me that the Holy Father would even consider sanctioning violence against people
who’ve supported and voted for President Obama!)
So, who do you suppose sent this to me?
It could have been some radical liberal socialist angry with
Obama for not nationalizing the banks as well as the auto industry back in 2009
when he had the chance. It’s conceivable
that such a “radical lib” is still morose over Obama’s decision not to advocate
for “single payer” health care substituting the hodgepodge of public and
private nonsense in “Obama care.” That
same “radical lib” might also be angry over drones in the Middle East, slow
progress on climate change, or perhaps because the president was too slow
instituting the new method of saluting military personnel with his coffee
cup! (Come to think of it, none of that
really sounds right.)
Let’s see now! Who
could have sent it to me? No! Don’t try
and convince me that some conservative sent this piece of disrespect for the
twice-elected President of the United States of America! After all, former President Ronald Reagan,
who had the respect of that former liberal Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill,
would never allow such a sentiment to pass a patriot’s lips or drip from a conservative’s
pen.
There are, of course, two relevant questions here:
First, how can any true American patriot see this bit of
ironic humor as being in good taste let alone the least bit funny? Second, why
am I allowing what some might dismiss as a piece of humor to get under my skin?
What disturbs me is threefold: fear that the advocacy of violence to the
supporter of any public servant represents another tear in the fabric of the
trust Americans ought to hold for its elected leadership. Second, it seems in recent years that
opposition to sitting chief executives is way too personal. Third, I fear that the real root of this
humor is racial.
As for my first point, every president has been the
recipient of outrageous and often undeserved rancor. Jimmy Carter rightly asserted in 1980 that
criticism, unfair or not, “...goes with the territory.” However, the attacks and the characterization
of the last three presidents have been increasingly personal. To conservatives, Clinton was little more
than a gangster. Liberals never forgave
Bush #43 for the 2000 election.
Although, the opposition to President Obama is intensely
doctrinaire (which is not only understandable but respectably traditional), way
too much of it is both personal and racial.
Everything, from his heritage, to his birthright, to his religion, and
yes, his race, draws a degree of enmity that’s not only unfair to him, but
unhealthy to our future well being. Even
more, it’s downright unpatriotic.
The advocates of every political doctrine have occasionally
crossed the boundary of fairness and good taste when referring to the
personalities and policies of the opposition.
After all, no social, political or religious group has a monopoly on
attributes good or bad, wise or foolish.
As for the likelihood that a conservative sent this piece to
me, that is too horrifying to imagine.
Conservatism is dedicated to the freedom of all Americans including
Obama supporters, isn’t it? Conservatism
at its best energizes creativity, investment, and stability at home and
abroad. However, conservatism as
currently practiced is especially vulnerable to abuse, especially toward the
most vulnerable among us, because it proclaims that the most successful
Americans have been rewarded by the “Almighty.”
Hence, 21st Century conservatives generally (although not
always) side with the mighty against the less mighty.
To conserve is to manage and preserve the resources that are
the birthright of us all. That goes for
everything from living wages to the benefit of the doubt when weighing matters
of private and public morality. At its
worst, it invites dogmatic and indignant self-righteousness toward those who
don’t share its values and encourages its proponents to regard themselves as
morally superior to everyone else.
Okay, it’s confession time.
Of course, the above piece was sent me by a dedicated conservative, a
gentleman proud of what he believes in rather than being merely respectful of
the elements that make up his belief system.
Therein lays the Achilles heel of his political faith.
As traditionally followed by John Adams, John Quincy Adams,
Calvin Coolidge and perhaps even by Ronald Reagan, conservatism was about the
management and preservation of precious economic, social, and moral
resources. (Conservatism has never been
about preservation of natural resources such as rivers and forests, because,
like their liberal cousins, they too like the use of valuable resources free of
charge.)
As evidenced by the piece that began this commentary, modern
conservatism has its roots in Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 decision to free
minorities and assist the poor. With
that decision, LBJ freed his own party, as well as his personal past, from its
traditional advocacy of state supported ignorance and prejudice.
Sadly, the party of Abraham Lincoln has thoroughly lapped up
and digested that old Democratic Party waste.
Modern conservatism fosters messages like this designed not only to
disguise the application of meanness and bigotry with humor, but even designed
to abuse pronouncements of the Holy Father!
Can you believe it?
Unfortunately, it’s all too real!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment