Let’s begin with the obvious. No social conservative could possibly justify voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. They are pro-abortion extremists, as Ryan Anderson shows in an article on Harris at First Things and Dan McLaughlin shows in an article on Walz at National Review. Their records on other matters of concern to social conservatives are no better. It goes without saying that they are absolutely beyond the pale.
Despite his recent betrayal of social conservatives, Donald Trump remains less bad on these issues. Indeed, his appointments to the Supreme Court made possible the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It is understandable that many social conservatives have concluded that, his faults notwithstanding, they must vote for him in order to prevent a Harris/Walz victory. The argument is a serious one. But the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose, because the problem is not merely that Trump will no longer do anything to advance the pro-life cause. It is that his victory would likely do positive harm, indeed grave and lasting damage, to the pro-life cause and to social conservatism in general.
For that reason, a case can also be made for voting for neither Harris nor Trump. Yes, a reasonable person could judge that the case for voting for him is stronger. But before drawing that conclusion, it is imperative for social conservatives carefully to weigh the costs, no less than the benefits, of supporting him. And it is imperative for those who do decide to vote for him not to simply close ranks and quietly acquiesce to his betrayal of social conservatives. They must loudly, vigorously, and persistently protest this betrayal and do everything in their power to mitigate it.
In what follows, I will first explain the nature and gravity of this betrayal. Then I will set out the relevant moral principles for deciding how to vote when faced with a choice between candidates whose positions on matters related to abortion, marriage, and the like are gravely immoral. Finally, I will discuss how these principles apply to the present case.
Trump’s threat to social conservatism
First, let’s put aside a common straw man. Trump’s pro-life critics are routinely accused of foolishly demanding that he immediately push for a national ban on abortion or some other pro-life policy proposal that is currently politically unrealistic. But I know of no one who is demanding any such thing. The critics’ concerns are very different. It is one thing simply to refrain from pursuing pro-life goals for a time. It is quite another thing to abandon those goals outright, and yet another thing to advocate policies that are positively contrary to those goals. The trouble with Trump is not that he has done the first of these things–that much would be perfectly defensible–but rather that he has done the second and the third.
Consider first his change to the Republican party platform, which not only gutted it of its longstanding pro-life language, but introduced elements positively contrary to the pro-life cause. The platform’s longstanding general principle that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” was removed. Only “late term abortion” is explicitly opposed. Not only was support for a national ban on abortion also removed, but the new platform indicates that the matter should be left entirely to the states. The emphasis is now not on the rights of the innocent but rather on the purely procedural question of who gets to determine whether and where abortion should be legal. The new platform also adds that the party supports “policies that advance… access to… IVF.” Into the bargain, the party platform’s support for traditional marriage was also removed.
The manner in which these changes were made is an outrage. As reported in First Things, the platform process was rigged in a shockingly brazen manner so that the changes could be rammed through, with social conservatives prevented from having any input or even a chance to read the revised platform before voting on it. When asked whether the platform changes marked a move to the center on Trump’s part, his son Eric answered that his father “has always been there on those issues, to tell you the truth” and dismissively compared social conservatives’ concerns about abortion and traditional marriage to “worrying about the spot on the wall in the basement.”
It will not do to suggest, as some have, that the platform change was merely motivated by reasonable concerns over the political fallout from the Dobbs decision. For one thing, even well before Dobbs, Trump wanted to make dramatic changes to the platform that would likely anger social conservatives, but until now lacked sufficient control over the party to do so. For another thing, even if the controversy that followed Dobbs were the only consideration, Trump did not need to change the platform in the way he did. He could have let the existing platform stand while basically ignoring it, as he did in 2020. Or he could have merely softened the platform, preserving the general principle of defending the rights of the unborn while leaving it vague how or when this would be done at the federal level. Nor did he need ruthlessly to bar social conservatives from having any influence on the platform process. Nor did he need to add insult to this injury by having an OnlyFans porn model speak at the convention.
Some social conservatives have suggested that while the changes to the platform are bad, they can be reversed after Trump is elected. This is delusional. Obviously, Trump has judged that he and the GOP are now in a strong enough position politically not only to ignore social conservatives, but even to rub their faces in their loss of influence, without electoral consequences. And if he wins in November, this will confirm this judgment. There will be no incentive to restore the socially conservative elements of the platform, and every incentive not to do so, given their unpopularity.
The long-term consequences for social conservatives are bound to be disastrous. Outside the churches, social conservatism currently has no significant institutional support beyond the Republican Party. The universities, corporations, and most of the mass media are extremely hostile to it. And those media outlets that are less hostile (such as Fox News) tolerate social conservatives largely because of their political influence within the GOP. If Trump’s victory is seen as vindicating his decision to throw social conservatives under the bus, then the national GOP will be far less likely in the future even to pay lip service to their agenda, much less to advance it. Opposition to abortion and resistance to other socially liberal policies will become primarily a matter of local rather than national politics, and social conservatives will be pushed further into the cultural margins. They will gradually lose the remaining institutional support they have outside the churches (even as the churches themselves are becoming ever less friendly to them). And their ability to fight against the moral and cultural rot accelerating all around us, and to protect themselves from those who would erode their freedom to practice and promote their religious convictions, will thereby be massively reduced.
Trump has thus put social conservatives in a dilemma. If they withdraw their support from him, they risk helping get Harris elected, which would be a disaster both for them and for the country. But if they roll over and accept his transformation of the party for the sake of near-term electoral victory, they risk long-term political suicide–which would also be a disaster for them and for the country.
But in fact the situation is much worse than that. For, again, it’s not just that Trump has gotten the GOP to abandon the goals of social conservatives. It is that he endorses policies that are positively contrary to those goals. For example, when asked about whether he would block the “abortion medication” mifepristone, Trump responded: “The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it” (emphasis added). Echoing Trump, his running mate J. D. Vance has also said that he supports mifepristone “being accessible.”
Trump’s defenders might claim that he is merely acknowledging a Supreme Court decision. But as Alexandra DeSanctis has pointed out, Trump’s remarks misrepresent what happened. The court did not “approve the abortion pill.” It merely made the narrow technical determination that those who had brought a certain case lacked legal standing. There is nothing in the decision that requires anyone to support keeping the abortion pill accessible. Now, the abortion pill currently accounts for over 60% of abortions in the U.S. So, it’s not just that Trump has gotten the GOP to drop the stated goal of ending abortion. It’s that he positively supports preserving access to the means responsible for the majority of abortions in the country.
It gets worse. On the one hand, Trump says that he is in favor of letting the states decide whether to have restrictions on abortion. But he has been critical of those who have tried to enact such restrictions at the state level. For example, when Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after six weeks, Trump said: “I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” When the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of enforcing an abortion ban, Trump complained that it “went too far.” It is worth noting that Trump ally and Arizona U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake also denounced the ban, and at one point even appeared to adopt Bill Clinton’s rhetoric to the effect that abortion should “safe, legal, and rare.”
And it gets even worse. As already noted, Trump’s new GOP platform calls for “policies that advance… access to… IVF.” He has since once again “strongly” emphasized “supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.” But it is a routine part of the process of IVF to discard unwanted embryos. Indeed, as the National Catholic Register notes, “more human embryos [are] destroyed through IVF than abortion every year.” There is no moral difference between killing embryos during abortion and doing so as part of IVF. So, once again, it is not just that Trump is refraining from advancing the pro-life cause. He positively supports a practice that murders more unborn human beings than even abortion does. And here too we similar positions taken by Trump allies, such as Senator Ted Cruz.
As the examples of Vance, Lake, and Cruz indicate, the problem is not confined to Trump himself, but is spreading through the political movement he started. He is effectively transforming the GOP into a second pro-choice party. Indeed, he is transforming it into a second socially liberal party. Since the Obergefell decision did for same-sex marriage what Roe had done for abortion, the topic of same-sex marriage has receded into the background. The transgender phenomenon has taken center stage in debates about sexual morality. But the legalization of same-sex marriage is what opened the door to it, and as I have argued elsewhere, the issues are inseparable. Once the premises by which same-sex marriage was justified were in place, it was inevitable that what we have seen over the last decade would follow.
Trump has said that he is “fine with” same-sex marriage, and, again, he removed from the GOP platform its statement of support for traditional marriage. Indeed, he has made it clear that in his vision for the Republican Party, “we are fighting for the gay community, and we are fighting and fighting hard.” The president of the LGBT organization Log Cabin Republicans has hailed the “radical and revolutionary” changes to the GOP platform as “one of the most important things that’s happened in Republican Party history,” by which Trump “has put his DNA into the party.”
Many of Trump’s defenders point to the overturning of Roe as evidence that, whatever his faults, he has done so much good for social conservatives that it is unseemly to criticize him for his lapses since. But there are several problems with this argument.
First, it was by no means a sure thing that the justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court would vote to overturn Roe, and it is not clear that Trump himself believed they really would or even wanted them to. It has been reported that he was privately critical of state-level measures to put limits on abortion even prior to Dobbs, and that when the court’s decision was revealed he “privately told friends and advisers the ruling will be ‘bad for Republicans’” and was initially reluctant to take credit. Politics rather than principle appears always to have been his main concern. It seems that he favored talking about overturning Roe, because he judged it to be good politics, but fretted about actually overturning it because he judged that to be bad politics.
Second, the Dobbs decision, while indeed a great victory, nevertheless fell crucially short of what pro-lifers had actually long been arguing for. In order to secure a majority, the decision declined to go as far as affirming that the unborn child is a human being with the same right to life that any other innocent human being has. As Hadley Arkes has argued, this defect helped open the door to the problems the pro-life movement has faced since Dobbs.
Third, it is silly to pretend that because a politician (or anyone else) does something good, he ought to be given a pass when he does something bad. And in any event, overturning Roe was for pro-lifers never an end in itself, but only a means to the end of banning abortion. It is quite preposterous to expect them to be so thankful to Trump for providing this means that they refrain from criticizing him for doing things that are positively contrary to that end.
By no means can it be denied that Harris, Walz, and the Democratic Party in general are worse on the issues that concern social conservatives. They are more extreme on abortion and on LGBT-related matters, and a threat to the religious liberty of social conservatives. But the fact remains that a Trump victory is bound to ratify his transformation of the GOP. It will no longer be a socially conservative party, but a second and more moderate socially liberal party.
How should social conservatives vote?
Catholic moral theology provides guidelines for voters in situations like this, and because these guidelines are matters of natural law, they can also be useful to social conservatives who are not Catholic.
