Perhaps the root of this problem can be traced to the desire to rid the world of the word “like” from like every other sentence. This problem is to treat analogy as truth. Examples of this are: “Bill Clinton is the first black president” and “George Bush might just be our first Catholic president.” In each case there in an ideal for which the author is appealing, blackness and catholicity respectively. While the analogy itself may be perfect nonsense, at least if we include the word ‘like’ we are actually going to the trouble of making the analogy. Saying President Clinton is like our first black President conveys that we are going to explain the qualities that would make him black. Claiming President Clinton was our first black President is a flight of fantasy that causes people to wonder what other obvious truths you’ve managed to disregard.
Claiming that President Bush is like a Catholic president invites debate. The idea of him being the first just is a way to denigrate President Kennedy. It shows a certain arrogance, not only a willingness to excommunicate but a willingness to do so long after his death. It is quite a different claim than simply stating there is evidence he disregarded his marital vows. While one can legitimately debate how much of Kennedy’s life should be used for public fodder, one is at least damning him in truth rather than through what amounts to a caricature. I say caricature, because the retort when challenged that Kennedy was the first Catholic President would be to claim that you were just speaking on how policy was effected or rhetoric was used.
So what are we to make of President Bush? I think he like many in the secular world sees parts of the Catholic vision as efficacious in bringing about a more just world. I think he has shown comfort using Catholic terms, particularly the Culture of Life rhetoric. I think it is also manifest that he is comfortable using the ideas of other thinkers. In particular his tax policy seems to have been heavily influenced by Laffer and Reagonomics, not that there is anything wrong with that. On the basis of tax policy are we to argue how he is or is not a Catholic, hypothetical or otherwise? Is not the most likely scenario that he uses Catholic rhetoric when he thinks Catholic rhetoric will persuade others or state his case in the way he believes is best? The most likely explanation is that there is no deeper explanation for why he uses the rhetoric when he uses it. As to the question of “Wouldn’t it be totally kewl if it was true?” I’m not really into such speculation, but I would be down wit the Pres officially being in the church. I would like to have someone with me who also had a few steps left on the journey.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In