American political campaigns have never been for the squeamish. With the sole exceptions of George Washington’s two uncontested elections, every presidential campaign has seen its share of vulgarity, skullduggery and personal disparagement.
Those who imagine that “going negative” is the invention of today’s polls and focus groups haven’t read very much about the rhetorical character of the senior Adams-Jefferson battle of 1800, the younger Adams-Jackson contest of 1824 or the Blaine-Cleveland fight of 1884, not to mention the dubious goings-on in Illinois and Texas in 1960 or in Florida in 2000.
American presidential politics is a contact sport, and while we may wish it were not so — while we may wish that JFK and Barry Goldwater had set a new pattern by their plan, aborted by the Kennedy assassination, to rent a plane together and fly around the country, holding something akin to the Lincoln-Douglas debates — what we’ve experienced these past months is likely what we’ll have for the foreseeable future.
But just because electioneering increasingly resembles a reality show, voters are not absolved from treating the electoral franchise as something rather different than casting a vote on American Idol.
In the Catholic understanding of these things, politics, for all its tawdriness, still engages questions of right and wrong, good and bad, the noble and the base. Political judgment is prudential judgment; but prudence is a virtue, a habit of the mind and heart that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “disposes a person to discern the good and choose the correct means to accomplish it” (1806).
Prudence “guides the judgment of conscience” and helps us “overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.”
For the vast majority of American citizens, exercising prudential judgment in politics is not a matter of framing and executing public policy, but of voting. Voting, in other words, is an exercise in moral judgment. Which is to say that serious Christians, for whom love of the Lord Jesus and fidelity to his Kingdom measure all our other loves and loyalties, vote with their brains, not with their emotions.
Morally serious voters understand that casting a ballot is not an exercise in nostalgia and that gratitude to FDR for giving grandpa a job in the Civilian Conservation Corps or fond memories of the Eisenhower years cannot be determinative of one’s moral judgment about the American future, and those who would lead us into it, in 2012.
Morally serious voters understand that the character of political parties changes over time and that voting for the Democrats or the Republicans because “that’s what we’ve always done” is outsourcing one’s moral judgments to others.
Morally serious citizens recognize that voting a straight party line is an abrogation of moral responsibility because the judgment one makes on a party’s candidate for, say, president, cannot be applied willy-nilly to that party’s candidate in House or Senate races.
Morally serious Catholics recognize that no one party in contemporary America fully embodies Catholic social teaching; but alert Catholics will also take notice when a party holds Catholic social teaching — including the Church’s teaching on such fundamental issues as the inalienable right to life and the nature of marriage — in contempt.
In this particular season of decision, all adherents of biblical religion will pay close attention to the religious-liberty concerns raised by the U.S. bishops over the past year and will weigh their votes in light of a candidate’s commitment to religious freedom in full.
Voting is an exercise in moral judgment about the immediate future that must take into account the medium- and long-term future. Voters who think only of themselves and do not take into account what kind of country their children and grandchildren will inherit are being politically shortsighted and morally obtuse.
Voting is not simply a privilege; it is a noble privilege because it asks each of us to bring our best judgment to bear on matters of grave consequence.
The voting booth isn’t the confessional. But like the confessional, it should be entered after serious moral reflection and prayer.
George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.
Weigel’s column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Mark Shea: The Key to Catholic Social Teaching
Comments
Post a Comment
A lot of people would take advantage of a chance to get ahead when nobody’s looking. The “fair game” rule they go by is a most disturbing aspect of American culture. One may go behind someone’s back trying to make their politics or products sound like they will genuinely help, when the real intent is to reap big profits at the victim’s expense. If they’re not smart enough to figure out what’s happening, the “mark” is just fair game. Hidden agendas are everywhere.
As the election approaches, we are thinking, “Do our candidates know what they’re saying? What are the true meanings and consequences of their stand on an important issue?” Should we rely on truthfulness in a candidate’s words or should we weigh the outcome while considering that their words may be erroneous or just plain lies? What does the “I will ...” mean? What attitude does the “Look ...” reveal? What do the smile, laugh, ridicule, piercing gaze, nonchalant gaze, name-calling, and bickering mean? What kind of person does these things? Who do we really want to represent us? And in fact, are those political ads really telling us about our candidate or are they just marketing ploys? Are we just fair game? Is there a hidden agenda?
We have a dilemma. Compare your choice between two candidates you think are not up to par to the following. A Catholic may brush off communion fasting rules (one hour before communion) by just not thinking about them, consciously ignoring them as if they are relatively unimportant, saying they are too hard, and counting beforehand on Christ’s looking the other way. Or… not fasting can be a totally spiteful act against the rules, deliberately breaking them while calling them stupid and unjust, thinking oneself immune to and above any such petty regulations, giving the rule-maker a virtual slap in the face. The latter is an affront to Christ’s Church and Christ Himself in the body and blood of the sacrament. The former, though not sinless, doesn’t express the same harsh, heartless act.
