The Voter's Burden

[DanteAlighieri]

I find myself in a quandry over the requirement that Catholics vote for pro-life candidates. I acknowledge that the right to life is far more fundamental than are civil liberties, social justice, the environment, the economy, etc. My problem arises elsewhere.

Politically speaking, I’m a centrist. I firmly believe that the Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the cesspool that is American politics. I think partisan politics sacrifices justice and ethics for the sake of “We’re Number One!”. Furthermore, I think the neo-con movement is just as dangerous to our nation’s well-being as the ultra-liberal movement, in a lot of ways.

I once read a Catholic voter’s guide that outlined the major issues and the Church’s stance on each. I was surprised to find that, apart from right-to-life issues (abortion and euthanasia) and gay marriage, the Democratic party’s general platform was far more Catholic than the Republican one!

So I’m a dyed-in-the-wool independent, and I’m wondering if anyone is aware of a likely candidate for President (even if he/she is a long shot) whose platform is uniformly compatible with Catholic teaching – welfare, social security, energy, environment, war on terror, human rights, immigration, abortion, education…all of it.

If you’re even aware of some Catholic resources that discuss candidates’ platforms, that’d be helpful.

NB: I know what I’m asking is a long shot in itself.

Also, please don’t try to convince me that the neo-conservative movement is right; it won’t work. Save your breath.

Thanks in advance!

Peace,
Dante

 

[mary_bobo]

I find myself in a quandry over the requirement that Catholics vote for pro-life candidates. I acknowledge that the right to life is far more fundamental than are civil liberties, social justice, the environment, the economy, etc. My problem arises elsewhere.

Politically speaking, I’m a centrist. I firmly believe that the Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the cesspool that is American politics. I think partisan politics sacrifices justice and ethics for the sake of “We’re Number One!”. Furthermore, I think the neo-con movement is just as dangerous to our nation’s well-being as the ultra-liberal movement, in a lot of ways.

I once read a Catholic voter’s guide that outlined the major issues and the Church’s stance on each. I was surprised to find that, apart from right-to-life issues (abortion and euthanasia) and gay marriage, the Democratic party’s general platform was far more Catholic than the Republican one!

So I’m a dyed-in-the-wool independent, and I’m wondering if anyone is aware of a likely candidate for President (even if he/she is a long shot) whose platform is uniformly compatible with Catholic teaching – welfare, social security, energy, environment, war on terror, human rights, immigration, abortion, education…all of it.

If you’re even aware of some Catholic resources that discuss candidates’ platforms, that’d be helpful.

NB: I know what I’m asking is a long shot in itself.

Also, please don’t try to convince me that the neo-conservative movement is right; it won’t work. Save your breath.

Thanks in advance!

Peace,
Dante

I am not sure what a neo-con is. But however you decide to vote, just remember that the winner has a party that he/she is beholden to. They don’t operate in a vacuum.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I am not sure what a neo-con is. But however you decide to vote, just remember that the winner has a party that he/she is beholden to. They don’t operate in a vacuum.

Of this I am painfully aware.

BTW, a ‘neo-con’ is a neo-conservative. Think GW Bush, et al.

Peace,
Dante

 

[b_justb]

Of this I am painfully aware.

BTW, a ‘neo-con’ is a neo-conservative. Think GW Bush, et al.

Peace,
Dante

A Neo-con is a New Conservative; one who has become politically conservative from a different political stance. Pres. GW Bush is not a Neo-con, in spite of what Mic Jaggar sings about him. It can be argued (and quite well) that he isn’t politically Conservative at all. He is the head of the Republican Party at the moment, which will change in 2009. Because he is against most abortions and is for fewer taxes he is viewed as Conservative by most and labeled incorrectly a Neo-con by some.

Before abortion on demand became legal and a politically divisive issue, the Democratic Party and the Catholic vote was a slam dunk. Things have changed and that is no longer the case.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of this I am painfully aware.

BTW, a ‘neo-con’ is a neo-conservative. Think GW Bush, et al.

Peace,
Dante

You are wrong there – Bush is not a “neo-con.”

The neo-conservative movement originated amongst Jews who were dismayed at the left’s lack of support for Israel. A “neo-con” would tend, therefore to be Jewish and have the support of Israel as his primary political motivator.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am not sure what a neo-con is. But however you decide to vote, just remember that the winner has a party that he/she is beholden to. They don’t operate in a vacuum.

A neo-con is short of “Neo Conservative” (New Conservative). It is a political philosophy that started in the 60s with Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan is the classical example of a “neo-con” (I personally hate this term, it is generally used as a slander). Most of the founders of the neo-conservative movement are converts from the Democratic party, as the DNC began its slow but steady shift to the far left. To be honost, JFK would not recognize the party he once considered his. Traditional conservatism is usually rooted in a strong domestic economic policy and a VERY xenophobic foriegn policy. However, conservatives of all flavors are what most people call “traditionalists”. They espouse traditional morality, traditional family structure, are strong proponents of the public order ideology of criminal justice, and are strong endorsers of a free and unregulated marketplace. The Neo-conservatives tend to be less isolationistic than the older conservatives, and promote a very actively engaged foriegn policy, particularly in its support of Israeli sovereignity.

 

[mary_bobo]

Thanks for all the definitions. But I thought we were not to use the term and identify someone as a neo-con unless he/she identified themselves that way. Having been a conservative longer than some of you have lived, I find it a very derogatory term.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

My apologies - I apparently had a mistaken understanding of what neo-conservative means.

So…can anyone shed any light on the original poster’s (my) question?

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

My apologies - I apparently had a mistaken understanding of what neo-conservative means.

So…can anyone shed any light on the original poster’s (my) question?

Peace,
Dante

Let me first advise you to read 1 Timothy, Chapter 5. Saint Paul discusses charity there, and makes several points:

1. We should require those who can support themselves to support themselves.
2. Excessive charity has a deleterious effect on the recipient, as well as making it more difficult to support those who have no other hope. We can see that in the huge number of people on welfare from generation to generation.
3. Families must support their own – and who will not do this is worse that an unbeliever.

The latter point, I think applies to us – instead of us giving of our own wealth, we want the** government** to do it. I think Saint Paul would have harsh words for us in this matter.

Next, we have lost sight of the true concept of Social Justice:

Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and **social action **

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice.

Now look at those “wonderful” programs, like welfare. Welfare does nothing to “correct the structures that perpetuate the need.” Indeed, you can make a good case that welfare** is** a structure that perpetuates the need.

Find me a true Social Justice program – one with an end game, where we can say, “If we accomplish this, there will be less need for welfare, raising the minimum wage, building housing projects, jails, and so on.” Just find one.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Yes, yes…I agree with you. Any candidates of whom you are aware who also agree? That’s what I’m asking.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Catholig]

Yes, yes…I agree with you. Any candidates of whom you are aware who also agree? That’s what I’m asking.

Peace,
Dante

One who I’ve heard mentioned is Sam Brownback.

 

[beckers]

One who I’ve heard mentioned is Sam Brownback.

Any of the non-front runners will do…

Brownback, thompson or Ducan Hunter…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, yes…I agree with you. Any candidates of whom you are aware who also agree? That’s what I’m asking.

Peace,
Dante

We will not find a perfect candidate. We must always go with someone who is simply better, in our eyes, than his or her opponent.

I would look for a candidate who:

1. Is pro-life. We can never have social justice as long as we murder the innocent in such shocking numbers.
2. Is fiscally conservative – as I said, most of our “wonderful” progams are not Social Justice. They can be said to have hurt far more than they have helped. We need a candidate who looks to the long game, and sees a way out of the mess we are in.
3. Is pro-education. In the end, the Social Justice program is education. If we can give every child in America (even those whose parents are on welfare) a first class education, we will go a long way toward wiping out poverty.
4. Respects the Constitution. As Catholics, we are under attack everywhere. We have a right to freedom of religion and to freedom of speech, and that must be upheld.

 

[b_justb]

3. Is pro-education. In the end, the Social Justice program is education. If we can give every child in America (even those whose parents are on welfare) a first class education, we will go a long way toward wiping out poverty.

A big AMEN to that.

 

[didymus]

I find myself in a quandry over the requirement that Catholics vote for pro-life candidates. I acknowledge that the right to life is far more fundamental than are civil liberties, social justice, the environment, the economy, etc. My problem arises elsewhere.

That’s going a bit far.
If a candidate was going to destroy civil rights, social justice, the environment and the economy you’re talking about basically wrecking the whole country. I’d either vote against him or not vote at all.
In a way I resent having my vote held hostage by people with whom I only agree on a single issue. I think the GOP looks at us pro-life voters the way the Dems look at African-Americans, “Where else are they going to go?” [insert cynical chuckle].

Otoh, it must be similar for many women who vote for Democrats they know are slime but promise to “protect their reproductive rights”

 

[DanteAlighieri]

That’s going a bit far.
If a candidate was going to destroy civil rights, social justice, the environment and the economy you’re talking about basically wrecking the whole country. I’d either vote against him or not vote at all.

Well, yeah.

But the right to life is the most fundamental issue, and it does leave Catholics open to being exploited by a cynical Republican party – just as pro-choicers are exploited by a cynical Democratic party.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, yeah.

But the right to life is the most fundamental issue, and it does leave Catholics open to being exploited by a cynical Republican party – just as pro-choicers are exploited by a cynical Democratic party.

Peace,
Dante

I recommend we spend less time speculating about hypothetical candidates and more time working to get acceptable candidates nominated.

After all, this is our country. If we let the political insiders run it, shame on us.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I recommend we spend less time speculating about hypothetical candidates and more time working to get acceptable candidates nominated.

After all, this is our country. If we let the political insiders run it, shame on us.

Just based on a candidate who’s platform closely mirrors Catholic ideals, its hard to look past Sam Brownback

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just based on a candidate who’s platform closely mirrors Catholic ideals, its hard to look past Sam Brownback

Yes. Now, let us all contact him. He needs money – no matter how good he is, he can’t win without money. And the sooner he gets it, the better.

Which means we need to volunteer to help him – to host coffees and teas, play his video, and collect money for him.

If we want to control our country, we have to work at it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes. Now, let us all contact him. He needs money – no matter how good he is, he can’t win without money. And the sooner he gets it, the better.

Which means we need to volunteer to help him – to host coffees and teas, play his video, and collect money for him.

If we want to control our country, we have to work at it.

I agree. Doing my part. I just contacted his office to see how I can help.