Obama's State of the Union and Teddy Roosevelt

The staff at the History News Service wonders if Barack Obama's State of the Union Address was somehow written by Republican president Teddy Roosevelt.  The HNN writers have posted an excerpt of TR's 1906 annual message to Congress.  Read this snippet and see if anything seems familiar.

... [T]here is every reason why, when next our system of taxation is revised, the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. On the one hand, it is desirable that he should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation; on the other hand, it is quite as necessary that in this kind of taxation, where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger of inaugurating any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation. Whenever we, as a people, undertake to remodel our taxation system along the lines suggested, we must make it clear beyond peradventure that our aim is to distribute the burden of supporting the Government more equitably than at present; that we intend to treat rich man and poor man on a basis of absolute equality, and that we regard it as equally fatal to true democracy to do or permit injustice to the one as to do or permit injustice to the other.

Sound familiar?  Now here is snippet from Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address:

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else –- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both. 

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. 

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. 

Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief. 

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference — like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know that’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.

Run for the hills!  Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist!  He wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor!  He demanded that the rich carry a greater tax burden. Perhaps Obama is not the most socialistic, radical, big government, president in American history?  That honor just might go to Republican reformer Teddy Roosevelt, the great class-warrior.

Football at Calvin College

In an age when many colleges are cutting athletic programs, Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan is close to starting a football program.

Here is a taste of a recent article in the Grand Rapids Press:

GRAND RAPIDS -- The debate about whether Calvin College should start a football program has never proceeded beyond the dream stage in three previous studies conducted by school leaders and officials.

The fourth time just might be the charm.

The Calvin Football Task Force has recommended the school pursue a football program following 18 months of exhaustive research by a special group of administrators, faculty, staff, students and alumni.

"The task force has recommended we move forward," said Brian Bolt, who chaired the task force and serves as chair of the kinesiology department. "We presented our findings to the planning and priorities committee last week, so now it goes to the faculty senate for further debate and then the board of trustees.

"I expect we’ll have a decision by the end of the academic year."

It is the first time a feasibility study on football has reached this stage.

Reynolds on Why Evangelicals Don't Like Mormons

There is not a whole lot here that is new, but the literary biographer David Reynolds explains why some evangelicals have a hard time supporting a Mormon candidate.  Here is a taste:


The real issue for many evangelicals is Mormonism’s remarkable success and rapid expansion. It is estimated to have missionaries in 162 countries and a global membership of some 14 million; it is also, from its base in the American West, making inroads into Hispanic communities. Put simply, the Baptists and Methodists, while still ahead of the Mormons numerically, are feeling the heat of competition from Joseph Smith’s tireless progeny.

Some evangelical leaders take this a step further to accuse Mr. Romney of vaguely conspiratorial motives. The Baptist minister R. Philip Roberts, author of “Mormonism Unmasked,” recently said that evangelicals are concerned not about Mr. Romney promoting his faith as president, but about the great boost a Mormon presidency would give to the church’s proselytizing efforts.

There is particular worry that Mr. Romney, a wealthy, prominent figure in the church, is too close to his faith. How else to explain the concern among evangelicals when it became public that Mr. Romney had tithed some $4 million to the church over the last two years?

Interdenominational competition may also explain why the faith of Mr. Romney’s father, George Romney, went unchallenged when he ran for president in 1968. Back then Mormonism was a much smaller, and therefore less controversial, part of the religious landscape.

Amid the passions of this election season, it’s time to revive the tolerant spirit of the founding fathers. Religious competition of any kind, they believed, can breed bigotry, repression and hatred. The founders made an earnest effort to keep religion out of politics. Let’s do the same as we carry out the important work of choosing our next president.

Springsteen Tickets

As expected, I was completely shut out today in my attempt to land Springsteen tickets for his spring shows in Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York and Washington D.C.  I heard they sold out in around two minutes.

