Various email discussions over the past weeks have pondered who Rod Dreher will be voting for in the upcoming presidential race and have given several plausible reasons why, although Dreher himself has been coy about the matter on his blog in order to technically protect TAC's tax-exempt status.
Regardless of which candidate Dreher actually ends up pulling the lever for, here is who he is pushing to win, and why.
Who: Hillary Clinton
Why: The candidate most damaging to Christians will do the most to promote sales of his forthcoming Benedict Option book, delivered to the publisher just today, a book about, as Dreher himself touts it, the last, best and only hope for Christians at the end of the cultural line.
The better things are for Christians, the worse a book about a pointless and needless Benedict Option will sell. The worse things are for Christians, the better a book that purports to offer any hope at all will sell.
Demand, meet Supply. Or, rather, Supply, meet a Demand massaged as best the Supplier can manage to massage it.
Well, Keith, why do you say such a thing, readers may ask. Rod has already told us he cannot tell us who he favors for President. Why shouldn't we believe him?
He doesn't have to. His actions speak louder than any words ever could. And besides, it doesn't even matter who he votes for. What matters is how many votes he can steer to the candidate he needs to win to maximize his personal book sales profits. He doesn't need to vote at all so long as he steers enough votes to produce a Hillary win.
If one reads his posts over the last year, they are Trump-this and Trump-that out the wazoo, most of them either actively or passive-aggressively negative, with virtually no posts at all about candidate Hillary or any of her sins dating back decades.
Debbie Wasserman Schulz herself could have scheduled these non-existing Hillary posts in the same manner and for the same reasons she made poor Bernie Sanders try to make his case on television on a Saturday freaking night, for goodness sake, in order to effectively render the subject - in Dreher's case Hillary, in Schulz' case Bernie - virtually invisible.
But isn't Donald Trump just naturally more..."newsy"?
Sure enough. Trump is always saying things to make people's tongues wag.
But, although his style will always be Gawkerish at heart, believe it or not Rod Dreher's current beat really isn't the juiciest, most gossipy newsy tidbits of a TMZ or a Gawker. According to Rod, his passion and focus is being ostentatiously hip-deep in his own personal Christian holiness and, above everything else worldly, religious liberty and a fierce dedication to the protection of that religious liberty.
A religious liberty a Hillary Clinton presidency would end up stomping like Godzilla, before Godzilla then ate whatever mush remained.
But he hardly ever mentions Hillary Clinton. Why not? Why does he never mention the one candidate that everyone knows and every liberal dreams will do the most to damage the religious liberty of Christians in every way possible?
Because he needs a religious liberty stomped to mush by a Hillary Godzilla Clinton in order to drive sales of his prescriptive solution for mush-stomped religious liberty - his Benedict Option. If the financial motive were not so glaringly obvious, one might suspect Munchhausen by proxy.
To follow Dreher's comparative interest in Hillary Clinton is to be led to the belief that Hillary is spending her time only doing yoga and playing with her grandchildren, not trashing national security, not selling access to government for personal gain, definitely not working every angle available to change "...deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases..."
Prove me wrong. Watch Dreher's past, present and future posts about the presidential candidates and score things for yourself. Trump will be held up as an appalling pariah; Hillary will be invisible; and a dependable percentage of Dreher's readers will end up voting for the major party candidate who has not been held up as an appalling pariah.
And, then, after Hillary ends up doing enough of this and that, particularly with the help of her newly energized Supreme Court, even you might fall into enough despair to buy Rod's Benedict Option book, if only as the worthless placebo you nevertheless desperately need in lieu of no other hope at all.
This is the true cultural wasteland for Christians, what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil": in this case, casual, premeditated betrayal by those you trust most. Your mother sells you to the biker gang passing through for a bag of meth. Your ostensibly most (self-declared) Christian hero sells you out with a smile to line his own pockets.
By the way, I hear Rod's Benedict Option book goes on sale shortly after Hillary's inauguration. Just in time.
I suspect Dreher is fast approaching pariah status with his increasingly shrill, the end is near, shtick. In October he will be a one man panel at the FPR confernce, even the crunchy kids won't sit at his table
ReplyDeletePanel 1: Promoting Local Economies:
Philip Bess, Elias Crim, Susannah Black
Panel 2: Populism and Place:
Bill Kauffman, Jeff Taylor, Michael Federici
Lunch: Keynote Address: Patrick Deneen
Panel 3: The Benedict Option:
Rod Dreher
Panel 4: Beauty and the Revitalization of Culture:
Jason Peters, Andrew Balio, James Matthew Wilson
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2016/08/2016-conference-university-notre-dame/
- Anonymous Maximus.
Dreher has decided his intellectual market breakthrough will be Alt-Christianity, kissing cousin of the Alt-Right, with anti-"MTD" serving the role in mini-nationalist (apartment in Baton Rouge) Alt-Christianity that anti-Semitism serves in the nationalist Alt-Right.
DeleteBut he's already begun to hedge his bets beyond an inevitable death spiral in his Benedict Option, now drafting behind J. D. Vance as far as Vance can carry him. One wonders if Vance has a clue just what sort of lamprey has now fastened itself to his carotid. Unfortunately for Vance, he doesn't have a blog or other outlets to protest once Dreher hit his stride in digesting Vance's work to become Dreher's own, as both reason for and evidence of a Benedict Option, as a sorrowful revengeful means to stab his late Paw once more, just for good measure, as whatever derivative use he can find to make of it, as he has with MacIntyre and After Virtue.
The problem with attempting to "draft behind Vance" is that the logic of the Vance effect argues, pragmatically, for "hold the nose and vote Trump, because someone poorly addressing real issues is better than someone willfully denying their existence" ... while our Rod is doing the polar opposite of that in this election, preferring to swan about instead.
DeleteJust look at the viral sensation that has periodically crippled AmCon's servers. It is literally titled: "Trump: Tribune of Poor White People".
Anyone paying serious attention to the biggest viral sensation of their entire career, even briefly, would perhaps start finding occasional ways to openly make common cause with Trump's war on major media, and to non-begrudgingly admire the occasional positive feature of the Orange Messiah ... but no, not our Rod. That would taint his unfathomably-holy purity, and compromise his indescribably-strict non-profit-org neutrality.
And thus the Vance opportunity will almost certainly (deservedly) elude him, because he refuses to reflect upon the coming political reality and see it for what it means for his religious project.
Keith, your theory also aligns so very nicely with other reasons that Dreher would favor Hillary.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Dreher isn't for anything as much as he is against entities that he is mad at: in this case, the Republican party (in previous cases, the Catholic Church, Dad, Ruthie, etc.). He seems to have a history of adopting alternatives that are not necessarily improvements in and of themselves but accomplish the goal of putting his thumb in the eye of what he had before. He'll take the horrid Hillary and to get back for George W. Bush.
Second, he's had a history of favoring Democrats anyway. Back in the BeliefNet days, he touted Jim Webb for some office. And more recently, he's touted Elizabeth Warren (with certain reservations -- pun intended -- stated but not convincingly), and favored/voted for the new Democrat Governor of La. Dreher's not a conservative to start with -- he just plays the role.
So to endorse Hillary sotto voce fills more than one of his needs and, as you say, can only help book sales.
P.S. I'd add that not only will "a dependable percentage of Dreher's readers ... end up voting" for Hillary, but that a dependable percentage of Dreher's readers at "The" "American" "Conservative" started out planning to vote for Hillary.
I myself might call it an hypothesis or theory rather than a fact on the ground were it not for the undeniable imbalance in Dreher's coverage.
DeleteFor someone ostensibly disgusted with both candidates, there's no dearth of pickings on both sides. So if what Dreher claims to be the case were true, we should be seeing something even just approximating an equal split in his criticisms. It wouldn't even have to be strictly 50% - 50%. We could see 55% anti-Trump, 45% anti-Clinton, even 60% anti-Trump, 40% anti-Clinton.
But we see nothing remotely of the sort. We see instead virtually 100% richly anti-Trump posts, at most, a few abstract references to Clinton sprinkled here and there.
Again, it doesn't even matter if Dreher doesn't vote at all. Just tipping a win to Clinton adds another, commercial win to the win Dreher would award himself for not voting. So a win-win for Rod, not so much for those who would endure the fallout from a Clinton presidency.
The last thing any self-appointed Jeremiah can tolerate is for disaster to pass his audience by.
Well I would rather lose to HRC than win with Trump. He is a business cheat, a softcore porn merchant, a serial whore monger. He slanders weak people for cheap pleasure and degrading humor. I could go on for hours.
ReplyDeleteYour enemies can never hurt you like you can hurt yourself. When "Christian conservatives" embraced an immoral lout they surrendered any call on a higher moral calling.
If a Supreme Court majority that would roll back Roe was the objective, we would have picked a nominee with positions and experience similar to RR who could have made this a winnable election. Instead, we have an impossible candidate with zero policy credibility. The conservative movement of WFB and RR has been murdered by Trump and his supporters. There was a party like this in US history. It was called the Know Nothings.
"Serial whore monger"? That's a new one on me, Steve.
DeleteIf you happen to know, what were/are the names of these whores, and what did/does Trump charge for them?
Well big mouth himself has bragged that his Vietnam was dodging VD when the loser McCain was Imprisioned and tortured. Lovely ladies all I'm sure. Fine company I'm sure for Callista Gingrich who left her bed with the married Newt to sing in the choir at the Cathedral in DC. No wonder they don't take religious conservatives seriously.
