Next, we review the speech by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.
Thanks to ABC News for the full transcript of Trump's speech; all excerpts are in indented italics as worded in their transcript.
[At the end of a lengthy anecdotal litany of law and order statistics, Trump tells the story of a border-crosser who murdered a woman, and concludes...] "But to this Administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders."
I would argue a secure border is part of our call to rights and responsibilities, just as comprehensive immigration reform is. While we need to have a safe way to control the flow of people in and out of the country, temporarily or permanently, for visits or for citizenship, we also need to have a complete and total way of addressing the problem that dignifies all people involved, both those aspiring to immigrate and those who have already found their way here.
Assuming Trump's anecdote is true, there obviously needs to be justice for those that commit immoral acts. But the poor behavior of a few people should never muddy the waters for the entirety of any group to which they belong - this is a dangerous and undignified tack that could easily be used to disqualify any group of people (like, say, Muslims).
Much like with health-care - where
universal health-care is a right we must pursue someway, whether via the ACA or by an alternative way - comprehensive immigration reform must be pursued. We must respond to the situation of undocumented people who are on our soil now, and we must have an approach to the issue that persists at our borders as well. Even if one feels that a border wall will secure our country and control immigration, the root causes of why people seek to emigrate from countries to our south and into the US must be addressed, and we need to reexamine the processes by which those people are able to pursue citizenship legally.
"Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America. The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponent, is that our plan will put America first. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo."
This quote encapsulates the "Make America Great Again" attitude that Mr. Trump has popularized. While few would fight making America great, the undertones by which Mr. Trump seeks to accomplish this are troubling to our social mindset. In his words here, he sounds very isolationist, ready to cut off the interconnectedness and global connections that help us to collaborate with others around the world and learn and grow socially, culturally, and even economically.
Mr. Trump's business ideals may have a positive impact on American businesses pursuing a better bottom line, and that may in fact benefit the poor and marginalized via a trickle-down of wealth and charity. However, it will hurt the Call to Family, Community, and Participation to create a society that is excessively skeptical and hostile toward other cultures and their influences. America's greatness is built largely on the welcoming of diversity that has faced many crossroads and consistently, even if too slowly or painfully, chosen plurality over homogeneity. We have made tremendous strides in learning from mistakes made when dealing wrongfully with Native Americans, black people, east Asian people, women, LGBTQ people, and more. While the scars of those missteps endure, the greatness of our society comes from openness to globalism in which our American ambition and pride dialogues with the contributions of Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Latinos alike.
Putting America first is not a new sentiment, but the desire to do that by closing off from global influences and contributions is a throwback we could do without as we seek to uphold the consistent ethic of life for all people and build stronger community.
"Every day I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the people all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country and they are forgotten but they’re not going to be forgotten long. These are people who work hard but no longer have a voice. I am your voice. I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens."
I am going to have see this in action before I believe it. Mr. Trump is most famous for firing people, even if on a contrived television show, and his reputation is for being a great pursuer of corporate success and financial wealth. We are called to opt for the poor and marginalized people in every decision we make individually, communally, and socially. I want to hear more from Mr. Trump that honors this preferential option, and I want to see actions in which he encounters marginalized people concretely. I'll stay tuned.
"I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it."
Again, I will give Mr. Trump some time to walk this walk after talking this talk, but I am skeptical of it for sure. I agree with him that politics often involves the powerful inflating their influence to sustain their interests. However, I am not sure that Mr. Trump is a person who can claim the mantle of being their advocate. I need to see some first-hand opting for the poor from him and his campaign to put any credence to this claim.
"Millions of Democrats will join our movement, because we are going to fix the system so it works fairly and justly for each and every American."
I define the Dignity of Work and Workers Rights as the call to uphold the inherent value of work so that a just wage and a just economy can serve the individual and society. Economic principles are an elusive thing for Catholic Social Teaching, which upholds and decries capitalism for varying reasons, just as it does the same toward socialism and communism. Capitalism is at its best when it creates opportunity and mobility for its citizens, but at its worst when it creates inequality and massive division in socioeconomics. We'll see what Mr. Trump articulates to be the nature of "fairly and justly."
"Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBTQ community. No good. We are going to stop it. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me."
I would be very interested to see what LGBTQ think about Mr. Trump as this campaign unfolds. I think a lot of work has yet to be done to create a social norm of respect and inclusion for these marginalized people, and I know our Call to Family, Community, and Participation pushes us to ensure that our relationships and interactions include people who identify as LGBTQ and do not ignore their activity in society. I don't want to overemphasize perception and reputation, but I doubt many would perceive Mr. Trump as an advocate in this area, especially long-marginalized LGBTQ people; let's see.
