Leaning Towards Barr
Throughout the campaign my general assumption has been that, unless he did something utterly stupid (like name Tom Ridge as his running mate), I would probably end up voting for McCain. Lately, however, I have been giving more and more thought to the possibility of voting for Bob Barr. Barr is better than McCain on ESCR and judges, and he’s better than Obama when it comes to starting foreign wars. I am more in sync with his (current) views on domestic policy than I am with any of the other candidates, though I recognize that even if he should somehow be elected he wouldn’t be able to implement any of it. And unlike most third party candidates, he doesn’t seem like a kook and isn’t so utterly unprepared for the job to be disqualified on that account. True, the chances of Barr actually being elected are miniscule, but I don’t see why I should rule out voting for a candidate on that account. A lot of libertarians don’t much like Barr, believing that he is something of a LINO or RISC, but I’m sure a lot of those people would say the same about me (if they knew who I was, that is).
I am, however, willing to entertain arguments to the contrary. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Comments are closed.
I have voted for a Libertarian once. I think it was the Tammy Baldwin race for re-election and the GOP hadn’t managed to find an opposition candidate. Or maybe it was one of the local races. I doubt I’ll do it again since I’m firmly anti-libertarian today.
Where Barr has his appeal is that he wasn’t all that Libertarianish. In currying favor, he has gone mushy on abortion. I think his GOP ties would allow him to pull together a governing coalition, certainly moreso than Ron Paul who remains in the GOP and is oft mentioned. In other words, supporting Barr would be respectable delusion. ;-)
To argue the contrary, I would need to be better understand your reasons for not choosing either Obama or McCain. If it is a simple matter of claiming that the difference between them advancing your agenda is negligible, I don’t think I could really argue against you.
Good luck with the whole third party thing. Our current system of elections make a third party success very unlikely. Not impossible but not very likely either. The way I see it there are two paths to prominence for a third party. One way is what we have seen the Libertarians and the Green party trying which is to win a local race or two and hope to build on it while running presidential candidates with no hope of getting 5%. The other way a third party can find success is to have a major issue around which to coalesce. In the 1850′s the Republican party was born out of the abolitionist movement. In time the Whigs ceased to exist. The new party to find success must have a an issue that the other two are neglecting.
Didn’t Bob Barr support his wife in getting an abortion?
Blackadder,
I already understand that you are opposed to voting for Obama. But here are a couple of links to bishops’ statements that have come out recently…
Bishop Seratelli (Diocese of Paterson, NJ and USCCB chairman of the Committee on Doctrine) notes the comparison between Obama and Herod, who had St. John the Baptist beheaded. He also makes the comparison to those who vote for Obama:
“At the time when Herod murdered John the Baptist because of his promise, Rome practiced the principle “one man, one vote.” Whoever the emperor in Rome placed in authority over a subject people, ruled. Today we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms.”
In other words, each individual voter has the same responsibility of the Roman emperor at the time of the beheading of St. John the Baptist. If we choose to vote for Obama and the pro-abortion baggage that comes with him, we are making Herod’s choice. I’m quite confident that the good bishop considers the decision of Herod to have been morally impermissible.
Bishops Farrel and Vann (Dallas and Ft. Worth, respectively) make is clear that the “one-issue” of abortion happens to be the most important issue that Catholics should vote on and concludes that “to vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible. ”
Please note that they did not offer the alternative that contributers to Vox Nova, such as, Morning’s Minion, or Michael Iafrate have been taking. Namely, “I’m not voting for abortion by voting for Obama”. The bishops make it clear… voting “for a candidate who supports… abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil (McCain does not support abortion or “abortion rights”, neither does Barr)… and… morally impermissible”.
The only way to wiggle out of these statements is to ignore them entirely. One cannot feign ignorance after having read them however.
What are your thoughts on these statements? If this comment doesn’t get posted, it will say a great deal about the spine on this blog, by the way. I’ve only posted the statements made by bishops of the Church.
blackadderiv,
It’s not necessarily the case that Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate holds the same positions he did when he was a Republican. According to Wikipedia, “At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, he apologized for the part of the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.” And he authored and cosponsored DOMA.
As I have said elsewhere, I think there is a lot to be said for some Libertarian ideas, but I find it hard to believe Catholics who won’t vote for either Obama or McCain would feel comfortable supporting a party that advocates the legalization of recreational drugs, same-sex marriage, gays in the military, and the withdrawal of government from attempts to regulate abortion. It appears to me the Libertarian view of law is at odds with the Catholic view. Libertarians favor maximum personal freedom, whereas the Catholic Church sees the law as a vehicle for teaching and enforcing personal morality.
Here are some excerpts from the Libertarian Party’s platform:
I guess my question is: what is affected by a third party vote in a federal election?
I’m tempted to say nothing.
I find it hard to believe Catholics who won’t vote for either Obama or McCain would feel comfortable supporting a party that advocates the legalization of recreational drugs, same-sex marriage, gays in the military, and the withdrawal of government from attempts to regulate abortion.
I don’t think Barr favors either same-sex marriage or the withdrawal of government from attempts to regulate abortion. What he has said is that those matters should be decided at the state level. Given that returning the issues to the states is itself probably beyond what could be hoped for during the next four years, I fail to see these positions as somehow disqualifying.
As for the other stuff, I favor the legalization of drugs and am ambivalent about don’t ask don’t tell. I certainly wouldn’t view either of those as dealbreakers.
I guess my question is: what is affected by a third party vote in a federal election?
I’m tempted to say nothing.
Agreed. The same, however, is also true for a major party vote in a federal election.
Didn’t Bob Barr support his wife in getting an abortion?
Larry Flynt says that he did. I’m not inclined to take his word for it.
In any event, a politician’s personal conduct is of interest to me mainly to the extent that it sheds light on their probable conduct in office. Barr is committed to overturning Roe, and I believe that were he somehow to become President, he would appoint judges consistent with that goal.
If this comment doesn’t get posted, it will say a great deal about the spine on this blog, by the way.
I’m tempted to say that from now on any comment that makes a reference to the likelihood of its being moderated or deleted will be automatically deleted. I wouldn’t want to deny people their chance at martyrdom.
I’m tempted to say that from now on any comment that makes a reference to the likelihood of its being moderated or deleted will be automatically deleted. I wouldn’t want to deny people their chance at martyrdom.
Thanks for posting the comment. I added that final sentence because my links to bishops’ statements regarding the votes for Obama by Catholics have been “automatically deleted” in the past.
Blackadder,
I’m not so sure the case is the same for a majority party candidate. For example, where I live in NH, a vote for Obama or McCain is quite significant because the polling is quite close. A few thousand votes can swing the state either way. Not that NH has much pull in the overall election with 2 electoral votes, but I think the point remains.
I need to come up with a better argument against voting third party. In federal elections, my intuition weighs heavily against it, but at the moment I can’t seem to articulate why.
where I live in NH, a vote for Obama or McCain is quite significant because the polling is quite close. A few thousand votes can swing the state either way.
If you were able to personally cast a few thousand votes, then that might make your votes significant. As it is, however, an individual can cast at most one vote for a given presidential candidate, and there are few things in life more certain than the fact that this individual vote will not affect the outcome of the election.
As it is, however, an individual can cast at most one vote for a given presidential candidate, and there are few things in life more certain than the fact that this individual vote will not affect the outcome of the election.
I’m sure you can’t tell me which grain added is the one that make a pile a heap. It would seem if something is deemed significant for one it is significant for all.
Respectfully, I think the state you live in should be taken into consideration. You live in a state that is in play, and as such I would hope that you would consider voting for McCain (imperfect as he is).
Joseph – I have not read the first statement you cited in its entirety, but I did read the second one and I find it woefully inconsistent with Faithful Citizenship.
In the case of the sorites paradox there is vagueness as to how many grains it takes to make a heap. Not so in the case of voting. One can be quite sure whether one’s vote has made a difference just by looking at the vote totals.
And being in a “state that is in play” doesn’t make any difference. In 2000, the election came down to a difference of 500 votes in Florida. In historical and statistical terms, that’s incredibly close. Still, had I been a voter in Florida in 2000, my vote (or non-vote) would not have changed the outcome of the election.
So, in other words, not even if a bishop of the Catholic Church makes it explicit that a Catholic would be acting immorally by voting for Obama will you consider not voting for him. I’m glad you responded so. I had a hunch that was the case for most Catholics voting for him and that validates pretty much everything I’ve said on the topic.
Also, I wonder if you are in a position, as a lay person, to dispute a bishop’s (successor of the Apostles) on his official directive to his flock? Are you saying that you have more authority on the issue than the bishop? Only your interpretation of Faithful Citizenship is binding on you and not the interpretation given by more than one bishop of the Church? And what of Bishop Seratelli? If the bishops of Dallas/Ft. Worth are wrong, then certainly bishop Seratelli is wrong as well. Is there a certain level of discomfort that you are feeling after reading these statements by the Church authorities? I think that’s called “conscience”.
Michael,
One more thing. The statements made by Bps. Farrel, Vann’s, and Seratelli’s are consistent with, not only Faithful Citizenship, but also with the recent comments of Cardinal Abp. George.
Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.
Not only do Obama and Biden favor the legal status quo, Obama proposes to push it further to the extreme with his promise to the abortion profiteers, Planned Parenthood, that FOCA is the first thing he’ll sign if he wins the presidency. According to Cdl. George’s statement, Obama and Co. cannot be “working for the common good”. That means casting your vote for Obama is not casting your vote for the common good, which is the heart of the argument for anti-abortion Catholics who are voting for Obama. Is Cdl. George also wrong?
Joseph – I agree with everything in Cardinal George’s statement. George’s statement is about Catholic politicians who support abortion. He does not say anywhere in the letter that Catholic voters may not vote for Obama. That isn’t the purpose of the letter. Knowing Cardinal George and his ability to resist U.S. political categories, I don’t think he would issue directives such as those we have seen from Chaput and the Dallas bishops.
I think it’s important to learn how to read these documents in light of their actual purpose instead of cherry picking quotes for partisan purposes.
What about the Bishop Gracida… Is he misinterpreting Faithful Citizenship?
No. But he is misinterpreting the arguments of those of us who know that proportionate reasons do exist. He assumes that we are scrambling trying to come up with *an* issue that would hold as much weight as abortion, when we aren’t doing that. The proportionate reasons we have identified do not come down to a single issue, such as war. Rather, it is a matter of a complex of issues, worldviews, and systems. We do not take an “issues” approach to politics alone, which is what Gracida assumes.
I do appreciate this line, which I wholeheartedly agree with:
“There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. ”
The protection of innocent human life is precisely the proportionate reason I would cite in voting AGAINST John McCain and the Republican party.
…or Bishop Vasa? Is he misinterpreting Faithful Citizenship?
As for Vasa, I do think he is misinterpreting FS as well as Ratzinger’s statement about voting for pro-abortion candidates in the presence of proportionate reasons. Vasa says: “The conditions under which an individual may be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would apply only if all the candidates are equally pro-abortion.” I see nothing in Ratzinger’s statement or FS that would support that conclusion.
Also, his assumptions about the present administration with regard to the war on Iraq strike me as naive. War, he says, could only be an issue if the administration had risen to a level of “insanity” in its warmaking. Those of us who take the Church’s just war tradition seriously happen to think that wars which do not meet just war requirements are, obviously, unjust and that the unjustified taking of human life is INTRINSICALLY EVIL and, in the bishop’s words, “insane.” Lying in order to justify such wars is equally insane.
Michael, that’s fine. You disagree with the Bishops of the Church on how to interpret their own document. I understand. You also have decided not to follow Cdl. George’s chain of logic. Let’s see, Obama doesn’t serve the common good because of his radical pro-abortion stance… so voting for him means you support the common good? 2+2=5.
You sound eerily similar to the “womenpriests” when the Church officially announced their automatic excommunication. “Who cares? They’re wrong! We’re right! We’re not sinning! We’re not excommunicated!”
I’m struggling to understand how you think that you can interpret the bishops’ handwriting better than they can. Anything to vote for Obama, eh? Even when they officially warn you that it is morally permissible.
I do appreciate this line, which I wholeheartedly agree with:
“There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. ”
The protection of innocent human life is precisely the proportionate reason I would cite in voting AGAINST John McCain and the Republican party.
Do try not to omit the context. I see the link was not posted, how convenient. I suppose you don’t want anyone to read it in context, do you? Why are you afraid of what the Church has to say about your morally impermissible will to vote for Obama?
What can I say, I hope you repent. The warning has been sounded. You have heard it and you choose to ignore it. Remember that.
Michael, that’s fine. You disagree with the Bishops of the Church on how to interpret their own document. I understand.
No, I disagree with the bishops you cited. Not all bishops are interpreting Faithful Citizenship the way they are.
You also have decided not to follow Cdl. George’s chain of logic.
No, I follow his logic. I just choose not to read into it like you choose to do.
Let’s see, Obama doesn’t serve the common good because of his radical pro-abortion stance… so voting for him means you support the common good?
I agree that when it comes to abortion, voting for Obama does not serve the common good. I admit that, absolutely.
You sound eerily similar to the “womenpriests” when the Church officially announced their automatic excommunication.
That’s odd. I have repeatedly stated my own disagreements with the Womenpriests movement. I guess you’re turned on by the whole Palin-esque “guilt by association” crap, eh?
