HeadlineBistro

CNN Pope Documentary Draws Criticism for Lack of Evidence

 
Since its September 25th release of “What the Pope Knew”, CNN has taken strong criticism from several Catholic leaders. The documentary, which focuses on the role Pope Benedict XVI did or did not play in the sex abuse scandal, has struck a chord with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, among others for its lack of evidence and misinformation.

Donohue’s main critique of the documentary, which he calls a “hatchet-job” was that it fails to bring up a factual argument. “It is simply not true that Ratzinger was in charge of this issue ‘for decades.’ In fact, he wasn’t given the authority to police the sexual abuse problem until 2001. What is truly astonishing is that Tuchman concedes as much later in the program. Tuchman was incorrect the first time when he said that ‘for decades’ Ratzinger could have taken decisive action.”

The documentary focuses on several church related child molestation cases that they believe can potentially be traced to the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. One case is that of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest who is alleged to have molested several deaf children in Milwaukee in the 1950s and 1960s.

This case however, is a rehashed argument that was proven to not be connected to the then-Cardinal Ratzinger. According to Gregory Erlandson and Dr. Matthew Bunson, authors of Pope Benedict XVI and the Sexual Abuse Crisis: Working for Reform and Renewal, CNN reused old charges already discredited by a variety of reports, including their own.  “How exactly does CNN have so little journalistic integrity that it can repeat inaccuracies that were widely debunked seven months ago, and for which there is clear, incontrovertible documentary evidence available?” Erlandson and Bunson asked.

According to Erlandson and Bunson, the Vatican had actually approved the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to investigate the charges and proceed with a church trial, rather than what the CNN documentary paints as neglect on behalf of the Church in not carrying out an investigation and ignoring the case. A Vatican official working for then-Cardinal Ratzinger even tried to expedite the process and strip Father Murphy from ministerial duties because quickly because the priest was seriously ill. Shortly after the recommendation was made, Murphy died.

“Nowhere in the [CNN] program is there any evidence that the pope was guilty of obstruction of justice,” Donohue continued. “This is a serious charge—the most serious made in the course of the documentary. Yet to throw this out, without ever producing evidence to substantiate it, is malicious. It won’t cut it to say that he was ‘perhaps’ guilty of obstruction.”

It is important to note that there have certainly been instances during the abuse scandals where individuals have acted inappropriately. However, while that reality means that the Church is not above criticism, it does not mean de facto that the pope, during his time as a cardinal, was in anyway tolerant or indifferent to the abuse scandal as the CNN documentary and others like it may portray.

Perhaps CNN and others who cover the Church abuse scandal, or any other Church story for that matter, would do well to listen to the advice of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, delivered to the Religion Newswriters Association last week:

Know yourself and your prejudices. Acknowledge mistakes, and don’t make them a habit. Be as honest with yourself as you want your sources to be. Understand believers and their institutions as they understand themselves.

Perhaps then, if they do that with “integrity, fairness, and humility,” Archbishop Chaput says, they will “have the gratitude” of those that they cover, and “embody the best ideals” of journalism. 

- Patrick Redding

And the Survey Says...?

A new Pew survey measuring Americans’ religious knowledge should lead to some sober soul searching about how much we know, or should know, about religion. The survey, which included a broad range of questions about the Bible, world religions, atheism and faith in public life, exposed a lack of any semblance of a basic understanding of religions for the average American.  In fact, if this had been a test, we would have utterly failed.

Particularly shocking is that the group that scored the highest on the survey happened to be, ironically, the atheists and agnostics. What are god-fearing people to make of a poll which seems to indicate that one learns more about world religions by regularly reading Christopher Hitchens than the Bible, the Torah, or your weekly Missal?

Before blaming your Catechism teacher, lets put at least part of the survey in perspective. One is struck by the irrelevance of some of the more obscure questions. It's questionable whether what religion Vishnu came from or who the king of the Gods of Greek Mythology is important to your religious knowledge. Does it really matter to your faith life if you don’t know who Joseph Smith was, or who started the Great Awakening? Depending on your religion, probably not.

While much of this information is important, it also isn't particularly so. The survey is more properly a measure of trivia on world religion and history than a measure of religious knowledge.

