Unpacking Obama's Notre Dame Address
It would be judging Barack Obama by a pretty low standard to give him credit just for showing up to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. But it's also a mistake to dismiss Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins' introductory comments about Obama as just so much puffery. "President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research," said Jenkins, mincing few words. "Others might have avoided this venue for that reason. But President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.”
I know, you're rolling your eyes. What Democrat, well-aware that Catholics make up one-quarter of the electorate, would pass up the chance to speak to a top-notch Catholic university? Michael Dukakis, for one. In 1988, his campaign made the decision to turn down all invitations to speak at Catholic institutions. The memory of 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro spent much of the campaign defending her support of abortion rights from the criticism of Catholic leaders, was fresh in their minds. Dukakis' advisors figured that any speech before a Catholic audience ran the risk of becoming all about abortion and that was a fight they didn't want to have.
John Kerry's senior advisors made the same calculation in 2004, turning down the opportunity for their candidate to give a speech about his faith at John Carroll University, a Jesuit school outside Cleveland. They worried that protestors might disrupt the event or that someone might ask a question about the senator's position on abortion. (In 2000, Al Gore's staff tried to convince Joe Lieberman to turn down a chance to speak at Notre Dame for the same reasons, but he gave the speech anyway.)
In many ways, Sunday's commencement at Notre Dame was once a Democratic political pro's nightmare. Anti-abortion posters? Check. Blood-covered baby dolls and Alan Keyes? Check. Graduates with cut-outs of baby feet on their mortar boards? Check. Protestors interrupting the president's speech? Check. So like Father Jenkins, I give Obama some credit for showing up.
But as the president learned at last summer's candidate forum at Saddleback Church, showing up is just the start. What really matters is what you say once the audience has taken its seat. This time Obama was more prepared. But his task was also more complex, with several different themes intended for several different audiences:
Catholics. Whenever a president gives a commencement address, he's not really speaking to the people physically gathered before him. So while Obama did address the controversy surrounding his visit, it was mostly as an opening to his larger point about how to deal with disagreement in a democratic society. But that isn't to say that he ignored his Catholic audience. In fact, the protestors may have done Obama a favor by bringing so much attention to the speech and guaranteeing wall-to-wall coverage.
The danger in caricaturing your opponent is that the reality rarely matches the outsized monster you've constructed. Catholics who tuned in to hear Barack "Baby Killer" Obama, the "most pro-abortion president ever," heard this: "Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term." And this: "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away."
And just as they might have wondered whether this was all just talk from the man who has spent the first few months of his presidency shoring up abortion rights, they heard Obama change his position on conscience exceptions for health care workers: "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Social Conservatives. As I said, when Obama did address the controversy, it was to lay out his alternative to the "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality that often characterized the Bush administration's approach to domestic and foreign opposition. Think of it as more of a "If you're not with us, then let's sit down over cookies and talk about it" mindset. On Sunday, Obama didn't try to argue that anti-abortion protestors were wrong in their position on abortion, but that their response to his visit wasn't constructive.
“We must find a way to live together as one human family," said Obama. "Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.” If this sounds familiar, it's because he's been on the interconnectedness train for a while. Just remember "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" from the 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote.
Obama's emphasis on finding common ground is often dismissed as the moral relativism of a man who wants to be excused for holding positions some of his supporters find troubling. On Sunday, he did two things to challenge that judgment. First, instead of his traditional focus solely on all the things we have in common, Obama acknowledged that barriers can prevent us from overcoming differences: "Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."
He also tethered his argument to the example of the Civil Rights Commission appointed by Eisenhower after the Brown decision. No one would argue that Obama takes no moral side on the question of school segregation or universal voting rights. But his message was that in the face of intractable differences, there is no alternative but to sit down and talk and try to arrive at solutions. Social conservatives may scoff at the idea, but a smarter course of action would be to hold Obama to it.
The World. Obama couldn't have foreseen that his speech would take place the same day that GQ released images of intelligence report covers emblazoned with Christian crusader Scripture verses that were prepared by George W. Bush's DoD. (My favorite so far: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men." Wow.) But the timing just made his final point more relevant--and necessary.
Obama has spoken before about his belief that faith does not come without doubt and should therefore require some amount of humility. He's done it well--in his 2006 speech at Sojourners. And not so well--in the "above my pay grade" quip at Saddleback. This time it was quite good and worth quoting in full:
The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to faith is not any one opposing position it leads them to but this fundamental question of whether religious belief gives you certainty in the rightness of your actions or doubts born of your understanding of human fallibility. Both are very Protestant ways of thinking about faith--raising the theme at a Catholic university was an unusual choice. But with parts of the world now wondering whether one American president launched a war in the Middle East because he thought God wanted him to, it couldn't hurt for Obama to underscore that this White House doesn't subscribe to the theology of certainty.
Update: One additional point worth making--the protest surrounding Obama's visit to Notre Dame was not really about Obama. It was about Notre Dame's decision to invite and honor a pro-choice politician. That made it just the latest front in an ongoing battle within the American Catholic community. Obama couldn't--and really shouldn't--weigh in on that. But Father Jenkins did in his introduction, taking up the Bernardinian mantle of engagement against those who accused Notre Dame of "embarrassing" Catholicism by choosing to honor Obama. To that, Jenkins responded with a quote from Gaudium et Spes, the chief document to come out of Vatican II:
Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.
