Let’s Make This Year One Where Politics is Not Done as Usual
“It is indeed true that a new moralism exists today. Its key words are justice, peace, and the conservation of creation, and these are words that recall essential moral values, of which we genuinely stand in need. But this moralism remains vague and almost inevitably remains confined to the sphere of party politics, where it is primarily a claimed addressed to others, rather than a personal duty in our own daily life,” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), “Reflections on Cultures That Are in Conflict Today” in Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. Trans. Brian McNeil (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), 27 – 28.
Whether we like it or not, the two major presidential contenders are now John McCain and Barack Obama. I am not entirely surprised about McCain, but that Obama has been able to get through the Clinton campaign and become the frontrunner is an amazing feat of its own. Of course the primaries are not over. Neither of them have complete assurance that they will become their party’s candidate. McCain most likely will pull through, but Obama might fall under a deadly (and dirty) political bombshell which will bring Clinton back from the dead.
I support neither of these candidates. I hope I have made this clear. To make myself support one would require me to have a fundamental agreement with that individual. I have not found myself in such a position with either McCain or Obama. Nonetheless, I think it is important for us to examine them and see what possible good we could expect if one of them becomes president. For, it is one thing to play party politics and only look for ways to muddle the situation by taking speeches out of context for the matter of a pretext, or to look at those who support a specific candidate and extrapolate all kinds of meaningless significance out of it, it is another to look beyond such partisanship and discover what we, as Catholics, could look for as ways we can work with the candidate who eventually will be leading our nation. When doing this, there will always be questions, and ones which need to be addressed, and so, while looking at where they stand, questions will be raised here in the practicality of that stand. There will be time, later, to examine their failings. Indeed, much has already been said here that sometimes I wonder if it is needed. Here, instead, it is best to look critically at the positive. In doing this, however, we must realize that when we are in agreement with a given candidate on a specific position, it might be because we share the same fundamental principles with them, but we might not. But if their reasons differ from ours, this must not detour us from working with them when such agreement is possible. This is fundamentally the principle Catholics follow when engaging in inter-faith and ecumenical projects, and it should, of course, follow through in the political sphere.
Let us first look at John McCain. Certainly there is much one can admire in his positions, and also, there is much one can admire about what he has suffered for the sake our nation. Primarily, Catholics are pleased with him because he holds some pro-life positions, and we find this strongest in his position on torture, but also, in a lesser sense, in regards to abortion. Supporters of his also point out that holds a closer position to us on many social values, i.e., the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman. He also wants to create or better enforce laws which will protect our children from predators. For many Catholics, these are good enough reasons to support him. And if their conscience is satisfied with this after a real thoroughgoing examination of the rest of McCain’s positions and whether or not they think he is a man of character who can do something in regards to these positions and won’t give out on them for political expediency, then I think they have satisfied their political duty and I will not contend against them in their specific choice. For we can work with McCain on these issues. But I would ask – what exactly are his plans here, what exactly will he do to move the pro-life cause forward? And will other policies of his possibly work against the pro-life cause? Will he promote things which will move us one step forward on one issue and two steps back on another? I do not know. Perhaps those who support him can provide reasons for us to believe he will not.
Now let us look at Barack Obama. First of all, what is interesting to me is that criticism of him tends to be mean-spirited and often duplicitous. On the one hand, people will proclaim he has a messianic complex, and that he promises to save the world if elected (which he doesn’t). On the other hand, they say he is a danger because he is telling us that if elected, he will make us work. Which is it? And why is it a danger for him to say this when, normally, the same people will be the ones who say people should be working instead of receiving governmental handouts? Of course, the kind of work he is promoting is not necessarily that of jobs, but something deeper, something more fundamental. It is the work of internal renewal which will motivate people to cooperate one with another for the sake of a better community, for a better society. Ultimately, and this is certainly the best part of his campaign, he is promoting a society which looks beyond politics and the political candidate; he wants exactly what Pope Benedict expressed – a society where morality moves beyond political parties and into the individual, where moral responsibility will be taken up by everyone and not just by politicians. This is not to say the government would have no role to play here, nor does Benedict ever desire such either; but the purpose is to see a better relationship between the government, the local community, and the individual so that the government can better manage the just distribution of goods (as is its job) while the community will, through moral renewal, be committed to this. Of course, as with McCain, there are legitimate concerns. The first one is important: what specific actions will Obama take to make this so? Without knowing this, it is difficult to judge whether or not his methods for his goal are just. Second, and related to this, is what morality is it he will press and encourage? Where does it connect with Catholic Social Doctrine? Where does it disconnect from Catholic Social Teaching? And, like McCain, is Obama really fit to do what he claims he will do? Again, if a Catholic has explored these issues with a deep, penetrating insight, and believe their conscience leads them to vote for Obama, after considering the whole of his person and his positions, and thinking he matches more of Catholic social thought than any other candidate, I think no one should condemn them for their vote. They have done their civic duty.
