Recently I engaged in a debate with John Zmirak on Inside Catholic regarding the status of Catholicism in modern America. Those who want to try and sort out the back and forth can go here to follow the exchange.
Particularly we disagree on the issue of immigration, but it seems there is a more fundamental disagreement as well. John was originally going to indirectly reply to some of my comments with another article on IC, but instead published his thoughts in Taki’s Magazine. Although he doesn’t mention me by name, he did say that our exchanged inspired him to write what he did.
The charges he levels against me, or at least those he assumes think like me, are amusing in their wild inaccuracy. The reader can examine for him or herself their specifics; the primary purpose of the second half of this polemic is to portray us as those who would sacrifice our children’s future out of a desire to extend mercy and charity to the undocumented workers that have come to our country seeking to support their own families.
My hope is that his final screed against the “modern American liberal” was intended for the faithless, a group distinct from those such as myself who are openly devout Catholics who simply disagree with his hierarchy of values.
It seems in recent week that an ever-increasing focus has fallen on Rush Limbaugh and his radio show. Not only have the usual suspects worked themselves into a frenzy over him, but we’ve even had President Obama command Congressional Republicans to ignore him. And the White House has yet to let up on speaking against him. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has even taken a few stabs at Limbaugh. Even more amazingly, Republican Chairman Michael Steele has voiced disapproval of Limbaugh’s talks.
Let’s sit down and play a game. I’m sure some of you are familiar with it, but for those who are not, the game may need a little description. First, the game is entitled “I win.” No, no, come back, it is a fun game, I promise! Here’s the rules: I win. No matter what you do, I win. If you follow the rules, I win. If you don’t follow the rules, then you have forfeited, and I win. Pretty simple, right?
Judging by the questions that have been asked during the two presidential and one vice-presidential debates, one might have the impression that all Americans care about are the economy and Iraq. Granting the legitimacy of concerns about both, John J. Pitney Jr. runs through a list of topics thus far absent from discussion.
I’m not sure that anyone, at any point of the political spectrum would consider what our nation witnessed last night under the name of “debate” to be an example of scintillating civic discourse. No one has asked me how to run our national political campaigns, so I thought I’d just present my idea of an interesting debate unasked for. My goals are that it promote real discourse, and that it provide enough entertainment value that people will be likely to watch.
The debate is to be conducted before an audience, with security to escort out anyone who becomes too disruptive. The seating should be in the round, so we can invoke gladiatorial archetypes as we watch the candidates spar.