As our country moves through utterly deep political polarization, weathering a government shutdown more focused on blame-placement than political solutions, we have a party in power that has lost its soul.
Initially, the Republican Party likely expected that Trump’s foray into the election would be dispatched by the usual weeding-out of primary season. Instead, it watched in paralysis as more conventional candidates were rendered also-ran’s by Trump’s repeated victories. With sufficient delegates in hand and the nomination imminent, the Party declined parliamentary notions and other interventionist technicalities in its convention, perhaps hoping its institutional might could shape the candidate to be a legitimate standard-bearer for the general election. Trump went forward with the full formal support of the party, eventually naming its chairman his chief of staff, and the party took no action to constrain its candidate.
In Congress, the Republicans’ Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sold their souls for the prospect of legislative might that could come with a Republican in the Oval Office, and Republican members of Congress across the party variably lent support and endorsements to their candidate. This has continued into Trump’s presidency, where even as he acts not just incourteous but malicious, cruel, and inhumane, many of his supporters can’t bring themselves to jump off the train.1 While some politicians, like Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) have decided to pre-retire and use their platform to be overtly critical, too many have remained silent, made lukewarm non-apologies, or even defended President Trump. This is unacceptable.
As Catholics, we believe in a moral theological tradition which teaches that the ends do not justify the means. One cannot morally do something evil in order to accomplish a good end. Circumstances can provide a context that lessen one’s blame for an evil action, but no circumstances can justify an evil action. When facing the harshness of reality, like that of American politics, moral decision-making often must involve some degree of pragmatism. So when it comes to voting, and even to political activity more broadly, Catholics are often forced into tough decisions. While some make a perfectly valid argument that we should simply not vote, that is not a path I am comfortable taking. So here, I’ll offer my perspective on how to engage, especially in a climate where the major party in charge has reached this state.
As a Catholic engages conscientiously with political realities, he or she will never find a perfect fit in either party or perhaps even with any individual politician.2 So as one searches for a party to affiliate with, a politician to support, or a way to engage with the process, I think one is best served by honestly surveying the contemporary context of the election and acknowledging the realities of current issues, viable options, and potential consequences of elections.
To tackle a perennial issue, consider abortion: I am not a one-issue voter and will not support or oppose a politician on this issue alone, grave as it may be, for it’d all but lock me into rigid, straight Republican balloting; however, as I vet pro-choice candidates, I want to see at least some limitations in their approach, such that the candidate does not support unrestricted abortion on demand and preferably holds a view that desires explicitly to reduce the number of abortions. When I vet pro-life candidates, I want to see that they are not hiding poor respect for life in narrow opposition to abortion -- Do they oppose the death penalty? Do they support affordable health-care and education initiatives? Will they support reasonable gun control? Show me a bigger something in support of life. Rather than dismiss or endorse a candidate in a quick glance at one item (important as it is), I want to broaden the lens and look at more of the candidate.
So, for me, this means I’m usually voting split ticket. I have variously opposed and voted for Democrats and Republicans for President, Senate, House, and state assembly for different reasons. And in the case of this current political climate, I am preparing to tilt the balance much further against Republicans and in favor of Democrats versus my more typical even weight.
Republicans have had several moments at which they could have divested themselves of their then-candidate, then-nominee, and now-president before they got in so deep, throwing their lot in with a man who so comprehensively disrespects his brothers and sisters and their human dignity and instead focuses entirely on power and wealth; they declined to do so, and it has soiled their whole party. While Trump’s administration may have helped Republicans achieve corporate tax cuts, a desirable Supreme Court appointment, and arguably stronger national security and safety,3 the toxicity of his influence and behavior is unacceptable, and, often, evil. Plus, his political clumsiness jeopardizes any likelihood that desirable ends may even be achieved. While I would not rule out voting for some Republicans in various races, I will need to see substantial evidence that they do not support Trump and are not interested in a party whose track he recklessly dictates with his fickle, backwards direction.
Some suggested, via the too oft-repeated phrase, to “hold your nose and vote for Trump.” As I’ve stated, I think political conscientiousness is a tightrope walk for Catholics, but anytime one’s evaluation reaches this extreme, a different course is needed: vote third party; lodge a protest vote for the opposition; abstain from that line of the ballot. I think to some small extent I understood, if disagreed with, those who voted for Trump and other Republicans at the time of the election, but now I think Catholic voters need to reconsider how they can support a party that either tacitly or explicitly condones the behavior of a reckless, erratic president who does not even consistently commit to the scraps of policy that enticed some Catholics to vote for him. I think today’s context calls for more than simply the repudiation of an individual man. Even more, it calls for a profoundly raised bar that demands that Republicans who wish to govern and lead based on more consensus principles distinguish themselves clearly from the “populism” of Trump and his allies. I saw promising glimmers of such rationalism in the two dozen or so senators who cooperated to help end the shutdown stalemate, using Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) as a Switzerland of sorts to team up as the “Common Sense Coalition” and work out a small path forward.
