PLANK OCTOBER 12, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Oh, Martha Raddatz. You were doing so well. Throughout most of the vice presidential debate on Thursday night, the ABC foreign affairs correspondent was a masterful moderator, pressing Joe Biden to explain the military surge and withdrawal in Afghanistan, and repeatedly asking Paul Ryan to provide specifics for his ticket’s tax plan. But as the evening drew to a close and Raddatz posed a question designed to allow each man to talk about his Catholicism, she made the tired mistake of assuming that there is just one “Catholic issue”—abortion.
Raddatz asked both Biden and Ryan to “tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.” Not immigration or healthcare or the economy. The formulation of her question was problematic enough and I’ll get to that in a moment. But first let’s consider the enormous missed opportunity here to have a real debate between two very different kinds of Catholics, a debate that would mirror the larger rift taking place in the American Catholic church.
For decades, American Catholics were split between an “abortion-first” camp that held every other issue to be a lower priority and a “whole-life” camp that argued for equal focus on issues of economic and social justice. Today that divide is even bigger, with many in the former camp downplaying or even disputing Church teaching on the economy and poverty, while some Catholics in the latter camp trumpet Catholic social teaching and say little about making abortion rare. When Mitt Romney selected Ryan—a card-carrying member of the “abortion-first” camp—as his running mate, an internal debate became very public.
Support thought-provoking, high-quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
As a result, several high-ranking Catholic leaders have spoken out to defend Ryan’s budget that slashes social programs and foreign assistance, arguing that the question of whether government should take care of the poor is one of “prudential judgment.” Two weeks ago, in a rare public broadside, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan took aim at that position in a statement that proclaimed: “Government programs provide enormous support to poor Americans” and that the work of charities, including Catholic charities, “is not enough….The government must continue to play its part as well.”
This week, on the eve of the debate, a collection of Catholic theologians and academics—including several conservative academics—released an open letter calling on Church leaders to be as vocal in criticizing Ryan’s economic ideas as they have been in opposing the Obama administration health law:
We fear the Church’s legitimate disagreement with the inadequate exemptions in the Obama administration’s contraceptive insurance mandate will lead some bishops to avoid giving due scrutiny to Ryan’s disagreements with or misunderstandings of the Church’s social teaching. This would be a tragic failure of episcopal oversight. Presidential campaigns have enormous power to legitimate their messages. If Congressman Ryan’s Randian vision is allowed to be promoted as Catholic, many believers will be confused and our nation will be deprived of the Church’s full wisdom.
But instead of getting into how their religious beliefs inform their positions on addressing poverty or making tough budget decisions in a struggling economy, Raddatz asked the vice presidential candidates to talk about their personal views on abortion. To their credit, both men correctly pointed out that their personal views aren’t relevant; their policies on abortion are. So Ryan explained that even though he believes life begins at conception, he supports the banning of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. He did not comment—nor did Raddatz ask him—about Romney’s constantly shifting abortion policies.
But Biden didn’t miss the chance to remind female voters that Moderate Mitt represents an extreme party on abortion. He brought up Ryan’s past support of legislation that distinguished between “rape” and “forcible rape,” as well as the congressman’s previous opposition to exceptions in cases of rape and incest. And even though Raddatz didn’t ask, Biden volunteered his support for “Catholic social doctrine.”
For his part, Ryan used the opportunity to go after the Obama administration for “assaulting the religious liberties of this country” and hit the Democratic Party for removing the words “safe, legal, and rare” from the abortion plank of its platform.
None of this will matter. The Catholic hierarchy has been pushing the importance of the religious liberty issue for over a year now, with a two-week education campaign this summer and with instructions for priests to preach on the issue from every pulpit, and Obama’s lead among Catholic voters has only increased. In June, Obama held a slim advantage, 49 to 47 percent over Romney among Catholics. By September, that lead had grown to 54 to 39 percent. That’s the same percentage of Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008, not because he appealed to them as Catholics but because the economy was their first and only issue. That hasn’t changed.
15 comments
In defense of Martha Raddatz, there wasn't much time left by the time she got to the catholic/abortion issue. She did a very good job last night, especially when compared to that zombie of a moderator, Jim Lehrer.
- scrubby
October 12, 2012 at 5:41am
Good point. About abortion specifically, I was saddened by their answers. Why are politicians so afraid to point out that as a matter of principle religion has no place in politics? This position is fundamental to America. Of course, Ryan and Biden are welcome to live by their religious convictions in their personal lives. But when it comes to public policy, neutrality under the law must trump personal belief. "Life begins at conception" is a whopper of a position that depends on how one defines life, autonomy, rights, etc. It is a moral and religious position which means there is no single or correct answer. Ryan insists he must live by his beliefs. But as a public official, he must also respect the law, which protects all points of view, including atheists. If he doesn't make this distinction, he is supporting theocracy and subverting a fundamental principle of American government. If he cannot make this distinction, he has no business serving as a public official. It's that simple. Yet politicians are scared to death of articulating this point for fear of being tarred as godless. It's a sad state of affairs, especially since history has taught us, if nothing else, that politics and religion don't mix. How were the country's founders able to make the case then when we can't seem to do it today?
- Claris
October 12, 2012 at 6:11am
Raddatz was married to Ben Bradlee Jr., with whom she has a child, one of her three former and current husbands (two former, one current). Yes, that Bradlee. Another former husband, Julius Genachowski, went to law school with Obama, and now serves as head of the FCC in the Obama Administration. His parents are holocaust survivors. Her current husband is journalist (NPR) Tom Gjelten. I understand Raddatz isn't Jewish, though she has been married to well-known Jews. Her question about abortion gave the two candidates an opportunity to express how their faith helped shape their views on any number of issues, not just abortion, so I believe it a fair question. Republicans aren't happy with Raddatz, and believe she is biased. Biden definitely exceeded my expectations.
- rayward
October 12, 2012 at 7:04am
There were several questions Martha posed that rocked me back on my heels. "Since Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt, what will you do to fix them?" -- say what? "Since Libya was a security failure, what will you do to fix this?" And the Catholic/abortion question. Which I thought Biden handled extremely well. But what was with all this "Let me echo Fox-News Propaganda here" questioning? It wasn't a lot, but that sort of thing has no place on a moderator's agenda.
- AllanL5
October 12, 2012 at 8:17am
“assaulting the religious liberties of this country” When is somebody going to point out that it is unconstitutional to change the ACA to recognize Catholic concerns under the establishment clause? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 8:36am
That's my one big fear about Candy Crowley moderating the next debate, Allan. She seems to always premise her questions and reporting on, as you said, Fox news talking points. Things like "given Obama's failed economic record" and such. Either she belives such stuff or she has internalized them to a point where it effects her objectivity. But we'll see.
- scrubby
October 12, 2012 at 8:48am
People (especially including R&R and other right wing religious nuts) don't seem to understand that the Constitution protects US from them. WE have religious freedom too. Somehow that's never quite sunk in.
- Sophia
October 12, 2012 at 9:04am
Also I think abortion is a fair question because it directly impacts civil rights and opens the door, insofar as she framed it as a religious issue, to a discussion of the Constitution and religious freedom, which includes the freedom not to have to submit to other people's religion. Biden said it well, he pointed out that he has HIS religion but that Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc also have theirs and he won't impose his religion on the rest of us, unlike Paul Ryan & Co. Paul Ryan totally doesn't understand the Constitution with regard to the SCOTUS and its role in determining whether laws are Constitutional or not, which is why he thinks he can pass these personhood laws. Well, that's why the SCOTUS exists: to review laws. Otherwise, any majority could pass a law elevating, say, the KKK or returning to the days of Jim Crow.
- Sophia
October 12, 2012 at 9:09am
Normally I agree with Amy Sullivan, but here I think Amy's misinterpreting the question. It wasn't a question about Catholicism--it was a question about abortion. It was poorly framed and awkwardly tried to tie it to controversy about contraception requirements for health care plans at Catholic institutions. But it was fundamentally an abortion question. By the way, I disagree with the idea that religion has no place in political debate. It can and should inform the policies we adopt, just as religiously-neutral philosophy, academic disciplines, and the other moral commitments we make inform our policies.
- polcereal
October 12, 2012 at 10:08am
The number one rule of business is to know your customer. The rule applies to the journalism business as well as to the widget business. And it explains why Raddatz asks a question about SS and Medicare with the premise that they are bankrupt. And it explains why Andrew Sullivan is the most successful blogger. And it explains why Jonathan Chait has become more "polished" both in his writing and in television appearances. And it explains the "evolution" of some of the TNR contributors; they too have learned what sells. And then there is Jonathan Cohn. I once had a priest I described as earnest. That's how I describe Cohn. If only his colleagues could insulate him and preserve him for eternity.
- rayward
October 12, 2012 at 10:12am
A friend of mine's post on Facebook: "Turned on t.v. to check out vp debate. Moderator's question: 'Tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.' Turned off t.v."
- Fishpeddler
October 12, 2012 at 10:47am
"But instead of getting into how their religious beliefs inform their positions on addressing poverty or making tough budget decisions in a struggling economy, Raddatz asked the vice presidential candidates to talk about their personal views on abortion." Raddatz is one of the worst debate moderators I have seen. She thinks that a debate is a conversation in which the moderator is a conversant.
- arnon1
October 12, 2012 at 1:01pm
arnon1 I disagree. If politicians were interested in telling us what we wanted to know, then you would be correct. A decent moderator who prevents obfuscation is worth a lot to me. I thought Raddatz tried without being overwhelming to do that.
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 3:16pm
Religion has no place in politics. It had a place in politics in Spain during the Inquisition; in England during the bloody religious wars; in Nazi Europe, where the Catholic Church cooperated with Hitler and other fascist leaders; and in many Islamic states. Those are only a few examples. Religion has no place in politics, except the bloody variety. There's a reason why the Founders separated church and state.
- magboy47.
October 12, 2012 at 4:47pm
I agree with those (or is it just he?) who thinks Martha is over-rated as a debate moderator. This in particular comes to mind (from the debate transcript): MS. RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you about — the Romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. He has a book called No Apologies. Should the U.S. have apologized for Americans burning Qurans in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. apologize for U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses? REP. RYAN: Oh, gosh, yes. Urinating on Taliban corpses? What we should not apologize for — MS. RADDATZ: Burning Qurans (immediately?)? REP. RYAN: What — what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he's a good guy and then the next week say he ought to go. What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for — calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security. There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored. Look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. It was Libya, a country we knew we had al-Qaida cells there. As we know, al-Qaida and its affiliates are on the rise in northern Africa. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a Marine detachment? Of course there is an investigation so we can make sure that this never happens again. But when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not apologize for those. (Etc. ad nauseum). My point is that the Benghazi affair had been well raked over the coals. Eventually Martha tried to shift the focus away from that particular topic, to the question of "no apologies", per Romney's (lying) assertion that Obama goes round "apologizing" for America. Note how Ryan did not answer the question, but returned to Benghazi, as he evidently felt he was able to continue making hay there. Raddatz did not make the slightest attempt to force him to answer the question she had asked, but instead let him ramble on about Benghazi. I see that as a clear failure on her part to exert appropriate control.
- Haole45
October 13, 2012 at 1:32pm