Great post today, M.Z., which gives some perspective on the positions of various VN contributors in the face of continuing accusations from around the Catholic blogosphere. I did want to clarify one thing, though:
Henry Karlson, Michael Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) and Policraticus have clearly stated they aren’t supporting the two major party candidates.
Just to be clear, I have not defined my intentions as clearly as, say, Policraticus. I am not supporting either candidate in the sense that I will not endorse either one of them. This does not necessarily mean that, when push comes to shove, I will not vote for one of them, or for a third party candidate. I have said, and I still believe, that not voting is a valid position for a Catholic, especially for those of us concerned about the pseudo-religious insistence on the “duty to vote” for whatever reason (usually the romanticized “self-sacrifice” of soldiers). Had Clinton won the Democratic nomiation, I was firmly committed to abstain from the absurdity that that lineup would have represented.
But I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both positions problematic: to insist one has a duty to vote or to insist that Christians may never vote is to elevate voting to a level of importance that it does not deserve. Indeed, voting is mostly just a game. Rhetoric of “change” is simply that: rhetoric. As the saying (sometimes attributed to Phillip Berrigan) goes, if voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.
Sometimes, though, in the immediate circumstances, a particular election can mean the difference between life and death, or at least tip the scales slightly in favor of life. No, I am not thinking of abortion in this case because, as much as I oppose it, I have shaken off the illusion that any one election will make a difference. The “right to choose” is so ingrained in our society via the ideology (read: religion) of capitalism, that abortion — one more consumer or lifestyle option — will likely never be delinked from the american project. I am thinking, rather, of the more immediate circumstances of particular wars and the clear options that exist in the present to say yes or no to those wars. Of course, I am also skeptical of the idea that realities such as war and torture will ever be wholly expunged from the american project. (Which is why I find the liberal “My America does not torture” perspectives puzzling — “your” america has always been an exterminator and a torturer.) But although I believe that, in general, “america means war,” I do hold out hope that americans have the ability to say no to particular wars and that there are times when it is possible put the brakes on particular campaigns undertaken, promoted, or envisioned by the architects of the culture of death through the clear NO of a particular election. This is why, for example, despite my desire to “sit that one out,” I did choose to vote against George W. Bush in the last presidential election.
But as much as Catholic Answers or the “thou shalt not vote” anarchists preach otherwise, there are no easy answers. Which is why I’m looking forward to picking up a copy of a new collection of essays Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting at the Ekklesia Project conference next week. (If you’re in or around Chicago July 7-9, look into it.) A couple Mennonite anarchist friends of mine contribute to the volume, as well as Notre Dame theologian Todd Whitmore.
Here is Wipf and Stock’s description of the book, followed by endorsements:
Ethical discourse about the institution of voting rarely includes the option of abstaining for principled reasons. This collection of nine articles widens the discussion in that direction by giving readers a new question: At what point and on what grounds might one choose not to vote as an act of conscience?
Contributors offer both ethical and faith-based reasons for not voting. For some, it is a matter of candidates not measuring up to high standards; for others it is a matter of reserving political identity and allegiance for the church rather than the nation-state. These writers—representing a wide range of Christian traditions—cite texts from diverse sources: Mennonites, Pentecostals, and pre-Civil Rights African Americans. Some contributors reference the positions of Catholic bishops, Karl Barth, or John Howard Yoder. New Testament texts also figure strongly in these cases for “conscientious abstention” from voting.
In addition to cultivating the ethical discussion around abstention from voting, the contributors suggest alternative ways beneficially to engage society. This volume creates a new freedom for readers within any faith tradition to enter into a dialogue that has not yet been welcomed in North America.
“People often forget that voting can be a coercive practice, just to the extent it justifies a majority’s silencing of minorities. We should therefore be grateful that these essays raise an issue that too often goes undiscussed.”
—Stanley Hauerwas, Duke Divinity School, Duke University“If the definition of a good book is that it challenges long-held and cherished opinions while inspiring readers to think new thoughts and imagine new possibilities, then this is a great book—and one that all American Christians (in particular) need to read! This diverse collection of excellent essays serves as a prophetic call for American Christians to wake up from our political slumber and realize how we’ve been seduced by the idols of nationalism and political power.”