DeleteOh. A serial whore monger would be someone who has mongered, or vended, whores serially, that is, at one time, then at a subsequent time.
DeleteWhat you're referring to is someone who has had sex on multiple occasions without benefit of marriage. Like me. There may be others like me as well, I hear.
Fortunately, you would be different than me and these others because, well, you say you are, on the Internet.
Congratulations on your claims to such virtue, Steve.
Steve, if, on balance, you believe Hillary Clinton and the House of Clinton is the standard bearer of greater virtue than that of Trump, then you should throw in your lot with her.
DeleteThe relationship between the penis and the presidency, though, is a problematic matter, not to mention an alliterative one. Historically, high testosterone alpha males end up leading successful tribes, and Trump is both unquestionably an alpha male - one doesn't succeed to the extent he has in New York real estate without being one - and a highly obnoxious one at that, at least in his so far interminable primary campaign mode.
The most publicly pious president that comes to my mind is Jimmy Carter, who was also a deacon in his Baptist church. His presidency has generally been looked down upon, though, with Carter being generally regarded as a beta or lesser status male. We have had a Catholic political dynasty, the Kennedys, one of whom, also unquestionably an alpha male, became President and famously led us to the Moon. JFK, however, ended up being less pious privately than Jimmy Carter. His brother Ted infamously abandoned a woman in an auto accident, to her peril.
Two famous Hollywood actors, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, went on to become governors of California. Reagan, divorced and remarried, went on to become President. He was faithfully devoted to Nancy; I'm not very familiar with the particulars of his romantic life prior to that; perhaps he was as squeaky clean then, too, as people reflexively assume he was. Schwarzenegger, not a natural born citizen, could not follow in Reagan's footsteps, had an affair with his children's nanny, and became a divorcee from a descendent of the Kennedys, not necessarily causally in that order.
In short, the office of Best Social Conservative Role Model and Personal Buddy seems destined to be one distinctly different from that of successful President of the United States.
However, maybe Hillary Clinton, from her earliest cattle futures trade to her most recent doubling down on her claim that FBI Director Comey vindicated her as truthful is that fusion social conservatives have been seeking, a new alternative to the traditional alpha male tribal leader. I certainly believe nothing of the sort, but perhaps you can.
Super. We're now to the point of defending our current Republican nominee for President by distinguishing sellers of prostitutes' services from buyers of the same, and by touting his high testosterone -- alpha male behavior* as an indicator of his suitability for the presidency. Just super.
Delete*Assuming it to not instead be overcompensation.
We're now to the point of defending our current Republican nominee for President by distinguishing sellers of prostitutes' services from buyers of the same...
DeletePik, did you misread what I wrote, or is it your deliberate intention to designate all women who have sex outside of marriage as whores? It's hard to read what you just wrote as anything but the latter.
I remember when social conservatives said Bubba was unqualified because of his serial philandering. Heck, they even impeached him for it. Wasn't he just being an alpha male?
ReplyDeleteBut even slick wouldn't sink to the level of mocking a cripple for the applause of a crowd of low lives. It takes a pseudo alpha male to get his kicks that way.
Cattle futures? Corrupt for sure but really small potatoes compared to the Donald's serial bankruptcies from his lousy deals that only penciled out because he refused to pay his suppliers in full. Trump university, vodka, Trump shuttle. All failures. He lies about his net worth constantly.
But he is so crude that he talks about getting a piece of ass constantly.
Bubba was impeached for lying under oath, not for his countless affairs.
ReplyDeleteAnthony
I don't care what Dreher has to say about Trump. Many people are appalled by him, like Steve here, and I have no answer to give him about why he should vote for him. Except the worn out, "Do you prefer Hillary?" It's just lame and falls flat when you see how Trump is just handing the whole thing to her and there's not a Billy Jack-damn thing anyone can do about it.
ReplyDeleteI just want to support someone who does not make me feel like I have to take a shower when I am around them. I do not care what Dreher says because all he is about is the Con. I would title his book "The Art of the Con."
ReplyDeleteWell, inhabitants of Unicorn Valley where life never presents only choices between bad and worse, I now have good news to quell all the pointless hand wringing before permanent arthritic damage sets in. As I posted in the open thread, Evan McMullin has just announced his availibility as a Republican ticket splitter, allowing you to purify yourselves of the slim possibility that Trump may yet beat Hillary by pulling the lever for him.
ReplyDeleteAnd, since I am obviously in the company of fantasists, one final, even better possibility tantalizingly remains. If you are a person who prays for the misfortune of others, you might pray that a possible latent neurological condition some have been attributing to Hillary since her blood clot episode now manifests itself as a formal medical disqualification for office, and that some other Democrat, possibly Kaine, takes her place through mechanisms unknown to me. Given the unwillingness of the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General to move on the incontrovertible evidence of her violation of the Espionage Act, however, it's hard to imagine how this might come about short of Hillary simply turning up one morning with all four limbs in the air like an expired bug.
