Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin: One Catholic’s View
John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate was surprising, but the surprise pales in comparison to the reaction of conservative Christians, especially Catholics. In their race to endorse McCain-Palin, they have cast aside any questions about the complementarity of the sexes, or even the late John Paul II's theology of the body.
Catholic laymen who have always voted Republican but were unhappy with McCain were, not surprisingly, the first to crumble at the sight of the moose-hunting, pistol-packing pro-life mother of five, but I have since seen orthodox priests say that they wish Mrs. Palin were at the top of the ticket. And one traditionalist Catholic is now implying that it might even be sinful to vote for a third-party candidate instead of McCain. (In fairness, he sees the pick of Palin as one of several signs that the Republican Party is avowedly pro-life with no exceptions in this election cycle, but since Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin, it's ridiculous to imply that a vote for any candidate—as long as you are not supporting that candidate because he supports policies in opposition to Christian moral teaching—could be sinful.)
The negative reactions have been few and far between. One Catholic mother of seven, upon hearing the news, wondered why the mother of a four-month-old child (let alone a child with Down Syndrome) would want to run for vice president. Of course, that same child was born prematurely after Palin, leaking amniotic fluid, refused to cancel a speech at a Republican Governor's Conference at which John McCain was in attendance. The Palins chose not to abort baby Trig (not a minor matter, considering that upward of 90 percent of Down's babies are murdered in their mothers' wombs), but they were willing to take a calculated risk with his life in order to advance her political career.
The revelation of the pregnancy of Palin's 17-year-old daughter has been jumped on by the left with glee, but Catholics can certainly understand that sin happens. More disturbing is the fact that Mrs. Palin knew that accepting the nomination meant exposing her daughter to international scrutiny and ridicule—and yet she did it anyway. Unlike her daughter's premarital sex, that was not a decision made in the heat of passion.
This is just sexism, some Catholic women (and a few men) have responded. Would I be raising the same issues if Mrs. Palin were a man? Well, the question of throwing the 17-year-old daughter under the bus would be the same if we were discussing Todd rather than Sarah. But they are right: Most of the other questions wouldn't come up, not because I would go easier on a man, but because they wouldn't exist.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is sexist to raise them. Instead, it points to the very heart of the problem: From a Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes, should a woman ever find herself in the position where she has to choose between her vocation as a wife and mother and political service? Even considering this a choice that needs to be made implies that, at best, motherhood and political service are of equal value.
But they aren't—not in the eyes of the Church. That is not to demean wives and mothers, but to raise their vocation to its proper dignity—a dignity that dwarfs any that may once have been attached to politics.
It's hard not to like Sarah Palin. Her accent may grate even on my Midwestern ears; she may be all too happy to accept the role of a "pit bull in lipstick" (not exactly a dignified way for a woman—much less a mother—to act); and she has certainly shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests. (Despite her pro-life credentials, in her last political race—for governor of Alaska in 2006—Mrs. Palin refused to discuss the issue except to vow not to propose pro-life legislation if elected.) But there is no doubt that, compared with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain, she seems more normal—more one of us. Her failings as much as her virtues bolster that feeling.
But that doesn't change the decision before us in November. Anyone who votes for John McCain because of Sarah Palin still votes for John McCain, with all that that implies: rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned; the possible expansion of that war to Iran, and maybe Syria; a new Cold War with Russia; a vow to expand funding of embryonic stem-cell research, including the creation of new lines, which requires the destruction of more embryos; an unwillingness (as McCain repeatedly stated back in 1999) to overturn Roe v. Wade; support for contraception, sex education, and family-planning programs.
Anyone who planned to abstain from voting in November or intended to vote for a third-party candidate and is now considering voting for McCain-Palin needs to ask himself this question: Why? Is Sarah Palin providing cover for his desire to vote for McCain? Or is her nomination simply a convenient excuse to allow him to vote against Barack Obama?
If the latter, it would be better to own up to the reason and state forthrightly that he is not voting for McCain-Palin but against Obama-Biden. Then, his vote for the Republican ticket at least would not imply support for all of the anti-Christian policies that McCain has proposed, and the voter will not feel compelled to defend McCain when he carries through on his promises.
For myself, nothing has changed. Neither ticket will receive my vote. Instead, I will offer a prayer on Election Day that Mrs. Palin's presence on the ballot does not signal the final triumph of feminism over the traditional Christian understanding of the proper relationship between the sexes.
