The normally sane but for the last few months folks over at CatholicVote.org have recently declared that all Catholics OUGHT to vote for Mitt. I must respond with a resounding: No.
Their reasoning?
"There are two, and only two, candidates with any chance of winning the presidency next Tuesday."
To which I must respond that this will remain so until enough people get the cajones to stand up and vote third party. I won't go so far as to say that they OUGHT to vote third party, but we won't get better candidates until enough people do.
And the only thing that will ever change the "inevitability" is people calling the emperor on his new clothes. For the 2 party system to be bucked, people MUST start voting for a third party, and I for one can see no better time than this election, when the choices are between 1) a guy who forces Catholic organizations to dispense abortifacients and has argued repeatedly for the right to "choose", even running campaign ads this year that state he's in favor of this right . . . and 2) Barack Obama.
My honest feeling is that the only reason Mitt is "better" than Barack is that he's not screwed up as president yet, but he will. That being said, certainly one cannot vote Obama. In some states, voting Mitt may be the best option, and I'll always leave that to the formed conscience of that voter. I TOTALLY get the "go for the safe bet" and "even a baboon is better than Obama" type of arguments, but those are not -- for me -- enough to warrant my bet on Mitt.
I have to say that if (when) Mitt loses, and quite possibly so with a majority popular vote, the Republicans will have no-one to blame but the electoral college. A very significant portion (dare I say greater than the magic 5%) could vote third party without jeopardizing coveted electoral votes. Again, I'll be a bit daring and say Catholics have been abandoned by both parties, the social justice camp went all "pro-choice" on us and the "pro-lifers" are selectively so (capital punishment, war) and would (have) absolutely turn(ed) their back on a fellow human in need. This all goes significantly beyond the realm of economic policies and constitutionality which, compared to the moral requirements of upright living, grants a wide berth of "permissible" actions/activities. It goes without saying that voting is a critical activity in our republic and should not be taken lightly. Each citizen in each state has a unique opportunity to use their voice to the greatest service of their conscience and country, a decision that should not be taken lightly.
The election is 2 weeks away, and this is the first blog post on this blog that's been burning a hole in my notebook for months now.
I am Catholic. And not 'Joe Biden' Catholic (or a Kathleen Sebelius Catholic, or a Nancy Pelosi Catholic, or a Ted Kennedy Catholic, etc.) - I teach RCIA at one of the best Catholic colleges in the US. I'm a revert to the faith who spent years and wrote digital reams in apologetic debates, helping numerous people convert to Catholicism. That's the place from which I am coming. However, the following is not just for Catholics. I just happen to be one, and one who takes his faith as the largest defining part of his identity.
Lately, I have heard so many of my friends (ardently pro-life) discuss the necessity of "getting behind" Mitt Romney. Often, this is phrased in such a way as to assert that we must always choose the lesser of two evils. My answer to that: No. Not just no, but ardently so.
(NOTE: This is a work in progress, and may grow; it has been written in short bursts over the course of a few weeks, so it may not flow "perfectly" and there are probably some typos. Mea Culpa. But I'd rather publish this imperfectly now than perfectly when it's to late to do any good. This is not, as some may think, an attempt to make voting for Romney a non-possibility for Catholic/Christian/Morally-conscious voters so much as it is an attempt to prevent that group from feeling strong-armed into having "only one choice," lest their status of Catholics/Christians/morally-conscious folks be in jeopardy.)
I. But Mitt Romney is Pro Life!?
No, he's not. Certainly, someone can change their opinion on any particular matter, but Mitt Romney has done well more than that. He's changed his very story about why he is, or isn't, pro life. And he's done it whenever it was politically expedient.
But it get's worse than that.
Paul Ryan was a dedicated Catholic who was himself vehemently pro-life for a long time. Now he's spouting nonsense about the goodness and the rightness of selective abortion for "rape, incest, and the 'health' of the mother," which is the freaking status quo on this issue.
And now, serious, pro-life Catholics are arguing that this position is reasonable, even commendable, as though he's our great hope.
II. But, Mitt Romney Said He'd Overturn the HHS Mandate, the Greatest Evil of our time!?
No, he didn't. He's said that he values "religious liberty" and "freedom to worship." Those are the same buzz words Barack Obama touted when he spoke with people like Cardinal Dolan before the HHS mandate, and the same language he used to justify the decision of Kathleen Sebelius.
Want more proof? Mitt Romney, the "presumptive nominee" (well before it was in the bag, and well before he cheated his way into the GOP Nomination (more on that in a minute) appeared on The World Over, a Catholic news program on EWTN, hosted by Raymond Arroyo. He was speaking to a Catholic audience, who was very concerned with Catholic issues, most notably the HHS Mandate, and when asked directly about this issue, he danced around it in genuine Romney-style.
And let us not forget that "Romneycare", the forerunner of Obamacare which was Mitt's baby forced Catholic hospitals to give out abortifacients (and this link is from the National Catholic Reporter - if even they are on alert over a pro-life issue, something must be up). He also agreed to pay for the abortion of his son Tagg's children who were conceived via IVF.
III. But Mitt Romney could still be telling the truth. Why don't you believe him?
I don't believe Mitt Romney because he's changed his views and wording whenever it was politically expedient.
Mitt Romney, Circa May 2012
But moreover, I don't believe Mitt Romney because he CHEATED his way to the top, working at all fronts to discredit his only real opponent, Dr. Ron Paul. And not only Mitt, but the RNC itself, worked actively to discredit and remove the "threat" of Dr. Paul. They even changed the rules on the floor with a "mock" vote, where the decision of John Boehner was already decided before the vote was ever counted (and the vote clearly went the other way). How do we know? Because some people were wise enough to film the teleprompter:
To support Mitt is to support a bully who lied and cheated to get to the top. It's to say to the RNC, "It's okay, really. We don't mind. We'll vote for you no matter what."
Aw heck, Mitt Romney doesn't even know if he's a lefty or a righty!(FACT: While only 10 percent of the U.S. population is left-handed, over half of the last 14 presidents were all lefties. In fact, in most recent elections you really didn't have much choice, since over the past two decades, nearly every "major" presidential candidate has been left-handed. In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain were left-handed. In 1992, all three candidates for president were lefties: Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ross Perot. So too in '96, Bob Dole was a lefty--though that was partially do to a war injury in his hand. From that link: "Mr. Romney has been quoted as saying the 'final word is that I’m left handed. That’s the final word. That’s what it is.' When asked to clarify his statement, that his campaign believed Romney to be right handed and not left handed, Mr. Fehrnstrom answered 'that’s correct.'")
IV. The Lesser of Two Evils
Even after explaining much of this, the debate comes down the "necessity" of limiting harms by choosing the lesser of two evils. This wrong on at least two fronts.
In the first place, it presumes a false dichotomy: namely that there are only two candidates for which one may vote. This is patently false. There are more than 2 candidates. Some vary from state to state. There is a great fellow cut from the same cloth as Ron Paul (and endorsed by Dr. Paul) running in my state: Chuck Baldwin, who -- as far as I can tell, endorses NO grave evil, and certainly an enormous lot less than either candidate Coke or Pepsi.
As my wife said, "Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, try voting for the greater good." There are other candidates out there. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and while he is not ideal, he is significantly better, in my humble opinion, than either of the other two. (NOTE: Johnson is "personally pro-choice 'up to the point of viability'" but supports policies and SCOTUS Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade on the very principle of it being an over-stepping of the bounds of the Federal government, which would immediately set off "trigger laws" in over 30 states which would make abortion illegal again! (It reminds me of a parable of Jesus' where Mitt is the son who says to his father he will do the work and then doesn't, vs. Johnson, who says he won't do it but then does.))
In the second place, it assumes that there are only two realistic parties and there only ever will be. This is patently false, if you just look at American history! But more importantly, just as it takes realizing that the emperor has no clothes, so too to get away from the march of the left and right feet of the same organization run by mega corporations who just keep nepotistically stuffing the government with their own cronies.
But here's the thing. The traditional understanding of the notion of the legitimacy of voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a permissive understanding. One may vote for the lesser of two evils so as to limit the harm done. One does not have to.
V. Perfectionism
After all of this, people will come back around to insisting that this is merely asserting that one won't vote for a candidate unless they are perfect. Bunk! I don't need a perfect candidate, and neither Jesus nor his mother are even running, insofar as I am aware.
When a man like this yaks pro-life/family values culture war rhetoric, takes you up on a high mountain, and promise that “all the kingdoms of the earth will I give you if you bow down and vote for me” don’t. Just don’t. Vote your conscience instead. Vote *really* pro-life. It profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose his own soul. Stop focusing on how your vote will influence the power structure and start thinking about how your vote is changing you. Is it making you grow in virtue or is it making you inured to evil? How many adulterous fornicating “pro-life” frauds do we have to elect before we stop letting ourselves be played and demand really pro-life pols and not merely “anti-abortion when politically convenient”?
