Another one bites the dust

Another one bites the dust September 28, 2016

From an ex-Republican reader in VA:

For the past 10 years, I’ve devoted a huge amount of my personal time to supporting the Republican Party, specifically in Virginia locally. The NOVA GOP has been very much in the center of my social sphere and personal identity, which makes this particularly hard. But the time has come for me to say it:

I am resigning from membership in the Republican Party. It has become apparent to me that the GOP does not represent my views on most issues of public policy, and in the cases where it does, these issues tend to be put on the back burner so hot button rhetoric can sit at the front.

The nomination of Donald Trump brought this disconnect into sharp relief, but even if he loses the election and slinks off the political stage, he and his supporters never to influence the GOP platform again, I still would not find a policy home in the GOP. Neither would banishment of the “alt-right” and their collaborators bring me back, though I would encourage my friends staying in the GOP to do that. Where once I found substantial agreement, over the past several years my views and that of the GOP both have been drifting in opposite directions, until now there is too much distance to bridge.

To be clear, I am not joining the Democrat Party either, as my agreement with their platform is just as thin. I am declaring my independence, my freedom to support or oppose any candidate as my conscience dictates, and my freedom to support “third” party organizations if I so choose. That is another objection I have to the Republican Party of Virginia specifically–the rules that seek to constrain conscientious voting and speech by their members, excommunicating anyone who will not bow to a nominee or the party plan.

Now that I am free to speak my mind and vote my conscience, I would like to explain my reasons for those who respect my opinion or might be surprised at this.

I am pro-life, from conception to natural death, full stop. This does not mean solely or even primarily anti-abortion. Though obviously a prerequisite, there is so much more to life than being born. I believe the primary task of government is to protect human life, especially those persons that are most vulnerable to exploitation, destitution, and destruction, and create an environment for human flourishing of all.

After nearly 40 years of observing the world, I have come to believe that wealth, comfort, and “success” are mostly unearned gifts. Effort and industry play a role, but mostly for those who already have been gifted with some combination of high intelligence, good health, strong families, supportive friends, good education, “start-up” assets, safety net, and just plain ol’ luck. Those of us who have been so gifted have a moral responsibility to assist those who have not.

While taxes and other policies that discourage effort and industry are never a good idea, I also can draw a curve on a napkin and explain to you how people whose income is above a certain level don’t change their productive behavior due to minor increases in taxes. (I know–my day job is all about helping ultra-wealthy families manage their assets and taxes.) The main category of people who ACTUALLY choose to work or not work (or work less) based on taxes is women with young children or elderly parents, who weigh the intangible benefits of being home more against the net economic benefits of working for wages (often shrunk to vanishing by childcare costs and other expenses of working). Consider that maybe if some of these women (and sometimes men) choose to work for a paycheck less because they prefer to focus on family caretaking, maybe that’s not such a bad thing, and it’s definitely not justification for cutting taxes yet again for the ultra-wealthy.

I believe free markets that connect willing buyers with willing sellers, with government merely policing against fraud and exploitation, are the best way of organizing economic activity. But the free market is made for man, not man for the free market. Some people because of age, ability, health, or caretaking needs do not have sufficient purchasing or bargaining power in the free market to maintain a dignified existence on their own. I believe we have a moral obligation as a society to subsidize access to a dignified life for those who are less fortunate. Ideally this takes the form of vouchers or basic income that will allow ALL to participate in a free market for essential goods and services.

Every child should have access to a quality education regardless of the wealth of their parents. School choice should not be a bandaid for “failing” urban schools; it is a fundamental principle that should be available to every family, in every location. Good teachers should be paid like the important professionals that they are. Bad schools should go out of business because not enough people want to send their children there. Power-hungry bureaucrats shouldn’t get to dictate what happens in the classroom, and neither should parents who are pushing teachers in myriad and opposing directions. Let a thousand flowers of educational models bloom, and let parents sort out which work best for their own children and values. But society at large needs to cover most of the cost. Parents already spend and sacrifice so much to raise the children who will be tomorrow’s workers and inventors and taxpayers and parents, with little to no future financial return. Education is an investment that we need to prioritize for the future flourishing of all.

Basic healthcare is another essential element of dignified human life that should be available to all regardless of wealth. This is a really tricky one because the sword of rapid medical technological advances has a double edge. One side conquers ever more diseases and heals ever more injuries, but the other side is the risk that giving everyone every possible treatment that may extend or improve their lives could easily swallow our entire economic output and collapse upon itself. We have a moral obligation to not leave people suffering and dying from easily preventable or treatable conditions, but we also have an obligation to engage in difficult line-drawing to preserve resources for the rest of life. The “right” has not engaged in this serious task in good faith. On the one hand it whines about “socialized” medicine, as if only the well-to-do should have access to healthcare, and on the other hand it screams about “death panels,” as if it is unconscionable to put limiting principles on the same socialized healthcare. Meanwhile lack of access to health insurance acts as a silent and discriminating death panel, while our jalopy of a “private sector” healthcare system results in high costs and inefficiencies for everyone who can access it. We MUST quit the partisan posturing and engage this issue with earnestness.

As a pro-life person, I cannot celebrate America’s gun culture and all its fruits. Glorification of deadly weapons supports the “culture of death.” I do support a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense where there is reasonable cause to believe it is necessary to protect life and limb. But it is not “cool” to own a deadly weapon or to practice the skill of killing people. It is necessary for some such as law enforcement and military to do this, but it is a heavy responsibility for them to exercise utmost respect for human life in the course of their duties. Killing a person should never be a bragging matter, and it is essential that those we entrust to regularly carry deadly weapons have impeccable mental health and a culture of respect for life. I am distressed when I see people who claim to be pro-life champion widespread gun ownership, because the reality is that guns are much more likely to perpetuate domestic violence (directly or by threat) or facilitate suicide than actually save lives. While there are obvious exceptions, for most people the most effective way to protect your home and the people and things in it is to get a security monitoring system, not a deadly weapon that is useless if no one is there to use it or worse if the wrong person gets their hands on it.