The first thing to emphasize is that the issues we have been discussing are the most fundamental of all political issues. The family is the basic unit of all social order, and it is grounded in marriage, which exists for the sake of the children to which it naturally gives rise. And the protection of innocent human life is the fundamental duty of government. A society that attacks the natural structure of marriage, that makes of a mother’s womb anything but the safest place in the world for a child to be, and whose governing authorities refuse to protect the most helpless of the innocent, is a society that is corrupt in its very foundations. Matters of economics, foreign policy, and the like are all of secondary importance.
Twenty years ago, in “On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good,” Archbishop (now Cardinal) Raymond Burke set out the moral principles which Catholic theology says ought to guide voters. After discussing abortion and other threats to innocent life, and same-sex marriage, he wrote:
Among the many “social conditions” which the Catholic must take into account in voting, the above serious moral issues must be given the first consideration. The Catholic voter must seek, above every other consideration, to protect the common good by opposing these practices which attack its very foundations. Thus, in weighing all of the social conditions which pertain to the common good, we must safeguard, before all else, the good of human life and the good of marriage and the family. (Emphasis added)
Similarly, the 2002 document “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” issued by the CDF under then-Cardinal Ratzinger, teaches:
A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals… When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility… This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia… Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman… In no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.
So crucial are these issues that some moral theologians seem to hold that any candidate who takes an immoral position on them must, accordingly, flatly be disqualified from consideration under any circumstances. For example, Fr. Matthew Habiger argues:
Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a politician who has a clear record of supporting abortion? Or is it a sin to vote for a politician who regularly uses his public office to fund or otherwise encourage the killing of unborn children? I take the position that it is clearly a sin to vote for such a politician…
The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion. But is it all that remote? The legislator who votes for abortion is clearly a formal accomplice, giving formal cooperation with abortion. S/he shares both in the intention of the act, and in supplying material support for the act. If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue its decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her…
It is not sufficient to think that, since candidate X takes the ‘right position’ on other issues such as the economy, foreign relations, defense, etc. but only goes wrong on abortion, one can in good conscience, vote for him/her. Abortion deals with the first and most basic human right, without which there is nothing left to talk about.
Cardinal Burke seems, at least at first glance, to take a similar position, when he writes:
It is sometimes impossible to avoid all cooperation with evil, as may well be true in selecting a candidate for public office. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met…
But, there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, that a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as legal marriage. These elements are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good.
These arguments seem to imply that a candidate’s support for abortion or same-sex marriage are absolutely disqualifying, so that the principle of double effect cannot justify voting for such a candidate even when there is no viable alternative candidate who does not support these things.
However, that is a more stringent position than the Church and moral theologians have traditionally taken, and on closer inspection Cardinal Burke does not seem to intend it. For he goes on to say:
A Catholic may vote for a candidate who, while he supports an evil action, also supports the limitation of the evil involved, if there is no better candidate. For example, a candidate may support procured abortion in a limited number of cases but be opposed to it otherwise. In such a case, the Catholic who recognizes the immorality of all procured abortions may rightly vote for this candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate in an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortions would be considered legal. Here the intention of the Catholic voter, unable to find a viable candidate who would stop the evil of procured abortion by making it illegal, is to reduce the number of abortions by limiting the circumstances in which it is legal. This is not a question of choosing the lesser evil, but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at the time…
Thus, a Catholic who is clear in his or her opposition to the moral evil of procured abortion could vote for a candidate who supports the limitation of the legality of procured abortion, even though the candidate does not oppose all use of procured abortion, if the other candidate(s) do not support the limitation of the evil of procured abortion. Of course, the end in view for the Catholic must always be the total conformity of the civil law with the moral law, that is, ultimately the total elimination of the evil of procured abortion.
Similarly, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in a 2004 memo which emphasizes the necessity of Catholic politicians and voters to oppose abortion and euthanasia, allows that:
When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Naturally, among the proportionate reasons that may justify such a vote would be that the alternative viable candidates are even worse on issues like abortion and euthanasia, as Cardinal Burke says. Burke adds some further important points:
[M]aterial cooperation… is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: 1) there is no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity; 2) the voter opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate only because of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and 3) the voter avoids giving scandal by telling anyone, who may know for whom he or she has voted, that he or she did so to advance the morally good practices the candidate supports, while remaining opposed to the immoral practices the candidate endorses and promotes.
This third condition merits special emphasis. Some who argue for voting for Trump as the less bad of two bad options have also been very critical of those who publicly criticize Trump for his betrayal of the pro-life cause and of social conservatives. Such criticism, they worry, might lose him votes. But as Burke’s remarks indicate, one problem with this attitude is that it threatens to give scandal. It “sends the message” that social conservatives put politics over principle, and that winning elections is more important to them than the ends for which they are supposed to be winning elections in the first place, such as protecting innocent life and the institution of marriage. I would add that another problem is that if politicians who take immoral positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the like are not publicly criticized for doing so, this will encourage them to continue taking these positions in the future, or even more extreme positions. Such politicians should be made to fear that they will lose votes, since nothing else is likely to deter them.
There is a further consideration. As Germain Grisez points out in his treatment of the ethics of voting in Volume 2 of The Way of the Lord Jesus:
Since politics is an ongoing process, votes can have important political effects even when not decisive. The size of the vote by which a candidate wins often affects the candidate’s power while in office. Hence, it usually is worthwhile to use one’s vote to widen the margin by which a good candidate wins or narrow the margin by which a bad one wins. Moreover, the size of a losing candidate’s vote often determines whether he or she will again be nominated or run for the same office or another one. From this perspective, too, it often is worthwhile to use one’s vote for a good candidate or against a bad one. (p. 870)
Here is one way this consideration is relevant to the question at hand. Suppose Trump not only won the election, but won by a wide margin, or won without losing a significant number of socially conservative voters. This would encourage the GOP in the future to maintain Trump’s changes to the party and continue its trajectory in a more socially liberal direction. But suppose instead that Trump won by a very narrow margin, or won but lost many socially conservative voters in the process, or lost because many socially conservative voters defected. That would encourage the GOP to reverse course, and move back in a more socially conservative direction lest it permanently alienate a major part of its traditional voter base.
I have been emphasizing abortion and same-sex marriage, but obviously there are other important issues too. On inflation, crime, immigration, appointing judges, and so on, Harris is in my opinion manifestly far worse than Trump. Indeed, the Democrats in general are in my view now so extremely irresponsible on these matters that voting for them is unimaginable even apart from their depraved views on abortion, marriage, transgenderism, and related issues. It is important to acknowledge, however, that even if he is not as bad as the Democrats, Trump too has grave deficiencies even apart from his betrayal of social conservatives. The most serious of these is his attempt, after the 2020 election, to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to set aside Electoral College votes from states Trump contested–something Pence had no authority to do. This was a very grave affront to the rule of law, and should have been sufficient to prevent Republican voters from ever nominating him again.
But they did nominate him, so the question is what to do now, in light of the principles I’ve just been setting out. The first thing to say is that, though other issues are of course important, competing candidates’ positions on matters such as abortion and marriage are most important. For Catholics and others committed to a natural law approach to politics, comparing candidates’ positions on these matters is the first and most fundamental step in determining how to vote, and only after that should other issues be considered. And as I have already said, the fact that Harris and Walz are worse than Trump on these issues suffices to disqualify them, by the criteria of Catholic moral theology I’ve been discussing. The question is not whether to vote for Trump or Harris–no one should vote for Harris. The question is whether to vote for Trump or instead to vote for neither of the major candidates (by voting for a third party candidate, or for a write-in candidate, or by leaving this part of the ballot blank).
The argument for voting for Trump is that Harris and the Democrats would do far more damage to the country, not least in the respects social conservatives most care about. The argument for sitting the election out is that the GOP must be punished–either by losing or by only narrowly winning–for moving in a socially liberal direction, since its doing so will do enormous damage to the country in the long run unless the loss of votes convinces the party to reverse course.
These are in my opinion both powerful arguments. And together they imply that the least bad result would be one where Trump wins, but only narrowly, and in particular in such a way that it is manifest that the GOP will in future lose the votes of social conservatives (and thus lose elections) if it does not reverse the socially liberal direction Trump has taken it in. Unfortunately, the individual voter cannot guarantee this result, because he can control only how he votes, not how others vote. He can’t ensure that Trump gets just enough votes narrowly to win, but loses enough votes to punish the GOP for its betrayal of social conservatives.
But there are nevertheless some general considerations to guide socially conservative voters here. One of them is that those who reside in states that Trump will definitely not win anyway should not vote for him, but either abstain or vote for some other conservative candidate as a protest. For example, I live in California (which Trump will definitely lose anyway) and I will not vote for him, but will instead, as a protest, cast a write-in vote for Ron DeSantis (who in my opinion was clearly the candidate GOP primary voters should have chosen–though that is neither here nor there for present purposes). I have also publicly been very critical of Trump’s betrayal of social conservatives, and have tried to do what I can in my capacity as a writer to encourage others to make their displeasure known.
Meanwhile, socially conservative voters in swing states could, by the criteria set out by Ratzinger and Burke, justify voting for Trump as the less bad of two bad candidates. But a condition on their doing so is that they must neither approve of nor keep silent about Trump’s betrayal of the unborn and of social conservatives. They must make their disapproval publicly known in whatever way they are able, so as to avoid scandal and pressure the GOP to reverse the socially liberal course Trump is putting it on.
The aim of this strategy is, again, to prevent the grave damage that Harris would do to the country, while at the same time preventing the long-term grave damage that would be done to the country by having both major parties become pro-choice and socially liberal. Trump’s winning is necessary for the first, and his winning only narrowly and in the face of strong social conservative resistance is necessary for the second.
That, anyway, is my considered opinion. I welcome constructive criticism. But I ask my fellow social conservatives who disagree with me seriously to consider the gravity of the situation Trump has put us in, and the imperative not to let partisan passions overwhelm reason and charity when debating what to do about it. Thomas More, patron saint of statesmen, pray for us.
(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Here is how one “social conservative” treated the situation:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2024/08/10/of-priests-and-politics/
Father Peter. I read your article and much appreciate your input. Yes, perhaps we do have an obligation to vote, but I wonder why so many think that we, as Catholic Christians, must compromise ourselves with picking the “lesser of two evils “ offered by the two major parties when there are other options which do not require our compromising our values. One such option is the little known American Solidarity Party. This is a party whose platform is built entirely on Catholic beliefs and values. If every Catholic joined with all others who support the traditional Jewish/Christian morality , we would present a loud, united voice. Perhaps it is more important to make our convictions known than to win an election. Just some food for thought before this very important election.
Don’t throw your vote away for a candidate that has no chance of winning. Vote for the lesser of two evils.
I agree, it’s fascinating how many professors and intellectuals with advanced degrees have no commonsense.
