Rod Dreher Sums Up…

…why I am rapidly returning to the idea of voting for the Doomed Quixotic Party candidate. You’ve got your choice between the Crush Religious Liberty (and support the intrinsic evil of abortion) Candidate, or you have your Bourbon Republicans, remembering everything and learning nothing from the bellicose Bush years, eager to launch our troops into yet another stupid war to prove their manliness.

No thanks.

"IMO, from this day forward, anybody who continues to support Trump is complicit in his ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"You're right and I struggle mightily with this and with the desire to see them ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Number 2 seems to be factually incorrect. As far as I can tell, the U.S. ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Deuce

    It’s a tough call for me. I think we ought to endeavor to stay out of war with Iran as much as reasonably possible, but at the same time the possibility of war needs to be “on the table,” so that Iran at least thinks that our words are ultimately backed by a credible threat of force. I’ve always admired how Reagan brought about the end of USSR (or at least was one of the major players in doing so) without firing a shot, but it wouldn’t have worked if they weren’t afraid of him and the arsenal he was building (or that they merely thought he was building in some cases).

  • Ellen

    Nope. I am not wasting my vote on Ron Paul or some other doomed candidate. I will hold my nose and vote for the Stupid Party. The very thought of The Won in office for four more years, nominating judges who will overturn every state referendum that is in favor of life or traditional marriage is too chilling to contemplate.

    • The Deuce

      Yes, that’s where I am. I think there’s a slightly better chance that we’ll end up in a military conflict with Iran under a Republican, but a near certainty that we’ll see an assault on religious liberty under Obama. If he was willing to do this while facing reelection, then what is he capable of when he’s not? I think that we’re almost surely going to see fundamental, epoch-making switch in America’s foundational commitment to freedom of worship under Obama, with our only legal recourse being the ultra-leftwing judges he appoints. I look 20, 30 years down the road to when my son is an adult, and I’m terrified at the thought of him living under religious persecution.

      • Rosemarie


        So it’s a choice between Obama staying in office – which means continued fighting overseas (and war with Iran is still a possibility) plus more attacks on religious freedom here which may be okayed by the Supreme Court if he can stack it in his favor – or a Republican getting in – which means continued fighting overseas and war with Iran but no more attacks on religious freedom here.

    • John C

      Exactly right, Ellen! He turned out to be just a community organizer after all, as well as a craven panderer to women and gays. He is the fag end of ’60s “liberalism”. Time to get back to normal.

      • The Deuce

        I’m afraid, John, that persecution of Christians is all too normal.

        • Chris

          We’re still in the first quarter of the secular humanist Super Bowl of Persecution.

    • Maiki

      The primary isn’t over, yet, lest anyone forgets that, too.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I certainly respect anyone’s right to vote as their conscience dictates. But I just don’t buy this argument. The Democrats are much more than the anti-liberty pro-abortion party, and the GOP’s agenda is much more than more war. I just don’t see the “logic” in:

    Joining Saruman to fight Sauron.

    Joining Mammon to fight Moloch.

    Pick your metaphor. Pick your poison. I choose none of the above.

    • Chris

      Here’s a metaphor: TRIAGE.

      • Maiki

        Triage assumes you are doing something objectively good, though.

  • Joseph

    I’m still in a period of waiting and I probably won’t decide what I’m going to do until the very last minute. The only thing I’m absolutely sure of is that I will not be voting for God King.

  • You may take comfort in the financial fact that we can’t afford another war. Take comfort as well that our force structure can’t handle an invasion of Iran. What we can do is make the mullah regime so paranoid that they collapse their economy and have revolution in their streets. It’s a very cheap policy in both money and lives, if hard on the nerves of the peace crowd in the US.

    I expect that we will pressure Iran with economic sanctions and that they will ultimately crack, with an insider faction led by mullahs with large business interests toppling the regime from within in sheer self-defense as the hard-liners gather to throw these people in jail because they fear the revolution they are provoking.

    • Joseph

      You’re probably right. That’s probably exactly what the expectation is. However, Americans and our government, specifically, need to understand that we aren’t smarter than everybody else. So far, transparent foreign policy gambles like these (if you are correct in your assessment) have had a nasty habit of backfiring.

      Americans aren’t the smartest people in the world.