Unfortunately, I cannot pay the ticket prices that the brokers are asking (although some are better than others), so it looks like I will have to wait and take my chances on the late summer and fall leg of the tour.  I hope Springsteen decides to come to Baltimore, Hershey (ideal!) or State College like he did on the Working on a Dream Tour.

Anyone have four cheap tickets to any of these shows?

I wish Bruce would step up to the plate and allow more democratic access to tickets so that all the brokers don't swallow them up.  Such a policy would seem fitting with the message of his music.  Take care of your own, Bruce!  Take care of your own!!!

Slavery at Monticello: Paradox of Liberty

If you are in Washington D.C., check out this new exhibit at the National Museum of American History.  Then, next month, head over to Monticello to see the accompanying exhibit: "Landscape of Slavery: Mulberry Row at Monticello."

Here is a taste of an article on the exhibits that appeared in yesterday's New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The astounding thing about American slavery is not that it existed — the enslavement of one people by another may be one of history’s universals — but that it persisted. It lasted into an era when its absence could be imagined and its presence could become an outrage.

That was one of the chilling peculiarities of slavery in the United States: As revolutionary ideas of human rights and liberty were being formulated, slavery was so widely accepted that contradictions between the evolving ideals and the brutish reality of enslavement were overlooked or tolerated.

We look back now, shocked at the cognitive and moral perversity. And that is one reason why a prevalent reaction has been to assert that the champions of those revolutionary ideals were hypocrites, including 12 of the first 18 American presidents, who were slave owners.

But that too-familiar judgment brings us to the most challenging example of all: Thomas Jefferson. And two new exhibitions come to a far more subtle and illuminating assessment of the past. Jefferson’s relationship to slavery is the subject of an important exhibition opening on Friday at the National Museum of American History here, “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty.” It was created by the nascent National Museum of African American History and Culture in conjunction with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs Jefferson’s extraordinary plantation, Monticello, as a historical home and museum in Charlottesville, Va.

Who is Saul Alinsky?

Newt Gingrich has been trying to disparage Barack Obama by calling him a "Saul Alinsky radical."  I am guessing that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters have never heard of Saul Alinsky.  But that doesn't matter to Newt.  As long as GOP primary voters know that he was an evil socialist and community organizer then everything will be OK.  And after all, Newt is a self-proclaimed "historian," so what he says about historical figures should be believed.

Over at The New Republic, Michael Kazin introduces us to this so-called "radical."  Here is a taste:

Saul Alinsky often called himself a radical, but his career as a community organizer had thoroughly traditional foundations in grassroots democracy and institutional religion. Indeed, it was built with the active support and resources of key figures in the Roman Catholic Church. (The same faith, incidentally, to which Newt converted in 2009, joining his wife Callista, who grew up Catholic in Wisconsin.)

In the late 1930s, Alinsky launched his first project in the Back of the Yards, a multi-ethnic, working-class, mostly Catholic neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. Bernard J. Sheil, the city’s auxiliary bishop, championed the new Back of the Yards Council and encouraged local priests and leading parishioners to take part. Sheil, founder of the Catholic Youth Organization, helped set up Alinsky’s network of local organizers—the non-profit Industrial Areas Foundation—and convinced financier Marshall Field III to bankroll it. 

During the 1940s and early 1950s, Alinsky worked closely with another influential priest, Monsignor John O’Grady, director of the National Conference of Catholic Charities. O’Grady liked Alinsky’s focus on mobilizing local people to help themselves and introduced the “radical” to a parish priest who was working with young Puerto Ricans in a poor neighborhood near the University of Chicago.

The Monsignor and the Jewish troublemaker got along so well that Alinsky began to work with O’Grady on the older man’s biography. The book was not completed, but the outline made clear that the two shared a strong critique of modern liberalism that would be congenial to many conservatives today: “…the New Deal was important, it was good…yet it carried an opposite side to the shield, in terms of a gravitation of power and the establishment of enormous bureaucracies which were evil.” Americans should turn, instead, wrote Alinsky, “to grass roots organization and decentralization.” 