“The security we all need as a presupposition of our freedom and dignity cannot ultimately be derived from technical systems of control. It can come only from the moral strength of man, and where this is lacking or insufficient, the power man has will be transformed more and more into a power of destruction,” Pope Benedict, “Reflections on Cultures,” 27. We have come to a time in our society where we must overcome our temptation to power. The more we think power will solve the world’s problems the more we will use that power to create more of those problems. We have not the wisdom to use power properly, instead, we continue to be corrupted by it. Tolkien would tell us we have become corrupted by Melkor. Politics, for the most part, is about power; the assumption is that if the right person is put into power, everything will be fixed. The problem is, people from both sides of the political spectrum have fallen for this and have used it to ignore their personal duty. Again, Obama’s message, despite the criticism of some, really has a strong appeal because it is going against this grain, and it is indeed about personal duty instead of personal expectation of the politician to solve everything on their own and then throw them out when they cannot do so (how can they, especially in the political system we have?). McCain’s message is not as strong, is not as encouraging, and yet – we must not forget that there is much in it Catholics need to hear and also agree with. But, it seems that in those same areas, he is weaker than other possible Republican candidates. This is a sad fact, but nonetheless, that doesn’t mean we must abandon him and ignore him. We cannot just go about politics as usual, looking at candidates with dualistic eyes. We must not think it is either/or, but rather, we must look beyond that and look to what is good and follow it. Whatever the choice one makes in the next election, one thing I will say to anyone – don’t vote for someone just because “they are the only viable candidate of my party who can win,” vote for them because you really support them. Anything else diminishes the whole point of an election.
Comments are closed.
“To make myself support one would require me to have a fundamental agreement with that individual. I have not found myself in such a position with either McCain or Obama.”
For me the above statement sounds more like one of the carefully researched triangulations worthy of a Hillary Clinton than the honest to God leanings of a catholic blogger. But hey if you indeed feel that way I would think you will have not many federal elections in the future were you have to bother making your mind up and vote.
In my view if one leans towards the Republican site Mc Cain is a perfectly electable person – so is Obama if one leans Democratic.
What ‘fundamentals’ are you waiting for?
Indeed it points to the sad post Bush status of the Republican party when one has to lower the bar like this:
“Primarily, Catholics are pleased with him because he holds some pro-life positions, and we find this strongest in his position on torture…”
I would like to change that to a “more or less fundamental agreement” because, of course, I doubt I would have full concordance with any politician.
“The security we all need as a presupposition of our freedom and dignity cannot ultimately be derived from technical systems of control. It can come only from the moral strength of man, and where this is lacking or insufficient, the power man has will be transformed more and more into a power of destruction,” Pope Benedict, “Reflections on Cultures,” 27.”
“The more we think POWER will solve the world’s problems the more we will use that power to create more of those problems.”
Henry, I think the use of the term “force” rather than “power” is what you are looking for here. Force is a more brutish form of power. It denotes those “technical systems of control” which, if exclusively relied upon, will diminish our power (moral strength) to control events.