126 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Chronicles’ Editors Roundtable on Sarah Palin « The Vermont Traditionalist
- Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat
- Chronicles, November 2008 « Panther Red
Entries(RSS)
I have read the Chronicles editors' roundtable discussion on Sarah Palin and I agree with them in thinking that McCain is pandering to social conservatives and orthodox Christians with his VP pick. Moreover, it is also true that most social conservatives and orthodox Christians were taken in by this pandering hook, line, and sinker. They think the pick reveals a real commitment on McCain’s part for a culture of life when the facts on the ground are at best ambivalent. Moreover, although I love how Sarah Palin decided to keep her child with Down's syndrome and how her eldest daughter is keeping her own baby and marrying the baby’s father, these facts do not change the more important point regarding McCain’s great and dangerous bellicosity on geopolitical matters, which might actually involve the United States in a thermonuclear war that would end life and civilization as we know it. Think of the pertinent example of McCain’s dangerous rhetoric towards Russia over the Georgia debacle. Such rhetoric is not a gauge of McCain’s strength as a statesman, but rather reveals a man who doesn’t respect Russia’s impressive nuclear deterrent nor the realities of Great Powers and their spheres of influence. Such a lack of awareness on the part of anyone who is making a serious bid to be our next President is downright terrifying. Obama, for all of his many philosophical flaws, has not taken such a dangerous path of confrontation with Russia. Hence, such a series of facts have inclined me, tentatively for the moment at least, to hold my nose and vote for Obama, who though he may support Roe v Wade and the killing of millions of innocent babies in the womb, would probably not push the red button to start Armageddon over so worthless and minuscule an issue as Georgia.
Respectfully yours,
Nathan Friend
Tom Flinn (@38):
!@#$$%^!!!!, Tom, you went and blew my cover here!
Oh well, see ya in church. But don't act like you know me. I've got a bunch of people there pretty PO-ed over some things I've recently blogged on the local Catholic Yahoo group.
Regarding whether or not to vote in the presidential contest and who to vote for: I long ago gave up on voting for the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, by doing so, you only encourage the major parties to continue nominating evil candidates. On the other hand, I think you have to vote, even if only for a write-in candidate, in an attempt to let the major parties know what kind of candidate you will support. If enough voters get behind such a candidate, one or both of the major parties may nominate an acceptable candidate in the future. I am frequently accused of wasting my vote, but I think those who vote for the lesser of two evils waste an opportunity to vote against evil.
(Where did I recently read the definition of bipartisanship? That is when the stupid party and the evil party get together to do something incredibly stupid and incredibly evil!)
Regarding traditional Christian teaching on the proper role of men and women, both in and outside the Church, I recommend that you read Patrick Mitchell's The Scandal of Gender.
"Of course, that same child was born prematurely after Palin, leaking amniotic fluid, refused to cancel a speech at a Republican Governor’s Conference at which John McCain was in attendance."
Can you direct to your source for this piece of information? It is highly inflammatory if it is not the truth.
Mr. Richert
Thank you very much for this brilliant essay.
JMB
Here is the reference:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/382864.html
[Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.
"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.]
Kelly
Perhaps you can clarify if Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig are Christian names.
Thanks, RK.
The story of the hours leading up to Trig's birth has been widely reported, but as far as I can tell, almost all of the details for all of the stories have been drawn from the Anchorage Daily News article that RK linked to. By the time her speech began, Palin had been leaking amniotic fluid for over eight hours (she says it started around 4 A.M.).
The ADN article does make a mistake in referring to the event as a meeting of the National Governors Association; it was a meeting of the Republican Governors Association, as an ADN article from four days earlier, announcing Trig's birth, correctly states.
Specifics on #44 about Deborah, who was an appointed judge of God over Isreal in Judges 4 & 5. After her appointment and rule Israel had 40 years of peace and the Bible does call her a mother, but it does not reveal how many children she had (does the number of kids matter?), but we know back then the Jewish woman had a slew of kids:) God gave this woman, Deborah a different purpose than that of the Virgin Mary and it was our Lord Jesus, who reiterated the first commandment in Mathew 22:37,38.
Being a mother of children in private school, who is trying to preserve Christian values. It tickles me to know that Sarah Palin has the Alaska public schools teaching "Creationism". I love it, I love it, I love it.
Kelly (#59)
You said: "It tickles me to know that Sarah Palin has the Alaska public schools teaching “Creationism”. I love it, I love it, I love it." Can you please cite a source? I looked for evidence and got this instead:
"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members."
(http://http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0)
To quote further from the article above:
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them."
Apologies. The link in #60 should be:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
@45 Jack Bailey
"My point is that one should vote for the person that will cost him the least."
Exactly why you shouldn't vote for Obama or McCain. They will both cost you more than just money.
Hi RK,
I can not site a source, but it is factual that Sarah Palin is a proponent to teach both creation and evolution theory, which is a monumental blow to atheists. It is so sad today that people accept a theory as fact.
Also, Palin's kids aren't running for office so I'm less concerned about their names, but now "Sarah" is a beautiful, Bible name and as I recall she was divinely appointed by God to be a mother of a nation and her name means "Princess", "Princess of the multitudes," "Woman of high rank".