As Alinsky knew well, O’Grady’s thinking drew from the Catholic principle of “subsidiarity,” which the Church began to develop in the late 19th century as an alternative to social change directed by powerful nation-states. Subsidiarity holds that social problems should first be handled by the smallest, most local authority in existence. As Pope Pius XI wrote in a 1931 encyclical: “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.”

Over the Front Porch Republic, Russell Arben Fox affirms Kazin's piece. 

Why Romney May Have Wrapped It Up Last Night

Stuff Presbyterian Seminarians Say

Compliments of the students at Princeton Theological Seminary:



HT: Jana Riess

Was FDR the Antichrist?

Ed Linenthal, the editor of The Journal of American History, talks with Matt Sutton, author of the forthcoming essay "Was FDR the Antichrist? The Birth of Fundamentalist Antiliberalism in a Global Age."  The article stems from Sutton's forthcoming book American Evangelicals and the Politics of Apocalypse (Harvard University Press).  Sutton's work is innovative in its attempt to explore fundamentalist's global awareness as it relates to their belief in the second coming of Christ.

See Steven Miller's recent post on Sutton's work at Religion in American History.

What Gingrich Should Have Said

Frank Beckwith offers Newt a better answer to the "open marriage" question posed to him by John King at the CNN debate in South Carolina.

The Speaker is, of course, correct that “every person in here knows personal pain.” No one doubts that. But, in this case, the personal pain suffered by his ex-wife was inflicted by Gingrich. For this reason, the appropriate response for the Speaker should have been something like this, “Every person in here knows personal pain, just like the pain suffered by my ex-wife. And, I am ashamed to admit that I am the one who caused this pain. So, I don’t at all disparage her for what she has said about me. That’s the man I was: self-absorbed, uncaring, thinking myself as someone above the moral law. My conversion to Catholicism, and the absolution I received for my sins, was the first step on my way to becoming the man I ought to be.”

But what we heard from Gingrich was a complaint about his pain, as if he were the victim! But not in relation to his personal virtue and his formation as a Christian, as if King’s question was a stumbling block to his internal sanctification. Rather, Gingrich was upset that the question about his ex-wife was asked in a debate, in his words, “two days before the primary [as] a significant question for a presidential campaign.” This is what he judged “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.” Either the Speaker lacks imagination or he is so self-absorbed that he instinctively converts his ex-wife’s pain into a question about his personal ambition to become President of the United States. Now, that’s despicable.

Blogs vs. Term Papers

Have you been following this whole debate?  Duke University English professor Cathy Davidson (whose book Revolution and the Word helped me immensely when I was writing The Way of Improvement Leads Home) is suggesting that schools and colleges should do away with long research papers and replace them with blogs.  The New York Times summarizes her controversial position.  Here is a taste:

OF all the challenges faced by college and high school students, few inspire as much angst, profanity, procrastination and caffeine consumption as the academic paper. The format — meant to force students to make a point, explain it, defend it, repeat it (whether in 20 pages or 5 paragraphs) — feels to many like an exercise in rigidity and boredom, like practicing piano scales in a minor key.

And so there may be rejoicing among legions of students who have struggled to write a lucid argument about Sherman’s March, the disputed authorship of “Romeo and Juliet,” or anything antediluvian. They have a champion: Cathy N. Davidson, an English professor at Duke, wants to eradicate the term paper and replace it with the blog.

Her provocative positions have lent kindling to an intensifying debate about how best to teach writing in the digital era.

“This mechanistic writing is a real disincentive to creative but untrained writers,” says Professor Davidson, who rails against the form in her new book, “Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn.”

“As a writer, it offends me deeply.”

Professor Davidson makes heavy use of the blog and the ethos it represents of public, interactive discourse. Instead of writing a quarterly term paper, students now regularly publish 500- to 1,500-word entries on an internal class blog about the issues and readings they are studying in class, along with essays for public consumption. 

For Davidson, the blog is a better way of teaching students how to write.  I am open to this idea, but since I have never taught writing I do not have a strong opinion either way.  I learned to write without any formal training or coursework and I am still not sure if I am any good at it.  

