The Voter's Burden

[vern_humphrey]

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

Think about how you can raise money for him – that’s the key to winning.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Think about how you can raise money for him – that’s the key to winning.

Bake sale?

Never been much good at “fund raising”. Don’t mind being a foot soldier though, or volunteering in a campaign office.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bake sale?

Never been much good at “fund raising”. Don’t mind being a foot soldier though, or volunteering in a campaign office.

Bake sales, barbecues, fish fries – all good ways to raise money. When you have a barbecue or fish fry, try to have a speaker. Make up a program and sell advertising in your program.

And don’t forget coffees and teas – one effective way to raise money is to get a video of the candidate and invite a few friends over to watch and contribute – then get them to take copies of the video home with them and repeat the process.

 

[Ender]

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!

I disagree with your premise: the Church doesn’t have a stance on most issues. She has spoken out clearly on the right to life issues and the two parties have equally clear positions, but the Church has no position at all on issues like the minimum wage, universal health care, drilling in ANWR, or immigration reform. For those issues she identifies objectives, the ends toward which we are to work. The means of achieving those ends are left to individuals to work out as they think best. It is a mistake to believe the Church teaches that on these issues one choice is more moral than another.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I disagree with your premise: the Church doesn’t have a stance on most issues. She has spoken out clearly on the right to life issues and the two parties have equally clear positions, but the Church has no position at all on issues like the minimum wage, universal health care, drilling in ANWR, or immigration reform. For those issues she identifies objectives, the ends toward which we are to work. The means of achieving those ends are left to individuals to work out as they think best. It is a mistake to believe the Church teaches that on these issues one choice is more moral than another.

Ender

It would be passing strange if the Church were to rule on Minimum Wage – since that would essentially make the Church the Centeral Economic Planner for the world.

 

[holly_potter]

I’ve been voting for about a year now (ever since I became of age!) and have yet to find any decent websites that say specifically whether a person is pro-life and will enforce their view or not. Usually, all the resouces I’ve found skirt that question…it would be nice of the Catholic Church had a website listing each canditate and whether we should vote for them or not! (Not to say that we can exercise judgement, but still…)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve been voting for about a year now (ever since I became of age!) and have yet to find any decent websites that say specifically whether a person is pro-life and will enforce their view or not. Usually, all the resouces I’ve found skirt that question…it would be nice of the Catholic Church had a website listing each canditate and whether we should vote for them or not! (Not to say that we can exercise judgement, but still…)

Go to Project Vote Smart www.vote-smart.org, the Heritage Foundation www.heritage.org, or simply enter the candidate’s name and “abortion” into your search engine.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I disagree with your premise: the Church doesn’t have a stance on most issues. She has spoken out clearly on the right to life issues and the two parties have equally clear positions, but the Church has no position at all on issues like the minimum wage, universal health care, drilling in ANWR, or immigration reform. For those issues she identifies objectives, the ends toward which we are to work. The means of achieving those ends are left to individuals to work out as they think best. It is a mistake to believe the Church teaches that on these issues one choice is more moral than another.

Ender

I think you misunderstood my premise. I wasn’t suggesting that the Church has a specific stance on any one of those planks; I was talking about the platform in general terms. Unfortunately, it was a few years ago, and I don’t recall the details that left me with the feeling I described above.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ender]

I wasn’t suggesting that the Church has a specific stance on any one of those planks; I was talking about the platform in general terms.

I think I understand the distinction but it is still inappropriate to differentiate the parties - on the non-life issues - in moral terms. It is reasonable to claim that raising the minimum wage is better for the poor than not raising it but it is not valid to claim that raising it is the proper moral choice. If I dispute the claim (as in fact I do) then my position is at worst incorrect, but it is not immoral.

Inappropriately cobbling morality on to prudential issues is done by those who support politicians on the wrong side of the issues the Church has specifically identified as the key moral choices of our time.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I understand the distinction but it is still inappropriate to differentiate the parties - on the non-life issues - in moral terms. It is reasonable to claim that raising the minimum wage is better for the poor than not raising it but it is not valid to claim that raising it is the proper moral choice. If I dispute the claim (as in fact I do) then my position is at worst incorrect, but it is not immoral.

Actuallym, it is not reasonable to claim that raising the minimum wage is good for the poor. Raising the minimum wage results in marginal jobs – such as gas station attendent – going away. Other jobs – like shirt-making here in the Ozarks – are shipped overseas. And still other jobs – such as construction – wind up being done by the labor black market.

As Walter Williams, an economist at James Mason University, points out, in the late 1940s, when the minimum wage was far below the going rate for the most menial jobs, Black teenagers had as high an employment rate as White teenagers – and teenage employment is a powerful predictor of fuiture ability to support onself.

Nowadays, the employment rate for Black teenagers is only a quarter that for White teenagers. And that surely isn’t due to** less** prejudice against Blacks in the 1940s!

Inappropriately cobbling morality on to prudential issues is done by those who support politicians on the wrong side of the issues the Church has specifically identified as the key moral choices of our time.

Ender

The key moral choices – other than life and marriage – are Social Justice issues:

In order to define social justice, let us begin, by taking a look at what social ministry is:

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.

(My emphasis.)

Things like welfare, raising the minimum wage, public housing and so on are charity – they have no end game. They make poor people a bit more comfortable in their poverty, but they don’t get them out of poverty.

The true Social Justice issue of our time is providing a world-class education to every child – not just those living in affluent districts. That has an end game – an educated child can get a good job and support himself and his family.

 

[Ender]

Actually, it is not reasonable to claim that raising the minimum wage is good for the poor.

Unless you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to be wrong, then supporting an increase in the minimum wage is a reasonable position. I believe, like you, that it is harmful but the issue I raise is not about whether raising the minimum wage is a good or bad idea. My point is that this is not a moral question regardless of whether you support or oppose an increase.

The key moral choices – other than life and marriage – are Social Justice issues:

Uh oh…

The true Social Justice issue of our time is providing a world-class education to every child

But no one is arguing for bad educations for children, the fights are over how best to provide a good one … and, like the minimum wage, there are correct and incorrect positions but not moral and immoral ones.

Ender

 

[DL82]

Surely the issue is that there really aren’t ANY pro-life candidates in American politics (or in British politics for that matter).

You may vote for someone who is marginally ‘more pro-life’ than someone else, i.e. who will resist any moves to increase access to abortion, and support any moves to restrict it. All the same, there is no credible Presidential candidate who would actually legislate to reverse Rowe v. Wade and make abortion illegal.

Right to life issues are about absolutes (you can’t imagine a politician saying that they wanted to allow fewer murders, the right to life is either absolute or it’s not a right). That means that really there is no pro-life party in American politics. What would be needed would be a Constitutional Amendment recognising that life, and all the duties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, begins at conception. Nobody, Republican or Democrat, would promise that.

Therefore, abortion must be a minor part in any voter’s considerations unless and until it is possible to make a definitive statement on the right to life.

In the UK, there is a convention that Members of Parliament have a free vote on ‘matters of conscience’ like abortion and sexual ethics in general. That means that the voting burden is much more about individual candidates than Party policy on these issues. Do congressmen and senators in America have a similar freedom from following the Party line on these issues?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Hey why don’t all yall start a website on some issue like pro-life or the Catholic voter or both – and Sam Brownback? Scott is very good on the keyboard. What say?

[SIGN]Canada for Sam Brownback!
:extrahappy:
[/SIGN]

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Go to Project Vote Smart www.vote-smart.org, the Heritage Foundation www.heritage.org, or simply enter the candidate’s name and “abortion” into your search engine.

But having one website that gives the candidate’s position on abortion would be simpler for most folks. Is there such a website? In Canada we have Campaign Life Coalition and usually around election time they have all the candidate’s positions on abortion. They also have events to promote the pro-life position.

If you and Scott were to set up a website only for voting pro-life then folks could help you with press conferences, press releases, local events, a news page, a views page, and so on. Reason I say you and Scott is that you have experience running for office and Scott is good on the keyboard. And you’re both smart.

edit: I haven’t done the math for the US. But in Canada, Catholics are the largest religious group yet there is no Catholic lobby. Campaign Life Coalition thinks it is a lobby but it is not. If every Catholic in the US were to vote pro-life then what result do you predict for the election? Also, if Evangelicals saw a strong Catholic pro-life lobby they would be in up to their elbows helping you. And soon after them, the Baptists and others.

How many voters is that?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Surely the issue is that there really aren’t ANY pro-life candidates in American politics (or in British politics for that matter).

Start holding the candidate’s feet to the fire and there will be pro-life candidates.

In Canada, I have to negotiate with the candidates at every election. Whoever will promise me an incremental change toward a pro-life society gets my vote. Some of the parties have (stupidly) made it impossible for their candidates to make incremental changes toward a pro-life society because their ‘pro-choice’ positions are written right into the party constitutions. So, for those candidates, I tell them right smart exactly why I am not voting for them and exactly why I am dragging as many Catholics (albeit kicking and screaming) as I can along with me. I also tell them that Catholics are the largest religious group in Canada.

