Who I'm Voting For

[ 23 ] October 23, 2012 AD |

because this guy deserves a chance

No, I will not write his name on the ballot. I believe that voting for a third party, a third person, is a symbolic act. In the case of a presidential election, a symbolic act is about as good as handing a symbolic cup of water to a man dying of thirst in the desert. I get the impulse. I’ll show em’! And then, when it is all said and done, did you get what you wanted? Maybe I’m too practical, too pragmatic, but I see no value in picking a third restaurant to eat at if by not voting for Olive Garden I will end up at the buffet at Luby’s.

This is a lot more serious than bad meatloaf.

Some people might call me a one-issue voter. So be it. I’m okay with that. My son, Luke, is okay with that too. Because when I stand before God, I will be happy to be labeled a one-issue voter. After all, God said:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants” – Deuteronomy 30:19

You see, if I care for the poor, but not for the unborn poor, then my care for them is ad hoc, arbitrary and ultimately grounded in whim not principle

— sappiness not concern. Decisions grounded in whim make for chaos, which is a good way to describe the moral landscape of our country today. One only need to go into a local parish and have a few conversations to agree.

You and I have a choice, and I’m not talking about Gary Johnson. As the Scriptures just said, on the issue of life, our descendants really are what is at stake. We want to fix social security and healthcare, and that is good. Nevertheless, our problem is that we have aborted the population that could have paid for those programs — not even to mention the research scientists who would have found a cure for diseases but instead ended up in a dumpster behind a “health care provider”. And there are more issues that trouble us like illegal immigration. Yet the great irony of illegal immigration is that it has forced us to pay for services for the millions of children that we never gave a chance to take their first breath. Sadly,

some of them we let take their first breath only to greet them with brutality instead of love.

But God is not mocked. You reap what you sow. He is sending us the recibos.

So as I said, it really is that easy. As one party says:

“We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.”

“We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.”

I’ve also heard another party say:

“[We] strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” 

there is no “safe” way to kill me

Fellow American: “But, Brent, neither president can really make a difference! You are just a right-wing nut job.”

Me: “Thank you, sir. I agree that we don’t live in a dictatorship whereby the president can just willy-nilly make changes to large policy issues. For example, a president could never force Catholics to pay for contraception! (cough). Seriously, the point is that the president can appoint Supreme Court Judges.”

the fate of our children

Therefore, I ask you, fellow Catholics and fellow Americans, to vote.

And consider who is important, and Who is watching.

I know who I’m voting for.

Tags: , , ,

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Brent is a father of five (+ 1 in heaven), husband of one, convert, and a generally interested person. He has a BA in Theology, studied graduate philosophy, has an MBA, is a writer (or so he tells himself) and prefers his coffee black. His website is Almost Not Catholic. His Twitter handle is @2bcatholic. His favorite color is blue.
  • http://brandonvogt.com Brandon Vogt

    Brent, I’ll preface this by saying first, you know I love you. Second, I’m leaning toward voting for Romney and I respect those who choose to vote for him.

    But here’s my big issue:

    Romney clearly supports grave, intrinsic evil. Guided by the moral teachings of his Mormon faith, he supports abortion in some circumstances–rape, incest, and when the “health” of the mother is endangered (a notoriously nebulous term). Accepting abortion in *some* circumstances is accepting murder in *some* circumstances. And that’s gravely, intrinsically evil.

    (Not to mention his hazy positions on two other grave evils, torture and unjust war.)

    Since my conscience binds me never to vote for anyone who promotes grave evil unless no other options exist or extreme situations call for it, I’m honestly wrestling with this choice. After all, other options *do* exist. There are candidates who, while not likely to win, will not force me to capitulate to evil.

    What this all boils down to is something you hint at in the end of your post:

    Your vote affects your own soul more than the election.

    In the grand scheme of things, your vote has a minuscule impact on who wins. Even in our swing state of Florida, your vote for Romney is not going to single-handedly decide the election. But it does have a monumental impact on something else: your own soul. Voting is a moral act which has eternal ramifications.

    However, by voting for Romney, who is clearly the lesser-evil of the two major candidates, I would still be capitulating to grave evil. And that’s not what I want for my soul. Such a vote, for me at least, would desensitize my view of seriously grave evil.

    If I voted for a third party candidate who did not support grave evil, at the very least I could leave the voting booth sure my soul was not in jeopardy. It would not be a “symbolic act” to stick it to the man. It would be a thoughtful refusal to vote for anyone supporting grave evil and a sign that I value my soul more than political expediency.

    As I said in the beginning, I haven’t made up my mind whether to vote for Romney or a third-party candidate like Catholic Joe Schriner. But I think it’s wrong to insinuate all people who vote third-party are wasting their vote through a “symbolic act.”

    “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” – John Adams

    • http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/ Brent Stubbs

      Do you agree that it is only possible that two candidates can possibly win? If that is so, can you see that a vote for a third party — if you would have voted for the person who diminished more evil — is necessarily a vote that improves the lot of a candidate that supports more evil? My conscience binds me to reduce the most evil possible. Think about Pope BXVI comments regarding Africa and condoms. His point wasn’t that the behavior was the best moral course, but rather that it was a step in the right moral direction. Many times, those are our only options that we can see to fruition — which I think is the case in this case (not even mentioning Ryan who holds a position much like our own — and who would be one step from the oval office). Thus, my contention that a vote for a third party is a symbolic act stands because a vote for a third party is a self-focused vote. It focuses not on the common good, but on some kind of personal moral projection– as I see it.

      Further, your comment which seemed to imply that my vote wouldn’t really tip the scales proves the “symbolic” issue I raise. If it doesn’t really count, then it is just a symbol of some kind of moral position. But, I think it is just that attitude that leads moral perfectionist minorities into the land of oblivion — and allows the majority to be represented by the amoral minority. Politics is about bargaining, and a vote is a political action as much as it is a personal, moral one. I’m sympathetic with your struggle, certainly, Brandon. However, I believe that our system, with regards to the presidency, forces one into a choice between 2 — especially in this case where the diminishing of the most evil is in play.

      (By the way, where did the comment come from about “Just War”? That seems like a Catholics-for-Obama talking point. I’m just curious.)

      • http://brandonvogt.com Brandon Vogt

        Brent, I’m certainly commiserate with all your points. And, as I mentioned, I’m in principle open to voting for Romney. But in response:

        1) No, I do not agree it is only possible that only Romney or Obama can win. It’s unlikely a third-party candidate would win, but not impossible. To believe otherwise is to bow at the feet of partisanship. Living in a democracy, I refuse to be constrained to choose only one of two candidates.

        2) If I voted for a third-party candidate, it would not “necessarily” be a vote that “improves the lot” of another candidate. In a democracy, a vote for one candidate is not a vote for *or* against another. If I voted for a third-party candidate, say Joe Schriner, I would be voting *for* Joe Schriner–not against Romney, nor for Obama.

        3) I respect that your conscience binds you to reduce evil as much as possible. Mine does too. But while the Church tells us to limit evil as best we can, she leaves it up to us to determine how best to do that. I’m not convinced that voting for someone who advocates abortion–even while other options are available–is the best way to limit evil. Nor am I sure it’s worth the damage on my soul. For me, it would be a gateway to consequentialism and the beginning of my own desensitization toward sin.

        4) Charging someone who votes third-party as being “self-focused” and based on “some kind of personal moral projection” is unnecessary, and borders on ad hominem. I’ll admit I’m vain, self-focused, narcissistic, and sinful but that has little to do with the validity of voting third-party in the eyes of the Church.

        My reasons for possibly voting third-party are twofold: personal and societal. First, as already discussed, I think voting for a candidate who openly advocates grave intrinsic evil is bad for my soul. Second, I don’t think the common good is better served by any candidate who advocates grave evil, even one that supports it a little less than someone else. I think the common good is best served by a candidate who advocates *no* grave evil. For those two reasons, I’m open to voting third-party.

        (In reference to my comment about unjust war: despite his comments last night, I’m not convinced Mitt Romney only wants to use military power as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. His past support of the preemptive invasion of Iraq speaks otherwise.)

      • http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/ Brent Stubbs

        1. I disagree. Refusing to be constrained in the name of democracy is the same as saying that without a write-in or third party option, you would have no democratic options. I don’t think that is the case.

        2. I think the statement only works in a vacuum. There are practical implications of a vote.

        3. Notice that my links were to platforms. I vote for principles, not persons. And, I don’t think Romney’s position is a “little less” grave than Obama’s. Look at the number of murders under the conditions of Romney (less than 1% of abortions fall into the categories rape, incest, health). If you could reduce 99% of the murders in America, would you? Would it only be a matter of time, when the culture of life took hold, for the other 1% to go?

        4. The common good would be served if there were 99% less abortions in the USA. It would also be served by traditional marriage and religious freedom. This can be a reality.

        (I think the Kurds were glad we preempted combat. Further, to be clear, the Church has no official opinion on the nature of the Iraq War.)

        Brandon, I understand that you will vote for whomever you believe you should. I just hope that you consider that your vote will assist in Obama winning, if you so chose to not vote for Romney. You may not like that corner, and you may reject the lack of options, or you may be okay with it, but that is a reality. An idealized view of what a vote is will not help anyone escape the practical implications — the statistical truths — of what every vote does, in fact, do. If you would like the last word in this thread, that is fine by me.

        Your brother.

  • Karyn

    I already voted because I, too, am a one issue voter. I can’t understand how anything “trumps” the abortion issue. Am I excited about Romney? Heck no. Do I believe he will do much to stop abortion? Not really. But I do know that Obama is extremely pro-abortion – so how can I vote for him? I did consider the third party and I might have voted for one of the candidates if I wasn’t in a swing state and if my voted counted less, so to speak. But regardless, Gary Johnson isn’t pro-life either; the only option for a third party is Virgil Goode, if I understand correctly.

  • Dub Lord of the Sith

    Great article Brent. I agree 100%. And I am someone who has voted for the Constitution Party the last 3 elections. But I am voting for Romney this time, even though he is pro abortion. Cardinal Ratzinger had it right when he told American bishops that we can vote for a pro abortion candidate as long as it is a lesser-of-two-evils (my words) situation. So in this case, because Obama is so incredibly evil and over the top on the abortion issue, a vote for Romney, even though he is pro abortion, is the right choice for Catholics.

    And as to the question Brandon raised about cooperating with evil with a vote for Romney, he is right. Ratzinger said that when we vote forthe lesser of evils, we are guilty of “remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons”.

    So yes, it is a sad thing to vote for Romney. He is not pro life. And neither is the Catholic Paul Ryan. They are both for abortion in cases of rape and incest. But there are obviously proportionate reasons to vote for the (clearly) less evil candidate in this case.

    But if we agree that either Obama or Romney will win (this is not speculation folks, facts is facts) then I believe Catholics have only 3 posible choices: 1.Vote for Romney, 2. Don’t vote 3. Vote for a third party. # 2 and #3 really do about the same thing, so I dont see how we get around voting for Romney. And at the very least, it frustrates me that our bishops are not forbidding voting for Obama. I believe they are out of line here. They need to clearly forbid Catholics from voting for him, because there are candidates who are clearly less evil on “disqualifying issues” like the life issue. Even if we include war and poverty, they dont compare to the slaughter Obama is actively promoting. The Bishops need to clearly tell the flock that they may not vote for Obama and remain a Catholic.

    • http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/ Brent Stubbs

      Ryan does not hold Romney’s position. He has articulated that he is supporting it as a part of the Romney administration, but that it is not his personal position. I believe he understands that limiting 99% of abortions is a good thing. By the way, NARAL calls Romney “pro-life”. That’s an endorsement I can get behind.

      When asked if the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America, former Gov. Romney responded, “Absolutely.”

      • Dub Lord of the Sith

        Yes, I understand. And I am voting for him because of the 99% of abortions he is for stopping. *But* I still think it is worth keeping the line in the sand very visible here. A child whose father raped his mother is still worth protecting. Romney is way out of line there.

  • Dub Lord of the Sith

    Brandon said:
    ” It’s unlikely a third-party candidate would win, but not impossible. To believe otherwise is to bow at the feet of partisanship. Living in a democracy, I refuse to be constrained to choose only one of two candidates.”

    I feel your pain. I voted third party the past 3 times. But I now really disagree with this reasoning. Here is why:

    I felt how you feel when you say “I refuse to be constrained to choose only one of two candidates”. But think of it this way… it is not you who are constrained… it is our political system that is constrained. Think of a presidential election like the finals at the end of a long sports season which narrows down 50 teams into a playoff between two teams. During the final playoff game, it is out of place to root for a team that already was eliminated. Their chance has past. In the same way, our political process is very unlike most other liberal democracies (like in Europe) which have many, many competing parties who share power after an election. In those systems, the minority groups can have control of 5-10% of the government, with other groups having other percentages. We dont work that way. By the time our presidential election is in progress, all the sorting and sharing has already been done. In many ways the game is mostly decided by this point. The choice simply is narrowed down to 2 (sometimes 3). So in this case, to knowingly vote for someone who has already been excluded from the process is really the same as not voting at all in my view (which is a valid option for a sensitive conscience).
    The Constitution party (which I voted for the last 3 elections) gets about 250,000 votes in an election. That is not a lot, but if those votes were instead thrown at the candidate who will do less evil like Romney, real lives could be saved. The local and caucus level is the time to try to advance truly great candidates. But that time is gone for this election. By this time, the game is over. The choices are narowed for us already, so our choice is binary whether we like it or not.

  • wineinthewater

    I can certainly understand a vote for Romney. But I think that the calculus you present here is too limited.

    I think the principle of limiting evil is a good one. And I can understand voting for principles. However, when I look at the principles of the Republican party, there are the principles that they voice, and the principles that they actually enact. The Republican party has squandered its opportunities to make significant impact on abortion. How many times have the Republicans held the House, the Senate and Presidency since RvW? It has squandered its opportunities to truly limit the evil of abortion. Limitations of funding here, restrictions of infinitesimally used abortion procedures there are something, but not much. The Democrats were willing to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, but the Republicans were not. How many of the Supreme court votes that have kept RvW law were appointed by Republicans? The Republican party may espouse pro-life rhetoric, but they have consistently failed to take pro-life action. And their current presidential candidate isn’t even ardently pro-life, but merely opportunistically so. He was pro-choice when it was politically advantageous, he is pro-life now that it is politically advantageous. And his campaign has made it clear that abortion will not be a focus of his presidency. He’s not going after the 99% of abortions. So, I don’t see a vote for one of the most milquetoast specimens of a milquetoast pro-life party as doing very much to limit the evil of abortion. But I do see it expanding the evil of torture and the evil of policies that disproportionately harm the poor.

    And, I think the view of the calculus of voting that you present is too narrow. Our vote has many impacts. The most miniscule impact it has is on the outcome of the election. The most significant impact it has is on our own soul (as Brandon notes). But there are other impacts as well. Every time we vote for “the lesser of two evils,” or even just the “lesser of two suckitudes” we enable the ever worsening of candidates. In my years of voting, I’ve noted the candidates getting consistently worse. Without the years of voters accepting the lesser of two evils, I don’t think that Pres. Obama could have ever even gotten elected. Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us increasing evil. I look at this trend and fear for my children’s future. So I choose to do something now. One of the main reasons that people don’t vote third party is the fact that people don’t vote third party. So I will, with the hope that others might feel more able to in the future. When my children are grown and ask what I did to try to change things, I would rather be able to tell them that I tried and failed than that I went along with the pattern that got us here.

    Because, in our system, voting third party isn’t about getting a third party candidate in the presidency. It’s about changing the other parties. What do you think the Republican party would do if they lost the pro-life vote? or just enough of it to cost them in a tight election like this one? The only thing the party responds to is the loss of power. If they found that they could not keep winning elections with pro-life rhetoric, if they found that pro-life action was the only way to win elections, the Republican party would change. The only reason the “pro-life” party is such a sorry excuse for being pro-life is because we, the pro-life voters, let them. We vote for them anyway. We waste our pro-life vote. We do next to nothing to limit evil with our pro-life vote when we cast it for candidates who do next to nothing.

    In my perspective, my pro-life vote denied to that party does far more than my pro-life vote given to them. There is a value to getting Obama out of office. But that value is short term, and if it is gained through an approach that has makes things worse in the long-run, I will choose the strife for myself rather than my children.

    But that is prudential judgement. I can respect a vote that sees getting Obama out as the best way to limit evil. I don’t agree with it, but I can respect it. But it is not right to dismiss other prudential judgements that are just as in line with Catholic teaching as yours, not right to call them self-focused, not right to dismiss the act as merely symbolic.

  • Dub Lord of the Sith

    “it is not right to dismiss other prudential judgements that are just as in line with Catholic teaching as yours, not right to call them self-focused, not right to dismiss the act as merely symbolic.”

    Voting for someone who will get 0.001% of the vote is symbolic by definition. It is symbolic because the vote does not actually do anything: it doesnt hurt Obama, and it doesnt make the Republicans stop to think even for a moment. The vote is more about the person voting than affecting the vote. That doesnt mean it is selfish, but it is self-focused in the sense that the vote is focused on pure idealism of the voter than on impacting what will actually occur in the election.

    So it isnt dismissive to call it symbolic, it is just a fact. Having said that, I have voted for 3rd parties 3 out of 4 times I could vote. I respect it as a valid option for a Catholic, but just disagree with it because I don’t believe it to be doing the greatest possible good with ones vote. But of course that is my conscientious opinion.

    I still say that a Catholic may not vote for Obama though. There is no way that is possible in good conscience. Obama is more evil than all other candidates, ad that is not really debatable. Pointing out Romneys faults with poverty or war do not add up to him being worse than Obama on the fundamental voting issue for Catholics as defined by the Church herself: Life.

    • wineinthewater

      My point about Romney’s embrace of evil, intrinsic and otherwise, was not to make a case for an Obama vote. (I think that once upon a time, one might have been able to make a proportionate argument for a Democratic vote, but the Democrats have become so virulently pro-abortion that there is no longer even a chance of it.) Rather, combined with his party’s weak action on abortion and his even weaker position on abortion, his embrace of other evils means that a vote for Romney is not a vote to limit evil all that much overall.

      Though my vote my go to someone who only gets .001% does not make it merely symbolic. It is certainly symbolic, but not only so. Every vote for a third party candidate chips into the all-powerful “mandate” that the winner can claim. Every vote for a truly pro-life candidate is a message, no matter how small, to the Republican Party that they are not worthy of the pro-life vote. Every third-party vote makes it easier for others to vote third party, especially when there is so much pressure from those they know to capitulate to a major party. It might not be much, but it is not merely a symbol.

      Scripture speaks to this explicitly. This is my window’s mite. Its impact might be slight in some regards, but is tremendous in others.

  • http://uniconoclast.com/ Kim

    Brent! I’m so glad you wrote this – I was on the verge of posting something in the same vein, but not as well written.

    My problem with the faithful Catholics voting 3rd party, or abstaining from voting all together, is that they are basically putting their good intentions ahead of the potentially real consequences. Sure it’s all great and wonderful that a person’s conscience can inform them that both candidates are far from square with Catholic teachings and even hold some intrinsically evil policy positions; but that doesn’t really absolve that person from refusing to act in a way that at least mitigates evil. We live in a fallen world with very few good, clear-cut choices to make – but we still have to make choices! Do we only involve ourselves in the easy, clean problems of life? Or are we charged with going into the world and doing the best we can for God, regardless of the imperfection surrounding us?

    In the end, I really hope to hear from NONE of these Catholics who voted 3rd party (or didn’t vote), should Obama be reelected, when it comes to any of these pivotal issues. No, I don’t want to hear a whisper from the Mark Sheas of the world about the HHS mandate or anti-marriage legislation or publicly funded and promoted abortion; I want silence from those who stood back and did nothing because their consciences were too holy to be sullen by voting for one of the ONLY TWO candidates that can win. Good intentions are worthless to those who might have been saved.

    • http://www.almostnotcatholic.com Brent

      1. I’m proud you went to the gun range.

      2. Note: this comment is coming from someone who just finished a degree in Catholic theology.

      Thanks!

    • wineinthewater

      I don’t think that voting 3rd party is abdicating our responsibility to try to limit/mitigate evil. I actually think that voting for luke-warm pro-life candidates is one of the primary reasons that the evil of abortion has as deep a hold in our world as it does. In essence, voting for candidates like Romeny doesn’t really limit the evil of abortion, it *facilitates* it .. especially since Romeny’s campaign has made it clear that abortion won’t be a priority of his presidency. The evil of abortion exists *primarily* because pro-life people don’t vote pro-life, they just vote against pro-choice candidates. And so abortion continues its slow, steady death march.

      I think that the only way that we are going to *meaningfully* limit the evil of abortion is to stop voting for nominal and luke-warm pro-life candidates, is to punish them with political losses until they take abortion seriously and spend their political capital on abortion before tax cuts, governmental services cuts, wars, and debt ceiling lines in the sand.

      The short-term gains of occasionally keeping pro-choice candidates out of office has done almost nothing to meaningfully limit the evil of abortion. If Obama wins, it won’t be because some of the pro-life electorate chose to vote pro-life, it will be because the Republican party, once again, failed to put forward a truly pro-life candidate.

      And even if Obama does win, I think that will do more to limit the evil of abortion in the long run than a Romney win. Their inability to beat the man Democrats largely considered the worst president in history (Bush) caused them to really up their game; perhaps if the Republicans are unable to beat the man they have frequently called the worst president in history, they will finally do the same. There would be short-term pain, but I’d rather things were worse for me than worse for my children.

      • http://uniconoclast.com/ Kim

        You think a “truly pro-life candidate” would win a general election against Obama? I don’t. The Left has the media, the universities, and the entertainment industry all in its grip. The culture has, for all intents and purposes, been won by the Left. The only reason Romney is doing as well as he is is because most independent voters who’ve decided to support him are most concerned with the economy, not social issues.

        To say that Obama winning could do more to limit evil in the long run seems illogical to me. With an Obama win, Obamacare and its HHS mandate will become utterly enshrined in our laws – impossible to unroot after his second term (kinda like Roe v Wade). That will not simply allow more abortions in the short term, but most certainly in the long term. I remember conservatives making this same argument with Obama’s first election – that this would be the necessary jolt needed to prompt a cultural revolution, making a return to traditional values and a second Obama term loss unavoidable. But I wouldn’t say that actually happened. On social issues, the culture is pushing ever further away from a traditional, conservative stance.

        One thing that is really bothering me about many Catholics’ take on Romney is the constant equating of his abortion stance with Obama’s. Yes, Romney is somewhat pro-choice, and has always been to one degree or another. But Obama is arguable pro-death to the extreme. Let’s not forgot how he voted FOUR TIMES, as an Illinois state senator, against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which mandated that doctors at least try to save the lives of babies who survived abortions. Obama would not even save the lives of BORN BABIES! To pretend that the shades of grey differentiating these two candidates on abortion are inconsequential or insignificant is to turn a blind eye to many unborn babies who could be saved in the short term and long term through actions such as defunding Planned Parenthood, for starters.

        I don’t believe in accepting short-term pain for uncertainty of long-term gain; I don’t believe that the ends justify the means.

      • wineinthewater

        Kim,

        I do think a truly pro-life candidate could win. The culture hasn’t been completely won by the Left. Our culture is increasingly identifying as pro-life. I actually think that a truly pro-life candidate who was rational on the economy and civil rights would be trouncing Obama right now. His presidency is largely a failure (whether you think him the worst president ever, he certainly has not been a successful president), his approval rating sucks, and yet neck-in-neck is the best Romney can manage?

        I would not seek another Obama term as a way to wake the pro-life vote up out of its thrall to the Republican party. If I did, I’d be voting for Obama. But I think it would be a silver lining. It’s not ends justifying the means, it’s the principle of double effect.

        I do not equate Romney’s position on abortion with Obama’s. Obama is hyper-pro-choice and Romney is apathetically pro-life. For as little as I think of Romney’s position, it is better than Obama’s. But I do think that continuing to support candidates like Romney and the miniscule difference they make to abortion is the #1 obstacle to making a significant impact on abortion. It has to start somewhere and sometime. I’d rather risk another Obama term with the hope of making a real change long term than guarantee an extension of our 40 years of failure.

        My choice may not work, not even in the long run. But Romney’s campaign has stated that abortion won’t be a priority of his presidency, Romney has refused to say that he will rescind the HHS mandate, and has been as lukewarm in his opposition to ObamaCare as he is to abortion (he was, after all, for both of them before he was against them), so your path just may fail as well. But I think the important thing is that both positions can be fully aligned with Catholic teaching. That is the nature of prudential judgment. And that is the point that I think is missing in the original post.

        And finally, none of us better be silent in the next term, regardless of how we voted or who gets into office. Neither candidate is a true enemy of abortion, both will need to be pushed by those of us who are pro-life.

      • http://uniconoclast.com/ Kim

        wineinthewater, you said, “Romney has refused to say that he will rescind the HHS mandate, and has been as lukewarm in his opposition to ObamaCare.” But here are Romney’s own words from an op-ed in the Washington Examiner in February regarding his stance on ObamaCare and the HHS mandate, and what he will do (and I’ve heard this from him since):

        “I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation. I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in. . . .

        [M]ore than two centuries after the drafting of the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is facing the most serious assault in generations. And the assault is coming from liberalism itself. In the process of implementing Obamacare, the Obama administration is pressing forward with a rule that tramples on religious freedom, taking particular aim at Roman Catholics. The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience or dropping health care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work. . . .

        [T]oday, when it comes to the agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party—those who brought us abortion on demand and who fight against the teaching of abstinence education in our children’s schools—their devotion to religious freedom goes out the window. They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats.”

      • wineinthewater

        Kim,

        That is very good to hear. When given the softball question on EWTN, he refused to come out and clearly say that he would rescind it. It still leaves some doubt from me about how much he actually means it, but at least we have his word to hold him to.

  • http://www.bede.org stefanie

    Since registering as a non-partisan when I turned 18 in 1974 (post-Watergate and three months before Nixon resigned), I have mostly voted 3rd party candidates during Presidential elections. I have many of my past ballot booklets… that are probably older than you, Brandon :)
    I simply cannot this time go the 3rd party route.
    It’s not the lesser of two evils — and I hope than that neither main party presidential candidate is any more evil than I’m capable of being (and am I ever glad we Catholics have the Sacrament of Confession).
    However, I believe our President is disdainful of our right to the freedom of worship/religion. I don’t know what those Catholic nuns in Indonesia did to him in the schools there, but he came away with a bitter taste in his mouth regarding the Catholic Church.
    I really did not want to vote for Governor Romney — he seemed too ‘nice’ and unpassionate. The debates showed a different Romney. In fact, while discussing the first debate with my daughter, I found myself saying, “President Romney” instead of Governor. That was weird.
    I’ve already sent in my absentee ballot — I have RCIA classes to teach on Election Night. :)
    The main thing — VOTE. No American right is more primal than being able to vote as we do.

  • http://www.reflectionsofaparalytic.com Chelsea Zimmerman

    I like Archbishop Chaput’s advice in Render Unto Caesar:

    What if Catholics face an election where both major candidates are “pro choice”? What should they do then? Here’s the answer: They should remember that the “perfect” can easily become the enemy of the “good.”

    The fact that no ideal or even normally acceptable candidate exists in an election does not absolve us from taking part in it. As Catholic citizens, we need to work for the greatest good. The purpose of cultivating a life of prayer, a relationship with Jesus Christ, and a love for the church is to grow as a Christian disciple – to become the kind of Catholic adult who can properly exercise conscience and good sense in exactly such circumstances. There isn’t one “right” answer here. Committed Catholics can make very different but equally valid choices: to vote for the major candidate who most closely fits the moral ideal, to vote for an acceptable third-party candidate who is unlikely to win, or to not vote at all. All these choices can be legitimate. This is a matter for personal decision, not church policy.

  • http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/ Brent Stubbs

    If anyone is interested in Romney’s position on Obama Care, you can go here.

    “On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.”

  • alvien

    I respect all stance on this but for the saik of our mother church and her freedom I hope Romney wins.I don’t want to vote for a lesser evil but I do want to vote to lessen evil.Romney is not perfect but he is so mutch better than what you have now.With this being sed,I’m from the Philippines and so I can’t vote.Hahaha!

«
»