Voting the Lesser of Two Evils

[TheDude]

Ralph Nader: On The Issues

I'm sure he'd make a great president.

The vomiting is just your immune system attacking the corporatism in your body.

And thank you, Erin. It's nice to see someone else is as (in)sane as I am.

[incrucetrad]

I am very disappointed in the responses I've gotten from the question I posed. Apparently there aren't any near theologians on this list. The responses aren't even close to what they should have been. Too bad. I was expecting a lot more from you guys.

[TheDude]

I already voiced my opinion that the 5 non-negotiables are stupid to begin with. But presupposing they're real, yes, go with the lesser of two evils. We read the voting guide the USCCB put out in our senior theology class and it said essentially the same thing. If both candidates are pro-choice or whatever, vote for whichever one is better in life issues.

[IrishMonk]

I get tired of the "voting for the lesser" evil talk.   Imagine if Catholics organized behind a third party candidate for a few elections.  There are a lot of us and we could change things.   The problem is the people of the Church are not united in their values and beliefs.   Very sad, considering the Truth has been clearly taught.   John McCain has stated he would have a pro-death VP.  I cannot vote for him.   The republican party (for the most part) pay lip service to the pro-life movement.   Within  the party their is a push  moving to the center.  The via media works great, just look at the Anglican sect...  When enough people get really sick of it all and vote for third party candidates their will be change...


---IM

PS  Erin put your glasses back on you frighten me

[ErinIsNotNice]

PS  Erin put your glasses back on you frighten me

Look deeeeeeeeeep into my eyes.....

[TTMR]

I live in CA, but a friend of mine went to an FSSP parish in Kansas and sent me part of the Sunday bulletin on Catholic voting: "Dear Faithful, Voting is a moral act. We have both a right and an obligation to vote. There are 5 non-negotiable issues for the Catholic voter. These 5 non-negotiable issues are: 1)Abortion, 2)Euthanasia, 3)Fetal stem cell research, 4)Human cloning, and 5)Homosexual "marriage".                                                            ------------------------"If a candidate supports any of these issues, he is immediately disqualified from receiving the vote of any Catholic. The reason for this is that these actions are intrinsically evil (against the natural law) and must never be promoted by any law. It is a mortal sin to endorse or promote any of these actions or issues knowingly, whether by voting directly on these issues or for candidates that support thee issues.------------------------------------------"What about voting for the lesser of 2 evils? Only if a candidate fulfills the above 5 non-negotiables, then and only then does he qualify to be considered as a 'lesser of 2 evils ' vote. They are non-negotiable issues because the natural law is 'at stake'. We can always fill in a name and vote that way. We have to remember, Our vote is our voice, and we will be judged on how we voted, not on who won a particular election.-------------------------------In Christo per Mariam,-----------------------------------------------------Fr. James J. Gordon, FSSP-------------------------------------------------Chaplain"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry for the hyphens, but I've never been able to figure out how to control the margins when typing online.-------------------------------------------I disagree with Fr. Gordon, and so do other FSSP priests I have contacted, in that given the two choices we have to vote for, Obama and McCain, Obama is for all 5 of the non-negotiables and McCain is only for 1 of them--the embryonic stem cell research.  I see a clear duty here to vote for McCain as the lesser of 2 evils, to keep Obama out of office. I consider every vote important. If we abstain from voting or vote for someone who cannot win, we essentially give that vote to Obama. And it would be our fault if he won. What do you guys on the forum think. I'd like to see this discussed.

That sounds like a list written by your chaplain, not anything official, although I have read similar requirements in letters from various bishops.  Nevertheless, your analysis of the two "electable" candidates on this issue is not quite accurate:

1. Abortion - We know Obama is in favour of it.  McCain is at best, indifferent.  His stance is "abortion should be opposed except in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother".  This proposal was actually the law in Canada from the early 70s until 1988.  The term "health" was left up to the interpretation of "medical boards" who basically always signed off on an abortion request.  Abortion-on-demand proceeded unobstructed.  The 1988 Supreme Court decision merely ended a formality. 
McCain's stance is such that it is sufficient to appease pro-lifers to the point where he is preferable to most Democrats on the issue.  People with principles are not "in the middle" when it comes to abortion.  They take one side or the other.  The "moderates" (like John McCain) simply don't like discussing it and think it is unimportant relative to other issues.  Abortion has the same importance to him as protecting covered bridges.  McCain's one issue is war: its initiation and escalation.  The fact that just war is not on this list as a "non-negotiable" demonstrates an obvious partisanship on the part of the author.

2. Supposedly McCain is against euthanasia.  I have heard nothing from Obama on this issue, so we can't say for certain he supports it.

3. Both support stem-cell research.

4. Both oppose human cloning.

5. McCain is against gay marriage, though supports various anti-discrimination laws and marriage-type entitlements for homosexuals.  Obama says it is a "state issue" (funny since everything else for him seems to be a federal issue, contra Constitution).

