Great post today, M.Z., which gives some perspective on the positions of various VN contributors in the face of continuing accusations from around the Catholic blogosphere. I did want to clarify one thing, though:
Henry Karlson, Michael Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) and Policraticus have clearly stated they aren’t supporting the two major party candidates.
Just to be clear, I have not defined my intentions as clearly as, say, Policraticus. I am not supporting either candidate in the sense that I will not endorse either one of them. This does not necessarily mean that, when push comes to shove, I will not vote for one of them, or for a third party candidate. I have said, and I still believe, that not voting is a valid position for a Catholic, especially for those of us concerned about the pseudo-religious insistence on the “duty to vote” for whatever reason (usually the romanticized “self-sacrifice” of soldiers). Had Clinton won the Democratic nomiation, I was firmly committed to abstain from the absurdity that that lineup would have represented.
But I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both positions problematic: to insist one has a duty to vote or to insist that Christians may never vote is to elevate voting to a level of importance that it does not deserve. Indeed, voting is mostly just a game. Rhetoric of “change” is simply that: rhetoric. As the saying (sometimes attributed to Phillip Berrigan) goes, if voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.
Sometimes, though, in the immediate circumstances, a particular election can mean the difference between life and death, or at least tip the scales slightly in favor of life. No, I am not thinking of abortion in this case because, as much as I oppose it, I have shaken off the illusion that any one election will make a difference. The “right to choose” is so ingrained in our society via the ideology (read: religion) of capitalism, that abortion — one more consumer or lifestyle option — will likely never be delinked from the american project. I am thinking, rather, of the more immediate circumstances of particular wars and the clear options that exist in the present to say yes or no to those wars. Of course, I am also skeptical of the idea that realities such as war and torture will ever be wholly expunged from the american project. (Which is why I find the liberal “My America does not torture” perspectives puzzling — “your” america has always been an exterminator and a torturer.) But although I believe that, in general, “america means war,” I do hold out hope that americans have the ability to say no to particular wars and that there are times when it is possible put the brakes on particular campaigns undertaken, promoted, or envisioned by the architects of the culture of death through the clear NO of a particular election. This is why, for example, despite my desire to “sit that one out,” I did choose to vote against George W. Bush in the last presidential election.
But as much as Catholic Answers or the “thou shalt not vote” anarchists preach otherwise, there are no easy answers. Which is why I’m looking forward to picking up a copy of a new collection of essays Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting at the Ekklesia Project conference next week. (If you’re in or around Chicago July 7-9, look into it.) A couple Mennonite anarchist friends of mine contribute to the volume, as well as Notre Dame theologian Todd Whitmore.
Here is Wipf and Stock’s description of the book, followed by endorsements:
Ethical discourse about the institution of voting rarely includes the option of abstaining for principled reasons. This collection of nine articles widens the discussion in that direction by giving readers a new question: At what point and on what grounds might one choose not to vote as an act of conscience?
Contributors offer both ethical and faith-based reasons for not voting. For some, it is a matter of candidates not measuring up to high standards; for others it is a matter of reserving political identity and allegiance for the church rather than the nation-state. These writers—representing a wide range of Christian traditions—cite texts from diverse sources: Mennonites, Pentecostals, and pre-Civil Rights African Americans. Some contributors reference the positions of Catholic bishops, Karl Barth, or John Howard Yoder. New Testament texts also figure strongly in these cases for “conscientious abstention” from voting.
In addition to cultivating the ethical discussion around abstention from voting, the contributors suggest alternative ways beneficially to engage society. This volume creates a new freedom for readers within any faith tradition to enter into a dialogue that has not yet been welcomed in North America.
“People often forget that voting can be a coercive practice, just to the extent it justifies a majority’s silencing of minorities. We should therefore be grateful that these essays raise an issue that too often goes undiscussed.”
—Stanley Hauerwas, Duke Divinity School, Duke University“If the definition of a good book is that it challenges long-held and cherished opinions while inspiring readers to think new thoughts and imagine new possibilities, then this is a great book—and one that all American Christians (in particular) need to read! This diverse collection of excellent essays serves as a prophetic call for American Christians to wake up from our political slumber and realize how we’ve been seduced by the idols of nationalism and political power.”
—Greg Boyd, author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church (2006)“Half the electorate typically stays home on election day, and not an eyebrow is raised. But if one suggests that people shouldn’t vote for religious reasons, be prepared to run for cover—you’re guaranteed a firestorm of outrage and indignation. The ‘sacred right to vote’ still generates powerful emotions, even among those who don’t make it to the shrine on a regular basis. And that’s why the Christian community owes a debt to Ted Lewis and his contributors for raising the uncomfortable question of whether voting may be incompatible with the practice of Christian discipleship. Electing Not to Vote is a provocative but respectful collection that deserves serious attention from Christians of all sorts.”
—Michael L. Budde, Department of Political Science, DePaul University
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In