A reader sent the following to me with the comment, "I am not necessarily a Bachmann fan... I don't follow politics closely enough. Although typically I like whomever is being hated at the moment!"
"But this is very succinct: Matthew Archbold, "If Only Bachmann Ran A Sex Change Clinic" (NCR, July 17, 2011).
The Catholic is put in a bind by contemporary political developments. The best candidates, like Rick Santorum, are probably the least electable. The most electable come with all sorts of "baggage." I heard Ron Paul recently say some very intelligent things about the economy and foreign policty, criticizing both the left (on the economy) and the right (on foreign policy). But classic libertarianism is a problem for any historically-informed Catholic. As are many party regulars, like Mit Romney, who come with all sorts of baggage (and I don't mean merely his Mormonism). Politics is a matter of prudential judgments, so the best that Catholics can do is to make sure they are as informed as possible (not merely by contemporary media, which is often at best a hall of smoke and mirrors, but also by history and Catholic tradition), and make a prayerful decision. Tough call.
11 comments:
I think voting day is best spent at home with some excellent cabernet and some Vivaldi. Never leave the house on voting day.
Any individual capable of being elected in today's America has to be beholden to powers we can not even identify (Banksters, International Capitalists, etc) and those powers make sure that the only electable candidates are those who can be counted on not to legislate against their interests.
Any potential candidate for POTUS who is identified as one who would be hostile to the capitalist agenda of America would be savaged by the Media before he could even get the nomination of either the Stupid Party or The Evil Party.
Right now, we are, essentially, in Bush's Third Term and who thinks that Bachmann, a Christian Zionist, Bush in a skirt, is what this country needs?
I have not one good word to say about our current POTUS but I don't see any major changes occurring were some other individual to be elected.
I do hold out hope that this country, far too huge to manage, will go broke and dissolve into regional confederations but as for voting for the POTUS, why bother?
Can Ron Paul really be considered a "classic libertarian" ? I hear a number of libertarians singing his praises... but I am not certain that alone makes him one.
Right now, we are, essentially, in Bush's Third Term
In terms of foreign policy and fiscal policy, broadly speaking that is correct. In terms of everything else, that's so false that it's not even wrong. Social policy under Bush was far, far from right, but under Obama is vastly worse on every measure.
and who thinks that Bachmann, a Christian Zionist, Bush in a skirt, is what this country needs?
That she is a Christian Zionist is the least reason anyone could have to oppose her candidacy.
While classlic Lockean liberalism (like neoconservitism in contemporary form) is inimical to traditional Catholic political sentiments, Catholics may still find it preferable to vote for contemporary neoconservative candidates who oppose activist revisionism on social issues (like liberal abortion laws and same-sex marriage) and irresponsible fiscal policy -- both critically important issues.
Why should you waste a vote that could count against public immorality and injustice and irresponsibility, just because you can't vote in this election for a direct theocracy of King Jesus?
Any Christian Zionist ought not be voted for. I want a POTUS whose sole allegiance is to America. I do not want a Christian Zionist whose dual loyalties to America and Israel is always in tension and then always resolved in favor of Israel if that tension exists within a context of potential competing political priorities because of the putative promises by God supposedly still attached to the modern state of Israel.
I would vote for a POTUS candidate if his dual loyalty was divided between America and The Holy See but the most vehement opponents of such an unlikely human would be Catholics.
Dear Jordanes. I concede your point about Bush being more favorably disposed towards the pro life agenda, at least insofar as abortion is concerned.
Jordaness551 said: "That she is a Christian Zionist is the least reason anyone could have to oppose her candidacy."
Small or large... it is still one reason for a Catholic to have "some" opposition to her canidacy. (Probably not a reason for a Zionist or many Protestants.)
Jack said: "...just because you can't vote in this election for a direct theocracy of King Jesus?"
+1 :)
What is "POTUS"?
Bachman = "Zionist"? Does she even know what "Zionism" means? Prot candidates = supporters of Israel usually, but cleuless about "Zionism," Marxist conections, etc. Unlles you mean something else by "Zionist".
This is silly. If Ron Paul were to somehow find himself elected president, he would be the most powerless, friendless, and resourceless chief executive since James Buchanan. He would have no dependable political allies, no dependable sources of financial support, a power base roughly the size of the Wahoo Nebraska Community College senior class, and he is not exactly the bully pulpit type. As president, he would be the guy standing between Boehner and Reid.
In terms of dependability on social issues, I don't see much to choose from among the republican candidates. They all, as Ramblin' Jack Elliot might put it, "got a handful of gimme, a mouthful of 'much obliged'"
Then there's President Black Jesus.
Not Spartacus is clearly onto something, and its not cabernet or Vivaldi.
Who cares whether Ron Paul is a classic libertarian. I agree with Ralph: he's not presidential material. All I said in the post is that he said some intelligent things by way of criticism of both the right and the left. The same could probably be said of any of the other candidates, including -- in some far stretch of irrelevance -- our current abominable president. That doesn't mean I LIKE any of them.
I also agree with Jack that refusing to cast a vote that could help save the lives of some unborn (as the erstwhile Mexico Policy repealed by Obama did) or help inch the country towards living within its means, is itself silly. I think Jesus may even expect it.
I, too, am for King Jesus. The fact remains that He has elected to put off His Parousia for some time, as the apostles and their successors learned, despite the language of our Lord suggesting His imminent return within the first generation's lifetime. This was the lesson the Church had to learn with the conversion of Constantine, as St. Augustine's incipient moral reasoning about justifiable warfare ("Just War Theory") shows: Catholics are called upon to do more than wait for the return of King Jesus, and that "more" is politically the art of the possible, not wishful thinking.
As I indicated in my post on George Weigel and Joseph Bottum, I think they are dead wrong in their embrace of the Church/state assumptions of political liberalism. But I also think Catholic traditionalists who want to "reserve their vote" for a confessional state are lost in idealism.
The fact is that however small a difference there is between the sad and squandered 'reign' of George W. and B. Obama, that small difference made a huge difference to those several unborn lives saved by those policies implemented by executive privilege in the administrations of both presidents. (If you doubt that one president makes any difference over another on social policy, just look into what Planned Parenthood, N.O.W. and LGBT have to say about it.)
And don't even get me started about our current policy of trying to spend trillions and trillions of tax dollars not even yet earned in order to "save" the economy.
Hence, I would say: yes, go and vote on election day, doing your best to make your paltry little vote count. But having said that, I do resonate to the sentiments of "I am not Spartacus" about what to do on voting day: yes, enjoy the excellent cabernet and Vivaldi, and offer up the inevitably rather dismal results of the election to the King whom we serve. But do vote.
PP: "Who cares whether Ron Paul is a classic libertarian."
Sir... My apologies, I misunderstood your post.
"I heard Ron Paul recently say some very intelligent things about the economy and foreign policty, criticizing both the left (on the economy) and the right (on foreign policy). But classic libertarianism is a problem for any historically-informed Catholic."
I read this to mean... viable canidate "but" classic libertarian. I now understand that you mean... intelligent by way of criticism "but" not presidential material.
It is too bad Alan Keys does not run for president again.
Post a Comment