BUD BREWER
One Man's Opinion
Uncommon “Common Ground”
I was struck by President Obama’s statement in his commencement speech at Notre Dame University where he said: “We must find a way to live together as one human family”. “Although people have irreconcilable differences on moral beliefs like those embraced by Catholics regarding abortion, government funded stem cell research and the availability of the sacrament of marriage to people of the same sex, Americans can find common ground if they maintain “open hearts” and “open minds”. Before I speak further to this issue, I need to disclose that I am a Catholic by conversion fifty-six years ago and have voluntarily embraced the teachings of the Catholic Church as the human standard for fundamental morality as interpreted from the teaching of Jesus Christ. There is much in the liturgy of the Catholic Church’s teachings outside of morality, however that I must admit is easy to find fault with or at least wonder what it has to do with the fundamental commandments of how one should live their life and how they should relate to others. Now back to the President’s declaration that Americans can find common ground regarding irreconcilable differences if they maintain open hearts and open minds. This statement sounds good to those seeking some kind of salve to ease the pain and frustration they feel having to come face to face with persons or people with whom they do have serious differences. Let’s talk about the voluntary act of terminating the life of a composite of human cells referred to as an embryo or fetus. As inconvenient and emotionally disturbed one may feel having discovered the existence of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, how does an open heart and an open mind get them to make a decision to terminate that life? If one has embraced the moral standard of “Thou shalt not kill”, what part of open mind or open heart allows you to walk around that fundamental moral barrier? Exceptions? Where does it say “Thou shalt not kill except–”? No matter what the circumstances are for declaring exceptions, where is the authority for them? Society has dealt with the irreconcilable differences people have for the position that “Thou Shalt not Kill” by the act of rationalization. It is this action, seemingly in conflict with moral law, where immorality is rationalized to serve the better interest as judged by participants, or by a government acting on behalf of society in a time of war. In accepting this way out, people can walk around a barrier even though they have embraced the immorality of the act. This does not mean, however, that by doing so they are accepting a new standard of morality. It means simply that they have failed to sustain the standard that they live by. But our President is saying, Americans can come together in mutual understanding if only they will cross the bridge that connects to a common ground where irreconcilable differences are removed by those who with open heart and open mind will accept the rationalization of immorality as a new basis for their self interest.
It is this rationalization process that lets one establish a new rule for human behavior especially by those who otherwise profess that they believe in a higher power and declare that they are most comfortable living life within the framework constructed from moral law or the laws of right and wrong adjudicated by a court and jurors of our peers. The President has approached the solution of complex economic and commercial problems in the same way as he has irreconcilable differences in attitudes toward morality. He apparently believes that the laws of right and wrong are not rigid therefore, principles can or should be compromised to reach a point of perceived mutual benefit. A good example of this is in the current General Motors bail out case (or as it might better be called “GM’s road to bankruptcy”), The President went on TV recently to report to the Nation that his Administration has just about wrapped up a financial restructuring of the various parties’ interests in a new reorganized General Motors but there was a group of speculators who refused to accept the offer he made to them and “he did not stand with them.” His statements reflect his belief that even if one of the parties to a contract has a senior position to all other parties for the rights to benefits resulting from a liquidation or reorganization of a company, they are unpatriotic, acting selfishly and should be willing to abrogate the terms of their interest in order to grant other interests something he considers to be a more equitable result. In this case, President Obama believes that the best way to reach the common ground is for those who have made a financial commitment based on one set of agreed terms of a contract should have open hearts and open minds and rationalize a willingness to agree to noncompliance with their senior position for the opportunity to share their rights with those holding subordinated interests, such as labor, vendors, shareholders and of course the U. S. Treasury.
Mr. President, I know when this economy once again enjoys the benefits brought to it by hard working responsible people, a confident consumer, individual and institutional investors who are willing to commit assets to risk/rewards of capitalism founded on the rule of contract law and a free market system with operators who embrace the moral high ground, all Americans will enjoy a better and more productive life. In a world where we compromise our principles, ideals and morality, and seek to solve problems by political consensus, how can we expect to achieve our best potential? No Mr. President there is little support for the open hearts and open mind common ground you describe if it is based upon the disregard of the core values upon which our personal lives or our business lives are based.