Bork became a national headline when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. He was a legal conservative, a “strict constructionist,” judicially speaking. He warned about the road that America was taking in neglecting its Constitutional principles, and saw doom and gloom ahead. He was pessimistic about America generally, dreading the grip that modern liberalism had on the nation. Liberalism was pushing America toward decline. We were headed to hell in a hand-basket. A decade after his failed confirmation, Bork authored a bestselling book aptly titled, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

Bork had seen liberalism up close and full throttle. During his unsuccessful confirmation hearings in 1987, Bork was smeared by liberals. He was hysterically and unfairly portrayed by radical abortion feminists and the likes of Senator Ted Kennedy as an abuser and assaulter of women—a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, a kind of political/cultural gargoyle. They demonized Robert Bork and railroaded his nomination, ushering in a whole new level of incivility and politicization of the judicial nomination process. Liberal journalists literally dug through Bork’s trash looking for anything to attack the man; they went to the nearby video store to find out what he rented.

“Hmmm,” they rubbed their hands together hopefully, “any X-rated flicks, Judge Bork?”

Alas, to their shock, Robert Bork did not inhabit that universe. They learned that Bork had an affinity not for pornographic film but for “Fred and Ginger” movies.

“Hah,” they hissed, “what a square!”

The left’s assault on Bork was unhinged, a precursor of behavior to come with later judges they disliked, particularly pro-life judges. Indeed, they were so nasty to Bork that the man’s name has become a verb: When liberals vilify a conservative Supreme Court nominee, like a Clarence Thomas, we now say that the nominee was “Borked.”

The tributes to Bork have revisited this sordid history. But none, to my knowledge, have zeroed in on the area where, sadly, I believe he was most prophetic—namely, his pessimism about American culture.

I never met Bork to discuss that pessimism, but a former Grove City College student of mine did. It was about 10 years ago. I was speaking at Ave Maria University School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan. My student, Mark, was there. He was taking a class that semester with Judge Bork. He shared with me a dose of classic Bork pessimism. Mark had tried to buoy Bork a bit, optimistically telling the doomsayer that America’s future looked good because of promising demographics. He noted that orthodox Roman Catholics and committed evangelicals were having lots of children, whereas the secular left was not. Surely, he assured Bork, this boded well for the culture.

“No, no,” said Bork. The judge agreed on the demographics but noted that most of these Catholics and evangelicals send their kids to colleges dominated by secular liberals, where all those ideals and values they learned at home and at their churches was rapidly undermined in four years—with the faithful parents unwittingly paying for the undermining. In short order, these conservative Christians end up advocating abortion and gay rights.

“We’re doomed,” Bork assured my student. America was on the road to Gomorrah.

Unfortunately, I think Robert Bork was exactly right. We are doomed.

For today’s liberals, who call themselves “progressives,” support for abortion now means forcing fellow taxpayers to pay for it (plus contraception), and support for gay rights has morphed into redefining the 3,000-year-old definition of marriage. Many of us are shocked by this, but I’m sure Robert Bork wasn’t. He had seen liberals up close and full throttle.

Bork was a man ahead of his time.

Robert Bork, rest in peace—far away from the shores of Gomorrah.

I’ve heard that expression a lot lately. I’m hearing it from Catholics and Christians generally who are extremely worried about this presidential election. They pepper me with questions on polls, voter turnout, media bias, independents and moderates, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and how Catholics and evangelicals might vote. They are deeply concerned. “Well,” they sigh, “I guess it’s in God’s hands.”

But is it? I think it’s in our hands. I think God has left it in our hands. Just as God has given us free will, the power to choose right over wrong, good instead of bad, and even to accept or reject God, so, too, I imagine, God wants to see how we choose this November 6, 2012.

Consider a Scripture verse as precedent, 2^nd Chronicles 7:14. It states: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

That Old Testament passage happened to be President Ronald Reagan’s favorite. It was so significant to Reagan that he literally had his hand on that verse at his inaugural ceremony in January 1981. The Bible he used was his mother’s. Next to the verse, his mother had scribbled: “A wonderful verse for the healing of a nation.”

In response, Reagan, as president, personally committed himself to helping advance a spiritual renewal in an America that had declined so precipitously in the 1960s and 1970s. Reagan believed that America was truly a blessed nation, that God had shed His grace on thee. He feared what might happen to such a nation that turned its back on that generous God. Those Americans had a choice, just as Jews did in that 2^nd Chronicles passage. If Americans chose wrongly, then they earned whatever lack of graces or protections God might provide.

