#morethanredandblue: Toward A Final Vote: One-Issue Voting, Abstention, and the Wrestling Match

We've moved from the main parties' conventions into the first weeks of the final campaign stretch. Two major questions that are deeply interconnected have emerged to me as the key points for Catholics, and likely many Christians and others of various religions or generally of good will, seeking to vote conscientiously as we live out our faith:

1. Can a Catholic (or others) conscientiously vote for a politician who is openly and clearly pro-choice?

2. How seriously should a Catholic (or others) consider abstaining from voting?

Let's start with the issue of abortion. The every-four-years guide that our bishops offer us to facilitate conscientious, faithful voting gives clear advice here:

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate's position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

So, we should not support candidates based solely upon their policy toward a single-issue, yet we are justified in not supporting candidates that go on record in promoting something we oppose as morally wrong. The bishops add:

In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

So, we shouldn't vote for candidates who support morally evil things but we can if we feel like we conscientiously can. So that's settled... not really.

The key is that we need to engage with the fullness of the picture. What has the candidate shown their character, integrity, and morality to be? What do their speeches reveal about their intentions? What does their voting record show with respect to policies they've supported? What do their platforms, stated issue stances, and campaign comments add up to? There's a larger picture to every candidate.

However, abortion rightfully grabs a lot of our attention. When it comes to abortion, there's a few degrees with respect to politicians' direct policies:

• completely oppose abortion
• oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother
• oppose abortion personally but vote in favor of it
• support abortion but favor some limits (ex: partial-birth abortion ban; illegal for minors)
• support abortion liberally

I think the interpretation for where one can draw the line is subject to conscientious understanding.

Some Catholics feel perfectly comfortable voting for politicians who support abortion liberally or with minimal to moderate limits. Often, this approach contends that making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, and the focus should instead be on education, health-care, and other rights that lift up at-risk populations. I think this approach is dangerous - as with many things Catholic, this is best confronted by a both/and, not an either/or. We need better support to at-risk populations and legal reform. Direct advocacy of an evil act is tough to square.

Then we come to politicians like Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for vice president. Sen. Kaine is Catholic; he went to a Catholic Jesuit high school, did post-graduate service with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and goes to Mass at a parish in his hometown and sings in the choir. Sen. Kaine has affirmed his personal belief that abortion is wrong, but he has maintained a virtually absolute pro-choice voting record during his time in politics.

Some Catholics feel perfectly comfortable voting for politicians like Sen. Kaine who sustain their personal belief but don't extend it into their political life. The argument here is that if their personal stance doesn't match the views of their constituency, the politician shouldn't vote that way; another view might suggest that the religiously informed views of a candidate shouldn't dictate the candidate's voting decisions.

I think the dialogue should continue here, but I'll admit I struggle to endorse such an approach. Even while reflecting one's constituency and respecting religious and moral pluralism are valuable, I think American politicians are an undefined blend of trustees (elected to use their best judgment as they determine) and delegates (elected to reflect the consensus of their constituency), which forces them to weigh the two out. When faced with a moral evil, I don't see how the perceived consensus of a constituency can overwhelm a moral objection that a politician might have; majority sentiment doesn't outweigh moral truth. So this option is tough too.

Finally, you have politicians who mostly or entirely oppose abortion. These politicians - increasingly only Republicans, as conservative Democrats become nearly extinct - are easier to support in this regard, as they typically support legal reforms that tighten abortion laws and seek to appoint or confirm justices who will interpret the Constitution such that abortion is not a guaranteed right.

So with respect to abortion, supporting them comes without the major moral hangup. Furthermore, many Republicans advocate for religious freedom and conscience protections for religious institutions. Unfortunately, many Republicans, including the presidential candidate, Donald Trump, are a mess on other issues that are hugely important to Catholic Social Teaching.

• Republicans widely oppose comprehensive immigration reform and instead want to restrict immigration and refugee admissions.
• Republicans widely oppose the Affordable Care Act and seek to repeal and replace it, though it's unclear what the replacement would be as repeal would move us further away from universal health-care.
• Republicans widely oppose reasonable restrictions on gun purchase and use...

So, how much focus do we put on the abortion issue? If we make it a significantly elevated first priority, does that render issues on other socially crucial issues irrelevant? Or, do we put it on the same plane as other socially pressing issues? Can we then instead evaluate politicians, platforms, and parties based on the full landscape of social good?

One response is to abstain.

In talking about these issues with many friends, I've advocated for wrestling, dialoguing, researching, and praying one's way to an active vote rather than an abstention. I am a big believer that by working together with others, by sharing wisdom, by asking questions, by sharpening one's own perspective with the insights of others, one can come to a sound decision.

Then I got into a cordial back-and-forth with one friend in particular who was about ready to commit to abstaining. As we volleyed with each other, he finally declared, "There is nothing holy about the disintegrated life." To him, if choosing a candidate means compromising something that is central to our faith, then it is not worth placing that vote. Voting should not entail bracketing off any of the things that we believe to be essential to who we are and how God calls us to live.

That insight has stuck with me as the best argument I've heard yet to justify abstaining. I've always felt that my best witness as a Catholic is to be active, thoughtful, and forthright in humbly but authentically wearing my faith on my sleeve. I thought of abstention as sitting on the sidelines, but I think if it's done in the same spirit of engagement as an active protest, rather than a passive separation, then it can have the same effect as a conscientious vote.

Another response is to discern your way toward weighing out the various social positions of the candidates you are offered. I will admit that I am considering abstention more in 2016 than I ever have before, but I continue to reserve it as more of a last resort and a sort of theoretical threat. I really want to wrestle my way toward an approach that can apply social teaching to this mess of a landscape.

So I'll stick to my guns on two key questions as I continue to vet these candidates, including Mr. Johnson and Dr. Stein as I hope for one or both to somehow wiggle their way into the debates, in the lead-up to the election:

1. Who will represent our country and humanity with integrity and character? Not just in economic interests and military might but in cooperation and global solidarity.

2. Who will more thoroughly and completely uphold the consistent ethic of life? From abortion to child care to education to health-care to care for the elderly to end-of-life ethics.

I want to continue searching for answers to these two big questions as I look for the strength of Catholic Social Teaching in the candidates' social actions. I do have an evolved understanding of the reality of abstention as an actively chosen and deliberately communicated decision, but I remain hopeful that there is a conscientiously sound possibility to discern a vote.

I look forward to reading more thoughts from conscientious Catholics who are trying to weigh out these same concerns, in the presidential race, in the down-ticket elections, and throughout the campaign. Let me know what you think!