In other words, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. He is confronting liberal and conservative, gay and straight, evangelical and mainline with the common good, the ideal lost in the culture wars and polarized politics of the last 20 years, but essential to the functioning of the American — or for that matter, any — democracy that hopes to survive its current crises and prosper long into an indefinite future.
Obama seems to think (and I agree) that serving the common good is not an option. It is a necessity.
Replacing the rhetoric of constant confrontation with a sustained search for areas of agreement and reasonable compromise is not an option. It is a necessity.
Unless we all have a stake in the future of the republic, the republic has no future.
Can we do it? Yes, we can.
Is this in the common good? From here (all the way at the bottom):
So the taxpayers are now funding abortions through overseas organizations – the “common good.”
But CNN says Obama has not reversed this order yet, although he plans to, so I don’t know which is correct. I’ll keep checking.
I have checked the White House official site and under the heading “Executive Orders,” I just see items related to Guantanamo issued for today, nothing on the Mexico City Policy. So if this site is accurate, nothing has been signed yet.
Who is the “we” in the common good? You can’t as a society address the common good when you have a fundamental disagreement as to who makes up the common. Obama is on the wrong side of history on the question of who is included in the common and God willing his attempts to smooth over his heinous position on abortion-at-will will fail.
Well, it will happen today – Obama to reverse foreign family-planning rule:
And yes, he finally did – via the AP:
Let me try that again –
And yes, he finally did – via the AP:
Ah yes, the most transparent administration does it again.
Branford, I didn’t even know it was a secret. How did the media get a hold of this? Was it a leak?
I never said it was a secret, John Wilkins, but it is apparent that instead of the media transparency that the executive orders dealing with Guantanamo received, the signing of this order was done quietly and without coverage by the media. I wonder why? I would hope it was because deep inside, Pres. Obama is ashamed of this, but I really don’t think so since he has promised to sign FOCA if passed and since he voted to deny medical treatment to those born due to botched abortions. No, I think he wanted to pacify his base without riling up the opposition, but let’s keep things quiet and out of the media spotlight. Like I said, so much for a transparent administration.
Branford, thanks for your explanation.
It sounds to me like you arguing that the keeping something out of the media spotlight means it isn’t transparent, or that “quietly” means “secret.”
I do think that, yes, this was a calculated choice on Obama’s part. As far as being “secret” goes, it was all over the left-blogosphere right after it was written.
There may be times when Obama stonewalls. It’s possible. But right now, given the Freedom of Information Act he’s rehabilitated, I’m not convinced that your concerns describe a secretive administration. Not yet. It might be later.