Politics

Jimmy Akin previously wrote “To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster.” In part he backed up his assertion by saying:

It would not only spur Mormon recruitment efforts in numerous ways, it would mainstreamize the religion in a way that would deeply confuse the American public about the central doctrine of the Christian faith. It would give the public the idea that Mormons are Christian (an all-too-frequent misunderstanding as it is) and that polytheism is somehow compatible with Christianity.

In other words, it would deal a huge blow to the American public’s already shaky understanding of what Christianity is.

I have some sympathy with this argument and as Jimmy lays out there are certainly prudential cases where you really need to weigh the religion of a candidate – especially for president.

Some have contrasted anti-Catholic bigotry with anti-Mormon bigotry and the unwillingness of the general population to vote for a Catholic president in the past and now a Mormon one. There are certainly some contrasts, but also a lot of distinctions to be made regarding differences.

In some ways the election of John F. Kennedy certainly mainstreamed Catholicism and pretty much removed the controversy of a Catholic running for President. Catholicism is much more accepted now or at least cultural and cafeteria Catholicism is much more accepted now.  JFK was not the only factor – certainly Venerable Fulton J. Sheen played a role in making Catholicism more acceptable.  And Mormons had Donny and Marie – yeah Catholics won that one.

Now to take a different tact on what Jimmy suggests would happen with the election of a Mormon president.  I think you can certainly make the case that the mainstreaming of Catholicism has not been all good.  This mainstreaming had an affect on Catholic identity that weakened it.  There is something about persecution that certainly brings a group closer in a shared identity leading to taking that identity more seriously.  Cultural trends among Catholics are now fairly identical to non-Catholics.

So I could almost wish the blessing/curse of mainstreaming of Mormonism leading to a disruption in Mormon culture and  practice.  I “almost wish” since I do not want to see a disruption in Mormon families, just in the adherence to this religion.  Being a blogger and not a prophet I really can’t say whether the election of Mitt Romney would be a boon or a bane (yes can’t resist political puns) for Mormonism in the long run.

Though Romney’s mormonism is not the only thing that keeps me totally unenthusiastic about his candidacy.

This is a rather crude and inexact comparison but Mitt Romney to me is like a less-than-attractive women at a bar that keeps looking better and better the more beer your drink.  President Obama is a whole ton of  beer making Mitt Romney seem attractive as a conservative.

In other Romney news a phone app has been released that will announce his VP pick.

“With this new app, users can be the first to know the second member of America’s Comeback Team.”

The free app, called “Mitt’s VP,” is available on the iPhone and Android platforms.

Hmm, I need to get busy working on and announcing my own app so you can be the first to know my displeasure at whoever he picks as VP.

It is not exactly a big surprise that Sen. Rick Santorum has now formally suspended  his campaign. Though it is annoying for those who are not exactly jumping for joy for a Romney nomination – the Rominee.

I was not the greatest of Santorum supporters – though out of the slate of presidential wannabes  I liked him the most.  There were certainly some areas I thought him totally wrong on from a Catholic moral perspective, such as applauding assassination of civilian scientists which simply has no moral ground to stand on.

Though there were a lot of areas where I was in a high degree of agreement with him.  I think he answered the hypothetical of “What if a Catholic blogger ran for President?”  In many ways he reminded me of a Catholic blogger in that he was willing to talk on many topics involving social issues invoking a Catholic worldview.  Also like  a Catholic blogger he often hit the post button before thinking fully about what he was saying.  It was both very cool that he did not try to shape some focused message as a political mantra and frustrating that he would go down more squirrel holes than a rodent infested golf course.  He was willing to talk on topics that had not been heavily tested in focus groups and even willing to engage reporters on topics.  His excitability on social issues often came across as a bit angry, but the destruction of the culture is really not something to be calmly sipping tea and eating crumpets over.  He doesn’t always have the greatest political instincts, though maybe that was why I liked him since issues could be more important than his political goals.

I am annoyed by the use of the term suspension in regards to campaigns.  Maybe I read too much SF, but it is like a Candidate gets put into some deep-freeze chamber to be revived if the nominee really blows it – and then they can be thawed out and ready to go.  Suspension is just one of those silly face-saving names out of place with reality.

Right now I think I am the most pessimistic I’ve ever been on the GOP winning the election. Gov. Romney will make just as great a president as Sen. Dole, Sen. McCain, and second term G.H. Bush. I can also say I can’t too excited by even a possible Romney win even with Obama setting the bar so low. There was much silliness in Romney’s aide talking about Etch-a-Sketch and the resulting jokes about it.  I firmly believe the Etch-a-Skektch parallel is totally wrong.  Silly Putty for sure, but not Etch-a-Skektch.  If only we could stick Romney in a kiln for a firing process so that he would stay the “severe conservative’ he is today – hey he did say he likes firing.

Growing up my father would sometime remark how he would like to put my brother and me into a blender so as to combine the best attributes of both of us.

I am reminded of this as I reflect upon the slate of candidates running for President.  I could do with a large size blender to combine the best attributes of each of them into one candidate I would actually like.  Lacking such a blender I am stuck with the candidates as they are.

When it comes to the presidential candidates I have no dog in this fight as they are all dogs in this fight.

My evaluation regards voting in the primary.  My primary picks are almost never the same as the person who wins the nomination.  My primary picks are often Don Quixote types who I like but never successfully tilt at the presidential windmill.  Unfortunately applying a simple filter like “no candidates who support intrinsic evils” wipes out almost the full slate.  While the pro-life credentials of the various GOP candidates are fairly good, there are also a lot of caveats involving exemptions for rape and incest. Or they support ESCR to some degree such as allowing the used of so-called leftover embryos – a human life is never a leftover. Remove the candidates who say waterboarding is not torture and what am I left with?

The other problem is that it is not always easy to evaluate a person’s presidential performance by their record.  For example Ronald Reagan was divorced, liberalized California’s abortion law, and also made it easier for people to divorce.  While he later apologized for his support of liberalizing abortion, there were certainly things to give conservative pause before he was elected.  Yet he turned out to be a very good president, not perfect, who had an very positive impact on the world.

Ideally for a candidate I want somebody who has displayed leadership in the past and has though deeply regarding to political philosophy.  Governors are able to display such leadership . Congressman and senators don’t develop this skill set normally.  Looking again at Reagan he was both a Governor and political philosopher.  His diary certainly shows how much he though things threw and his radio show also displayed his knowledge.  He was able to joke so easily on the role of government since it all flowed from his political philosophy.  Too often candidates seem to go with the flow of what might be expected of a conservative candidate without really having the philosophical base where their opinions are derived.

Out of the slate of candidates normally my Quixote pick would be Sen. Rick Santorum.  His me-too-ism in supporting waterboarding disqualified him.  There is much I like about Mr. Santorum, though his Sen. Specter support marred his record and I am also not quite at ease with his Iran militarism.  When it comes to pro-life issues and talking on the culture I have almost always been pleased with what he had to say when speaking out despite the negative reactions.  But if you support intrinsic evil like torture, you just can’t dismiss it.

As for Newt Gingrich I think Peggy Noonan’s recent evaluation is spot on. Gingrich Is Inspiring—and Disturbing. There are things I like about Newt and things that give me serious pause. A person who has to pledge to not cheat on their wife if elected has some serious problems. I mean that is right out of an Onion parody. When adultery can become a broken presidential promise you know something is wrong there. As both a Catholic and a sinner I am quite glad that Mr. Gingrich is now Catholic and that his marital situation has been regularized. This does not mean though that I can just dismiss a pattern of behavior as inconsequential now. His recent life begins at implantation – no I mean conception debacle does not assure me either. Plus he is another one who denies waterboarding is torture.

Coming to Gov. Mitt Romney. A governor and a family man with no scandal – check. Deep political philosophical – not so much. Plus it is always difficult to determine how valid somebodies political conversion is. Coming myself from a wacky liberal and pro-abortion background I know first hand how people can change. The problem with Mitt is I don’t really see the fruits of his change of opinions other than rhetoric. For example concerning the pro-life cause he signed into law Romneycare which included state funded abortions after his “conversion”. During the Obamacare debates he had nothing to say about federally funded abortion and just hasn’t been active in the pro-life cause in any meaningful manner. I tend to see him as another Charlie Crist who became pro-life when convenient and then jettisoned it when it wasn’t. I could certainly be wrong here, but I just don’t trust Romney. He also supports experimentation on frozen embryos and waterboarding.

As for Michelle Bachman, I really like the idea of her – the actual Michelle Bachman is another story. Somebody who I probably agree with on many things, but is prone to mistakes and then doubling down on them. For example her comments on the side effects of the HPV vaccine were just plain nutty and unfortunately this type of thing is not an isolated example. Here pro-life credential are excellent, but also supports waterboarding.

Gov. Perry is another one I can’t get fired up about. He just seems to me not ready for prime time. The whole mandatory HPV thing shows he does not understand the role of government and his apology missed the point on why he was wrong. His pro-life credentials are also pretty good, but he is willing to ignore them. Such as when he was a pro-life Democrat he still supported Al Gore and then last election supported Mayor Giuliani. Foreign policy-wise I get the feeling he is cribbing from “Foreign Policy for Dummies”, though I also get that feeling with the other candidates at times.

Rep. Ron Paul is one of only two that calls waterboarding torture. As a candidate he passes my not supporting intrinsic evils filter. Though maybe not considering his non objection to legalizing drugs and prostitution. He might even be my Quixote primary candidate, but it won’t be with any great enthusiasm and only because the alternatives are worse. Like Peggy Noonan’s phrase “Inspiring and Disturbing” in regards to Gingrich, I think this also applies to Ron Paul. Doctrinaire libertarians are often interesting, but they often have the same consistency of a madman. I say this thinking of Chesterton’s explanation “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” There is much prudentially I disagree with Rep. Paul on, especially concerning foreign policy and the role they played with the 9/11 attack. Ron Paul might make a very interesting president, but it might be interesting as in the Chinese curse of living in “interesting times.”

I haven’t given much serious thought to Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr, but he doesn’t seem to have given much serious thought to conservatism either. One thing though that set me off of him from the start was one of his Facebook ads positioning himself as the guy who likes science and contrasting the other candidates as anti-science. It is stupid enough when liberals make this charge, it is doubly-stupid for a GOP candidate to do the same. You can disagree with anthropomorphic climate change without being anti-science especially when the consensus is not all that consenting. He has all the signs of being a maverick like John McCain and I don’t say that with affection. Huntsman also supports the rape and incest exemptions for abortion. At least he calls waterboarding torture.

If we are getting the candidates we deserve, then boy do we need to repent. Will that is a good idea to do regardless. For primaries I like to be able to vote without any moral qualms, I would love to be able to do the same with general elections. Voting for the greater good and reducing evil is certainly required, but it does not mean that we minimize the evils. A lesser evil is still evil. Yet we keep putting up with these lousy choices because they are not as evil as the other guy. When it comes to being less evil than the other guy, President Obama sets the bar very low for a GOP candidate to rise above. But being less evil is not the campaign motto you should go for.

Living in Florida and remembering how close the Bush-Gore election was and I could almost wish I lived in a heavily Democratic state so I could just vote for Donald Duck or another mythical creature such as a virtuous politician.

I updated my Voticon post from two years ago.

With the impending election coming there is much talk about the selection of candidates. In some races you think of the phrase "choosing the lesser of two evils." A phrase I really don’t like. Even in cases where you a choosing between two candidates that might have views you don’t like; you are really choosing to limit evil and are not choosing evil but a good.

Some have spoken of sending a message by sitting out the election or voting third party instead. Well to be sarcastic – all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to vote third party or to sit out the election. Kevin Miller had a very good post on this subject today. If because people sit out and a Supreme Court nominee that could overturn Roe v. Wade doesn’t make it through the process – that will really send a message.

Unfortunately it is rarely the case that you pull the lever on a candidate and think wow this person is the perfect moral candidate. Unfortunately in are present system when you vote for someone there is no really good public way to mark your displeasure or that you are voting for them with reservations.

I do have a solution though to this problem. When you read message boards and some blogs you can see the use of emoticons for people to be able to mark the related emotion to what they are saying.

With the advent of so many LCD touch screens in the voting booth just how hard would it be to able to add emoticons with each of your votes? When the emoticons are tabulated politicians would see exactly what you really think of them. Right now a vote appears to them to be an 100 percent vote of approval. It would be great for their humility to get a 80 percent "yawning" and a 10 percent "grossed out’ along with other ratings.

Though the standard emoticons are really not expressive enough. I suggest a new category for voting machines – Voticons. Here are some possible Voticons.

Holding my nose while voting for you

You were the lesser of two devils

After voting for you I think I am gonna spew

I am embarrassed to have voted for you but you sucked less than the other person.

I voted pro-life, please don’t disappoint me

Used for politicians where you are "split" between liking him one day and hating him the next.

Remember this is my wallet not yours, please vote accordingly.

I am only voting for you because ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’

I suspect that you will not rob me like a pirate as much as the other guy.

I vote pro-life and you are less murderous than the other guy.

Now in some situations I guess you could actually use one of the normal smiley emoticons, for example if you actually get to vote for someone like Sen. Sam Brownback

And here is one last one:

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

Fr. Philip Powell, OP in a rare political post starts off:

Many of my friends from my days as a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue have been asking me lately how I can resist supporting an Obama presidency.

My answer–much to their horror–has been simple: “Because I used to be a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue, and I understand the party-line of the movement:

He then explains his reasons for opposing Sen. Obama.

Knights of Columbus for Obama www.knightsforobama.com. This is spew-worthy.

Taken in San Francisco and sent in to Mark Steyn "Votive Early, Votive Often ".

Patron anti-saint of Infanticide?

Though maybe you could use them for a Novena to pray he doesn’t win.

Update: As some readers have suggested and judging by the style of habit used maybe this is just St. Martin de Porres. There are similar images of this saint clothed like this one. Pictures of this saint usually include him holding a broom and if you enlarge this image that seems to be what he is holding. So probably just a coincidence that the face is very Sen. Obama like.

The Anchoress posts on this election and our response to it regardless of the outcome.

I know that I need to constantly remind myself of the words of Saint Teresa of Avila

“Nada te turbe.”

Let nothing upset you,
let nothing startle you.
All things pass;
God does not change.
Patience wins
all it seeks.
Whoever has God
lacks nothing:
God alone is enough.