Earlier I defended Mark Noll's decision not to vote for President against Chuck Colson's charges that Noll is shirking his Christian obligations. I've received some thoughtful objections to my invocation of Hitler-Mussolini in the course of that defense. Professor John O'Callaghan asks "Isn’t Colson’s point easier to make because neither George Bush nor John Kerry is the moral and political equivalent of Hitler or Mussolini? The more political rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding, are we really living in anything like Nazi German or Fascist Italy?" (His own helpful essay is the subject of this earlier post.) And reader Patrick O'Hannigan writes:
Did you really mean to answer Colson's substantive point by painting with an
entirely hypothetical brush, or are you implying that the "moral conflict
many pro-life progressives are facing" really is on the order of Hitler vs.
Mussolini? The first approach is weak; the second dishonest.
Read Colson's argument again: he alludes to a search for the best people we
can find to lead us. In what scenario would that yield a choice between
Hitler and Mussolini? None that I can think of. Even in purely historical
terms, Hitler and Mussolini shared the stage with Churchill and Roosevelt,
who were manifestly better men, in spite of their considerable flaws.
Wondering what Colson would say to Noll if different candidates were
involved is the rhetorical equivalent of a parlor game: by following Alice
down the rabbit hole to Wonderland, it implicitly concedes that Colson has
the stronger argument in the reality we already know.
I don't read Colson's argument so narrowly -- he's not telling Noll that Christians should vote in light of the candidates' merits in this particular election. Rather, he seems to cast voting as a blanket obligation. He plainly states that "voting is not an option for Christians," but a "biblical duty." His foundation for this assertion is not convincing. Colson's characterization of American Christians as God's "instruments for appointing leaders" is suspect, especially in light of his supporting assertion that "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." Samuel received direct revelation from God that Saul (and later David) were to lead Israel. As a one-person appointments committee, he anointed them. Deal done.
How is this biblical cherry-picking helpful to figuring out a Christian's voting obligations in 21st century America? Certainly it shows that God acts in human history, but it does not show that the Christian's most effective option for serving as an instrument of God's purpose is to support one of two candidates offered up every four years by secular political parties, as though God has designated either the Democrat or Republican each time around, and we simply need to decipher which one. (If the obligation stems from the duty to minimize harm/evil, then third-party candidates are not viable options, I presume, for they present no realistic chance of being elected. Besides, God would never back a certain loser, right?) I agree that Christians should work to elect the best leaders possible, but that work won't always result in an election-day choice that all Christians can embrace.
Even if Colson's conception of civic obligation can be narrowed to the Kerry-Bush choice, I think it's a non-starter. If we're unable to construct a blanket obligation for Christians to vote, how can we construct that obligation in this election? If there's one thing that the discussion on Mirror of Justice has evidenced, it's that reasonable, thoughtful Christians can disagree passionately about the moral status of the Bush and Kerry candidacies. Further, the moral failings of each candidate's agenda do not necessarily lend themselves to ranking in a way that makes a morally problematic candidate palatable. ("Disregard of the international community is bad, lax environmental protection is really bad, but abortion is really really bad, so I'll vote for Bush.") I certainly was not intending to equate Bush-Kerry with Hitler-Mussolini, but if we can't discern an obligation to choose between the latter, I don't think there's an obligation to choose between the former.
Rob
On October 31, Professor John O'Callaghan continued this thoughtful reflections on the election at the Ethics and Culture Forum. He concludes his reflections with these thoughts:
"So one's own political prudence must judge in such a situation which candidate is promoting the proportionately lesser evil; voting for such a candidate is an effort to limit the damage to the common good. Particular judgments here may be very difficult, but it is antecedently improbable that there will be some kind of perfect equality in the harm done to the common good by the respective candidates. Here I would recommend the excellent discussion posted earlier on this blog (10/19/04) by Brad Lewis on "Proportionate Reasons." In particular, in my previous post I argued that given the fundamental role of innocent human life in the constitution of the common good, in our own day it is difficult to see that there is any proportionate evil that one may judge to be greater than policies that legitimate and promote the taking of human life in abortion and euthanasia, or as David and Brad have pointed out in earlier posts, the deliberate production and subsequent destruction of a human life solely to farm its parts out for the benefit of others. All the other goods that must be protected in the common good find their point and purpose in the flourishing of innocent human life. They are empty "values" subject to social whim, prejudice, and cunning when divorced from the fundamental good of human life itself. No doubt there will be many who with good will may disagree with me in that judgment. When I listen to the brighter angels of my nature, and avoid irascibility, the thought that one or other of us will be wrong does not inflame me. But, regardless, none of us can fail to act to limit the greater evil we judge to be pressing in upon us. If Aquinas' discussion is relevant to our day, prudence demands better of us.
"What do I want if I love someone else? I want him to be happy. In charity, Thomas says, we love others 'as companions in the sharing of beatitude.'"(Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation) On All Saints and the eve of All Souls, pray for our country, and those who would lead it, and "pray for me, as I will for thee, that we may all meet merrily in heaven.""
John O'Callaghan
[email protected]
If you are in or near South Bend, Indiana, consider attending Thursday's lecture (at 4 p.m., in the Law School's courtroom) by Princeton's Jeffrey Stout. Here's the summary:
Stout’s lecture will concern a topic he addressed in his recently published book “Democracy and Tradition,” a philosophical, theological, political and legal examination of religious discourse in a democracy. The book was praised by former Notre Dame theologian Stanley Hauerwas, now a professor in the Duke Divinity School, who wrote that “with a clarity that can only be gained through a charitable reading of those with whom he disagrees, Stout inaugurates a fresh conversation between advocates of democracy and those who hold substantive Christian convictions.”
For more info, click here.
Rick
One theme, or thread, in our ongoing conversation about Catholics, politicians, and voting, has centered on the virtue and exercise of "prudence." (See, for example, Notre Dame law professor Cathy Kaveny's post, here). Notre Dame philosophy professor John O'Callaghan has posted some thoughts on the matter on the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture web site.
Rick
