I generally don’t like voter’s guides. I find their stated purpose, “How can anyone know everything about the candidates?”, to be insulting and condescending. There are very few competitive races, even at the local level, where one who has even the slightest bit of interest in knowing the positions of candidates can’t easily learn them. Even a significant number of non-voters know the positions of candidates.
One thing these voter’s guides don’t discuss is the type of people seeking office. Any decent society would not even consider electing Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani President regardless of what one thinks of their views. A man such as Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be looked upon for his wisdom. Of course, we have already managed to have Clinton as President, a moral buffoon who couldn’t conduct an affair discreetly or with taste. I will add that I think President G.W. Bush has conducted his affairs, public and private, honorably as had his father, despite some misdirection in his youth. Needless to say, the men who are to represent us should be morally fit and have their affairs in order.
I should also mention that in my voting life, my greatest work was in the primary season. I still very much believe that parties make policy, not candidates. My problem presently is that both parties have issues they are advocating that I am unwilling to compromise. I have been comfortable allowing issues that I was less passionate be harmed by my party. Those issues I have become more passionate about, partly due to party success in opposing them and partly due to my opinions having become stronger. This is probably the first election where I won’t vote in a partisan primary. Previously, I had always voted in the Republican primary. I should mention that I don’t begrudge anyone having a partisan allegiance. Heck, I had one, and I’m not ashamed of it. I wish I could have one presently.
In Catholic circles, the games for President look like they are going to go like previously. On the Republican side, Catholics will be looking for a candidate who will be tough in the war on terror, enforce the immigration laws, and reduce taxes. Once we move to the general election, we will be told how we have to elect this Republican to reduce abortion, stop gay marriage, and put strict constructionists on the courts. The Democratic side looks like they are going to discern on the war, health care, and foreign policy. Foreign policy may be swapped for the economy. Once we get to the election Catholic Democrats will claim we need a person who won’t support perpetual wars, will support the family man against the corporation, and will end state sponsorship of torture.
This all sounds good doesn’t it. The only problem is that there are no pacifist candidates amongst the Democrats. Republicans and Democrats really don’t differ all that much on war policy. Gay marriage is an issue that has pretty much been decided in one form or another in every state. One can expect 2-3 more states to endorse civil unions or gay marriage, and I can tell you that one of them won’t be North Dakota. In regards to torture and habeas corpus, there is very little difference between the parties, just a desire to be discrete. The empirical evidence for any effect on abortion based on which party has the presidency is very low. Similarly, any work for the family man against the corporation will be marginal to non-existent and any positive effect will be purely accidental. There is nothing intrinsic about strict constructionism that makes it likely to change abortion policy, and it is at best an empirical conclusion meriting moral consideration. Yet these are the issues that we as Catholics will be told to base our vote upon.
Worse, each side will tell the other side how their issue isn’t important. I’m sorry, but abortion policy is very important. This doesn’t mean that who’s President is relevant to determining the outcome of our abortion policy except in a purely theoretical sense. Sadly, I can tell you how many abortions will occur in 2008, 2009, 2010 with 90% confidence regardless of who is elected. This doesn’t justify voting for every pro-abortion politician out there, and we need to be careful not to adopt a consequentialist perspective on the matter. (BTW, comparing the number of abortions with the number of people tortured or killed in Iraq is equally consequentialist.) We also don’t want to adopt a relativistic position where we completely ignore what a candidate says on abortion. I think it would benefit everyone involved if we didn’t create an elaborate fiction every time we seek to justify our votes. Let’s not pretend that if your view is that we need to build a wall, cut taxes, and bring it to the terrorists that the only thing you are considering is the abortion stance. BTW, this is not to impugn Catholics Against Rudy. It is early enough in the game where what CAR is doing is significant, and they are taking a principled stand. In so much as those principles are those from the Catholic Answers Voting Guide, I disagree on principle.
Presently, I’m leaning toward not voting. I’m fairly unenthusiastic about the whole field. If I were to offer an endorsement, I would offer a tepid one to Mike Huckabee. I have no issue with ripping apart candidates based on their views that are incompatible with Catholic teaching. I have no issue with saying that there is not a single candidate in the Democratic field that has an acceptable abortion position. The thing I request of all those who seek to advise however is not to allow one’s empirical conclusions about how a candidate will effect policy be used as an indictment that another person is formally cooperating in evil or some other machination. Maybe, just maybe, a few of the more obnoxious individuals would be willing to go to the trouble of not slandering bishops as abortion supporters and sympathizers and speculate over whether they have excommunicated themselves when the bishops don’t adopt their views. I suppose that would be too much to wish for though.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In