Did the Choice for President Just Get Tougher?
As everyone knows by now, John McCain recently stuck a dagger in the side of pro-lifers by publically asserting that the protection of human life in the womb is a negotiable issue in regard to his choice for Vice President. Tom Ridge, a pro-abortion Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, a nihilistic socialist, are purportedly on his short list for the position of VP.
Rich Lowery has a revealing article at National Review Online explaining McCain’s reasoning: he wants to be seen as a moderate, bipartisan candidate, above the political fray, who has the power to heal our fractured polity. Indeed, according to Lowery, McCain’s consideration of Lieberman for VP lends credance to a rumor that McCain might be self-consciously running to be elected as a one-term president. This, presumably, would be a signal above all signals that McCain is beyond the Beltway political game: at a time of crisis, he is the candidate to choose, because he cannot be bought and sold by the Party Machine, or some such nonsense…
Lowery points out that the problem with this strategy, should McCain choose to adopt it, is that it may seal his fate in the election. At precisely the moment, according to Lowery, when McCain has been able to consolidate the Evangelical Christian vote, he would throw that vote away by making Ridge or Lieberman his running mate. His would be a doomed candidacy.
Aside from the practical foolishness of this strategy, and aside from the fact that this strategy reveals more than ever that McCain is a detestably unserious man, what does this debacle mean for the Catholic vote? Specifically, should McCain go through with this ill-conceived plan, would Catholics then have a legitimate reason to vote for Obama?
The latter question would have to be answered with a resounding “no.” Obama, however much he might be making public noise about moderating his positions, has an abominable record on right-to-life issues. In fact, like all socialists, Obama has to “triangulate” politically just to get elected to the presidency. Nihilistic socialism is the path to election for city or state government in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City. But it is the path to defeat in a general presidential election. This explains his recent “moderation.”
Obama is still, frankly speaking, a radical eugenicist who thinks that partial-birth abortion is morally acceptable and that potential physical or mental handicap is a legitimate reason to murder a child in the womb. Essentially, like all well-heeled leftist suburbanites in the Western world, he thinks that the forced death of another human being is an act of compassion, should that person be otherwise consigned to physical or mental impoverishment.
A McCain ticket, whoever the VP may be, would not be this radically utilitarian. McCain, though he is not a serious man, has been a consistent friend of the pro-life movement.
At the same time, my earlier point still stands: the Democrat Party would remain distinguishable from the Republican Party in that it is the Party whose entire raison d’etre is to destroy pre-political institutions that impede the absolute power of the mechanized federal state.
As a case in point, I would refer the reader to the proposals being heard for the reinstitution of the so-called “fairness doctrine.” This is a proposed federal law which, should it be enacted, would regulate content on radio programs and internet sites. Our site, and all pro-life websites and weblogs, would be effectively disabled. This is a socialist-democrat inspired legislative plan. An Obama presidency would ensure its passage. A McCain presidency stands a chance of thwarting it.
But this is just one example. Lowery makes an excellent point: regardless of whom McCain picks as his VP, he would check the most radical excesses of the Pelosi-led congress, while Obama would enable these excesses. The Church would be thrown into war against the State should the socialists control the presidency, both houses of congress, and the judiciary.
So, even with the recent and disappointing news coming from the McCain camp, it surely remains unacceptable for a Catholic to vote for Obama. Though I shall concede the point that the option of staying home on election day will be much more justifiable from a moral standpoint should McCain choose a pro-abortion running mate.
Update: Obama’s answer to Rick Warren’s question at Saddleback about at what point a child has rights helps to show that he is far less serious as a man and as a presidential candidate than even John McCain. He could only answer that it is way above his pay grade to decide that question. In fact, it is not so much that he is unserious as that he is a liar. He could not answer that question honestly and seriously because he is a radical eugenicist, purely and simply. The Rick Warren forum is not the place for him to reveal himself.
.jpg)
Apparently Anne Coulter suggests that Conservatives begin drinking, heavily, on the morn of election day, and then sufficiently drunk, leave for the polls and vote McCain. Only problem with that is I don’t know if one CAN get ’sufficiently drunk’ enough in only several hours.
Comment by dad29 — August 17, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
I will have to extend my margarita binge clear into November.
The paygrade remark almost brought me to tears, how could he answer so caviler when lives are at stake? I have a very difficult time doing vigil at the abortuaries when they are actively performing their butchering, and it doesn’t take much of an IQ to understand what is going on behind those drawn curtains. Unfortunate, for Mr. Obama, Jesus may have the same answer for him at the Pearly Gates, “letting you in is above my pay grade.”
Lord, have mercy on this land. Come and heal Your people.
Comment by Elizabeth — August 19, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
I’m just getting into the blogging world and I commend you on your excellent blog. I hope to become a regular reader and responder.
I have been very dissatisfied with both parties and the candidates we have to choose from in this election. In the primaries, I supported Ron Paul as a breath of fresh air in the political world–a candidate who knew the importance of the Constitution and the balance of powers, and who had a consistent ethic on the moral issues I see as important such as abortion. But come convention time, Ron Paul will be out and I can’t see myself siding with either McCain or Obama. I live in as state now which will undoubtedly go to Obama so I’ve decided to cast my vote for the Constitution party as a protest vote against the platforms and candidates of both parties. For those of us in battleground states like Colorado or Virginia, I think it more necessary to vote for one of the two mainstream parties that one thinks is the “lesser of two evils,” but for those of us in states either heavily Democratic or Republican, what do you think of us casting our votes for a minor party like the Constitution party? If enough Republicans voted in such a way, it would send a clear indicator to the powers that be in the party that we are discontent with McCain and the direction the party is going, and maybe we would consequently see some new breeds of Republican candidates emerge in the mid-term and next presidential election.
Comment by Bethany — August 24, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Bethany,
I think that it is certainly morally acceptable to vote for a third party. It is also morally acceptable to vote Republican, or not to vote at all, at this point. However, it would take some convincing for someone to sway me to the idea that a vote for a Democrat presidential candidate is, at this time in history, morally acceptable.
The Democrat party, as presently constituted, embodies all of those nasty habits that attend to the modern, Machiavellian and Hobbesian notion of political sovereignty.
By the way, I’ve had a few teachers and colleagues who were Boston College alumni, though probably a generation or two removed from you. They were disciples of Fr. Lamb. Is is he still there?
Comment by Hierothee — August 25, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Hierothee,
I am certainly no Democrat, and I agree that Obama’s record is so shameful regarding abortion that individuals who consider themselves pro-life really can’t consistently hold that position and cast an Obama vote in November. That being said, I have a lot of respect for the work that Democrats for Life are doing in their effort to get more pro-life Democrats in office, and to have more representation in events like the Democratic Convention for that part of the constituency. I think that pro-life individuals certainly may stay in the party and vote Democratic on the state and congressional level for pro-life candidates and without any more moral compromise than voting Republican.
I wonder what you mean when you say that the Democratic party has a Machiavellian and Hobbesian notion of political sovereignty? I certainly see such elements in the Democratic Party, but I also see them among the Republicans as well. Wiretapping, the suspension of habeus corpus, the Bush expansion of government spending, and the general neo-conservative philosophy that the federal government can be expanded to suit conservative goals seems to me remarkably Hobbesian. There is even a book about it called “Leviathan on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution” (which I have only read reviews of but plan to read after comprehensive exams). The war and the precedent it set for future foreign policy initiatives also seems to me not only imprudent, but unconstitutional.
I believed very strongly in the strength of the Ron Paul campaign and I still believe very strongly that for pro-lifers like me who aren’t in swing states, the best thing to do is to cast a vote for a party that more closely matches our values, such as the Constitution Party. We need to reclaim the Republican Party and the values it stands for like economic conservatism, states’ rights, anti-interventionist foreign policy, strict Constitutionalism, and of course, pushing forward pro-life legislation for the protection of both the unborn and the families they will be born into.
Matt Lamb left before I got to BC. Did you know Fred Lawrence, who was a close friend of Lamb?
Comment by Bethany — August 27, 2008 @ 12:53 am
Bethany,
I just spent a considerable amount of time responding to your comment, but it didn’t post and was erased. So, please excuse me, but I won’t be able to respond to your comment. I am not going to rewrite that thing. I’ll just do a brand new post on the subject.
Comment by hierothee — August 27, 2008 @ 3:09 am
Please see my new post and my own comment on my own new site http://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/ to continue this conversation. The title of the post is called “When Life Begins: Distinguishing Between Faith and Reason” but my comment is more specifically about voting pro-life on principle rather than supposed consequences. I would love your feedback.
Comment by Bethany — September 17, 2008 @ 10:39 am