Now what? Think Alan Keyes.
The Catholic Knight notes:
With the loss of Huckabee, practicing Catholics now must face the cold and hard truth that neither presidential candidate in the general election is Pro-Life. The Democratic nominee is obviously working for the culture of death, and the Republican nominee (McCain) has compromised with it by supporting fetal stem-cell research and legalized abortion in many situations. Neither political party can boast of being Pro-Life anymore and America has just entered her moral 'dark age.'
What remains for Catholic voters is unclear. We can either vote for the lesser of two evils in November, and make no mistake about it, both candidates (Republican & Democrat) will be EVIL. Or we can look to a third-party candidate, if for no other reason than to register a protest vote. (Failing to vote is not an option for Catholics.) I think its time Catholic voters seriously look into the third-party candidates (when they emerge) to see if any reflect Catholic social teaching more than the two main party candidates. If we can find one, then perhaps it's high time we send a clear signal to the GOP.
Lest we forget about Dr. Alan Keyes? I think he fits the bill quite nicely, don't you? Much of Mike Huckabee's platform originated with Alan Keyes, who served as assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan and US ambassador to the UN. I don't think we need to retreat to a third party. We have a platform to resurrect!
31 comments:
Welcome Home.
I'm anxiously awaiting Alan's next move. Let's watch and pray.
God Bless,
Matt
Alan Keyes ... YES!!!
I hope that Dr Keyes will be the nominee for the Constitution Party & get our Country back to it's moral foundations!
"Failing to vote is not an option for Catholics"
Why? Is this something that's written into the natural law? Is there a commandment, "Thou shalt not NOT vote?"
I feel no moral obligation to waste my time on voting for below-the-radar candidates for what will amount to an unheard political statement.
Steve,
QUOTE
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Furthermore:
As to the way to vote in an election where there is no candidate who holds the Catholic viewpoint on these non-negotiable issues, I think the same principal as below would apply:
Doctrinal Note
As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.
Finally this is a great resource from Fr. Pavone:
Ten Easy Steps to… Voting with a Clear Conscience.
I think we have to look at the relative harm of each candidate against their liklihood of success in protecting the unborn. In that sense just writing in someone's name seems to me disregarding one's obligation, however voting for a third party or independant candidate with the aim of protecting the unborn would be acceptable, as would voting for the major candidate who is likely to cause the least harm to the unborn.
God Bless,
Matt
God Bless,
Matt
Steve,
It is because there are enough people like you, people who have been blessed with religious convictions and a knowledge of basic Catholic social teaching, who don't bother to go out and vote for a "below-the-radar candidate" like Alan Keyes that indeed it will always be "an unheard political statement."
Considering how many countless people in the world who have no say whatsoever in the way in which they're governed, I think it's shameful that you'll blithely throw away the right to vote because it's a "waste of your time." It's a privilege to vote, even if the candidate we endorse will surely not win or even be recognized, and even if the Church didn't say a word about it being a duty, we ought to have the personal desire to exercise that right out of respect for those who entrusted it to us.
I freaking hate blogger. I posted a comment and it erased it.
Let's try this again:
Matt,
Obviously, voting could never be considered an absolute moral obligation, because democracy isn't an absolute political situation (nor, arguably, the best one.)
I also believe that a function of exercising the right to vote is choosing NOT to vote in protest. One can't choose to abstain from voting if one doesn't have the right; therefore abstaining from voting is an exercise of that right. (Analagously, choosing to either act or not act in a given situation is an exercise of free will. The motivation for doing so and the circumstances surrounding the decision will form the criteria upon which we are judged.)
Secondly, the doctrinal note you cited said "COULD licitly support", not "MUST licitly support." Clearly this indicates permission, not obligation.
Voting for a write-in or virtually unheard of third party is another form of political protest, just like abstaining from voting. The effect is essentially the same - your vote is not given to a mainstream candidate, and is instead appropriated to someone who can't win.
YES! Now it posted my comment three times! I TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID!!! I LOVE BLOGGER!!!
Sarah,
Considering how many countless people in the world who have no say whatsoever in the way in which they're governed, I think it's shameful that you'll blithely throw away the right to vote because it's a "waste of your time."
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Voting is not a divinely granted right, just like the freedom of speech isn't. I wholeheartedly believe this country would be in much better shape if everyone were not allowed to vote.
Historically, men who were land owners were the voting class. The wisdom in this was that they had a stake in the future of the country that was greater than others did. They were also more likely to be educated on issues than those of lesser status.
At the very least, people should have to pass a civics test to be able to register to vote. We have to take a written test in order to get a driver's license, and with voting there is arguably much more at stake.