But as a historian and history professor, I am not yet ready to do away with research papers.  Maybe blogging is a better way of teaching writing, but I am not sure writing short blogs posts will help students  to think historically, to analyze primary evidence, to synthesize evidence into a compelling narrative, and to make a historical argument.  I am willing to be convinced, but in the meantime I will continue to assign research papers to my upper-division history students.

The Most Popular Posts of the Last Week

Here are the most popular posts of the past week at The Way of Improvement Leads Home.

1. Gustafson Resigns as Stony Brook School Headmaster
2. The Meaning of "We Take Care of Our Own."
3. Notre Dame Lands Patrick Deneen
4. The Benefits of a Classroom Lecture
5. Paterno
6. The Top Ten Most Religious Cities in America
7. We Take Care of Our Own
8. A Little History Humor
9. The Republican Party Has Lost Its Way
10. The (Economic) Value of a Teacher

Also receiving votes:
Newt's History
Catholic Leaders Slam Santorum and Gingrich for Their Remarks on Race and Poverty

Jefferson Lecture Recap

I had a very nice visit yesterday to the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  I was the guest of the Department of Classics, Philosophy, and Religion (CPR). The members of the department invited me to deliver the 2012 Jefferson Lecture on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  I am very honored to be following scholars such as Martin Marty and Alan Wolfe in this lecture series.

I don't usually get to spend a lot of time with religious studies, philosophy, and classics professors, but I felt right at home chatting with them about everything from the GOP primary race to online teaching. The members of the CPR department at Mary Washington are a very hospitable bunch.  The reception held prior to the lecture was fabulous.

It was also good to meet Mary Beth Mathews, a professor in the CPR department at Mary Washington and a scholar of 20th century American fundamentalism who is writing what should prove to be a major contribution to our understanding of the relationship between fundamentalism and the African-American church.

It always difficult to know how a lecture like this gets received.  I thought it went well, but who knows.  Different constituencies often have different expectations for such an event.  Much of what I had to say came directly from my Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.  The lecture hall was lively and the questions were good.

When I got home this morning I was alerted to a Mary Washington student (I assume) who was live blogging the talk.  Here are some of the thoughts of "Benjamin," who blogs at "We Are But Stardust."

"Not exactly sure how this is going to go given that he teaches at a Christian College.  We'll seeeeeeeeee."

"I like his lecture style at least.  Wouldn't mind listening to him."

Aaaaaaaaa and now I feel like I'm sitting in church listening to the sermon.  (I think I may have been talking about how the founders used the Bible here).

"I'm just waiting for him to ask us to open our bibles."

This guy just called Vermont a very secular state.

I'm not sure what to make of these comments, but I was very entertained by them.  Thanks for taking the time to blog the lecture, "Benjamin." 

And thanks to Mary Beth and CPR chair Craig Vasey for the invitation and the hospitality.

And now it is off to Grove City College on Monday for a series of lectures.  After that, I can finally settle into the new semester at Messiah College and finish this book manuscript!  Stay tuned.

Ron Wells on "Confessing History."

We are accused of being "churlish" and ungrateful, and at least one of our authors is described as "graceless," but Wells, in his own unique way, seems to like the book. 

University of Mary Washington Lecture

If you live in the Fredericksburg, Virginia area, consider stopping by the University of Mary Washington tomorrow night to say hello. 

I will be giving The 2012 Jefferson Lecture on the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom.  My topic, of course, is "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?"  The lecture is free and open to the public.  It will be held at 7:30 in the Dodd Auditorium on campus.

Symposium on Deerfield Raid

I received a flyer in the mail today about this one day symposium at Historic Deerfield.  It looks really good.  I am sure my student Katie, a Deerfield Summer Fellow, wishes she could attend.

Boston 1775 has it covered:

On Saturday, 3 March, Historic Deerfield will host a one-day symposium on “Exploring the 1704 Deerfield Raid.” This event will take place from 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. at the Deerfield Community Center.

