Anthropology vs. Action: the Political Dimension

From my reading of their February 10 posts below, Vince emphasizes the need to do justice even if it requires us to join forces with those who do not share (and are unlikely ever to share) our Christian anthropology, and Rick (as well as Mike) emphasizes the need to identify underlying anthropological assumptions before we can adequately grasp what course of action is just. Does this divergence in emphases also underlie the political split between left-leaning and right-leaning Catholics?

As argued in a recent column by Peggy Noonan, President Bush (and conservatives generally) are inclined more toward philosophy than policy. In a sense, Bush’s worldview takes precedence over the particulars of government programs and initiatives. Senator Kerry, by contrast, ticks off policy proposals with a smoothness that Bush can only dream of, but he’s much fuzzier regarding a motivating philosophy, other than trumpeting the familiar individualist themes of liberalism.

Perhaps Catholics who are drawn to Kerry tend to downplay his elusive moral anthropology – which seems largely devoted to individual autonomy – because he promises action in a lot of venues where justice can be furthered. By contrast, perhaps Catholics who are drawn to Bush tend to focus on his big-picture anthropology-laden statements extolling the virtues of subsidiarity, the sanctity of life, etc. In focusing on the appeal of his articulated anthropology, are they holding their noses as to the actions emanating from the more conservative side of his compassionate conservatism? The rich-friendly tax cuts, relaxed environmental stewardship, and questionable interpretation of the just war tradition are examples of areas where a Catholic focused first on action may find supporting Bush to be untenable. But a Catholic focused first on anthropological assumptions may find supporting Bush unavoidable when they hear the Democratic candidates pandering before NARAL, for example, even if Bush’s strikingly different anthropology is unlikely to result in much concrete action in that particular context – i.e., the chances of overturning Roe remain small.

So does the Republican wing of the Catholic Church tend to emphasize anthropology first, action second, while the Democratic wing tends to emphasize action first, anthropology second?

These comments are deliberately provocative, of course, and I don’t mean to open up a full-scale political debate. I also realize that the likely response will insist that action and anthropological assumptions are inextricably linked, and I agree. But isn’t the ordering of these concepts highly relevant when it comes to a Catholic’s choice between Kerry and Bush?

Rob