RK, whenever God's truth is exposed I LOVE IT and if there is any candidate willing to risk "persecution" for christian beliefs and stand against the "so-called politically correct agenda" falsehoods that demand acceptances of gay marriages, abortion, and the removal of God anywhere--are o-k with me and I will stand behind a leader without prejudice for God's truths.
#59 shows the dangers of selective Scriptural quoting, especially of the Old Testament. From Genesis to Revelations there is a consistent portrayal of sex differences. A better scholar than I could explain in detail how the Jews were a patriarchal people. When women have political power in Israel, as Jezabel did, it is not something to emulate. This is simply not a question on which reasonable and honest people can disagree. Sarah Palin is, quite simply, an unreflective feminist. Gloria Steinem should be ecstatic, though she is not, that a self-described Christian conservative has completely absorbed the feminist agenda. Obviously, people are free to embrace that point of view, but it must never be confused with anything Christian.
Another red herring is the teaching of Creationism. Is the problem of American schools really the fault of Darwinist theory or is it rather that the schools fail to teach math, English, and foreign languages, but do teach hatred of Christianity, America and the West. Besides, how does a non-biologist go about pronouncing on matters entirely outside his/her competence? Not, I would hope, on the strength of the Old Testament, which seems to teach that the earth is flat and square and that the value of pi is 3. Why are so many Christians today afraid of pursuing truth by rational means? I assume it is because, in the face of the challenges of science, history, and archaeology, they take refuge in obscurantism, which permits them to be serene in their ignorance. So long as the fear of truth remains a dominant element in American Christianity, we are doomed to slavery.
I'll quote something from the New Testament for you, too:
Hebrews 11:1-3
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."
TJF, I don't have to be a biologist to know that God created this world, you and me.
The Word of God is flawless and not all woman are Jezebels. Hence the story of the brave and courageous Deborah, who was not a coward.
The path of least resistance is hardly commendable.
Scott Richert ‘likes’ Palin in a similar way that the press ‘likes’ Palin with a blatant double-standard claiming that:
>only dad’s should go to work, only mom’s should stay home with the kids
>exposed pregnant daughter to scrutiny for political aspirations
>endangered Trig’s life by traveling while pregnant
>Catholic laymen forget their opposition to the party/candidate because they crumble at the sight of the moose-hunting, pistol-packing pro-life mother of five,
all echoing the mainstream media, all deeply entrenched double standards and sexism against both women & men (claiming their judgment is impaired by a pretty face).
He may say “It’s hard not to like Sarah Palin” but then he goes on to list all the petty things he dislikes:
Her accent
Her role of a “pit bull in lipstick” which he calls undignified
He falsely claims she has “shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests”
The only thing he listed in that paragraph that could even be remotely interpreted as ‘liking’ is that “she seems more normal—more one of us”.
News flash, Mr. Richert
It’s not a choice between motherhood and political life. Motherhood doesn’t just go poof because a woman is fulfilling her vocation in political life. She’s still a mother. She still comes home after a hard day’s work, helps with homework, goes to school plays.
You’re creating a false dilemna. It’s not a choice between motherhood and political life. It’s a choice between which parent stays home during which hours where both are fulfilling their duties as parents. The parenting role has grown in the past 30 years from being solely the mother’s responsibility while Dad goes out to pursue his vocation, to where both parents share equally in their responsibilities as 'One'.
The Palin’s, as with many people I know and work with, have rearranged their work/home schedules so that both parents care for their children.
The equal sharing of the duties and responsibilities of parenthood and civic life is much more in keeping with the Gospel as Pope John Paul II clarifies in his Letter to Women “After creating man male and female, God says to both: “Fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Man and woman alike share equal responsibility from the start. In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.”
Hislittlelamb, perhaps you should read that quotation from John Paul II a little more closely:
"In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference."
The difference between the sexes, John Paul is saying, is more than merely an accident of biology. There can be no "static and undifferentiated equality" because men and women have different roles, though this is not "an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference."
In other words, nothing that John Paul is saying here contradicts what I have written—but it does contradict your blithe reduction of motherhood and fatherhood to a generic "parenthood," with responsibilities which can simply be doled out any way the "parents" (now Mother and Father in little more than name only) see fit.
Instead of selectively quoting from John Paul II (and choosing your quotations poorly, at that), you might try reading his Theology of the Body, or his earlier books on marriage and family. You will find in all of them his insistence that the equality of men and women is not "static and undifferentiated." And you'll also find that he believes that the way to reconcile the differences between the sexes is to embrace, rather than deny, those differences.
