The lesser of two evils vs. not voting

[rlg94086]

Well it’s here…the document we’ve all been waiting for (trumpets and drum roll please):

A Call to Political Responsibility from
the Catholic Bishops of the United States

There are a lot of discussion points in this document, but I wanted to discuss the ultimate choice we have to make when voting. We have discussed this on a few threads, but I would like to revisit it in light of the new document. It may be a little long and vague, but it does give some guidance.

I had a brief discussion with my pastor concerning the possible (probable?) pending dilemma in the 2008 election. He told me that choosing the lesser of two evils can be an acceptable choice. This seems to be supported by the USCCB…

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
   It is all about conscience (properly formed) and prudence. And, we have to be very careful, because such reasoning can be used as this guidance “as an excuse” to support candidates who could advance evils, such as abortion.

(Interview with Archbishop Chaput)

What do you think of the draft of Faithful Citizenship

?

I think it’s much better than it was. I think it’s too long. I really admire the patience that the various committees showed in working on it, and everyone’s trying to accommodate the other side. I think it’s really a good document that way, but it’s too long. I think the real question is how you interpret the part of the document, which flows from Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to us when we met in Denver. It’s this: what is a ‘proportionate reason’ [to vote for a pro-choice candidate]? That’s part of Catholic theology, those are the facts. We can’t just dismiss that. But, what does that mean? I wish we could flesh that out better with some examples, and some clearer guidance. I think people can use that as an excuse.

What do you think it means?
As you know, I have written a book [on faith and politics], and in it I write that it means a reason we could confidently explain to the Lord Jesus and the victims of abortion when we meet them at the end of our lives, and we will meet them. I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion. It can’t be that we favor a particular party, or that we’re hostile to the war, or so on.
Bottomline is that we all need to prayerfully take into account Church teaching when we vote. I think Archbishop Chaput’s advice that we should be able to “confidently explain” our vote to “the Lord Jesus and the victims of abortion when we meet them at the end of our lives.”

PS…sorry for the large fonts…nothing I do in editing is changing it

 

[RachelsAlumni]

my concern with the “lesser of two evils” argument is that it could work in the Democrats favor.

If the Republican nominee favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

Plus

favors torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

whereas the Democrat favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

but

opposes torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

then it could be argued that the Democrat would be the lesser of two evils.

 

[rlg94086]

my concern with the “lesser of two evils” argument is that it could work in the Democrats favor.

If the Republican nominee favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

Plus

favors torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

whereas the Democrat favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

but

opposes torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

then it seems to me the Democrat would be the lesser of two evils.

We can differ on war issues and the death penalty, so I wouldn’t say that candidates who oppose the war in Iraq/Iran and are pro-death penalty (btw…most major Democrats support the death penalty…primarily because it is not popular to oppose it) are automatically the “Catholic choice.”

Also, the degree to which a candidate is pro-choice must be considered - support for Roe v Wade and judges who interpret the Constitution in that manner? Against any limitations on abortion (i.e. partial birth, parental notification, trimester limits, etc.)? It is not simple enough to say “they are both pro-choice, so I can ignore that topic and base my vote on something else.”

 

[Ender]

The “Faithful Citizenship” document has always been about answering the question as to whether it is moral to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Each year the answer to that has been to leave it open to the interpretation of the reader; that is, it has provided a moral pretext for voting for a pro-abortion politician. This year is no exception.

They always start out strong …
*22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.

*Before the wobbling begins …
*23. … Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can
never be justified.
*Racism?

… and continues in earnest …
*25. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
*Ah, the linkage between the right to life and … everything.

The conclusion?
*27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

*Oppose abortion!
*28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. **The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

*Unless you have a good reason not to.
*29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, …

*Ender

 

[manualman]

my concern with the “lesser of two evils” argument is that it could work in the Democrats favor.

If the Republican nominee favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)
Plus
favors torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

whereas the Democrat favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)
but
opposes torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

then it could be argued that the Democrat would be the lesser of two evils.

And, in fact, he WOULD be. Wouldn’t he? If the Republican is going to undermine the historic Republican pro-life party plank, then PLEASE don’t vote for him. They’ve got to know we will walk if they don’t take us seriously. Otherwise, they will take us for granted and lie to us like Bush Senior did and place horrible justices on the Supreme Court.

The question is a false dilemma anyways. It ignores a third option: Vote pro-life. No matter if the most popular pro-life candidate has NO chance of winning. No matter if you have to WRITE him/her in. If pro-lifers hang tough together and refuse to vote for anyone pro-abortion then the republicans will VERY quickly weed their ranks of the killers. If we let them get away with phony pro-life or outright “moderate pro-abortion” candidates, we will quickly become irrelevant in politics!

Mother Theresa wisely told us we called to be FAITHFUL, not necessarily to be successful.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

my concern with the “lesser of two evils” argument is that it could work in the Democrats favor.