Overall -- and I’m biased in this as it is the path I’ve personally chosen -- I feel that a Catholic is best served as an ideological moderate and a political independent, affiliating only loosely or perhaps temporarily with a party. While I acknowledge the value of party membership, I think maintaining a particular affiliation for too long makes it likely that one has to compromise one’s positions substantially to remain a party member. I do acknowledge the need for engaging in the political system in which we have only two parties, but I think one’s conscience and engagement is best served by remaining independent and/or affiliating only impermanently and nimbly. Unless something foundational changes, which is very unlikely, we are only going to have two parties. So in this reality, we need two robust, responsive parties that are affected by democratic pressures and reflect the social need to uphold human dignity and solidarity. This seems more likely if citizen members, especially large, active blocs like Catholics, are willing to pressure their party to the point of disaffiliation.
So I’ll remain a moderate, and, at this point, an independent.
I’m bent left by the desire for immigration reform with amnesty for undocumented people who are here, and just parameters to sustain people who qualified for DACA, for basic social safety nets for the homeless, unemployed, and economically struggling among us, for reasonable gun control laws, for an end to the death penalty, and for affordable healthcare for all people, and more.4
I’m pulled to the right by my desire to protect unborn people and support a culture of family life, to preserve end-of-life ethics against assisted suicide and flimsy arguments about dignity, to uphold religious freedoms and reasonable, respectful, open religious practice, and more.
And I find myself in the middle, wanting reasonable but sturdy tax rates that support basic government programs and social services and safety nets but that keep enough money in my pocket for me to control, spend, and donate as I’d like, wanting pilot programs of school vouchers and tax credits that continue funding public education but create greater choice and market for private education opportunities, and more.
This means taking issues, candidates, and elections on a case by case basis, and it means finding ways to stay active beyond the traditional partisan engagements. In this moment in politics, it means holding the Republican Party’s feet to the fire for repeatedly declining opportunities to repudiate one of their members and for its members holding their noses and following him to where we are now. It means seeking out leaders who are willing to maintain their independence from Trump and try to preserve a semblance of legitimacy as a party and as political leaders.5 And it means giving a greater chance to the Democrats’ candidates, hoping they can approach life issues with greater consensus sensitivities and continue their strong championing of marginalized people in their political action. The Republicans’ majorities are due to take a beating, if history is any indication, and it will be up to voters to overcome midterm election malaise and mobilize to make a statement at the ballot box.
2018 may stink, but I will not be holding my nose as I read, discuss, reflect, and vote. Bring it on.
As a Catholic engages conscientiously with political realities, he or she will never find a perfect fit in either party or perhaps even with any individual politician.2 So as one searches for a party to affiliate with, a politician to support, or a way to engage with the process, I think one is best served by honestly surveying the contemporary context of the election and acknowledging the realities of current issues, viable options, and potential consequences of elections.
To tackle a perennial issue, consider abortion: I am not a one-issue voter and will not support or oppose a politician on this issue alone, grave as it may be, for it’d all but lock me into rigid, straight Republican balloting; however, as I vet pro-choice candidates, I want to see at least some limitations in their approach, such that the candidate does not support unrestricted abortion on demand and preferably holds a view that desires explicitly to reduce the number of abortions. When I vet pro-life candidates, I want to see that they are not hiding poor respect for life in narrow opposition to abortion -- Do they oppose the death penalty? Do they support affordable health-care and education initiatives? Will they support reasonable gun control? Show me a bigger something in support of life. Rather than dismiss or endorse a candidate in a quick glance at one item (important as it is), I want to broaden the lens and look at more of the candidate.
So, for me, this means I’m usually voting split ticket. I have variously opposed and voted for Democrats and Republicans for President, Senate, House, and state assembly for different reasons. And in the case of this current political climate, I am preparing to tilt the balance much further against Republicans and in favor of Democrats versus my more typical even weight.Republicans have had several moments at which they could have divested themselves of their then-candidate, then-nominee, and now-president before they got in so deep, throwing their lot in with a man who so comprehensively disrespects his brothers and sisters and their human dignity and instead focuses entirely on power and wealth; they declined to do so, and it has soiled their whole party. While Trump’s administration may have helped Republicans achieve corporate tax cuts, a desirable Supreme Court appointment, and arguably stronger national security and safety,3 the toxicity of his influence and behavior is unacceptable, and, often, evil. Plus, his political clumsiness jeopardizes any likelihood that desirable ends may even be achieved. While I would not rule out voting for some Republicans in various races, I will need to see substantial evidence that they do not support Trump and are not interested in a party whose track he recklessly dictates with his fickle, backwards direction.
