In a World Without War, For Whom Would You Vote?
September 4, 2008
A while back Katerina asked people to say for whom they would be voting if abortion and ESCR were not the contested political issues that they are today. I would like to ask a similar question. Suppose that the candidates in this election all agreed on issues of foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, etc.) and that their views on these issues were more or less those you yourself hold. In such a circumstance, for whom would you vote and why?
22 Comments
Comments are closed.
Neither Obama nor McCain. Because I do cannot agree with many aspects of their domestic policies; both have strengths and weaknesses, but both also share some of the fatal flaws of the American political scene.
By “war” I consider both issues of foreign policy along with other cases of explicit harm (however potentially justifiable), this seems to only remove one small case of harm, leaving much more including the very harm-riddled process of elections under the guise of freedom and democracy… So I would vote for a democratic process.
It doesn’t help me either way. My main problem is that I don’t believe McCain on pro-life issues – and I do believe Obama.
Obama – Healthcare and he doesn’t lie about the effects of drilling here in the US on prices.
My main problem is that I don’t believe McCain on pro-life issues
Exactly.
Just to be clear, I do believe that Obama is agressively pro-choice, and that he will advance arguments (like the advertisement) that try to marginalize the Catholic position on abortion. That is why I could not vote for him; a person who runs advertisements that marginalize an important part of CST is not an advocate of CST.
McCain…Life issues are the Most important issue out there and if the war is still a factor Life issues are still more important. Anyone (Obama) who votes againts the Infants Born Alive Act cannot be trusted in any matters.
I am a Christian pacifist. But I hate that language, because it implies to uncharitable hearers that I am too damn passive. I am an advocate for Christian nonviolence. But I hate that language but who wants to define one’s stance solely on what they are against? To that end, I prefer the language of being a Christian peacemaker. I’m a bit iffy on that language too, because we don’t make peace. We participate in it; we accept the peace of God and then offer it is gift to the world. Anywhooo….
Peace is a much deeper reality than the simple lack of war. Being war-free does not equal having shalom. So there are other things I’d look for. Truthful speech. Concern for the health of citizens. Economic fairness. Stewardship of creation. Much more.
So who would I vote for? Obama. But like with Stanley Hauerwas, the vote is a largely symbolic political act. If people think voting is the chief end of political action, then we are screwed. In my own life, I’m much more concerned with local, small acts of building shalom. You might even call me a community organizer. 8’0
I would vote against Obama, who, without the anti-war platform, is left with is record of fighting to prevent doctors from saving the lives of babies who had survived abortion in Illinois (somehow that keeps going over the heads of VN posters, with the exclusion of BlackAdder) and his war-cry that his first priority is to ensure that the legality of murdering children in this country cannot be touched by those who oppose it.
Whether one “believes” what McCain and Co. say is irrelevant. He has *proposed* to do everything in his power to overturn Roe. [The highly esteemed Senator of the Great State of Illinois] Barry has *proposed* the exact opposite. Both candidates have records that suggest they plan to carry out their proposals.
Katerina’s comment in this combox helps shed some light on her last post.
Brett, I have apparently been moderated out of the other thread where you asked for the links to Obama making light of Palin’s small town experience. I tried to post them together ( the two links) and them seperately but to no avail. I’ll try here.
Here is one. The other will follow soon.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-defends-natural-disaster-experience/
Brett,
Here is the youtube link. It’ s over 5 minutes before you get to the reference to Wasilly.
Obama has stated that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country. On the issue, that’s where my agreement with him ends. But it is a start.
Then there are the rest of the issues that together make up a world of shalom. War and abortion are only two of those issues.
My apologies to BlackAdder for using his comment box to respond to Brett regarding another blog post. I hope you don’t mind too much.
What Kat said. Plus I have an aversion to a ticket that is proudly trumpeting style over substance, igorance over education, fuzzy stories over policies.
Tim F.,
Akismet thought they were spam. You’ll see your original comments in that thread.
Everyone,
Please attempt to stay on topic. If this wanders too much I’ll just close comments, since Blackadder is unavailable.
Cheers, Tim. Not sure there is much in this, tbh. But I appreciate the link. Has he repeated this anywhere, so as to suggest it was not a one-off gaffe?
If war was not in the equation then it would be much easier to vote for the Republican ticket.
I would say that there are more reasons to not vote for Obama other than abortion. He also supports ESCR with no reservations. I guess he is consistent in that regard. His views on marriage and the agenda to redefine it out of existence. He tries to have it both ways but he is not fooling anyone on that. I would hate to let him or any Democrat have any influence over what my child was taught in school. I know they do through text books and such. And then he is just plain not up for the job. He has no experience. He was basically running for President at the 2004 convention before he was even elected to the US Senate.
McCain certainly has his drawbacks (expecially ESCR) but he has never been the typical Republican. And if war was off the table it would much easier but not a lock.
If we all had a lobotomy we’d all feel a tingle running up our legs and vote for Obama.
As a “Cold War liberal” with Schactmanite tendencies, the war is not my major problem with the GOP, its their domestic economic policy. Therefore I stick with Obama.
“I would hate to let him or any Democrat have any influence over what my child was taught in school. I know they do through text books and such.”
The other day it was falsely asserted that there is federal financing of abortion. Now it is falsely asserted that the federal government in involvement in textbook selection. It is very hard to have an honest dialogue when Republicans just make things up out of thin air.
Well, since Pope Benedict came here in April and said that our troops are fighting for a “Just Cause”–hence, the Iraq War is Just–and since he said in 2004, before he was Pope, that is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to support the Iraq War, then the war should be a non-issue for Catholics.
It is for me. I tend to oppose the war on paleoconservative/Buchananite grounds, but I’ll defer to the Catechism, which says that decisions about whether a war is just lie with the civil authorities, and with the two cited statements by Cdl. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.
That said, even if war and abortion were non-issues, I would not vote for Obama.
There is the issue of “gay rights.” There is the issue of “universal health care”–which, anyone who’s lived in a socialist country will admit, spells doom for those of us with serious health problems. There is the issue of his New Age philosophy. There is the issue of protecting our First Amendment rights as Catholics. There is the issue of involvement in the United Nations and preventing the World Court from setting up operations so the gays can arrest the Pope for “crimes against humanity.” There is the issue of “hate speech” aws.
These are all the reasons why I was leaning towards voting for McCain even before the ticket proved to be the most pro-life ticket we’ve had to date.
…the Catechism, which says that decisions about whether a war is just lie with the civil authorities…
Uh, no, it doesn’t.
What it says is that in order to be just, one of the objective conditions is that the war must be prosecuted by the competent authority.
It does not say that the competent authority gets to subjectively decide that a decision to go to war is just, thereby, in making that decision, rendering it just.
Postmodernity has just ruined our ability to think clearly.
Well, since Pope Benedict came here in April and said that our troops are fighting for a “Just Cause”–hence, the Iraq War is Just
Show us the text.
…the Catechism, which says that decisions about whether a war is just lie with the civil authorities…
Zippy is right. The Catechism does NOT say that at all. What it says is that the civil authorities are the ones who make the decision whether or not to go to war, which is a no brainer. Who else would make that decision? Not the Church. Whether or not a war is just is determined in reference to the Church’s just war principles. In other words, it is the Church who decides if a war is just or unjust.
There is the issue of “gay rights.”
The “issue” of “gay rights” is actually an entire range of issues, some of which the Church supports and some of which the Church opposes.
There is the issue of “universal health care”–which, anyone who’s lived in a socialist country will admit, spells doom for those of us with serious health problems.
Simplistic.
There is the issue of his New Age philosophy.
Damn, that’s a new one! New Age Obama!
There is the issue of protecting our First Amendment rights as Catholics.
Which would be threatened under Obama… how?
There is the issue of involvement in the United Nations
The Church has been a consistent supporter the United Nations.
and preventing the World Court from setting up operations so the gays can arrest the Pope for “crimes against humanity.”
!!!
There is the issue of “hate speech” aws. (sic)
!!!
I’m vote for McCain but only because he’s an atypical Republican. I would not for vote a pro-peace but anti-immigrant and pro-torture global warming denying Republican.
“I have an aversion to a ticket that is proudly trumpeting style over substance, igorance over education, fuzzy stories over policies.”
In other words, you’d vote based on style over policy?
“the Catechism, which says that decisions about whether a war is just lie with the civil authorities”
Unfortunately, this misconception seems to be popular among Republicaths.