It would be good to think of our voting choice in those terms. Does a candidate seem to have the potential for conversion but for now is supporting existing laws, giving us hope of a future change through democratic processes? Or does the candidate stand for triumph of satan’s side on the issues of life and religion, showing a stone-faced resolve to keep us on the track to promiscuity and death by promoting abortion, sterilization and contraception? Does the candidate use taunts and ridicule (as satan does to get his way) in the campaign, or do they resort to kindness and education of voters so that they may get ahead in life? Is our candidate possibly involved in deception, seeking triumph over those whose faith opposes the views of his party? Is the Catholic Church treated with respect, as if Christ, the ruler of the universe was involved?
We have a lot to think about. The perfect choice would be an honest candidate who would not steal even from those he believes are unworthy; someone who would not justify making fair game of anyone. Laws of our country, like communion rules, apply to those who would go against them. An unjust law (like the HHS mandate) against Catholics makes Catholics criminals. May God help our country to elect good and faithful leaders.
This is a wonderful piece of writing. It should be handed out in every parish. I think Mr. Weigel is absolutely right that voting is a moral choice. And that’s why it is sometimes so hard to make that choice. But perhaps that is as it should be.
Mr. Weigel makes some good points and does the blogger. But let’s be perfectly clear - there will never be an perfect candidate. No one is perfect except Jesus Christ Himself. All candidates are but men/women. That being said it is also true that we must consider the character and obvious values of the candidate, not sound bites.
Further Mr. Weigel says nothing new herein re voting being a moral choice - it always has been so. It is something that the Catholic Church teaches. And those who listen to their conscience know this because it affects not only themselves but also the entire community of their family, city, state or nation. Thus such decision making can only be done w/the light of the Holy Spirit of God, i.e, w/fervent prayer and humility recognizing that since we do not know all there is to know about the spirit of a person we must rely on the Spirit of God Who knows everyone’s spirit. So we concede w/joy that His will be done in selecting our rulers in society.
One more thing: no one should vote on the basis of gender, race, status, or even religion. We should vote for the person who has the character, experience, education, and values of a God fearing person who realizes that all authority in heaven and on earth comes from God.
I am sure the article is as interesting and provocative as the commenters claim. Why not show us the article by Mr Weigel…or is this just a *tease* to imcrease subscriptions to NCR?
For the first time in our history, the viability of our nation is at stake in a Presidential election.If any member of the Party of Death is elected, it will be the death of a great nation that once trusted in the God of Abraham and the Christian principles our founders insisted should be taught in public schools along with reading, writing, and arithmetic. I respect the wisdom of George Weigel as well. The Party of Life is the only moral choice. Would that every Catholic believed in the Real Presence, the paramount doctrine of our faith. If they all would make the right moral choice, I would not fear for our nation’s future. Democrat Catholic is an oxymoron. Apostate Catholics that voted for Obama and abortion the last time may have a last chance for salvation if they correct their mistake this time. If not they become abject traitors to America and merit scorn. Caveat Emptor.
Another great article by George Weigel. Check out the recent article by Arland K. Nichols that argues that Catholics must vote as Catholics, not partisans. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/voting-according-to-catholic-principles-not-partisan-politics
When deciding to vote, let’s keep in mind that Barack Obama:
1) forced Obamacare and funding for abortifacients on Catholic organizations as President
2) funded Planned Parenthood with hundreds of millions of federal dollars as President
3) voted against preventing minors from crossing state lines for abortions
4) voted against informing parents about minors who receive out of state abortions
5) voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (as Illinois state senator)
The list goes on and on.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is pro-life. And, he made a great VP selection in Paul Ryan (rated 100% pro-life by NRTLC).
Bob Rowland, ever heard of the election of 1800? There was a lot at stake in that election given that the peaceful transfer of power to the opposition was unheard of, and given the political instability that had begin to emerge diring the late 1790s. Both emerging parties at the time believed thay the political vision of the other would jeoprdize American independence. Thank you, Mr. Weigel for pointing out that the political culture and history of the early American republic were hardly polite or genteel. Anyone who thinks so need only read the muck-raking and scurrilous journalism from the period.
Voting is a “obligation” for Catholic citizens per the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
We must never vote for candidates who support intrinsic evil - abortion, euthanasia, homo-sexual marriage, and denying others Freedom of Religion.
At any level of elected government, if both candidates support intrinsic evil we must vote for the person who is most likely to do the least harm.
For comparison of the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms, comparison of the Presidential candidates, a link to “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” regarding voting see the answer to #13 on web site: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
Wsquared. I did specify my lifetime, but the issues then had no adverse impact on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of rights or the First Amendment. This election could revoke them, and I believe this will be the first time for that in our history.
Voting is a great opportunity for Catholics to participate in shaping our country.
I was under the impression that James Monroe had no opposition when he became president, just as Washington had none.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.