During World War II, Eamon de Valera, Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland, made sure hiscountry stayed strictly neutral. Except that in reality, he supported the allies. He just did not want to publicly enter a military alliance with the United Kingdom, his old enemy, with all the complications that such an alliance would entail. But it was clear where is allegiances lay. While he went through some ridiculous formalities like sending his condolences upon the death of Hitler, he was secretly helping the allied cause, while interning every German he could find.
The behavior of many in the Catholic blogosphere, especially in the wake of my endorsement of Obama yesterday, brings to mind the war time behavior of the “long fellow”. For the reaction of many was that, based on his extremist and indefensible position on abortion, I could not support Obama under any circumstances. The implication is that Catholics simply cannot vote for Obama, as his position on abortion is simply non-negotiable, period. I really thought we had moved past this dubious moral theology peddled by the likes of Catholic Answers a few years back, before the USCCB came out with their authoritative Faithful Citizenship document. This dubious position made no distinction between supporting an intrinsically evil act and voting for a person who supports an intrinsically evil act.
If one takes this absolutist position, then it is clear that a vote for John McCain is just as non-negotiable as a vote for Barack Obama. After all, McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research, which many moralists have argued is far more serious than abortion in moral gravity. McCain also seems to have backtracked on his initial opposition to torture, another intrinsically evil act. And so for the people who told me I could not support Obama under any circumstances, I posed the question: would you say the same thing about people voting for McCain, and if not, why not? Not a single person answered that question.
There are many people who have made this “pox on both their houses” argument, that a vote for either is morally unacceptable. I can thoroughly respect that position for its integrity, even if I do not agree with it. And yet, many of these people turn out to be acting in the spirit of de Valera.
One prominent blogger wrote a sarcastic post, including a vaguely blasphemous reference to the second person of the Trinity, calling me out for the endorsement, while not subjecting his friends who not only support McCain but work for the McCain campaign to similar treatment (he actually goes out of his way to defend his “fair and decent” friend in other circumstances). Another critic who is always careful to note that a person who votes for either McCain or Obama is engaging in objective moral wrong, is happy to rhetorically bludgeon Obama supporters at every conceivable opportunity while sharing a blog with one of the most enthusiastic McCainiacs in the Catholic blogosphere. On the less serious side, we have people who readily conflate “orthodoxy in religious views and conservatism in political views” and promote a petition by “Catholics for McCain”! Honestly, is this much different from Bill Donohue’s ultra-partisanship, his mis-use of the faith and his organization to support his preferred political agenda?
In a rebuttal, Mark Shea responded to my criticism with this:
“I freely acknowledge that I think McCain the lesser of two evils. So, I’ll wager, do Zippy and Feddie. Zippy’s and my main difference with other conservatives like Feddie is that we won’t vote for the lesser of two evils, whereas guys like Feddie thinks it would be prudent to do so. So, yeah, my criticism is lopsided. I think Feddie’s making a mistake voting for the lesser of two evils. I think you are making a far bigger mistake foolishly endorsing the greater of two evils.”
Ah, so now we have it. Mark too is looking at the candidates from the point of view of who would do the least harm, rather than simply ruling out all who support intrinsically evil acts as a matter of public policy. In doing do, he is implicitly making the prudential judgment that McCain is the better of two imperfect choices. But he does not admit what he is doing. As I said at the outset, this is a perfectly valid way of thinking, and it is also perfectly valid to believe McCain is the lesser evil and still choose not to support him. What is invalid is to deny outright that a person can make a similar prudential judgment, and conclude that Obama would do the least harm. For here were are entering the murky world of facts, circumstances, and probability.
I’m not trying to be defensive about my support for Obama. It’s the double standard that bothers me. Funnily enough, the one critic to actually bothered to address the subtsance of what I wrote was a younger blogger, Michael Denton. He actually bothered to go through the various prudential judgments I make and challenge them. And I concede he makes some good points. Maybe some of his elders can learn from him.
Update: Reflecting further on Mark Shea”s point, if it is indeed the case that voting for either Obama or McCain is an objective moral evil, then one is obliged not to choose evil, period. To choose “the lesser evil” is an exercise in proportionalism. Of course, if you do not hold that voting for either of these candidates is an objective moral wrong, then you are free to use proportionate reasoning based on the facts and circumstances.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In