In regards to my post below on how the GOP has successfully duped Catholics to vote Pro-Life:
There is a tendency, as evidenced by comments in that thread, to reduce political action to a choice between parties. One either sides with the Democrats or the Republicans.
I will not deny that the Democrats have a rotten understanding of the human person, which tends to reflect in their advocacy of policy detrimental to the family–although, I think the danger is utilitarianism from the point of view of the individual, which just as much exists on the Republican side, rather than a conscious denial of the sanctity of life. The view seems to be that the right of the individual for self-determination is the greatest good, and the affection for socialist solutions to poverty, health care, and other social evils, actually mean to restore the individual to a position where they can once again choose for the themselves, what it is they want to do. The inconsistencies that follow are known to all.
But as MacIntyre points out, the Republicans tend to be in reality only the obverse: protecting the individual from the influence of the state, so as to safeguard the freedom of self-determination.
This is perhaps a caricature, but I think even the benign elements in both parties (evangelicals who want to protect the family; social workers who want to aid those less fortunate) eventually get sacrificed and are corrupted on the final path to the highest good, freedom for its own sake.
The Catholic understanding of freedom and the common good is radically different.
On both sides then you have the parties advocating unjust policies. But at the end of the day, they are not substantially different in sharing a similar view of the human person and his relation to the common good, one that is indebted to modernity and liberalism. Rush Limbaugh ends up arguing for the same final result as Bill Maher. To quote MacIntyre:
We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.
Neither party is “safe” for Catholics. Both parties argue for a view of the person and society that ultimately results in unjust policy.
The answer is simply, in my view, that if you vote at all, do so with the clear view that one is choosing the best option among a host of undesirable options. Recognize that at root, the party “believers” are not like us, and believe and work for a different result, and want a different world in the end.
Here’s a question to put this conversation in the direction I’m angling for:
can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?
Exactly, Matthew. And something many of us here have been saying. It is not “Republicans” vs “Democrats.” It’s Gospel of Life vs non-Gospel of Life. And when people go for “Republicans” as their religious duty, or Democrats, they have to abandon the Gospel of Life for a Gospel of “what issues are most important to me.” And you can see what that ends up being — finding ways to ignore parts of the Gospel of Life which are not convenient.
‘The view seems to be that the right of the individual for self-determination is the greatest good, and the affection for socialist solutions to poverty, health care, and other social evils, actually mean to restore the individual to a position where they can once again choose for the themselves, what it is they want to do.’
Well said. That is exactly what I have observed in ‘socialist’ Sweden. It has become a nation of autonomous individuals who ‘gave at the office’.
‘Can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?’
Wow. It depends on what you mean by ‘American’. But it is hard to imagine the ‘American Political Experiment’ apart from liberalism/individualism, in its various forms.
If you mean, “Can one be a good Christian, and also a member in good standing of either the Republican or Democratic Parties?” the answer is “No,” for the reasons you’ve already mentioned, Matt.
can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?
Depends on the understanding of those terms. But as I have argued many times, U.S. Catholics seem to assume that there is no conflict whatsoever between being American and Catholic, with the exception for a few hot button issues. They do not seem to understand that the entire American project is fundamentally flawed both in its philosophical underpinnings and in its historical origins in colonialism.
Matthew, precisely put.
We need to revisit the intrinsic meaning of practical reason.
See my comment: http://vox-nova.com/2008/01/25/more-on-the-call-for-incivility/#comments
“The answer is simply, in my view, that if you vote at all, do so with the clear view that one is choosing the best option among a host of undesirable options. Recognize that at root, the party “believers” are not like us, and believe and work for a different result, and want a different world in the end.
Here’s a question to put this conversation in the direction I’m angling for:
can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?”
Well I suppose since I am a Republican “party worker” I should speak up. NO political party is perfect by far. However the parties are not one monolithic blob. It often differs from region to region of the country. We all come together because we agree on more items than we disagree.
As a party worker I am not sure that the world I want is buch different than the what non party political people want. So much of my time is trying to fdrag people screaming to hear people running for office talk. It is about trying to get local people involved in their Govt and excited and involved in the political process.
I have visions for wher eI wnat my party to be. In fact it is pretty obvious to everybody that the Republican party is having a mighty big discussion on this right at the moment. It is not pretty but it is real and its vibrant.
I will not defend every action of the “Republican” party. In the end it (as well as every other politcal party and movement) wrestles and grapples with the world and gets her hands dirty. It makes mistakes However it is far better than doing nothing and tuning out.
THe political parties are made up of real like flesh and blood human beings. THey differ and agree on various subjects
THere seems to be a lot of statements here declaring that people cannot be good Christians and member of a political party or even by some far leap of logic good Americans. Well I must say that is not what the American Church or even the Bishops of Rome have indicated.
Is Americn more Fundamentally flawed than Japan, Italy, France, the UK, Monaco, or the Island nation of Naru? Well I don’t think so. IF so that arguemnt should be made.
SMB asks: “can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?”
Three points:
First, what is the significance of the adjective “good” here? Does the focus on the “good” denote a voluntarist inclination? How would the meaning of your question change if you used the adjective “true?” Is there a consensus around the terms “good American” or “good Christian?”
Second, as a Catholic, I don’t consider myself Christian, as the term is popularly used. Catholic has the larger significance.
How does the doctrine of analogy factor into your query? It seems as though the phrase “good American” and “good Christian” is univocal at best, perhaps even equivocal. It may be that the question itself is meaningless — or at least begs for some intellectual content.
Very gooid post. I do not think it a coincidence that the “Reagan revolution” cam shortly after Roe v. Wade– both reflect the same individualism.
I have attempted to begin to confront this issue myself on my blog at giftofself.blogspot.com in the hope of helping my family (and myself) to more fully understand the implications of Catholic teachings. I invite you all come check it out, however, because my target audience is not as well read as most of you, the posts and comments are not likely to be as in depth.
JH,
Just because one chooses not to take part in a party or even not to vote does not mean that one is “doing nothing and tuning out.” Heck contributing on blogs is a form or participating in public discussion and can be a way working out the changes we so badly needed. Obviously it can’t stop here, but you get the point.
I pray that alot more Catholics can recognize that Catholics can not (presently?) call either party a comfortable home, which I think is indicative of the fallenness of our “post-Christian” American society and culture.
‘SMB asks: “can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?”’
Actually, Gerald, the question was Matthew’s. And I agree that it begs a lot of (interesting) questions.
…can one be a good American and a good Christian at the same time?
If America is a positive creed to which one gives assent, probably not. But referring to or thinking about one’s home country as a positive creed to which one gives assent is itself a peculiar, modern, and uniquely American phenomenon.
SMB,
Sorry about that. Yes, there is much that needs to be explored here, and at a deeper level.
You mentioned: “But it is hard to imagine the ‘American Political Experiment’ apart from liberalism/individualism, in its various forms.”
You put your finger on something very important, namely, the notion of the individual as the ground of the American Political Experiment. And yet, it is too often thought that the individual must be defined in an atomistic sense, as in Hobbes. However, that is not necessarily the case.
In an article I’m writing on President Kennedy, I say: “Unlike its popular rendering, Kennedy saw the defining logic of the person to be intrinsically relational, not atomistic and self-contained. His was a politics of dignity and liberty in pursuit of solidarity, not a selfish contest for power induced by greed, fear, and narcissistic indifference. For him, personal dignity was inexorably tied to a just order of perfecting relations among men.”
Until we explore more deeply the nature of the individual in its relational dimension — and elucidate this existential content in the public forum — I don’t expect to see any progress on issues such as abortion. Nor can we begin to argue effectively in terms of the common good. Democracy in America will be reduced increasingly to a collection of narcissistic individuals.