This November 6, 2012, it will be left to Americans, not to God, to vote for or against so-called “gay marriage,” for taxpayer funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood and contraception and embryo destruction, for violations of their own religious liberty, and much more. Those choices are left not to God but to Catholics.

This election isn’t in God’s hands; it’s in our hands.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include God and Ronald Reagan, God and George W. Bush, and God and Hillary Clinton. His latest is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

Vandals defaced this pro-marriage sign outside of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Crookston, Minn.

Think about this: Over the last several weeks, we witnessed four presidential/vice-presidential debates, and not one question was asked about Barack Obama’s historic advocacy of gay marriage. That seems a rather curious omission given the gravity of the issue. No other issue among the candidates is as transformative as this one. Name another issue that involves completely redefining something as ancient as the Garden of Eden. You can’t.

To her credit, Martha Raddatz asked Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, two Catholics, about their faith and their positions on abortion. That, however, was it for any faith-related matters. Marriage was a no-show.

For Mitt Romney, his answer to a question on gay marriage would have been no surprise. The Mormon governor would likely give the standard Christian reply on gay marriage measured against traditional Biblical precepts. As for Barack Obama, however, his answer would be a bit more unconventional, though increasingly common among the Religious Left.

Obama, in fact, cites his faith as instrumental to his support of gay marriage. In his landmark statement advocating gay marriage, Obama, speaking for himself and the first lady, told ABC News: “You know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule … treat others the way you would want to be treated. And … that’s what motivates me as president.”

President Obama had invoked the Golden Rule in support of gay marriage.

As an indication of how he is not alone, consider the thoughts of another liberal Christian, Nancy Pelosi. Congresswoman Pelosi says that her Catholic faith “compels” her to support gay marriage: “My religion has, compels me—and I love it for it—to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination.” Pelosi called Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage “a great day for America.”

There’s much that could be said about Pelosi’s and Obama’s positions, but one thing that jumps out at me is the utter hypocrisy of liberals in reacting to such statements from Pelosi and Obama. Consider:

For eight years, liberals screamed “separation of church and state!” anytime President George W. Bush even dared to mention that he prayed. But now, when Obama and Pelosi invoke their faith on behalf of gay marriage, liberals are fully supportive, applauding loudly and proudly. Instant converts.

To say this is a double standard is a gigantic understatement. I wrote a book on the faith of George W. Bush. I could rattle off dozens of examples of liberals hammering Bush for the most benign expressions of faith. Here are just a few:

When Bush told reporter Bob Woodward that he had consulted his “higher father” before making a decision to send U.S. troops into combat, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell stated flatly, “He should not be praying.” Ralph Nader dubbed Bush a “messianic militarist.”

Or consider another example, provided by Maureen Dowd, New York Times Catholic. What set off Dowd was Bush’s statement in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 13, 1999. The occasion was a Republican presidential debate. The Texas governor was asked to name his favorite philosopher or thinker. He pointed to Jesus Christ.

This was not a surprise to anyone who knew Bush, or knows serious Christians. It was totally genuine, sincere, and certainly completely acceptable—except at the New York Times, where Maureen Dowd launched into orbit.

In an op-ed titled, “Playing the Jesus Card,” Dowd quoted H.L. Mencken, who wrote that religion “is used as a club and a cloak by both politicians and moralists, all of them lusting for power and most of them palpable frauds.” She said that Bush had “finally scored some debate points” by citing Jesus. “This is the era of niche marketing,” explained Dowd, “and Jesus is a niche. Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus’ numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue.”

Rather than being sincere about his faith and heart, averred Dowd, Bush had been a scoundrel. “It raises the question,” Dowd preached, of whether the governor wanted Jesus as his “personal Savior or political savior.”

Imagine that reaction. And George Bush was merely saying that Jesus changed his life. He wasn’t going so far as, say, invoking Jesus for his position on gay marriage.

In fact, imagine if Bush had done just that—that is, point to his faith in support of his opposition to gay marriage. How would liberals have reacted? Or, in the current political climate, imagine how liberals will react if and when Mitt Romney (or Paul Ryan) cites his faith against gay marriage.

