Catholic Integrity in the Voting Booth

I know, I know... the title of this comment sounds like a wrestling move "The Rock" might use.

Mark, I think you bring up some interesting points. You mentioned that Kerry said something along the lines of "I'm Catholic, but not everyone I represent is." From this he seems to justify his non-Catholic actions.

I'm confused. I always thought that the people elected a man whose values and ways of thinking were deemed good enough to represent them. It seems in this case though that Kerry is saying that he feels that he needs to be a puppet that all can control. What kind of leadership is this?

If I were elected president, I don't think I'm required to bend over backwards for the people. They know beforehand my beliefs and my stance on certain issues. The people need to make up their mind prior to voting for me because once I'm elected my values and beliefs will drive my actions. I couldn't turn my back on my faith simply because others don't believe it. If the people think I'm wrong, they ought not elect me. If they elect me, they ought not cry when my values drive my actions.

I understand that the very word "politics" is rooted in compromise, but I don't think it's like this. You compromise your solutions, not your values. There's always more than one way of doing thing and a good politician knows this. But to throw aside that which you claim is dear to your heart is nothing more than an act of weakness.

Good article Mark, I enjoyed it.

Mark, I enjoyed your article quite a bit.

I tend to agree with M. McBride in that a candidate should present his values and character traits to the electorate before the election. Then he/she is elected or rejected based on the values which are sure to guide him/her in the job at hand. This is the only way to assure a semblance of consistency in decision-making, as a person tends to stay true to his/her strongly held beliefs.

But I am aware that another philosophy exists in the realm of political theory which would account for Kerry's statements. This philosophy states that a candidate is a public servant, and part of his servanthood is the rejection of personal beliefs in exchange for the wants and wishes of the represented population. For example, the elected official may be a vegetarian and be against the use of beef for dietary purposes, but he represents a population with a large number of cattle ranchers. With the views of his voters in mind, he would vote to reject a new beef tax that may lower consumption of beef and thereby negatively affect the ranchers. He may even see himself as noble in his support of the voters of his region.

After reading my example one might say, "There is no way a bunch of cattle ranchers would elect a vegetarian!" That, of course, would depend greatly on which of the 2 political philosophies discussed above were held by the candidate. If he proclaimed his opposition to beef from the very beginning then he would never have a chance, obviously. But if he made a statement similar to Kerry's, that he would never put his beliefs above those of his electorate, then he might be successful. And in that success he probably would find no reason to question his own character, as he alone sacrificed his own values and made tough decisions on the behalf of so many.

I personally would support the former approach and reject the latter. In today's religious and political climate, where, by many estimates Catholics make up around 25% of the population and Protestants around 55% (2000 Statistical Abstract of the United States), it wouldn't make sense for Kerry to deny his own "views" in exchange for the views of the people. It's so much easier; he can keep his "views" and still represent the people of the US.

So now this begs the question: so why does he not vote according to traditional Catholic beliefs? Why does he support homosexual "marriage" and abortion rights? This pattern of behavior would suggest that no core belief system is present to guide him in his decisions. He neither represents his own "beliefs" nor those of the country, but seems to be pulled to and fro by whatever forces surround him at the time. This is concerning to me, the average American, because there is little probability that the President of the US will ever be surrounded by average Americans.

Valerie and Mark, you both have a good point about representing the people. If it were me I'd present who I am and let the voters decide. When you're not comfortable with who you are, you try to please everyone. Kerry has done this. In my essay on why Kerry is going to lose in Nov., I put forth that at this point nobody knows anything about him, and the more people learn the less support Kerry will have.

Dean had integrity- he said who he was and inspired the people who felt the same way (the anti-war minority). Unfortunately the Democratic powers-that-be saw in Howard Dean another McGovern. They chose expediency over integrity in flocking to John Kerry. Even now, the majority of people voting for Kerry are really voting against Bush. Simply not being Bush is not enough, though- you have to define who you are and what you believe in.

Kerry has not defined what he believes in, and instead of defining who he is with by standing on 20-year Senate record, he foolishly (and very cynically) chose to run on his four months in Vietnam. Now those four months have been called into question and Kerry has not fought back effectively, revealing an apparent lack of substance. He wants to have it both ways but he forgets:

If you chase two rabbits you won't catch either of them.

All that aside, what I would really like to see is Catholic voters who consider their faith in the voting booth. If I am truly religious, my faith ought to trump any other beliefs when I vote. A term exists--"Cafeteria Catholics"--to describe Catholics who pick and choose which doctrines they'll obey and which they'll ignore. But the word "catholic" means "universal": if you can't accept it all you need to either 1. pray for faith, or 2. quit pretending. Due to the incomprehensible nature of religion, you need faith. That faith is supposed to enable you to accept tough, hard-for-humans-to-accept doctrines, among which in Catholicism are those on abortion, contraception- even the Immaculate Conception, which passes human understanding.

Nothing worthwhile is easy, and religion is no exception. The walk of faith is a hard walk, especially in today's culture. I believe the voting booth is an important stop on that walk.

Consider: Must an elected official that has an opportunity to live his faith--by signing a bill against partial-birth abortions, for example--choose the majority over his conscience? I say yes; that's why we have leaders- be cause what is right is not always popular, and vice versa. What do you think?

Oops...I meant to write that a politician must choose his conscience over the majority. My mistake! No more posting things late at night for me.

>In a sense, when I cast my vote for such a candidate I am putting a certain amount of faith in him as an individual and also in the "anchor" which steadies him.

Absoulutely- the concept of republican government is founded on the idea that the electorate chooses their reps, presidents, and senators and entrusts them to do right by them for 2, 4, and 6 years. You have to have faith in a person to elect him, and he's got to live up to that confidence.

A lot of conservatives are very disappointed with George W. Bush, domestically because he ran on a fiscally conservative, traditional limited-government platform- and proceeded to increase government by double digits (not counting defense or Sept. 11-related expenses). They feel he deceived them in 2000.

Conservatives have every right to turn out Bush in 2004 because of his "false advertising."

I don't think they will, considering the stakes and the alternative, but like it or not, Bush exercised leadership and followed his "anchor." He wasn't worried about pleasing the 48% who voted for him (much less the 52% who voted for someone else).

In the 90s Clinton did the same thing, moving to the center and disappointing the liberals who had put him into office hoping for gays in the military and nationalized health care.

I just wanted to say that I'm just a poop head for never emailing anyone anymore. :( Sorry!