In much the same way we are not citizens of the world, Americans can’t be expected to act as faithful of the world. We are reared and instructed, if at all, in the faith of our parents, our ethnic background, or of our own choosing. If people are faithful based on their conviction that their creed is in fact true, one would expect they know a good deal about it, but not necessarily a great deal about other faith traditions. Knowing whether Buddhists seek Nirvana and the importance of Maimonides, for example, are accidental to religious practice and knowledge for Christian Americans.

A New Role Model for a New Generation

 
Casual observers and vehement critics alike are fond of speculating as to the future of the Church. Whether its declining vocations to the priesthood, dwindling mass attendance, rampant secularism, lack of belief in the Church’s moral teachings, there’s plenty for them to point to when diagnosing the Church as ailing and on the decline..  But despite this laundry list – and many other challenges for that matter – we believers know that the Church is alive and well, and there are plenty of reasons to have hope for the future..

We were all given a powerful reminder of that this weekend in the form of an unforgettable Italian teenager.  It’s no secret that the future of the Church rests on our youth--a generation confronted with a blinding array of modern technologies and social networking, yet still yearning for that ancient promise of peace, harmony and personal salvation offered by the Christian faith. The key to attracting these young people, as Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI have clearly stated, is to present to them models of faith that sound and feel genuine. A Medieval cloistered nun might very well be a saint, but how exactly does a latte sipping, iPod listening, reality TV enthusiast of the 21st century relate to her?

Enter Chiara Badano, the modern, Italian teenager who was beatified this weekend before thousands of youth from around the world. She was, in every way, your typical teenager—pretty, athletic, full of life, with lots of friends, but she was consumed with love for Jesus Christ-a relationship that transformed her short life, transformed the lives of many who knew or heard her story, and promises to do the same for the lives of countless young people from around the world in the decades to come.

Chiara “Luce” Badano was born in 1971. When she was 11 years old her family became active in the Focolare movement, an ecclesial community focused on Christian perfection through charity. Chiara was heavily influenced by the encounter and began to put her faith into action. In one journal entry she wrote: 

"One of my classmates has chicken pox and everyone is afraid to go visit her. My parents have agreed that it's okay if I bring her her homework, so she won't feel alone. I think that love is more important than fear."

Even as Chiara sought to live the gospel in her everyday life she remained a regular teenager. She and her friends could often be found laughing and swapping stories in coffee shops. She was an accomplished swimmer and tennis player who loved to sing and dance in her free time. On the surface, she was indistinguishable from her fellow teens, but all was not as it seemed.

One day, after experiencing pain while playing tennis, Chiara was diagnosed with bone cancer. Drawing from her profound faith, Chiara put her life and illness completely into the hands of God. As she underwent painful treatments, she offered all her pain up saying, "It's for you, Jesus; if You want it, I want it too." One of her doctors, an atheist with a healthy disdain for the Church, was tremendously moved by her witness. He would later write, "Everything about Christianity now makes sense to me." Her illness lasted three years. During that period Chiara inspired her family and friends with her steadfast faith, ever present joy and willingness to offer her sufferings for union with Christ. Her final words were, “Bye-bye Mamma. Be happy because I am."

This past Saturday, thousands of devotees of the now Blessed Chiara Badano were present at the Marian Sanctuary of Divine Love just outside of Rome for the Mass and Rite of Beatification.  Archbishop Angelo Amato, who presided over the ceremony, described Chiara as a girl with “a heart crystalline like water from the source.” He said her example of putting her faith into practice as a teen demonstrates to the world that, “today there are virtuous young people, who in family, at school, in society do not fritter away their lives.”

Chiara, in the end, was very much like the rest of us. She was not perfect – one year, she even failed math. Rather, she was, simply and beautifully, human. But she taught us that a deep, transformative relationship with Christ is within our reach. The Italian song dedicated to Chiara Badano, which played before a packed audience in the Paul VI auditorium this weekend, proclaimed: “You always knew you were not alone because the light shined through you.” To a generation often described as lonely and confused, Chiara Badano shows us a clear path to building community and peace in our lives.

- David Naglieri

The Hip Church

 
In a thought-provoking post UK trip analysis of the analysis, Fr Raymond DeSouza challenges us to question our measure of success for the Papal trip. To weight it in proportion to the size of the crowds, the sustained ovations and the Queen’s reception is, according to DeSouza, to miss the mark entirely. “What if the numbers had been flipped, and the protesters outnumbered the pilgrims eight-to-1? Would that have meant failure?”