But if Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi cite their faith for gay marriage? Well, that’s just fine with liberals; in fact, it’s blessedly wonderful. It’s a great moment for faith in the public square.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include God and Ronald Reagan, God and George W. Bush, and God and Hillary Clinton. His latest is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

“You’ll never guess who called Dinesh,” Sullivan said to me. “Who?” I asked.

He told me: George Obama, Barack Obama’s half brother.

As D’Souza’s film graphically shows, George Obama lives in a shanty house in Nairobi, Kenya, surviving on a few meager dollars a month. A couple hundred extra dollars per year would be a relative fortune to George. Alas, Barack Obama, a millionaire who regularly blasts the “greedy” rich, has never sent a dime to George—a point raised by D’Souza in the film.

So, why was George telephoning D’Souza all the way from Kenya? Because George needed help. It was an emergency situation. He explained to D’Souza that his young son was at the hospital, ailing from a “chest condition.” He needed a quick $1,000 for healthcare.

“Since George was at the hospital I asked him to let me speak to a nurse,” says D’Souza, “and she confirmed that George’s son was indeed ill.” D’Souza immediately sent the money via Western Union.

But here’s the kicker: As D’Souza states, “Before I hung up, I asked George, ‘Why are you coming to me?’ He said, ‘I have no one else to ask.’ Then he said something that astounded me, ‘Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.’”

That’s touching. In fact, however, D’Souza is not a brother to George Obama. Barack Obama is. And Obama makes more money as president of the United States than D’Souza makes as president of King’s College. Obama is one of those “wealthy millionaires” that he complains about all the time.

Why didn’t George go to his real brother for support? Better, why doesn’t Obama go to him?

Sure, Obama is obviously busy. But George is family. Other obviously busy presidents have had brothers, half brothers, estranged brothers—and downright bizarre brothers. Recently, there was Bill Clinton’s troubled brother, Roger. There was Billy Carter, Jimmy’s brother. These brothers often embarrassed their presidential brothers. Jimmy’s brother was on the front of everything from the New York Times to beer cans. Nonetheless, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, two southern Baptists, took care of their brothers.

But here’s where Obama’s negligence of his half-brother gets much worse:

As president, Barack Obama has not been shy about invoking his faith—with, of course, not a peep of protest from secular liberals who went bonkers when George W. Bush simply said he prayed as president. Obama has invoked his faith in support of everything from his healthcare initiative to gay marriage.

And Obama’s most common expression of his faith is his repeated use of the phrase “my brother’s keeper.” He uses it incessantly. The Presidential Papers reveal that Obama has used the phrase 57 times as president, far more than any previous president. He has used it 17 times over the last 12 months—11 of those occasions at fundraisers.

“I am my brother’s keeper,” said Obama in Atlanta in March. “Each of us is only here because somebody somewhere was looking out for us. It started in the family, but it wasn’t just the immediate family…. Our story has never been about what we can do alone. It’s what we do together.”

For Obama, this is an exhortation to help one another, from our literal brothers to our brothers in the wider community and world.

That said, the “brother’s keeper” passage is an odd choice, isn’t it? It comes from the Old Testament remark of Cain after he murdered his brother Abel. God asks Cain where his brother is. Cain replies, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

It is a bad moment, filled with disturbing implications about the nature of man, man’s relationship to man, man’s relationship to God, and more. Given the roots of the phrase—the first murder, of a sibling no less—I find it a rather strange formulation for making the case of helping our brother, or our neighbor, or the needy. I see a phrase like “love thy neighbor,” a favorite of George W. Bush, as far more preferable, and certainly derived from an infinitely better source.

But even stranger is Obama’s constant use of the phrase in light of his own brother’s lousy situation. Why doesn’t he help keep his own brother? Apparently, that role has been left to Dinesh D’Souza.

Paul Kengor’s books include God and Ronald Reagan, God and George W. Bush, and God and Hillary Clinton. His latest is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

The Clintons, sadly, are not alone. Millions of old Catholic Democrats—many of them conservative, ironically, but blindly devoted to their party—will be blissfully pulling the lever for Obama in November, and for gay marriage and for mandatory abortion funding. Obama is a Democrat, after all.

Well, as the Democratic National Convention also revealed, add another marquee Democrat to the list of blind faithful—a notably religious one, another former Democratic president: Jimmy Carter.

Carter has said many times, including very recently, that he can’t see how or where or why God or Scripture could ever justify abortion. That’s for sure. The Georgian Baptist has scoured his Bible on that one, and indeed found no justification for killing unborn human life. And Carter certainly never stumped for gay marriage.

And yet, there was Jimmy Carter, at the convention last week, stumping for Barack Obama, a president with a party platform that supports these things, and then some. To raucous applause from the “pro-choice” faithful, Carter gushed that Obama has given everyone an “equal chance in life,” creating a “fairer, stronger, and more inclusive America.”

The 87-year-old said he will be casting a vote for Obama “with confidence and conviction,” knowing that Obama has the “right policies” to lead America to a “better future.”

Carter was the rare pro-life Democrat even permitted to address the Democratic convention. It was a convention that not only endorsed taxpayer funding of abortion and banned pro-lifers and traditional marriage, but even attempted to exclude God from the platform. The God exclusion certainly could not have thrilled the aging ex-president.

Has Jimmy Carter said anything to Barack Obama about any of this? Has he protested these positions at all? Has this devout Christian, abortion opponent, and advocate of religious freedom even gently voiced a tiny little objection to the heavy-handed HHS mandate decreed by Barack Obama?

Or, in the end, is Jimmy Carter just like the Clintons and the others; that is, blindly loyal to whatever his party’s leader dictates? In the end, does Jimmy Carter likewise put party first, above principle, country, and perhaps even God and Scripture? And if Jimmy Carter doesn’t want us to have that conclusion, well, maybe he should do something about it. Apparently, he will not.

Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter is yet another among the Democratic Party’s blind faithful—like countless millions of old Catholic Democrats—merrily going along as their party adopts everything from forced taxpayer-funded of abortion to so-called “gay marriage.” They are complicit handmaidens to the Death Culture and the general destruction of this nation’s long-standing culture of basic Christian values. For them, it’s party and Barack Obama first, above all else.

Gay marriage? Forced funding of abortion? God stricken from the party platform? Sure, no problem—as long as the president is a Democrat.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His most recent book is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

“I knew that when he left us he would go to heaven and help pass the bill,” Pelosi said of the late Democratic senator, a fellow Roman Catholic. “Now I know he was busily at work until this decision came down, inspiring one way or another. And now he can rest in peace.” Said Pelosi: “It’s pretty exciting.”

Apparently, judging from this statement, Pelosi believes that Ted Kennedy inspired the hand of God to uphold Obama-care—which, of course, happens to be an unprecedented expansion of abortion.

Pelosi’s comment is appropriate in one unusual respect: Since the late Senator Kennedy’s death in 2009, she has supplanted Kennedy as chief spokesperson for the most consistently outrageous statements made on politics and policy by a Catholic lawmaker. And nowhere has that role been on greater display than the matter of Obama-care. Consider:

Remarking on the original Obama-care bill, Pelosi infamously said that first “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

That was bad enough. But also outrageous was another Pelosi observation. In October 2009, the congresswoman was asked by a reporter if the healthcare legislation was constitutional. Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Reporter: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Reporter: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi’s incredulity at that perfectly reasonable question was extremely telling. She scorned the very thought, as if the reporter had flown in on a flying saucer from Neptune. Constitutional? Who’s even thinking such nonsense? Was the reporter crazy, or just a right-wing kook?

And yet, as Congresswoman Pelosi soon learned, that reporter had hit the crux of the issue. So had state attorneys general nationwide, who quickly filed lawsuits precisely on whether Obama-care was constitutional. Indeed, the issue went all the way to the Supreme Court, based precisely on the reporter’s question: where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

With that wake-up call, did Congresswoman Pelosi apologize to the reporter or to her fellow Democrats for being dismissive or ignorant of that obvious question? Of course, not.

No, after all of that, Pelosi provided another bewildering remark. This time, with the court having deliberated on Obama-care’s constitutionality, Pelosi not only suddenly showed interest in whether Obama-care is constitutional, but boldly asserted her alleged expertise on the matter. “I know the Constitution,” said a confident Pelosi. “The bill is ironclad. Nobody was frivolous with the Constitution … in writing the bill.”

Is your head spinning yet?

Well, if it is, hold on to your seat. We’re not finished, so long as the congresswoman is talking.

Immediately upon hearing the court’s decision last week, Congresswoman Pelosi weighed in again. With the court majority upholding the alleged “constitutionality” of Obama-care, Pelosi delivered yet another jaw-dropper, fittingly in the same surreal press conference where she tearfully invoked the intercession of Ted Kennedy. In praising the Supreme Court’s decision, Pelosi averred: “We thought—we knew we were on solid ground in terms of interstate commerce, solid ground in terms of the Constitution. It was just a question of what the vote would be. And with that confidence we happily embraced the decision that came down.”

