Although media titans Bill OโReilly and Rush Limbaugh are both critical of President Obamaโs policies, they deal very differently with the Presidentโsย intentions. A close look at that difference in light of the western religious and philosophical tradition offers a clearer perspective on the Presidentโs policies.
OโReilly summarized his view on the Jimmy Kimmel show as follows: โI like Barack Obama as I liked George W. Bush. I think theyโre both patriots . . . I think theyโre both trying to do whatโs best for their country. So I admire that. I respect that.โ This view is charitable and gives Obama the benefit of the doubt. It recalls Jesusโ admonition to โjudge not lest you be judged.โ(Matthew 7:1)
In contrast, Limbaugh judges the Presidentโs intentions harshly, as this passage from his website makes clear:
[Obama] knows what tax increases do. They retard economic growth. So . . . the fact that he intends to raise taxes and double the debt is as great an indicator as you need of what his intentions are for this country and our budget and our overall structure . . . This is not somebody โin over his head,โย . . . He knows exactly what heโs doing. [Limbaugh goes on to say that Obama is harming the country.]
At first thought, OโReillyโs view is more Christian than Limbaughโs. But closer examination of Jesusโ words challenges that notion because immediately after saying, โjudge not lest you be judged,โ Jesus softened the admonition, saying that we will be judged by โthe wayโ we judge and by our โstandard of measure.โ
Even more significantly, a dozen or so lines later Jesus used an analogy toย specifyย the wayย we should judge: โA good tree does not produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit. By their fruits you shall know them.โ
Thus, the full context of Jesusโ comments reveals that saying OโReillyโs view is Christian and Limbaughโs is unchristian oversimplifies the matter. A more accurate assessment is that they reflect different aspects of the same overall religious teaching. The question is, which judgment of Obamaโsย intentions, as opposed to his actions, is more in keeping with Jesusโ words?ย Given that Jesus did not make a clear distinction between intentions and actions, we must look to philosophy for an answer.
Discussion ofย intentionsย is always problematic not only because they are often difficult to discern, but also because even the noblest intentions can produce horrible consequences. Also because, as Thomas Aquinas noted, people never choose evil for its own sake but instead for some good they wish to achieve. For example, people steal to improve their financial situation and commit adultery to achieve sexual pleasure. The same is true of more extreme cases. Hitlerโs intention in exterminating Jews was to purify Aryan blood, and Stalinโs intention in killing millions of his countrymen was to unify the country and create order and stability. The relevant ethical principle, of course, is that not even the worthiest ends can justify evil means (though they mayย mitigate culpability for a personโs actions).
If we apply Aquinasโ insight, we must say that OโReillyโs view that President Obama โmeans wellโ or โwants the best for his countryโ is charitable and in keeping with Aquinasโ perspective, whereas Limbaughโs view is neither. In fairness to Limbaugh, it should be noted that Obama himself has made it tempting to question his intentions. As a lawyer and former instructor in constitutional law, he knows the boundaries of presidential action, yet he crosses them anyway. Also, as a formerly vocal advocate for fiscal responsibility, he knows the dangers of rising deficits and debt, yet he spends with abandon. Such behavior seems to shout โbad intentions.โ
The larger point about judging intentions, however, is this: if everyone has good intentions, as Aquinas held,ย it is pointless to discuss them at all,ย whether charitably, as OโReilly does, or uncharitably, as Limbaugh does.ย It is far wiser to focus on the reasoning and actions that proceed from the intentions, as well as the resulting consequences. In addition to being reasonable, that approach is consistent with Jesusโ observation, โby their fruits you shall know them.โ
Such a focus would result in an argument that may be briefly stated as follows:
President Obama undoubtedly intends to make the U.S. a better country than he believes it has been. However, the way he has chosen to achieve that intentionโby transforming Americaโis misguided. Transformation is appropriate only in systems that are fundamentally flawed and irreparable (for example, communist systems). America is neither. Its problems are, in fact, easily solvable by returning to its core principlesโthat is, by restoration rather than transformation.
Moreover, in pursuit of his misguided goal, the President has pursued policies that have done more harm than good. He has usurped powers that belong to the other two branches of government, driven the country deeper into debt than it has ever been, created havoc in the nationโs health care system, and encouraged a spirit of divisiveness among social classes.
This argument is one that reasonable people of different political persuasions can accept. It does not alienate conservatives by extending the benefit of the doubt beyond the limits of common sense. Nor does it alienate liberals by accusing the President ofconsciouslyย choosing to harm the country. Instead, it acknowledges the Presidentโs good intentions but focuses on the errors in thought and action that underlie his policies, as well as the resulting consequences. It therefore invites a bi-partisan effort to put politics aside and correct the situation.
ย ย ย To see more of this authorโs work, visit ย www.mind-at-work.com
Excellent article came right to the point. Cleared up all of my thoughts on the matter of the president. O’Reilly has a big task ahead of him, he has to reach many people with the truth in the secular world, let us all pray for him.