Of all the Holy Father’s important and historic addresses throughout the visit, DeSouza declared his most striking to be what he said en route, when asked by a journalist what the Church could do to make itself more attractive.

"One might say that a church which seeks above all to be attractive would already be on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for itself, does not work to increase its numbers so as to have more power," he answered. “The Church is at the service of Another; it does not serve itself…but it strives to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ accessible...”

Calling to mind the pressure on churches to adapt moral teaching to “the latest shifting sands of public opinion,” DeSouza brings to light the damage that can be done by Christian leaders who adopt the principle of attractiveness.

“Consider the sexual-abuse scandal, where, as Benedict wrote to the Church in Ireland, Catholic bishops put too much stock on the public image of the Church, on attempting to keep her attractive in public esteem. Compassion, justice, reconciliation, penance, conversion, healing -- all this was sacrificed to spare the Church from looking bad.”

Debt, Donations, and Decadence

As I’ve read the news this week the powerful soul chorus from “For the Love of Money” by the O’Jays (made famous by Donald Trump’s show The Apprentice) and the iconic cacophony of coins and cash registers from Pink Floyd’s “Money” have been competing for air time in my head.  With the annual release of Forbes’ survey of America’s richest today, cash was king.  But the eye-popping net worth of the Gates’ and Buffetts among us were not the only green headlines.  There have been plenty of dollar-laden stories ranging from fines to Facebook.

First, fines.  Terry Jones, the controversial Pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center who was behind the would-be “International Burn a Koran Day,” was hit with a $200,000 bill from city officials in Gainesville, Florida – the center’s home. 

In justifying the charges, the city cites the 200 plus officers that were put on patrol, keeping an eye on the church, the University of Florida football game, and other “soft targets.”  In addition to the 200 officers, 160 sheriff’s deputies were put to work.

Jones reacted saying that it would bankrupt the church, and that he would probably move it to Tampa to escape the criticism in Gainesville.  The mayor admitted that he doesn’t know if the city can legally force Mr. Jones to pay.  Jones called the tab “ridiculous.”

Then there was Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, who plans to give a $100 million donation to the Newark public school system.  Zuckerberg, who has no apparent connection to the city, is nonetheless giving the money to one of the most notoriously troubled school districts in the country.

The donation apparently stems from a meeting and conversation between Zuckerberg and Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker back in July.  Booker has been a champion of school choice in Newark and has sought on donations from the rich and famous before, but this will by far be the biggest.  The $100 million chunk represents 1/8th of the district’s annual budget.  At this point in time, it is not clear what the money will be spent on.

But there’s also a political element here too.  Along with the donation is an agreement between Mayor Booker and Governor Chris Christie that will result in more local control for Newark.  The state seized legal control of the school system 15 years ago, and Gov. Christie – no advocate of state takeovers – appears willing to let the Mayor back into the fold in some meaningful way, but will retain the right to take it all back if need be. 

The three men are set to announce the donation and the deal on – where else – Oprah this Friday.

Zuckerberg’s money wasn’t done making headlines.  He caused waves when it was announced that his wealth increased 245% since last year, launching him to #35 on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans this week.  His cofounder was #290.  Zuckerberg weighs in at $6.9 billion, meaning that his $100 million donation to Newark represents somewhere around 2 percent of his $4.9 billion jump in net worth this year. 

Zuckerberg, who wasn’t even born when Apple was founded, also managed to beat out CEO Steve Jobs,  who sat at #42 with a  meager $6.1 billion, most of which – ironically – does not come from Apple, but from his shares in Disney. 

The rest of the list featured usual suspects Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), and Larry Ellison (Oracle) in the top three slots.  Also, only 42 women made the cut, more than half of all fortunes on the list were “self-made,” and more of the 400 call California home than any other state.  What weren’t featured on the list were any millionaires.  All 400 who made the cut were worth at least $1 billion. 

