Sargent Shriver, and his fate as a Democratic presidential prospect, has always illustrated to me an unfortunate side effect of modern liberal politics: No matter how committed someone like Shriver is to the Democratic causes - no matter how great their legacies - they are today invariably viewed with suspicion for being committed Catholics.
Dear Ricardo: Here's a real liberal to travel with
Doug MacEachern
Republic columnist
Jun. 13, 2004 12:00 AM
I have sad news to report to my fellow travelers on the right. It is regarding that brigand of the left who so maddens them, fellow Republic columnist Ricardo Pimentel.
He's leaving. To Milwaukee. Which, as some antipathetic readers already have noted, is its own just deserts for a guy whose views on immigration, George Bush and conservatism generally diverged so radically from their own. Off to Milwaukee with that man. Force feed him bratwurst.
But the sad news I must report is not that Ricardo is leaving, but rather that he is not the ogre they surmised. Oh, he's an undiluted, unapologetic, unconstrained leftist, to be sure. But I have not encountered a more considerate gentleman in any newsroom, nor few commentators as committed to their beliefs. Take my word for this: He's a really good guy. And a journalism pro.
I bought Ricardo a going-away present, and a damned fine one, I'd say. I got him a book. A biography: Sarge, the Life and Times of Sargent Shriver. It's an appropriate, little gift, if I do say so myself.
It's appropriate for reasons beyond the obvious probability that Ricardo will enjoy reading about one of America's greatest lefties.
I think he'll enjoy Sarge because it is the story of one of America's greatest Catholic lefties. Ricardo and I may not share much politically, you see. But we do share this in common: We both are born-and-raised Catholic boys. And about our "heritage" I have a pet theory that I recently tossed out to my liberal friend just as he heads north.
My theory is this: that the Catholic Church is fairly bubbling over with frustrated, would-be socialists, but that they have been driven from the heart of the Democratic Party because committed Catholics cannot be expected to line up with the party's most sacred issue, abortion rights. That, and the fact that Western liberals have come to view anyone who is overtly religious as de facto fundamentalists.
These have got to be frustrating times for Catholic liberals. No Christian sect has ever taken the "help the poor" doctrine espoused by Jesus Christ more seriously. Catholic social service agencies, which abound, may not officially buy into any particular political ideology. But their parking lots are invariably filled with cars whose bumper stickers proclaim the need for "social justice," if you know what I mean.
Yet regardless of their bona fides, Catholic liberals gain the appreciation of their political kin only when they create distance from their faith. Think of the left's reaction to John Kerry and taking communion. Or the countless Catholic liberals for whom the sex scandals provided the tipping point for abandoning their faith altogether.
Sargent Shriver, and his fate as a Democratic presidential prospect, has always illustrated to me an unfortunate side effect of modern liberal politics: No matter how committed someone like Shriver is to the Democratic causes - no matter how great their legacies - they are today invariably viewed with suspicion for being committed Catholics.
By some credible measures, Shriver is America's most magnificent liberal. He is a founder of the Peace Corps, which would become a rite of passage for thousands of earnest, life-long, income-redistributionists, Volvo-buyers and contributors to the Sierra Club.
Shriver helped create the Special Olympics and still sits as its chairman of the board emeritus. He was on the ground floor for Upward Bound, Head Start, the Job Corps, as well as numerous do-gooder programs from Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. The Kennedy clan, into which he married, was better known than Shriver as pillars of Democratic liberalism, but as author Scott Stossel argues, there was no better, purer liberal than Sarge.
He and wife Eunice were among the greatest American liberals, that is, until the early 1970s came along. Then something changed.
As Stossel observes in his biography, Shriver remained committed to his party despite the fact that he was at odds with it on an issue that would evolve into the most sacred of all Democratic Party planks: abortion rights. As long-time family friend Michael Novak related, "on abortion, he and Eunice were always flat out of accord with their party."
Obviously Democrats would never outright reject a great liberal icon like Shriver.
But they sure would never again elect someone like him for president.
Anyway, a little something to think about. From one Catholic boy to another.
Bon voyage, Ricardo.
Reach MacEachern at doug.maceachern@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8883.