-
1
Very thoughtful analysis, Amy. Thank you. You pointed out something that I had completely overlooked while watching the speech--Obama's shift on the "conscience clause".
.
I wonder if conservatives will applaud or try to exact a pound of flesh enacting the "flip-flop" meme? -
2
[sigh. would it kill you people to explain why a comment is trapped in the spam filter? take 3...]
-
Catholics who tuned in to hear Barack "Baby Killer" Obama, the "most pro-abortion president ever,"...
-
... are extreme, tiny, and politically unimportant.
-
Remember, according to polling data, "Catholic voters are not any less pro-choice than the rest of the population." As for social conservatives more broadly, the lesson we draw from public opinion data is that "the orthodox conservative position on abortion is extremely unpopular, but that the orthodox liberal position doesn't command majority support either."
-
As you point out, the self-proclaimed "pro-life" folks trying to deceive the media into reporting that there is a controversy at Notre Dame are perfectly content to support torture and an ignorant jihad in the Middle East that kills a few hundred thousand people for no good reason. As Ike would put it, "their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-
The small minority of conservative Catholics are good at conning the media into believing that they represent Catholicism, or religion, or morality. But they never make a peep about US-led Pope-opposed wars, the death penalty, or torture. It is amoral to pretend that the views of the white tribalists of the Republican rump are based on anything that can be recognized as moral or religious teaching. -
3
Thought it was a very thoughtful and effective speech, and especially liked Pres. Jenkins' introduction.
.
This was a reasonable appraisal from you, which I often don't find. The one thing I'd add is that in a more subtle way than GWB did, Obama used a couple of scriptural allusions to let people know he knows he is one of them: the "faith is the belief in things not seen," and "Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen," (which directly keyed off the Hesburgh story, but also seemed a refernece to Jesus saying "I will make you fishers of men.")
.
And no, Amy, I wasn't rolling my eyes. I frankly don't understand your cute cynicism. If it's in fact your personal stance, it confirms why I so seldom read your posts. If you aren't that cynical it would serve you well to drop the cutesiness. -
4
I noticed none of the protesters had a problem with Obama covering up torture, or contnuing the war in Iraq. Their one issue obsession is what is helping make them irrelevant, especially to youth.
-
5
Derek - I thought Fr. Jenkins addressed the obsession well:
.
Differences must be acknowledged, and in some cases cherished. But too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others, until two sides – taking opposing views of the same difference -- demonize each other. Whether the difference is political, religious, racial, or national -- trust falls, anger rises, and cooperation ends … even for the sake of causes all sides care about.
........
As we serve the Church, we can persuade believers by appeals to both faith and reason. As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept.
.
When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be persuasive to others – or do we condemn those who differ with us for not seeing the truth that we see? -
6
[...] and the read the text of speech here. For additional information, please see The Chicago Sun-Times, Time, South Bend Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. Possibly related posts: [...]
-
7
Your emphasis on humility is refreshing. It's a shame it's not more common. Friar Tuck took offense when I posted this slogan:
.
Religion is simply politics seasoned with the extra confidence that comes from thinking that the Creator of the Universe has your back.
.
but I intend it not as a slam against faith but as a reminder that there may be more than one path. Not for nothing doid jesus refernce 'the log in your own eye.' -
8
Kathy faith talks about things that are outside the boundaries of reason. There is no third way, or middle ground between the two, in my opinion. You might as well enter into dialogue with a wall, as try to reason with someone who believes in things outside space and time, and the other categories that structure consciousness.
-
10
I agree in principal with Obama regarding "common ground" but this high profile request does not seem to be happening in a pro-abortion context. Catholics have consistently asked for dialogue (I don't think Planned Parenthood is thinking of honouring the Pope any time soon) and been at the forefront in promoting adoption, worked for the poor, supporting pregnant women.
-
11
"it couldn't hurt for Obama to underscore that this White House doesn't subscribe to the theology of certainty."
That's all very nice, but shouldn't you be CERTAIN that abortion is not killing a life before you allow people to do it? Considering that over 50 million babies have been aborted in America since 1972, it seems that anything less than ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY would lead one to agree with all those crazy Catholic protesters that this is a grave moral wrong.
-
12
.
OT lolzers, courtesy of FAUX!
.
Back to the pasture: Time for Time to take another bow...
~ -
13
How many protesters were there? Does anyone have a head count? The reason I ask is because if you google it you see things like 40 and 21. The largest count I have seen is about 300 on the day of the speech. 12,000 attended the commencement.
-
14
michaelindallas
.
Actually you could make the same point for the other side. If there is no ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY then where is the justification for the notion that abortion is a "grave moral wrong". I guess ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY in all caps is only a good argument if you are arguing your side of the coin, eh? -
15
Gunny: great question. I didn't know what to expect but was moved by the heads on approach to the issue of what the Life and Choice folks want and how that does not translate into a win or lose for either. AS's round up captures the spirit of what we saw; but as always he is able to move us by the elegance of his argument and his ability to engage. There was no " my way or the highway": what a relief.
-
16
I'm a Notre Dame grad. It's not a place where dialogue and inquiry are stifled. I find it strange (though not unexpected) that the MSM coverage has almost uniformly failed to bring forth the opinion that BHO should be welcomed, and in fact is probably overall a force for good (see: Torture), since I suspect that in fact this is the majority opinion even on the Notre Dame campus.
Now, what drove me crazy about the place is the way they'd effectively say "Now you nice young students go off and do all the inquiry and debate and soul-searching you like, but then be sure that you come to this here conclusion." As you might have already gathered, I didn't. -
17
As the polls are suggesting Amy, Pro-life Americans have moved into the majority.
.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
.
I happen to be "pro-common sense" on abortion. Should the woman decide that due to circumstances in her life that bringing a child into the world at that time in her life would be devastating to the child, and in the first trimester of life, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. The other reason within the first trimester would be if the pregnancy posed an imminent threat to her life.
.
One of my nieces recently gave birth, and she experienced life-threatening Pre-eclampsia. She luckily went through the delivery with minimal, but serious long term effects to her own health. It was known this would occur early on, but she chose in the first trimester to go ahead none-the-less. Now I have a great nephew, who is very healthy and I am proud to be his Uncle. (To Phifty: like Obama he is 1/2 African American). But, that is beside the point.
.
My question to you Amy, why do you suppose we are now seeing a shift in the polls from pro-choice to pro-life? Have you seen much written on this yet or discussed. I also found it interesting that the Roe in Roe v Wade was one of the protestors arrested on Sunday. Any news as to why she has changed her mind on abortion? And, thank you for reporting on this topic. I think it is still one of the most divisive issues of our time. -
18
CERTAINTY, the GOLDEND RULE, and NATURAL LAW?
Wow, is Pres. Obama with his professed certainty on the existence of a universal natural moral law – accessible to theists, agnostics, and atheists – suggesting its legitimate role in constitutional law??? -
19
Law in Greek means convention. Conventions are not universal. Natural Law teaches that man is capable of understanding universal ethical principles, without any recourse to divine revelation. It is a process that takes time. Over time the Law, conventions, are modified, as man learns more about nature. In other words, even in natural law theory, the laws are always in a state of flux as they portend toward perfection. People who think the laws, conventions, written 200 years ago, are universal, and ought not ever change, have no idea what natural law really is.
-
20
[...] Ya know, if I were graduating from Notre Dame University and the President were coming to speak at my graduation…I would be aggravated if the big highlight of the speech was on [...]
-
21
In all of the stories about the new polling on pro live vs pro choice I haven't really seen this pointed out but its right there in the gallup report.
.Republicans Move to the Right
.
The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners..
There was literally a 10 percent jump in pro life identification in the Republican Party over the last year. And that 10 percent jump came after at least 8 years of steady numbers in the Republican Party. I would say that could lead one to surmise that all of the rhetoric of the campaign last year had something to do with it.
-
22
..."accessible to theists, agnostics, and atheists – suggesting its legitimate role in constitutional law???"
versus
..."People who think the laws, conventions, written 200 years ago, are universal, and ought not ever change, have no idea what natural law really is"..
No it is just more of the "evolutionary" ideals of the liberal progressives, who want "change we can believe in" to over-rule all things.
.
Change for the sake of change theory has been a long time tested theory, and one of the greatest risks to any successful business. (I see our government as a business or at least in this day and age should be run like one especially if we are now taking over banks and car manufacturers).
.
This is a good review of the "change rules".
http://www.bizzia.com/slackermanager/change-for-the-sake-of-change/
.
Obama himself is seeing clearly I believe now that "change we can believe in" is more difficult as a President, than when giving political stump speeches in Illinois. -
23
AS: Good post. This reads like new material to the 2nd edition of "Closing the God Gap".
.
Q: In your opinion, where do you feel the "God Gap" will be in May of 2012, based on what you have seen of Obama / the Dems / the GOP over the past 100 days? -
24
"No it is just more of the "evolutionary" ideals of the liberal progressives, who want "change we can believe in" to over-rule all things."
.
Why don't you look it up if you don't believe me. Let me give you an example, english common law is based on natural law, as is the US system. In England they drive on the left hand side of the road, and in the US on the right. Which one is the universal law?
.
If the laws should never change, shouldn't we still be practising slavery? -
25
While you are correct to point out that among conservative and moderates the shift has been 10%. There was also this statement in the summary I also found interesting...
.
"It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."
.
But, hopefully this issue can find a place where we can all agree to disagree, and the "moral" compasss is put to rest on abortion. However, I doubt it with the strong opinions by the Catholic Church. I am finding just speaking with relatives in the next generation currently raising families, they are leaning more and more "conservative" on their opinions on abortion. Could it be they now see abortion as less of a means for contraception, and recognizing the value they have in raising children.
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- First Look: 'Lovely Bones' and Peter Jackson's Virtuoso Vistas
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell













RSS