I’m not quite sure what any of this says about America and her people.  Our fascination with money is neither new nor unique.   The same is true for our use of fines as punishment and our philanthropic inclinations.  What is perhaps unique and certainly even encouraging is isn’t just about showmanship and opulence.  America’s two richest men, Gates and Buffett, will be using the list as a recruitment tool, pressuring members to become part of their billionaire’s club “Giving Pledge,” thereby promising to donate at least 50 percent of their fortune in their lifetime.  Billionaires, take notice.   

- Matthew St. John

The Knights of Columbus remain pledged to defend a country “Under God”

Like a rash that won’t go away, atheism’s restless animosity towards everything sacred carries on. “Under God” is under attack, and the Knights of Columbus has joined the legal battle to once again come to the phrase’s defenses. 

The case began with the custom of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the New Hampshire public school system. Though students were not forced to recite the Pledge – it was completely voluntary – it was not enough for Michael Newdow, the activist atheist lawyer who has been the catalyst behind the lawsuits against the “Under God” language. He objected to any students being able to recite the pledge with “Under God”, claiming it violated the Establishment Clause.

When the case was successfully litigated in California by the Knights of Columbus and others, the court disposed of the establishment clause argument by finding that “[t]he Founders did not see these two ideas—that individuals possessed certain God-given rights which no government can take away, and that we do not want our nation to establish a religion—as being in conflict. Not every mention of God or religion by our government or at the government’s direction is a violation of the Establishment Clause.”

In the New Hampshire decision, also a win for the Knights and others, the court applied what is known as the “Lemon Test” to an establishment clause case which requires that a statute have (1) a secular purpose; (2) a primary effect that neither advances nor hinders religion; and (3) no excessive entanglement between government and religion. The court found that there was a plainly secular purpose, namely patriotism, which supported the words “Under God.” The court found further that the Pledge is not a religious prayer and its recitation does not constitute a religious act.

Newdow’s suit failed in the federal district court in New Hampshire, prompting him to appeal that decision which has brought the case to a federal appellate court in Boston. The Knights have once again teamed up with Kevin Hasson, President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a fellow Knight, in an effort to fight the most recent appeal earlier this month.

Against All Odds, Papal Trip Hailed as a “Resounding Success”

 
In the lead up to Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Great Britain, media pundits and social commentators in the British press and abroad openly speculated about what appeared to be a papal voyage that was doomed to fail. From a deeply secular British society with a long standing antagonism to the papacy, to the growing tensions over Catholic-Anglican ecumenical relations, to the proposed beatification of Cardinal Newman, controversy seemed inevitable. Add to that the negative comparisons to Pope John Paul II, which focused on Benedict’s supposed “lack of charisma” and media-fueled reputation as the Vatican’s enforcer for dogmatic correctness. However, most of the hype got it all wrong. As the Pope returned to Rome, a growing consensus, both in the British press and among Catholic commentators, heralded  his trip  as a resounding success. It was a trip, as William Oddie wrote in the UK’s Catholic Herald, that began in anxiety, “…quickly turned to relief and ended finally in euphoria.”

The British press were virtually unanimous in declaring the trip a success. Edward Pentin, writing in Zenit, surveyed the British media for reactions. Britain’s “The Daily Mail” described the visit as "triumphant.” Stephen Glover, the prominent English commentator, said, “This was a much more successful visit than the Roman Catholic hierarchy could have dared to hope. The Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming the eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid. In essence, he has been asking us to examine what kind of country we want this to be.”

The Fight for Social Issues’ Place among Conservatives

Signs of a potential rift in the Republican party were on display at last week’s Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C.  As economic conservatives, social conservatives, moderate Republicans, tea partiers, and any other constituent group within the Republican party try to establish a cohesive message for 2010 and beyond, some prominent conservatives disagree as to whether or not social issues should be include in that message.

Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, a potential Presidential candidate, has openly called for a “truce” on social issues so that everyone’s attention can be turned to budget matters.  Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, another prominent conservative and potential Presidential candidate, said earlier this month that, “Any issue that takes people’s eye off of unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debts is taking your eye off the ball.”  Barbour, who along with Daniels is well-liked and respected among conservatives, is also the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. 

Several speakers at the conference reacted strongly to this sentiment.  Fellow Hoosier Mike Pence – who won the Values Voters presidential straw poll – seemed to speak directly to Daniels’ and Barbour’s comments, saying  to the crowd of 2,000, "Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life, marriage and religious liberty have forgotten the lessons of history…America's darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.”
Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee echoed Pence’s sentiment, saying, “We must realize there's a direct correlation between the stability of families and the stability of our economy…I'm so tired of people telling me we don't want to hear about issues of the family."