Force is an element of power but it refers primarily to extrinsic and material factors. The notion of power goes beyond these factors to include intrinsic principles and spiritual dynamics (including the moral and theological virtues) which have the capacity to “tame the soul.” We speak of “the power of the Holy Spirit”, e.g. As Benedict argues, the “moral strength of man” is his highest form of power. Power is the larger term of which Force is a subset. The application of power in this respect has been greatly diminished since the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
In US Grand Strategy, public diplomacy refers to those instruments of power which reflect the “moral strength of man,” including people-to-people relations, educational and cultural exchanges, the broadcasting of information, news, music, culture, etc. These resources penetrate hearts and minds and have a transformative impact on the human soul and behavior (collapse of the Soviet Empire, e.g.). Military and economic power is more on the order of those “technical systems of control” that Benedict describes. It range and impact is limited, as Iraq has fully demonstrated. Grand Strategy refers to the coordinated and comprehensive use of power in its full dimension. As you suggest, the struggle for “hearts and minds” is much more decisive in the end than the use of military and economic power.
Gerald,
Certainly there are many ways one can use power, and part of the problem here as with other places where a translation is being used is that that the German word(s) being employed and their meaning /connotations are lost in translation. Force is a good word to use as well, and indeed, the point is we are looking for an increase in the moral integrity instead of pure political pressure.
However, since I am also looking at this in a Balthasarian sense, and his understanding of the question of power-over via politics vs power-with, maybe a brief examination of what he says will help. It will certainly help people understand where I am coming from with the use of power here, and less confusion because of its possible equivocal nature. Power is not itself bad, and indeed, in true freedom we also have power.
“Freedom is man’s openness to the good as such; it is the power of self-determination, the highest and noblest form of power.But how easily does this freedom become smothered by what the world of nature understands by “power” — the ability to overpower others. Freedom can get lost; it can fail to embrace the good; it can become embroiled in evil in all its countless forms.” Balthasar, Theo-Drama IV, 77.
But power when removed from the moral good is — as you would say, a force, or a force of destruction. Thus, Balthasar will contrast the kenosis of power in Christ and his yes to God, to the search for power-in-itself in the anti-Christ as a powerful no to God.
“Here again we are confronted with the complete Antichrist, endowed with total power, as the No to Christ’s total powerlessness. This power is concentrated more and more, until no one — great or humble, rich or poor, free or slave — “can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast” on his hand or forehead ( Rev 13:16f.); increasingly, therefore, the Christian’s witness becomes a witness in blood, the giving of his life. Thus the final phase of the Church’s history corresponds to the end of the earthly life of Jesus, who “made the good confession [in blood] in the presence of many witnesses” (1 Tim 6:12),” Balthasar, Theo-Drama IV: The Action, 447.
For him, this power over others will become a means of overpowering others. “As world history moves on, and with the increasing rationalization of existence and the increasing concentration of technological and political power, so the conflict between justice, which compels everyone to be given what is his, and freedom, which resists any leveling-down or leveling-up, becomes more problematic,” Balthasar, Theo-Drama I: Prologemena, 417. In a worldly sense, this will end badly for the Christian. “This eschatological opposition between the apparent omnipotence of evil and the apparent mortal powerlessness of believers cannot be dismissed as a mere vision. It is genuine prophecy,” Theo-Drama IV, 452. Thus the end of man by himself is seen in man’s self-destruction through hoarding (goods, power, etc). “And so we are brought to the following formulation, extravagent though it may seem: mankind’s self-destruction is the only forseeable end to the world, left to itself, and the only end it deserves, insofar as it prefers to hoard what is its own (that is, power, mammon), rather than to gather with Christ. It has already decided its fate,” Theo-Drama IV, 442. True power, such as divine power, is self-giving, and so contradicts man’s instincts, “What is provocative in Jesus’ message is that he manifests the glory of divine power in lowliness, defenselessness and a self-surrender that goes to the length of the eucharistic Cross,” Theo-Drama IV, 450.
So of course, power can be used in many senses. But it is in the light of Balthasar here that I am thinking of when using the term power, and I am quite certain it is in this light Benedict is also employing the word. Which therefore is not against the idea of “moral strength” which we both agree is needed.
Henry,
Thanks for the elaboration. Actually, we are in total agreement here. Let me explain why I made the distinction as I did.