This, of course, is an amazing statement. As everyone knows, Chief Justice Roberts explicitly rejected Obama-care on the question of interstate commerce. Instead, he and the majority upheld Obama-care as a “tax.”

In other words, Nancy Pelosi interpreted the final decision exactly wrong.

Sadly, these truly unbelievable contradictions and outrageous statements are a constant occurrence from Congresswoman Pelosi, who nonetheless is easily reelected every two years by her constituents. Expect a litany of many more contradictions and outrages in the days ahead.

I suppose we can expect Nancy Pelosi to pray for Ted Kennedy’s intercession on the HHS mandate? Any day now, I’m sure.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new book, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand.

Okay, what if tens of thousands of Catholics assembled for 160 simultaneous gatherings all around the nation in protest of the Obama administration’s violation of their First Amendment freedoms? Wow, that would really be something. Gee, that would easily be the lead story on the nightly news, for sure. Right?

The answer is no and no.

As to the first event, this major news story—or so one would think—erupted on May 21, 2012, which was a sort of D-Day for the Catholic Church in defending itself against the conscience assault from the Obama administration. In what one commentator referred to as “legal Armageddon,” 43 Catholic plaintiffs filed 12 federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s HHS mandate on contraception and abortion drugs. Even the incredibly naïve Notre Dame University, which once honored President Obama with an honorary degree—yes, seriously, it actually happened, you can look it up—joined the fray. It was an action both extraordinary and unprecedented—and apparently deemed not newsworthy.

One observer who watched this media blackout in horror was Brent Bozell, longtime head of the Media Research Center. Bozell called the series of lawsuits the “largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty.” And yet, as Bozell noted, ABC and NBC completely ignored it in their evening newscasts, while “CBS Evening News” devoted just 19 seconds to this remarkable event.

“Let’s be blunt,” said Bozell. “They spiked the news.” And they did so to protect Barack Obama.

Bozell called it “the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center.” And that’s saying a lot.
As to the second event—the 160 rallies around the nation on June 8, again protesting the HHS mandate—Bozell was on that one as well. His staff again suffered through another round of watching the major news networks to survey their coverage. And what did his staff find? The networks didn’t expend a single second of coverage on either their morning or evening broadcasts. Nope, not one second.

Worse, CBS News wasted four separate segments on the leftist Catholic nuns who are disgruntled with the Church. “Hundreds of Catholics have rallied behind the sisters,” intoned CBS, and “protests in support of the nuns have been held in almost 50 cities.”

Really? Well, that’s not even a third of the 160 rallies held in opposition to the Obama HHS mandate. And hundreds of Catholics is nothing compared to tens of thousands.

Unfortunately, however, such isn’t the formula for how the mainstream media weighs material as newsworthy. Newsworthiness depends on whether it helps or hurts Barack Obama, and whether it helps or hurts the Catholic Church.

We could give countless examples of this. We get an obvious illustration every year at the March for Life, which is covered (at best) by EWTN and FoxNews. 200,000 people marching in Washington in support of life is judged a non-issue. It is flatly ignored by the major networks.

Or, my favorite example of anti-Catholic media bias, I recall a fascinating article in National Catholic Register a few years back reporting that there are far more cases of sex with minors among public-school teachers than Catholic priests. You’d never know that from the standard media treatment, where every priest is cast as a pedophile.

Or, perhaps one more example: As readers of this site are well aware, the bishops have launched a Fortnight for Freedom, running for 14 days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day. The bishops are calling it a “great hymn of prayer for our country,” a period of “prayer, study, catechesis, and public action,” and a “great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.” This includes reflections on the lives of “a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power.”

Wow, this will really be something. Gee, do you think it will make the nightly news?

I’ve decided not to wade in to the theology over whether Jack Reagan’s decision was right. I’m a historian first and foremost. I’ll stick with what I know. And keeping it at that level, I thought I’d respond to a few of the emails, where maybe I can shed some light:

One comment (the first) came from “Frank,” who wrote: “How did Reagan’s religiosity enter into his selection of Sandra Day O’Connor, who repeatedly voted for pro-abortion rights during her time in the Arizona state legislature, as his first nominee to the Supreme Court? Does ‘ecumenical’ extend to his wife’s tarot card readings and support for stem cell research, too?”