"...we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don't want them in our country."
The proliferation of terrorist attacks in recent months, both at home and abroad, has only further intensified our sensitivity to terrorism, as the Islamic State movement endures in the Middle East and inspires acts of evil throughout the world. To a certain extent, it is justifiable to question immigration, refugee, asylum, and vetting policies as foreign people attempt to come to the US. It is legitimate to review and reconsider the standards and processes in order to ensure our security. However, went Mr. Trump goes so far as to say "we don't want them," it extends beyond justifiable concern to become excessive, generalized discrimination. It's easy to say we don't want terrorists and thus to exclude entire nationalities of people; it's harder to step up our game in vetting and screening to ensure that only people of good will gain entry to our country. This falls directly under our call to welcome the stranger as a corporal work of mercy and a responsibility of solidarity.
We have a right to that which we need to become who God created us to be, but we have a responsibility, in solidarity, to help our brothers and sisters gain access to these rights. We are called to be a society of active participation and belonging. And we must uphold the consistent ethic of life for those whose life value has been belittled.
Concern is legitimate; blanket exclusion is excessive. This plank is a dangerous one in Mr. Trump's plan to "make America great." Mr. Trump did later add, "We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people," but that doesn't carry any stronger implications of what our CST calls for and reinforces his isolationist positions.
"We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens."
On a wider scale, this sentiment is not unique to Mr. Trump. This is an attitude that is fairly universal to America. When we consider getting involved in international relations, the first question is, "What American interests are at stake?" When a tragedy strikes abroad, such as the attack in Nice, our news outlets are sure to report how many Americans were killed, as if it may be more tragic since Americans may have been victims. When we catch up with the news, we often focus on our local area, our region, and our country, but don't take the same time to learn the happenings in other parts of the world. The US doesn't necessarily have to be the world police, inserting its military into every conflict worldwide; however, because of our power and influence, we should be using our status to broker peace and facilitate justice, which may sometimes require more significant involvement.
There's a great moment in The West Wing when Will Bailey, at that point a contracted speech-writer for the Bartlet administration, requests all of Bartlet's public remarks from his political career because he is searching for hints as to the president's policies and positions. Will uncovers transcriptions that show Bartlet's desire to be more interventionist in humanitarian conflicts. Bartlet surprises Will in his office while Will is working, and in an off-the-cuff conversation, Bartlet wonders aloud, "Why is a Kundunese life worth less to me than an American life?," referring to the genocide beginning in fictional Kundu. Will replies, "I don't know, sir, but it is." They go on to create the Bartlet doctrine, that the US will involve itself in humanitarian crises to intervene in cases of crimes against humanity.
Solidarity calls us to be mindful of all people as if they are our brother or sister. We should be able to care about and feel for all victims, all marginalized people, and all who suffer as if those people were our closest friends or our immediate family. We are not meant to bracket off our empathy to the narrow scopes of what's right before us. America is our home and should be a priority. But it should just be the starting point, the launching pad, for our work toward doing greater justice.
"My opponent wants to essentially abolish the second amendment. I, on the other hand, received early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association. And will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe."
I talked at length in my Theology on Tap presentation (
see part 5 of the full talk text) about the American bishops' comments when teaching on gun control. Essentially, they do not call for the repeal of the second amendment, though other groups within the Church have (
like the editors of America Magazine). However, the bishop are clearly for reasonable limits on gun access and restrictions on what guns can be purchased and used. The moral principle of legitimate defense is central to our moral theology, upholding one's right to use lethal force when faced with an aggressive threat. Nonetheless, the gun culture must evolve to centrally include gun safety, gun control, and an attitude of restricted and minimized usage. Otherwise, violence will continue to spiral us downward, further and further away from peace.
"At this moment I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community because I'll tell you what, the support that they've given me, and I'm not sure I totally deserve it, has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight. True. So true. They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans."
This is a dangerous position that Mr. Trump advocates. The Church encourages its members to be politically active and aware, but also insists that the Church never become a political entity. As communities of believers, churches are all called to band together in community toward praise and worship of God, toward serving God by serving one another, and toward spiritual formation and growth. While this can entail teaching one another what is right and moral, it cannot become political partisan engagement or politician endorsement. This distracts from the transcendental and eschatological reality of the Church, and it wrongfully mixes religious liberty - our constitutional right to live in a country where no religion is considered the national religion - with political activity.
Given our Rights and Responsibilities and the animation our churches give to the Call to Family, Community, and Participation, I think restricting candidate endorsements and partisan affiliations such that religious leaders cannot talk about them within their faith communities is a reasonable balance that ought to be preserved.
* * *
To continue vetting Trump in the early going, here are some links to read more:
