Skip to main content

Thoughts On The State Of The Union

 I’m receptive to the idea that it’s a pointless partisan exercise, gilded with fake pageantry and dignity. But in light of the fact that the corrosion of civil society is partially aided by the cynicism concerning the same, I wanted to watch and listen.

The first 12 minutes roughly was about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is a large amount of agreement between our leaders on both sides, and the president ably pointed it out. I have deep concerns that these sanctions are simply going to hurt Russian citizens, and not Putin or his enablers. I don’t think war is ever preferable, but we shouldn’t think economic sanctions are cost-free.

I have to say that I don’t have strong opinions about traditional economics, but when the president turned to domestic policy, a little voice kept replying, “I don’t know if that’s going to work.”

There’s an inherent tension it seems, between economic growth, and the shift to renewable energy. From a moral perspective, I think policymakers should simply do the latter, and absorb the consequences, in terms of public spending on social support. I’m not of the opinion that climate change concerns are exaggerated, or fictitious. In fact, the problem is urgent. There aren’t enough silly progressive pieties to wish this away. We have to do better than cultural sniping. On the other hand, a good number of folks have decided that not getting a life-saving vaccine to “own the libs” is preferable to reality. Clearly, we have a long way to go.

But speaking of silly progressive pieties, the most significant is the idea that abortion is health care, and that it is morally neutral, or even good. The grisly reality is the destruction of an innocent person. It’s the gravest moral crime against our common human dignity.

The rest of sexual politics—including everything that attaches to “gender theory” or gender ideology—is actually related to abortion. Abortion is actually firstly an affront to the social dimension of human dignity, because it destroys families, the foundation of society. It’s a strike against the notion of non-negotiable obligations to others. We’re seeing sexual politics play out this way, because we have become convinced of the idea that only individual self-actualization matters.

I’m not the one to tell a bunch of people that their sexual self-expression is the shirking of obligation, and the fractured attempt to find a truer identity that has been lost in trauma and pain, but someone should.

The rest of Biden’s speech was the usual laundry list of policy promises. Someone described it as “deft,” but I don’t apply that word to things that bore me.

Which is not to say that I found the Republican response any better. It was vicious, partisan, and pointless. And much too long. I would immediately vote for her opponent, out of spite, and simply to avoid a speech like that again. I’m glad I don’t live in Iowa. If that’s “Iowa nice,” I’ll pass.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...