Yesterday, I had the good fortune of being Mr. Casey's driver as he spoke at the Catholic University of America. He spoke as part of the Pope John XXIII lecture series, on the topic of "Restoring America's Moral Compass." His speech explored issues of faith, morality, the common good, and yes, abortion. You can read the full text of the speech
here. But what I want to talk about is something else. I want to talk about my day with one of the most genuine, convicted people I have ever met- politician or not.
As a bit of background, I'm a second year law student at Catholic, and a member of the Democratic Law Students Association. I'm not affiliated with the Casey campaign, but when they put out a call for a volunteer to drive Mr. Casey, I jumped at the chance. So I picked up a rental car at 7 am, drove to Harrisburg from DC, and picked up the man who deserves to be the next senator from Pennsylvania. He'd had a late night, ripping his speech apart and putting it back together, to the point that even his aides had an outdated version. He spent significant parts of the drive working on the speech, and it was obvious that it wasn't a stump speech- this was something he cared intensely about.
As part of the lecture series Mr. Casey addressed morality in public life. While the Washington Post story describes the audience as "mostly Catholic", the classmates of mine that I saw were mostly Jewish. I was planning to attend long before I became the chauffeur, and I'm not Catholic, so so much for that. In a way, mention of abortion meant Mr. Casey unintentionally walked into an institutional minefield. Catholic University has a contentious speakers policy that prohibits anyone from speaking at the school who has ever expressed a pro-choice belief. A few years ago this policy was used to prevent an actor from speaking to the drama department, for however much sense that makes. There is a significant split in the student body between those who see this policy as stifling academic freedom and those who want even greater (conservative) ideological purity. One of my professors wrote a letter to the Dean condemning Mr. Casey's speech as an endorsement of a campaigning politician. Strangely enough, the same professor was noticeably silent when Michael Steele came for this very same lecture series last year, even though it was obvious Steele was already campaigning for the Senate in Maryland.
Sure enough, Casey didn't back down from controversy. The Dean of the law school wanted him to cut all of his remarks regarding abortion. He refused. He addressed the issue forthrightly, declaring that he was pro life but,
"If we are going to be pro-life, we cannot say we are against abortion of unborn children and then let our children suffer in degraded inner-city schools and broken homes. We can't claim to be pro-life at the same time as we are cutting support for Medicaid, Head Start, and the Women, Infants, and Children's program. I believe we need policies that provide maximum feasible legal protection for the unborn and maximum feasible care and support for pregnant women, mothers, and children. The right to life must mean the right to a life with dignity."
In my mind, this position is in fact better that a Democrat who is pro-choice, but doesn't speak with the compassion of Mr. Casey. As Democrats and Republicans, we should all share a common goal- to reduce the number of abortions, and to ensure that all children grow up wanted, loved, and safe. I heard Mr. Casey speak with love and concern of his own children, and wonder how in the world Rick Santorum could stoop to using his young children in negative ads his campaign.
Two questions were asked afterwards that I thought transcended the normal "What are your views on issue X" that are normally asked. The first one came from a Catholic Father, asking how he reconciled his support for civil unions with his Catholic faith. Mr. Casey answered that while his religion certainly informed his views of morality and policy positions, he could not let it become the only thing he considered when voting on public policy. That's a politician that I want in office- someone with a strong sense of morality and responsibility, but unwilling to sacrifice the common good for a belief that others do not share.
The second question came when a student asked about Mr. Casey's feelings towards immigration reform and "border security" (whatever that happens to mean at the moment).
Casey gave an amazingly insightful answer in two ways. First was giving a pretty detailed analysis on why he thought it was a dead issue until the next election came around.
Second was he belief that something needed to be done from the employer side, talking about the steep decline during the Bush administration of employers being fined for hiring illegal immigrants. He also gave an answer that I personally haven't heard a politician give, but is one I have agreed with for a long time- address this region by region, and industry by industry. He spoke about how the needs in this country for farm labor was quite different than other industries.
Mr. Casey spoke briefly on the wars, saying that while Afghanistan was a conflict that should have been fought, much of the national and world unity present on September 12, 2001 was wasted with the invasion of Iraq. He did not call for a timetable for withdrawl, but did speak to the need to investigate the reasons given for going to war, the management of the war, and the misallocation of funds. He quite humorously admitted that as former Auditor for Pennsylvania, he had a certain interest in knowing where the money was.
So that's my take- a genuine, intelligent candidate who has the strength of his convictions, but is unwilling to sacrifice the common good to any rigid ideology. If you have doubts about Mr. Casey, please, read his remarks. I can't imagine doubting him afterwards.
DISCLAIMER: Once again, I'm not part of the campaign, but just a guy who had the good fortune of spending the day with him. Don't quote me or think I speak for Mr. Casey. All errors, including but not limited to misquotations, spelling, punctuation and split infinitives © BrodyV, 2006