As an undergraduate, I wrote an extended essay in a theology class on Paul Tillich’s Love, Power, and Justice. The Jesuit professor was intrigued and asked if he could borrow my copy of the book. I gave it to him and when he returned it, he had written a suggestion on the inside of the front cover that has stayed with me to this day. He suggested I read Romano Guardini’s Power and Responsibility. Why? Because it had a more much analogical intrepretation of the notion of power than Tillich’s univocal understanding. It was in that book that Guardini distinguished between Power and Force, among other things. That distinction has stayed with me to this day.
I’ve read through Balthasar’s entire work, Glory of the Lord. I did this at the urging of my close friend David Schindler who gave me my first book by Balthasar (V. 5, Aesthetic) nearly ten years ago. I now recall the passage you quote above. Essentially, it says — much more eloquently and completely — what I was trying to underscore with my distinction between power and force. But I had in mind the context of America’s relations with the world.
Since I believe in the power of inspiration, language, and leadership within a political context, I believe it is important to take Balthasar’s text — such as you quote above — and try to capture its logic and ideas in words that can be used in the public forum. Somehow the interior dynamics of the human person must be expressed in a popular and political language. This is difficult to do, and it’s use sometimes makes people angry, particularly since they are used to seeing events described in terms of exteriority and correlations alone. But, I believe the secular can acquire a richness that it currently lacks. This is part of the struggle for “hearts and minds” we have discussed in other contexts.
This project — the enrichment of the secular — was envisioned by Maritain long ago, and I’m in full agreement with his aim. His work on the UN Declaration on Human Rights has had a transformative effect on the world, e.g. It has been a potent force in public diplomacy. I believe the “secular age” (C. Taylor) is dynamic and can assume forms it currently does not possess. Making the higher forms incarnate is what it history is all about.
Henry, I wish you could express your ideas in fewer words. I have trouble reading your posts.
If I am alone on this, I rescind my remarks – maybe I’m just lazy, but I tend to prefer precise writing that means what it says and says what it means.
Henry,
I find your posts to be extremely rich and worthy of study. I generally copy and paste them together so I can study what you write at my leisure — sometimes on the subway.
Just to let you know, I really appreciate your hard work.
I’m fine disagreeing with Gerald.
LOL — :)
Gerald
Thanks again. And yes, I knew we agreed on the point, but I was trying to help explain the word in the context I was using it for everyone’s benefit, because your point was quite valid.
I like a lot of Balthasar (thankfully, since he is the center of my current research), and you are right, the key is to bring the insight into action and translated as best it can into the real situation we find ourselves in. It’s very difficult, but who said things would ever be easy?
Zach
First, I say what I mean and mean what I say. Second, the problem is that what I am saying can’t always be set down in slogans but transcends them. So third, I want a full, thought out answer instead of a simple point which is incomplete and easily ignored or abused.
Henry,
I’m not asking for slogans. And often (perhaps most) times, an answer that has actually been thought out and says something will be much shorter than a few thousand words.
Zach
Not necessarily. We are looking to real world situations with real world difficulties which also need to meet various standards. There will always be a lot of calculus (so to speak) involved; and this is why the “give me something simple, and short” doesn’t always work.
I could always give one word answers, but then the interpretation would always need to be thousands of words. It doesn’t help.
As I said, if you are not interested or think it is too long, you don’t need to read it. But if you want a thoughtful answer which is willing to examine the issue in detail, at least with my frame of mind which comes from all I have studied and experienced, then feel free to read it. I could be writing much of what I put on here to make money. I am not. I am trying to give an insightful response instead of the gloss that people normally put to topics which need more than simplistic retorts.
Henry — no offense, but a lot of the writing in this post is much more wordy than necessary.
Just one of many examples: “In doing this, however, we must realize that when we are in agreement with a given candidate on a specific position, it might be because we share the same fundamental principles with them, but we might not. But if their reasons differ from ours, this must not detour us from working with them when such agreement is possible. ”
There are too many empty and throat-clearing phrases like “in doing this” or “when doing this.” This could be one sentence, “We may not share the same fundamental principles with a candidate, but even so, we should work with them on issues where we agree.” Same meaning, less than half as many words for readers to wade through.
Stuart
Once again, if you think it is too long and you don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Sometimes a part of the text is how it is presented, how things tie together, and not just “most concise form as possible.” This is writing, not symbolic logic.