I will not go into Nancy Reagan’s faith, which is an eye-opening subject unto itself. In my book God and Ronald Reagan, I have a full chapter on her consulting astrologers during her husband’s presidency. Her beliefs are indeed, to put it charitably, unorthodox. And her support of embryonic research, in her husband’s name, is plainly outrageous.

As to the choice of Sandra Day O’Connor, an excellent explanation was provided in the next comment, by John Jakubczyk, who wrote:

“unfortunately for us, the nation, and millions of unborn children, Reagan relied upon and trusted in the people who were given the responsibility to vet O’Connor and determine her opinions and beliefs. She herself did nothing to dissuade those who interviewed her from falsely concluding that she was anti-abortion. She referenced her friendship with Dr. Carolyn Gerster, one of the founders of the NRLC, and mentioned how their sons were in various organizations together, their common affiliations, and later told the president that she would never embarrass him while he was president (something she honored, when one reads her dissent in the Akron case). Note that they never did contact Dr. Gerster or any of us at Arizona Right to Life prior to making her announcement public. Further, once the White House did announce her nomination, they refused to consider the evidence we provided of her pro-abortion votes while she was in the state senate. Local Republicans were so “proud” of having another Arizonan on the high court that they dismissed our concerns and opposition to the nomination. Drs. Gerster and Wilke testified against the nomination during the confirmation hearings, but the idea of the first woman on the high court was too intoxicating for the establishment and pro-life concerns were rebuffed. It was another example of the two edged sword in Reagan’s delegation style of leadership. And in this case the sharp end of the sword wounded the movement terribly.”

John is exactly right. The Reagan staffers who were supposed to do the vetting, including Attorney General William French Smith, failed to do the vetting. In discuss this in my biography of Reagan’s closest aide, William P. Clark, a devout Catholic who could’ve taken the Supreme Court seat that went to O’Connor (if Clark wanted the seat, which he didn’t). Clark likewise talked to O’Connor before her nomination, but mainly about kids, grandkids, horses, life. Clark assumed that Smith asked the hard questions about abortion. That was a fatal assumption.

Beyond the vetting, I was not aware of John Jakubczyk’s information about the input of Arizona Right to Life. Thanks, John, I will hang on to this information.

Another response of interest where I can shed some historical light came from “Markrite,” who wrote:

“There are several reasons that I’ve never joined the ranks of the secular Reagan canonizers, but one of the reasons clinched it for me as to WHY I didn’t. In 1967, Reagan as governor of California signed into law the MOST terrible of laws that later laid the groundwork, as did the later New York state law, for the passage of ROE V. WADE. And I can remember to this day reading of the California Bishops PLEADING with then-governor Reagan to NOT SIGN the Calif. liberalization of abortion act. But he just wouldn’t do it, NOT SIGN, that is. And this was after his later-described agonizing soul-search to figure out WHAT TO DO; by signing this law into effect, though, Reagan laid the groundwork, once again, for ROE V. WADE. To me, it’s almost unconscionable that he did it.”

I certainly understand Markrite’s frustration, and I did not know that the California bishops had played that role. (If any readers have documentation of that, please send it my way.) That said, Reagan’s thinking is more complicated than that. Again, I cover it in The Judge, my biography of Bill Clark. Here is an excerpt:

On June 14, 1967, Governor Reagan signed a bill that permitted more abortions in California than in any state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Once the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 became law, the number of legal abortions in California boomed from 518 in 1967, Reagan’s first year in office, to an average of 100,000 per year from 1968 to 1974, the remaining years of his governorship.

How did this happen?

When the issue came to Reagan in those first months of his governorship, he was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue it is now. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.” Likewise, his aides were divided on the question.

Reagan thus began to vigorously study the issue. He turned to Clark: “Bill, I’ve got to know more—theologically, philosophically, medically.” Clark loaded up the governor with reading materials. Reagan spent a weekend in semi-seclusion. [Official Reagan biographer] Edmund Morris said that “by the time the Therapeutic Abortion Act reached him on June 13, Reagan was quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Reagan, years later, remarked that he did “more studying and soul searching” on the issue than any other as governor.

Reagan would become adamantly pro-life.

Nonetheless, he signed the bill, having been convinced by some people, including in his own party and staff, that he had successfully eliminated its worst features. Further, he calculated that if he vetoed the bill, his veto would be overridden by the state legislature. So, he might as well try to make the bill less harmful.

