I fear we have sidetracked the original discussion a little, but I am going to go on a little rant in solidarity with our “liberal” OP, Doubtfire to suggest that there is a diversity of views to be had within the Church. (In case you are still reading, Doubtfire…I like the name, too!)
I had such severe problems with John McCain. In my mind, McCain was a temperamental, angry, bitter, selfish, irresponsible, untrustworthy, arrogant “warmonger” (I’ll use the word) who has happened to vote pro-life a couple of times. Barack Obama is an open-minded, intelligent, innovative, compassionate, principled peacemaker…who is agonizingly, woefully on the wrong side of the abortion question. This was such a tough election for me; Obama was perfect (in my view) except for the most important thing, and McCain was completely wrong for the job except for in the most important respect.
But McCain, let’s not forget, wanted as his Vice President either Lieberman or Graham-- both of whom are adamant pro-choicers. McCain doesn’t have a religious bone in his body and he clearly doesn’t give a hoot about the unborn (with all due respect) – his pro-life votes are for political convenience. Just watch how animated and excited he gets when he talks about liberal “socialism” or the “enemies of freedom” in his speeches, and then how a sheet suddenly passes over his face while he reads carefully off the monitor, “and all the innocent victims of abortion,” as though he were the undead. It’s so fake. You can tell where his heart is on this one.
I mean, his personal character is bankrupt. He’s the guy who has called his wife such unmentionable names in public that I flinch just thinking about them – called an African-American state congressman “boy” and refused to apologize until the guy swung at him, whereupon he decided he admired his feistiness – and I could go on…but just read “Make-Believe Maverick” in Rolling Stone. Not my favorite magazine, but it gets the point across!
And finally, he appointed the most unqualified person in history to be his running mate. I mean, with all of the issues facing the world at this crucial point, he appoints her? That was just staggering. Do you trust him, really, to do what’s right on any issue after that? The truth is, he’s bitter that he’s not the young, popular (read: adulterous, womanizing) cadet he used to be as a young man, and that the guy on the other ticket is cooler and handsomer than he is – and so he’d do anything at this point for attention.
When I applied the Beatitudes test of moral character to the two candidates – Which one is a peacemaker? Which one thirsts for justice? Which one is meek, merciful? – it was Obama, hands down, each time.
A last word on character: Obama has shown such stunning bipartisanship and moderation in his cabinet picks…has invited Rick Warren to give his inaugural blessing…and in his autobiographies has spoken from the heart on the possibility that he may be wrong about abortion. If McCain got us involved in a war with Iran (I would consider it a distinct possibility), he’d never have backed down. But I think we can pray for Obama and Biden and actually have some hope that even if they don’t strike down Roe v. Wade, they’ll be moved to take proactive steps to address the abortion rate through other measures.
There are all the other classic arguments too, of course: that Obama’s policies will more effectively bring down the abortion rate, which I kind of believe, to be truthful. I mean, let’s say McCain won. He couldn’t just wave a magic wand and save 1.2 million lives per year, like everyone likes to pretend. No, instead he’d have to fight conservative justices through a now-Democratic Congress that would oppose anyone strenuously conservative. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if McCain, having been elected and knowing he’d be a one-termer, let a pro-choicer through to make that part of his job easy. Like I said, I really don’t think he cares about the right to life, in my heart of hearts.
But even if a pro-lifer got elected, the Court would have to wait (how long? who knows) for the right case to come up which would turn the issue to the States…and polls show that most states would rather have the option of abortion open for them. Sad, but true. Some states would outlaw it, and people in need of abortion in those states would either cross state lines if they had the money or go to back alleys if they didn’t. But if the economy were as bad then as it is now, a lot more people would consider abortion than if they didn’t have to worry so much about a 9% unemployment rate. Clearly liberal “social justice” issues intersect with conservative “social justice” issues, here.
Of course, all of this would be better than nothing – I’m not arguing that Roe shouldn’t be overturned! But the real-life situation is a lot more complex than “Obama will kill a million babies a year, while McCain will sweep in with his magic carpet and charming, benevolent smile and save them all.”
Another argument is this: not only that McCain may not be the anti-abortion success story we’ve all been waiting for, but that if dramatic action isn’t taken to combat global warming; worldwide food and water shortages; and a dependency on gasoline at a time of peak oil, we will begin to see climate refugees in the millions, sub-Saharan starvation and drought deaths in the millions, and the potential for wars of resources that turn nuclear. Watch the movie “Children of Men” and ask yourself whether that’s more likely to be the future under a McCain or an Obama presidency. If you think McCain would help to prevent it, then fine, but we just have to admit that it’s a serious question and not to be brushed under the rug. Cases of evils equal to the 1.2 million children killed per year are not, in my mind, as hypothetical as some might like to think; they’re just not talked about too often.
CONT’D →
.