The scheduled speakers are:

• John Demos, Samuel Knight Professor of History Emeritus, Yale University.
• William M. Fowler, Jr., Northeastern University, Distinguished Professor of History.
• Alice Nash, Associate Professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• R. Scott Stephenson, Director of Collections and Interpretation, American Revolution Center.
• Kevin Sweeney, Professor of History at Amherst College.
• Philip Zea, President of Historic Deerfield.

Demos wrote The Unredeemed Captive. Sweeney cowrote Captors and Captives, which I really liked. Stephenson’s talk is titled “From Deerfield to Deerslayer: Borderlands Conflict and the Origins of the American Rifleman.” I know other speakers and think it’s an impressive lineup.

Participants will receive a copy of a new “1704 Raid Walking Tour,” and can view the Flynt Center’s new exhibit “Furnishing the Frontier: The Material World of the Connecticut River Valley, 1680-1720.” I’d also stop in at the Memorial Hall Museum because I think it’s done a good job of updating its display on the raid, preserving the older form while reflecting modern understandings.

Pre-registration is required to attend the symposium. The registration fee is $75 ($65 for Historic Deerfield members and school teachers, who can also receive P.D.P.’s). Visit the website at top for more information and online registration. Folks can also reserve a space by email or by calling Julie Marcinkiewicz at 413-775-7179.

Springsteen Tour Rumors

As we posted yesterday, the Spring leg of the Springsteen U.S. tour has been announced.  Tickets go on sale on Friday.  If your city was not included on the first leg of the tour, Backstreets magazine seems optimistic that Bruce and the E-Street Band will visit in the fall. 

From Backstreets:

For anyone concerned about the spring leg passing their city/region by, note the title of the press release [emphasis ours]: "Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band Announce First US Leg of 2012 'Wrecking Ball' World Tour." Though nothing is officially announced past the European leg, it would be difficult to imagine Bruce and the band not coming back for more later in the summer/fall. (Fingers crossed for you, too, Canada... and considering they're calling it a "World Tour," you too, Japan and Australia and elsewhere!)

There's already of plenty of buzz about Stateside shows later in the year. Under the headline "Springsteen skips Twin Cities on first tour leg," the StarTribune speculates, "Twin Cities fans likely won't get a date until the fall..." In Chicago, the Sun-Times reports: "Springsteen is rumored to be playing Wrigley Field in September." Keep hope alive, Pittsburgh and the Pacific Northwest!

Matthew Bowman: "The Mormon People"

It is certainly an odd review, but it is good to see Matthew Bowman's new introduction to Mormonism, The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith, get covered in The New York Times. 

Many friends who know more about Mormonism than I do claim that Bowman's book has already become the best single-volume introduction to Mormonism available.  This is a fine achievement for young, up and coming historian of American religion.  Congrats, Matthew!  Now let's hope Romney is the GOP candidate for president ;-)

Here is a taste of the review:

Mr. Romney’s political ascendency is forcing Americans to confront their complicated feelings about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as Mormons. Matthew Bowman’s timely book, “The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith,” will no doubt be of service during this debate. Speaking prophetically, I can see bulk sales to book groups in its future.

The question you most want answered about the Mormon Church, put simply, is this: Is this religious institution a cult — “Scientology plus 125 years,” as Jacob Weisberg memorably put it in Slate — or a welcome and recognizably American band of hard-working, cheerful, morally upright citizens? Or is it somehow both? Mr. Bowman, a Mormon with a doctorate in American religious history from Georgetown, weighs the evidence and scampers safely up the middle.

New Review of "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?"

Thanks to Mitchel Kinsinger of Northwestern College (Iowa) for this kind review of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. Here is a taste:

Among the hot topics in contemporary politics that inspire "religious" devotion is the proper relationship between church and state, or more specifically, between religion and government. Sooner or later this discussion will wend its way back to the founding of our nation, where opinions will differ sharply as to whether the founders were, or intended America to be, Christian. The same key founders are quoted on both sides of the arguments, and few minds are changed.