Do the math; crunch the numbers; build a pixel board; and state the obvious.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Therefore, abortion must be a minor part in any voter’s considerations unless and until it is possible to make a definitive statement on the right to life.

Wrong! This is not what the Church says. Moreover what the Church says on voting pro-life is not negotiable. Those Catholics who think they have an option – other than the option involving not taking communion – are mistaken.

 

[fix]

Therefore, abortion must be a minor part in any voter’s considerations unless and until it is possible to make a definitive statement on the right to life.

I fail to see the logic in that argument? We have an obligation to try to limit the evil done. While it is rare to find a candidate who fits the bill exactly it is still true we must not use our vote to allow a worse candidate to get in power. As that happens most often we see these folks climb the ladder and grow in power. That means the situation gets worse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unless you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to be wrong, then supporting an increase in the minimum wage is a reasonable position. I believe, like you, that it is harmful but the issue I raise is not about whether raising the minimum wage is a good or bad idea. My point is that this is not a moral question regardless of whether you support or oppose an increase.

Uh oh…

But no one is arguing for bad educations for children, the fights are over how best to provide a good one … and, like the minimum wage, there are correct and incorrect positions but not moral and immoral ones.

Ender

There is such a thing as moral pragmatism – defined as, “If we are morally impelled to act, we are morally impelled to act in such a way as to bring about the desired moral outcome.” Or as the Hippocratic Oath puts it, “First, do no harm.”

It is not moral to argue for public policies from ignorace, nor to ignore evidence that we are doing harm, just as it is not moral for a hunter to fire a shot without a safe backstop for his bullet. We have an obligation to build accountability and feedback into the systems we create so we can change course if we are going in the wrong direction.

Persons who advocate things like raising the minimum wage have an obligation to study the effects of past minimum wage raises – and if they do, they see what they are advocating causes harm.

 

[Ender]

There is such a thing as moral pragmatism – defined as, “If we are morally impelled to act, we are morally impelled to act in such a way as to bring about the desired moral outcome.”

Don’t confuse outcome with intention. If I sincerely try to resolve a problem but make things worse, I have erred but I have not sinned. There is no moral prohibition against being wrong.

It is not moral to argue for public policies from ignorance, nor to ignore evidence that we are doing harm

You make the same assumption as your opponents: “Anyone who understands the facts (as I do) would reach the same conclusions. Anyone who doesn’t reach the same conclusion is ignorant, irresponsible, or malfeasant.” I am willing to conclude that anyone who disagrees with me is mistaken but I am unwilling to consider him culpable.

There is a small set of issues that are moral in nature and that have only one position a moral person can take. The vast bulk of issues are prudential and about which moral people can validly disagree. Invalidly lumping other issues into the moral category simply drains the truly moral ones of their uniqueness.

This is the tactic used by those who are on the wrong side of the real moral issues. You don’t want to be aiding their arguments by employing their methods.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t confuse outcome with intention. If I sincerely try to resolve a problem but make things worse, I have erred but I have not sinned. There is no moral prohibition against being wrong.

A surgeon is not allowed to operate while wearing a blindfold – and niether are the rest of us. We are morally obligated to exercise prudence in our actions.

You make the same assumption as your opponents: “Anyone who understands the facts (as I do) would reach the same conclusions. Anyone who doesn’t reach the same conclusion is ignorant, irresponsible, or malfeasant.” I am willing to conclude that anyone who disagrees with me is mistaken but I am unwilling to consider him culpable.

Your strawman misstatement of my position is noted.

There is a small set of issues that are moral in nature and that have only one position a moral person can take. The vast bulk of issues are prudential and about which moral people can validly disagree. Invalidly lumping other issues into the moral category simply drains the truly moral ones of their uniqueness.

So it would be moral to drive while drunk, because you don’t know you are going to cause an accident?

So it would be moral for a drug manufacturer to put an untested drug on the market, and fail to maintain data on harmful consequences if they think it will help people?

This is the tactic used by those who are on the wrong side of the real moral issues. You don’t want to be aiding their arguments by employing their methods.

You say it – but it ain’t true.

I say we have an obligation to foresee to the extent possible the consequences of our actions – do you deny that?

When proposing major programs, we have an obligation to incorporate standards and methods of determining if the standards are met – do you deny that?