Against Abstention
As the election season has progressed, I have become further convinced that abstention isn’t prudent. As the Republicans noted at their convention, voting ‘present’ isn’t leadership. Likewise, not voting or voting for a 3rd party isn’t an engagement with the present political realities. As has been noted by others numerous times, voting is a very small part of our engagement in the political process. If a person believes, particularly on a consistent basis, that they cannot support the candidates placed before them to choose as leaders, then their actions should manifest this reality. I commonly choose the Amish as an example of a people that have disengaged from the larger politic, and I do think they are an extreme example of this. They are not merely disinterested in the larger politic, they are disengaged from it. When people look at the Amish, they don’t say, “Here is a red blooded American.” When people look at the typical non-voter or 3rd party supporter, they have no difficulty calling the person a red blooded American.
Since at least the 1960s, there has been commentary offered on the lack of a Catholic identity in this country anymore. The claim was that Catholics were becoming indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. There are any number of theories to describe the why behind this. I happen to subscribe to the suburbanization theory: suburbs and in particular the mobility they engendered ripped apart the social bonds of community. This also helps to explain the destruction wrought in mainline Protestantism about the same time. Additionally we have an explanation for the “new church” model that is premised on the church existing before the family and therefore needing to market itself, and, yes, I’m using family in the sense of including one’s 200 cousins. (Needless to say, the preceding sentence would be worthy of elaboration into a post in its own right and is probably not as precise as it should be.) Moving back on point, this lack of identity has impaired the Church’s own witness. The Bible uses the imagery of a bishop guiding his flock of sheep. The American version seems to be more akin to the herding of cats. This brings us to the phenomena today of numerous politicians having risen to power and maintaining their power without the blessing of the Catholic communion they profess. As one could reasonably expect given how they arose and maintained power, many of these politicians are in disagreement with the Church and their bishops, to put it mildly. In a rear guard action, people are demanding bishops hold these men accountable. We even, in some cases, have bishops from far away dioceses of relatively little prominence offering extended commentaries and demanding accountability from specific politicians, as if cat herding were more effective if done from 500 miles. Excuse the mini rant there.
I bring up Church governance in a lot of my posts because there are so many similarities with secular governance. In both cases there is the tendency to want to act based on how you want things to be versus how things are. Such is not about seeking goals but acting as if the goals had already been achieved. In the voting booth this manifests itself in placing high value in moral purity. To pick on Joe Schriner for a bit, a number of Catholics have indicated he seems to be a good enough guy and they can feel good about voting for him. Let’s be honest for a moment. Mr. Schriner makes Sarah Palin look like Margaret Thatcher. I don’t say it to be ‘mean.’ His executive experience is managing a Little League team. If he were to run in either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary he would be roundly defeated as well he should be. Lots of nice people don’t ‘win’ in life, and the same is true in politics. After one of my wife’s pregnancies there was a complication. It was an emergency situation at the time so I wasn’t researching or taking notes, but a doctor was called in and performed the equivalent of an abortion except the baby had already been born. I’m pretty sure, but not positive, they called a doctor that performs abortions to do this procedure. I might not have liked any of the other work that doctor did, but I did like having my wife alive. Our obstetrician was a good and decent guy, not that I knew him socially, but I knew he was a family guy. I didn’t argue with him and claim that he should perform a procedure he wasn’t qualified to do – or at least he didn’t feel qualified to do. One shouldn’t have to apologize for making the best choice available, and one shouldn’t have to apologize for not choosing someone that can’t do the work.