If the Republican nominee favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

Plus

favors torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

whereas the Democrat favors abortion on demand, euthanasia, ESCR, (non negotiables)

but

opposes torture, war in Iraq, war in Iran, death penalty

then it could be argued that the Democrat would be the lesser of two evils.

And God knows, we can’t have THAT! Republicans are the party of goodness and all that is holy and pure.

 

[rlg94086]

And, in fact, he WOULD be. Wouldn’t he? If the Republican is going to undermine the historic Republican pro-life party plank, then PLEASE don’t vote for him. They’ve got to know we will walk if they don’t take us seriously. Otherwise, they will take us for granted and lie to us like Bush Senior did and place horrible justices on the Supreme Court.

The question is a false dilemma anyways. It ignores a third option: Vote pro-life. No matter if the most popular pro-life candidate has NO chance of winning. No matter if you have to WRITE him/her in. If pro-lifers hang tough together and refuse to vote for anyone pro-abortion then the republicans will VERY quickly weed their ranks of the killers. If we let them get away with phony pro-life or outright “moderate pro-abortion” candidates, we will quickly become irrelevant in politics!

Mother Theresa wisely told us we called to be FAITHFUL, not necessarily to be successful.

Of course, voting for a third life candidate is always a viable option. I don’t argue that it isn’t. However, it is the exact same IMO as not voting. The other option is to vote for the lesser of the two evils that have a chance of being elected.

 

[rlg94086]

The “Faithful Citizenship” document has always been about answering the question as to whether it is moral to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Each year the answer to that has been to leave it open to the interpretation of the reader; that is, it has provided a moral pretext for voting for a pro-abortion politician. This year is no exception.

They always start out strong …
22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.

Before the wobbling begins …
23. … Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can
never be justified.
Racism?

… and continues in earnest …
25. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
Ah, the linkage between the right to life and … everything.

The conclusion?
27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

Oppose abortion!
*28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. *The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

Unless you have a good reason not to.
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, …

Ender

The document does make our voting choices difficult. It is easy to say “always vote against abortion,” but the reality is that the choices are not so black-and-white. As I said, I do agree with Archbishop Chaput (and the document itself, as you quoted - #29), that prudential reasoning can be used as an excuse. That is why we are to properly form our conscience and carefully, prayerfully consider our choices when voting.

 

[manualman]

Of course, voting for a third life candidate is always a viable option. I don’t argue that it isn’t. However, it is the exact same IMO as not voting. The other option is to vote for the lesser of the two evils that have a chance of being elected.

No it is certainly NOT the same as not voting. When you don’t vote, you blend in with the rest of the apathetic majority that are ignored by politicians. If pro-lifers responded to a Dem/Rep race where BOTH were pro-abortion by voting for a THIRD party candidate and that candidate ended up with, say, 5% of the vote and the R lost by only 3% of the vote, then in the NEXT election you can BET the R candidate will be back in the pro-life fold. When you stay home, your desires are neither known nor evaluated by post election analysts.

 

[rlg94086]

No it is certainly NOT the same as not voting. When you don’t vote, you blend in with the rest of the apathetic majority that are ignored by politicians. If pro-lifers responded to a Dem/Rep race where BOTH were pro-abortion by voting for a THIRD party candidate and that candidate ended up with, say, 5% of the vote and the R lost by only 3% of the vote, then in the NEXT election you can BET the R candidate will be back in the pro-life fold. When you stay home, your desires are neither known nor evaluated by post election analysts.

This is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. The reason I believe it is the same, is that the results are the same - the greater of the two evils is elected because enough voters didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils. I don’t think that is the best choice for our country, and I am not convinced that the result of your proposed action would be a return to a strong pro-life candidate.

 

[manualman]

That’s too bad. Your logic has resulted in one party totally ignoring us and the other paying us nothing but lip service as long as they can claim to be the “lesser” of evils.

If we stuck by our principles instead of seeking expediency, we’d be THE swing group in politics. Instead we are ignorable and they know it.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s too bad. Your logic has resulted in one party totally ignoring us and the other paying us nothing but lip service as long as they can claim to be the “lesser” of evils.

If we stuck by our principles instead of seeking expediency, we’d be THE swing group in politics. Instead we are ignorable and they know it.

“The party” doesn’t take actions like that. That is one of the biggest fallacies that people use in these conversations. The party is made up of individual voters. There are plenty of pro-life choices available in the primary (oh, I know…they aren’t “pro-life enough” or “*really *pro-life”). The unfortunate fact that not enough pro-lifers are available to vote them in as Republican candidate is not being engineered by anybody.

The way to influence the party is to stay and work for more pro-lifers and therefore more influence, not act like little kids who throw the chess board and pieces up in the air and walk away because they are losing.

 

[mary_bobo]

And, in fact, he WOULD be. Wouldn’t he? If the Republican is going to undermine the historic Republican pro-life party plank, then PLEASE don’t vote for him. They’ve got to know we will walk if they don’t take us seriously. Otherwise, they will take us for granted and lie to us like Bush Senior did and place horrible justices on the Supreme Court.

