More on "The Only Vote Worth Casting"

In response to this post ("MacIntyre's 'The Only Vote Worth Casting' Revisited) from a few days ago, I received a bunch of emails (that is, "a bunch" by Mirror of Justice standards!). A few thoughts, following up:

First, in response to those who (usually indignantly) disagreed with my expressed view that both major parties' nominees are corrupt and unworthy . . . yes, I get it that Mrs. Clinton knows more about foreign affairs and has more experience in government than does her opponent.  This fact is not inconsistent with the accuracy of the adjectives I've used to describe her (and her opponent).  In my view, she is unworthy of the office she is seeking.  Her record is that of a person who is -- in addition to being substantively wrong on a number of very important issues -- corrupt, dishonest, hypocritical, and vicious . . . and not in garden-variety-politician ways.  I think denying this requires one to forget or sugarcoat a whole lot about the last 25 years of her public life.  Her opponent's pandering to, e.g., ugly nativism (and low-information views on immigration, NATO, trade, etc.) doesn't change the facts about her and her record. 

Second, another friend expressed concern that, by refusing to vote for Mrs. Clinton even though her opponent is as unworthy as he is, I was effectively ruling one of our two major parties as completely illegitimate.  I don't think I am. The Democrats are, at present, "all in" on the wrong side of certain issues that I think are important, but I am entirely willing to concede that reasonable and faithful people can conclude -- indeed, I also believe -- that their positions on some issues are better than those of the Republicans.  I think my views about the upcoming election would be different -- given who is the Republicans' nominee -- if the Democrats' nominee were, say, Tim Kaine or Joe Donnelly, or any number of other honest and other-regarding public servants with whom I have some serious policy disagreements.

Third, in response to some friends who seem to think I don't realize how bad a Clinton administration would be with respect to the staffing of the executive branch and executive agencies, to the composition of the federal courts, and to the coercive use of executive power against religious institutions:  No, I get it.  If one has the views I do about what the Constitution means, about how federal spending and contracting conditions (and licensing, accreditation, etc.) should be used, about the culture-shaping power of the President's bully pulpit, then one cannot avoid the conclusion that the election of Mrs. Clinton (especially if that election is accompanied by a takeover by her party of Congress) will have negative and very long-lasting effects.  She and her administration will be strongly ideologically motivated to push a number of policies that I think are unjust.  Unfortunately, the people who turned out to vote in the Republican primaries voted in a way -- and they did have options -- that will probably bring about those effects.

Fourth, I am deliberately not getting into the debate over whether or not one "may" -- morally -- vote for either of these two nominees.  For now, I'm assuming it's possible to come down either way (but I don't think anyone should feel good about either choice).

Fifth (and related to the third point):  Yes, I do realize that the press applies double-standards and is (to put it mildly) inconsistent in terms of the outrage and scrutiny it directs at the two parties and their candidates.  This doesn't mean, though, that the Republicans' presumptive nominee isn't entirely unworthy of nomination (let alone election).  (See my first point, above.)      

In my view, Catholics should view the two parties as vehicles, and not as tribes or as aspects of our identities.  The Republican Party has -- in my view -- been, for most of my life, the better vehicle for things like judicial nominations, education reform, anti-Communism, protections for unborn children, religious-freedom rights, and some other things.  If that Party nominates Mr. Trump, it is hard to see how it can continue, as a Party (put aside particular candidates), after the 2016 election, to serve as a useful vehicle on these and other issues.  So . . . I'm hoping that the GOP convention installs Mitch Daniels.