Until we get a real third party system it would be wise to avoid criticism of the party that has some respect of God as opposed to the other party who totally disregards God, especially during an election that most agree will be very close.
You are taking the “right to vote” for granted. Do not. With Trump in office that right, and your dillema on who to vote for in 2028, will disappear. He said so. Yes, he said so. And you do not know who will replace Trump in 2028 or 2032, but you will not be able to do anything about it, because you will not be able to vote.
Just say no to Trump Derangement Syndrome please. It’s become a real disorder. Some people go down that rabbit hole & never come back out again. I’ve lost a friend that way.
That is a blatant lie.
Why are you here?
Good grief!
I have come to conclude that the “wasted vote” argument is unsound, and based on this. We have a deep psychological desire to enjoy the chance to be part of a winner–when we watch sports, we root for a team, etc. If there is no chance a candidate can win, then there is no chance of that satisfaction, and our vote is “wasted.” BUT, that only has to do with psychology. On the other hand, in my observation, when people vote for someone, there is a strong desire to justify that vote, and to defend that person against legitimate criticisms, etc. It is much harder than people want to believe to do what Feser notes, and vote for someone while vociferously critiquing that person. I think people do damage to themselves by promoting such cognitive dissonance. In addition, if enough people are willing to vote for an alternative, it will get more noticed and have some impact–one vote has much more influence on someone who gets single digits than it does for someone who gets millions. Your one vote will never win an election, but it is likely to deeply affect your own psyche.
Well, if your own “psyche” is the only world you live in, fine and dandy. Take that high road to political Onanism.
The external world, however, calls for harder choices that indeed may be risky to one’s sense of integrity, but we (some of us) did not create the mess we’re in, and we will not help to ameliorate it by indulging in the satisfaction of voting for a candidate who has the chance of the proverbial snowball in hades.
I wish there were someone other than DJT to vote for, but he is the only candidate who has a chance to block, for a time, the radical left from doing even more damage than they have done in the last four and more years.
The odds of my vote determining the Electoral College vote of my state is less than my odds of winning the Powerball … for every drawing for the next 30 years.
If the lottery is throwing away your money, voting is throwing away your vote. It need not also be throwing away your conscience, as you want Samuel to do.
Oh my. Your vote is not just you. Its all the people who think like you. Elections these days are decided by thousands and sometimes only hundreds of votes. Not voting for the BEST candidate available is short sighted. Best will rately mean perfect. And a candidate for the presidency will rarely be mistaken for a saint. Its a choice between reality and surrendering EVERYTHING of meaning about your countrys future.
Wake-up! The election of Harris and Walz will lead to the destruction of our cpuntry as we know it. It will also, likely, lead to a persecution of the Catholic Church. Despite his faults, neither one of these situations will occur with a Trump administration.
James, how do you know that? You are only guessing, of course. What is certain is that A. Plump only cares about himself and B. that he lies. So you can not be sure what he will do beyond that those. His master in Moscow will most likely make the decisions.
It’s difficult to know what we would be getting if Trump wins the election and becomes president again. Trump is erratic and unpredictable and adheres to no consistent ideology.
Since our president is elected by the electoral college, it seems there is a clear way out of the dilemma posed by this article. If you are from a “battleground” state, then vote the lesser of two evils, otherwise vote to make a statement. Let those who live is states with “given” electoral results carry the burden of making a statement.
I would also like to point out the Trump has expressed his intention to end WWIII. Surely that counts as a pro-life position.
This election is between Good and Evil. Unlike previous Republican Presidents, Trump addressed the March for Life in person. He also hosted mentally impaired children to demonstrate that all Life is precious and should be protected. Downplaying his Supreme Court picks (suggesting he didn’t know how they would vote) is a low blow. He had every reason to believe they were anti-Roe – they came from the Federalist Society. But this essay completely fails to take into account What a radically anti-Life Harris will do with the Life issue. Their anti-religious agenda will almost certainly demand that Catholic hospitals perform abortions; they will eliminate any reasons for health professionals to op-out of performing abortions; and they will dictate that all teaching of Catholic moral teachings cease. In NY the State Education Department is demanding that Yeshivahs stop teaching traditional morality and replace it with pro-homosexual, pro-abort, and the cultural of death. Every religious group will face a similar assault. And the social media platforms will continue to curtail the posting of Judea/ Christian values. These issues have expanded the definition of the pro-Life debate. A vote for Trump is a vote for Life and religious freedom.
Thank you for your comment. I myself intend to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the American Solidarity Party: Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak.
It can indeed be “more important to make our convictions known than to win an election”. And a vote speaks louder than words.
Since 2016, the world has been talking about the strong and loyal support and protection American Christians have been giving to Donald Trump.
How much better it would be if the world were talking about the strong and loyal support and protection American Christians were giving to the American Solidarity Party!
With only three choices: 1) vote Democrats, 2) vote Republican, 3) do not vote, I always prefer to vote the “lesser evil”. The greatest evils today are abortion, euthanasia, and gender ideology. Republicans are obviously the lesser evil. Not to vote means the Democrats get 1 less vote against it. Even if there were a truly conservative third party candidate (who will most likely not win), I will vote for the lesser evil who may win, rather than a true conservative who cannot win.
Ultimately, the best I can do in addition under the present circumstances is to continue to pray the rosary and offer sacrifices for the conversion of sinners and hope that someday abortion will become unthinkable to all people so that regardless of the law on abortion (if Democrats get to control of US politics with the support of godless multibillionaires) no one will abort a child. Jesus in His days on earth never tried to change the Roman politics, rather He changed the hearts of men.
Thank you for expressing with such clarity how to deal with this political situation we find ourselves in. It was what I needed after reading the article you responded to.
“Artificial contraception”?
Yes, Mrs. Hess. Thank you for that clarification.
🙂
Dear Father. Political leaders can no longer or have ever been trusted. Our GOP has been morphed into the Trump MAGA cult of crazies. Majorie Taylor Green, Matt Gaetz, Speaker Johnson, Tommy Tuberville and the like.
Trump tried to overthrow the people’s vote in 2020 by the invasion of the seat of US democracy, the US Capitol. To the Capitol invaders, “go home we love you”. Given what I know about the church’s past political acceptance of Trump it reeks with hypocrisy and complicity.
We are responsible for the abortion convolution! We will not move forward absent a clear nonpolitical statement on abortion. It is NOT Project 2025. Read it. Politicians can’t be trusted, as in Trump. SOCUTS tossed the abortion issue entirely to the states causing “Red and Blue” state havoc. State authority: “who gets to determine whether and where abortion should be legal”?
Associated Press: Emergency room refusal — Bleeding and in pain, Kyleigh Thurman didn’t know her doomed pregnancy could kill her. Emergency room doctors at Ascension Seton Williamson in Texas handed her a pamphlet on miscarriage and told her to “let nature take its course” before discharging her without treatment for her ectopic pregnancy. OBGYN doctors are in fear of losing their licenses, sued and jailed by politicians.
We are pro-life, ALL life.
https://apnews.com/article/pregnant-women-emergency-room-ectopic-er-edd66276d2f6c412c988051b618fb8f9
Thank you.
God bless.
For goodness sakes. I saw that same article yesterday & it was ridiculous. The AP should be ashamed of themselves.
Reduclous article? You may have overlooked “Bleeding and in pain, Kyleigh Thurman didn’t know her doomed pregnancy could kill her” on other web sites….
NBC Miami
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/dozens-of-pregnant-women-some-bleeding-or-in-labor-being-turned-away-from-ers-despite-federal-law/3390196/
US News and World Report
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-08-12/dozens-of-pregnant-women-some-bleeding-or-in-labor-being-turned-away-from-ers-despite-federal-law
MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/texas-women-refused-abortions-for-life-threatening-ectopic-pregnancies-demand-probe-into-hospitals/ar-AA1oG6P2
Oh, I forgot another Texas woman, Lauren Miller.
Fox 4 K D F W
https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-abortion-law-lauren-miller-testimony
I continue to say, “walk in their shoes”. Credability?
Mr Morgan, I may be unqualified to discuss any number of issues here but as a woman and mother of 8, I know propaganda about ectopic pregnancy when I see it. And I wish more people did too.
Don’t be manipulated by that.
Well morganD what does D stand for, Dilemma? Dobbs? Deuces?
I already said it’s NOT a dilemma, you can read my comments on this page on it.
All Trump has done is recapitulated the abortion problem anew, upon another set of terms given in Dobbs yet to be expanded. So when you bring up old arguments like ectopic or rape, etc., that were covered already, it plays the new game as if something true and of moment is just now coming ablaze.
I am going to make a comment on Cbalducc’s “tiger” below here. Look for that, I feel it will help you Dodge the Devil’s Darts better.
Stop referring to “our GOP” as if you are a Republican. It is deeply dishonest. Your TDS and DNC talking points are a cautionary tale to readers here about what happens when you surrender to a leftist ideology. You’re not fooling anyone here, and no one is buying what you’re selling. And deliberately lying was a sin last time I checked.
Our choice in November is binary – either Harris or Trump. Harris is the most extreme of the pro-abortion side – taxpayer funded abortions without any restrictions on women and girls of any age. They’ll include gender transition and the multilation of children in their attack on life. Donald Trump has a pro-life record. Donald Trump is going to be the most approachable about getting the Federal Government involved in defending life and has shown in the past that he’s willing to move in our direction – which he did in a huge way. He’ll reinstate the Mexico City policy prohibiting international funding of abortion and continue to appoint pro-life judges. What he’s done in this campaign is purely political in order to diffuse the abortion issue in this election. I hate to see this and don’t agree with the strategy because it motivates responses like that from Dr. Feser. But any encouragement for staying home in November supports the election of Harris/Walz. NOT VOTING IS A VOTE!!! This election will most certainly have a huge impact on life issues – but it’s also about open borders, a sound economy, world peace and so much more. There are too many conservatives who think that voting is about making a statement instead of making a difference.Those people voted for Ross Perot and gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton. Many of those people will vote for RFK or stay home this November because they hate Donald Trump more than they love their country.
In pressuring Pence to overthrow the 2020 election after it was shown that the Constitution did NOT authorize the vice-president to do so, Trump broke his presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pence-details-jan-6-falling-out-with-trump-in-new-memoir
Sad that you take anything published by PBS seriously. That’s what we call a low information voter.
I take Mr. Pence’s statement seriously: Pence says Trump berated him, telling him, “You’re too honest,” and predicting that “hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts” and “people are gonna think you’re stupid.”
“As the days wore on, it was becoming clear that there would be a real cost to me politically when I presided over the certification of the 2020 election,” Pence writes. “I always knew that I did not possess the authority to overturn the election. I knew it would be hurtful to my friend for me to participate in the certification. But my duty was clear.”
For Trump to threaten Pence unless Pence went against the Constitutions is a clear violation of Trump’s presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions.”
I’m not going to disrespect Mr. Pence but Athanasius is correct about PBS. Take it all with a large grain of salt.
“Take it all with a large grain of salt.” Does that include the quotes from Mr. Pence’s book? It seems to me that both you and Athanasius are avoiding the issue at point which is Mr. Pence’s testimony about the pressure he received from Mr. Trump to go against the Constitutions, pressure that contradicts Mr. Trump’s path to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
The bishops undermined Trump – the Catholic vote was pathetic – Trump in realpolitik decided he had to win by abandoning his staunch pro-life stance. We have met the enemy and he is us.
I stood at the March for Life in DC when Trump spoke passionately about the sanctity of life. Our feeble bishops stabbed him in the back – so he deduced they don’t believe what they preach.
Bingo. We throw stones at Trump, when the real problem in the pro-life movement is the USCCB, and it always has been. The American Catholic bishops have never and will never break ranks with their Democrat Party financiers.
Maybe the Bishops don’t believe what they preach, but then again, does Trump? How many campaign promises has he broken? (Did Mexico ever send a cheque for the wall, for example)? Did Trump Trump ever believe in the pro-life cause to begin with, or was it just a cynical ploy to get the votes of social Conservatives? He certainly doesn’t believe in fighting Gender Ideology, since he is calling for an end of the Bud Lite boycott over their embrace of Trans-“Influencer” and escaped mental patient Dylan Mulvaney.
It’s one thing to argue that conservatives should vote for Trump because he is the lesser of two evils, which when compared to Harris and Walz is absolutely correct. But trying to excuse his failures and betrayals of his voter base, and claim that they are to blame for letting him down instead of vice versa is ridiculous.
There is indeed a choice for faithful Roman Catholics. You can vote for the veiled Marxism of the Demoniac party or you can vote for the party which assures a degree of personal and religious freedom — the party presently forced to acquiesce to the demands of a society in slavery to sexual compulsion in order to have even a voice at the table.
In the final analysis it is not the responsibility of any political party to whip the culture into conformity to the Christian moral code, it is the responsibility of those entities who count themselves Christian. Protestantism long ago lost its credence in this regard — it could be regarded at its inception. Roman Catholicism has been circling the drain for sixty years. Essentially it has now fallen with the bold Bergoglian endorsement of immorality with the “apostolate” of James Martin SJ.
The Church has abandoned Christian morality, not the political parties. Indeed, the Church and the protestant denominations have and are facilitating the collapse of society into a cult of sexual perversion and of infanticide. Lip service has served no purpose.
Its on us, and there is no defense which can be rendered since 13 March 2013. Its on us.
Here we go again – Hold your nose and cast your vote.
But VOTE
Pinch me if you’ve heard this before – All of you who (in high moral superiority) refuse to vote – that’s one LESS vote you-know-who needs.
If WWIII breaks out whether female sanitary products are provided in Minnesota boys restrooms seems less critical to me.
I’m not voting for wokery nor Mrs. Harris. But global events are something that should be taking up more conversation amongst voters.
These people want you to be in a quandary by obfuscation of the issues. Don’t let them succeed. It’s really very simple….one side is pro-life and the other is for the murder of pre-born children. One side is for the government to control every aspect of your life and the other believes in personal freedoms and the Constitution. Vote accordingly.
Yes! What *is* it with people on our side shooting themselves in the foot just at crucial moments? This is the most serious election of our lifetimes. How “precious” to hem and haw about our delicate sensibilities, while contemplating a useless third-party vote to remain politically “pure,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Is that the right thing to do? Is that being “wise as serpents and gentle as doves?” Is that what Catholics want to live with when they see the consequences for decades into the future? Politics are down and dirty, and our job right now is to STOP a hard-core leftist, anti-Catholic, all-in-for-abortion ticket intent on pounding the final nails into the coffin of our civilization. The only one standing in the way of this right now is Trump. We’re not voting for sainthood for Trump, we’re voting to prevent the destruction of everything good, true, and holy. I’m sorry, but I cannot possibly respect the intelligence or good judgment of fellow Catholics who fail in their obvious duty, by doing nothing actually practical to stop the leftist onslaught presently facing us. I usually like and respect Ed Feser, but this is absolutely not the time to be entertaining these kinds of self-indulgent attitudes. This kind of thinking is exactly why we keep losing ground to the anti-Catholic left. The ballot box is not a place for “witness,” it’s a place to get a job done. Witness to the culture and to the fullness of the truth with your life, but when it comes to doing what we can to stop evil, we must do what is most practical.
Yes, Anthony. I think Bobby Jindal once called the GOP the “Stupid Party”. Always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Have you been listening? This is just as much about politicians shooting people on their own side at a crucial moment (if we wish to use such a hyperbolic metaphor). You and yours say this is all about politics and politics is all about winning, and politics is about strategy; that it is “down and dirty” and all about (political) calculations for winning. Well then, live with the Republican candidate’s calculation that he could keep his social conservatives (rather authentic Catholics) in order and still win over some moderate independents and democrats. If Trump and Vance all of a sudden went all neocon (the way they became pro-choice overnight) your paleos might not be showing up at the ballot box or might be writing in other candidates. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t lecture everyone on the political strategic realities and then complain when these don’t mesh with the realities in peoples’ hearts and minds. It’s like sending out one’s (policy) thugs out on the streets to clean up anyone who disagrees with you. Trump today said he will cut energy rates (prices) in half within twelve months. Some people will vote for him for that. A few more votes. I would like lower prices but it is not my priority because I am frugal. My priority is young, beautiful, human beings being killed everyday in the womb and the entire political theatre caring little about it . Why can’t Trump say he will just lower abortion rates and explain why this is good for the country? Because he will lose some votes? Since everything is about the economy, you and yours should go badger all the (dumb) people who are going to vote for Harris because they think she is better for the economy? No, it’s easier to shoot at the “value voters” who were once a shoe-in until the shoe was planted on them. Here’s another reality: some people are bailing on politics because is has become so untrustworthy and corrupt on all sides. We still pay our taxes, etc. although we get little in return, either economic or moral (both sides keep giving our children bigger deficits). But some of us are just strong enough, just frontier enough, to never forsake God and our faith for a few measly kilowatt hours. We care little, whether you or yours respect us, especially since we already knew this to be the case before you ever spoke it aloud.
This post and your one below dated AUGUST 15, 2024 AT 12:01 PM, align with utilitarianism to a perfection. Your arguments mesh J.S. Mill’s Methods altogether at once and meshes the Method of Exclusion to them simultaneously. Wow how smart is that. What you’ve done there is 1. relativize the pro-life principle and made it inconsequential or non-principle and 2. provided ammunition for the other side to an extent that would elevate them. See them chiming in with what you offer, but in their own cause, to “teach the nation” in chorus: Harris, Whitmer, Newsom, the Pro-Choice Caucus, the Republican Majority for Choice, the whole chicken run.
Methexis!
That reveals the foolishness in the new Republican-Trump get-up that we already knew was there all along, by the way, before you spoke it out loud. Self-defeating on life in order to have their own time in the sun. Unprincipled. Abortion is crime and politicians who are holding aloof are aiding and abetting those who are promoting it in whatever aspect. Their role requires accountability, it is not given to them to “assume teaching positions” in order to defer to crime. Slip-sliding away ……!
There is a value in what you say, in that it helps to address and elaborate the inherent error of certain philosophizing like that of Mill’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill%27s_Methods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/method%20of%20exclusion
Demosthenes! See… I can do it too!
The cup of life overturned!
Bravo! Foolish to think that abstaining from voting is helping the unborn, our country, middle class, ….by not voting you are giving the Leftist marxists a favorable vote. Don’t mess this country up any more than the Left has already done!
The lesser of two evils is how every person who values life from conception to natural death should vote. To encourage people to not vote ….you are complicit in the destruction of innocent human life. If you choose not to vote, please call yourself a Pro-abortionist! Because that is what you are ultimately supporting.
When you have the priest telling you to vote for people who have openly declared 1. for abortion and homosexualism and 2. to do bargains and create/advance society with abortion and homosexualism; it is an anti-witness.
The “justifications” like it will turn out “less evil” because there won’t be any post-partum infanticide murders and it will be easier to pass more pro-life laws, are elaborate falsehoods designed among other things to direct and channel the political discourse; and the priest elaborating accommodations for that is just more anti-witness with incredulity. It’s NOT a dilemma.
Cling to witness. As our Lady asked Francisco, “Are you willing to suffer?”
You & I can choose to suffer perhaps but I’m not going to ensure my children & grandchildren will suffer through my voting decision this November.
I am very glad you are paying attention. I do not live there and am not US. But you are a great and inspiring people and I pray to God about this.
A strange thing has overtaken the leaders, they want the greatness and radiance to end; for they are killing their unborn and perverting whomever they can.
You see, I prefer the first paragraph. God knows it. God bless you.
Sadly, this election if gone wrong effects more than just the US. We have conflicts waiting to blow up globally.
Hillsdale College is conservative and they don’t take funds, is my understanding.
It would be hard to vote for Harris and company just based on perceptions of (from the top down) brain power under stress, even if you don’t think induced abortion is murder.
As so often happens, it comes down to the classic “lesser of two evils” scenario. Trump did get Roe overturned, but he is not a real social conservative. It’s curious that so many social conservatives have been telling themselves that he is one of them, when it is obvious that he is not. Basically, they will have to hold their nose and vote for him.
The GOP’s problem is that it replaced principles based politics with a personality cult demanding blind, unconditional obedience to a single, deeply flawed man. We have seen countries like Ghana, Argentina, and today Venezuela and Russia suffer greatly under this form of politics, which always result in economic decline and political repression. It has no place in a modern democracy.
Sadly, the GOP, in giving the man who cost them three elections in a row (2018, 2020 and 2022) another chance reminds one of what Samuel Johnston said about marriage after divorce, namely it being the “triumph of hope over experience”. Given that Trump has refused to accept his 2020 defeat, and chosen to dive deeper into conspiracy theories surrounding his loss (as opposed to doing some introspection and self-examination as to why he lost).
It was the establishment Republicans and decades of unfulfilled empty campaign promises that made Trump possible. I am an Independent for voting purposes, and it is the establishment wing of the Republican party that makes the party no go to me when it comes to party membership. Until the pandemic the Trump economy was doing very well. Real history, as opposed to media “history”, which is ever changing, doesn’t support the exaggerated claims of Trump critics.
