Obama doesn’t make me cry, but I’m willing to listen
This past Saturday, Michael and I were out running an errand before Obama’s scheduled victory speech, so we rushed through to go back and watch him speak. It’s not that we endorse Obama, but one has to admit that it is certainly worth watching his speeches—they are one of a kind when compared to what the other candidates from both sides have to offer. I can only speak for myself here, but in all honesty, I was not impressed by his speech. He did not make me cry or make me feel that the impossible was possible—that the ideals I have always longed for could be materialized through him.
The backdrop
A little disclaimer is worth mentioning at this point nonetheless. You need to understand where I come from: a country (and a continent) that has suffered for decades at the hands of greedy politicians. Before Chavez rose up to power, Venezuela had seen a long trail of corrupt politicians who gave wonderful speeches filled with populism, but in the end only ended up neglecting the poor and only looking out for themselves—something that Chavez ended up doing as well. Hence, I have become increasingly cynical and skeptical of the authenticity of our politicians or their genuine intentions to work towards the common good—at least in the terms the common good is understood in Christian tradition. For me, Obama’s speech was much of the same I have seen in my experience inside and outside of the United States. Obama did not move me nor inspire me. Only Sacred Scriptures, a book written by a saint, pope or pious theologian, or a good homily could inspire me in that way. My intention here is not to play down the elegance and eloquence of Obama’s speech and the truths contained in it. Rather, I wish only to offer my humble opinion—for what is worth—as to why I am not currently supporting Barack Obama.
Opening the floor
I know some of my fellow contributors have offered very substantive arguments for supporting Obama despite of his record on abortion. I do not doubt the authenticity of their “Catholicism”, for the lack of a better word, given their support of Obama. I do not doubt that my friends—who include seminarians—are true Catholics either when they have expressed their support for Obama. I am simply not part of that group that feels entitled to doubt someone else’s beliefs based solely on their support of a pro-abortion politician, because I do believe that there can exist a valid argument as to how consequential electing a pro-abortion politician really is. Nothing has changed in the last 25 years and we have seen Republican and Democratic presidents in office who have also appointed justices to the Supreme Court. However, when it comes down to it, I just don’t think I could do it—vote for a pro-abortion politician. Not in a good conscience. But I am willing to listen. I want to open the floor to those true Catholics who want to have a frank conversation about why, given the current state of abortion, it should even cross our minds as Catholics to consider a pro-abortion politician.
The catch
The other issue that concerns me personally, as a Catholic, going into this election is embryonic stem cell research. It actually concerns me more than abortion itself, because abortion is already legal. The legalization of ESCR will be a fatal blow to the movement that seeks to restore the personhood of the embryo. I personally believe that after ESCR, there is no return to a pre-Roe v. Wade world. That being said, if the choices for us come down to either Hillary or Obama and McCain, I’m afraid I will have to refrain from voting, because I could not vote for neither of them in good conscience. However, as I have said above with regard to abortion, I’m willing to listen and I open the floor to those who want to have a frank and responsible chat about the challenge ahead of us.
Comments are closed.
Thank you, Katerina. I too am skeptical of good speakers. I coach speech. A good speaker does not mean a good leader, nor good moral character.
Although, I REALLY like Obama’s wife.
Katerina, Iappreciate the very thoughtful and mature backdrop you have given for your position on Obama. What I have come to realize is that most people choose a candidtate based on emotional sentiments, however, much they try to approach things logically. Hence, Bush’s election inspite of glaring evidence of ineptness, because he’s a guy we can ‘share a beer with’. Obama is likewise inducing positive feelings in many people and will get votes largely because of those feelings. We as voters must strive to sober deliberation before choosing – I think your comments show that you are faithfully doing that. Personally, I like Obama’s message and have come to support him because having viewed all the viable candidates as objectively as I can, he seems to be the best choice. However, I am such a cold-blooded realist that I don’t think that much will change in the next 4 years to change the tragectory of this country – my support for Obama is that he embodies the most likely agent of revolutionary change in ideas that will be felt long after he is gone. Reagan did it in 1980 as much as I despise that him.
Sorry, last line should be – ‘as much as I despise him’
‘…my support for Obama is that he embodies the most likely agent of revolutionary change in ideas that will be felt long after he is gone. Reagan did it in 1980 as much as I despise him.’
That really is the question–is Obama another Reagan, or just a flash in the pan. I think the test is whether Obama’s rhetoric signals a major ideological shift, as Reagan’s did. So far, I don’t see it.
Nice post, Katerina. The analogy of Chavez is worth studying.
I find it interesting that you say that you don’t doubt the authenticity of Catholics who support Obama. Am I mistaken in thinking you do doubt the authenticity of Catholics who support other candidates particularly Republicans. It seems to me a great deal of time is spent on this blog by you and others questioning the authenticity of other Catholics. The term “consistent ethic of life” is used quite a bit in these discussions. Why are supporters of Barrack Obama not held suspect when others, who for instance might not view the death penalty as grave a concern as abortion or ESCR, are held suspect? This statement of yours does nothing to dispel my concern there is a double standard practiced by many on this blog. I think Jay Anderson addressed this issue in the comments of another blog entry where Obama was praised repeatedly. I think he used the term hypocricy.
Obama is the candidate who best talks about change. How will he change America? Nobody seems to know including Obama himself.
FDR and Reagan revolutionized the political landscape because they offered a real substantive change. Keynesian/statist vs. supply-side/libertarian respectively. What is Obama offering?
Reagan gave us Bonehead the Younger. We can’t do worse with Obama, even with all the questions that are raised about him…even Americans aren’t that gullible.
Tim F.,
I think you commented too soon…there are a number of posts critical of Obama today.
Policraticus,
I am aware of that. My point was more in regards to the “Catholic authenticity” of supporters of Obama not being in question as opposed to the “Catholic authenticity” of supporters of other candidates, especially Republicans, being called into question quite often on this blog. I was not writing in regards to Obama himself. Maybe that questioning of others does not exist, or is just implied. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. That’s why I asked Katerina if I was wrong in thinking that she questions the authenticity of the supporters of other candidates. Again in my opinions there seems to be much much more criticism of Catholics who vote for Republicans than Catholics who vote for Democrats by her and you and some others. I in no way mean to imply any support for abortion rights or ESCR on your part or hers. It just appears Democrats get a pass for offenses (non- consistent ethic of life) that Republicans are denied.
Am I mistaken in thinking you do doubt the authenticity of Catholics who support other candidates particularly Republicans.
Am I talking about Republicans in this post? Or about Obama, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research? You make a lot of assumptions, buddy. JUST READ.
Thanks for the non-answer. I was not limiting my comments to this post. It is your right to not answer and to be rude. That doesn’t mean you have to exercise it. Someone else brought up the same point in the increasingly ugly thread above. I think it’s pretty obvious Democratic voters are not held to the same standard as Republican voters are on this blog by you and others. Someone in the Obama is a pro-abort thread rightly pointed out that there will be no support for a stop Barrack movement here by the, for lack of a better word “anti-Republicans” as there is for the stop Rudy movement suported by the more conservative/anti-liberal (in the contempoary sense) posters here.
You know Katerina, in looking at your rather hot-headed response, I wish you would read. Like I told Policraticus, I was not talking about Obama but about the Obama supoprters who are above having their Catholic authenticity questioned by you for their support of him. As for ESCR and abortion, I was saying to your boyfriend that while I thought you and he and others give Democrats a pass on the consistent ethic of life issue and Republicans get no such pass, I wanted to be clear that I was not implying he or you were tolerant of ESCR or abortion. I think your indignation is not justified and I don’t think you read what I wrote.