Some suggested, via the too oft-repeated phrase, to “hold your nose and vote for Trump.” As I’ve stated, I think political conscientiousness is a tightrope walk for Catholics, but anytime one’s evaluation reaches this extreme, a different course is needed: vote third party; lodge a protest vote for the opposition; abstain from that line of the ballot. I think to some small extent I understood, if disagreed with, those who voted for Trump and other Republicans at the time of the election, but now I think Catholic voters need to reconsider how they can support a party that either tacitly or explicitly condones the behavior of a reckless, erratic president who does not even consistently commit to the scraps of policy that enticed some Catholics to vote for him. I think today’s context calls for more than simply the repudiation of an individual man. Even more, it calls for a profoundly raised bar that demands that Republicans who wish to govern and lead based on more consensus principles distinguish themselves clearly from the “populism” of Trump and his allies. I saw promising glimmers of such rationalism in the two dozen or so senators who cooperated to help end the shutdown stalemate, using Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) as a Switzerland of sorts to team up as the “Common Sense Coalition” and work out a small path forward.Overall -- and I’m biased in this as it is the path I’ve personally chosen -- I feel that a Catholic is best served as an ideological moderate and a political independent, affiliating only loosely or perhaps temporarily with a party. While I acknowledge the value of party membership, I think maintaining a particular affiliation for too long makes it likely that one has to compromise one’s positions substantially to remain a party member. I do acknowledge the need for engaging in the political system in which we have only two parties, but I think one’s conscience and engagement is best served by remaining independent and/or affiliating only impermanently and nimbly. Unless something foundational changes, which is very unlikely, we are only going to have two parties. So in this reality, we need two robust, responsive parties that are affected by democratic pressures and reflect the social need to uphold human dignity and solidarity. This seems more likely if citizen members, especially large, active blocs like Catholics, are willing to pressure their party to the point of disaffiliation.
So I’ll remain a moderate, and, at this point, an independent.
I’m bent left by the desire for immigration reform with amnesty for undocumented people who are here, and just parameters to sustain people who qualified for DACA, for basic social safety nets for the homeless, unemployed, and economically struggling among us, for reasonable gun control laws, for an end to the death penalty, and for affordable healthcare for all people, and more.4
I’m pulled to the right by my desire to protect unborn people and support a culture of family life, to preserve end-of-life ethics against assisted suicide and flimsy arguments about dignity, to uphold religious freedoms and reasonable, respectful, open religious practice, and more.
And I find myself in the middle, wanting reasonable but sturdy tax rates that support basic government programs and social services and safety nets but that keep enough money in my pocket for me to control, spend, and donate as I’d like, wanting pilot programs of school vouchers and tax credits that continue funding public education but create greater choice and market for private education opportunities, and more.
This means taking issues, candidates, and elections on a case by case basis, and it means finding ways to stay active beyond the traditional partisan engagements. In this moment in politics, it means holding the Republican Party’s feet to the fire for repeatedly declining opportunities to repudiate one of their members and for its members holding their noses and following him to where we are now. It means seeking out leaders who are willing to maintain their independence from Trump and try to preserve a semblance of legitimacy as a party and as political leaders.5 And it means giving a greater chance to the Democrats’ candidates, hoping they can approach life issues with greater consensus sensitivities and continue their strong championing of marginalized people in their political action. The Republicans’ majorities are due to take a beating, if history is any indication, and it will be up to voters to overcome midterm election malaise and mobilize to make a statement at the ballot box.
2018 may stink, but I will not be holding my nose as I read, discuss, reflect, and vote. Bring it on.
1 In this article, I mean only to describe and characterize the politicians and other public figures who have endorsed, supported, and/or encouraged Trump. I do not mean to lump in private citizens with them, and I don’t seek to make major judgments on people’s conscientious voting decisions and party affiliations statuses here. I will just offer my personal outlook on how I choose to respond to this quagmire.↩
2 And, frankly, I don’t think really any individual finds a perfect fit. To some degree, most every party affiliate likely has some degree of compromise in their affiliation to address some gap between a personally held position and the wider stance of the party at large.↩
3 From a Catholic Social Teaching perspective, I’d say stoking nuclear tensions, targeting and discriminating against vulnerable international populations (like Salvadorans, Haitians, etc.), and destabilizing American membership in multi-national organizations (ex: the UN, NATO) and agreements (ex: the Paris agreement, the Iran deal) have all hurt our national security and made us poor international citizens.↩
4 For additional excellent reading, throw it back to convention season in 2016 when Tim O’Malley wrote about leaving the Democratic Party after one last straw broke the proverbial camel’s back. Echoing many of these thoughts, a wise blogger recently commented, “A Catholic is a pilgrim without a sure home in modern politics.”↩
5 Personally, I’m a big fan of the consistent, stable, smart leadership of Governor John Kasich (R-OH). I also find similar qualities in Mitt Romney, Evan McMullin, and handful of others who seem to have resisted the delirium of Trump’s new right to retain more rational center-right and/or conservative principles.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment