Why I am so political

It could be that I'm writing this post for my children, because it is their history, and it might as well be written down.

In case you've ever wondered why I am so political, I can only offer that it's in my blood.  I have always been a political animal, and I live with another political animal, my husband. In fact, it's how we met.

I grew up in a Republican household as a proud patriot and a fiscal and social conservative. I am the younger daughter of an Arab immigrant/Navy veteran/doctor father and a Protestant-turned-Catholic/nurse mother who was raised poor in small-town Ohio.

I have voted in every election since I was eighteen, and in 1985 I went off to Boston College as a conservative Republican. Nothing could sway me, even liberal Massachusetts and the university's Jesuit influence. I was rooting for Robert Bork's confirmation in 1987 and was outraged that the left derailed that good and brilliant man. I voted for George Herbert Walker Bush (and had a Bush/Quayle placard on my dorm wall) when he ran against the Massachusetts governor, Michael Dukakis.

I have also always been pro-life. I was raised to believe that abortion is wrong, but the truth of it was hammered home to me while spending a lazy afternoon browsing through my mom's well-stocked bookshelves one day.  My 10- or 11-year-old self came across a full-color booklet called "Handbook on Abortion," which included several pages of photos of aborted children from the earliest stages. I was rightly horrified, and concluded then that such an obvious evil should never be legal. (This was in the first few years after Roe v. Wade sullied our land.)

At Boston College I studied English, but politics and Washington, DC (the city where my own parents met) was calling to me. So, while most of my friends went on study-abroad programs during junior year, I became the first English major at BC to be accepted into the Washington Semester Program at American University. There were a few concentrations to choose from, and I chose Foreign Policy.

A big part of the program was completing an internship. I had an interest in journalism, so I interviewed and got the job at a now-defunct national TV news station, Independent News Network (INN). I helped to edit news stories and raw feed, and I occasionally went on assignments, sometimes with a camera crew, but always with my trusty notebook and pen (there were no Smart phones or tablets then).

Some of the highlights for a 20-year-old girl: I sat in on the Oliver North trial, I covered press conferences for Dick Gephardt and Al Gore (it was 1988, a presidential election year, and they were running -- and dropping out), I said hello to Vice President George H.W. Bush in the lobby of INN offices (he would go on to win the presidency that year), and I ran into Senator Teddy Kennedy on the sidewalk near the Capitol (he gave me the creeps).

I understood clearly that I and another intern were the only conservatives in the newsroom. I'm pretty sure I kept that on the down-low, but my memory is hazy. I do remember that my boss and the lead male reporter both hit on me, subtly and overtly, but I just chalked it up to "dirty old men" and didn't give it much of a thought. In fact, I probably haven't thought about it in a quarter century.

It was fun taking a camera crew into the White House Press Room and then heading out to the South Lawn of the White House for the annual Easter Egg Roll, where President Reagan gave a speech to the egg-gatherers for the last time in his presidency. Emmanuel Lewis was the celebrity entertainment that day.

Here I am with my camera crew that day. I'm on the right. In the skirt. 

(My apologies to the nameless camera lady for showcasing her in those heinous 

parachute stone-washed jeans that I am sure she has since disavowed.)

The White House Easter Egg Roll took place on April 4, 1988. How do I remember the date so precisely? Well, it was the very day that I officially began to date my future husband! I had just turned 21 the previous week.

Yep, a handsome Jewish guy named Dean Miller was on the Washington Semester Program that spring as well, a political science major at Emory University in Atlanta who also was entrenched in the political scene, but on the opposite side of the aisle. When I met Dean (who was in the American Politics concentration), he was a diehard liberal, pro-"choice" Democrat.

Dean's first real foray into the political world was as a teenager in Las Vegas, when he canvassed neighborhoods door-to-door on behalf of candidate Harry Reid, who was running for his second term as a United States Congressman. (Let's just say that Dean is, ahem, no longer a fan of Harry Reid.)

When he went off to college, Dean interned at the Carter Presidential Center, which is located on the campus of Emory University. There are many good stories from his days at the Carter Center, but that's for another day. 

Dean with President Jimmy Carter

When Dean arrived in Washington junior year for the exchange semester, he got an internship on the Hill with Democrat Senator Wyche Fowler of Georgia.

When Dean and I met, we obviously did not agree on politics; as we began to fall in love, we tolerated a lot of what the other had to say.

Except when it came to abortion.

I remember sitting with Dean in my dorm room (in a building that was was formerly a Catholic convent, by the way!), listening to him recount the recent talks his American Politics group had attended, one at Planned Parenthood and another at National Right to Life. He was complaining about the pro-lifers, saying that they were "a bunch of nuts" and "loonies" (if I remember that correctly). I reminded him that I was staunchly pro-life, and I told him that his words were offensive to me personally. He walked back his words a bit.

It amuses us both, looking back, as we consider that Dean is now 100% pro-life, sits on the board of our local crisis pregnancy center, and often leads his children at our bishop's rosary in front of local abortion clinics. It's fun to see what God can do, isn't it?

By the time we were married a couple of years later, politics were still a huge part of our lives and discussions, and although Dean was still a Democrat, he was starting to let go of some of his liberal leanings.

During the 1992 presidential election, I was uninspired by President Bush (the elder) and not so convinced about third-party candidate Ross Perot, and so I personally did something unthinkable: I registered as a Democrat and voted for Bill Clinton for President of the United States. Dean voted for him as well. I was "inspired" by his wife Hillary's "advocacy for children" (I had a baby by then), and I convinced myself that her pro-abortion views could be ignored because of how much she "helped" born children. (I know, I know. But it gives me insight into others who use the same arguments today.)

Dean knew within one day of voting for Bill Clinton that he had made a huge mistake. I was more optimistic for a few months, but by the time Clinton gave his first State of the Union address, I was filled with regret. I re-registered as a Republican and never looked back. Within a couple of years, Dean registered as an Independent, and by 1997, he was a registered Republican.

Although still registered Republicans, Dean and I have long been disgusted with the establishment Republican Party, and consider ourselves "conservative" more than any other political label.

Dean's career path has kept him in the mix of politics. His first job was for a non-profit taxpayer watchdog group, and then he worked in state government for a long time (Arizona Department of Commerce, Arizona Corporation Commission) before moving to the private sector of consulting and lobbying. He helped to draft and pass many bills within the Arizona Legislature during those early years, has worked with countless politicians and private businesses on regulatory issues, and knows a lot about the process and the people.

Meanwhile, my public writing began in 1994 when I became an editorial columnist for The Arizona Republic, and my co-writer Kim Manning and I discussed and dissected politics as a matter of course. In fact, it was the exercise of writing about truth and goodness through a political lens that brought Kim to Catholicism and me to a full embrace of Church teaching and practice.

As you can see, there is a deep history and love of politics in the Miller home, and a passion for the direction of our beloved country. So when folks suggest that I become less political, I can honestly say that I don't see that happening. And, I wouldn't want it any other way.

Our Catholic Faith encourages and even obligates us to be engaged in the public square, and so long as I am not transgressing the moral law or the laws of our Church while doing so, I am happy to oblige.

God bless America! It is a privilege to live in this still-great land.

Hillary's VP pick, Tim Kaine: The worst kind of Catholic politician

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A predictable pick by Hillary Clinton. Pandering to the Catholic vote, and in light of the fact that the majority of Catholics in America are poorly catechized and barely practicing, she tags Virginia Senator Tim Kaine for her running mate, a man who is a "Catholic but":

In an interview in the Capitol, Kaine -- a Catholic who personally opposes abortion -- says his views on the issue have not changed over his career. 

But asked if he would characterize himself as "pro-life," he said: "I've never embraced labels." 

"I have a traditional Catholic personal position, but I am very strongly supportive that women should make these decisions and government shouldn't intrude," Kaine told CNN. "I'm a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being able to make these decisions."  [emphases mine]

Those who cry out for "integrity" in this election should note well that Kaine is the opposite of integrated. He claims a faith, then rejects it when it actually matters. I'm fairly certain that God is not interested in Kaine's sacrifice of the innocent for political expediency, the esteem of men, and ascendency of power.

As my own wonderful Bishop Thomas Olmsted has said:

"The 'Catholic but. . .' syndrome stands in direct contradiction to Jesus' clear and unequivocal demand (Mk 8:34-36), 'Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?'"

Mr. Kaine has a 100% rating and endorsement from rabid pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and 100% from Human Rights Campaign [LGBT advocacy] for his "position on marriage" -- namely, his full support of gay "marriage", i.e., his complete rejection of natural law and the teaching of his professed Catholic faith.

So while I am not at all surprised that Hillary picked such a man, each and every time I hear of yet another "Catholic but" (Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius, Cuomo, pick-a-Kennedy, etc.), I immediately think ...

Tell it to the Judge.

And good luck with that. 




Lord, have mercy.

Answering "L": The Culture War and more

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

If you don't like Cranky Leila, then skip this post.

For the context of why I am writing this post, please go to the previous post and read the exchange of comments which follow it.

Sometimes I assume that people just get what I am talking about. I make every effort to write with almost absurd clarity.

And yet I guess I am not clear or precise enough. I've noticed, on multiple occasions, that certain liberals object when I call them liberals. Apparently, it doesn't do justice to the nuance of who they are. It is not 100% representative of what they believe on every single subject and subset of subjects that might be broached even tangentially. I am ignorant for using such a broad term. I am unjustly smearing them with a generalization. How could I not understand the complexity of human thought and the subtle layers of human experience?

Oh, my.

Where do I begin?

Since no two people on earth share identical views, then I guess we -- all of us -- defy description. I myself identify as a conservative, yet I have two or three liberal views. Can we continue talking? Can I still call myself a conservative? Or is that too simplistic? Maybe, since we all defy any pat definition, we should simply remain silent.

I've been informed that there are political distinctions (liberal vs. conservative) as well as religious distinctions (fundamentalist vs. atheist). And, that within those distinctions, there are more distinctions. Did the informer believe that I was unaware of these myriad distinctions? Is it possible that I already understand things that are... obvious? Isn't it sort of a given, and don't most people understand, that someone could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal? I don't usually state things that are a given; perhaps I need to start?

For the sake of extra-super-triple-dee-duper-bionic clarity, let me categorize a bit more, just to prove that I can see distinctions (wait, I am the girl who likes distinctions, remember?). Here is my little breakdown....

If you are fiscally liberal and socially liberal, I will call you a liberal or a leftist. Basically, these are the folks who are the "true believers." They are the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party in America, and they comprise its base.

If you are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I will call you a libertarian. Are you for small government, fewer taxes and regulations? For abortion rights and gay marriage? This is you, baby.

If you are fiscally liberal and socially conservative, I will call you a populist. Why? I don't know, it's the best I can come up with. Catholics traditionally fell into this category, before the Democratic Party abandoned these blue collar principles.

If you are fiscally conservative and socially conservative, I will call you a conservative. I will call myself a conservative, too.

Now, I could keep on breaking down categories until this post fell off the page, just to prove that I actually do understand that people are not one-dimensional. You know, cuz most conservatives think people are one-dimensional, or so I've been told.

(As for religious categories? I haven't touched on that. That is for another post.)

And by the way, I lied. I am not going to use those terms after all. Unless you truly insist. But generally speaking (and I love to speak generally), if you are part of the Democratic base, then I think it's safe to call you a liberal or a leftist.

If you need every nuance of your thought process exposed before we can even begin a conversation, then this may not be the blog for you. Although I hope you will stay anyway, and realize that we can dialogue without all the complexity and complication you seem to require.

Now, before you instruct me in the ways of the world, please know that I understand the following:

Life experiences are complex.
Human emotions are complex.
Individual ideology and integration are complex.

But ideas?

Ideas are not complex.

This blog is about ideas.

Before the liberals (I said it!!) get all upset with my simple-minded approach to the vast complexity of....everything, just stay tuned. Because as soon as I get through Thanksgiving, I plan another post that will carefully, probingly address the simple idea that ideas are simple.

Whew. I feel better now. :)

I'll try to leave Cranky Leila home next time.

*Update: Chesterton's got my back on this!