The reason you find yourselves with no way out now is that not just the DNC but the Fourth Estate, the federal administrative state, more than half the churches, and more than half of your feloow citizens are already backing Hillary in virtally seamless concert.
This means that, if Hillary wins, more Benghazi's can easily happen, the press makes it disappear, and nobody cares; that concessions are made to Putin because of tacit blackmail are laughed off as just another vast, right wing conspiracy. That the Gadsden Flag is stuffed down the memory hole as a symbol of white oppression, and the rainbow flag, representing "who we are as Americans" takes its place - even on naval uniforms. That the Hyde Amendment and the meaning of being a social conservative - watch me: right now I'm having to patiently explain social conservatives on what a Hillary Clinton presidency means to them; un-freaking-believable - become reminiscences, things your kids act out in cosplay, because they're no longer actionable in real life.
The time for these sorts of ostentatious protestations of political nobility and, most importantly, actions based upon them was ten months ago. Now it's time to act like adults, grumpy ones, rub some dirt in those bruised feelings, and suck it up.
November will be here, then December, and we all will own the real life consequences of what is to be. At the least, I don't believe anyone here has a child of an age near that of Sean Smith or Ty Woods, to be sacrificed as a pawn in one of Hillary's "accomplishments", then lied about, then dismissed. So there's that.
This is why blogging was created: to serve as an alternative, energy absorbing pastime for those whose lives would be shaped by a politics they had no real interest in or time for shaping themselves.
ReplyDeleteLike a jungle gym for adults.
I'm with Keith. Sorry, guys. We are electing a president, not a pope. We absolutely must stop Hillary. The stakes are that high.
ReplyDeleteIf you consider it self-evident that Clinton is the worst possible 45th POTUS, then it doesn't matter to you what Trump does.
ReplyDeleteIf, though, you allow the possibility that there could be a worse 45th than Clinton, you should spend at least some effort establishing that Trump is not in fact worse. Rehearsing the lousy consequences of a Clinton presidency sets the bar, but does not address the question of whether Trump clears it.
Thanks, Tom. This is a point to ponder for anyone engaging in a serious discussion of who would be a better candidate.
DeleteOK. I've pondered it. For me, it's no contest. Attila the Hun would be a better candidate than Hillary. Just my two cents' worth. I hope that qualifies me a contributor to a serious discussion. ;)
DeleteTom, we don't know what Trump will do. We do know what Hillary will do, and it's utterly evil.
ReplyDeleteAs Thomas Sowell has said, voting for Trump is like playing Russian Roullette. Voting for Hillary is like sticking a gun to the side of your head and pulling the trigger. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'm in a swing state. I don't have the luxury of voting for Bozo the Clown or my dog or writing in "Roll Tide Roll." I've gotta help the voters of my state do their part to stop Hillary. YMMV. Fine. But please don't airily dismiss Keith's very compelling arguments, which many others far more learned than the bunch of us combined have also made (not as eloquently as Keith has IMHO ;)).
I am going to vote for Trump. I'm in a swing state too. But I am not going to put a yard sign up and that will be the first time I haven't since I've had a yard. I am not going to make calls for him and I'm not going to tell anyone I'm voting for him. I'm going to pray he doesn't hurt anyone down ballot, and I'm going to pray if he wins that he will not be as bad as I'm pretty sure he'll be. IOW, I will never be a shill for this idiot and I am continually astounded at the depths of inanity of those who are. I will continually post about his missteps in the -- probably vain -- hope that someone will read them and say "Yeah, he should stop that."
DeleteI probably won't put up a Trump sign, either. But I am seriously considering one of those "Hillary for Prison" signs. ;)
DeleteMe: I am going to vote for Trump.... I'm not going to tell anyone I'm voting for him....
DeleteWell, other than my close friends, obviously, like I consider you guys to be. :-)
Sowell's simile represents a Trump presidency as either ultimately harmless or exactly as bad as a Clinton presidency, which is fatal. I think binary and absolute choices are a poor way to represent the possible outcomes.
DeleteAs for Keith's, "Shut up and fall in line" arguments, I do not find them very compelling.
"Sowell's simile represents a Trump presidency as either ultimately harmless or exactly as bad as a Clinton presidency...."
DeleteI don't get this at all from Sowell's simile.
Nor do I get "shut up" from Keith's comment.
I guess I'm just not getting it. Sorry.
"I don't get this at all from Sowell's simile."
DeleteThe possible outcomes of playing Russian Roulette are:
A) You are physically unharmed. This is what I called the "ultimately harmless" case.