It became law. And as would happen in years ahead to nearly every abortion bill, the legislation contained a woman’s mental-health provision that was recklessly abused by patient and doctor alike, allowing runaway abortion. Even the bill’s Democrat sponsor later confessed to being surprised that physicians so liberally interpreted the law.

Reagan was shocked at the unintended consequences of his action. Morris said that Reagan was left with an “undefinable sense of guilt” after watching abortions skyrocket after signing the bill. [Reagan biographer Lou] Cannon claims this was “the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation.” Bill Clark called the incident “perhaps Reagan’s greatest disappointment in public life.”

For Reagan, there was one good thing that came from this incident. As noted by Matt Sitman, a Georgetown scholar who has studied this issue: “It is impossible to understand his later staunchly pro-life positions without grasping the lessons he learned from this early political battle.” Reagan survived the ordeal with a “profoundly intellectual understanding of the abortion issue…. It was in 1967 that his ideas concerning the beginning of human life were fully formed.” He now had “a cogent understanding” of abortion and its implications, politically and morally.

Clark says that a repentant Reagan emerged ready for battle, declaring, “When this subject arises again, we shall be prepared.” Clark was prepared. Once he became Reagan’s new chief of staff, Bill Clark would work to ensure that a similar mistake on abortion never happened again. For now, however, the damage was done.

So, there you go. All of this doesn’t change the impact of what Reagan did, but maybe it better explains how it happened.

Finally, there was this response to my original article, provided by a reader identified as “San Domenico:”

“I often felt that President and Mrs. Reagan were closet Catholics. Why? Because Mrs. Reagan’s mother lived here in Phoenix and was Catholic. I recall several occasions they would stop in Phoenix to visit her. They often attended Mass with her at St. Thomas the Apostle. This article gives me a little bit more insight into to the President’s other connections with Catholicism.”

This is very interesting. I would love to hear more about this. Ronald Reagan indeed had some very notable Catholic sympathies, which I continue to collect and write about, and will publish more in a forthcoming book that is still a few years ahead.

San Domenico, can you email me and tell me more about this? Or post more information below?

My thanks to everyone who commented on my article. CatholicVote has thoughtful readers. This forum is excellent.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand, God and Ronald Reagan, and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

The article detailed Jack Reagan’s difficult life as a traveling shoe salesman who scraped and scrapped so his family could get by, and did not fare very well. He coped with his financial failures by drinking—a lot of drinking. He constantly moved the family, which was not good for the young Ronald Reagan.

I shared a story that Ronald Reagan himself later painfully recalled. It was a brisk February evening in Dixon, Illinois in 1922. The 11-year-old Reagan was coming home from a basketball game at the YMCA, expecting to arrive at an empty house. Instead, he was traumatized by the sight of his father passed out and sprawled out in the snow on the front porch. “He was drunk,” said Reagan later. “Dead to the world … crucified.”

The smell of whiskey emanated from Jack’s snores, his hair was soaked with melted snow. Young Reagan was paralyzed by the sight, unsure what to do. He wanted to go in the house and just go to bed, but there were neighbors, and it was freezing cold. So, he grabbed his father’s overcoat and heaved him inside and upstairs to the bedroom.

Reagan never forgot the episode. It shook him to the core.

On the other hand, Jack Reagan had many positives that he instilled in his son, which I list in the original article.

But here’s an interesting aspect of the article, which was caught by a Catholic reader who emailed me. And it’s the reason why I’m posting this here at CatholicVote right now:

Jack Reagan was an apathetic Catholic—or at least that has been the historical judgment. As a Reagan biographer, and as the guy who wrote the biography of Reagan’s faith, God and Ronald Reagan, my conclusion is that Jack wanted his son to believe in God. That, of course, was a good thing. And so, he delegated that task to someone who he figured would do the job better than him—namely, his wife, Nelle, a Protestant. Nelle, who was on fire for the Lord, took up the task with vigor and excelled at it. Really, it was Nelle Reagan who made young Reagan a Christian and, more so, in my opinion, made him a president. I dedicated God and Ronald Reagan to Nelle Reagan.

And yet, one emailer, the Catholic I mentioned, was uncomfortable with Jack’s delegation of this task, and let me know why. Wasn’t it Jack’s duty as a father to raise Reagan in his Catholic faith? Should Jack not have been modeling the faith for his boy, and at least taking him to Mass? Did Jack not fail here, too?

Maybe, I told the emailer. On the other hand, give Jack Reagan credit: he knew his limits. He wasn’t good at rearing his son in his Catholic faith, and seemed to lack the will. Moreover, he and his wife had learned to accept their differences on religion. Nelle, on the other hand, was eager to take her boy to church and Sunday school and Wednesday evening Bible study and every single church event and activity. So, why not leave this to Nelle?

My take as a Catholic—actually, as a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism in 2005—is that Jack Reagan did the right thing. In fact, I might go further than that. Was the hand of Providence at work here? Clearly, everything in the end worked out for the best, particularly when Ronald Reagan, this very ecumenical Protestant president, joined with Pope John Paul II in the 1980s to take down godless Soviet communism.

I’m interested in what readers at CatholicVote think about this. Thoughts?

He objected to my point that gay marriage would represent a radical rupture not just of the definition of “marriage” but also of “family.” He asked: “Why would the definition of ‘family’ be ruptured if gay marriage was legalized nationally? How would that happen?” He continued: “Just to be clear, I support gay marriage and think that if two people are in love, then they should have the right to be together with full benefits under the title of being MARRIED. It does more psychological damage to gay couples in ‘civil unions’ than it should for straight married couples to share the ‘married’ status with gay couples. But really, overall, it shouldn’t matter at all what it is called, for both sides.”

He further added: “Also I really don’t want to hear any religious arguments. Marriage is a secular act that can also be religious, but is not primarily religious because it says so in the bible or what not.”

To his credit, the young man was open to hearing my viewpoint. As he said, he didn’t simply want to email me and yell, “Oh my god! You’re against gay marriage? Then you’re stupid!” Indeed, that’s the argument that he’s sure to hear ad nauseum at the liberal college to which his parents will be sending their lifesavings—and to get a viewpoint easily available much more inexpensively from their TV or NPR. And he will not hear religious arguments at that liberal college. (“Tolerance” and “diversity” have their boundaries.)

How does one respond to the young man’s email? How would you?

Well, there was much I could’ve said, but here was my main response, which I hope makes sense to some people on the young man’s (and Barack Obama’s) side of this issue:

Whether a society or culture or people are religious or not, the most fundamental basis of society and culture and peoples—literally since the dawn of humanity and knowledge—has been marriage between a man and a woman. That bond is the cornerstone, the bedrock. To suddenly sever that bond now is not only a radical rupture, but also remarkably arrogant; it assumes that our current generation of progressives is wiser than the multiple millennia of civilizations heretofore. Google the word “matrimony” and dissect its roots. “Marriage” has literally always meant the marriage of a man and a woman.

We shouldn’t mess around with these things. Once we begin redefining and reshaping and remolding these things in each of our own images, we’re in trouble. Also, I ask these progressives: Do you truly want the government to take unto itself the right to redefine such ancient terms as it sees fit? (Their answer: Yes, but only when the government agrees with them.)

That question ought to give pause to libertarians who support gay marriage. Do they want to allow government this unprecedented, enormous moral power and authority, from which will flow all sorts of new, massive government redistributive power and authority? As Jennifer Roback Morse notes, do libertarians really want the federal government regulating (let alone defining) marriage? If they do, then they’re unwittingly favoring not small government but big government—actually, huge government.

Even most liberal Democrats (until Obama) had voted to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. Witness the Clintons and Democrats in Congress during the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama is (once again) uniquely radical on this issue.

Those who reject gay marriage need to know that not only are they in the majority today, but over the course of centuries. Our position is the consensus view for thousands of years. It is based not on the latest societal/culture whim or action at the ballot box but on the inherited wisdom of billions of our ancestors and thinkers and philosophers who have preceded us. It is based on what G. K. Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead.”

In his book, Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote:

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

In other words, there is a rich, deep, accumulated wisdom in our long line of ancestors. For us to suddenly assume that we know better than all of those before us, compliments of a few recent years of enlightened understanding, is self-righteous and short-sighted. Don’t our ancestors—our dead—have any say in this at all? There were a lot more of them than there are of us. Are we to judge that they were mere brutes lacking our magnificent reasoning abilities?

There’s something to be said about multiple millennia of consensus belief. It seems unwise to not give our ancestors any serious consideration, and to not at least consider whether we might be wrong on this particular issue. Should the dead not have a vote, a say, in this?