Into this dualistic debate comes John Fea's helpful book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. Fea, a respected evangelical historian at Messiah College, from the outset seeks, not to offer a definitive answer to the title's question, but to equip the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. The book is written for "the historically minded and thoughtful reader who is looking for help in sorting it all out" and is intended as "a historical primer for students, churchgoers, and anyone who wants to make sense of the American past and its relationship to Christianity." Fea carefully lays out evidence that speaks to the issue from a broad cross-section of over three centuries of American history. The breadth and depth of the evidence he brings to the issue is a welcome departure from the usual narrow and cherry-picked quotes that bolster one-sided arguments...


...Fea has done an excellent job of helping all of us to be historians by producing evidence and seeking to be as objective as possible. Whatever side the reader comes down on ultimately, he or she will have a better appreciation of the nature and kinds of arguments the other side is making and the evidence that supports their claims. Those looking for easy, certain answers will not appreciate this book. However, for those willing to carefully consider the historical evidence, this book is a mustread as Fea has given both sides of the debate a welcome and important resource.

This Week's Patheos Column: "Taking Care of Our Own"

What is this experiment that we call the United States? What did Thomas Jefferson mean by the phrase "the pursuit of happiness?" What is the promise of America?

For many, the American creed is about individual liberty. Citizens of the United States are free to worship without government interference. They are able to consume freely to satisfy their material wants and desires. They climb the ladder of success with unrelenting ambition.

While this commitment to freedom and liberty has been an important part of our national history, it has often been balanced with the willingness of Americans to sacrifice their self-interested pursuits for their neighbors and fellow citizens in need. The Founding Fathers called this "republicanism." Christians call it "living out the gospel."

In popular culture there is no one who understands this tension between individualism and community better than Bruce Springsteen. As a young artist in the 1970s and 1980s, Springsteen's music celebrated the American dream as defined by individualism. He encouraged us, in the wildly popular "Born to Run," to break out of our "cages on Highway 9" in pursuit of a "runaway American dream." And maybe, if we run hard enough, we will "get to that place where we really want to go and we'll walk in the sun."

Read the rest here.

The Catholic Left is Mad at Obama

According to William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama's mandate requiring employers to provide their employees with health care coverage that provides free birth control and sterilization has angered many on the Catholic left who supported the president in 2008.  Here is a taste:

When Barack Obama secured his party's nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party's sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed.

With Mr. Obama, all this looked to be in the past. In 2006, the Illinois senator delivered a speech declaring that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." He followed up by appearing at fund-raisers for the anti-abortion Bob Casey Jr. during Mr. Casey's successful run for Sen. Rick Santorum's senate seat.

Sen. Casey went on to co-chair Mr. Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. Sixteen years after the snub to his dad, he was given a prime-time speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic convention. And Mr. Obama would go on to capture a majority of the Catholic vote.

Now, suddenly, we have headlines about the president's "war on the Catholic Church." Mostly they stem from a Health and Human Services mandate that forces every employer to provide employees with health coverage that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but makes them free. Predictably, the move has drawn fire from the Catholic bishops.

Read the rest here.

The Spring 2012 Leg of the Springsteen U.S. Tour

It has just been announced.  According to Backstreets, here are the dates for the Spring leg of the U.S. "Wrecking Ball" tour.