B) You die from a bullet to the brain, just as you would if you stick a gun to the side of your head and pulling the trigger. This is what I called the "exactly as bad as a Clinton presidency, which is fatal" case.
The simile presents a Trump presidency as either having only good effects, or as having only the identical bad effect the Clinton presidency will have. I don't consider that a credible model of possible outcomes.
Yes, all similes limp, but a simile that ignores a fundamental distinction is fundamentally crippled. And in this case, it's a fundamental distinction that Trump is awful in very different ways than Clinton.
Ok, then, how about: With Trump, we MAY be screwed. With Hillary, we certainly WILL be. I opt for "may be," and so do a lot of people who qualify as thoughtful and intelligent. YMMV, but please respect our right to our opinion, which may not be as baseless or indefensible as you may think. hank you!
DeleteWith Trump, we MAY be screwed. With Hillary, we certainly WILL be.
DeleteAgain, this doesn't differentiate between how much and in what ways we may be screwed by Trump and how much and in what ways we will be screwed by Hillary.
If you want to model the election as a game of chance, you have to specify all the rules in order to play the game rationally.
For example: From a deck of cards, I select a queen and a joker and set the two cards face up on a table. You may select either card. If you select the queen, you pay me $100. If you select the joker, I flip a coin. If the coin comes up heads, I pay you $500. If the coin comes up tails, you pay me an amount of money written on an index card in an envelope in my pocket. How do you play this game?
Unless you know what's written on the index card, you don't know the best way to play the game. Similarly, unless you know how and in what ways we might be screwed by a Trump presidency -- as well as the probability of it happening -- you don't know enough to expect a Clinton presidency to be worse.
Oh c'mon, Tom. Hillary aggressively and pointedly aligns herself with Planned Parenthood. Trump does not. Trump is not a completely blank slate or a total question mark. We don't know how pro-life his administration would be, but it could scarcely be as pro-abort as Hillary's would be. Trump has given zero indication that he is as militantly pro-abort as Hillary. Hillary has gone out of her way to make it crystal clear that she would like abortion available as widely as possible, with no restrictions, with no parental notifications, and with maximum federal subsidization. Trump has not.
DeleteIs Trump a pro-life warrior? Hardly. But Hillary *is* an ardent, committed pro-abort warrior. That is a key difference. And that alone is sufficient reason for voting NeverHillary -- either for Trump, for a third-party candidate, for a write-in, or for nobody.
I too expect a Clinton presidency to be worse on abortion than a Trump presidency, and I have no intention of voting for her.
DeleteOn the broader question of whether a Clinton presidency would be worse than a Trump presidency overall, I have no answer, because I have no idea how to estimate a Trump presidency.
Since you allow for a third-party candidate, for a write-in, or for nobody, am I right to infer that Keith calling people who do these things childish inhabitants of Unicorn Valley with hurt feelings is not the part of his argument that you find very compelling?
I guess Trump gives us at least this hope. Hillary gives us no chance.
DeleteThat's the most compelling argument this #NeverTrump-er sees out there. But it isn't enough (yet), because he is so unconvincing.
(H/T Jonah Goldberg on the video.)
The broader question? So abortion is just a piece of the puzzle? Our great national holocaust, just one variable among many? Sorry; I just can't follow you there. If Clinton is dramatically worse on abortion, then, from a Catholic perspective, she is worse, period. Our own US Catholic bishops have rejected the seamless garment. There is a hierarchy of social issues, and abortion is at the top. I know Mark Shea disputes this, but IMHO he needs to take it up with the US bishops. For my part, I'll stick with the bishops.
DeleteAs for your question: As I've already intimated, I think a lot depends on what state you live in. It is certainly morally permissible for a Catholic to vote third party or abstain from voting, no matter what state he or she lives in. I respect that. But if someone lives in a swing state and writes in his dog just because he cannot stand to hold his nose and vote for Trump, I reserve the right to secretly consider that person an idiot who is helping to hand the presidency to one of the most evil people on the planet. And no, when I say "one of the most evil," I do not mean Trump.
Btw, "awful in different ways" is not necessarily the same thing as "just as bad." INSISTING that it is -- a wholly subjective judgment -- does not constitute non-binary nuanced thinking. IMHO it too often constitutes the arrogant certainty and ideological rigidity of the control freak. Not saying that is the case here; just noting the general pattern according to my admittedly limited experience.
ReplyDeleteIs my assessment as subjective and fallible as yours? Sure. But at least I admit it. ;)
Btw, "awful in different ways" is not necessarily the same thing as "just as bad."
DeleteExactly. That is my point. From which it follows that a simile that represents "awful in different ways" as "just as bad" is a failed simile.
Since you repeat my point back to me as though it overthrows my point, I have to conclude you don't get my point.
Diane:
ReplyDeleteForming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states, "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet if a candidate's position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support (42)."
