Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Election 08'

Over at the Mirror of Justice blog, Princeton professor Robert George has contributed some helpful thoughts regarding the likely McCain-Obama matchup. Professor George is a kind man and a devout Catholic, and many of us at Building Cathedrals have had the privilege of working with him. If you are up for a little more intellectual/political discussion, check out this link. This is not meant to imply that discussing tupperware and to-do lists is anti-intellectual ;-)

While I agree with most of what Professor George wrote, I've been a bit cynical these days regarding how much a politician can positively affect these sorts of life policies. Cynicism aside, George makes some great points as to the potential negative effect of electing a truly anti-life politician. Enjoy the read.

4 comments:

jawats said...

Prof. George is quite brilliant, and at the forefront of natural law theorists these days (along with Finnis, etc.)

He writes lucidly and compellingly, and almost always starts a good debate, as may follow on MoJ.

--j.
catholicramblings.stblogs.com

Katherine said...

I confess I am a bit of a cynic myself. I don't view picking a candidate on which one will do the best job so much as which will do the least damage. I disagree with every candidate on some point or other. So I try to pick the one I think will be the best of the worst, so to speak.

Personally I find Obama the most frightening. I'm not fond of Clinton but Obama seems to have lots of nice sentiments and hopeful words with few concrete assertions and he seems to have a following that almost view him as a religious leader of some sort.

I did enjoy Prof. George's article - thanks!

Maria said...

After working in politics during the years preceding my mommyhood (my poor husband is still mired in the messy business), I take Katherine's view of the situation. Damage control is the best we can hope for within our current political party system.

There are very few politicians who are deeply committed to life issues. Those who are seriously pro-life generally are not liked by party machinery. And even if one of the true believers would somehow elude the party and win a serious political leadership role, change generally does not come easily or rapidly in our government. A one-time true blue pro-lifer isn't going to be able to effect serious change. We need one pro-lifer after another in office to see real change. This really necessitates a seriously pro-life party...which sadly we don't have right now. I vote Republican because they are better than the Democrats, but I'm not under any illusions that the Republican Party is a serious pro-life party.

Actually, this election I'm considering voting third party if Ron Paul would run in the general election. McCain could care less about social issues, supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and I have no confidence in his commitment to choosing good Supreme Court nominees. At some point, I would rather use my vote to send a message to the Republican Party that they need to be serious about life issues if they want social conservatives to stay in the party.

jawats said...

I take the position that the only institution that will make a difference is the Supreme Court, until Roe is overturned, then it's back to the states! Therefore, since McCain does seem committed to appointing strict construction judges (who are most likely, along with social conservatives) to overturn Roe, he will have my vote.

The other things are not within the President's purview, and McCain is aware of that. On things that are (such as torture and judicial nomination and the need to protect Iraqi women and children), he is acceptably, if not excellently, pro-life.

--j.
catholicramblings.stblogs.com