March 18 – Atlanta, GA – Philips Arena (on sale Feb 4)
March 19 – Greensboro, NC – Greensboro Coliseum (on sale Feb 3)
March 23 – Tampa, FL – Tampa Bay Times Forum (on sale Jan 28)
March 26 – Boston, MA – TD Garden (on sale Jan 28)
March 28 – Philadelphia, PA – Wells Fargo Center (on sale Jan 28)
March 29 – Philadelphia, PA – Wells Fargo Center (on sale Jan 28)
April 1 – Washington, DC – Verizon Center (on sale Jan 28)
April 3 – East Rutherford, NJ – Izod Center (on sale Jan 27)
April 4 – East Rutherford, NJ – Izod Center (on sale Jan 27)
April 6 – New York, NY – Madison Square Garden (on sale Jan 27)
April 9 – New York, NY – Madison Square Garden (on sale Jan 27)
April 12 – Detroit, MI – The Palace of Auburn Hills (on sale Jan 28)
April 13 – Buffalo, NY – First Niagara Center (on sale Jan 28)
April 16 – Albany, NY – Times Union Center (on sale Jan 28)
April 17 – Cleveland, OH – Quicken Loans Arena (on sale Jan 28)
April 24 – San Jose, CA – HP Pavilion (on sale Feb 3)
April 26 – Los Angeles, CA – Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena (on sale Feb 3)
April 29 – New Orleans, LA – New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival (on sale now)
May 2 – Newark, NJ – Prudential Center (on sale Jan 27)

As named in today's press release, the 2012 E Street Band is Roy Bittan, Nils Lofgren, Patti Scialfa, Garry Tallent, Stevie Van Zandt, and Max Weinberg, with Soozie Tyrell and Charlie Giordano. (Anyone wondering what horns might be present on stage will have to wait a little longer.)

Support the Digitization of Federal Holdings

From the National Coalition for History:


A petition drive is underway asking the Obama administration to create a commission that will answer–within 1 year–questions such as what are our federal holdings, what would it take to digitize them, how much would it cost, and what are the economic and non-economic benefits? We urge you to go to the WhiteHouse.gov website, to support this effort by signing the petition. We need 25,000 signatures by January 20, 2012, to make this happen! 

In September 2011, the White House launched an online petition web site, We the People, where anyone can post an idea asking the Obama administration to take action on a range of issues, get signatures, and get a response from their government. You can learn more about the effort and add your name to the petition by going to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/start-national-effort-digitize-all-public-government-info/15vthgVB

You can also visit the Archivist of the United States David Ferriero’s blog to learn how such an initiative might impact the National Archives.

A group called “Yes We Scan” (https://yeswescan.org) is leading the petition drive to have the federal government analyze the cost effectiveness of digitizing holdings from the National Archives, Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institution, and scores of other federal agencies. “Yes We Scan” is an effort by the Center for American Progress and Publicresource.org to promote digitization of all government information in an effort to make it more accessible to the world.

What To Look For In Tonight's GOP Debate

The first Florida debate begins in 52 minutes.  I will be watching.  Over at Postmodern Conservative, Pete Spiliakos suggests a few things to look for.  Here is a taste:

Santorum and Romney have a clear job tonight.  They need to make the story about Gingrich fighting them rather than Gingrich fighting the moderator.  The point isn’t to make people think bad thoughts about Gingrich’s record and character.  Most everybody knows Gingrich is basically dishonest.  Gingrich’s supporters just think he is the tough, unbeatable, dishonest guy we need to take on then Obama Chicago machine.  The key is to get Gingrich into fights he doesn’t decisively win and keep at him.  Let’s remember, this was a guy who couldn’t decisively win his encounters against Bachmann (not that it did her campaign any good.)  If Gingrich leaves the debate looking no smarter or tougher than Romney and/or Santorum, there isn’t much of a rationale for the Gingrich candidacy.  Gingrich’s campaign is built around this fantasy where pedantic, self-righteous bombast = ruff and tuff.  Reality will intrude and bring his numbers down.  Maybe is will happen in time for the Florida primary (I think probably.)  Maybe later.

Read the whole post here.

Notre Dame Lands Patrick Deneen

The University of Notre Dame keeps stocking up. They got Mark Noll from Wheaton, Christian Smith from North Carolina, Patrick Griffin from Virginia, and now Patrick Deneen, the "front porcher" conservative from Georgetown.

Over at The Front Porch Republic, Deneen discusses why he will be leaving Washington D.C. for South Bend. He doesn't hesitate to take some shots at what he perceives to be Georgetown's weak Catholic identity. The rest of the piece is classic Front Porch Republic.  Deneen longs for the community of a small(er) town.

