Catholics, according to the Church, are obligated to vote, and to do so in an informed manner.
And, I'll add to that, those who like to say that religion should stay out of politics are grossly misinformed, at least to the extent they mean that religion should be held personally and not influence a person's vote. A truly held set of religious beliefs ought to inform everything a person does.
This year is simply agonizing for the well-informed, thoughtful, Catholic voter.
In my area, where I will vote, two women contest for the position of Congressman.
The Republican expresses pro-life views, and views which suggest that she holds traditional views on the definition of marriage, two positions which are taken very seriously, even definitively so, by serious Catholics.
She also holds a mix of conservative views on various other issues, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not, but none of which are moral issues, or at least not closely so.
The Democrat holds pro abortion and "progressive" views on the definition of marriage, and a host of other liberal views, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not, but none of which are moral issues, or at least not closely so.
So, no dilemma, in weighing the voting scale, eh?
Well, the Republican has also expressed the view that the election was stolen, and her entire campaign was basically a stab in the back on the incumbent who stood by principals. In order to advance her campaign, she went from doubts, to being certain of election theft, and is now expressing views regarding the current administration which might charitably be described as nutty, even going so far as to suggest that inflation is a Democratic plot designed to bring about a liberal "Utopia". If I'm to take her asserted positions as actually held, it would mean she's believing in wild flights of dangerous fantasy, thereby making her a scary potential office holder. If I am to assume that they're taken for the purpose of being elected, she's lying and an enemy of democracy.
And there are no viable third party choices, really. One is from the far right, and the other from the Libertarian Party.
The far right candidate, running on the Constitutional Party ticket, is probably every bit as far right as the Republican, but with a very obvious Protestant Evangelical bent to her campaign. She doesn't say the vile things that the Republican does, and to the extent that her positions sound nutty, they sound nutty in the way that a position expressed by a person with little experience in the world and little education might voice them. Innocently, in other words.
Maybe I haven't listened enough to her, however. Frankly, I've disregarded her all along as a candidate that will obviously make no impact in the current election. (I subsequently listed to the debate she was in, and it's relatively clear that she's in the "coup didn't happen camp", although as noted, she probably genuinely feels that way, as opposed to Hageman, whom may not).
The Libertarian is a Libertarian, and there's no point in even going there.
A person could protest vote for the Constitutional Party candidate, but that's all it would be, a protest. But then, in order to make that protest, a person ought to know what she really believes. Perhaps I should go back and listed to her in the recent debate, which the GOP candidate skipped out on.
The only realistic hope of defeating the candidate that's either lying or coming off the rails is to vote for the Democrat, which is voting for a position which is normally gravely morally objectionable.
And then we have the Secretary of State's office, where a co-religious is running unopposed based on a stolen election theory along and is otherwise not a candidate which I'd prefer to consider. A protest is surely mandated there, but it'll have to be a write-in protest.
And so the state's politics have come to this. It feels like being a German going to the polls in 1932.
No comments:
Post a Comment