I bet you hate Newman. And Balthasar (of course this is sarcasm).
Now let’s see if people can go back to serious discussions and not just petty talk and insult. I really think many people are blind to the fact that they are not engaging honest discussion, and that is why people don’t respond to them.
A little off topic. In his April visit, the Pope probably will preach objective truths such as the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb; faithful marriage as the foundation of Christian society; and parental control over what their children learn in school.
He might present the Church’s teachings on abortion, fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning, and gay “marriage.”
He could preach that Christian charity must be practiced by free individuals in a free nation.
All human parties are wrong. One must judge which party is less wrong.
Henry — using twice as many words to say the same thing is not a useful skill; it makes lots of readers turn away, unwilling to wade through excess verbiage. But so be it; it’s your own loss if you shut your ears to constructive criticism.
Stuart
You continue to be petty. This is a blog, not an edited book. People write things quickly; but even then there is a sense of style. Just because it is not your style (I find the modern “as little words as possible” style to be unaesthetic and dry) does not mean it is bad.
What is clear, from all your talk on here, is you are incapable of offering valid discussion. This is not “constructive criticism.” Let’s get past such a farce. This is just your attempt, once again, to find another way to insult writers on the blog. I am sorry to tell you — your appeal fails because it is invalid.
For anyone else, I’d cut some slack. But not in the case of someone who slanderously calls other people “liars” and refuses to apologize.
Stuart
You lied about what I said. You refuse to admit it. You refuse to admit the big difference between what you said I said vs what I said. You need to do more than merely apologize.
Your sophistry is well noted. Now it is quite clear, you are NOT here for honest discussion.
I didn’t lie about what you said — that itself is a demonstrable lie. In fact, I specifically quoted you as claiming that Republicans do “nothing in reality” about abortion. That was a correct quote. I then pointed out that your claim was false. You never — never — did anything whatsoever to defend your claim. And you’re calling me the liar? Unbelievable.
So you don’t have the human decency to say, “You know, I was wrong to say that Republicans do nothing in reality about abortion, and I was wrong to say that you were lying. Sorry, things got overheated there.”
You know, I tried in a recent thread to extend an apology for saying overheated things in debate with you. You couldn’t even bring yourself to reciprocate, by apologizing for calling me a liar without no justification whatsoever? Wow. I’ve never come across such a contemptible disputant on the Internet — whenever I’ve debate with anyone before, an apology on one side inspires the other person to back down as well.
Sorry, the word isn’t “contemptible.” A better word would be “frustrating.” “Frustrating” is the most positive word I can think of to describe someone who 1) called me a liar, and 2) refused to even attempt to explain an argument as to why he was supposedly correct on the merits of the point in dispute (here that would mean explaining why he was supposedly correct to say that Republicans do “nothing in reality” about abortion).
You know what, never mind anything that I’ve said. I take it all back. Commenting on this website is pointless at best. Believe whatever you like, and be well.
Stuart
When your comments are so off and dishonest, and about trying to “stump the other” instead of engaging proper dialogue, you are right, YOUR COMMENTING is pointless.
It’s quite false to say “do nothing” and “nothing in reality” is the same. I find it is interesting and telling that you point to your quoting me AFTER you lied about what I said.
It’s easy to see the difference between the two. If I have a flat tire, I could try to eat cheerios. I am doing something. But it is not doing anything in reality to fix the tire.
Now — please, do go away. Don’t threaten it. While it’s something to threat, I would prefer you actually do something in reality and actually stop posting.
Matthew,
I hope you don’t go away. Every blog needs its village idiot.
While your mulling over the opacity of your thinking, perhaps you can tell us where Chomsky “recommends” that sort of dialogue. Guess what? You can’t. Because he never has and because you’re an idiot who talks more than he thinks.
[editor's note: somehow Matt double posted, and I edited to cut back on that; what I pressed should not have deleted the posts but it seems to have done so. Matt was trying to claim VN follows Chomsky by telling some people who can't engage in dialogue to go away.]
It’s quite false to say “do nothing” and “nothing in reality” is the same. I find it is interesting and telling that you point to your quoting me AFTER you lied about what I said.