  • Dale Price

    With the President, I see no signs that you won’t get the worst end of *both* sticks. He gave us the war in Libya (along with the raising of Al Qaeda’s flag in Benghazi), and his administration is talking about military options in Syria. What makes you think he wouldn’t go to war with Iran? Hell, it’s even possible that he might *have* to, or that we’ll end up in the middle of a conflagration between Israel and Iran in any event.

    What a world.

  • I’m still torn. If ever there was a time I wasn’t excited about the options, it was this time. But still the stakes are so high, I’m keeping the options open. Probably till the end. Since I’m in a swing state that has been known to come down to the wire, I’ll keep both eyes on things until I step into the voting booth.

    • Chris

      Put it this way – as Mr. Shea pointed out a few weeks ago – it’s not whether the Church survives, it’s whether the country survives. And the more our gov’t persecutes the Church, the greater the attendant chastisements (geopolitical, economic, health-related, and otherwise).

      • Of course. I’m not worried about the Church, though I don’t wish to see any persecution any time. But I would like to see the country survive. A turn around would also be nice, because I would rather not see it just survive despite itself.

  • Kirt Higdon

    No declared candidate so far will get my vote, other than Ron Paul. As far as a credible threat of force against Iran being “on the table”, why is the US regime threatening them? Iranian supreme religious leader Khamenei just reiterated his long held position that Iran will never seek nuclear weapons because the mere possession of nuclear weapons is a serious sin against God. Is he lying about Iran’s intentions? Maybe so, but both US Defsec Panetta and Israeli Defmin Barrack state that there is no evidence that Iran is currently building nuclear weapons or has even decided to. And Khamenei is definitely right on the morality of nuclear weapons.

    • Shall we list the causes of war?

      They took over our embassy, in violation of treaty obligations in 1979.
      They fund, train, and run international terrorist groups and have been doing so for decades
      They recently tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US on US soil.
      They have imprisoned, beaten, and threatened to kill Americans they catch and falsely accuse of crimes.
      Contrary to Ayatollah Khameni, the IAEA is currently citing them for not fulfilling their nonproliferation obligations under the NPT. That’s diplo speak for they seem to be hiding a nuclear weapons program.
      They are fomenting revolution among our arab allies, specifically Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
      They have trained, funded, and supplied people in Iraq who keep trying to kill American military personnel who are there by the invitation of the elected government of Iraq.

      I’m pretty sure that this list is not exhaustive.

      That isn’t to say that war is a prudent thing for the US at this juncture but let us can the nonsense that the Iranians don’t deserve a pounding on standard geopolitical grounds. They are bad actors according to the classic measures, not even getting into the moral travesties like raping women right before they hang them so they do not die virgins and go to heaven.

  • Sean O

    Let’s put an end to the war madness & “tough guy” talk.

    If you “support” the war and believe it must be done, you must send at least one family member to accomplish the “vital” mission.

    That should end it.

    • Chris

      That’s a false argument. Akin to, “let’s see a man go through pregnancy before he casts his opinion on abortion.”

      Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of who has what skin in the game. Would you like to go back to voting rights limited only to the “landed”, since they traditionally were thought to have the most at stake with government policy?

      The problem is we’ve created a culture of death, and that is being expressed not only in abortion/contraception/sterilization/euthanasia, but also in pre-emptive war on innocent citizen of arguably despotic governments. “Put up or shut up” isn’t going to cut it today. We need a radical change in social attitudes toward life…

  • Chris

    In a Catholic discussion group, on the claim of “Mr Catholic”, or “Saint Santorum”, I’ve been struck with all of the people out there who cite nonsense in order to rationalize abandonment of Catholic principles.

    As such, I think I’ve come up with an addendum to one of your sayings;

    “Opposition to abortion forgives all sins, – but not stances on side issues that I don’t understand or sound scary….”


  • Chris

    The correct question is whether we want to vote for a War on Iran, or a War on God.

    If that’s what it boils down to, I’ll take War on Iran all day, every day.

    Sadly, that’s what our choices come down to.

    • Plus, I’m not really sure that there is a lower chance of war with Iran, with Obama at the helm as compared to Romney. (I don’t believe Santorum has a chance to beat Obama, so I’m not including him in the equation)

    • S. Murphy

      That’s suggesting a contradiction between loving the Lord and loving your neighbor. War on fill-in-the-blank, for no good reason, IS war on God.

      And I say it who stand to a better chance of staying employed, the more trouble there is in the Central AOR. Semper Fi.

      I’m not seeing anything resembling justice getting us into a war with Iran. It’d take WWI-level sin-makes-you-stupid, probably on both sides, for this to happen.

      • Chris

        Interesting points. Nevertheless, my vote is already cancelled out here in Illinois. I have no power against Obama.

        • S. Murphy

          I’m in the same boat. Although I guess I could switch to FL, where I’m stationed, for the election. My orders end in Sept, though, do I’d prolly have to change state residence. Prolly going to vote Paul in the primary, & then figure out what’s possible for the general. If I go home, though, I’d be tempted to move to Dan Lipinki’s district.

    • Chris-KABA

      “War on Iran, or a War on God?”

      Not TOO hyperbolic, that….. :/

      Given the fact that the claimed “only alternatives” are RomTorum or Obama, that’s a false dichotomy.

      The Obamessiah is obviously pro-war, based on his deeds rather than his words, as well as of the belief that it’s important to speed up the coronation of America to the position of “Almighty God & Father” in order to make us pathetic unenlightened souls accept the wisdom of his preferred morals.

      However, Romtorum supports torture, pre-emptive war (with anyone sufficiently despicable, not just Iran), and forcing everyone to pay for things like artificial birth control – all of which are acts in opposition to God’s commands, so are all acts of “War on God”. The only difference is that they don’t advocate waging such war as quickly or openly as the Obamessiah insists on.

      While getting a President who doesn’t support things contrary to my Catholic faith is likely impossible, that’s no reason for me not to vote for one if I see an opportunity to.

      And while I’m willing to consider candidates who don’t meet my preferences perfectly on “side issues”, like economic details, they become objectionable to me when they decide that Catholic “non-negotiables” aren’t actually “non-negotiable”, but can be rationalized or flatly embraced.

      • Chris

        I guess I consider naked aggression against the Body of Christ and Her Teaching Authority as a blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. It’s the only unforgivable sin, so I guess Scripture is being hyperbolic, too.

      • Chris

        So help me understand. We agree that the ends do not justify the means. Are we, as Catholics, cornered by that philosophy when it comes to a local, existential attack on the Church? Are we to stand down against the tyrant and vote for the *most* moral candidate, even if he is almost certain to lose? The Church does allow us to vote for the lesser of evils. Why?

        • Chris-KABA

          I recognize your right to an opinion on what can be considered as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, but respectfully disagree.

          I’m sure that your view that “naked aggression against the Body of Christ and Her Teaching Authority [is] a blaspheming of the Holy Spirit” doesn’t mean that that aggression is OK as long as it remains hidden, right?

          While hostility to the Catholic Church is wrong, I don’t think it’s “the unforgivable sin” as discussed by scripture. Jesus knew the Church would be persecuted, mocked, lied about, and more, saying “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” Matt. 5:11

          I believe it is imperative to resist abandoning Catholic principles in an effort to supposedly “end” the persecution of the Church which has always, and will always, exist on earth, until “the last day.”

          IMO, both Romtorum & Obama are hostile to our belief, but in different ways. Obama’s actions overtly & obviously attack the Church, while Romtorum’s actions attack the Church in a far more subtle manner. I find Santorum to be the most depressing – at least Romney & Obama don’t claim to be “faithful Catholics.” Santorum’s claim to be a faithful Catholic (who votes to force everyone to support things the Church opposes “non-negotiably”), makes me quite skeptical, especially in light of Cicero’s statements.

          Cicero once famously noted that an enemy at the gates is less fearful than treason from within, since at least the open enemy can be opposed, while the traitor is freely allowed to undermine & infect the body, removing its ability to resist.

          God bless.

        • Chris-KABA

          PS – I do not mean to imply in any way that Obama is acceptable or “better” than Romtorum, but that I find them all to be opposed.

          At this point, I don’t care who wins, as it will likely make little to no difference in the long run.

        • godescalc

          Diocletian and Iayesu Tokugawa and Saul of Tarsus were existential threats. I don’t think Obama’s quite at that level yet.

  • m

    Paul Gottfried

    “It would also not be advisable for what remains of a serious Right, as opposed to dutiful Republicans or neoconservative zombies, to avoid nationalist postures. Contrary to the hopes of well-meaning populists, nationalist rhetoric is now entirely in enemy hands—and it is likely to stay there. Talk about “national” uniqueness no longer evokes historic communal or cultural identities (to whatever extent it ever did in the US) but a radical leftist vision of global troublemaking. Neoconservatives, aided by the Religious Right, have made American nationalism identical with global democratic imperialism and a view of America as a ‘propositional nation.'”

