The Mark of McCain

When it comes to political controversy, there is no use talking with people who either actively promote and advocate evil, or have a high tolerance thereof. They are coming from an entirely difference place... they inhabit a different metaphysical and moral/ethical world than the rest of us. It's fine to pray for them, but it seems like a waste of energy to try and "engage" them in any sort of "dialogue".

Then once we narrow things down to what I'll call "men of good will" (which includes women, of course) we can still make a meaningful distinction between people who consider the Constitution negotiable, and those who consider it, if not an absolute standard, then one that is violated at great risk -- primarily to individual liberties.

So let's say we narrow our "discussion group" down to what I'll call "moral Constitutionalists" (which, one hopes, is a redundancy), the question then is, what are the remaining options (if any)? That is, in a typical election -- or in the one being contested at present -- are there _any_ candidates who are not disqualified under a "moral Constitutionalist" set of standards? And in the unlikely event there is more than one, how does one then decide between or among them? This question has arisen in the ranks of what I'll "Catholic Paleocons", but a more complete description would be "Traditionalist/Latin (Tridentine) Mass Catholics who respect the Vatican's statements regarding the War in Iraq and other Neocon crusades". I offer that admittedly awkward definition to distinguish them from the more typical "family values" Catholics who are just about as likely to be "legacy Democrats" as Republicans, and if Republicans, are almost certain to be "Neocons", i.e. to be in synch with the Evangelicals, albeit unconsciously. And this group -- probably the majority in this country among Catholics -- is still relatively "conservative" compared with the Catholic leftist activist fringe, but in their case I would seriously question whether it's even proper to call them "Catholics". If it is, then one almost has to add "fallen-away" or "disobedient", if not "at serious risk of damnation".

With those various contingents sketched in, let's get back to the group in question, and my observation is that there is a very intense, if "sotto voce", controversy going on regarding the candidacy of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Of course, none of these people would be caught dead voting for Obama -- that goes without saying. And, as I've indicated already, one cannot call these people "Neocons", at least not in the strict sense, although many of them probably did not start questioning the Iraq operation until it turned into an obvious debacle. And they are certainly not Neocons in the sense of placing Israel's interests above those of the U.S. In fact, I doubt if many of them think about Israel at all, from one day to the next, unlike the Evangelicals, for whom Israel and its well-being take precedent over almost every other consideration, both foreign and domestic.

So the question before my "Catholic Paleocons" is whether to vote for McCain -- an admitted Neocon -- and his running mate, who is apparently a "Christian Zionist" fanatic -- on the basis of an anticipated opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices in the next four years and thus provide a chance to "overturn" Roe v. Wade... yes, it's a slender thread, I'll admit... or to vote for someone whose positions are much more in line with those of the Catholic Paleocons, i.e. Chuck Baldwin (in lieu, if you will, of Ron Paul). And thus begins a short dialogue between me and one of my regular correspondents. The starting point was an article by Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant, called "Who's Drinking the Kool-Aid? -- Last Stand for the Soul of America". I mentioned that I had heard a talk by Matt a couple weeks previously, and that it was after a Latin Mass in Aliquippa (down the Ohio River from Pittsburgh) & was (mainly) about the Battle of Lepanto. It was a very good talk, which included an in-depth view of the spiritual as well as historical significance of the battle, relating it to the Rosary etc., and Our Lady of Guadalupe. I said that it got into "current events" as well, and Matt came out for McCain, and that's where we parted company. My correspondent replied with this quote from Matt's article:

"Unless it were mortally sinful to vote for John McCain (which it is not), it seems clear—given the manifest evil of his opponent’s agenda—what we must do. As Pat Buchanan recently noted: 'Support for Roe v. Wade is a litmus test in today’s Democratic Party, where the right to an abortion has been elevated to the highest rank in the Constitution. Bottom line. If Obama-Biden wins, Roe is forever. If McCain-Palin wins, Roe could be gone by the decade’s end.'”

To which my correspondent added: "It has been made clear by many Traditional priests that if one votes for a 3rd party candidate, who has no viable chance of winning in order to make a point or as a type of 'protest vote', and thus allows Obama to win with the consequences regarding vital moral issues which his win would entail, then that voter is culpable of grave sin."

This is my reply:

Yeah, I know. But Bush has been fighting a war in Iraq that the Pope (both) has described as "unjust" by Aquinas' criteria, and a lot of other Church fathers' and theologians' besides. McCain will perpetuate that war if not escalate it, and probably extend it to Iran. So is pursuing an unjust war which results in thousands of American deaths, and _hundreds_ of thousands of civilian deaths in the war zone, any better than being "pro-choice"? I can't believe that adult human deaths are any more acceptable than pre-born human deaths. And the motives involved, when you get right down to it, are no more noble or humanistic than those involved in abortion -- it's basically about extending the American Empire and making a lot of money.

Anyway, what's wrong with Chuck Baldwin? See, a third-party vote is not a "protest vote" if you really want that person to win. This "wasted vote" notion is a product of mainstream media brainwashing.

Plus, a _real_ wasted vote would be for McCain & Co., not only for the reasons given above but for the fact that Roe v. Wade is not going to be reversed no matter who wins. It's just too entrenched. The most that could ever happen would be to return the question of abortion legality to the states, where it did reside for about five minutes prior to Roe v. Wade. This would get us into a pre-Civil War posture of having "abortion states" and "non-abortion states" -- better than what we have now certainly but would the total number of abortions decline? Doubtful. Bottom line, no one is ever going to make abortion illegal again, nation-wide. That is a will-o-the-wisp. So for that to be the only reason to vote for McCain, when he would certainly get us into an even more disastrous war than the ones we're already in, is a bit fanciful, IMO.

And yeah, I read Pat Buchanan's column and I agree with him about 90% of the time. If you look at his magazine (The American Conservative) he's not at all happy with McCain, and if you look at Chronicles, they consider McCain and Obama to be Tweedledum and Tweedledee, for all intents and purposes. I can't just vote on what people say, I have to vote on what they are likely to do once in office.

And as to the mathematics of third-party voting, I suspect Obama is going win by many more votes than the total earned by all third parties -- or at least more than the difference between Nader and McKinney, on the one hand, and Barr and Baldwin (and Paul write-ins) on the other. So a third-party vote this time around is extremely unlikely to, all by itself, "allow Obama to win". Plus, I'm not voting with the intent of allowing Obama to win -- that's an "unintended consequence". I can only be held responsible for who I vote for, not for everyone I don't vote for.

Plus, sooner or later we have to take a stand against the tyranny of the two-party system. It's not in the Constitution, and it's basically a device to keep the Regime in power (the Regime consisting of both major parties) and thus perpetuate not only their power but all of their misbegotten policies. Any significant change is going to have to involve breaking the two-party grip on American politics. When do we start, if not now?

And note that Ron Paul, who's extremely pro-life, has endorsed Baldwin.

But aren't these "interesting times" ?

[end of reply]

So there you have it. On the one hand, you have priests in "mainstream" Catholic parishes tearing their hair out because most of their flock intends to vote for Obama because their parents voted for Bob Casey. They breathe a sigh of relief when they notice a few McCain stickers in the church parking lot -- forgetting that McCain wants nothing more than to ramp up the many Neocon wars which have already been condemned by the Vatican. Then go down to the Latin Mass parish, and the Obama stickers disappear -- thank God! -- but there are still plenty of McCain supporters as well as a fringe of Ron Paulites who -- dare one assume? -- might wind up in the Baldwin camp (or Barr -- but that's a whole other discussion). So do we "hold our nose" and vote for McCain because he's not Obama -- even though his running mate wants to preach the next Crusade? Or do we vote for a candidate whose positions we respect even though he'll be lumped with "Other" in all the MSM vote counts on election night?

Interesting times indeed...