Therefore, when one breaks it all down, there is hardly any difference between the candidates.  Obama supports abortion, McCain is indifferent and will never, in a million years, press the issue.  Neither are strong on euthanasia.  Both support stem-cell research, both oppose human cloning and both are in favour of the gay agenda to one degree or another.  If you add imperialism/war (again, its exclusion from the list is pure partisanship), Obama is slightly better than McCain, though both have no objections to the warfare state.  Ultimately, the two candidates actually differ on very little, and neither deserve the time nor the effort of any Catholic to go and vote for them.

[TTMR]

anamchara:  I'd say that Candidate B is the lesser of the two evils, because while he recognises that the innocent civilians will die, that's not his intent for the war.  Candidate A's intent, however, -is- for the innocent civilians to die (the unborn children).

You are using different standards of "intent" for candidates B and A.  Your definition of "intent" for candidate B suggests that he is not responsible for the deaths of those he will launch a war against, but if you apply the same definition to A, then A is not responsible for the deaths of those that die in the womb.  In fact, using your second definition, B has more of an intent to kill, because in launching a war he is guaranteeing the deaths of many people, while candidate A is merely allowing some people to have the option to kill--he's not rounding up women and moving them to the abortuary.

I would contend, that by the way anamchara has posed this question, candidate A is clearly the lesser of two evils.  To simplify matters, let me suggest an example.  If I am going to rob a bank, and I have to kill ten security guards to do it, I am still morally responsible for those deaths irrespective of the fact that my intent is only to rob the bank, not murder ten people.  In initiating war, candidate B's intent may be "regime change" or "democracy" or some other fantasy goal, but he knows many, many  people will be killed by his actions, and is thus as morally culpable as the murdering thief above.

[newtolatin]

That sounds like a list written by your chaplain, not anything official, although I have read similar requirements in letters from various bishops.  Nevertheless, your analysis of the two "electable" candidates on this issue is not quite accurate:
1. Abortion - We know Obama is in favour of it.  McCain is at best, indifferent.  His stance is "abortion should be opposed except in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother".  This proposal was actually the law in Canada from the early 70s until 1988.  The term "health" was left up to the interpretation of "medical boards" who basically always signed off on an abortion request.  Abortion-on-demand proceeded unobstructed.  The 1988 Supreme Court decision merely ended a formality. 
McCain's stance is such that it is sufficient to appease pro-lifers to the point where he is preferable to most Democrats on the issue.  People with principles are not "in the middle" when it comes to abortion.  They take one side or the other.  The "moderates" (like John McCain) simply don't like discussing it and think it is unimportant relative to other issues.  Abortion has the same importance to him as protecting covered bridges.  McCain's one issue is war: its initiation and escalation.  The fact that just war is not on this list as a "non-negotiable" demonstrates an obvious partisanship on the part of the author.

Obama is not only for the FOCA, which would solidy Roe v Wade into law, eliminate any restrictions on abortion at all levels (federal, state, and local), and pre-empt the restrictions on government funding of abortion, he also was against the Protection for Babies Born Alive Act in Illinois, where he not only voted against it, he tried to stop its coming up for a vote and spoke out against it, and then lied about the whole thing. This was a bill mandating medical treatment for babies born alive after an attempt at killing them.

Moreover, what kind of Supreme Court justices will each nominate? McCain has said that he will nominate constructionist judges; Obama will nominate Ginsberg clones.

Obama has a 100% rating with NARAL, McCain an 4% rating (because he voted for government funding of embryonic stem cell research).

2. Supposedly McCain is against euthanasia.  I have heard nothing from Obama on this issue, so we can't say for certain he supports it.

Obama is definitely for euthanasia in the case of those born after an attempt to abort them; why would you think he has anything against euthanizing anyone else?

3. Both support stem-cell research.

True.

4. Both oppose human cloning.

Wow, Obama actually holds a Catholic position on a life issue?

5. McCain is against gay marriage, though supports various anti-discrimination laws and marriage-type entitlements for homosexuals.  Obama says it is a "state issue" (funny since everything else for him seems to be a federal issue, contra Constitution).

Therefore, when one breaks it all down, there is hardly any difference between the candidates.  Obama supports abortion, McCain is indifferent and will never, in a million years, press the issue.  Neither are strong on euthanasia.  Both support stem-cell research, both oppose human cloning and both are in favour of the gay agenda to one degree or another.

I would say that given what Obama will press for on the abortion issue that this nation will be much worse off if he is elected. McCain may do nothing at all but the nation would be better off with no movement than Obama's changes.

If you add imperialism/war (again, its exclusion from the list is pure partisanship), Obama is slightly better than McCain, though both have no objections to the warfare state.

No way will either of them start fighting anywhere else: we simply haven't got the personnel.

Ultimately, the two candidates actually differ on very little, and neither deserve the time nor the effort of any Catholic to go and vote for them.

Sure, let the baby-killer win. Set the pro-life cause back by 39 years. Who cares?