On Building a Catholic Political Culture

 

 

If you have been around the Catholic blogosphere, you will know that Zippy Catholic (http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com) and Mark Shea (http://markshea.blogspot.com) have caused quite a brouhaha with their comments that they could not see how, as a Catholic, they could vote for John McCain.  A big back and forth has erupted about what a Catholic is permitted to do with his vote and tempers have gotten heated as the discussion has ensued.

 

I do want to weigh in on the meat of the discussion, but let me begin with the following observation:  what a sad state of affairs this is.  I think It shows how much we as Catholics have both (a) succumbed to the culture's viewpoint and (b) feel incapable of offering an alternative to the culture's viewpoint.  The fact that we constantly find ourselves faced with the question of what can we morally get away with, versus what would be a positive Catholic culture says something about us.  It says something about the state of each of our witnesses to Christ.  We should all be ashamed on some level and be willing to acknowledge that this is far from what we are called to be.  It's like the person who is always asking whether this or that has crossed the line and is sin versus asking instead what will truly make me happy and correspond to the needs of my heart written there by God Himself.  We all know that the former is sometimes necessary, but we would never mistake it for the ideal.

 

Zippy and Mark have been raising a number of serious questions about how to properly make prudential judgments about who to vote for using the Church's moral teaching.  In particular, I think Zippy has brought a rigor to the question that I haven't seen in quite some time and that I think is worthy of real evaluation.  Let me begin by stating that I don't know the answer to many of the questions I raise below.  And where I am criticizing positions that have been advocated by some of the bishops I'm not necessarily saying they are wrong.  I'm simply holding open the possibility that they, like the rest of us, are infected by living in the same cultural environment as the rest of us.  So they are not immune from the same cultural assumptions, assumptions that may prove to be not factual.

 

In addition, let me make clear that whatever you might conclude about the questions raised below, I am confident that the one thing we should conclude is that something is terribly amiss.  This is not the political culture we as Catholics have been called to build up.  We shouldn't settle for this.  And since we keep finding ourselves back at this same position, election cycle after election cycle, maybe we need to re-examine some of the things we have taken for granted or assumed true without as much evidentiary basis as we normally think as we search for a path forward.  Otherwise, I can predict what type of discussion we will once again be having in 2012.

 

I think everyone agrees on certain aspects of Catholic moral teaching regarding voting.  I think the challenges come in the application.  The line between where the moral doctrine ends and prudential application to specific facts begin is sometimes hard to draw.  So please, again, understand that I am not meaning to suggest the Bishops are teaching incorrect moral doctrine.  Where I raise some questions is in the application to specific circumstances, which surely the Bishops can make mistakes with just as the rest of us can.

 

Here's what I think we all agree on.  First, a Catholic could never support a candidate who says he will use his office to advocate for an intrinsic evil in order to support that candidate's advocacy for the intrinsic evil.  This has been the traditional basis by which the pro-life movement has argued that a Catholic could not support Democrat candidates since Roe v. Wade and the Democrat's support for abortion.

 

The second principle is that, where all candidates say they will use their office to advocate for intrinsic evils a Catholic could vote for such an imperfect candidate nonetheless if (a) his vote is despite the candidate's advocacy for the intrinsic evil (i.e., he only tolerates not supports the candidate's position in this area and the potential results of his election) and (b) provided there is a proportional reason for still voting for the candidate.  The potential proportional reason is typically spoken of as voting for the candidate, despite his imperfections, in an effort to prevent grave evil that would likely occur if the other candidate wins.  Stated more generally, Catholic analysis of proportional reasons usually focuses on whether the act in remote material cooperation with evil to be undertaken by the Catholic is (i) reasonably expected to be successful in preventing the intrinsic evil that the Catholic aims to prevent by undertaking the act and (ii) the act being undertaken doesn't result in graver evil than the evil it is aimed to prevent.

 

That's what we all agree upon.  Although if I think we are all honest, we'll admit that our analysis of our circumstances when deciding our vote rarely involves a robust analysis along these principles, but instead uses various assumptions (largely absorbed from the culture) about the meaning and nature of the act of voting and the likely consequences of one act versus another to reach our conclusions.  If nothing else, I hope all can agree on that and take it as an indication of how far removed from the ideal we have become and that we shouldn't just become complacent that we live in an imperfect world and not try to again pursue the ideal.  In particular, I think the present environment (arguably our first national election in recent times) where both major party candidates advocate for an intrinsic evil (either embryonic stem cell research or both embryonic stem cell research and abortion) has revealed the shortcomings of relying on these cultural assumptions instead of a more thoughtful analysis of the situation.

 

Let's take a look at a few of the assumptions.  One initial question we all face is what to do about third party candidates.  Many don't consider them at all.  We speak of there being two parties even though nothing in the Constitution requires that and, in fact, each and every one of us will find more than two parties on the ballots we cast when we go to the polls.  You even see this in some of the statements from the bishops, which (presumably unintentionally) speak of two-person races even though the facts are that there are more than two candidates. So what is a Catholic to do when there exists a third-party candidate who doesn't advocate for any intrinsic evils, and is otherwise competent and qualified for office, yet in the present environment is unlikely to win the election?  Should a Catholic support such a candidate for, among other reasons, it is better to not remotely materially cooperate with evil if that can be avoided (focusing on the fact that it is not true that all candidates support intrinsic evils)?  Or is it permissible for a Catholic to apply an "electability/viability" filter, focusing on the fact that there is a clear difference in the magnitude of the intrinsic evils supported by the two candidates likely to win and we should do our part to try to mitigate how much intrinsic evil is done?

 

I truly don't know the answer to that question.  The individual bishops' statements to date seem to say yes to the latter question, even though recent documents issued by them collectively don't seem to say the same thing.  I also would note some irony that the view of the meaning of the act of voting (which we will discuss more below) given for why it is okay to dismiss a third-party candidate (the fact that he won't win and one individual vote marginally isn't going to change that) is the very same view of the meaning of the act of voting rejected when responding to the proportionate reason questions I'll discuss next.  Furthermore, it seems clear that, given the demographic numbers of Catholics in this country, Catholics voting for a third party candidate, in the aggregate, would in fact absolutely change the election results.  The irony is that, together, we are fully capable of bringing about the Catholic political culture that we want, based on sheer numbers.  Yet because that result isn't guaranteed when looked at on an individual vote by vote basis the approach that could lead to the political culture we want is rejected.  I'm not saying that's not without reason, but there's something tragic in all that.  My experience of this tragedy is only heightened when I see some bishops go so far as to even suggest maybe that a Catholic must remotely materially cooperate with evil by suggesting that voting for a third-party candidate would be worse than voting for the less imperfect major-party candidate by equating the act of voting for a third-party candidate with voting for the more imperfect major-party candidate.  This seems to me to be entirely incorrect, by reducing all of the various meanings and outcomes of the act of voting down to the simple question of whether it helps or hurts in the effort to defeat the more imperfect major-party candidate.  But surely we all can acknowledge that there is a legitimate difference between the act of voting for Obama and the act of voting for a pro-life third-party candidate who is judged unlikely to win?

 

Another set of assumptions will get drawn out in a look at proportionate reasoning analysis.  These assumptions relate to: (i) the meaning/nature of the act of voting and its effectiveness in preventing the intrinsic evil promoted by a candidate that we don't want to win and (ii) the evaluation of the consequences (good and bad) of such candidate winning, the less imperfect candidate winning, and from the act of voting itself for the less imperfect candidate.

 

Zippy has been arguing that there does not exist a proportionate reason for voting for McCain.  He notes that John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and that this is a grave intrinsic evil as it is the murdering of the innocent.  After all, it is essentially just a form of abortion, not something distinct and different from abortion.  Zippy then points to the fact that you can't vote against Obama, you can only vote for a candidate.  Coupled with the fact that an individual vote, viewed on a marginal basis, is highly unlikely to determine the outcome of the election, he concludes that an act of voting for McCain cannot be reasonably expected to prevent the evil anticipated from a victory by Obama. As such, a proportional reason to vote for McCain and materially cooperate with evil doesn't exit.  And for good measure, Zippy highlights the fact that we often fail to account for the corrosive impacts of supporting intrinsic evil, even through remote material cooperation, has on the voter and the friends and family in his sphere of influence. 

 

(Please note that I have taken for granted the fact that a McCain administration would result in less intrinsic evil than an Obama one.  While I agree with the conclusion, it should be noted that it isn't entirely obvious and not worthy of analysis.  It is possible that McCain has overstated his commitment to what pro-life principles he does have and that Obama will be constrained by exterior forces from implementing all the anti-life policies he has said he wants to implement.  Unlike the delusional "pro-life Catholic" Obama supporters out there, I don't think a reasonable evaluation of the facts supports such a conclusion.  But they are correct that an evaluation of the facts is required.  I think many individuals unfortunately are (unjustifiably) scared by the fact that a true evaluation of the facts requires being open to all possibilities the facts might suggest, even the counter-intuitive ones, rather than dismissing some of those possibilities a priori.  I think we have nothing to fear from reason.)

 

Those arguing with Zippy think he is focusing too much on the marginal view of an individual vote when deciding the meaning/nature of the act of voting and whether the act can reasonably be expected to prevent the intrinsic evil they associate with an Obama victory.  After all, they are right, if all Catholics were to vote for McCain or not for McCain, it likely would decide whether he wins.  And they emphasize the magnitude of the evil of abortion and suggest that that evil outweighs the evil Zippy thinks will come from the remote material cooperation with evil that is a vote for McCain. 

 

It is all made all so muddled by that mystery that is the vote.  Each individual vote does matter; when gathered with other like votes, their bulk builds up.  Yet,  it is a very rare political campaign where the election will turn on the margin of an individual vote.  It is no wonder that elections and voting is a field ripe with analysis by game theory.  The subject matter is just so complex.  Personally, I find a lot of merit to Zippy's argument.  Living in a state that Obama is pretty much guaranteed to carry, given that he represents that state already, I think Zippy is right that my vote for someone other than McCain will have no bearing on whether Obama becomes President.  And yet, Zippy's argument, taken to the extreme, would seem to deny the reality that individual votes do matter, for it arguably would suggest a conclusion that there is never a proportional reason for voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil (barring a race that literally turns on a single vote, such as "Zippy the race is a tie; whomever you vote for will be President").  Whatever conclusion we reach, it seems to me that it needs to acknowledge both realities about the meaning/nature of voting.

 

Similarly, evaluating the likely outcomes of an election are challenging beyond belief.  Example:  would I have predicted that George Bush would be as authoritarian, anti-civil liberties, militaristic, and pro-torture as he has been back in 2000 when I voted for him?  Absolutely not.  But those are results that flowed from his election.  Zippy likes to speak of outcome-dependent and outcome-independent consequences from the election.  I think this is a useful tool, because it reminds us that there are consequences to the election that go beyond merely who wins the election.  For example, I think people arguing with Zippy grossly underestimate the truth of his claim that there are damaging consequences that come from the remote material cooperation with evil of voting for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil.  I can't help but look at this election and how the issue of embryonic stem cell research has been tossed aside.  Think back only four years and consider how at the forefront this issue was for the pro-life movement.  Yet, in today's parlance, say pro-life and no one thinks of opposition to ESCR anymore, just abortion.  We see groups labeling McCain as "pro-life", without clear reference to ESCR and his problems there.  This is all the more striking when you consider, as I said above, that ESCR is a form of abortion.  I would posit that we dismiss the concerns about this damage to ourselves and the culture at our own peril.  For this damage is insidious as it is slow to reveal itself, develops out of clear sight and is more amorphous as it can't be attached to a single action by some other person.  Yet is it not possible that this very nature of the damage is part of what keeps us from developing that truly Catholic political culture we all long for, because of how it damages our own perceptions of reality in ways that we typically don't acknowledge?

 

In the end, I don't have an easy answer to the questions.  But I think they shouldn't be dismissed because their examination might wake us all up to how far we have missed the mark and keep missing the mark, and they might give us an indication of where to begin anew.

Comments

[SDG]

You write: "The individual bishops' statements to date seem to say yes to the latter question, even though recent documents issued by them collectively don't seem to say the same thing."

I submit that the bishops' operating assumption is that we are basically talking about electable candidates. For example, the recent statement from the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth said, inter alia:

"The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following: a. If BOTH candidates running for office support abortion or 'abortion rights,' a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done..." (emphasis added)

Note that word "BOTH." They don't say "ALL." The operating assumption is that we are talking about electable candidates.

That's because the bishops are focused on the big problem, the massive defection of Catholic voters to Obama. The little problem of scrupulous Catholic voters feeling driven to vote quixotic because they can't bring themselves to vote for McCain isn't even a blip on their radar screens.

[JACK]

SDG: Unlike some others, I agree with you. I think most Bishops are focused pretty much exclusively on the Obama problem. Their comments don't reflect an attention to many of these other issues.

(BTW, I am not sure I'd say there is a massive defection of Catholic voters to Obama. We will see what the results bear out, but this is hardly a new problem and will be with us for a long time given how long Catholics were permitted to equate being a Democrat with being a Catholic. The residue of tribal loyalty will just take a long, long time to wear off. Even in the way we critique the Democrat party as Catholics we often give people the misperception that this tribal loyalty approach to political parties is okay and that the only problem in supporting the Democrat party is that they are not pro-life. Well, that may be an okay approach with respect to the present state of affairs -- without getting into a broader discussion of compatibility of political ideas with the Catholic faith -- but it clearly is a treating the symptom and not the underlying defect in our political approach. From my view, it is thus doomed to failure.)

I'm sure you acknowledge this, but in fairness your labels of "quixotic" and "scrupulous" are conclusionary labels that reflect your confidence that your judment of the nature/meaning of voting and evaluation of the prudential considerations is correct. If you are wrong, those are hardly accurate labels.

[JACK]

BTW, the "All" I refer to appears in Faithful Citizenship.

[SDG]

Thanks, JACK.

It's fair to say that "scrupulous" is conclusionary language, though the term CAN be given a non-prejudicial reading. "Quixotic" I think should be considered mutually acceptable language; Mark uses the term himself.

I agree that "all" has been used, including in Faithful Citizenship. The question is: Who are "all" the candidates? Does it mean all the candidate on the ballot? Does it include candidates who may not be on the ballot but are actively campaigning for write-in votes? Would it include candidates for whom a grass-roots campagin exists to a write in the candidate, even if the candidate himself isn't necessarily actively campaigning? How big would such a grass-roots movement have to be? Would it cover you and me and Tim J thinking that Jimmy would make a great president?

If "all candidates" means "everyone for whom you could possibly cast a vote," then as Dave Mueller has pointed out there will ALWAYS be an acceptable "candidate" who does not advocate any intrinsic evil, and there would be no need to cover the moral case of voting in an election in which no such candidate exists.

But the bishops do cover such cases. Therefore "all candidates" does not mean "everyone for whom you could possibly cast a vote." So what does it mean?

I think "all candidates who could possibly win" is a reasonable interpretation, and the Texas bishops' "BOTH candidates" reinforces this interpretation.

[JACK]

SDG:

I certainly agree that it strains credibility for it to mean anyone who possibly could be written in.

I don't reject out of hand the notion that limiting it to those who could possibly win could be a reasonable interpretation. But as I note above, I find it ironic that the defense for that largely turns on the view of the act of voting that is rejected in responding to Zippy (or ignores that prong of the analysis of a proportional reason altogether and just focuses on the damage question). I also think if we are to accept that viewpoint, we shouldn't be so quick about it. After all, it is entirely possible that by accepting that viewpoint we have created a culture that precisely leads us back into this same spot time and time again. This is part of my point about why I think the main conclusion we should reach from this is how terribly off from the ideal of cultivating a true Catholic political culture we find ourselves. We shouldn't just attribute all of the blame to why we find ourselves here to external things; it very much could arise because of our own actions, particularly how we have accustomed ourselves to think and view engaging the political sphere.

As I did with Dave M., I'll offer up the following working definiton of all the candidates who ought to be considered: all the candidates listed on the ballot. I think they should at least enter the analysis and that to do so would be a real step at changing the political culture for the better.

[SDG]

"As I did with Dave M., I'll offer up the following working definiton of all the candidates who ought to be considered: all the candidates listed on the ballot."

I agree in principle that all the candidates on the ballot should be CONSIDERED. Possibly other candidates should be considered also.

However, when it comes to concluding that there is "no acceptable candidate" and proceeding to the lesser of available evils, is "all the candidates on the ballot" a sufficient definition for "all" in the moral theology of the bishops' statement?

Let's suppose three candidates A, B and C. A supports all manner of evil. B is unproblematic on many important issues, but supports ESCR. C is wholly unproblematic. All three enjoy strong support and are credible contenders to win. However, C is excluded from the ballot on a technicality, though a strong grass-roots movement to vote him as a write-in has kept him in contention. In fact, his poll numbers are higher than B's. Is it legitimate to vote for B anyway, on the grounds that C isn't on the ballot and may thus be excluded from consideration?

What if the ballot also includes candidate D, who is as unobjectionable as C, but has no support and no chance of winning? Presumably we aren't obliged to give him priority over C because he's on the ballot. But what if A, B and D are on the ballot -- and there is no write-in candidate C? Are we obliged to vote for D, who has no support, because he is unproblematic, rather than B, who has a chance of beating A?

I'm not saying we shouldn't consider D. We should. But we should also consider actual possible outcomes. How we consider them and weigh all factors in seeking to promote the common good is, I submit, a matter of legitimate prudential judgment.

Voting for D may legitimately be thought to promote the common good. So may voting for B.

[JACK]

Your scenario, SDG, is of course an even further variation. No, I'm not suggesting that the candidates on the ballot should be considered exclusively. I'm not proposing a rubric. I suggested that as a "working definition" chiefly because it emphasizes the FACT that all of us when we enter the voting both are actually given the chance to vote for more than just a Republican or Democrat. And the chief reason it is dismissed has nothing to do with the Constitution, the ballot, or other aspects of the electoral process, but instead the fact that most people won't consider them.

If I was convinced that more people actually engaged in the type of reasoning that you mention, I'd feel more confident about the merits of these individual prudential judgments, even if I might still lament what I think is the unfortunate cultural result that comes from a continued focus on the lesser evil that I think plays a real role in continuing the cycle and preventing the development of a true Catholic culture.

I raise the issue of "what's all the candidates" in part because the Bishops' original statements put it out there in there as a question and that I've not seen much in the way of a substantive look at how to engage that question seriously rather than just going with cultural assumptions and shorthand (however, well-intended those assumptions and shorthand might be). And I do think, independent of what prudential judgment we make, we need to become more vocal about the chasm between the cultural reality that we find ourselves in and the Catholic ideal of political culture and stop washing our hands of responsibility for its creation, continuance and distortions just because we arrived at a reasonable prudential judgment.

In the end I think Zippy is right: harm will result from remote material cooperation with intrinsic evil, at least in this case. That doesn't defeat the argument for its permissibility, but let's all, as Catholics, stop pretending that permissibility is the thing we seek. Unintentionally, I think we've lost sight of these consequences.

[Tom]

I may have said this elsewhere, but I suspect the "all" in the USCCB document is directed more at primary voting, where more than two candidates might be running for a party's nomination, than at general elections.

Not that it doesn't apply to general elections at all, but (particularly based on subsequent statements) I'm not sure how much weight it should bear.

[JACK]

Tom:

I recognize that's certainly a possible interpretation and that the few recent Bishops' statements you've highlighted are suggestive that that might have been what was in the forefront of their minds.

Of course, I'm not sure saying "the bishops meant all candidates with a chance to win" is a substantive answer to my question. (Nor do I think you suggest it is.) For certainly not remotely materially cooperating with evil is something we actually value. Certainly we don't go through all this effort because remote material cooperation with evil is a trivial thing. As such, I find it disastisfying if the only answer to my inquiry about third-party candidates is "well, the bishops didn't mean all to include them".