Kelly is, alas, not following the argument at all. The question is not whether or not God created the universe, a view that derives both from revelation and from reason, but a) whether the teaching of Creationism--note the "ism", by the way--can seriously improve public education to the point it would not be toxic to the minds and morals of the students and b) whether the ideology of Creationism is consistent with reason and science. As to b), no one who has not studied biology is competent to judge, just as no one who has not studied many years of Greek should arrogate to himself the right to an opinion on the New Testament. That his why pastors and priests used to be required to know Greek and Latin. Today they spend more time on budgets, church growth, counseling. In an increasingly long life, I have run into perhaps two or three Christian ministers (out of many hundreds) whose study of Greek was sufficient to read the NT independently. When I taught Greek courses at the university level, I had well-intentioned ministers as my students. They claimed to have had several years of Greek in seminary, but they could not cut it in my second year course. So long as the shepherds are ignorant, we cannot expect very much out of the sheep.
What this leads to is pretty obvious in this discussion. Deborah was a prophetess, poetess, and judge. She was inspired by the Lord but did not seek political power. As a wise woman she was listened to but she did not rule. Her example--a solitary one at that--in no way contradicts the truth that is clear to anyone who studies the Scriptures, that political and religious authority is reserved to men. Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands. Period. That means that if the Palins were married in the Christian sense, Todd would be ruling Alaska through his wife, because she could not exercise authority over him. Similarly, women are not to exercise most spiritual functions, though they may prophesy and in some early churches they appear to have served as deacons, but that was in an age when deacons were in charge, mainly, of serving the bread and wine and supervising charity. Women, so far from being able to preach in Church, were told by St. Paul to remain silent. It is highly irresponsible for people to cite irrelevant Scriptural texts to justify positions that are inconsistent with Christian teaching. It is equally irresponsible to cite papal statements out of context to support positions that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching throughout the history of the Church.
As a matter of historical fact, stupid liberal men gave women the power to vote and hold public office, in complete defiance of Christian teaching. We have to accept this reality much as we accept the reality of having to pay taxes to support the soul-destroying public schools that promote homosexuality and abortion. But it is unconscionable for Christians to pretty up this ugly reality by pretending it has something to do with Christianity. Ordinary uneducated laymen have never known very much about the faith and its traditions, but there was a time when they were content to receive instructions from the clergy. One of the gravest problems we face today, as I observed above, is the ignorance of the clergy. Has anyone ever attended a Megachurch? Read something by Rick Warren? Watched Pat Robertson on TV or tuned in for a few hours to TBN? Spoken with a progressive Catholic priest or listened to the soft Marxist he peddles in his sermons? People like Ms Palin, 100 years ago, would have stayed home to take care of her husband and children and would not have intruded herself into a political realm in which her ignorance and incapacity would be put on public display.
What a world we live in, where people who say they are Christian and conservative, pin their hopes on a female journalism-major who attended six schools before graduating. Well, at least they must be happy, because "where ignorance is bliss....."
PS Here's what you get with women in politics. A female judge in Texas puts a man on death row and sees no problem in the fact that she and the prosecutor were having a "relationship." Perhaps she could be McCain's Attorney-General:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0908/p03s05-usju.html
Hislittlelamb, you might also read the section "Men and Women" of God and the World, the 2002 book by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. There you will find such "deeply entrenched double standards and sexism against both women & men" as the following:
Scott,
Little Lamb is correct in her belief that JP II would support the likes of Palin. "A long tradition has seen mostly men involved in politics. Today more and more women are asserting themselves even at the highest levels of representation, national and international. This process should be encouraged. Politics, in fact, geared as it is to promoting the common good, can only benefit from the complementary gifts of men and women." (Angelus Reflection “Women in Political Life,” 27 August 1995.0 And such feminism flow throughout his writings. That being said, JPII was clearly out of sync with the traditional Catholic position in regards to feminism.
Thus it is you, Scott, that need to (re)read JPII's writings. It is glaringly obvious that you either haven't read his writings closely or you have read them the same way you have viewed Pope Benedict's social interactions with the Bush administration, with rose colored glasses.
In regard to the latter, you said HH Pope Benedict was just "showing good manners" by give Bush a private tour of the inner sanctums of the Vatican. I would think "good manners" are trumped by avoiding giving scandal or showing favoritism toward a political figure that much of the world as well as many good traditional Catholics find, to put it mildly, "unworthy" of such special consideration.
Hey TJF--don't patronize me. Your a sinner just like everyone else, so lose the educated, elitist attitude--you sound just like a Pharisee. I hope your effort to dissuade anyone from reading the Word of God brings conviction to your heart.
The only reason why you are trying to downplay the use of scriptures and the story of Deborah is because it speaks of God's truth and you are not able to deal with God's truth so you are making an effort to discredit the scripture references I have used to then bring glory to yourself. The Bible is for everyone. You don't need to know latin, greek or hebrew. Just start reading. The Bible has changed so many hearts including mine.