Congrats to Deneen and Notre Dame.

What Does "Moderate" Mean?

Bob Schieffer reflects:

Peppard: There is No Evangelical Vote

Who is this man?

I was going to write this week's Patheos column on this subject, but Michael Peppard has already said it well at dotCommonweal.  Here are his thoughts on the so-called Texas Evangelical Summit:

The 150 or so leaders met to hold a kind of consistory (with Texas substituting for the Vatican), complete with multiple ballots. They ultimately decided on Santorum, though not unanimously. And I keep imagining how this news would have resonated at a gathering of evangelicals who read Relevant and attend the Q events, or who follow the preaching of Joel Hunter, Tim Keller, and Samuel Rodriguez. Might they have said, “Just tell me one thing: Who are James Dobson and Tony Perkins?”

Even if evangelicals were to have recognized the names of their self-professed leaders, those leaders still should have known that they have very little power to influence the coveted “evangelical vote....” 

...More to the point, the evangelical voting bloc seems to be an illusion. If anything, this is an indicator of evangelicalism’s appeal and success. Like Catholicism, evangelicalism has become a completely normal part of American Christianity, to the point that Rick Santorum, a Catholic, was surprisingly listed among the top 25 evangelicals in the country. (Did Joe Lieberman almost make the list?) Evangelicalism became mainstream by adapting to many different parts of American society, emerging in all classes, regions, and races, and in so doing it lost the cohesion of a “voting bloc.” (One can get a great sense of the shifting landscape vis-à-vis politics by reading David Gushee, The Future of Faith in American Politics, among other recent books.)

Class in America, Circa 1957

HT: Kelly Baker

Poor Mitt

HT: Andrew Sullivan

What Are Newt's "Big Ideas?"

I asked this the other day.  Apart from standard conservative talking points, what are the "big ideas" that Newt Gingrich is always talking about?  It seems to me that the reason he won South Carolina has little to do with his "big ideas" and more to do with his bombastic, shoot from the hip, ego-driven debate style. 

Ezra Klein elaborates at The Washington Post:

On Saturday’s edition of “Up With Chris Hayes,” Gary Johnson brought up an old Newt Gingrich idea I hadn’t heard before: Putting individuals who brought more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States to death. That sounded extreme, even for Gingrich. So I looked it up. And sure enough, there it is: “The Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.” What makes the bill even more amazing is that Gingrich himself is a confessed pot smoker. When he was young, he said, experimenting with drugs “was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.” 

Asked at Thursday night’s debate to name his campaign regrets, Gingrich said that he wished he had been “a big-ideas, big-solutions, Internet-based campaign from day one.” But like Ross Douthat, I’m at a loss to name even one big idea animating Gingrich’s campaign.

He’s got the largest and most fiscally irresponsible tax cut in the race, but he doesn’t mention it much. His plans to cut spending are vague. He says he agrees with Ron Paul on the dangers of fiat money and the Federal Reserve, but he hasn’t proposed doing anything about it. Last night, during his speech in South Carolina, the only policy he explained in any detail was a proposal to allow offshore drilling off the coast of Louisiana and use the resulting revenues to modernize the port. That would be a medium-sized idea if he was running for governor of Louisiana. It’s the 14th bullet point in your energy policy when you’re running for president.

Broadly speaking, this seems typical for Gingrich’s career: His ideas on the big issues are standard-issue conservatism, and they’re mixed in with occasional flights of fancy (illuminate highways using orbiting mirrors that reflect moonlight), pure plays to resentment and fear (execute 19-year-olds who are stupidly trying to smuggle two ounces of pot from Mexico), and a lot of small, specific ideas, like the Louisiana port reconstruction. But perhaps I’m wrong. Can anyone name some actually big, actually workable, actually new ideas that Gingrich has been associated with during his career? What has he brought to the table that wouldn’t have been there in his absence?

Somebody help me out here?  What are Newt's "big ideas?"  Are there any Gingrich supporters out there who want to help me better understand his candidacy?