Sightings 11/1/04
Campaign Yearbook
-- Martin E. Marty
Having done little Monday-morning sighting of the 2004 campaign, at its end, we should, at least, look at the "flip-flops" or "changed places" among religious groups.
First, Catholics: The May 17 Sightings ("Catholic Elections") commented on how the Vatican and American bishops in 1960 assured U.S. citizens that bishops' (fatefully futile) intrusion in Puerto Rican politics (declaring it sinful for any Catholic to vote for the pro-birth control PPD) would never find a counterpart here. That first intervention under an American flag reflected only the "practical and special condition of the island," they said. It can't happen here. But it did in 2004. Many flip-flopped. Had the old anti-Catholic Protestants been rightfully wary back when they warned about Catholic power in American politics?
Second, conservative Protestants: The World Book Yearbook of 1965, for which I wrote the "Protestantism" round-up (and still do), covered the 1964 campaigns. That entry sets us up to observe more flip-flopping, role-reversals, and changes of place. Until that year, most evangelical-fundamentalist-pentecostal-conservative-Protestant groups had shunned formal involvement with politics. The first "flip" against that historic understanding occurred when "many of the more conservative Protestants" were attracted to candidate Barry Goldwater. Since then, they have gone ever further against their tradition and now have established a new one: moving from most passive and invisible to become the most active, visible, and forceful religious force of all.
Third, mainline Protestants: As for what is now called the "Protestant mainstream," a poll of denominational editors in 1964 revealed a preference for candidate Lyndon Johnson, and "the great majority of prominent church periodicals that did endorse a candidate gave their support to the President." Now for another flip-flop: from then until now, such mainline Protestants have backed away from endorsement and, certainly, from "denominational" involvement. Were there endorsements of either party among any of them in the current campaign? Mainline action today is mainly in local spheres and does not consist in national partisan endorsements.
Fourth, black churches: African-American issues received much treatment in 1964/65, but Martin Marty was too dumb to sight activity among black churches back then. Here there has been the most continuity: the civil rights movement was being organized by, and the Great Society legislation was receiving open and explicit support among, African-American churches. Today's social issues still receive such support from this faction, and candidates trek to these churches.
Fifth, Jewish groups: The 1965 World Book Yearbook article on Jews did not connect them with the campaign story, but Jews went overwhelmingly for Johnson. Nearly 80 percent voted Democratic in 2000. Now some pundits are predicting a decline in Arab-American support for Republicans and Jewish support for Democrats.
Of most "flip-flop" interest on the Jewish front is the coalition between some "evangelicals," often with apocalyptic Christian Zionist and pro-Israel views, and many Jews. In the mid-sixties, sociologists were still associating "orthodox Protestantism" with "anti-Semitism," though liberal Protestants were more often "anti-Zionist." Today, Republicans are counting on conservative evangelicals to boost Jewish votes for Republicans. And the same evangelicals who, forty years ago, often spoke of the Pope as the Anti-Christ are now in coalition with the Pope and with Catholics.
What would a Rip Van Winkle who retired in 1964 make of the altered religious-political landscape of 2004? He'd probably flip.
----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Evangelical leader Chuck Colson has criticized Mark Noll for espousing a "none of the above" approach to the election. Colson argues that Noll's position:
is dead wrong and damaging to democracy. It’s the utopian notion which assumes divine perfection in fallen humans. His assumption that we can support only candidates who have perfect scores according to our reading of the Bible makes me wonder how he votes at all. And if that’s the standard, all of us should stop voting.
But that’s exactly what the fundamentalist movement did in the early part of the twentieth century, the movement Mark Noll so correctly criticizes. Their error was allowing perfectionism to get in the way of their responsibility to act for the common good. It’s an error we can’t afford to repeat—not this year, not ever.
Voting is not an option for Christians. It’s a biblical duty, because by voting we carry out God’s agency; we are His instruments for appointing leaders. Just like Samuel in the Old Testament, we are commissioned to find the very best people we can who are best able to lead us. Not to vote, or to turn down both presidential candidates because they’re not perfect on a biblical score sheet, is a dereliction of biblical responsibility.
Read the rest here. (Thanks to CT for the lead.)
I'm wondering, would Colson insist on a Christian's duty to vote regardless of the options? Hitler versus Mussolini? It's an easy case for Colson to make now, because he's a big fan of Bush's, but were he to face the moral conflict that many pro-life progressives are facing, would it be so easy for him?
Rob
One obvious conclusion to draw from this election debate is that the nuanced worldviews of Catholic moral and social teaching do not find an especially welcoming home in a two-party system. The Democratic and Republican parties are able to divide the spoils of our enormously diverse citizenry into overbroad and misleading categories, offering fixed agendas on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Pro-life Democrats are forced to lend support to the "mainstream"-ing of abortion and start-up of the embryonic stem cell assembly line, and Common Good Republicans have to narrow their conceptions of "common" and "good" to justify embracing a corporate, devolutionary, and us-versus-them agenda. If the political landscape was populated by an array of parties, battling it out for hearts and minds, not in a zero-sum contest of blue state / red state polarization, but as part of a system where coalition building and intercommunity dialogue were an essential part of politics, would not that be fertile ground for the entry of policy positions that are not amenable to either/or classification?
So instead of holding our noses and voting for one or the other, or staying home entirely (which will be attributed in all likelihood to apathy, not principled objection), is there something to be said for casting a principled vote in favor of a multi-party system? Especially for those of us who are not in contested states, wouldn't a vote for Nader (or other third-party candidate) represent a step in the right direction, even if the particular candidate may not be a substantive improvement on Bush or Kerry?
Rob
An MOJ reader, Chuck Roth, offered this thoughtful response to the question in my last post:
I suspect that "Bush's offenses to Catholic values are proportionately greater" than Mr. Kerry's, and I agree that this is a necessary question for many - but I would submit that before we get there, one or two other questions should be raised.
I understand the analysis of Professors Bradley and George (following Cardinal Ratzinger) to be: (1) material cooperation with evil is permitted only if there are proportionate reasons for it, (2) voting for a pro-choice candidate is material cooperation with evil, and (3) there are not sufficienty grave reasons to vote for Kerry.
But (1) this analysis only gets us halfway; it stops after analyzing Kerry, never asking whether a vote for Pres. Bush is also material cooperation with evil, and (2) it contains an implicit presupposition that one need vote for either Kerry or Bush. Solid pro-lifers such as Alisdair MacIntyre and Mark Noll point out that refusing to vote for either is also a viable choice.
I understand the argument to be that abortion is very grave matter, and that things like the environment, how to help the poor, and when to wage war, do not clearly implicate grave matter. From which it seems to follow that one is obliged not to vote against Kerry, but not obliged to vote against Bush.
I see two flaws with this analysis. First, even if a vote for Bush is not categorically problematic, it may be problematic under current circumstances. I don't see that one could be obligated to affirmatively vote for a candidate who supports any evil - even if his opponent supports grave evils such that one is obligated not to vote for him, either. The natural Christian response would be to abstain from cooperation with any evils, unless grave reasons exist for it. So even as to the "soft" social justice issues (e.g., poverty, immigration, environment), this could justify a decision not to vote for Bush.
Second, I do think that the Bush Administration has supported evils which are categorically classified as grave matter, such that a proportionate reason would need to be given for a vote for Mr. Bush. In that category, I would include (1) the wilful use of torture, as a policy of state, and (2) Aggressive War. I'm not necessarily talking about Abu Gharaib, but I would include both our not-so-secret policy of "rendition" of suspects to friendly countries who use torture as an interrogation tool, and the apparent use of torture by the CIA. "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." Catechism para 2297.
Regarding the waging of war, I agree that an error in judgment is not grave matter; but an error in underlying principles (departing from Just War principles) may well be. If one, for example, advocated aggressive wars for the purpose of conquering a foreign country to take their gold and silver, this would seem to be not merely an error of application, but a theologically erroneous view. The "preemptive war" concept isn't per se a violation of Just War theory; but it sure looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. For instance, one of the reasons I heard given for invading Iraq was that it would give the US political capital which it could use to resolve the Palestinian conflict. This would imply that an unjust war might reasonably be started in order to obtain political advantage - which is hard to distinguish from the aggressive war concept. It might be reasonable for non-Christians, but our moral obligations preclude a purely ends-based policy. It is my conclusion that the
current conflict in Iraq results directly from the rejection of Just War teaching, and that this is gravely evil (even if individual culpability is less than total).
Both a rejection of Just War theory and the intentional use of torture lend themselves to the sort of categorical denunciation which can also be applied to abortion; if one agrees that these two areas involve grave matter, it follows that one could vote for Bush only for grave reasons. One could respond that the grave reason is the need to protect life; fair enough. But then one must consider alternatives, likelihood of success, and whether the evils committed as a result are less evil or less important than the evils which will follow from a Kerry Administration, coupled with a pro-life Senate.
Finally, please allow me to add a caveat which I've not seen elsewhere. I happen to live in a "blue" state. I know to a moral certainty that Illinois will not be won by Bush. I therefore find myself in a circumstance where I know to a moral certainty that there is no true need for me to vote for either candidate. I suppose a Kantian might disagree, but it seems to me that if I have an obligation not to vote for either candidate except for grave reasons, and if there's really no effect of a vote either way, there is no grave reason for me to vote for either candidate. Hence, my analysis stops there.
Nevertheless, the question you propose is very proper, for those living in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Michigan, etc. I find it unnecessary to answer it for myself, but I look forward to seeing what others can say on this point.
- Mark