For the record, when I put “nothing” in quotes, I wasn’t quoting you specifically. Get that through your head before you keep accusing me of lying. I was generically summing up the views expressed by several Vox Nova bloggers.
But in any event, saying that Republicans do “nothing” about abortion and saying that they do “nothing in reality” about abortion are both false statements. Republicans have done many things — in reality — about abortion. If you purport to think that there is a “big difference” between those two statements, it was incumbent on you to come up with an explanation. Instead, you immediately launched into an accusation of dishonesty and lying, and never — not even now — tried to explain yourself. This is knavish behavior. You should give other people the benefit of the doubt. This means that if someone has seemingly misunderstood you, it is your responsibility to correct the seeming misinterpretation, rather than willy-nilly calling them a liar.
When I try to see things from your perspective — at least as I am forced to imagine it, given that even now you haven’t troubled yourself to come up with an actual argument — I can imagine that you were thinking something like this: “Republicans have done about a dozen different things about abortion, from parental notification to trying to require ultrasounds to banning partial birth abortion to making Supreme Court appointments. Still, they haven’t eliminated abortion altogether, or put a huge dent in the abortion rate. Thus, while they may have done a few things about abortion, that isn’t really doing anything ‘in reality.’”
Is that what you were subconsciously thinking? Anyway, it’s the only remotely defensible position that I can imagine you to have put forth. But it’s still not a very good argument. For instance, check out some pro-choice websites — they keep themselves well-informed, and they recognize that (like it or not) Republicans are much more likely to come up with policies that drive down the abortion rate.
In any event, let me offer a suggestion. You seem to think that when I originally said that VN bloggers think Republicans do “nothing” about abortion, I was specifically referring to you. At that point, rather than baselessly accusing me of lying, you could have said something like this: “Apologies if I was unclear, but I actually said that Republicans do ‘nothing in reality’ about abortion. This qualified phrasing is quite significant to me, because in my view, the many things that Republicans do with regard to abortion don’t make very much difference. I think this because, as So-and-So have shown, parental notification laws don’t blah-blah-blah, and the partial-birth abortion ban won’t blah-blah-blah. And while I’m happy about the Hyde Amendment, I don’t think it makes much difference whether tax dollars pay for abortion, for the following reason . . .”
Then I would have said, “OK, I see your point of view, but I still disagree for the following reasons. Etc., Etc.”
See how that could have gone? Civilized debate requires having the patience to clarify and defend your position, rather than offering a one-liner and then accusing people willy-nilly of lying just because you feel that they didn’t understand your unexpressed meaning.
Did someone say, “You know what, never mind anything that I’ve said. I take it all back. Commenting on this website is pointless at best. Believe whatever you like, and be well” ? Did they lie?
Maybe that was hastily written.
You seem to concede the point that you behaved badly in that prior exchange, and that things would have been far different had you taken the time to spell out what you were thinking, rather than just immediately assuming the worst and hurling accusations of dishonesty. Thanks for that concession, at least.
Also, thanks for conceding that your accusation of “lying” was entirely bogus.
Again, I did not intend to quote you when I said that “Vox Nova contributors and commenters” have claimed that Republicans do “nothing” about abortion. Actually, for your information, I was quoting and summarizing Gerald Campbell, who had said: “And what did [Helms] accomplish on the unborn issue. Nothing.” (Campbell then claimed that other politicians wouldn’t accomplish anything either.)
I’d appreciate it, however, if you would directly apologize for your accusation of dishonesty, rather than just conceding it by silence. Thanks.
“Also, thanks for conceding that your accusation of “lying” was entirely bogus.”
Compounding your dishonesty; there has been no concession.
You can’t seriously still think that I was “lying” by misquoting you . . . You know darn well who I was quoting, and it wasn’t you. And the one time that I did quote you, it was by name and the quote was perfectly accurate.
Again, I’d appreciate a direct apology, rather than more evasion.
Henry — do the right and decent thing. Do you really want the reputation of someone who recklessly lies about others and refuses to retract the accusation even when corrected in such an indisputable fashion?
Cowardice and/or conceitedness are not virtues . . . .
OK, so nothing will convince you to admit that you were wrong to accuse me of lying?