I happen to disqualify Clinton due to her position on abortion, as do you. The U.S. bishops teach that this is legitimate. But they do not teach that this is mandatory. They teach of "the preeminent obligation to protect innocent human life from direct attack (FCFC 40)" and that, "In our society, human life is especially under direct attack from abortion (FCFC 44)," but this teaching does not amount to "dramatically worse on abortion is worse period," not least because abortion is not the only form of direct attack on innocent human life.
Following Evangelii Gaudium, FCFC identifies four principles upon which "progress in building a people of peace, justice and fraternity depends": the dignity of the human person, subsidiarity, the common good, and solidarity. And again, there is a hierarchy of goods; it is not legitimate to accept legal abortion in exchange for good libraries. But the bishops have not provided a deterministic algorithm for choosing which candidate to support. In his August 12 column, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia - who in 2004 suggested a vote for Kerry would be a sin requiring confession - writes of "some mysterious calculus that will allow [voters] to vote for one or the other of the major candidates." If it's mysterious to the Archbishop, it hasn't been taught to the laity.
So: a) your never pro-abortion Hillary position is perfectly legitimate; and b) it is not mandated by the Church.
Hi, Tom. :) I don't have time right now to play "Dueling Official Statements from Popes and Bishops," but I will try to respond more fully to your citations by the end of this week. In the meantime: (a) I never said anything about "single-issue voting." Rather, I said that abortion is at the top of the hierarchy of social issues -- which is what the US bishops maintain. I never remotely intimated that it is the ONLY social issue, just that it is the top one. As the top social issue, however, it trumps (no pun intended) issues such as, oh, say, waterboarding. Or environmentalism. (b) I also never said that my position is mandated by the Church. In fact, I said just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, a lot depends on whether or not one is in a swing state. SiliconValleySteve and Mark Shea are both in solidly blue states; they could vote for Nick Saban for all I care. (I actually think Nick would make a pretty good president, but anyway....) But, if you live in a swing state, and you vote for Nick Saban or for Gary Johnson or for nobody, then IMHO you are facilitating the election of the Waaaay Worse of Two Evils. That's just my personal opinion; I do not remotely pretend that it is Church Teaching. You asked for my opinion, and there it is.
Obviously you are free to vote for whomever you want, and as a Catholic you are free to vote third party or to refrain from voting. Your position is legitimate. So is mine. I don't think that third-party voters are violating divine law. Not at all. I just think that, if they're in a swing state, they are perhaps being rather foolish. But again, this is just my opinion. Unlike Mr Shea, I do not claim to represent the Magisterium. :D
In fact, I said just the opposite. That is phrased poorly; sorry. I meant: "I said that my position is NOT mandated by the Church." I certainly am not implying that my position is countermanded by the Church, LOL!
DeleteHere's a thought that may help focus your reply:
DeleteI suspect where we may not share an understanding is principally on the question of what all is implied by the hierarchy of goods we agree exists, of what "abortion trumps torture" means in terms of voting and citizenship. I *think* you're suggesting a more cut-and-dried heuristic than I think is taught by the Church, though it may be that I'm mistaking the conclusions of your application of what the Church teaches with your claims of what the Church teaches.
Here's a thought that may help focus your reply:
DeleteTom, I have hesitated to respond, because I generally don't respond when people talk down to me as though they were designing to instruct a child with water on its brain.
it may be that I'm mistaking the conclusions of your application of what the Church teaches with your claims of what the Church teaches.
Well, if this is supposed to help me "focus," it's not really doing its job, since I have no clue what it means.
Meanwhile, I don't think I can explain my position better than Dr. Zmirak does. Perhaps he also has a "more cut-and-dried heuristic" than is actually taught by the Church? If so, he's in good company:
https://stream.org/seamless-garment-poison-pill-kill-off-pro-life/
Should say "deigning," not "designing." Autocorrect strikes again.
DeleteDiane, I was responding to your comment that you didn't have time right then to reply, but you hoped to by the end of the week. With, "Here's a thought that may help focus your reply," I was trying to do two things: a) indicate the one matter, of all the things we've brought up in this thread, I thought was key, so you wouldn't feel obliged to spend your limited time addressing every last thing; and b) indicate that I wasn't trying to take advantage of your lack of time to move the discussion forward after you said you couldn't respond till later in the week.
DeleteI was not talking down to you, and I'm sorry I phrased my comment in a way that can easily be read as condescending.
As for the Zmirak piece, I think the first three sections (prior to "The Real Whole Life") are a mess of everybody-knows and you-know-what-those-people-are-like in place of evidence and argument.