    “The Right (I no longer address “conservatives”) should choose wisely, if it intends to back a presidential candidate. I would urge the Right to reject the defective candidacy of our former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum. Despite his reputation as a “social conservative,” by which is meant traditional Catholic, Santorum has proposed no plan for decentralizing our administrative Behemoth.”

    Can Santotum add Pauline nature to himself before it is too late?

    • Ted Seeber

      I think there is a real chance, that if he comes close to election, Pope Benedict XVI will have a chance to have a word with him. And unlike W, Rick Santorum would actually listen.

      • Mark Shea

        Why do you think that? He hasn’t listened on the subjects of murder, pre-emptive war, torture, and compelling public funding of abortifacients and contraception. The mysterious faith that Santorum is Mr. Catholic is a deathless myth.

  • m

    What if Paul was given uber-responsibility in Sanctus’ Admin.?

  • m
  • Kirt Higdon

    As I have emphasized before, any wars of aggression waged by Santorum will be blamed on the Catholic Church for centuries or millenia to come since he claims to be acting faithfully according to Catholic principles and is accordingly supported enthusiastically by millions of Catholics. And while I am not one who says “bring on the persecution”, let me point out that it is not a sin to suffer persecution or coercion but it is a sin to willingly support intrinsic evil. Material involvement in the funding of contraception or abortion is not formal sin if it is coerced. Material involvement in the mass murder of war is formal sin if willing consent is given or if it is justified on the basis of being a “lesser evil” than persecution. Obama is indeed bad news, but at least the Church, the Body of Christ, will not be blamed for his sins.

    • Could you give some examples of other Catholic American leaders who have done things, and caused the Catholic Church to be blamed as a result? Just curious. Nothing coming to my mind, but I could be missing something.

      • Kirt Higdon

        Not American leaders, no. We’ve only had one American Catholic president and he solemnly pledged not to let his faith influence his executive actions. Also he didn’t serve out even one term. But historical examples are numerous. The Church gets blamed by various parties for the forcible conversion of the Saxons under Charlemagne, for any and all atrocities committed by medieval Crusaders whether against Moslems, Jews, heretics, pagans, or Eastern Orthodox, for the Inquisition of Isabel and Phillip II, for the Polish invasion and temporary conquest of Russia during the time of troubles, for the St. Bartholomew Day’s massacre under the Catholic Medicis and their allies, for the heretic burnings of Mary Tudor, even in modern times for the crimes of Hitler, who abandoned his Catholic faith and adopted (or invented) a pagan ideology. Santorum is running as a militant Catholic and also demanding war against Iran. Do you imagine that if he wins with the support of the majority of Catholics and the support of many Bishops that the Moslems and others will not blame the Church if he then attacks Iran?

      • Joseph

        And no one says that the alleged sexual affairs of John F. Kennedy happened because the Catholic Church taught him to have them. Nobody blames the Bay of Pigs on the Catholic Church, nor continued involvement in Vietnam.

        I think you’re hyperventilating. There are Obama haters and now, apparently, there are Santorum haters as well.

    • Joseph

      Well, I’m not sure if it will go down in history. After all, Pelosi and friends claim that it is the Church who guides them in their lust for the blood of unborn children, their desire to see men and women rub genitals against those of the same sex, and their proud stance that contraception is a God-given invention that must be, at all costs, distributed to the world at large. No one but the mainstream media seems to believe that.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    Any list of causus belli beginning in 1979 is not only woefully incomplete, but dishonest as well. Let us start in 1953 instead.

  • Kirt Higdon

    Joseph, I’m not sure if you’re responding to me or Dave G or both of us. Since Kennedy promised not to be guided by the teachings of the Church, it’s hard to pin what he did on the Church. Even so, I’ve heard some people try to pin his misdeeds on the Church simply because he had so much Catholic support, both clerical and lay. With him, Catholics got the worst of both worlds. And Pelosi claims merely that the Catholic Church tells her to follow her conscience. She does not claim that the Church teaches contraception or sodomy. Finally I don’t see why someone gets labelled as a Santorum-hater or Obama-hater simply for refusing to vote for them and criticizing their stances and actions. Is it a duty of charity toward politicians to vote for them and never criticize them?