Righteously or not, the University of Notre Dame has long been regarded as America's most prestigious institution of higher learning.  With that background, yet another inevitable clash between church and state has erupted over the university's intentions of having the new president speak at commencement, and receive an honorary degree.  (Funny, if Mr. Obama were as focused on the 'separation of church and state' as he and his left-wing comrades say, wouldn't speak at a religious private institution be a grave violation?)  Predictably, this has led to a flurry of soul-searching and debate over the university's actions.  Considering Mr. Obama's unabashedly pro-abortion background and the Papacy's unabashedly pro-life position, such a juxtaposition should surprise no one.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject.  Archbishop D'Arcy, doyen of the area's parishes, has announced his intentions to not attend, while the university administration has hurriedly tried to assure everyone that there is no conflict or hypocrisy in inviting the president.  Free speech advocates claim the president should be able to speak, adding that he is not going to be talking about abortion anyway.  Others point to Mr. Obama's position, and that, as leader of the free world, he invites respect, if not agreement.  Likewise, others point out that Notre Dame has had many previous presidents, from all different sides of the ideological perspective.

Here's a humble suggestion for Notre Dame, with the disclaimer that I am not Catholic and I am pro-life.  Do not withdraw his invitation to speak at commencement.  Regardless of his politics, he is an enormous successful man, achieving what is probably the most powerful position in human history, and would have many worthwhile insights to pass along to the graduating class.  It would be a mark of distinction to have the president speak at a graduation, and a worthwhile experience for the graduates.

However, Notre Dame should not confer an honorary degree upon the president.  An honorary degree is a recognition of laudable things accomplished, and approved of by a university.  For lack of a better term, it is a university's "stamp of approval" upon a person.  Notre Dame would be taking a unfortunate step in conferring such an honor upon the president, who would receive it for the political achievements he has gained, political achievements used throughout in the promotion and maintenance of abortion, something Notre Dame should not approve.

            While driving in the car today, I turned on a beloved piece of music: Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4. Listening to the breathlessly magnificent work, my mind turned back to a much-missed doyen in the conservative movement who claimed the concerto as his favorite piece of music: William F. Buckley, Jr. Thinking on this patriarch of modern conservatism brought to my mind the recurrent gap Buckley’s absence has left in the right. Modern conservatism has fallen on difficult times recently, what with two consecutive electoral defeats and seemingly incessant internecine squabbles, and this has understandably led to much soul-searching and even more finger-pointing.

            The movement does not lack its communicators. On the contrary, the influence of radio-wave prophets, like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallagher, has never been greater. They speak to legions of loyal fans and possess a capacity to rally vast numbers of people to their sides with remarkable celerity. Neither does the movement lack its populist leaders. Sarah Palin proved this in the last election with an ability to speak to millions of Americans on the deepest levels, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal appears desirous of such support. Nor does the movement lack its suave politicians and pragmatic managers like Mitt Romney or Eric Cantor (despite the latter’s recent slipups).

            Conservatism has a many-splendored spectrum of talented persons working for its expansion, all doing their level best to serve a movement and, more important, the country they hold dear.  However, a persistent gap remains in the Right: the gap left by Mr. Buckley’s departure.

            For all its well-endowed leaders, the Right has no intellectual, no academic fountainhead. This is not to say that it lacks incredibly intelligent individuals, which it still has in abundance, but rather to point out the lacking of the urbane, sophisticated man, comfortable in the most philosophical and abstract academic disciplines.

            Again, the Right does not suffer from a lack of intelligence, far from it. All of the above mentioned individuals and many others display a stunning brilliance. But no one seems desirous or capable of Buckley’s charming, yet professorial, charisma.

            Quite possibly, this indicates a lacking not just in the Right, but in the country at large. In today’s political cycle, it seems to be the loudest yellers and the most vicious partisans are the only ones heard. With the prepotency of mainstream media, with its thirty-second clips and table-pounding demagoguery, the public may no longer have a desire for the genteel and cool questioning and fluid and sophisticated rhetoric of a Buckley. 

            But I doubt it. That very demagoguery is grating on the American people, and they are desperate for something else, something different, something proven. Here is where someone who can humbly, but capably, pick up Buckley’s mantle can provide a crucial asset for modern conservatism.

            His task is not to supplant today’s conservative politicians, populists, or mouthpieces, but rather to supplement them. His responsibility is to present conservatism’s timeless principles of individual liberty, small government, and free markets in an intellectual manner and with the cheery and academic demeanor that charmed Buckley’s friends and adversaries. His will be the task to engage in a reasoned, eloquent character those that disagree with the right, without the finger-pointing and raucous yelling of the talking heads or political double-speak.   He desires not public office or hosts of listeners for his own sake, but rather to educate and present a view that could not be more pivotal to America’s successful future.

            There is a gap that is waiting to be filled, one that could provide a crucial support in the difficult times facing both the Right and the country. The stakes could not be higher, nor the need greater, and we will see if there are those willing and capable to fill the gap.