The Catholic Church also has no problem with monarchy, and we have a long and glorious history of unelected leaders in Western Catholic Civilization.
The whole moral issue of voting is for Catholics a rather novel, post-enlightenment development.
The ignorance that many (if not most) citizens of this country bring to the voting booth is staggering. This is why candidates like Obama and Clinton get so much support.
And by "everyone were not allowed to vote" I don't mean the elimination of voting altogether. I mean that not everyone should be allowed, only some should.
Practically speaking Steve is absolutely correct. Interestingly if women's right to vote had not been recognized we would not have had a liberal president since the 30's and we likely would have not permitted Roe vs. Wade.
In the early years when suffrage was limited to landowning males, 95% plus actually exercised this right, did so in a particularly educated fashioned and with not inconsiderable inconvenience.
The idea of a civics test seems interesting. Another thing that might help balance the political process is repealing the 17th and or 16th amendments. What makes politics so ugly (and government so big) is the vast ability of the Federal government to raise funds and control how it is doled back to the states. This could be significantly reduced by removing the funding source, or returning a balance of power to the states to control the level of funding and how it is distributed.
God Bless,
Matt
Practically speaking Steve is absolutely correct.
I keep looking around for Rod Serling. Did I step into an episode of the twilight zone? ;)
Steve,
Thank you for the lecture about voting rights, democracy, and the Church’s support of monarchy throughout the history of Western civilization. I’m not sure that my comment warranted such a gracious education, but I suppose it could seem that I might not know such things. I will assure you, however, that I have read Aristotle’s treatise on Politics in which he describes pros and cons of the three basic forms of government. I am also well aware, having read all of the major social encyclicals since Rerum Novarum, that the Church has “no problem with monarchy”. What interests me is that you found the need to bring any of this up since it practically had nothing at all to do with what I said.
It seems that I need to clarify my comment, since you have missed my point entirely. In fact what you have done is twisted what I said into something that I never said at all.
“Considering how many countless people in the world…have no say whatsoever in the way in which they're governed” in no way equates to “voting is a divinely granted right.” Reading my comment carefully, you would see that I made a point of calling the “right to vote” a privilege. It is one of the privileges, among many, that we have in America that too many people – such as yourself - take lightly.
Having a say in the way in which we’re governed encompasses a great deal more than the singular privilege of voting to elect our leaders. It includes having the ability to protest peacefully without being mowed down in Tiananmen Square, it includes being allowed to exercise free speech on tv without being turned off by Chavez, it includes being able to petition for the God-given right to educate our own children in California, it includes the possibility for us to run for political offices at any level in an effort to play a greater role in guiding society towards respect for God and Christian morality. These political rights, or privileges (to be precise), are not enjoyed by a majority of the world’s population. What is very sad is not that there are people don’t share these privileges, but rather that we do have these privileges and we take them for granted.
The point is not that the democratic “rights” we enjoy in the U.S. are divinely ordained rights that all men (and women) must be given in order for peace to reign in the world. But given the fact that we do indeed enjoy such a privileges, it is shameful that someone would not appreciate them for what they’re worth. The point is that by saying “I feel no moral obligation to waste my time on voting for below-the-radar candidates for what will amount to an unheard political statement” you sound little more than a whining, bratty child who tells his parents “If I can’t have it my way, then I don’t want anything you have to give me.”
Forget about political rights. We can live wherever we want, work wherever we want (or choose not to work and still be given housing and a check), have as many children as we want, own a business, self-publish our pathetically insignificant thoughts for all the world to read, and you still have the nerve to say that you aren’t going to “waste your time voting if your vote will go unheard”. What I said has very little to do with voting-rights-for-everyone and everything to do with admonishing you to express more gratitude for the blessings we have.
It’s funny that you mention the right to free speech. If a person was given a talent for writing, wouldn’t you find it awfully shameful for him to waste it simply because the world failed to recognize his gift? You’ve been writing for years, and considering the potential number of readers you could have in the world, and the measly percentage that actually read what you write and are impacted by your words, one could argue that you are a below-the-radar writer whose articles amount to an unheard commentary on life. Yet, you continue to write. Why? Doesn’t it seem like a waste of your time? It wouldn't seem like a waste of time to me if you do it out of gratitude for a gift that you’ve been given (the talent to express yourself) and as an act of exercising our privilege of free speech.
You said, “The ignorance that many (if not most) citizens of this country bring to the voting booth is staggering. This is why candidates like Obama and Clinton get so much support.”
...All the more reason why I believe it is appalling that a man like you, someone who has been blessed with intelligence, religious convictions, and a knowledge of basic Catholic social teaching, won't bother to go out and vote for a good candidate because "it's a waste of your time".
Sarah,
I find it odd that the three and a half paragraphs I used to explain my position on this to you - since you obviously don't understand how someone who is serious about politics could take such a position - is "a lecture". It's particularly odd when you took nearly 900 words to put me in my place.
You take yourself too seriously, I think. I wasn't putting you down or insulting your intelligence. I do, however, think you are overstating your case, and I simply addressed what I believed to be the underlying errors at work. Your response was rather petty, though, and I don't appreciate the tone. I'm working very hard not to be cutting in my response.
For the record, I twisted nothing. You expressed an opinion that compared those who don't have the privilege of voting rights in this world with those who do (like me), and used that as a crutch to try to shame me into changing my course of action. Your basis for this was your apparent perception that voting has some sort of an elevated status or some higher intrinsic value among the political situations of the world.
I made the distinction because it seemed necessary - voting isn't some divinely granted right, so it subsequently doesn't carry with it some great shame or vice when those who have the ability to exercise their right to vote choose to do so through abstaining from casting one. (I distinguish the decision not to vote in a particular election from not voting as a matter of course. The latter would be problematic.)
I will reiterate: I believe that a function of exercising the right to vote is choosing NOT to vote out of protest. One can't choose to abstain from voting if one doesn't have the right; therefore abstaining from voting is an exercise of that right.
If you misunderstand me you're not paying attention to any of the things I have been writing (to my measly audience). Anyone who reads what I have to say knows that I place serious significance on our role in this republic. I've been campaigning for people to take voting seriously for at least the last decade, and have been doing so in whatever forum I could use to garner the most attention, including our student newspaper when we were attending Franciscan University.
When a time comes, however, that no candidate presenting himself is worthy of the Catholic vote, and the only exercise of the vote that a Catholic has is to throw it behind a candidate who faces a statistical impossibility not only of winning, but of even becoming a gadfly through obtaining a significant protest vote, it accomplishes nothing positive apart from soothing the conscience of whoever is doing the voting.
It is, in politically pragmatic terms, a waste of time. I would rather do something more valuable, like continue the public discourse on what strategies and tactics would best assist the conservative movement in this country going forward.
If there were a viable third party candidate, it would be a different story, but as of yet I don't believe one has emerged. (I believe this would be significant because viable third parties during a general election garner media attention, which shines a spotlight on their message. They also take votes away from the candidate they most closely resemble, making a vote for them a true protest.)
As for the question of my writing, I have accomplished what I set out to do by writing for years for a small audience (which is not to say that I turn my nose up at the not insignificant daily audience I do have): I have developed my writing and expertise to the point that I am now being offered professional work in larger venues.
If I was blogging simply to hear myself speak rather than to build my skills, rapport and relationships, I'd hardly spend as much time and effort on it. It would be a waste.
Plenty of great writers and artists have died penniless because the world didn't recognize their gift. The shame, Sarah, is not theirs.
Steve,
I believe I can safely conclude that continuing to argue with you would be fruitless and therefore a sheer waste of my time. My voice would go unheard. And unlike the political and civil rights we enjoy in this country, I do not deem the privilege of arguing with Steve Skojec to be so very important.
Though I will say that I find your criticism of my verbosity to be highly amusing. This, coming from a man who has been known to tack “To be continued…” onto the bottom of a post.
You put a smile on someone’s face today – good for you!
Just for the record, it posted my last comment twice - that's why I deleted it. No uncharitable thoughts, I swear...
Plenty of great writers and artists have died penniless because the world didn't recognize their gift.
delusions of grandeur?
God Bless,
Matt
Sarah,
My verbosity is not at issue (nor is it something I've ever denied). You scolded me for lecturing you, when you were the one doing the lecturing. I kept my original comments quite brief, and I was merely pointing out the irony.
It's rather silly to be wildly condescending and then bristle at the response, don't you think? I'm not interested in getting into another long exchange with you about the way you communicate with others, but I was being perfectly straightforward in my original responses to this thread, and you chose to take offense and respond in an unfortunate way.
I also kept my response to you above the belt. No cheap shots. If you don't want to/can't/aren't argue with me, that's fine. I'm done with this conversation.
I'll suggest that next time, however, you try debating the points on their merits rather than offering derisive comments like "You put a smile on someone’s face today – good for you!"
Again - petty.
Matt,
No delusions of grandeur here. I was referring to her comment that "If a person was given a talent for writing, wouldn’t you find it awfully shameful for him to waste it simply because the world failed to recognize his gift?"
I am a good writer, but I don't consider myself one of the greats. Nothing teaches you what you still have to learn like writing for someone who is paying you to do it. Whether it's freelancing or writing for my corporate clients, I'm constantly having to up my game.
I am for Pat Buchanan. IMHO
Hat tip to Vox-Nova for a post on this (don't agree with their analysis mind you):
To those thinking about "sitting it out," or "supporting a third party" now, consider an analogy. We are facing a burning building. There is a day-care center full of children burning down and we have three options before us.
A. We have a candidate named John who will rescue most everyone in that building. He hasn't pledged that he'll get everyone out just yet, but the vast majority of those kids are going to be carried out alive with his pro-life policies and judges.
B. Or you can protest (with a third-party candidate). Pick up a sign and march because you didn't get the candidate you wanted chanting, "Rescue all the children! Rescue all the children!" while the building burns and all the children die.
C. Or you can sit it out. Don't endorse. Don't vote. And Clinton or Obama will deadbolt the fire exits and rip out the sprinklers. They will then lock arms and prevent any of us from entering the building to rescue the children inside. They will also prevent notification of parents whose children are about to be burned alive.
If I were the one in the burning building, I know what I would want you to do. Either we protect nearly all of the kids or none of the kids. Oh? But you think in four years we can come back and teach everyone a lesson? Really?
The analogy bears some consideration.
God Bless
Matt
Matt,
Thanks for that, but I think it falls short.
I believe that taking a longer view, there is a fourth scenario:
D. You discover that the building has, in fact, been on fire for 35 years. There have been many who have promised to put out the fire, and for 26 years out of the 35 the building has been on fire, we've sent them in to do just that. But once they're in the building, they lock themselves in a fireproof vault for four years at a go, and every once in a while they make a phone call to tell us how important they think it is that the fire gets put out. They've installed a few sprinklers, sure, but they are defective and only look good - they haven't put out any real fires. We can keep sending these men with false promises in, providing them with our protective suits that we give them so they can run in and lock themselves in the vault, or we can tell them that they don't have our support, and if they want to, they can go in alone and get burned. Eventually, one of them will decide the heroism, not passivity, will be what empowers them to put out the fire, and if they don't push forward someone brave enough to actually act - and soon - the whole building is going to burn down around our ears.
Of course part of the mess here is that we rely entirely too much on the president to accomplish a change that falls mostly outside of his purview. We need legislators who will push this more than we need anything else.
Steve,
Option C is still far worse than Option D. Also, we have found that progress has been made by the man, although it is fair to say he spends a lot of time in that fireproof safe (I do like the analogy). Bush could have done better, but he did put two apparently good justices on the court, and he has vetoed a lot of efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. I agree we need to work on our own fire-fighting techniques as well.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
The thing of it is, and this is why I'm so fired up about this topic, is we KEEP DOING THIS every four years. We keep saying, "But look at what they'll do if THEY get into the White House."
But year after year, the stats I hear stay relatively constant. "1.5 million abortions in the U.S." They don't go up, and they don't go down.
I'm really at the point where I believe something radically different has to take place. The GOP has counted for so long on people like us making decisions based out of fear that it's taken for granted that they'll snag our vote in the end.
I want THEM to be scared for a change. I want THEM to find the room spinning, and realize that there's no other choice than to put forward someone who is really going to work toward conservative, pro-life principles.
Because what makes D, in my opinion, so much worse than anything else, is that in the long term it just keeps killing children by the millions. If four more years of the status quo is what it takes for us to usher in a drastic change that puts out the fire, or most of it anyway, in one big action - wouldn't it be worth four years of a democrat in the White House? I'm not talking about doing an evil to accomplish a good - I'm talking about a change in tactics that doesn't alter the present situation (and McCain won't do that either, we can be statistically almost certain) but DOES alter the future.
If nothing is going to change if McCain is President anyway, I'd rather do what will make a difference.
You think Option C will somehow position us for a glorious re-birth? Remember, McCain might not change the status quo.... Hillary/Obama will PROFOUNDLY change the status quo.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. I trust everyone thinking about selecting option C put a lot of time and effort to get a truly pro-life candidate on the ballot in November... to do nothing would be tantamount to pouring gas on the fire I think. In other words if you did nothing to change the status quo in the primary it's not time to increase the damage by doing nothing now.
I always hear that they will "profoundly change" the status quo, but where's the evidence?
During the period in which Bill Clinton was president, for example, the abortion rate declined drastically (from 1990-2000 it dropped 17%, according to the National Right to Life.)
If I am going to vote for someone like McCain, ostensibly because he will do something (what, exactly?) for the pro-life cause, I want some proof points. I want to know that he is going to do something substantive, or that his opponents will somehow vastly increase abortion demand.
Otherwise, not voting and voting for a not-in-contention third party candidate is essentially the same.
Post a Comment