DeleteI. "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" owes a lot to Cardinal Bernardin's "consistent ethic of life" -- so, by the way, it is not true that "Our own US Catholic bishops have rejected the seamless garment" -- yet Zmirak misrepresents the ("leftist"! yuk!) Cardinal as being responsible for a misinterpretation of his position that he publicly deplored (that misinterpretation is what the bishops have rejected).
II. The opening description of a "poison pill" is this: "something which you ask for, and pretend to desperately want, which is designed to throw your opponent off, make him back off on his other demands — to do whatever he needs to in order to avoid having to swallow that poison pill. So his attention is distracted, and he gives way on different issues, giving you what you actually wanted in the first place."
DeleteThis description doesn't work with the example he later gives of "some members of Democrats for Life" of trying to "slip [a] poison pill" into the pro-life movement, so that unwillingness to vote "for massive federal programs that throw taxpayer money at these problems and grow the power of the secular, anti-Christian state" means "you don’t really care, and you’re not really pro-life."
The poison in the example is the massive federal programs. So... do Democrats only *pretend* to want these? And isn't Zmirak's whole point with the seamless garment bit that its proponents only pretend to want an end to abortion? Which would make an end to abortion the poison, assuming Zmirak can tell when people are only pretending, but surely the opponent here is a pro-life conservative who doesn't want to vote for Clinton.
So what different issues do these members of DFL expect a pro-life conservative to give way on to avoid swallowing the poison pill?
There may well be some members of DFL who have nefariously seized on the term "whole life" as a way to make pro-life conservatives look like hypocrites and press their own pro-abortion agenda, but that's not a poison pill plan. So why does Zmirak say it is?
III. As for Zmirak bringing up Mark Shea (yuk!), their slap fight has gone on so long neither is able to comprehend what the other is saying, not can they recognize that they don't already comprehend the other.
DeleteIV. Removing the colorful but irrelevant poison pill image, the counterfactual attack on Cardinal Bernardin, and the from-and-to nowhere rude gesture towards Mark Shea, what is left?
ReplyDeleteSome Catholics used the rubric "seamless garment" to distort to the point of contradiction Church teaching on the enormity of abortion.
The DFL held a "Whole Life" event at the Democratic Convention.
Jason Jones founded I Am Whole Life, which sounds like a great apostolate, in 2007.
And John Zmirak's bald assertion that the DFL resorted to "trickery" by using an expression Jones has been using for years.
As someone who doesn't find John Zmirak a trustworthy writer on Catholicism, my response to this is:
So?
So, Tom, you find Mark Shea to be a trustworthy writer on Catholicism???
DeleteShea is evil. National Catholic Register finally had the good sense to can his fat behind for his obsessive, incessant, vile personal attacks. If you believe such attacks truly serve Catholicism, then you truly are a moral ignoramus.
As far as Zmirak goes, I find him to be as faithful as Catholic who writes for a living -- far more so than Shea, who talks a good game but doesn't even meet the basic criteria for being a Christian. If you don't know what those are, read Galatians 5: 22-23 and ask if Shea embodies *any* of those characteristics.
As far as the "seamless garment" goes, that little bit of pseudo-theology has effectively nullified centuries of Catholic teaching from Scripture and Tradition concerning capital punishment for murder. John Paul II's "Evangelium Vitae" reflects that "seamless garment" that he used to justify his arbitrary, revisionist approach toward capital punishment for murder:
ReplyDeletehttp://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
I think Mark Shea is trustworthy on much of Catholicism, pretty hopeless on politics, and a mixed bag on social criticism. He can be too quick to absolutize a position. I think his blogging has gone off balance, particularly since he restarted a few months back. I don't question his desire to think with the Church.
ReplyDeleteZmirak, by contrast, doesn't so much think with the Church as agree with it on many points, while stating he would leave the Church if he thought it taught something contrary to his economic opinions. He restricts the Church's teaching authority to matters on which he doesn't recognize a prior and higher authority.
Given your own rejection of Church teaching, Joe, I don't find your endorsement of Zmirak persuasive. Given your history with Shea, I don't expect you'll find my endorsement persuasive.
Tom, give me a freaking break. If Shea actually "thought with the Church," then he wouldn't behave like the vile, obsessive, lying, infantile narcissist that he is. I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Neither is Zmirak. Legions of us, Catholic and non, have been victimized by Shea's lies. He routinely makes despicable personal attacks, obsessive stalks those who disagree, deliberately distorts others' positions, refuses to engage honestly, feigns victimization when called out and issues crocodile apologies.
ReplyDeleteIf that's "thinking (or acting) with the Church," then L. Ron Hubbard is Marcel Lefevbre.
What pseudo-intellectual poseurs like you don't understand, Tom, is that moral behavior speaks far, far louder than stated positions. Jesus Himself even said that (Mt. 7: 18-20). But people like you value "thinking with the Church" over moral clarity and moral behavior.
I know Zmirak. He is a moral man. Whether he meets your precious, esoteric "Catholic" standards is irrelevant. The fact that, in your mind, Zmirak doesn't yet Shea does speaks far, far more about you than you realize -- none of it good.
My rejection of Church teaching is irrelevant. I would think that such a pedant as yourself would recognize an obvious non sequitur. Even if I were the most faithful Catholic who ever lived, Shea would still behave as he has. So, sadly, would you. Catholics like you value raw, cloistered intellectuality and blind group identity rather than moral clarity. That kind of attitude kept the Church from confronting a clerical sex-abuse crisis that was old news in the days of St. Peter Damian and "Liber Gomorrahianus."
Anybody who seriously believes that Shea "thinks with the Church" is such a moral ignoramus that such a person is not worth having dialogue with.
One more thing, Tom.
ReplyDeleteIf Shea had serious concerns about his temper, the least he could have done was to “avoid the near occasion of sin,” as the Act of Contrition puts it, by staying away from social media. But Shea didn’t have such concerns about his temper. He reveled in it. He allowed it to become his modus operandi, even to the point of being a vile, obsessive bully. He stalked me for seven years on the Internet. He called somebody else’s employer to complain about that person’s comments. He LOVED doing that. He LOVED his behavior. Otherwise, why would he engage in it so often and with such gusto?
Shea lies the way the rest of us breathe. He is evil. Not just deluded. Not just a candidate for spiritual direction, psychological counseling, an exorcism or a swift kick in the ass. EVIL. The fact that it took an EWTN outlet this long to find that out doesn’t speak well for EWTN. The fact that you fail to recognize the obvious doesn't speak well for your powers of discernment.
OK, this discussion has gotten way too weird for me. Sorry...I disagree with Mark on a lot of things, but I am not going to join the Public Bash Party. Backing away slowly. Sorry for getting involved. Apologies all around!
ReplyDeleteDiane, Shea was a bully, a moral idiot and a con man, pure and simple. Whether you like that description is none of my concern.
ReplyDeleteIn today's installment of The Vision of the Anointed*, Dreher publishes a note that an (alleged) Catholic (alleged) reader sent in, regarding why he is voting for Hillary. The note includes the following passages:
ReplyDeleteBecause I am against antinomian voluntaristic modernism – and all the individualism, capitalism, and anti-sacramental outlook that flows from these 500 year old trends – I have zero enthusiasm for Hillary and much passionate criticism. These same criteria commit to to a deep disdain and despair about Trump too. I feel like the election is a forced choice between a polite establishment egoist and a vulgar nouveau riche egoist.
I hate everything about this election. I feel like a peasant in the pre-Constantinian Roman empire, having no hope that the emperor will be Christian, and at best praying that the new emperor won’t be a crazy Nero who appoints a horse to the Senate and sends us to the lions....I think [Clinton's] hawkish foreign policy instincts, coupled with her Kantian naiveté about liberal universalism & Hegelian faith in being on the “right side of history” makes her a potential danger to world peace, so I don’t think Trump has the monopoly on being a threat to global order.
A commenter calls Dreher on the pretension, to which Dreher elaborates on the bona fides of the (alleged) reader, unintentionally confirming the commenter's point:
*****
dominic1955 says:
August 29, 2016 at 7:50 pm
With all that affected intellectual name dropping, I can almost just smell the pipe tobacco and see the fedora…
[NFR: That’s not fair. The reader, a friend of mine, is an academic who wrote that note to another academic, and shared it with me to let me know where he was politically on the question of this election. — RD]
******
P.S. Another commenter points out that it was Caligula, not Nero, who appointed his horse to the senate.
*Reference here.
The way one can distinguish the true intellectual from the pseudo-intellectual Sowell is talking about is that the true intellectual understands that it was the Enlightenment and its recognition of the rights of the individual that enables Rod to refer to his alleged reader as an "academic" rather than a "royal academic catamite" or "catfood".
DeleteThe whole premise behind Dreher's and others' infatuation with a romantically pre-Enlightenment Benedict Option is a burning religious faith that, when the bullies start pulling the pants down on the hotel room floor, the teachers will magically return to stop them so that the victims need do nothing themselves other than squeal.
And to tie this back to your original post, Keith, I'd add that Dreher's post has a strong fragrance of an appeal to authority for his silent support of Hillary Clinton. To wit (emphasis added):
DeleteI agree with all of what this reader writes, except for his reluctant conclusion that he will vote for Hillary in spite of it all. That conclusion makes sense to me, given the premises, but I can’t get there. I mean, I can’t imagine voting for either one at this point.
How about you?
The thing about Trump is ..... (followed by nary a mention of Hillary for the remainder of the post).
That first paragraph of the alleged Catholic alleged reader's comment is absolutely priceless. Who thinks this way, let alone writes this way?
ReplyDelete