Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Price of Politics
National Review Online ^ | 18 August 2004 | Deal Hudson

Posted on 08/18/2004 11:47:32 AM PDT by Alfred Hitchcock

August 18, 2004, 10:00 a.m. The Price of Politics Getting ahead of a potential distraction.

By Deal W. Hudson

In late 1998, Crisis magazine, which I have the honor to publish, ran a series of articles on "the Catholic vote" which unexpectedly led to my involvement in politics. The articles caught the attention of the nascent Bush presidential campaign and I was asked, and agreed, to be part of the team advising on their outreach to Catholic voters.

Our basic advice, as reflected in our articles, was to target Mass-attending Catholic voters, not the larger group of self-identified Catholics, because Mass attendance is the best indication of a commitment to kind of values taught by the Church and represented by then candidate Governor George W. Bush.

This strategy, meshing perfectly with the theme of "compassionate conservatism," paid off and the candidate's message connected with Catholic voters: Governor Bush received ten percent more of the Catholic vote than Senator Dole had in 1996.

Happily, President Bush has kept faith with those Catholics who supported him because of his commitment to life and other family issues.

The campaign of 2004 presents a significantly different environment than 2000.

Once Senator Kerry became the Democratic-party nominee the spotlight was suddenly shining brightly again on the Catholic voter. And the controversies began to mount: abortion and Communion, marriage and annulment, the role of the clergy and bishops. At times the Kerry campaign seemed intent on conducting a Catholic-vote strategy that was, in effect, an anti-Catholic campaign with Kerry trying to play the role of persecuted schismatic.

This reinforced my belief that the election of Kerry, an aggressively pro-abortion, secularized Catholic who openly calls attention to his dissent on important Church teachings, would be a disaster for the Church. Indeed, Kerry proudly proclaims his faith would not help guide his public policy — that, in fact, it would be wrong to do so. If his beliefs do not guide his public policy, what would?

How is the Church to react to this? From the beginning I argued that Church leaders should not allow Kerry to use Church institutions for his campaign; parishes, schools, hospitals, etc., should be off limits to Kerry or anyone who wants to use the platform of the Catholic Church to undermine its authority and attack its teachings.

Then I learned that the moderator of the "Catholics-for-Kerry" website was actually a full-time employee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I pointed this out in our Crisis e-letter; Bill Buckley followed with his syndicated column, and within a few days the Kerry campaigner left his job at the Conference.

The next day I received a call from a liberal Catholic publication requesting a comment. In response to the reporter's question I told him that I thought the Conference had done the right thing.

Within a few days the same reporter asked for an interview, he insisted it need be right away, and I complied. He interviewed me for about an hour; a photographer took pictures, while my son played video games around my feet. None of the questions was personal; the questioning was all political, all about my support for President Bush.

No story appeared. Then people began telling me that this reporter was calling former employees and acquaintances and asking them for information about my personal life. Apparently this reporter was not content with a fair debate of the merits of substantive issues, where, of course, there could be honest disagreement. His target was now going to be my life, my past, and apparently any mistakes that he could uncover to embarrass me.

Like many people, I have done things in my life that I regret.

I have spoken and written about my past mistakes — including in my book about my conversion to the Church — and the role that they played in my conversion and the grace and the forgiveness I have found only through the Catholic Church.

Weeks passed and the same reporter then called me asking for another interview saying his story had taken a "surprising turn." In reply, my office e-mailed him asking for the questions he wanted me to answer.

The questions arrived and were all targeted at my personal life — not my political beliefs. They dealt in scattershot fashion with a range of topics: questions about past annulments for my marriages before my conversion to the Catholic Church, other Catholic organizations I have been involved with, and allegations from over a decade ago involving a female student at the college where I then taught. At the time, I dealt with this in an upright manner and the matter was satisfactorily resolved long ago. It was now being dug up, I believe, for political reasons — in an attempt to undermine the causes I have fought for: the defense of Church teachings on life, the priesthood, the authority of the pope, and the need for faithful Catholic participation in politics.

I've been married seventeen years, my daughter is fifteen, my adopted son from Romania is seven, and my wife and I are happily married. When we entered the political fray in the 2000 campaign we knew the risk of political involvement but considered the issues worth the potential cost. We still do.

No one regrets my past mistakes more than I do.

I thought it important to present these facts at this time — as I have done in the past — because I need to protect the people I love and the causes I believe in. In matters of this nature, exaggeration, half-truths, and rumor often tend to overtake the truth — and I wanted truth to get a head start.

In addition, while I remain fervently committed to supporting President Bush's reelection, I think it best that I no longer play a role as an adviser in this year's campaign. While I have no intention of being dissuaded by personal attacks, I will not allow low-brow tactics to distract from the critically important issues in this election.

I hope all of this will not discourage anyone engaged in these debates over religion, the culture of life, and the future of our nation. This election is too important for any of us to allow that to happen.

— Deal W. Hudson is publisher of Crisis magazine.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: abuse; annulment; divorce; scandal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Texas Eagle

How have I been uncharitable to you?


21 posted on 08/18/2004 3:33:15 PM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
one was pulled? This one is still out there: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194051/posts

Oh swell. Looks like the article was posted 3 times. And the other one at your link looks like it was posted earlier. So this thread might get pulled as well.

