Friday, June 5, 2009

“Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” – Obama 5/17/09

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 5, 2009

On May 17, the 2009 graduating class at Notre Dame University had the distinct honor of hearing their commencement’s keynote address delivered by a sitting president of the United States. This rare and unique privilege has made statesmen the most sought-after of commencement speakers throughout the history of academia. Unfortunately some small portion of the glory of this experience was soured for those students dispatched from the South Bend, Indiana, Ivy League school.

Though the interruptions during the address were minor and the protesters few, there were a handful of gatherings outside the campus gates that weekend, with dozens of demonstrators speaking out against the Catholic institution’s invitation of President Obama to orate there.

While the controversy didn’t build the head of steam many hoped for, it had been a focus of coverage on Fox News for weeks, where it first came to my attention. A lone spokesperson represented a conservative group of students protesting the decision. However, even she admitted that the majority of students were Obama supporters and that the coverage of the school paper and other internal sources favored the president. Still, over the ensuing weeks the network drove the controversy and over-reported its intensity.

Fox News and my brother, Gordon, would have us believe that Obama’s speech was equivalent to that of a Nazi war criminal, instead of the democratically elected leader of the free world. The fact of the matter is that the school’s administration was wise to seek the president’s presence, especially with his approval ratings at a relatively high level. Obama’s charge to find common ground was not lost on the Reverend John Jenkins, who introduced the president. Though he used the opportunity to reaffirm the University’s support for the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion and stem cell research, Jenkins encouraged dialog, discussion and discourse. He admonished his audience to resist demonizing the opposition and to ease hateful divisions.

Gordon’s essay is an example of why the divisiveness of politics will continue to stall both progress and unity. Rigidity and a refusal to recognize commonality reinforces hatred, fuels animosity and chills cooperation.

Furthermore, the demonization of the opposition is counterproductive, despite its popularity when one is preaching to the choir. Terms like “pro-death” and the graphic description of a little-used operation serve well to inspire rage, but present a distorted view of the pro-choice (though I personally dislike the term pro-choice) side of the debate. This portrayal disregards the dire circumstances of those faced with heart-wrenching decisions and the perils they face.

Gordon claims that while there are always differing views, certain values remain steadfast at the core of issues, and have remained so throughout America’s history no matter how loud the cry of majority or how high the cost. It is interesting to me, then, that during our recent discussions [Broader View Weekly: May 8 and May 22] on torture, certain core values were dispensable in the interest of security.

Another inconsistency that has always been troubling is that the voices that shout the loudest about the sanctity of life are often the same ones that cheer for the death penalty or root for war. There are “justifications” for this seeming double standard, but most result in a clouding of the matter or a shrouding in the supernatural. The truth is that in matters of life and death, it is less black-and-white and more “grey area”.

The work of a democracy is rooted in nuance and not in rigid standard. Hence the need for the judicial branch of our government to wade through real world data and weigh it against the stricture of written law, taking into account the human condition. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision weighed the hardship and danger posed by the lack of safe and legal abortion options for women, against regulation applied broadly with little regard for individual circumstance. Opinion varies about whether the decision is settled law (though even conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts have proclaimed it so), or merely legal precedent, and the struggle between preserving it or overturning it continues.

My fellow columnist and I have argued the merits of the abortion issue, and that of stem cell research, at length. We remain passionately on opposite sides of the table regarding both. Yet, we embrace as brothers through it all. Our conversations in written form are not always filled with pleasantries. However, it is my hope that cooler heads will always prevail and that we will always strive for open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words.

No comments: