When it comes to politics, my Catholic faith shapes and forms my views. One of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church as an undergraduate in college was her social teaching. Letting faith lead when it comes to politics seems to me to get things the right way around. Besides, within the domain of Church Social Teaching, on many issues, there is room for some diversity of thought and opinion.
I grasp that this makes me incomprehensible to a lot of people. What this means when described using secular terms is that in some ways I am liberal and some ways I am conservative and in some ways my view doesn't fit either category as presently understood. I have issues with both major parties for some of the same reasons and also for different reasons. There are reasons that I like both and reasons I dislike both.
For example, I am opposed to abortion and the death penalty. I understand that the two aren't morally equivalent, except in the case when an innocent person is executed (See "Giving the gift of life and Jesus' toughest commandment"). When it comes to immigration the U.S. Bishops summarize my views on this multi-facted issue in their very recent document "Catholic Elements of Immigration Reform."
I believe firmly in what the U.S. bishops teach about the importance of using prudential judgment when voting. I increasingly believe that a conscientious decision not to vote, especially for national offices, is a morally valid position. Of course, this differs from not voting out of laziness or apathy. But the norm is to vote, which means realizing that there are no ideal candidates.
I find voting excruciating. I am neither MAGA nor woke, which I see as the new names for those on the polar extremes of the political spectrum. Over time, these designations will change again. Like most people, I am somewhere in between these two while perhaps sharing a few positions with both sides. I tend to be socially conservative and economically something of a social democrat, as long as that is taken to mean one who adheres to Catholic Social Teaching. Guess what? If polling over many years is to be believed, the position above is that of many people, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries.
I think for-profit healthcare is problematic. At least in its current form it is expensive and ineffective. In the U.S. we pay far more for healthcare by any measure than any other advanced country and have worse outcomes. I realize there are different means to achieve agreed upon ends. I would think one end would be to ensure everyone has access to healthcare, especially routine and preventative care.
The political position I described above used to have a home in the Democratic Party, especially Democrats from the western United States. At least during his political career, which consisted of one term in the Georgia State Senate and one term as governor of Georgia in addition to his one term as president, Jimmy Carter, who died last week aged 100, was by-and-large that kind of Democrat. He only became "progressive" years, even decades, after losing to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Nonetheless, even in 1976, Carter did not win one western state. Let's not forget that Joe Biden was once that kind of Democrat, too.
As the societal consensus required for such a system of government continues to be strained to the breaking point, liberal democracy, with its rule by the 50.000000001%, or by a plurality of less than half of citizens who even bother to vote, is rapidly approaching a serious reckoning. Even this past election, which in terms of the Electoral College, which I support, was an overwhelming victory for President Trump, was won popularly on a plurality with no candidate securing a majority of votes.
At present, I worry about oligarchy more than ever. People already tolerate oligarchy as long it isn't too obvious. Hence, we might resist it when asserted too blatantly. Since politics now is almost exclusively media-driven optics, it looks bad when unelected rich people seem to start calling the policy shots for duly elected representatives and the president. As the Iron Law of Oligarchy, first posited by sociologist Robert Michels, holds- "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies."
Congress needs to step up and assert its constitutional independence to maintain the balance of power on which our form of government depends. This is true of budgetary matters, immigration, and our engagement in miltary action overseas. The executive can't continue to have carte blanche.
Politics are proximate, not ultimate. I am a political realist. Politics, let alone a politician, can't save me, can't save us. Participating as a citizen requires making prudent judgments based on the information available at the time. It involves comparing the candidates' positions, giving due weight to various matters, and comparing the candidates themselves. Oftentimes, people vote based on a vibe. I am pretty sure many of us have cast votes that we regret. Never in my life have I come close to voting a straight party ticket.
Politically speaking, at different times on different matters, I have gone to the left and to the right. This is not incoherent. It is seeking, not a balance, but a genuine response to what is happening. There have been times when, foolishly, I let ideology lead. It's easy enough to do as propaganda is ubiquitous. When it comes to sexual ethics and human sexuality, I have come full circle back to the Church's teaching.
This shift was prompted by some personal experiences I had shortly after taking a slightly different mindset. These experiences were disconcerting enough to help me see things more clearly. Even as an adult, it's easy to get swept up by the crowd. I get that when it comes to human sexuality it is inherently complicated. But now sexuality, matters concerning sex and gender, have become utterly bewildering for most people. With all the claims and counterclaims it's hard to tell what is reliable information and what is propaganda, to tell truth from ideology.
I think sex and gender have grown so bewildering that most people, far from supporting or opposing, many just throw up their hands and say, "Whatever!" Besides, no one wants to be harassed but neither do they want their speech policed, etc. Rest assured, just like before, sexuality will not be the main focus of what I write here but neither is it a forbidden topic.
As a deacon, I committed to service in the name of Christ and His Church. First and foremost, this means loving the people I encounter, being available, being someone to whom people feel they can talk. Pastorally, it's best to engage with those I encounter in an open way.
I am okay with Newman's insistence, found in his book that was a catalyst for my conversion, Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent: "In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." This dynamic of life also serves to make me more humble, a virtue in which I can always stand to grow. I am far from perfect. And so, I need to keep changing. In Christian parlance this is called "conversion."
Our traditio, is the still very danceable 1983 song by Re-Flex, "The Politics of Dancing" -
No comments:
Post a Comment