*
I followed the 2020 elections and there were many questionable things about that election. Time magazine did an article about election fortification that was slanted to make the irregularities sound virtuous.
Very interesting article. I tend to favor Father Stravinski’s viewpoint.
For me, the struggle has also been to what extent should I provide financial support – and to whom? In the face of the massive sums being committed by Planned Parenthood/Soros to the Democratic Party, I feel an obligation to do a bit more than cast a vote (not that my meager contributions remotely compare to the aforementioned entities). Thus far, my donations have been directed to Pro-Life PAC’s, instead of the Trump PACs and/or Republic Party. Not certain that this remains the best approach.
I have only been excited to vote FOR a ticket once since Reagan, and that was because of the VP pick. All other times, I have had to accept that I am not voting for the perfect ticket/Party, I am voting AGAINST the ticket/Party I believe is most hurting our country and our kids’ future for our kids. And that is the way I will vote again this time.
Per usual Dr. F, we agree.
After decades in pro-life and politics, I expect Trump to backtrack and claim to be sort-of a social conservative again now that Harris is following the 2008 script of her overlord, Obama. Why? it is dawning on Trump that he betrayed us too soon. In his hubris, Trump miscalculated with Biden as his opponent and abandoned social conservatives too soon, before he was President.
Two traits of Trump explain this behavior. Trump eventually betrays everyone, and he has no ability to comprehend anyone who actually believes in something other than him.
Last November, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a bill which enshrined the most heinous abortion policy imaginable — basically, permission to kill all of the babies, for any reason, up until the point of delivery — in the state constitution.
Prior to that vote, the state’s “pro-life” movement, in an effort to appear “moderate” to voters, mounted an ad campaign that stated, “It’s not black and white.”
They thus went on the record as being in favor of permitting early term abortions in an effort to make the aborts look “extreme” by contrast.
What they did instead was cede the argument. They agreed that there’s nothing wrong with killing babies. They just reserved the right to quibble about which babies it’s okay to kill, and how many.
Quite astonishing.
On the heels of the resulting horrendous and unimaginable electoral setback, Trump — and, eventually Vance — made the same unimaginable concessions that Dr. Feser outlines here. Trump came out in favor of abortion pills, of early term abortions, IVF, and all the rest.
And our Church leaders, with a very few exceptions, did or said little or nothing in response.
Including and especially Bergoglio and his increasingly Dark Vatican.
I have been deeply disgusted by my state, my country and my Church ever since.
So I salute and thank Dr. Feser for putting my horror and revulsion into words. As always, he is absolutely right in every respect.
Our nation is hanging by a very thin, very weak, very stressed thread.
We have been slaughtering one third of our children for the past fifty years. And, according to both political parties now, that’s not nearly enough.
So, you Catholics who vote Republican, you should now join your Democratic-voting fellows and take a barf bag with you into the voting booth.
When the end of all of this unfathomable evil finally comes, we will deserve whatever we get.
I plan on voting in a “real world.”
Currently in this real world, the Democratic Party liberals are in control of almost all the information/news media (FOX appears to be the exception), including television, print, and the internet. It is difficult to learn what the true facts are when Democratic liberal propaganda is broadcast as “truth” on the network news (ABC, NBC, CBS and yes, even FOX at times). The online news world is even worse, as various news feeds present conservatives as wealthy, racist, sexist, backwards, all men, war-mongering, etc. The online world is how most young people get their news, and if these 20 somethings are voting, they will eat the Democratic soup and vote Democratic because they believe it’s the genuine truth.
We are a nation who “worships” our actors, singers, dancers, comedians, artists, writers. The Democratic Party liberals rule the arts world, including theater, movies, television, music, online arts, and books/literature. While there are arts professionals (e.g., various country/western singers) who lean conservative and occasionally make appearances and even perform at conservative politicians’ rallies and also in Christian settings, most are outspokenly ultra-liberal and use their visibility and star-power to promote Democratic candidates and extreme liberal platforms. Any arts professional who is conservative generally has to keep their viewpoints “under wraps” or they risk getting blacklisted and being out of work/no income. A few recent exceptions have popped up in recent years, e.g., the success of “The Chosen” franchise, Bluey (a children’s cartoon out of Australia, not the U.S.!), and some of the sweet love stories on the Hallmark channel–but many of our movies, television shows, stage shows (the new ones), songs, dances, and children’s television promote values and policies that are objectionable to Christians.
The Democratic Party controls the education system, from pre-schools to universities and graduate schools. Most of the teachers’ unions and other organizations are solidly and extremely liberal. Families who allow their children to attend public schools are often shocked when their children/teens come home and announce that they are “exploring their gender” or are “convinced that abortion is necessary because our population is too high” (an outright falsehood, BTW). But sending children to a private school is so expensive that most families can’t afford it, and home-schooling is not for everyone, especially if both parents have to work to make enough money just to pay bills for a simple lifestyle. (Also, when parents have huge student loans to pay back, they have to work, and often delay having children, and when they do have children, they still have to work). And then, of course, there are the single parents–their financial lot in life is especially uncertain, and public school is generally cheaper than private and more realistic for a working single parent than homeschool.
Even churches are controlled by liberal Democrats! Most of the Protestant denominations are now controlled by a liberal consistory, conference, etc., and their pastors (men, women, and “other” genders) consistently preach abortion rights, LBGTQ+ rights including the right of children to be allowed to transition, and suppression of extremist religions (e.g., Catholicism) that label abortion as anything other than “reproductive choice.”
I suspect that the once-prominent view that “very wealthy Republicans” control the business world is no longer true, and that the business world is now equally shared by Republicans and very wealthy Democrats. These wealthy Democrats (e.g., J.B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois) can easily fund gigantic Democratic rallies featuring A-list “stars”–these rallies attract younger voters and give Democratic candidates visibility.
About the only “venue” that doesn’t seem to be controlled by liberals/Democrats is the sports world. During the Olympics, we saw athletes ignore the rules about “no religious activities” and make the Sign of the Cross, mouth Bible verses, point to the heavens, and in their comments to the media, give all the glory to God. We often see professional athletes in the U.S. give glory to God in their speech or gestures. I suspect that the Democratic Party is working to eventually control athletes; e.g., they may make more efforts to include various trans people into sporting events (this didn’t go over very well in Paris during the Olympics).
Yes, there are plenty of deficiencies in our current Republican nominee for President, and the selection of J.D. Vance is indeed puzzling (I loved Hillbilly Elegy, but a good author is not necessarily a good politician). But the Party Platform of the Republican Party is infinitely more acceptable to Christians, including Catholic Christians, than the Democratic Party platform.
As for voting for a 3rd Party unknown candidate–that’s not the “real world” That’s a “conscience appeasing” fantasy world, and while the conscience might be clear, the country will fall into the hands of an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-traditional family, pro-abortion at all stages of pregnancy and for any reason, pro-LGBTQ+ “Rights” which give LGBTQ+ platforms “scientific” legitimacy, and unbridled taxation of families who will have less and less money to use for wholesome family life, private religious schools, and giving to their churches and charities. How will your conscience handle that godless disaster?
Vote in the REAL WORLD.
It should never be possible for a candidate who supports abortion to be qualified for office. Such a candidate is a criminal. That it is shows how liberal democracy is NOT legitimate. The same could be said of democratism – the fallacy that justice is determined by the majority vote.
As it is, there is one offense committed in office – murder – for which, theoretically, Trump could receive the death penalty. I wouldn’t hesitate to pronounce the sentence or influence it.
One improvement to this article is information on how a person might actually make an effective protest against the immorality of Trump.
As an action step, a lawsuit should take care of this issue. Since the principles are clear, the Republican Party can be forced to disqualify Trump and put someone else in his place. I can’t recommend less than a traditional orthodox Catholic. But given that supposedly elections are supposed to matter, a Catholic may not be the best choice.
On the other hand, Harris ought to be disqualified through the same mechanism. No person should be forced to choose an evil.
My criteria for public office – given current conditions – would be a person who has never fornicated, has a wife and – preferably many – children, and hasn’t committed adultery – e.g. “divorce.” Also, he must believe in God as illuminated in Holy Scriptures and worship Him every Sunday. Muslims and atheists shouldn’t be able to be qualified. And there ought to be a morality test taken. One question would be “Do you support abortion?”
It is doubtful that a write-in is the best solution to the problem. When was the last time a “third-party” won the presidency?
Is it betrayal or political expediency for a non Catholic politician? Would a practicing Catholic find it less unpalatable to vote for a non Catholic soft on abortion than a like Catholic? Examples Biden, Dick Durbin.
Feser is basing his evaluation on the severity of abortion, whether one is Catholic or not. And that’s a correct judgment. Although the gnawing question is the suitability of betrayal for a non believer or non Catholic person who conscientiously believes it’s a matter of expediency.
Dignitatis humanae [V II], at least in tone, makes allowance for such conscientious expediency in a pluralistic society. And in respect to the universality concept of religious freedom defined in the Declaration [likely the reason why the request to declare Dignitatis humanae dogma was rejected]. Although does Dignitatis offer us a virtuous mean?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre countered Dignitatis was in contrast to Catholic tradition. This writer agrees with the Archbishop’s objection because Dignitatis doesn’t address Catholic commitment to the Nicene Credo we pronounce every Sunday. Similarly, in the fog of moral decision making in tough situations we have two heavyweights “Ratzinger and Burke” who allow the seeming indiscretion on the basis of a lesser evil insofar as we plainly state our opposition to the evil. But does that have the added requirement of the allegation of betrayal toward Donald Trump? Trump is not the Republican party, nor is the Republican party an arm of Catholicism.
My comment, a response to Feser’s request for constructive criticism, supports Feser in principle, not in application. It can’t be presumed that a vote for Trump places a social conservative in the status of a camp follower. That’s because the Republican party or any political party doesn’t represent who it is we follow.
I really would prefer not to vote for Trump. The author makes many good points. Trump is not, and never has been, a social conservative. I’m not sure he has principles at all, other than sensing the political winds.
Unfortunately, the other ticket is the farthest left ticket the Dems have ever run, a pair of soft Marxists, giving Catholics little choice but to vote for the populist if they hope to avoid Marxism and an Administration that will likely persecute them in addition to the list of other evils they are sure to inflict.
Catholics are just going to have to fight hard to restore the GOP platform and ensure that the candidate in 2028 (if the USA lasts that long) is not a Trump-installed lackey. DeSantis is a very likely nominee in 2028.
I think that there is great ignorance as to what Marxism is and what the difference between it and Socialism is. I am in no way a Democrat and I don’t vote that way, but I am disturbed about them being called Marxists. Marxism is all about class struggle and the elimination of the bourgeoisie or privileged class ,the total takeover of private ownership and the forming of communes. I very much doubt if there are any Democratic candidates who hold these ideals. Sure there is an extreme Left minority, but they don’t represent the Party or it’s platform. They would like to, but they don’t. There is also the extreme Rightists like the KKK etc. who don’t represent the majority of the Republicans. Sadly, the leadership of the party at this point is close to their ideals.
Socialism, on the other hand, is not the same. Perhaps we could say that Communism is a very extreme form of Socialism, but it cannot really be equated with Socialism itself. All Western Democracies are Socialist to varying degrees. We , too, are Socialist in many ways. Our tax dollars are used for Social Security, healthcare, welfare, education, childcare, mental health, recreation etc. etc. The Scandinavian countries are perhaps the most Socialistic Democracies and yet have thriving Capitalistic economies. Not many present day dictatorships are Communist. Russia and China, for example, both have market economies. At the same time neither has as good of a safety net as we do. Perhaps you could even say that we are more socializied than they are.
My whole point is that it is dangerous to label and broadbrush those that we disagree with. This causes division, suspicion and hatred and it is totally dishonest.
I’m afraid all the money given to pro-life lobbyists was wasted. It should have been given to local crisis pregnancy centers. They are more effective in the long run.
Trump exposed the weakness of the pro-life movement. Politically, it is a paper tiger.
Pro-life has exposed Trump as a strategist who is not pro-life now and will not be pro-life during the span of time that will be allotted to Dobbs. Dobbs is meant ot get “legally developed” and unless it is overturned this is where Trump intends to go both by leadership and by endorsement.
Pro-life has no weakness and has nothing to do with paper. Those are your own failings. If you are Catholic you will need to go confession on the comments you offer there in your post. No-one may speak in such terms about the victims of murder and the “justifications” hailing it as righteous or necessary.
Perhaps you are unable to measure the shame and degradation in your post.
I am pro-life. But I believe the movement has attracted people who are more interested in raising money than in actually doing anything to reduce the number of abortions.
“Prolife” certainly attracted politicians who did virtually nothing to protect the rights of the preborn but used that as a tried & true vote-getting issue for decades. Dobbs blew the whole charade out of the water.
Now politicians going to have to do actual hard work locally, state by state & show results for that.
I have enjoyed Dr. Feser’s articles in the past, especially on capital punishment.
However, I do not agree that there is a great dilemma on this election. Watering down the pro-life elements in the Republican platform is regrettable, but there is nothing like moral equivalence between Trump and Harris. Harris has said that her primary election issue is going to be expanding abortion. After Biden, and with four (or more) years of Harris and the people she would appoint, our country would be beyond any kind of recovery.
I am more critical of the bishops on these moral issues than I am of Trump. Regarding IVF the USCCB statement says that they do not “condone” it. Wow, that is strong condemnation.
The recent Eucharistic Congress was a good thing, but it came about to a large extant because the bishops would not implement Canon 915 against the pro-abortion politicians, but thought they had to do something. Half of the bishops in my state are registered democrats, so we have a good idea how they vote.
I know active members of my parish that are pro IVF and pro same sex marriage. NO homilies ever on these and other moral issues. I was talking to a very active member of another parish recently and she estimated that 50% of her parish members were democrats – the party of death. There are NO homilies on these issues, and that is a large part of the problem.
There is a saying that goes, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
I believe the above-mentioned article by Father Stravinskas gives a very reasonable approach to the upcoming election.
Voting for anyone but Trump is a vote for the party of EVIL. Feel virtuous, if that is your need, but contemplate what a win for Foolish Broad and her Communist Lackey will mean for yourself and your children and your children’s children. Pretty dark.
I’m not going to suggest how anyone ought to vote. Just realize this plain fact: whatever candidate gets in because a. you chose that individual or b.you chose not to vote or c. you chose to vote in a way that drew votes away from one candidate or another assuring the election of someone you did not vote for then you will, in part, share the responsibility for the actions of the Executive Branch of government for the next four years.
We live in a republic. Abortion has been relegated to the States. If you want to live here, make the best choice you can and lobby for change. if you don’t want to live here find another (and good luck). The rest of us will stay and try to change the culture – like the Christians did in the Roman Empire. If you stay, be generous with children. They are the only future and solution in a collapsing world population. Even the stupid Russians are trying to back out of their abortion history.
We should be working to effect change at the state level since Dobbs has given us back that right. Overturning Roe did not mean a federal abolition. The state I live in has been 100% free of legally enshrined feticides since Dobbs. (Thank you Donald Trump.) Every state could do the same thing one day, unless God forbid, Harris/Walz are elected .
Effecting reform’s a bunch of work & struggle but that’s how we got civil rights & every other human right legislation passed. Elections matter, both federal & local.
As for the United States, is the tie-breaker less between Twiddledee and Twiddledum than between the decorative vice-presidential candidates? If elected, will Vance discover more completely what it means to understand the so-called social conservatives and to sustain what’s left of Civilization, as a Catholic? In 2028 will he be in a good position for election in 2028?
And, as part of the calculus and on the precarious global stage, which presidential candidate will make the less-bad Commander in Chief?
And, with Fezer, if there is an acceptable third-party candidate on the ballot, it could make personal moral sense to vote for this certain loser in the race, if (and regardless) in the voter’s state the electoral votes were already convincingly assured to be Blue.
Meanwhile, the possible good news for Catholics is that the likelihood of a Pope Francis II has been unwittingly sabotaged by Cardinal Fernandez…who has uncomplicated the next conclave by doing to the Church in the world what Trump has done to social conservatives in the United States. Fiducia Supplicans removed any camouflaging ambiguity about a zeitgeist church-within-the Church. There are likely just enough sane and awake voting cardinals in our now-divided Church to prevent a two-thirds majority for the status quo.
At this moment in long history, the Church might still back away from the precipice; “backwardism” can be a good thing!
“Orange man bad, orange man bad, blah, blah.” I’ll take Trump on his worst day over a vile progressive on his/her/their best day. Lesser of two evils, that’s generally how politics work.
Somewhat off topic, but readers may find the following interesting and draw their own conclusions: The last time the Democrat party carried a majority of the male vote was Johnson 1964 (some sites say Carter over Ford by a very slight margin in 1974). The last time the Democrat party carried a majority of married women was Clinton in 1996. I’m willing to be corrected because I hate spreading inaccurate information. But if accurate, single women, the ball is in your court.
This is hardly a Trump issue. The fact is that there is no political pay-off for being pro-life. Bishops won’t stand with a pro-life president for the world to see. Catholic academia by and large requires, de facto, only pro-life democrats, of which there are ZERO. This is an issue generated largely by pro-choice Catholics (mostly democrat) to hammer pro-life conservatives (mostly republican) into abandoning Trump. And the latter are being intimidated by the former with the threat of social disgrace. The choice is not for Trump to make, it’s church leadership and Catholic academic types choice whether they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated by the prevailing culture. Unfortunately, that choice was made when we did have a pro-life president and he wasn’t pure enough for the elite. Well, now you have to deal with the consequences of your previous choices. Look into the mirror if you want to point the finger at anyone. Will the clergy and Catholic academics make it worthwhile to be pro-life? They haven’t done that yet. In fact, prelates and academics have signaled very clearly that you can be Catholic and vote for abortion. So, surprise, surprise, now more than half of Catholics are pro-abortion. Trump didn’t do that. The likes of McElroy, Cupich and Tobin did that.
The problem with the pro-life movement has been that of too many false friends. Time and time again the so-called seamless garment has proven to be anything but seamless, and provides cover to vote for pro abortion politicians. Even with the most pro-abortion Catholic president ever the bishops for the most part have given little more than lip service to the abortion issue. We need a frank discussion as to what the pro-life movement is doing at the state level to defend the unborn in state laws and constitutions. We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.
Truly sorry to hear about a vote thrown away. Who says “your state” is a loss cause? The writer’s naïveté surprises me given the usual fullness of opinion in the column. I plan to vote Republican in the federal election for Mr. trump in an effort to improve our overall attempts to prevail for conservative values.
That’s what I’m doing also Miss Patricia. It seems pretty simple to me. I’m not sure why we overthink these things. It’s not like there’s a variety of better choices this election.
If we want to aid the Democrats, we should keep on complaining about Donald Trump. It’s not a great strategy to demoralize the troops right before a battle. Or an election.
In the state of California, whose registered voters are only 24% Republican Party, the winner of the majority of electoral votes wins all of the state’s electoral votes. Hence a minority vote is essentially a wasted vote — unless it is for a third party.
This is because votes for the presidency are used by the state to determine whether a party is even recognized as an official political party and granted certain privileges as a result. So one can make a big difference for a third party by voting for their candidate in a presidential election. As for whether third parties matter, remember that the Republican Party began its existence as a third party in the U.S.
To quote that great stateman, Barack Obama, “Elections have consequences.” Cast your ballot wisely since the cobsequences will affect both you and your children. In addition, depending on how you vote, you will likely share responsibility for political decisions made over the next 4 years (and beyond).
I’ve prayed at an abortion clinic between 15 and 30 times a year over the last 8 years. I’ve received my fair share of abuse while praying at the clinic. I have twice attended the Pro-Life march. I’m voting for Donald Trump, and I don’t see it as a vote for “the lesser of two evils.” I see it as a vote against unrestrained diabolical Evil. Ask yourself why in 2016 and 2020, Wall Street, Big Tech, most global CEOs, the military industrial complex, and the intelligence community supported Clinton and Biden. Why have they waged non-stop attacks for the past two years in an attempt to destroy Trump? There was the Russia hoax, two impeachments, numerous indictments, denying Trump a social media platform, and 51 ex members of the intelligence community lying about Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc. Finally, there was an assassination attempt on Trump’s life. Do you think these attacks were motivated because Trump is an adulterer or because he can be rude, uncouth, and arrogant? Hardly. These people hate Trump because he is a threat to their power, to their unchecked ambition, to their pocketbooks, to their globalist agenda, to their desire to rule as an unelected elite who want to control every area of our lives.
I have many friends who are prayerful, pro-life Catholics who are voting for Trump. His stance on abortion is not perfect, but he doesn’t support abortion up to birth as Harris, Walz, and the entire Democratic party do. And he doesn’t support letting children die who survive an abortion (as Walz does). Moreover, Trump kept us out of war, he brokered the Abraham accords and managed an economy where working people weren’t ravaged by inflation.
I’m taking the long view – a Trump/Vance victory is a step in defeating the abortion hegemon that now dominates our culture. A Harris/Walz victory will strengthen that evil force.
I agree Mr. Gibbons.
Just a note on current events. Great Britain just had a general election. The people voted in a Leftist government. Lately, there’s been riots in GB. However, recent news coming out of there point to a suppression of free speech by the government when citizens voice their opinion about immigration. I listened to one agent of their government threatening to throw into jail anyone who violated the government’s policy on speech. Elections have consequences.
My sense is that America will not be around much longer. Just look at our national debt; just look at the current culture; just look at the efforts to de-Christianize the country. My opinion is that if you vote for a certain party you will effectively hasten the demise of the country. If you vote for the other party, you’ll likely stave off the demise a bit longer. It’s a matter whether the country ends sooner or later.
If the godless, anti-life, anti-humananity, criminal establishment remains in power (their leader is obviously the one Jesus referred to as “the prince of this world”), the pro-life movement will be crushed as “domestic terrorists” should be. At least that’s what they will say they are doing: fulfilling their obligation to stamp out
domestic terrorism. We will no longer have the political freedom to have a pro-life movement.
If Trump wins the pro-life movement will be free to continue their efforts.
Oops. That’s humanity not humananity.
See
Pavone’s open letter to Catholic Hierarchy
Personally, I prefer the second spelling better. Sounds more impressive rolling off the tongue.
My sister-law asked me to read this article and respond below is what I sent her:
Well that was a lengthy read. It would appear to be quite a conundrum. I guess I would start with something I noticed in his Bio at the end of the article. He had a book entitled the Catholic defense for the death penalty. I find this odd given his view of defending life. I also find it odd he lives in California. Given some of his reasoning his very presence there is giving rise to the very things he opposes with the taxes he pays within the state. He also glosses over the very real possibility that the election of 2020 was rigged. There is ample evidence to support this however, we continue to ignore it.
I do not say any of this to defend what Trump is doing with respect to the social issues. This does bother me.
There is one thing Trump is adamant about, rolling back trans rights and protecting children from the devastation of transgender surgeries. And keeping men out of woman’s sports.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/05/10/trump-promises-rollback-on-trans-rights-heres-what-hes-said/
Trump is an enigma, and more than that is a flawed human being as much as I am a flawed human being. My one thought goes to the question why was he spared the assassin bullet?
God has used flawed people throughout history to achieve His plans. I mean after all it’s all He has. And while Mr. Feser makes great use of the moral theologians to make his case, I think he may not see forest because of the trees.
For me I will continue to pray, especially for the conversion of Donald Trump and his children.
That was another thing I found interesting; Mr Feser did not see the need to pray for Trump.
I think Mr. Feser intentions are good and he is looking to advance the common good; but we do not know the plans of God or his ways and this is the real conundrum.
I think the question of “why was he spared the assassin’s bullet?” is not only a good question–it is THE fundamental question. Nobody else seems to be thinking of the ramifications of that–in other words, what is God telling us?
When it comes to voting in these presidential elections, I don’t need the advice of theologians. I also eschew over-thinking these matters. I use my common sense and gut instinct about which candidate is going to better secure my constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.
Exactly, Deacon Edward. It seems clear to me.
And if we can see that the Democrat road leads to cultural destruction & the GOP road at least leads to cultural neutrality, why do we sabotage the GOP road before an election?
We can criticize Trump & the GOP until the cows come home, but this isn’t the moment to do that.
Deacon, what is common is murdering babies, divorce… I would not go with common sense. Our guts do not have the power to reason, so the better bodily organ to use would be the brain. As far as your constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, it is not all about you. It is common for people to think it is all about them and that is because they go off gut instinct instead of using their brains to reason.
If you are offended and your gut tells you to respond with indignation
that would be the common thing to do. I hope you do the non common sense thing and use your brain.
This is a very thoughtful, well-reasoned article. The bottom line is that this election is a lost cause if either Trump or Harris wins. We have to look ahead to making our choices in the next election better. As I’ve said before, voting for the lesser evil is a proven failure, and this is where that leads us– a pair of rotten candidates with only an even worse choice to anticipate in four years. I condemn voting for either of those two on practical grounds rather than hair-splitting moral arguments. Why should we double-down on utter failure?
Finally, one could perhaps split his ticket hoping to continue the current paralysis of a split Congress, which at least keeps things from getting a whole lot worse– but even the status quo is unacceptable. Even a 5% showing by a third party or a write-in candidate might start things moving in the other direction again.
Thanks for sharing this with me, an intelligent approach to a complex problem AND to electoral insight – that allows to NOT go with the flow of accommodationism.
The two major parties both exploit the no alternative logic and non-reality.
Yes, because experience shows us that voting for third party candidates prompts reform and lasting change 🙄
I will not be voting for either of the major candidates for President this year. I will be voting for a candidate with whom I agree on all the issues. I know that he will not win, but if enough pro-life Senators and Congressmen and women win, the president will be limited by the Constitution as to the amount of damage s/he will be able to do. And if the only truly pro-life for the whole life party makes a substantial increase in support it may set us up to win sooner than later. The abolitionists made an impact in 1856 although they didn’t win, but it helped them receive the recognition they needed to win 4 years later. A write in for Peter Sonski and Lauren Onak of the American Solidarity Party, or a vote for them in the states where they are on the ballot, will have a greater long term impact on the issues that matter than voting for either of the grossly flawed candidates put forth by the majors, neither of whom are willing to stand up for what is right. Vote for your conscience and stop voting for any evils at all. Until we are willing to do so, we will continue having only evil candidates with a chance to actually win elections.
Voting for a 3rd party candidate who will surely never win, will only ensure that the dem party, which outnumbers republicans in registration, will win. If so and the country is run by the left for four years, the nation will never be the same. It will be destroyed. And you will share in the responsibility for that.
I think you are unrealistic LJ. The Republican platform and Trump’s positions already align with the left. They have done that to achieve a “middle way” together. Trump might get some deals to stop this or that war; and he might help Israel expand territories as part of the trade-off; but his domestic vision will remain where it is yet add a certain scope for increasing his ability to do deals.
Same analysis for melkman, above, AUGUST 15, 2024 AT 6:20 PM
That makes Korlan’s insight a superb one and quite incisive.
On the contrary, there is NOTHING about Trump which aligns with the Democrats. He is however , pragmatic. He doesnt agree with wokism being taught, sexual mutilation of children, DEI and transgenderism. He doesnt believe in taxing people to death or outlawing your right to drive a gas car or own a gas stove. He would NEVER have abandoned our troops to danger or the billions in war material which Biden did in Afghanistan.The economy FLOURISHED under Trump but does not under the left ( you did hear about those 800,000 JOBS which the left took credit for and now have suddenly EVAPORATED???? Even with abortion, Trump is OK leaving those decisions to the states. If you cant see the difference between Republicans who might see an early term abortion in the event of rape or incest as a necessary evil, as opposed to democrats who approve it for any reason up to the date of birth,you have a genuine problem. Even the majority of”good” believing Catholics cannot imagine forcing a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Thats just reality, whether you like it or not. You are essentially suggesting that you will refuse to vote for a person who only agrees with 19 of the 20 issues of importance to you. Thats simply cutting off your nose to spite your face, doll. Because in the end , with that mind-set, you end up with NOTHING.
MarianCenturion: Your comment isn’t worth my engaging either my gut or my brain. I don’t respond to ad hominems.
Holy ad hominem Deacon! I think you got nailed.
Photo credit CWR.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/files.catholicworldreport.com/2018/04/2429girlsigntex_00000001579.jpg
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/07/20/abortion-clinic-of-first-40-days-for-life-to-close/
“But suppose instead that Trump… lost because many socially conservative voters defected. That would encourage the GOP to reverse course, and move back in a more socially conservative direction…” Perhaps, but only superficially. This is where I must disagree with you Dr. Feser. People who vote principles are an aggravation to the utilitarians and consequentialists, because they vote on principle. But, (hopefully) such voters are not hypocrites who would then use their principle to gain another consequence (a Trump loss). How are we to teach principle if all of us are just trying to get everyone to “change course”. It’s the staying of the (good and right) course that we are trying to teach to the nation.
I will not vote for Biden AND I will not vote for Trump.
But I will vote for state level issues related to pro life and for local politicians that are fully pro life.
I do not buy the argument that I should vote for Trump as he is the lesser of two evils. I do NOT have to vote for either and my conscience is clear in that regard.
The state of American politics has become a dog and pony show.
I appreciate Dr. Fesser’s thorough discussion of the issue, and I tend to agree with much of his argument. But there are more considerations which he touches upon but does not fully address. In the big picture, what would a Trump presidency look like? It is one thing to identify policy flaws and violations of moral principles but character and governability also are pertinent. 1) One can make a case, beyond the life and religious issues, that Trump ought be disqualified because of his severe character flaws and the damage it does and will do to our society if he is elected. Dishonesty, constant personal attacks on friend and foe, debilitating self-absorbtion, etc. are not traits that, regardless of policy positions, can make a viable president. One can argue that the tribalism, division, and coarsening of our society in the last few years is in part traceable to Trump. Presidential leadership matters. A serious Christian can rightfully weigh the impact of character flaws. 2) Trump’s recent speeches seem to reveal some, possibly age-related, mental deficits. It is reasonable, as with Biden, to be concerned whether Trump as he presently is (vs. 2016 Trump) still has the capability of being president. 3) Can he govern? the divisiveness and chaos that follows him, one can reasonably deduce, would make very uncertain any ability to advance even agreeable policy matters. I could go on, but, adding to the specific issues which Dr. Fesser raise, these other concerns can justify one not voting for Trump (as well as not voting for Harris), even in a swing state. We may not have a discernable lesser of two evils, but two different kinds of political evils. One may in good conscience, not vote for either. After all, our true loyalty as Christians is to Jesus Christ and our true hope is in His mercy more than a political leader in a particular nation state at a particular time. It is this divine perspective that helps me not to despair. We can do our best, but in the end, God is in charge.
I see what you’re saying here, but everything you wrote a out Trump was true for Obama, but there didn’t seem to be much hand wring about his deep character flaws and proclivity to divide. It’s a double standard.
Let’s be realistic. If Harris and Walz are elected it will lead to the permanent destruction of our country as we know it. The USA will become a “banana republic.” Wasting ones vote on a third party candidate with no chance to be elected is a vote for Harris and Walz. If Harris and Walz are elected be prepared for a persecution of the Catholic Church.
Let’s be realistic. If Harris and Walz are elected it will lead to the permanent destruction of our country as we know it. The USA will become a “banana republic.” Wasting ones vote on a third party candidate with no chance to be elected is a vote for Harris and Walz. A Harris and Walz administration is likely to lead to a persecution of the Catholic Church.