Speaking of self-defense, we also have a right of self-defense as a nation. That includes investing in intelligence gathering and analysis, in our military and police, in border security, and in diplomacy. But the emphasis is on defense, not trying to exercise hegemony around the world, and not seeking to score arrests and convictions at home. I am no expert in military matters or foreign affairs, but it is clear that our attempts to take the “war on terrorism” to other shores are not working. At home, we have entirely too many people in prison, and too many “gotcha” laws and fines. Criminal laws and law enforcement should exist to protect the public, not to raise revenue or generate profits for private “partners.” Law enforcement and military are necessary but not beyond reproach.

As for people who have broken the law, they are still human beings who are owed dignified treatment as such. I believe in restorative justice, not retributive justice. There are some people beyond restoration who may need to be locked up for life for public safety, but as much as possible we should afford avenues of restoration. Drug possessors should get addiction treatment, not jail time and loss of civic rights. I am NOT going to complain about restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time; in fact I would insist on it. The death penalty should be ended, now, period. On the other hand, rape and domestic violence cannot be treated as excusable or relatively minor crimes–those who sexually assault or exploit others, and those who do or threaten bodily harm to the people they have a duty to protect and care for, are among the most dangerous of persons who need serious rehabilitation or to be locked up for life, and victim blaming and shaming is absolutely unconscionable in these cases.

Illegal immigrants are people with dignity too, and in considering what to do when their undocumented status is discovered, due consideration should be given to how long they have been here, their family roots in the U.S. and elsewhere, the impact of any penalty to their children and other close family members, and whether they have otherwise been law-abiding. When considering who we should admit legally, we of course should carefully investigate any ties to terrorism or history of violence of any kind. It is reasonable to consider the skills of the applicant, and whether they can do work that is in short supply, as well as how a certain level of immigration in certain job skill categories might impact the livelihoods of people who are already citizens. We have a long and admirable tradition of accepting refugees from places where violence is rampant and basic human rights are denied. What is NOT acceptable is rejecting immigration applicants, whether refugee status or not, solely based on their nationality or religion. The greatest heritage of the United States is being a world leader in freedom of religion and commitment to cultural pluralism. Excluding people on the basis of religion or ethnicity is profoundly unAmerican and inhumane.

Which brings us to our “First Freedom”: the right of conscience, enshrined in the First Amendment cluster of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition, and exercise of religion. I believe this is the most sacrosanct of all civil rights, and I oppose all encroachments on it. I support transparency about the sponsors of mass communications, but not campaign finance laws or lobbying restrictions that constrain the content of speech or who may speak in certain ways. I oppose not only government restrictions on expression, but also “private” societal use of boycotts, hiring and firing discrimination, and other forms of economic and non-economic bullying against anyone for expressing their views. The power of the collective should not punish or prohibit expression unless it is encouraging or enabling violence, or fraudulent or deceptive. On the other hand, freedom of association means that organizations can form and define parameters for membership or employment, as long as they give fair public notice of those parameters, not arbitrarily kicking or keeping people out according to secret standards. It is also unwise and unjust for secular professions to exclude qualified members by imposing professional requirements that conflict with the exercise of known religions or moral convictions of any appreciable group of people.

That in turn brings us to the topics of abortion and contraception. Moral conviction against supplying these should not be a disqualifier from working in the healthcare field, nor from starting an unrelated business and becoming an employer of others. Much like illicit drugs, these are commodities that tend to destroy lives, which is why I’m concerned about deceptive suppliers and the reasons why people turn to them; I am not interested in punishing users, who often are already victimized in some way. The truth is that our society does not value childbearing and child-rearing, even though our way of life will literally collapse without it. All of the expenses are considered the personal responsibility and choice of the parents, if not the mother alone, while society reaps the benefits and says the parents have no special claim to the taxes and other fruits of their children when grown. There is little societal respect or compensation for the profound “productivity” of raising children, whether provided by a stay-at-home parent, childcare provider, or teacher. As long as this remains the case, there will continue to be enormous financial and societal pressures on most women to limit or eliminate their children. Not only does this impose moral dilemmas on individual families–it is also a slow societal suicide.

These views and others I hold do not find any consistent home in one of the major parties in the U.S.A. today. But I believe most of them are not terribly uncommon among American citizens. Many of us find ourselves politically homeless for similar reasons. Moreover, they are consistent with the long and deep tradition of Catholic social justice thought.

My views largely do align with an obscure “third party” named the American Solidarity Party. Unfortunately I think the ASP acts more a discussion club than a political party at present. I have not decided whether it is worth my scarce time to get involved in trying to move ASP toward a more pragmatic approach to politics, or whether I will vote for its Presidential candidate, Mike Maturen, as a write-in this year. In any case, if your views of good government substantially align with mine, I encourage you to check them out and thoughtfully and prayerfully consider these same questions for yourself.

At the end of the day, my approach to politics is both principled and pragmatist. I do not support making the perfect the enemy of the good. But I don’t see either the Republicans or Democrats as pursuing the “good” on the whole today. I see certain elected officials affiliating with these parties as pursuing the good in a decent number of areas, and for these I am willing to vote and advocate. But I can no longer stay in a position where I am required or expected to say “my party, right or wrong.”

Sincerely,
Lillian Vogl
Former: Loudoun County Republican Committee Membership Chair, Fairfax County Republican Committee Secretary, Providence District Chair, candidate for Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee, FCRC Women’s Coalition Chair, and precinct captain


Browse Our Archives