Philippians 2:3
"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself."
Kelly, one problem, which I've pointed out already, is that you're saying, "God used Deborah" and then jumping to the conclusion that God is using Sarah Palin. Perhaps He is; but if you're willing to concede that He might not be, then a little caution is in order.
Romans 11:33-34:
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"
Sarah Palin is worth a strong consideration at this time with the election results revealing God's perfect will. Praying for wisdom is in order for all Christians before they cast their vote.
Now, how did I land on your blog after searching for "Loggia Designs" Go Figure:)
God Bless.
"One of the gravest problems we face today, as I observed above, is the ignorance of the clergy. Has anyone ever attended a Megachurch? Read something by Rick Warren? Watched Pat Robertson on TV or tuned in for a few hours to TBN?"
OT: I wish you would write a column on this general topic. This is spot-on.
I am sure all the editors are happy to have Kelly as a participant in this discussion, and since he is new to these pages, I will explain to him that the observations and corrections offered by a teacher are not intended to be taken as patronizing. Where correction is required, however, it will be given.
since Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin
Jone teaches that voting is a civic duty binding under venial sin and might be mortally sinful whenever a worthy candidate is opposed by an unworthy one. So I don't think it is accurate to state unequivocally that Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin.
dcs, are you referring to Fr. Heribert Jone's 18th-century work, Moral Theology? If so, I mean no disrespect to Father Jone, but I am unaware of any official document of the magisterium that supports his view.
What does he cite as his evidence?
John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his candidate for Vice-President was a cynical attempt to bring energy to his candidacy which had previously been about as exciting as watching old Lawrence Welk re-runs. And the Palin pick seems to have done wonders; even Pat Buchanan raves over the choice. Yet is anyone foolish enough to think that, if elected, that Mrs. Palin will be anything but the loyal foot soldier to the odious McCain? Does Mrs. Palin as Vice-President make a illegal amnesty bill cobbled together by McCain sidekick Lindsey Graham and the dying Ted Kennedy any less likely in 2009?
As for Mrs. Palin, she probably amazed herself in 2006 by trouncing Gov. Frank Murkowki and the corrupt Alaska Republican Party in the primary election and besting the popular Democratic ex-Governor Tony Knowles in the general election. Her family would now come second and her political career would come first. We saw some results of her decision on the stage at the recent Republican spectacle. But, of course, the wretched Barbara Amiel(aka Mrs. Conrad Black, felon) approves of Sarah Palin making her family a secondary interest so all must be to the good. And the party of "family values" approved with full-thorated roars. Welcome to modern day "family values."
Hey, now—no need to get nasty, Derek. I grew up on Lawrence Welk reruns!
"Ah-won, anna-too, anna Sonja Henie's tutu."
18th century? Fr. Jone lived and wrote mostly in the 20th century. But I seem to have misquoted him - the actual quote is:
"Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate."
I apologize for this error (the real statement is obviously much weaker than the one is misquoted), I was working from memory.
Calling for an "official document of the magisterium" is a bit minimalist, don't you think? Moral theology is mostly handed down and received; an official magisterial document would only be issued when a particular teaching is seriously threatened. For example, there are no "official magisterial documents" prior to 1930 teaching that contraception is a sin. Yet when Pius XI issued [i]Casti Connubii[/i] in December of that year, he wasn't teaching anything new, but only what the Church had been teaching all along.
Sorry--you're right; I was going off of faulty memory, having seen Father Jone's book on our book table at church. Looking it up online, it looks like the TAN edition (the one I saw) is the 18th English edition, so that's probably the source of my confusion.
As for the question of my minimalism, I'd respectfully submit that there's a major difference between the Church's teaching on contraception--a moral teaching that can be determined through the study of natural law and which concerns human sexual, something that is universal to humanity--and democratic voting, an historical phenomenon and quite a recent one at that.
So, yes--I do think that something a bit more authoritative is in order.
But even if we agree to follow Father Jone's exposition of our duty to vote, then I think one would be hard-pressed to claim that not voting in this particular election would even begin to approach venial sin. From a Catholic perspective, it's hard to argue that McCain is a "good" candidate, even if Obama is clearly an unworthy one.
And don’t clutter up our comment threads with claims about either candidate’s proposals that have no basis in what they have proposed.
Once again we are arguing apples and oranges. My numbers were not proposed as facts that were analyzed by this institute or any other institute but they are none the less very real. The tax increases are in the making by Obama. It is only a matter of how much Obama can get away with if he gets elected, regardless of what his current positions are. As a few percentages are statistically insignificant and increases on the order of 20% are revolutionary, we are dealing with figures in 10%-15% range.
