I’ve remarked over and over that one of the peculiarities of American political discourse is its tendency to think in dualistic terms, good and evil, light and dark, friend and enemy. Mark it down to the derivative Calvinism and Gnosticism that pervade the culture. The problem with this argument is not only that it is misguided, but that it can lead to dreadful outcomes. Case in point: John McCain tells Rick Warren that evil should be destroyed. That terrifies me. For when you think in dualistic terms, it follows that the enemy should be beaten, not negotiated with.
As Catholics in the public square, we need first and foremost to be guided by the common good, and that means the support we grant to secular leaders and stakeholders must always be animated by the principle of doing the least harm. It does not necessarily mean we can only “do business” with virtuous people, or people who do not support evil. Consider Church history as an example. The Church supported many less-than-perfect secular leaders (to put it mildly!) throughout its long history. It did so often because it thought they were the best choices at the time, in the sense of protecting the common good. (For sure, the Church also backed leaders for less noble reasons…)
In fact, our quest for peace and justice often calls for us to deal with these people. There would be no peace in Northern Ireland today had not a group of courageous politicians risked marginalization by insisting on negotiating with terrorists (and mark my words, the IRA was a terrorist entity of the most vile kind). The British and Irish governments could easily have stuck to the “no negotiations” or “strict preconditions” stance, and the instability would have continued. Or the British government could have taken a leaf from the Bush-McCain approach and declared a “war on Catholic fascism”, dropping a few bombs on west Belfast (and yes, a large number of residents in these areas did provide shelter and material support for terrorists).
For when we think in binary terms, it simply does not make sense to talk to people who engage in evil. Evil must be destroyed. For clear evidence of such an outlook, look no further than McCain’s bellicose stance on Russia and Iran, his continued defense of the Iraq war.
But this is far greater than war and foreign policy. For the principle of least harm must also apply on issues like abortion. It is utterly fallacious, and overly dualistic, to simply look at somebody like Barack Obama, see he supports something evil (abortion) and declare, based on that alone, that one can never support him. The reasoning goes something like this: Obama supports abortion. McCain does not. A million or so abortions take place each year. Ergo, one cannot support Obama. Again, this completely misses the point. You do not vote for a person based on their personal virtue (they answer to God for that) but because they will affect the common good. If voting on the abortion issue, one needs to come up with a good argument as to why abortion will either be worse under Obama or better under McCain. One can make that argument, but it is a prudential one.
Most Catholics in the world understand these distinctions. But many US Catholics, overly-influenced by the surrounding culture, cannot get past the binary divisions. Consider again the abortion issue. McCain is “pro-life”, Obama is “pro-choice”. In the zeal to divide into neat categories, all nuance is lost, including McCain’s less-than-complete opposition to abortion, his past ambiguous statements, his support for ESCR, and his unwillingness to support the accompanying economic and social policies that are just as important as the legal framework on the abortion issue. Again, he can be supported on the grounds that he will do less harm on this issue, but is that truly the reason many support him? No, they focus only on the position of the candidates, instead of translating it into policy implications, and set up arbitrary standards such as: I support the “pro-life” McCain, but will withdraw that support if he chooses a “pro-choice” running mate. This is simple dualism, not a thoughtful reflection on choosing between two imperfect candidates in an attempt to do the least harm. When applied to issues like abortion, it is misguided, but when applied to issues like foreign policy, it can be very dangerous.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In