What are Howard Dean’s core beliefs? You got me. The man has flip-flopped so often during his run for the presidency that he must be dizzy. Maybe that accounts for the strange comments he has been making of late.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
Does he, or doesn’t he believe that the Bush administration had prior knowledge about attack on the World Trade Center? But let’s be honest: Dean is not the only one. George W. Bush’s administration has not been exactly a pillar of consistency. Nor have the Republicans in Congress.
This is a matter of concern for Catholics. We like to think that we are voting in a manner consistent with our religious convictions. Catholics on the left, for example, will point to their anti-war beliefs and commitment to the social welfare programs of the Democratic Party as examples of their commitment to the Church’s teachings. Catholics on the right will offer their pro-life activism and opposition to “gay rights” in the same manner. So, what do we do? If the candidates of the major parties are going to be blown around by the opinion polls, it will be difficult for us to put our trust in them. Which probably is the way it should be.
First, let’s point out some of the Dean inconsistencies. Where to begin? Let’s start with his repeated and emphatic opposition to the Bush tax cuts. He wants to repeal these “tax cuts for the rich,” who “do not need them.” He wants the government to spend the money instead, to reduce the federal debt and pay for things like prescription drugs for the elderly. He complains that state and local governments have had to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall in federal spending brought about by the Bush tax cuts.
But guess what? When Dean was governor of Vermont, he lowered taxes on businesses to spur the economy and encourage companies to move to the state. In other words, he used the same logic used by supply side economists: that tax cuts spur economic growth and create jobs. When it was pointed out to Dean recently that local communities in Vermont complained that they had to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall in funding from the state when he was governor, Dean countered that it was the local communities’ fault for continuing to spend at levels that required new taxes at the local level. Milton Friedman could not have said it better.
We have also learned recently that Dean had a secret task force to formulate energy policies in Vermont when he was governor, much like the task force organized by Vice President Cheney that Dean has spent so much time criticizing. Dean told reporters that his task force had to operate in private because the group was reviewing “proprietary financial data from Vermont utilities” and that “some advice does have to be given in private.” Sounds to me like the explanation Cheney gave for his private meetings.
Does he support state right-to-work laws protecting the right of workers not to join a union? Dean told Chris Matthews during an interview on Matthews’ television show that he does not, but added “I very much believe that states ought to have the right…to organize their own laws. So I’m not likely as [the] president…to order states to change them.”
Let us leave aside for the moment the question of where Dean got the idea that the president has the power to “order” the states to do any such thing. What is of interest is Dean’s next comment to Matthews about right-to-work laws. He said that he would “sign in an instant” legislation sent to him by Congress to outlaw right-to-work laws if he were president. Talk about wanting to have it both ways! Or is it three ways? I’m lost.
Is Dean an internationalist? You would think so when you hear him complaining about the failure of the Bush administration to garner support from the United Nations and the “world community” before going into Iraq. But minutes later, in the same speech to the same audience, he will attack American corporations for “shipping jobs overseas” in search of lower wages and production costs. So how does the logic go? Why is it that our government leaders should focus on the interests of the “world community,” but American business leaders are expected to put the interests of American workers uppermost in their decision-making?
What of Dean’s religious convictions? Dean says he switched from the Episcopal Church to the Congregationalism because he “had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over a bike path.” Now that’s ecumenism in action.
But what about George W. Bush? Is he any better. Not much, if you ask me. He campaigned on a pro-life platform, you will remember. Many Catholics voted for him for that reason. When do you think was the last time Bush had a serious strategy session on how to end legal abortion in the country? I don’t want to be overly cynical, but I suspect the Bush team has no intention of raising the abortion issue in the next election out of fear of losing the “women’s vote.”
Are Bush and the Republicans in Congress for limited government? It is hard to accept that they are when you look at the last session of Congress. Pork-barrel spending went through the roof under Republican leadership. And I am not talking just about obvious items, such as the prescription drug program for the elderly. How about the $2 million allocated for The First Tee Program in St. Augustine, Florida to help young people learn to play golf? That’s a classic. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a deficit of $401 billion for 2003; $480 billion in 2004; and nearly $1.5 trillion over the next five years. I doubt a Democrat administration and Democrat-controlled Congress could top that.
They tell us all this spending is part of a clever Republican strategy to “steal” the Democrats’ issues to strengthen the Republican hand in the next election cycle. I see. But doesn’t that mean enacting policies that the Democrats would enact if they held the reins of power? From where I sit, that means putting politics over principle.
Is Bush an internationalist? Not when it comes to getting United Nation’s support for military action in Iraq. He places the American national interest first when making his decisions about how to combat world terrorism. But he is an emphatic internationalist when it comes to NAFTA and other free-trade agreements. The Bush administration sees a world without borders when it comes to trade. Let me be more precise: it sees the world that way this year. Last year was different. It wasn’t until December 3, 2003 that the Bush team lifted its previously-imposed steel tariffs. Who is the real George Bush? The one who wanted to protect domestic steel manufacturers last year, or the one who gave in to World Trade Organization’s demand that the tariffs be dropped?
What’s my point? That we have to be realistic. Politicians adopt a platform that they think will work — one that will win elections for them. That includes issues that are of importance to Catholics. Many Democrats who are now “pro-choice” were once pro-life. Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton and Al Gore come to mind. I am sure you can think of dozens more. We know why they flipped. Political advisors showed them poll numbers and asked them if winning elections mattered to them.
If we are willing to attribute this change of heart by Democrats to political calculations, we must also be willing to accept that many Republicans who are on our side on issues such as abortion and “gay marriage” have made a similar calculation; that they view Catholics as part of a coalition they need at election time, but that they intend to do little more than pay lip-service to these issues. That calculation should be part of our calculation when we vote.