Nor am I changing my argument but I do feel that I am getting dragged into side issues that I have inadvertently brushed upon, issues which to me are not interesting. Once again, my original argument was and is that letting presidential elections be decided by default is a mistake. I have no problem with your article aside from that, as we agree on the inadequacies of the conservative position in the current political climate. Not voting will not improve the power of conservatism. But if your advice instead of not voting was that we should vote for Obama because this would strenghten the conservatives (a kind of a "the worse, the better" logic) I would have been all for it.
Actually, Scott, Lawrence Welk brings back to me thoughts of my departed grandparents, to whom I owe so much. But as for 60s television, I am more of a "Lost in Space" man, a show my children force me to watch these days.
Well, hey, I guess we can agree to disagree.
But honestly, how hard can being a VP be? Granted it's more difficult than being a grocery bagger or writer or some other kind of academic, but that's not saying much. I suppose it's harder than being a community activist unless you have to run when the fed boys bum rush the crack house.
This thread has been highly educational, as long as one reads slowly through some parts and quickly through others.
I do have a contention though for those who find their moral exemption in picking from these two candidates comforting. Surely, there are more relevant things for us to tend to in our lives. I should be reorganizing a part of my thesis now, for example, or brushing up on my Latin. I agree.
Picking the lesser of two evils may still be picking evil. But depending upon what state you live in, silence may be viewed morally as consent. Certainly voting can be viewed not as a whole-hearted moral endorsement but rather as a simple defense mechanism.
So much of this debate seems to predefine our conscience or the context of our vote in a moral eternity that does not exist in reality. What, has there been a long line of excellent options leading up to this election and so now, faced with this decision, we are now finding ourselves in a unique position of abstinence?
I can only assume the opposite were true, that many would admit that if they have been faithful to their own words, they should never have voted at all.
Is that right? If there is no way to align your vote with your personal, moral compass, must you do nothing? Is that the only reason to vote? I hate moral practicality to justify incremental change, but I think it can be justified not matter how used I feel for it! If we limited our votes to those we personally trusted, we would be unable to elect any president at all.
We have gotten ourselves into this brutal moral and political culture incrementally. And that is the way we will get out of it, save total collapse. Clearly there are small differences between these two candidates. There are also other branches of government that are supposed to do their sworn jobs.
Lew Rockwell, in a recent speech, quipped that Bush had done nothing decent for America in 8 years. That may not be true. Alito and Roberts in tandem may be one decent thing (however, we shall see). The presidency is the gateway to the supreme court, which has done much damage to our country for a long time. This court hangs in balance with many of her justices in worse shape than Mr. McCain himself. Who replaces those justices could have a dramatic impact on very many aspects of our lives and for a long time.
It is far easier to throw bums out of the white house or the congress than the SCOTUS.
What, has there been a long line of excellent options leading up to this election and so now, faced with this decision, we are now finding ourselves in a unique position of abstinence?
Of course not. I haven't voted for one of the major-party candidates for president since 1988 (and shouldn't have then).
That doesn't, mean, however, that I haven't voted for president. I've voted for president in every election except for 1992, when I was attending graduate school in Washington, D.C., and didn't have the desire to go wait in a D.C. government office to register to vote.
You're setting up a false dichotomy--either we have to vote for one of the two major-party candidates or we have to abstain. Of course, you might regard voting for a third-party candidate to be the same as abstaining. I don't, and I suspect most of those on this thread who don't plan to vote for McCain or Obama do not, either.
We have gotten ourselves into this brutal moral and political culture incrementally. And that is the way we will get out of it, save total collapse.
Of course. And I think many us of have a pretty clear idea about how to make such incremental changes. And it might surprise you to find out that presidential politics has very little to do with it.
But let's look at incremental change in the context of the presidential election. You write that "Clearly there are small differences between these two candidates." Clearly. But to use an analogy from physics, no candidate represents merely a set of coordinates. Each has a velocity, too: He's moving in a certain direction.
And most of us on this comment thread, I think, agree that both major-party candidates are moving in the wrong direction. So, if we're talking about "incremental change," and the "small differences" between the two candidates, that means that we're saying merely that one candidate is moving in the wrong direction more slowly than the other.
The presidency is the gateway to the supreme court, which has done much damage to our country for a long time.
Indeed. And during the time of the worst damage, over the past 50 years, the Republicans have appointed some of the worst justices. Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey--all would not have been possible without the votes of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court.
Which puts a slightly different color on your statement that "Who replaces those justices could have a dramatic impact on very many aspects of our lives and for a long time."
From a Catholic perspective, it’s hard to argue that McCain is a “good” candidate, even if Obama is clearly an unworthy one.
Oh, I quite agree.
I have left a lot of room for your sound replies.
First, I do believe I conditioned my statements upon the geographical state the person lives in. What I meant by this, is that if one lives in a state where the 2 party outcome is in question, then that reality affects the nature of the moral considerations a person faces when voting.
If one lives in a state where the outcome is sort of predetermined, then the moral conditions change, and I agree wholeheartedly in supporting another voice.
Unlike some, who seem to me to be looking for a sort of universal moral answer to this question, I am approaching it from a game theory perspective and am applying my morality to the reasonably likely causes and effects. I obviously can't predict the future, and politicians are so often liars.
Also, I am not endorsing the GOP in general. One need only go back so far as Souter to find a discomforting appointment by a very practical and "prudent" man. It is a dangerous game.
And yet that man's son, appointed two justices who may be two decent options this side of aborted Bork. It is a mystery as to why he did this. It is also a mystery as to how this man got elected. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would guess that in this fractured, weakling system we have, special interest groups -- even religious ones -- are being pandered to *quid pro quo*.
So, although according to traditional Christian values, both parties are moving in the wrong direction, one may at least be negotiating with the right people.
Underneath velocity is acceleration. And although either of these options may only nominally change our velocity, if we can control the acceleration of one important moral dimension at a time, we may have a chance to make incremental positive changes while playing an overall losing game. Parrondo knew this.
If one lives in a state where the outcome is sort of predetermined, then the moral conditions change, and I agree wholeheartedly in supporting another voice.
But if those are the only conditions under which a vote for a third party is something to be considered, then voting for a third party has the same effect as abstaining. It's actually only in those states where such a vote might affect the outcome that a vote for a third party is likely to be noticed at all.
Everyone knows that Buchanan and Nader had an effect in Florida in 2000; but I doubt that most Americans know whether either candidate was on the ballot in Illinois in that year.
As a political science undergrad, I loved game theory. As a political theory graduate student, I began to see that attempts to reduce human interaction to rules and sequences and probabilities was fundamentally wrongheaded.
Beginning to break out of that mindset was a true intellectual liberation (and a spiritual one, too, because I finally came to understand the moral value of free will). I write "beginning to break out" because, in this modern world, it is a constant struggle to keep from falling back into scientistic attempts to analyze human nature and human interactions.
Thanks to TJF /65 for his comments on creationism and evolution. The results of Christian schooling and fundamentalist preaching have taught people that 'theory' means basically 'wild guess'. The scientific meaning of 'theory' is quite different. For example, electromagnetism is 'theory' but is well grounded. Go into any museum of natural history and you will see evolution well supported. The dumbing down of Christianity will lead us to slavery or at least barbarism. In the field of science, I must admit that the Catholic Church is way ahead of most protestants.
Mrs. Palin, if she wanted to be a Christian role model for young women, should be at home being a homemaker for her family. Her husband should be hard at work trying to provide for their needs and defending the home...and maybe shooting a moose for the family table. As it is she's a typical careerist/feminist who puts her family responibilies second or third to her God given role. It's hard to understand how Christians can get excited about her as VP.
Abstaining from voting under any condition where more than 2 options exist contains additional information than does voting 3rd party. For example, abstaining from voting could say, "I like both the guys in the 2 parties so much, I simply cannot make up my mind!" Or, "I thought the election was on Wednesday."
There are even more of these examples.
And although I see your point about the 3rd party message being louder in the contested states, I would argue that the magnitude of whatever symbolic message is generated is less than the magnitude of the differential effects of the actual outcome. I had been assuming the message of voting for a 3rd party to be at a general, national level.
Otherwise, I was not meaning to draw a sharp connection between game theory and my thought process for this decision. It might be better to say I am relying upon "outcomes-based" morality. I am doing this because I believe that although the general effects of this 2 party election may be approximately the same, as you put it, velocity, I believe there are specific victories that can be won in small corners of our political halls and that these victories are categorical and important rather than differential and nominal.
My assumption, which is admittedly highly arguable, is that despite the frothing at the mouth and keen political opportunism that the Palin pick has caused and represented, I see her pick as another step in a promise for McCain to appoint constructionist judges to the bench. Take that for what it's worth.
I do not accept the argument some seem to be putting forward for abstaining from voting by the following process: 1) My heart is somewhere near the heart of traditional Christian morality 2) I can tell where these politicians' hearts are relative to mine 3) By establishing an arbitrary perimeter around myself in morality world, I may find that I can vote for no one, since they all fall outside of this perimeter.
And even if that process is the only one a person can use, abstaining from voting still does not seem like a moral option to me. In that case, I would accept a write in of a personal friend, for example.
(I think a fuller discussion on "scientistic" conflicts in moral decision making would be an excellent piece.)
Mr. Breisch, you are correct but expect that most "conservatives" will agree with Sarah Palin when she calls your views "Neanderthal".
A majority of Republicans and conservatives are part of the cultural zeitgeist.
Anyone else find the parading around of Bristol Palin a macabre spectacle? If one of Obama's daughters was seventeen, unmarried and pregnant, the very Republicans and conservatives would be full of derision. But Bristol's mother is on our side so all is well.