22 posted on 08/18/2004 3:37:07 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rudyrudy; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp IV; narses; ...
I got it when I returned to the church after a 20 year departure.

Many catholics slip, like their protestant and Jewish brethren, for various reasons, the biggest one being - youthful disdain for their parent's 'wisdom'. Ultimately, the foundation laid in childhood, is the one upon which we all rebuild. If it was solidly laid - good catechesis - then it will become the building block upon which the returning catholic constructs his values.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list


23 posted on 08/18/2004 4:03:49 PM PDT by NYer (When you have done something good, remember the words "without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

You do realize that the Hail Mary is Scriptural, don't you?


24 posted on 08/18/2004 4:17:35 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

No I didn't. Please advise.


25 posted on 08/18/2004 4:18:51 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alfred Hitchcock

Deal needs to go nuclear and reveal the "journalist."


26 posted on 08/18/2004 4:37:00 PM PDT by Pio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"Many catholics slip, like their protestant and Jewish brethren, for various reasons, the biggest one being - youthful disdain for their parent's 'wisdom'."

Yes, and many of us do things we wish we hadn't done as a consequence.

I think -- though some don't -- that a person should be allowed to put those things behind him and let the past be past, so long as he repents and mends his ways.

IMO, this reporter is despicable, and it's a darn shame that dueling is illegal.


27 posted on 08/18/2004 5:41:56 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Did the other threads take the downward spiral into Catholic bashing as well? I wish now that I'd read your ping earlier today.

Interesting article. We all have something in our lives we wish we could undo or hide away forever, but in the end, its better to wear your sins on your sleeve. Better for me, at least. Slings and arrows may fly, but it strengthens my belief that I'm a better person now, through Christ, than I was in the past. That's pretty tough armor. Withstands just about anything.

28 posted on 08/18/2004 5:57:23 PM PDT by grellis (A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: grellis
Did the other threads take the downward spiral into Catholic bashing as well?

No, it was basically all Catholics with a 50/50 mix of Hudson bashing and bashing Hudson bashers. The thread was pretty lively until it suddenly got pulled in favor of another thread that only had 4 posts at the time.

29 posted on 08/18/2004 6:56:45 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alfred Hitchcock
I know a lot of people don't think a lot of Malcolm X, but I always respected the guy. I understood his disaffection with Whites, that was to be understood in light of both his family and Clan history. His 'either by the ballot or the bullet' was a great statement that I'm sure even the Founding Fathers would have liked.

Anyway (and I'll be paraphrasing here), once when he was being hounded by the Press, a reporter dredged up a skeleton or two, and hit X with them somewhat unexpectedly. Malcolm looked right at the guy, and said so?

He said something to the effect of, I came to terms with my transgressions long ago, you can trot them out from sun-up to sun-down, they, and as a consequence, you, hold no power over me, so be gone.

Good stuff, if you ask me. And more people should reply in such a way, because it totally defangs that particular bunch of vampires.

30 posted on 08/18/2004 7:11:05 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: AlbionGirl

"Snakes couldn't have turned on me faster than theliberal. Yes, I will pull offthat liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! TheNorth"s liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with itthat they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites."

-Malcolm X


32 posted on 08/18/2004 8:16:13 PM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: seamole

ohhhhh-kayyyy. Moses talked to a bush. Do you guys pray to shrubbery?


33 posted on 08/18/2004 8:49:15 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alfred Hitchcock
If his beliefs do not guide his public policy, what would?

His comrades would.

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand how devout Catholics could in good faith vote for this man. His disregard for the clear teachings of his Church, the scriptures, and his obvious deceitful life should tell them something about his character.

34 posted on 08/18/2004 8:51:44 PM PDT by ladyinred (What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grellis
I think it is despicable that this man was smeared because he is supporting President Bush. The media in all areas is doing all it can to elect that horrible Kerry and is willing to destroy anyone who gets in their way. The left is always accusing the President of attacks and the politics of personal destruction when it is they who practice it with a vengeance.
35 posted on 08/18/2004 8:59:39 PM PDT by ladyinred (What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

I didn't see any of the other postings of this article, so I appreciate the fact that you posted it.


36 posted on 08/18/2004 9:03:04 PM PDT by ladyinred (What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
I have no use for Malcolm X, but I do very much like his answer to the person that reminded him of past transgressions! You are right, that is good stuff, and should be used by some to shut down certain reporters!
37 posted on 08/18/2004 9:09:14 PM PDT by ladyinred (What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"Do you guys pray to shrubbery?"

Ever had a manger scene in your church around Christmas?
Were you praying to it?

Ever asked anybody to pray for you?
Were you praying to them when you did?

Think about it.


38 posted on 08/18/2004 9:54:46 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Ever had a manger scene in your church around Christmas?
Yes.

Were you praying to it?
No.

Ever asked anybody to pray for you?
Yes.

Were you praying to them when you did?
No. But they're alive.

Think about it.
Okay.

39 posted on 08/18/2004 10:28:46 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

"No. But they're alive."

People in Heaven are dead?

Christians are one body. Where does it say that the death of the physical body severs a Christian from the mystical body of Christ?


40 posted on 08/18/2004 10:36:31 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson