A quick response to a few pro-Obama arguments at Vox Nova

At Vox Nova, Morning's Minion contends that "Obama is acceptable, with some major caveats. Romney is not."  My view would be that "the President is not acceptable, but that -- admittedly, with some caveats, having to do with some issues about which I suspect MM and I agree -- Romney is."  I don't think there's much point -- and, in any event, this is not the best forum -- in trying to set out my reasons for having concluded this in similar detail to that of MM's post.  This strikes me as one of those situations in which two people -- both reasonably engaged and intelligent and both doing their best to be Catholic -- just see the world differently.

That said, I think three particular points of MM's are pretty weak, and have to do with matters that I see as being in the Mirror of Justice portfolio.  First, MM says that the President is a "Social Democrat who, in the name of liberal tolerance, is not always respectful of the appropriate role of subsidiary mediating institutions in the social order."  I agree entirely, though I think this way of putting things understates the problem.  But, this strikes me as a pretty big deal -- and a very strong reason for thinking that another Obama administration, staffed with people and by people who are also "not always respectful" of mediating institutions' role, or the limits on state power -- and not just a regrettable personal characteristic.  It is a very bad thing, I think, for the leaders and administration in a political community that aspires to be a constitutional democracy to be disrespectful of this "role."     

Second, MM downplays the significance of the President's positions and policies with respect to abortion.  It is not new, I realize, to point out that Roe isn't everything, and that electing Republicans will not end abortion.  But, the suggestion that it doesn't make a difference -- MM says that the President's "office has extremely little control over policies that affect abortion directly (as opposed to indirectly through economic, social, and health care policies)" -- is misguided.  The fact -- yes, it is a fact -- is that GOP legislators are more likely to enact reasonable regulations of abortion; GOP executive-branch officials and administrators are more likely to use their discretion in ways that regulate, rather than subsidize, abortion; and judges appointed by GOP presidents are (dramatically) more likely to uphold reasonable regulations of abortion than are their Democratic counterparts.  If one wants to say, given all the givens, that abortion should not matter too much, compared to other issues, that's fine, but the suggestion that it's kind of a wash, when it comes to abortion, which party (at this moment in our history, unlike, say, the 1970s) is in power, is nonsense.

Finally, and related both to the first point (about mediating institutions) and the 7th (about same-sex marriage):  I think MM downplays the threats posed to religious freedom -- understood, I suspect, as he and I both understand it -- by certain understandings, which are dominant in this administration's relevant offices, of the role and power of antidiscrimination law.  This is not merely a "state and local issue", but one that increasingly involves federal courts and federal agencies.

Again, I suspect that most people pick their teams, and then pick their arguments and facts.  I imagine we're all -- including me -- guilty of this sometimes.  I am doing my best to act politically in a way that makes progress toward the common good more likely, that makes gross injustices less likely, that realistically evaluates facts and predicts effects, and that reflects my grateful embrace of Christianity.  I imagine I'll get it wrong sometimes.