—Greg Boyd, author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church (2006)“Half the electorate typically stays home on election day, and not an eyebrow is raised. But if one suggests that people shouldn’t vote for religious reasons, be prepared to run for cover—you’re guaranteed a firestorm of outrage and indignation. The ‘sacred right to vote’ still generates powerful emotions, even among those who don’t make it to the shrine on a regular basis. And that’s why the Christian community owes a debt to Ted Lewis and his contributors for raising the uncomfortable question of whether voting may be incompatible with the practice of Christian discipleship. Electing Not to Vote is a provocative but respectful collection that deserves serious attention from Christians of all sorts.”
—Michael L. Budde, Department of Political Science, DePaul University
Can I elect not to pay taxes?
Can I elect not to pay taxes?
As mentioned above, that would cause real change, and therefore is illegal.
Can I elect not to pay taxes?
Can you? Sure.
Is not paying taxes a particularly Christian thing to do? That depends on why you don’t want to pay taxes. If you don’t want to pay taxes simply because you have the typical “it’s my money and I’d rather keep it” attitude, then I would say that’s not a Christian attitude.
If you don’t want to pay taxes because the vast majority of those taxes are used to maintain obscene military spending to maintain an obscene way of life, then that might very well be a Christian reason to withhold taxes.
Yeah, I don’t want any taxes paying for the military–how can I do that?
“Can I elect not to pay taxes?”
Of course you can. A major point in civil disobedience (a la Ghandi) is that while we can, and perhaps, in some cases must, disobey–one should still expect to be suffer real consequences, even punishment. At the same time, as MJI noted, its not even civil disobedience not to vote. I do think, however, if done deliberatly it can approach that same spirit…
MM:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15593
http://vitw.org/war_tax/
http://www.warresisters.org/wartaxresistance
http://nwtrcc.org/
http://www.warresisters.org/node/342
Of course you can elect not to pay taxes. Simply take a job where you don’t earn enough to have any taken out.
Nobody said there weren’t sacrifices involved.
Anarchists for Obama!
Anarchists for Obama!
Misrepresenting Zach Attack! (What else is new?)
You must have missed every time I have said I will not endorse anyone. If anything, if I were to vote, it would be more like an “Anarchist (singular) against McCain,” not “for Obama.” I didn’t even say anything about voting for anyone in particular.
One problem is that people think voting is the main thing citizens do. We act like if we spend a few hours in line, we can take the rest of the year off.
Thus the following line can generate cynicism as well as action:
“If voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.”
While the powerlessness of votes is possibly an accurate evaluation of the general election vote, it is certainly less true of all the little votes that determine the choices presented during the general election.
A vote at a party caucus or a county meeting has far more consequence. A competent argument made from a fellow Dem or Republican, in the context of a party meeting, has more effect than a clash of partisans in the public square. A casual acquaintanceship with the local kingmaker can make or break a candidate.
The opportunities are certainly there.
Hey Michael,
It was a joke, cool out.
Had Hilary won the democratic nomiation (sic), I was firmly committed to abstain from the absurdity that that lineup would have represented
Hilary vs. any Republican candidate = abstinence from voting entirely because of the absurdity of the lineup.
Obama vs. any Republican candidate = no longer a need to abstain because the lineup isn’t as absurd.
In other words, the only possible way that Michael would consider voting is if Obama won the Democratic primary.
Sounds like an unfortunate endorsement for a political candidate to me. It also sounds like Michael clearly favors one party over the other, since his decision to abstain was not determined by the winner of the Republican primary but solely on the winner of the Democratic primary.
That would mean that Michael lied on both counts. One, that he does not support a particular party; Two, that he does not support a particular candidate. Did they teach Sophistry at the University you went to (my assumption is that it would have been a Jesuit university as well).
By the way, I agree with you 100% that not voting is a legitimate option for Catholics – indeed, for anyone in a democracy.
I can’t follow you when you say that “voting is mostly a game”, though. It’s not a game – it’s how we organize our lives together in a democracy. It’s important.
By the way, I agree with you 100% that not voting is a legitimate option for Catholics – indeed, for anyone in a democracy.
I think more and more Catholics are seeing not voting as an option, especially as they wake up from the dream that any candidate is actually going to fulfill their anti-abortion dreams. The question I have been wrestling with lately, though, is whether and when Catholics have a duty not to vote. Looking forward to the book’s reflection’s on that topic.
I can’t follow you when you say that “voting is mostly a game”, though. It’s not a game – it’s how we organize our lives together in a democracy. It’s important.
I don’t agree that voting is how we organize our lives together. Our lives have mostly been organized before we even have a say in the matter. We vote in order to choose who will oversee a system that simply cannot and will not change via elections. Voting is a game in that we are given choices that are hardly real choices, given the ability of human beings to imagine and enact other ways of organizing society for themselves on a smaller scale. If we really want to have a say in how we organize our lives together, it could never be through voting. It would have to be through smaller scale organization of alternative social and economic structures, types of organization which are indeed happening throughout the world.
I don’t like to pay taxes (military expenditures $400 billion, Fed. wasteful spending $2.7 trillion) because the vast majority of those taxes are used to maintain unborn baby murdering politicans in power by buying votes.
I’m starting the NYC chapter of “People who want other people to shiver in the dark for Obama”!
Michael,
Zippy has some pretty interesting ideas about Catholics and the option of abstention, I’d check his site out.
And yeah, you’re right, that was a poor use of that phrase ‘how we organize our lives together’. Our lives have been organized before we have a say in the matter, in some fundamental ways. I happen to think most of those fundamental arrangements are pretty great, but that’s another matter. But my point was that elections are not insignificant – we elect politicians who create our laws that partially define how we are to live together. I meant to use the phrase in that more limited sense.
And I’m all for organizing society on a smaller scale.
In other words, the only possible way that Michael would consider voting is if Obama won the Democratic primary.
Nope. Not accurate. Had Kucinich, Edwards, etc. have won the nomination I would have considered voting too. I will always consider voting. But I will not ever assume I have a duty to vote.
It also sounds like Michael clearly favors one party over the other, since his decision to abstain was not determined by the winner of the Republican primary but solely on the winner of the Democratic primary.
At this point in history, yes, I do “favor” the Demoratic party as a lesser of two evils, but not by much. I do not see a circumstance where I could ever tolerate a Republican candidate.
You also seem locked into binary two-party thinking. If I “favor” any party at all, it would probably be the Green Party.
That would mean that Michael lied on both counts. One, that he does not support a particular party; Two, that he does not support a particular candidate.
I do not support a particular party, but I do oppose a particular party. I do not support a particular candidate, but I do oppose a particular candidate. And had Hilary won, I would have opposed two particular candidates.
I have no reason to lie to anyone about whether I choose to vote or who I choose to vote for.
Did they teach Sophistry at the University you went to (my assumption is that it would have been a Jesuit university as well).
Does it take one to know one?
But my point was that elections are not insignificant – we elect politicians who create our laws that partially define how we are to live together.
I do think this is true the closer you get to real local communities. Which is why I will likely vote for WV governor, for example. (And I will vote against Joe Manchin.)
iafrate-
i find it interesting that you brought up the wv elections. you posted a while back (on CA i believe) about local v. national patriotism. if you remember, can you point me towards some of the references you listed?
this is the first election where i feel particularily strong about not voting, primarily because of the emotions i can see in myself towards particular canidates. i hate feeling so strongly, and yes almost religious, towards people making promises of change and hope when those are the things i expect from the eucharist and sunday’s homily.
but while i have no patriotic, jingoistic pride in me, i have been feeling more and more connected to my identity as a californian. i am concerned for california’s natural resources, beaches, state parks and for the rights of my gay and immigrant neighbors.
this is a challenge to someone with anarchist leanings, whatever that means. i’ve still some things to figure out.
thanks for the post.
J. – Here is the post on regional patriotism that you asked about:
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/18/toward-a-catholic-regional-patriotism/
I’m doing research now on place and politics (Cresswell, Dirlik, Massey, Hardt & Negri, Esteva, etc.) which I hope to incorporate into my reflections on Appalachia and liberationist theology.
J. – BTW, are you going to the Ekklesia Project conference next week?
no, i would love to but i am getting married instead.
seriously.
i will say, if anyone is still on this topic, that the Nympha’s Story section of Colossians Remixed does a great job of contextualizing some of these same issues in 1st-century, roman-ocupied palestine.
especially the sneaky way in which state worship gets into our homes and our lives.
i am in the middle of it right now, which is why i thought of it.
Colossians Remixed is a great book! They’re working on a sequel called Romans Disarmed.
Congrats on your marriage!
[...] and likewise, the idea that anarchists should vote or should never vote. As I said a while back at Vox Nova, “I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both [...]
[...] and likewise, the idea that anarchists should vote or should never vote. As I said a while back at here, “I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both [...]