But doesn’t this make me a relativistic fool? Most choices involve relative goods. Placing men into leadership is not an intrinsic evil. It is in fact quite necessary. Given the choice between no headship and imperfect headship, imperfect headship is the preferred choice. Likewise given the choice between no speech and imperfect speech, speech is preferred. Contrariwise, given the choice between genocide and imperfect genocide, neither can be supported, because genocide is intrinsically evil. Applying this, we are faced with the question of whether seeking the election of either of the two contending candidates for president is a furtherance of ESCR. Some have answered this question in the affirmative and have chosen not to support either candidate. They have used as evidence the Congress supporting and President Bush vetoing twice a bill supporting ESCR. Personally, I would interpret this as there being significant existing support for ESCR blocked only by the stubbornness of one executive, a stubbornness I happen to admire in this instance. I don’t see how refusing to support either candidate for the executive lessens the likelihood of ESCR becoming normalized though. Even in Missouri with the full weight of Archbishop Burke opposing it, Missourians chose to fund ESCR. Similar measures have passed at the state house level across the country and in referendum. On the federal level, what we are talking about it funding, not even legality. This presidential race seems quite apart from the mainstreaming of ESCR. Certainly we have an obligation to oppose ESCR, but abstention from the presidential election seems an odd place to manifest that opposition. It certainly wouldn’t be obvious to a 3rd party observer that fewer people voted because both candidates supported ESCR, if that were to happen. In choosing to oppose ESCR, efforts would seem to be better placed at the legislator and state house level. Certainly if the opportunity arose at the presidential level to significantly impede ESCR or to prevent its significant expansion that would have to figure into one’s vote. This is not however the situation and we should make our choices based on how things are and not how we wished them to be. And there are still issues of grave importance that are germane to this election to which people should not express indifference no matter whom they are supporting.
Comments are closed.
MZ,
I truly appreciate your post. I’ve been wanting to hear your thoughts on the matter and they make a lot of sense. Again, it seems that the process of forming my conscience around this issue will not end until November 4th.
Very thoughtful post.
As a relativistic fool, I concur with the post. Criticizing from the sidelines, armchairquarterbacking etc. is not a particular noble thing. A person who doesn’t vote is in no position to talk about politics. Even voting for a kook like Keyes is better than staying home. Low turnout is uncommon where I’m from. Washing one’s hands of the whole affair is posturing.
Now, I think that the entire political system is crooked, rigged and despicable, on both sides of the aisle. I would appreciate if greed and stupidity could be kept within such limits as to not tank the entire world economy. You may say that I’m a dreamer.
Nonetheless, there has to be a party one hates less. For you Catholics, the old saying De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum should mean something. Personally, I go by whoever I think will tax me less, regulate me less and curtail my freedoms the least. While I can’t stand the Religious Right, the dangers it poses versus the busybody liberals can be surmised this way: The Right may bring school prayer, but the Left may bring school busing.
Catholics can rightfully feel torn, because Catholicism presents a union of ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative policies – the gay guy should get government health care, but be constitutionally banned from getting married. I happen to hold the opposite view, which makes me unsuitable for either party as well. I just go with the GOP because it tends to be less meddlesome in areas affecting me and because we’re in an income bracket begging to be milked by the messiah.
Thanks for this MZ. It will challenge me and be an aid in my voter discernment
The problem with “engaging in the present political reality” in terms of only voting for a viable candidate is that it forces a faithful Catholic voter to vote against their conscience.
How will we expand the political party system if conscientious Catholic voters swallow their convictions every election in favor of imperfect headship?
Catholics need to vote FULLY CATHOLIC, not just anti-abortion. Aren’t there 67 million of us? That’s a significant voting block that could propel the rise of a third party compatible with Catholic beliefs.
Likewise, not voting or voting for a 3rd party isn’t an engagement with the present political realities.
Clearly we have at least two competing theories of what voting is all about. I can sympathize with both views, and in the past I personally have accused people who voted for minor third-party candidates of throwing their votes away.
On the other hand, I can’t see limiting yourself to voting only for candidates who have a clear chance of winning. If the perfect candidate were running (I was going to say Jesus, but that would be going too far), advocating all the right positions on the “nonnegotiable” Catholic issues as well as presenting a clear vision of how to deal with the economic crisis, end the war in Iraq, solve our energy problems, and so on, yet for some reason he or she had no chance of winning, I would certainly “throw away” my own vote for such a candidate. Of course, we have no such candidate in this election, but my point remains that I think there is something to be said — if you have a good reason to do so — for “throwing your vote away” by casting a vote that has no real chance of determining the outcome of the election.