Do try not to omit the context. I see the link was not posted, how convenient. I suppose you don’t want anyone to read it in context, do you? Why are you afraid of what the Church has to say about your morally impermissible will to vote for Obama?
You’re the one who posted the link, remember? I’m not sure what happened to your comment featuring the link. I obviously wasn’t trying to “hide” it from anyone because I quoted pieces of your comment. My guess is that it was an accident. Feel free to post it again. Do it in bold letters if you are afraid no one will see it!
What can I say, I hope you repent.
If I do vote Obama, trust me, I know that it will mean cooperating in some small way with an evil policy on abortion, a policy that I obviously disagree with. I believe that no matter who we vote for, we are participating in grave sin. The system itself is sinful.
Can you admit that when you vote for McCain, you are sinning?
I’m not sure what happened to your comment featuring the link. I obviously wasn’t trying to “hide” it from anyone because I quoted pieces of your comment. My guess is that it was an accident. Feel free to post it again. Do it in bold letters if you are afraid no one will see it!
Fair enough, here is the statement from Bishop Gracida
And here is the context that you left out in your quotation (he also elaborates further using the 2004 presidential candidates in reference to proportionality… which you, no doubt, disagree with).
“Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.”
Michael said, I disagree with the bishops you cited. Not all bishops are interpreting Faithful Citizenship the way they are.
That’s to be expected, just like the “womenpriests” disagree with the bishops who have excommunicated them but not with the rouge ones that support them. Just like the Arians disagreed with the bishops that condemned their heresy, but agreed with the ones who did not. That’s what always happens. In addition, these are not the only bishops who have made these statements. I’ve only posted a handful. If you would care to post comments of bishops that you support that say explicitly that it is morally permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an anti-abortion alternative, please feel free to cite them. Mind you, that is the issue here. I’m not looking for ambiguities or equivocation. I’m looking for the explicit opposite of the citations I’ve provided. As you can see, the ones I provided to not require interpretation.
Regarding Cdl. George’s statement and the clear judgment that a Catholic voting for a pro-abortion candidate cannot be “working for the common good”, that flies in the face of the so-called “seamless garment/common good” fallacy that pro-Obama Catholics continually cite. You have agreed that a vote for Obama is not a vote for the common good, so, therefore, you agree with the bishops’ interpretations of Faithful Citizenship that I have given above. Because you cannot cite that you are intending to vote for the common good, you have admitted that it is impermissible to vote for Obama… but, you, and several contributors on this blog, plan to do it anyway.
That’s odd. I have repeatedly stated my own disagreements with the Womenpriests movement. I guess you’re turned on by the whole Palin-esque “guilt by association” crap, eh?
An analogy is not the same thing as what you are stating. I’m not accusing you of being a fan of “womenpriests” nor am I accusing you of being “Arian”. I am accusing you of using the same excuses they used when their ideas are condemned by the bishops of the Church. But, no, I don’t believe that you are associated with them. I’m also not a Palin fanboy, so that remark did little to effect me.
Can you admit that when you vote for McCain, you are sinning?
According to Faithful Citizenship and the quotations from the bishops above, I will not be sinning by voting for McCain (if I even vote for McCain, the only thing I’m sure of is that I will not and cannot in good conscience vote for the abortion absolutionist and gay-marriage champion Obama). On the other hand, according to these same statements, it is morally impermissible to vote for Obama.
If I do vote Obama, trust me, I know that it will mean cooperating in some small way with an evil policy on abortion, a policy that I obviously disagree with.
I hope you realize how problematic this statement is coming from a Christian. I know I’ll be sinning but I’m going to do it anyway, God forgive me. That’s not exactly the kind of loyalty God is looking for.
I believe that no matter who we vote for, we are participating in grave sin.
If that is what your conscience is telling you, then you shouldn’t be voting. I don’t believe that is the case. Pope Pius XII wasn’t gravely sinning when he chose not to bring the Nazi death camps to light. He was making the most prudent choice he could make. Either decision he faced lead to the death of many innocent lives. In this election, differences between the two candidates is stark in regards to respect for life. The morally acceptable choices of the Catholic are to vote for the anti-abortion opponent most likely to defeat Obama, the anti-abortion candidate that has more in common with Catholic social teaching, or to abstain from voting entirely. A Catholic, according to the bishops, cannot vote for the most radical pro-abortion candidate on the menu, who is Obama.
It sounds like your conscience is telling you to abstain if you believe that no matter who you vote for, you will be committing a “grave” sin. No one is forcing you to commit that grave sin, you are choosing to do so. There is no ignorance in that.