If you are truly interested in judges that vote in concord with the Church, please tell me what is horrible about Justice Thomas? I must admit that Suiter has been a real disappointment. But when have you seen a Dem nominate a judge that would vote in unison with Church teaching? In my long years, I cannot name one.

The question is a false dilemma anyways. It ignores a third option: Vote pro-life. No matter if the most popular pro-life candidate has NO chance of winning. No matter if you have to WRITE him/her in. If pro-lifers hang tough together and refuse to vote for anyone pro-abortion then the republicans will VERY quickly weed their ranks of the killers. If we let them get away with phony pro-life or outright “moderate pro-abortion” candidates, we will quickly become irrelevant in politics!

Mother Theresa wisely told us we called to be FAITHFUL, not necessarily to be successful.

But if you are not successful, you accomplish nothing.

 

[Sr_Sally]

The historic purpose of a one-issue party is to get that issue into play in the wider political areana. The candidates understand that they won’t be elected, but as Manualman said, they make it obvious that there is a reasonable population for whom that issue is of paramount importance.

Catholics were a large percentage of the old Democratic party. If we’d stuck by our pro-life guns then, the sexual liberation people wouldn’t have been able to completely take over that party.

Although the Republicans are now much more pro-life, life issues have not been the historic major pillars of the party. It would be very easy for those groups for whom other issues are more important (taxes, business regulations, etc.) and who have been the historic leaders of the Republicans to make their issues bigger than pro-life questions.

The book “Can a Catholic be a Democrat” is a wonderful explanation of this. If we can stick together, Catholics can push towards pro-life candidates in both parties, instead of in neither.

 

[BobP123]

ncrcafe.org/node/1431 (Interview with Archbishop Chaput)]

I think the bishops should be careful about such comments. They can lose all tax exemptions for the church if they do too much campaigning for particular candidates. I think the Pope has already expressed the Catholic viewpoint on this and that should be enough.

 

[rlg94086]

ncrcafe.org/node/1431 (Interview with Archbishop Chaput)]

I think the bishops should be careful about such comments. They can lose all tax exemptions for the church if they do too much campaigning for particular candidates. I think the Pope has already expressed the Catholic viewpoint on this and that should be enough.

Hi Bob,

I must be missing something. Where do you see Archbishop Chaput campaigning for any candidate in that interview (or anywhere else for that matter)?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

And, in fact, he WOULD be. Wouldn’t he? If the Republican is going to undermine the historic Republican pro-life party plank, then PLEASE don’t vote for him. They’ve got to know we will walk if they don’t take us seriously. Otherwise, they will take us for granted and lie to us like Bush Senior did and place horrible justices on the Supreme Court.

Mother Theresa wisely told us we called to be FAITHFUL, not necessarily to be successful.

I agree.

I should have made this clearer, but didn’t want to ‘stir the pot’ right from the start of the thread. I also don’t want you to think I’m in favor of voting for either pro-abortion candidate even though the one who’s against the war is IMO the “lesser of two evils” here because I’m not.

I just wanted to objectively point out that given two candidates who are both proabortion then clearly the one who is against the war, torture, death penalty is the lesser of two evils.

I don’t think making campaign promises to appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS, all the while telling the world they support a woman’s “right” to choose, support federal funding for abortion, support ESCR, etc. then that person can be relied on as the lesser of two evils, especially when that person promotes war, torture, etc. when their opponent does not.

I also agree with you about the devastating effects it will have on the Country if there is no choice but 2 proaborts for the highest office of the land. How it will embolden the proaborts and effect the Congress & House in the kinds of laws they author.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree.

I should have made this clearer, but didn’t want to ‘stir the pot’ right from the start of the thread. I also don’t want you to think I’m in favor of voting for either pro-abortion candidate even though the one who’s against the war is IMO the “lesser of two evils” here because I’m not.

I just wanted to objectively point out that given two candidates who are both proabortion then clearly the one who is against the war, torture, death penalty is the lesser of two evils.

I don’t think making campaign promises to appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS, all the while telling the world they support a woman’s “right” to choose, support federal funding for abortion, support ESCR, etc. then that person can be relied on as the lesser of two evils, especially when that person promotes war, torture, etc. when their opponent does not.

I also agree with you about the devastating effects it will have on the Country if there is no choice but 2 proaborts for the highest office of the land. How it will embolden the proaborts and effect the Congress & House in the kinds of laws they author.

I am not saying who the lesser of two evils is - at this point, the particular evil choices have not been elected to represent their parties. Who knows? We may not even have to choose between two pro-choice options. I don’t give up as easily as a lot of pro-lifers who have already thrown the towel in.

I am purely supporting the fact that voting for the lesser of two evils is a valid choice. I would love to go through some side-by-side comparisons of two possible candidates, but that is both premature and against the forum rules.