Undoubtedly, additional concerns amongst social conservatives are fueled by the trajectory of the Tea Party.  With their anti-big government agenda and their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, it’s clear to even the most casual observer that their mission is more economic than social.  There’s a certain libertarian streak to the Tea Party movement, a streak which is notoriously skeptical of government’s involvement in the social sphere. 

This kind of tension between social and economic conservatives is not unheard of, but given the current political and fiscal environments, it may grow.  With the prolonged recession and the would-be recovery monopolizing the attention and concern of the American public, it’s not hard to imagine why. 

It’s also not hard to imagine why social conservatives are reluctant to give in.  For most social conservatives, their politics are significantly impacted, if not based on a deep-rooted faith that is hard to ignore.  So while the rift is perhaps inevitable and therefore not terribly surprising, what is surprising is that both sides might be missing the point: the majority of Americans don’t want a one-sided approach to politics. 

According to a recent poll by Politico 97 percent of Americans think that the economy and jobs are an important issue facing the United States, but a majority also think that education (93 percent), balancing the budget (93 percent), social security (92 percent), healthcare (91 percent), energy (91 percent), taxes (90 percent), homeland security/War on Terror (88 percent), immigration (85 percent), Iraq/Afghanistan (80 percent), nuclear proliferation (77 percent), ethics in government (66 percent), climate change (64 percent), and of course, family values (83 percent) are all important issues.  To be fair 53 percent of Americans think that the economy/jobs are the most important issue (the next highest is health care with just 6 percent), but that doesn’t mean that the rest don’t matter.

This is in line with what we found in our polling in February of 2010.  We saw that 67 percent of Americans think that the moral compass of the country is headed in the right direction, and that 59 percent of Americans are losing confidence or remain not confident in the government’s ability to handle the economic crisis.  Both are of concern.  Neither should be sidelined or tabled for some future election. 

Americans want a holistic approach to the nation’s problems.  They don’t want an “either, or”, but a series of “and, and.”  Those politicians who want to avoid one set of problems over the other – whether they are Republicans or Democrats – ignore them at their own peril.

- Matthew St. John

The Spiritual Side of TIFF

Piggybacking on Kathryn J Lopez’s latest column discussing Hollywood’s most recent grace filled moment in Get Low, there are some other, perhaps more ‘explicitly’ Catholic films also worth exploring that are currently making waves at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

Based on the Tibhirine tragedy of 1996, Of Gods and Men recreates the final weeks leading up to the kidnapping and death of seven Trappist monks by Islamic fundamentalists. The French drama, directed by Xavier Beauvois, was picked as one of the favorites to take home the Palme d'Or and wound up exiting the big stage with both the Grand Prix and the Ecumenical Jury Prize in tow.

The screenplay dives into the interrupted lives of eight Cistercian monks who, before violence and terror took hold of the region, were living in harmony with the largely Muslim population in the mountains of the Maghreb. 

Faced with the arrival of Islamic extremists (The Armed Islamic Group of Algeria), the brothers grapple with abandoning their post — and their flock. As one critic puts it, “The ensuing meditation on faith and the recognizance of one’s own mortality is gripping and exquisitely rendered.”

Etienne Comar, the film’s co-producer and a Catholic, had been deeply intrigued by the story of the monks, feeling as though their death had overshadowed what was really interesting: why they had decided to stay in Algeria despite the ongoing civil war.

Comar and Beauvois worked on the screenplay together, frequently meeting with theologians and spending time living at the Tamié Abbey in Savoie. Some inspiration was also taken from the writings of two of the Tibhirine monks, the Abbot Christian de Chergé and Christophe Lebreton.

While some critics, such as Aaron Hillis from Moving Images Magazine, felt it failed to deliver the “palpable pleasures of such a life that the Trappist-monk doc Into Great Silence evoked," the film was overall very well received on the international scale. Le Monde's Isabelle Regnier wrote: "We can, we must, even, consider this film as a profession of faith.”

Jean Gouny of Revue Cinéma gives us a taste of the film’s captivating monologues which he describes as ‘the humanization of life’s mystical queries’:

"Why is faith so bitter? I did not become a monk in order to become a martyr by giving up my life - but your life, you've already given it up! “

The Tea Party: Fad, Fringe, or Future?

Yesterday saw the Republican nomination of two additional “Tea Party” candidates: Carl Paladino for Governor of New York, and Christine O’Donnell for Senator of Delaware.  Despite the fact that both were and are projected to lose in the general election, they managed to prevail over well-supported establishment candidates.  Their wins are only the latest sign of the “Tea Party” movement’s growing influence on the American political scene.  The question that remains is whether or not that influence is a fad, fringe, or the future. 

Often times, the Tea Party is characterized as extremist.  While this may be true with any number of their policy positions, the movement’s core message of concern over the federal government’s budget deficit, and doubt that the country’s current leadership shares their values, resonates with many voters.  Gallup’s most recent polls show that economic recovery and job creation are likely to be the central issues in November’s elections for more than just Tea Party supporters.  Only 1 percent of voters say that the economy will “not that important” when they decide their vote in November.  Candidates have capitalized on this widespread concern by aligning themselves with the Tea Party’s strong stance against government spending and have managed to gain enough support to do the unthinkable – win.

O’Donnell’s nomination also reveals the strength of anti-“establishment” and anti-incumbent sentiment this year.  O’Donnell’s competitor for the nomination was Michael Castle, a House Representative for the state since 1993.  Castle, a moderate Republican, was heavily favored against the Democratic nominee.  When voters selected O’Donnell, they rejected an almost certain Senate win, instead choosing to nominate a candidate with a considerably diminished chance of success in November.  This indicates that the Tea Party’s anti-establishment attitude is more than a reaction against Democratic victories in 2008.  Increasingly, Tea Party supporters are indicating that they do not trust that Republican incumbents share their values either. 

The Tea Party, of course, is not without controversy – even amongst conservatives.  O’Donnell’s victory has been divisive among Republican strategists and pundits.  Most notably, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity that he “wasn’t frankly impressed by [O’Donnell’s] abilities as a candidate” and said that she will have to “answer in the general election” for her “checkered background”.  Rove did say that he would support the Republican nominee, but expressed regret over the likelihood that the GOP can no longer expect to win the Delaware Senate seat.  Rove’s statements drew swift criticism from Michelle Malkin, who said that Rove “came across as an effete sore loser” and described him as an “establishment Beltway strategist”.  Sarah Palin, who endorsed O’Donnell for the nomination, said that Rove was one of her friends “in the machine, the expert politicos”.  While maintaining that she has nothing against Rove, Palin said that he needs to “realize that the time for primary debate is now obviously over, and it’s time for unity”.

By rejecting a “safe” candidate, Castle, in favor of O’Donnell, Delaware Republicans have shown that they are willing to take a risk rather than support an “establishment” candidate.  This anti-incumbent mood, like their emphasis on fiscal concerns, is another way that the Tea Party movement reflects more general trends.  In Gallup’s most recent poll, they asked participants whether they would rather vote for a candidate who has been in Congress, or one who has never been in Congress.  60% of Gallup’s respondents indicated that they would rather support a Candidate who had never served in congress.  Given that only 30 percent of Americans identify as members of the Tea Party movement, this rise of anti-establishment sentiment cannot merely be a byproduct of one movement or party.  In fact, a PEW poll found that Independents are likely to view a Tea Party endorsement more favorably than an Obama endorsement.  Increasingly, it would seem that Americans of all political persuasions have become disillusioned with their country’s leadership and are taking a chance on candidates who mirror their values more closely, regardless of the political ramifications.

This year’s nominations have also made it clear that the Tea Party cannot be simply dismissed as a fringe element.  Whatever legitimate concerns about the movement there may be, the Tea Party’s core values resonate with those of many Americans of different political persuasions, who may nevertheless disagree on the right answer to the problems facing our nation.  Now that the Tea Party has proved that it has the ability to win nominations, it must show that it has the appeal to win elections.  Only after that will they have a chance to show whether they have the competence to govern.  Third parties – from the Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt to Ross Perot and Ralph Nader more often play spoiler than actually govern. The jury is still out as whether things are any different this time.

- Luke Hansen