People are forgetting that, no matter which of the two members of the two party cartel are elected, the permanent government of judges and bureaucrats will still be in place. There will be no change in how they act, especially when it comes to the millions of employees of the executive branch. A president has very little power over the 'civil servants' who are charged with administering and enforcing the enormous mass of laws and regulations. He can hire and fire at the very top, and give orders to his cabinet, but there is no guarantee that any of his orders will have much effect on how the various departments, bureaus, and agencies operate.
The president does appoint Supreme Court justices directly, but the Supreme Court hears very few cases in any given year, and in any event it is unlikely that in the next few years any of the justices will be replaced. Also, the abysmal record of presidents of either party with regard to the quality of their appointments does not encourage me to consider this a very important point when voting.
As for the federal judiciary in general, I suspect that only a small handful the judges will be replaced, and since the president doesn't really have time to take a detailed look at the record of anyone who is in the running to be appointed to the federal bench, the usual organizations will vet the appointments.
Sorry, Mr. Fowler, if you won't dig a little, I will. I'd prefer to let people make up their own minds about whether or not a justice might retire in the next 4 year term (not to mention 2 just retired in Bush's second term - care to imagine whom Mr. Kerry would have appointed?).
John Paul Stevens: 88 years old
Antonin Scalia: 72
Anthony Kennedy: 72
David "Hack" Souter: 69
Ruth B. Ginsburg: 75
Stephen Breyer: 70
O'Connor retired at age 76, Rehnquist died at 80. John McCain is 72, which many fear is a risky age to be heading into office. Since 1970, the average age of departure from the bench is 78.8 years old.
I believe the pendulum has swung slowly for too long to one side and that most people are getting wise to it. Even the careerists in the House and Senate are tired of the Supreme Court usurping their power. If I am wrong, then I contend we will be no worse off than we are now, I will adopt a third party for consolation and make some tea.
I must correct you on your inaccurate assertion that John McCain has "vowed" to expand embryonic stem cell funding. While he did vote for funding in 2007, there have been continuing conversations with him on the subject. Together with rapid changes in research, there is now a consensus that there will not be any further focus or promotion or support for destructive embryonic stem cell research funding. He is on record as supporting adult stem cell research and using non-destructive means to harvest stem cells. Given the need to curtail wasteful government spending, this is a logical position for him to hold. Further he has been on record as opposing Roe v Wade and does not want to increase federal funding of contraception and family planning services. He has been a long time supporter of the Mexico City Policy, supported the selection of judges like Thomas, Roberts and Alito, and has a 26 year history of voting pro-life with three rare exceptions ( back in 1992 on the fetal tissue question and the ESCR issue).
I would therefore suggest that if one does not want the socialists or left leaning democrats to win, one strongly consider voting for McCain.
I also think that McCain chose Palin, a sitting governor from an energy rich state, to highlight the energy issue, the traditional values issues, and to mix things up. Typical McCain thinking.
Now many may object to the notion of the woman being in public office when she has a family, etc. You mention the complementary roles of the sexes and hte natural order of things, etc.
But I would provide a different argument in light of current events and the need we have to re-focus the nation on the need for law to protect all human beings.
A woman who holds strong pro-life positions who can present the arguments well and is not afraid to stand up to the media, whose own family may not be "picture perfect" but filled with the every day challenges that many families face, just might be the tool God can use to awaken the deeply placed desire in people to seek the good , the true and the beautiful.
Perhaps if people like Sarah and find out she is pro-life, and that she loves life even when that life comes in a baby named Trig, they will realize that choosing life is preferable to choosing abortion, that believing in God is a good thing to do, and that all of us are called to serve the other.
When I watched the min-series John Adams, I recalled, having read the book, the tremendous sacrifices made by both John and Abigail and the children. We can consider what each of us may desire or choose to do in the face of a calling to public service. But I would not judge the decision of someone as Governor Palin
to accept the call. The enemy would like nothing more than for those of us who love life to cede the political field to them.
It is always good first to pray and then to labor to bring about a better place for our children.
I guess I should have looked. Still, I don't think it will make too much difference, especially if Congress decides to start taking back their power to make laws. The lower federal courts are probably more important in the long run. Congressmen have the power to reshape the whole structure of these courts.
Mr. McCabe, #97. Of five bad Justices you list, three are Republican appointees and only two Democrat.
Dr. Wilson, #100:
Your comment is one of the reasons why I don't agree with my friends that it is important to elect McCain because he will appoint more conservative Justices. Republican presidents never have done that.
Correction to my comment at 101: I should say that Republican presidents very seldom appoint any Justice to the Supreme Court that could reasonably be considered to be more conservative than most of the Justices are. "Never" may make the statement not quite true.