I wouldn’t either, to be honest, Rich. I can understand Scott’s frustration, though.
To sort of make your point, Todd Palin was photographed wearing a “If you don’t like our country, why don’t you get the h—l out?” T-shirt during the campaign.
On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every time Alec Baldwin and other Hollywood elites said they would “leave the country” if Bush or another Republican was elected president or re-elected president, I would be “comfortable.”
In other words—“If the American People don’t agree with my political views, I will not honor them with my presence anymore.” Gimme a break. It goes both ways.
Personally, people who have views like that (Right-wing or Left-wing) I would personally help pack their bags. And drive them to the Airport. And write them “How are things going in Europe?” from America.
I think there is “leaving” and “leaving”. Catholics in this country have, for a long time, been fully engaged in the “American identity”. It was one of the things that seemed vitally important when we (being relative latecomers) were assumed by so many to somehow be alien. It is not for no reason that the primary social/service club in the Church in this country is not the “Knights of Rome” or the “Knights of the Vatican” but the “Knights of Columbus”, whose Fourth Degree is the Degree of Patriotism. It was possible to do that, even relatively easy to do it, because, despite anti-Catholicism among many, there were very major similarities in the ideals and mores of “native” Protestants and Catholics. Consequently, there were not huge philosophical and moral barriers between Catholics and the societal culture generally.
Progressively (no pun intended) this society and its government have gone alien to much the Church stands for. Far from there being any real concern for the needy who can’t help themselves, “social programs” are vote-buying schemes aimed at the middle class, where the votes are. Abortion is embraced. Fetal stem cell research is embraced. Euthanasia is getting closer and closer to being generally approved. Call them “death panels” or something nicer, but the government just cut $500 billion (or pretended to) from the healthcare of the elderly, and have left it to Dr. Tiller’s friend, Kathleen Sebelius, to enact “regulations” that will “guide” care decisions. Homosexuality is being generally accepted as “just a variant of normal”, and that is being taught to children in many ways. Sexual license is celebrated. Sexual, um, “aids” are advertised openly.
So, while I think moving to Europe (egad!) or Chile or somewhere is a misguided notion, I think Catholics who wish to remain faithful to the Church do need to think long and hard about “leaving”, but in another sense. If, say, the society, culture and government assail and assault one’s children or grandchildren with selfishness and immorality, there really is a sense in which we must “leave” and create our own small societies. One hopes the society as a whole does not become more and more alienated from Catholic mores and teachings, but the signs of the times are not good in that respect.
When one comes down to it, one may find it notable that the Bible does not encourage putting “faith in kings”. Jesus Himself treated governance as almost an irrelevancy (“Render to Caesar…etc.” But he did encourage the proper example for children and did encourage love and charity among the faithful.
Staying on topic here, (or returning perhaps) it is my opinion that this election has its own dynamics; dynamics that are similar nationwide but which vary from place to place. I’m not a northeasterner, and am not sure how they think if, indeed, there is any “they” to it. But this election, I think, has its own drivers. Let’s face it, O’Donnell is very much the “plain Jane” candidate. Nothing truly exciting about her, and a lot that’s ordinary or even sub-ordinary. But one has to ask oneself how many people have, in this recession, found themselves dislodged from former positions of perhaps overweening pride and now think of themselves as “plain Janes”, ordinary or sub-ordinary. The “savior”, Obama, turned out to be just one more vote-buying politician, and one whose policies don’t really have that much appeal “on the ground” despite what they sounded like “in the air”. Since the “savior” expectation has been pretty much cast to the ground, it’s entirely possible that people will simply decide that ordinary people might do just as well or better. Who was it? W.F. Buckley, who said he would rather be governed by the first “X” number of people in the New York phone book than by a similar number of academics? (heavily paraphrased) O’Donnell might be perceived as one of the first “X” number of names in the town wherever she’s from in Delaware.
What is the saying? “To live like God in France.” 