I don’t quite know how to make a transition from what I have just said to the following quote from the current Commonweal editorial, so taking a leaf from Sarah Palin’s book, I’ll just throw it in because I want to:
Placing men into leadership is not an intrinsic evil. It is in fact quite necessary.
Men?
Catholics need to vote FULLY CATHOLIC, not just anti-abortion. Aren’t there 67 million of us? That’s a significant voting block that could propel the rise of a third party compatible with Catholic beliefs.
Yes. Exactly.
“How will we expand the political party system if conscientious Catholic voters swallow their convictions every election in favor of imperfect headship?”
Thank God we don’t have to compromise our convictions to vote on the imperfect headship that governs our Church.
The answer is not to do less (by not voting) but to do more by involving oneself in the political campaigns and political parties. None of these birds are prone to turn away volunteers. And to be honest, your petty little vote probably won’t make a difference. But how about if you volunteer at the phone bank? Serve as a party precinct captain? Run for Central Committee? Serve on a candidate’s policy committee?
And how about witnessing Catholic values as you do so? Gee, while volunteering at McCain HQ, you might actually talk to another Republican and say that you are here because of your appreciation of his stance on abortion policy but really don’t agree with him on Iraq or health care. Or the reverse at Obama HQ.
I know, that would mean getting up off one’s rear and doing something. Its easier (and more fun) to issue broadsides saying it’s immoral to vote this way or that way. But no one ever said Christianity was easy.
[W]hile volunteering at McCain HQ, you might actually talk to another Republican and say that you are here because of your appreciation of his stance on abortion policy but really don’t agree with him on Iraq or health care. Or the reverse at Obama HQ.
I know, that would mean getting up off one’s rear and doing something. Its easier (and more fun) to issue broadsides saying it’s immoral to vote this way or that way. But no one ever said Christianity was easy.
I think that’s exactly right.
I’d add that face-to-face communication is absolutely essential. If you post against the Iraq War at Free Republic (or against abortion at Daily Kos) you’re going to ignite a flame war, but little else will be accomplished.
http://www.mycatholicvoice.com/group/Voice+Your+Vote
There is no doubt that the upcoming Presidential election is proving to be one of tremendous consequence on a variety of issues; issues that are core to our Catholic faith, issues that will have significant impact on us, future generations and the future of our country.
With that in mind, we would like to invite you to join in the Voice Your Vote discussion to share your views, thoughts and ideas.
Its about whats most important to you.
Speak up and let your voice be heard!
A person who doesn’t vote is in no position to talk about politics. Even voting for a kook like Keyes is better than staying home.
There’s a reflective political response that can be used to justify not voting. It can be deep, well informed and researched. This is different than people who just don’t care enough. Would you include these people in your group of those who cannot talk about politics?
Say a mob has gathered to kill a man. How does one stop the mob? One doesn’t. Sure one can try to stop the mob and get himself killed in the process. It may even be meritorious to do so. It doesn’t however save the man from being killed. There is no way to prevent a society that desires to commit some evil from sanctioning that evil except through changing that society. Although no CEO acts this way, there is a CEO mentality of if I say something needs to be done it will get done as long as you have enough power. When you are dependent upon independent actors, life never works that way.
To take an example from the post, if you want to stop ESCR, you need to convince people that lethal human experimentation is wrong. This means convincing people that IVF is wrong. You need to treat research derived from it as evil. For example, scholars still fear citing hypothermia research performed by the Nazis during WWII, because the research cannot be ethically supported even though there is value to the research.
From a Catholic perspective, there needs to be a return to an authentic solidarity. Solidarity can’t just express itself at the ballot box every four years. It is a solidarity that must be lived in communion. And the sad truth is that there isn’t a whole lot of communion in the Catholic Church right now. You can look at the Knights of Columbus or Legion of Mary or any host of Catholic social organizations that are gone from a number of parishes. I hate to tell this to people, but not all problems can be solved in 30 minutes or with just the proper application of force.
Of course one CAN talk, but it’s akin to celibates weighing in on sex, rather pointless.
Is a system preferable that has a threshold of % of votes to get seats in parliament ? In Austria, it’s 5%, resulting in 5 parties in parliament, with none over 30%. Of course, there the chancellor is recruited from parliament and the president is a figurehead. It may be a bit harder to rig the whole game – starting at the outrageous gerrymandering practiced by both parties. In the US, both parties know that they will get their turn at the troth.
As a result of the bipartisan ‘effort’ to destroy the global economy – and it was truly bipartisan – I have no desire for either party. Unlike Europe, there is no ‘protest vote’ possible, thanks to the ‘winner takes all’ system – heck, in a vast number of House seats incumbents run unopposed thanks to gerrymandering. As the Dow is headed for 9000, both these useless crooked organizations should be kicked out of power. You know your goose is cooked when Phil Gramm and Jesse Jackson create economic policy ‘in agreement. A pox on all of them.
Oh and party donations ? What’s up with that ? You’ll frequently find that to be illegal across the pond. Not to mention that you basically have to be rich to run for office. The American Revolution was started for lesser reasons that then cluster**** we’re in now.
adamv- “There’s a reflective political response that can be used to justify not voting. It can be deep, well informed and researched. ”
I tend to agree with this, except then I wonder: why wouldn’t such a person write in a suitable candidate? Trust me, there is always a “kook” running for each office. Voting for a third party, or even a write-in, sends a message that the voter does care about his civic duty and the future of the country, but does not care for either major-party candidate.
That is a much more direct and powerful message than to simply not have your voice heard at all.
Tienne,
Point taken. After the last election, I was contemplating starting a write-in campaign for Yukon Cornelius from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
But, this still assumes that voting actually results in “having your voice heard.” I’m not sure this is true. Part of the conclusion I’ve had is that class has more to do with political voice in America than voting does. So if I don’t show up to vote, as a lower middle-class citizen, I’m exercise close to no vote, whereas if an upper-class citizen rubs shoulders with a candidate at a $5,000/plate fund-raiser their voice is counting for much much more.
Kurt- “Gee, while volunteering at McCain HQ, you might actually talk to another Republican and say that you are here because of your appreciation of his stance on abortion policy but really don’t agree with him on Iraq or health care.”
Are you claiming that the rank and file of a candidate’s campaign 1. care whether you agree with McCain or not as long as you vote for him or 2. are going to “pass on” your views up the ranks? Hardly.
I absolutely agree that we, as Catholics, must engage politics outside November 4th. I’ve advocated on my blog that each of us communicate actively with our candidates as well as our elected officials to let them know what we think and how we feel on all the issues, not just the ones that are covered by the media. I’ve already written to Obama letting him know my objections to his position on abortion. I’m in the process of writing a letter to McCain explaining why I won’t be voting for him, either, next month.
It’s with the intention of “changing things from the inside” that politicians like Joe Biden are born. If you’re working a phone bank for Obama, you are convincing other people to vote for him and helping him be elected into office. Is the evil done by that action really supposed to be offset because you talk to the person in the chair next to you and mention that, gee, you don’t really think abortion should be legal because the fetus is human, alive and has rights? I’m all for changing hearts and minds, but this seems like chumming the water while holding a sign that says “Beware of the shark.” I mean, what’s your ultimate goal?
I have a modest proposal on embryonic stem-cell research. If there is to be government financing of research, allow individual taxpayers to opt out of paying taxes for it. However, one of the conditions of opting out would be that if down the road there is a cure for, say, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, or heart disease, those who opted out will be ineligible for treatment.
adamv- “Part of the conclusion I’ve had is that class has more to do with political voice in America than voting does. ”
I’ve seen lots of evidence of this, too. Special interests get all the attention. For all the talking the candidates are doing to “Joe Sixpack” and “Main St.” I’m betting they’re doing way more listening to the deep pockets standing behind them.
For the next election, why don’t a group of Catholics (and perhaps like-minded individuals) put up and fund a candidate who takes a Catholic-compatible position on all the issues. I am not talking about just on the life issues, but every issue on which there is Catholic morality or Catholic social teaching involved.
It is not uncommon for third-party candidates to run mainly to promulgate their views, with basically no chance of winning.
“How will we expand the political party system if conscientious Catholic voters swallow their convictions every election in favor of imperfect headship?”
Exactly.
“The answer is not to do less (by not voting) but to do more by involving oneself in the political campaigns and political parties. None of these birds are prone to turn away volunteers. And to be honest, your petty little vote probably won’t make a difference. But how about if you volunteer at the phone bank? Serve as a party precinct captain? Run for Central Committee? Serve on a candidate’s policy committee?”
The Bishops obviously have recognized the place for abstaining from voting. However, being involved on the local level of politics is obviously not only a good idea, but required by our human nature and our Catholic faith. We are involved locally whether we notice or not.
I see no problem with voting Third Party however, if you find someone you think more competent and who you agree with more. Schriner is probably an idiot. So is Palin. I happen to agree with Schriner’s ideas more. But you’re right, just voting for nice ideas and also for incompetence doesn’t help us out much. I’ll probably vote Third Party (Ron Paul) and then continue to act locally (in a way appropriate for a Religious of course) and pray and work for decent politicians to elect.
“It is not uncommon for third-party candidates to run mainly to promulgate their views, with basically no chance of winning.”
Exactly. Schriner may be just as stupid as Palin, but I happen to agree with him more. Most of them are stupid anyway. But you’re right, he’s pretty incompetent. And getting involved on the local level is what is more precisely required by human nature and our Catholic faith, on the local level where we are already immersed whether we admit it or not in politics. On the national level, as I see it, I vote Ron Paul, and get involved on the local level (in the ways appropriate to a Religious of course) and pray and work for Catholics to take a stronger stand on the full meaning of what it means to be Catholic in a pluralistic society.
Ironically the Red Tory’s, which would be third party here and was part of the Canadian mainstream until about 10 (?) years ago would be very compatible with Catholicism. Maybe something like an American Red Tory or Progressive Conservative party could get some very real traction in the United States.
Adamv – The only way for another party to gain prominence in American politics is for one of the two major parties to implode. That’s what gave birth to the Republican Party in the mid-19th century – the whigsa more or less imploded over the issue of slavery, and Lincoln’s Republicans arose from the ashes.
Of course, that helped set the stage for the civil war and a million dead, so let’s be careful out there :)
I would add that a prerequisite to having an alternative party is to have an alternative platform having wide support.
Tienne McKenzie Says:
Are you claiming that the rank and file of a candidate’s campaign 1. care whether you agree with McCain or not as long as you vote for him or 2. are going to “pass on” your views up the ranks?
Yes, I am so claiming. More importantly, it hinders people from retreating into comfortable ideological ghettos.
It’s with the intention of “changing things from the inside” that politicians like Joe Biden are born.
Thank God for Joe Biden’s birth! It the politics of th einside that promotes solidarity and community.
If you’re working a phone bank for Obama, you are convincing other people to vote for him and helping him be elected into office. Is the evil done by that action…
I don’t accept the premise that evil is being done here.
I mean, what’s your ultimate goal?
The promotion of the common good and the advancement of peace and justice through participatory democracy, building community and solidarity.
It seems to me the Amish are a good example of being totally disengaged but the same laws that will ban them from praticing their faith will also stop you and I from practicing ours. If we don’t use our voices to vote for good change we shall loose the right to speak. Hate speack laws will ban even reading from the bible. Please look at this as good versus evil, instead of the lesser of two evils. Chistians should have no company with evil men.