In other words: You do have choices other than two guys who support the same policies, one of them lying about his support.
VI. "So, you're for Obama? Cause a vote for anyone but Mitt is a vote for Obama, you know that, right?"
Absolutely not. Barack Obama is a morally repugnant choice at best. But I maintain that Mitt Romney is morally repugnant, too. Just as much so, as we'll see shortly.
Mitt is saying everything a guy running on the Republican ticket needs to say to get elected. Nothing he's ever said or done in real life has confirmed anything he's claimed while running. There are only "two choices" because that's all the media allows you to see. Any other choices are dangerous to the establishment. That's why they ignored Ron Paul.
That's why they're ignoring guys like Gary Johnson and the other 3rd party candidates.
VII. Voting for Mitt anyway?
All this being said, I am not here necessarily trying to sway people AWAY from voting for Mitt if their formed consciences are urging them to vote Romney. If your conscience tells you that, even given all of the above, you must get behind Mitt...then go ahead.
All of this was written primarily AGAINST those who argue for others, seeking to follow their conscience, that to NOT vote for Mitt is to embrace evil, vote for Obama, and kill a passel of kittens. It's not. There are other choices.
VIII. The Coming Persecution.
Right now, the HHS Mandate as it stands will ruin many businesses who choose to not comply, refusing to give up their rights of conscience to not cooperate with with what they deem a gravely moral evil. Hobby Lobby, famously, will be fined $1.3 Million each day they don't comply, starting next year. What about them? What about the Catholic, Christian, and morally-conscious business owners and insurance agents who are facing persecution for their beliefs?
As stated above, I don't think Mitt will do anything here, since he's already passed the same kinds of laws in Massachusetts. I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, or if Obama wins, what then? Do we face persecution? Face being shut out of the world for not agreeing to the things of the world? Worse things have happened. Like Israel of old, we've become complacent with "the world", happy to be not just in it but OF it. We like comfort. We like stability. We don't want persecution. Nobody does. (And that's fine, nobody does).
But persecution is coming. You know not the day nor the hour, sure, but you know the season. The police state is growing by leaps and bounds with each new executive order. You can now be declared a threat to the state, and indefinitely incarcerated or killed, at little more than a presidential whim. Romney won't stop this power-grab, I guarantee that. (At best, he'd stall the process by 4 or 8 years, maybe, and that's only if he doesn't use them as much as the previous presidents have, but there is less than zero pieces of supporting evidence for that hope!)
Tertullian famously said that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. Sometimes the best way to make change is to bravely face it, come what may.
This is not in anyway embracing Obama or what is to come from his next 4 years, should the vote go that way. But in some ways, it would be better to face that than to merely skirt the line under Mitt Romney (again, under the unwarranted assumption that he won't continue full steam ahead or faster than Obama). Each year costs a million unborn lives. Each year forces more and more well-meaning folks to bend and gerrymander their very notions of the Good in order to justify their endorsement and whole-hearted support for these less than stellar candidates.
Everyone expects the polls to look roughly like this on November 6th (My birthday).
Mitt: 48-ish%
Obama: 48-ish%
That's 96% of the population, most of which doesn't even know there IS another choice.
But what it looked like this:
Mitt: 33%
Obama: 33%
Third Option: 33%.
Whether Mitt won or lost, the message would be clear to both sides, especially if that 3rd of the vote was a vote for freedom and liberty. Would one side or the other try to incorporate and assimilate those values, or would we have a new option?
IX. So Does A Catholic Have To Vote For Mitt Romney?
The simple answer is: No. A Catholic/Christian/morally-conscious person is not stuck between Obama and Romney as their only two choices. There are other choices to be had, and in the grand scheme of things:
Your vote is meaningless in the grand scheme of the election, but
Your vote is very meaningful in the grand scheme of your soul.
Like abusive spouses, the Republican party has been happy to repeatedly hold out the promise of "pro life" to conservative, religious voters with one hand, while with the other hand it continues to smack and abuse and take away rights while doing nothing to end the holocaust of millions.
Too many people have begun to equate their "political identity" with their religion, such that being "republican" is identical with being "Catholic" or "Christian" or "morally-conscious." That is the real danger.
