The Notre Dame Commencement

The President’s recent speech and accompanying honorary degree at Notre Dame was controversial and highly publicized. As always, the president conducted himself well and read his speech very smoothly with a comfortable and relaxed demeanor. He is after all, a very talented orator. As with all of the president’s speeches, if you enjoy the moment and ignore the words you miss a lot of what was said, both good and bad. So here is a break down.

First the controversy.

The fact that the president was speaking at the commencement was not controversial; he is after all, the president. The controversy revolved around the honorary degree that the university was giving him and a particular edict issued from the Catholic church relating to political figures who support abortion. Catholic institutions are strongly discouraged from giving awards or honors to politicians who hold a ‘pro-choice’ viewpoint. This would apply particularly to President Obama, who holds a more ‘pro-abortion’ viewpoint than any of his predecessors. Many students, staff, clergy, and other invited guests protested and even boycotted the graduation to voice their disapproval.

In the midst of this controversy, the president did quite well. Of course, he didn’t do what I would have thought was the best thing, but what he did, he did well. He acknowledged and addressed the issue in his speech. The speech itself was an encouragement to engage on difficult issues and try and find common ground. A very admirable approach to any ‘gray’ issue.

Unfortunately abortion is not one of those issues. There is nothing ‘gray’ about abortion. There is no common ground to be found on murder.

And the President acknowledged that too, I was surprised to find. He said, “… the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Fair enough.

He went on to discuss a variety of issues including giving a powerful example of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually created. It is an example that you don’t normally hear from the Democrats. Not to say they don’t talk about the Civil Rights Act, but they rarely give credit where credit is due. The President quite admirably gave kudos to President Eisenhower, who did more to advance the Civil Rights movement and dialogue than his Democratic successors, especially President Johnson, who merely signed the measures that President Eisenhower spent years assembling.

These were definitely the highlights of the speech, but closer inspection on some of the finer points does show some interesting bits.

A common theme throughout the speech is a sense of ‘fairness’, not so much from a perspective that you would expect at a commencement. Instead it carried the constant drumbeat of a latent hostility against success; an encouragement for service given by the students and a rebuke of the affluence that many of them are aspiring to, an affluence that the President himself has attained.

In the middle of the encouragement to deny yourself, the President, who had just assailed selfishness, pride, and ego, holds himself up as an example and repeats the story of what led him to become a community organizer working to lift up South Side neighborhoods. All while making no mention of the millions of dollars of success that the President has enjoyed after writing two best selling books. He goes on and on about the people that he has learned selflessness from and speaks of the wonders of non-profit ventures and being generous towards others, all while his wallet and his checkbook are telling a remarkably different story.

An odd commencement speech indeed.

I applaud the President for addressing the very issue that brought such controversy to the occasion, though it seems it would have been less self serving and more understanding if he had graciously asked not to receive the honorary degree in order to honor the Catholic heritage of those present.

I fully acknowledge that personal sacrifice, charity, and generosity are great and wonderful things that should be practiced by everyone, including the President, Vice President, and every member of his administration.

I would also encourage everyone to realize that class warfare, rather than helping the whole, actually hurts the whole. If we’ve learned anything from history it is that when you try and ‘level the playing field’ (i.e. promote a socialist doctrine) all you succeed in doing is dragging all but the elite in government DOWN to a common lower standard. When you practice liberty and encourage people to dream and succeed, then give them the freedom to do just that, then everyone is elevated by the success. Yes, naturally a few will rise above the others, but the level of the whole is higher. Our country was not established on equality of results, but rather freedom of opportunity.

When we celebrate the greatness, talent, ambition, creativity, and intelligence of the individual, we inspire the call to greatness within us all. We should not strive to covet the things that our neighbor has, but rather to develop the talents and abilities that God has given each one of us.

A Contrast in Character

There has been a tremendous contrast that happened in the last couple of days. Two very different people, faced with difficult decision, came to two very different conclusions. One person chose what was popular in hopes of furthering his career and his ambitions. In exchange he was lauded by the President and “welcomed” into his political party. The other person is a person of character who chose to step out of the lime light and hold fast to her principles rather than compromise her beliefs and be the cover for actions that were contrary to her faith and her convictions.

The first person of course is Senator Arlen Specter, a man who faced a very tough primary battle in his last election and won after President Bush supported him and helped in his campaign. During that same term he has now switched his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat, despite the fact that just a month ago he claimed he would not. His stated reason for switching parties is that he has looked at the polls and determined that he will lose a Republican primary bid.

Better to change sides, than to lose an election.

Senator Specter claims that this will not change the issues that he takes a stand on, particularly the upcoming card check legislation that he currently opposes. Of course that might be the case and I certainly hope that it is, however at this point it doesn’t seem that Senator Specter can be trusted to keep his word, after all, a month ago he said “I am a Republican”. Senator Specter has an election coming up that he obviously desperately wants to win. He will be relying heavily on funding from his national and state party to get the funding he needs for this election. You would hope that he would return the MILLIONS of dollars that the state Republican Party has already given to his campaign, but that would mean he will need that much more support from the Democrats. If the Democrats are close on the card check legislation, you can bet that they would pressure Senator Specter to vote with his party, after all, they control the purse strings and Senator Specter has already demonstrated that he will do anything to win this election.

Senator Specter has never been a conservative and the Republican Party will be better without him.

The second person is Mary Ann Glendon, a lawyer of considerable note and a strong advocate for the rights of unborn children. She was picked by the University of Notre Dame to receive a very prestigious award, the Laetare Medal. As part of receiving this medal she would be giving an address at the university commencement ceremonies, also a great honor. The university also requested the President attend and speak at the commencement. He agreed and they have decided to present him with an honorary degree despite the fact that Notre Dame is a Catholic university and is naturally opposed to abortion and the pro-choice agenda. President Obama however is perhaps the most strongly pro-abortion president in history. They have received considerable criticism for their decision and just this week, Mary Ann Glendon wrote a letter that included the following:

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that "talking points" issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• "President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal."
• "We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about."

Rather than serve as cover or as “balance” for the event and for actions that she obviously opposes, she has decided that she will not be attending the commencement and also will not accept the Laetare Medal from the university.

Mary Ann Glendon is a person of principles and Notre Dame University has a lot it could learn from her.