Why I cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat

Please notice that this post is not entitled "Why I Have Never Been a Democrat." In fact, I was a registered Democrat in 1992, and I voted for Bill Clinton. My dear husband (now a conservative Republican) has a long history of being a Democratic activist, starting with his work on Harry Reid's very first campaign, continuing with his internship at The Carter Center at Emory University under Jimmy Carter, and interning for Democratic Senator Wyche Fowler at the Capitol.

Weeks ago, Rebecca was kind enough to ask me to write a guest post on why I am a Catholic and a Republican. Or, perhaps more accurately from my perspective, why I am a Catholic and cannot be a Democrat. This is a slightly edited version of that post.

My reasons are pretty cut and dry.

The last two popes and the bishops have taught that there are certain “non-negotiable” issues for Catholics involved in politics, issues which trump all other considerations. The non-negotiables come down to these:

• Abortion is intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned.
• Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned.
• Euthanasia is intrinsically evil and must never be promoted or condoned. 
• The traditional understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman must always be upheld.
• The right of parents to educate their children must always be upheld.

All other issues (for example, immigration, education, affordable housing, health and welfare, etc.) are considered policy issues, about which Catholics are free to disagree. As Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix has clarified in a guide for Catholics called, Catholics in the Public Square: 

On each of these [policy] issues, we should do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II wrote:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.  (Christifideles Laici, 38)

In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

In a 2006 speech to European politicians, Pope Benedict XVI said the following:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
• The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.

In light of that crystal clear teaching, consider the following:

On Abortion

Today’s Democratic Party supports abortion unequivocally, to the point that even the word “rare” (as in “we believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare”) was finally and purposefully removed from the 2008 Democratic Platform. By contrast, the 2008 Republican Platform affirms that the “unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

On Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning

The Democratic Platform champions taxpayer funding for the destruction of human embryos to be used as research material, denouncing those who oppose it as putting “ideology” (i.e., their Catholic Faith) above “science.”

Compare that to the Republican Platform: “We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes" and a "ban on all embryonic stem-cell research, public or private.”

On Euthanasia

The growing push for the legalization of euthanasia at both the state and federal levels also comes from Democrats (who often refer to this type of killing as “death with dignity”).  The Republican Platform, however, explicitly condemns this intrinsic moral evil: “[W]e oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.”

On Defense of Traditional Marriage*

Today’s Democrats are much more likely to promote homosexual rights and push for “gay marriage” than Republicans, whose Platform calls for protection of traditional marriage, in the form of a Constitutional Amendment.

On the Right of Parents to Educate Their Children


Democrats (and the liberal teachers’ unions to which they are beholden) go to great lengths to deny parents a choice in their children’s education, not only opposing school vouchers for private schools, but also opposing secular public charter schools, which often deviate from the leftist model. Laws that seek to limit the rights of homeschooling parents also come overwhelmingly from Democrats. By contrast, the Republican Platform states: “Parents should be able to decide the learning environment that is best for their child.” 

On every non-negotiable point for Catholics, the Democratic Party takes the wrong side. It is no wonder that it has become known as the Party of Abortion or the Party of Death. 

Catholics should take note that it is also the Party that is most hostile to traditional religion, and becoming more so. 

I want to make one thing clear: I am a Catholic before I am a Republican. In fact, I am not overly thrilled with the Republican Party these days and may become an Independent if the Republicans ever change course. But the one thing I cannot do is align myself with the Democrats. Catholics must evaluate candidates and vote based on the non-negotiable issues. (I have heard tell of a mythical creature called a “pro-life Democrat politician” but I have never actually seen a voting record that would confirm its existence). 

It’s a sad truth that the Democratic Party of today is nothing like the Democratic Party of our grandparents, which still had a moral grounding. We must not confuse the present with the past, and yet many Catholics do. They are either unaware or unwilling to admit that the Democratic Party (once supported overwhelmingly by Catholics) has become little more than a mouthpiece for secular materialism, an extremely anti-Catholic ideology. 

Finally, to the Catholics who have not left the Democratic Party: Please consider that the Democratic Party has long ago left you.

*Update: In 2012, the Democrats made acceptance of gay "marriage" a part of their Party platform. They considered the move "non-controversial."







.