I think a lot has changed since the late 60s, early 70s – both on my personal level and the political level.
I was reared in a Presbyterian, small business Republican family, with Linclon and Teddy Roosevelt held up as heroes and FDR as the villain. I was for Nixon in 1968, then against him by 1972 (around the time I converted to my husband’s religion, Catholicism), and have been voting Democrat ever since, bec of the greater racism in the Republican party (and we are still feeling the pinch of racism in our society today from all quarters, tho it is not so overt), and more and more bec of environmental issues. However, I’ve been very conflicted re the abortion issue, since I’ve been anti-abortion from well before I became Catholic – I think from my life-long environmental (life) sentiments (these fit together for me); I campaigned vigorously for Ellen McCormack (anti-abortion Democrat) in 1976 and participate in pro-life activities.
For me, it’s been like being a war general trying to figure how to promote life the best and reduce killing and harm to people the most. In my thinking both the Republicans and Dems are pro-death, but the Dems seem slightly better on life issues on the whole, despite their “pro-choice” stance. That’s the best assessment I could come up with, and it may not be accurate. Part of it comes from my knowlege of women all around me getting abortions when they were illegal, so I know simply passing laws will not end and many not even reduce abortion; the Church really has a much greater role in the abortion issue to raise consciousness that it is an evil (I think Catholics have abortions at a higher rate than non-Catholics, but I’m not sure). I’m also aware that whatever the Dems do re the environment, it will not amount to anything, if people themselves refuse to do their parts. Voting for me is a very tough dilemma call, and whoever I vote for I am going to feel very bad.
However, I just cannot vote for someone into (or allowing) annihilating of all life on earth through global warming and other serious environmental harms, even tho I understand that abortion is a “non-negotiable,” intrinsic evil, and that an individual emitting excess GHGs is not nearly as sinful as an individual having an abortion – no comparison. Agreed. However, I have never had an abortion, but I am contributing GHGs and other pollutants that harm and kill people. And saving babies, just to kill them or let them die is really no option for me.
Back in the late 60s, early 70s, up until 1972, abortion was not an issue in politics (to my knowledge), so it was easier for Catholics to vote Democrat, esp since the Democrats seemed a bit better in supporting agenda closer to Catholic social teachings, including helping pregnant women in need of help. So much so, non-Catholics often considered Catholics to be communists (like my mom told me – she also though Unitarians were communists, as well).
Also even tho there had been environmental issues (preservation and conservation movements) before the late 60s, that didn’t seem to be a huge issue, but has become more so, with more serious problems – maybe not the local stream catching on fire as in the 60s & 70s from a toxic chemical stew, but global life-support systems greatly threatened. There are at least 9 of them, not just global warming – see
stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries .
In the past the best environmental presidents were Republicans – Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon – so it is really troublesome that current Republicans have thrown the environment overboard, tho I understand the issue of funding ever more expensive campaigns with fossil fuel money, etc. (BTW, Clinton & Bush Sr received the same amounts from the fossil fuel industries in the 1992 election).
Now for those who put life issues above economic and political issues (and indeed life is fundamental, and the economy is merely instrumental and contingent – we need food to sustain life more than we need money or grocery stores, tho the latter help make food more easily available; and freedom is meaningless if the people are dead) there is a really painful split of the life issues between the parties. And I’m thinking it could have perhaps gone either way, but the Republicans took up the abortion issue (perhaps bec it’s no skin off their nose since they don’t plan to help babies born poor or in need of medical help), and the Democrats have in a very weak and pathetic way taken up environmental issues. As mentioned Republicans have traditionally been the forefront of environmentalism, while working class Democrats were often in the past willing to suffer the “sweet smell” of polluting industrial money.
I guess the important point is that if a person is a Republican, they can also support a healthy environment and solving serious environmental problems (and not deny such environmental problems exist the way their partymen do), and if a person is a Democrat, they can be anti-abortion like their partymen (and not pretend the unborn human being is just some plasma blob that doesn’t count, and not dwell on “rights” of the born as more important than “duties” to others, including the unborn).
Whichever party we are in, we need to stand against their platforms that are against Catholicism. We need to try and transform those parties, even if it seems we are swimming against a very strong current. I think that’s what it means to be Christian, to be Catholic.
We are just reading FOUNDATIONS in my Carmelite group, and the problems St. Teresa had to face were enormous. She just kept on trucking, without losing her patience or falling into sin of uncharity.
. I think there’s a rule called Newtons Law of Motion -"To every action there is always Opposed an equal reaction. Funny how the laws of nature include human behavior. I think God must have a sense of humor.