Romans 3:8
And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ro 3:8.
For me not choosing the lesser of two evils is an act of trust in God. Think of all the early Christians who would not give token service to the emperor as a god at the price of their life. It seems they didn’t choose the lesser of two evils.
They didn’t have a choice in an imperial government, we do. Yours is a false comparison.
I think that Trump will win (in spite of himself), and it will be interesting to see how a term limited Trump behaves. He will not have to please the religious right any more and he is not a natural social conservative. Don’t be surprised if A second Trump term is less “conservative “ than advertised, in spite of the rhetoric.
Very few of the talking heads get this. They seem to think that Trump will be Pope John Paul II in a second term, but I think he might surprise.
A Trump presidency that closes the border, deports illegals, and rebuilds the economy if it accomplishes nothing else, will be just fine.
Agree. And not everyone is an institutionally dishonest as democrats. Some people actually believe what they say, and MEAN what they say.
People who worry about personality and not policy are sort of dim bulbs whose votes are PURCHASED by the dems. You know, free college loans paid off, free housing deposits, free medical, even for illegals. Yeah, except the only cash the govt has is provided by TAXPAYERS. That means you and me.
I will be voting TRUMP, no matter what happens in the media, or what judgements are made by bought and sold leftist judges.
I hope your predictions are correct Mr. Will. “In spite of himself” though is key. Trump can be his own worst enemy.
The Voter’s Guides all issued earlier this century gave us 5 moral absolutes with abortion being # 1. I will check out the candidate running on the American Solidarity Party.
It is frightening to read so many comments which fail to look at the whole, at the immediate threat of voting in Communist Socialism which will finish off the freedom of our Country that our Founding Fathers so valiantly have given to us. besides the great threats of war, of Russia, of Iran, of N. Korea and invasion by the Chinese. Our media is almost totally taken over to brainwash us, the colleges teaching our young anti-Americanism and the filth our younger children encounter in school and so many other aspects.
We have fought abortion and must continue, however; our Country is so infiltrated with Communism that if Trump looses, we will be having immediate fully Communist control. Do we want to be another Venezuela or North Korea etc. We have a man that loves America, so there is much more opportunity to save our freedom. As he said, God has saved his life from almost certain assassination, and it was on a Fatima day. He has again had his life threatened. Why are they so intent on getting rid of him? It is because he is a threat to the Globalist Agenda of Socialism and Communism. If Trump lives, and wins, we will have a very hard fight, but it would buy time and give our people a chance to still repent and mitigate the just punishments that we are so disserving of.
Unfortunately, I doubt that we will have an election. The present administration is trying to start a war and if they can do that before the election, they can stay in office.
Our Lady of Fatima said that only She can help us. Pray, Pray, Pray your Rosaries.
Both Trump and Harris are unfit to be president. When you have 2 unfit candidates, it is best not to vote for one of them on the grounds that even though he is unfit, he is less unfit than the other one. You should vote for neither. The Libertarian Party offers an alternative, but their candidate is not very inspiring either. I suppose that the best alternative is to go to church and pray for the consecration of Russia.
vote and pray.
Voting for the lesser of two evils means you are voting to prevent the certain, grave, worse evil.
What makes Trump unfit for office? What unfit activities did you observe in his first term? It appeared to me he kept us out of war, worked so that the economy could allow people to make a living, and battled an unjust Pharma-Industrial complex that used tax dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research.
Do you not see how the embedded Political class, both D & R, hate him enough to lie about his character, fabricate stories about his unjust behavior, indict him for doing business and declassifying documents that exposed their corruption with His Presidential authority. And they allowed a marksman to take 8 shots at his head. It wasn’t even the USSS anti-snipers who took out the assassin, it was the PA country marksman.
Everyone needs to ask, why is Trump even alive after all this?
“…social conservatives have concluded that …they must vote for him (Trump) to prevent a Harris Walz victory. But the matter is not as straight forward as the suppose.” With all due respect, sir, it is. With the certain attempts at mass cheating, mass manipulation and censorship of information and massive funding and support from every corner of the Marxist/Globalist world, including cyber-interference. With a justice dept. the FBI, the attorney general,the MSM, Google, Facebook and YouTube etc. we must mount an overwhelming majority to counter that.
Just remember; Trump did bring about the repeal of Roe v Wade with a fortuitous selection of judges, all of whom voted to overturn it. You’ll also remember that Obama was prevented from putting in Merrick Garland.
These socially conservative issues are bedrock Christian issues, but Catholics are largely in defiance of church teaching and vote Democrat. The Priesthood has been silenced by it’s own homosexual problem that has done incalculable harm to it’s credibility and influence. Protestants have largely accepted and embraced Pride and LGBTQ and “Women’s right to choose”etc. Is it realistic to expect a person who is not by any stretch a practicing Christian to champion these causes then?
It is very straight forward. Vote for a man who’s vision is to restore the best of America. MAGA. vs. an out and out communist and total fraud who’s past actions and words are to the effect of destroying those things, and promoting every deviant element.
For the sake of argument, I accept your premise:
Trump puts social conservatives in a dilemma.
Not voting for Trump helps the D’s foist disaster on the country. This will be an immediate, existential threat. and not just for the unborn.
Voting for Trump risks long-term political suicide and could foist disaster on the country. This cannot be considered an immediate or existential threat.
The house is on fire. Time to stop debating.
The dilemma is merely the question of how much pottage has to be in the bowl to buy their birthright. It’s no longer being doled out with a ladle or a spoon; it’s down to an eyedropper now. Even Esau was a better negotiator than that.
A lot of people who post here seem more like Trump supporters than Catholics to me. The idea that any Catholic has to vote for Trump–especially now that it is clear that AT BEST he has no real commitment to the pro-life movement or traditional marriage–is false. It is false as far as Catholic teaching goes, and it is also not reasonable unless one believes that a lot more depends upon Trump’s re-election than is the case. My state will be in his column. I will not vote for him or the Democrats which has been my choice for a long time. The notion that my vote matters is debatable, as is the question of who is President any more. The country will carry on for now, but not forever.
Finally discovering who and what the real Trump is – that his stand against abortion is just a political ploy of a subterfuge to seduce Catholics into his MAGA cult – it’s now these Catholic cult members’ getting inflicted with the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Says the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome himself 🙄
Deacon Dom, you’re not making a compelling case for your team by insulting those who think differently from you. Try harder.
For all of their screeds about Republicans being a “danger to democracy”, the demonstrable danger to democracy comes from the democrats. They have weakened our military while edging us into war on two fronts. They have abolished our borders , a danger to national security. And when terrorists ARE captured, they are summarily RELEASED into the country.They have made a cottage industry of IGNORING the rulings of the Supreme Court ( with vote buying college tuition forgiveness and a recent ruling that the J6 charges exceeded allowable law.) They have destroyed our oil independence by outlawing fracking and other oil pipeline licenses.They funded the war in the Middle East by returning billions to Iran. They have encouraged illegals to register to vote and refused to enact voter ID laws to ensure a fair vote.They have spent us into economically harmful inflation with an excessive amount of vote buying give-aways. They have endangered free speech and second amendment rights. They stand by doing nothing as Jewish American students are attacked at our major universities. And it was just leaked that 800,000 jobs they claimed to have generated was a LIE.
Abortion??? Thats your one trick pony?? I suppose our pro-life citizens can tackle the issue at some point. Again. That is, if the nation survives another 4 years of democrat rule, which I think is doubtful. Should the DEMs win, much of the blame will fall upon myopic voters who imagine TRUMP is the problem. But given that DEMOCRATS no longer appear to have an issue with infanticide, I doubt they will make much progress. People have thrown themselves at the abortion issue for decades without result. TRUMP at least managed to get the issue back to the state level, and many states have decided against it. That is actually PROGRESS. Blaming Trump for having to consider other issues of equal importance is like refusing to eat because you only got half a loaf and not a whole one. Reality check: You can’t accomplish ANYTHING if you are not in power.
LJ thanks for your reply. You make a solid summary of the pro-Trump arguments.
In my view, none of your points is able to dislodge the sensibleness/intelligence of voting strategically as variously described by other contributors on this page. As a Catholic but also from any ordinary non-religious perspective, I would say that at least giving it due consideration arises as an obligation from prudence. Adding into that, Trump -if he should be the winner- would be better served by a more diverse independent-mixed Congressional outcome. When things are arrayed too much in a consolidation he is unable to stand his ground and represent a true diversity; this has been seen many times in the past not merely with COVID. This would be the case even without the pro-life urgency; so that the part where you throw into your conclusion that I am, or, anyone else is, a single-issue “doll” stump “one-trick pony”, though sweetly endearing, is shallow hype.
Irrespective of the pro-life question, Trump as with anyone else in the Presidency at this time, will be hostage to organized opposition. Now this particular colloquy can completely invert the binary picture “either Trump or you get Harris”. If the Trump vote should and could go to an Independent who is pro-life and more sensible than Trump, it should be backed up with the same strategic voting that would split apart the strangleholds that the two majors are perpetually imposing on the Congress and on the Presidency in a pattern of organization with the established bureaucracy “deep state” or “swamp”.
Trump was supposed to be upending all that and the disappointment we got is that he is not. He is just pursuing his brand of Jacksonian populism.
I get the feeling few of your commenters actually read the whole article!
Very thorough, thank you. I wasn’t even aware of how PRO-abortion Trump really is. I 100% agree with your strategy. I live in a strong red area, and I have the luxury to make a statement by voting for a moral candidate this time around. Sadly, I’ve tried to convince relatives to follow, but many of them are completely swept up by the news sensationalism and don’t seem to be bothered by the abhorrent stances Trump has taken.
The damage Harris might do in four years is eventually inevitable if pro-lifers don’t stand up, especially after the GOP’s betrayal, to say, “No more of this slow slide left. We are done with you.” Sometimes tearing off the dirty bandaid hurts. But it’s better than letting it fester. I have hope we can come back from this, if we can put up with the suffering for now.
It seems quite arrogant to declare “the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose” when ultimately “their” fault might just be that they do not have time to explain an ultimately not difficult choice with a scholarly work spanning thousands of words.
There are two candidates who have any chance of winning.
If both promote abortion, one up until birth, the other only in the first trimester, and all other proposed policies are not outright evil, you can vote for the second candidate, but not for the first.
In this case one candidate promotes abortion and the other, after causing Roe v. Wade being overruled, does not sufficiently condemn abortion while not promoting it at all, the decision seems to be rather less complicated.
Regarding “Until we are willing to do so, we will continue having only evil candidates with a chance to actually win elections”: Well said. I, too, think that voting for the candidates of the American Solidarity Party is the best choice.