"We Vote for a Vision, Not a Person"

 The above quote was attributed to Mother Angelica and offered in support of Trump.

 It might be the most confused advice I have received in this season of  dizzyingly convoluted and erroneous political thinking. It is a sign of how low our society has fallen that we would set the vision against the person. Clearly it is both: we chose a person and an accompanying vision...the person embodies in action and in spirit the vision that we endorse. To sever the person from the vision is "diabolical" in the etymological sense "to tear apart." In particular, our Catholic faith pledges our loyalty to a Person, who embodies a Kingdom: it is heresy to sever the "kingdom program" from the divine/human savior, as in liberalism; as it is heresy to accept a personal Lord and Savior severed from his program of service, humility, purity, poverty and so forth.

In politics, there are two strong reasons for considering the person...the character and competence...in addition to the vision, policy, program, positions.

In giving responsibility, power and authority in any position, we make an act of trust in the person's ability to respond prudently and effectively to a range of situations, many unanticipated, and many not pre-considered by the articulated positions of the candidate. Babysitter, policeman, teacher, boarding home or bagel store manager...any position of responsibility requires an intelligent act of trust in the moral character and the competency of the candidate. It is inconceivable that we could set aside the person in favor of policy alone.

Secondly, every person in leadership is inherently a moral role model: we are all looking at how he acts, the values he advances, the style he adapts...and consciously or not, we are influenced. Mimetically we copy him; unless he is so loathsome that we counter-react, but even then we often non-deliberately mimic his style. This applies to CEO, school principal, coach, supervisor, NBA player, and rock star...preeminently to the President of the USA, the most powerful position in the world, and the most influential.

In my judgment Trump's policy on innocent, incompetent life (as well as religious liberty and the revered iconography of marriage, gender and sex) is simply outstanding. His positions on immigration, health care, the virus, taxes, and foreign policy are  problematic in a variety of ways but on the whole defensible. But competence and character are other matters.

He is blatantly, pathologically, even breathtakingly incompetent for this office: blinded by narcissism and obsessed with his own celebrity; notoriously attention-deprived and incapable of sustained analysis of complicated issues; compulsively polarizing and offensive to major groups of citizens; incapable of attracting and sustaining the loyalty of a team of trustworthy aides and so unable to develop and implement intelligent and purposeful policy.

His character is far worse. I need not describe. He is a scandal to our young and has only increased the depravity of our moral culture. The real crime is his widespread support by moral/religious conservatives. This is an collaboration with evil on a profound level. It really is like supporting a fascist out of fear of communism. It reflects an extravagant anxiety, a loss of faith and courage, a dread that the loss of this particular election spells our final, apocalyptic defeat in the Culture War. It is a failure to play to the long game...to sense the damage this vile person does to the conservative movement, not by what he does policy-wise but who he is as a moral agent in his treatment of people and contemptuous disregard for Truth. 

My own moral aversion to Trump is personal and involves my grandchildren. In my own immediate family, there is minimal, and that begrudging, support for Trump; thanks be to God. But worse: some will vote for Biden. I, of course, respect their intentions and understand their logic which makes a great deal of sense. But something worse, underneath, is happening. Twelve of my twenty-four grandchildren are growing up in my solid blue state of NJ. They are relentlessly, unconsciously brainwashed by Cultural Liberalism in peer influence, social media, and schooling.  My dearest hope is that they receive our Catholic values concerning the value of life, marriage, sex and liberty. Some of the older, brighter grandchildren are understandably repulsed by the obscenities of Trump, they sense their parents aversion and they are leaning into the Democratic Party and the implicit acceptance of a moral agenda far worse than the personal moral failures of Trump. 

This election, in my view, is not Armageddon. It is one battle in an ongoing conflict. It is not about policy...not about Covid or healthcare policy, taxes, immigration, or global warming. It is a confrontation with two grave moral evil: the systemic evil of genocide of the innocent and the moral degradation of a moral degenerate who is elevated into a position of boundless influence. The first is worse. But the second is morally intolerable. We live in dark times. A vote for either candidate is a giant step deeper into the darkness.

Severability? Failed or Flawed?

 Severability, a technical legal term, is definitely the "word of the month." It emerged in the confirmation hearings of now-Justice Barrett in regard to the imminent case before the case on the Affordable Care Act. "Severability" is the question of whether a specific, invalid aspect of a legislation thereby nullifies the entire act or can be "severed" from the act such that the remainder remains legitimate. Candidate Barrett helpfully explained it in terms of the Jenga game in which blocks of wood are carefully removed in a manner to leave the tower erect until a "non-severable" link is removed and the edifice collapses. I find it to be a most suggestive term to use analogously in philosophical, moral and political thought. 

Another analogy from biology: we can imagine severing a finger but not a heart or a lung. We can imagine that for one person the covid brings few or even no symptoms; but for another it is deadly. 

From Catholic theology: venial sin is known to wound and hinder but not destroy the life of grace in the soul; but mortal sin is deadly. Venial sin is "severable": he is far from perfect but basically a good guy; mortal sin is not: he is deeply, catastrophically given over to evil.

All of us are flawed morally in our leadership roles, but the question is at what point does a moral failure substantially invalidate a leader, a party or a movement? To what degree might we "severe" the moral failing and retain the remainder as good? This is a pressing question in these distressing times. Let's consider the following from a Catholic viewpoint.

Democratic Party. Can a Catholic intelligently "sever" the issue of abortion (not to mention euthanasia, marriage, religious liberty, etc.) from the party's arguably admirable stance on immigration, the environment, racial and social justice and so forth? My own prudential (non-infallible) view: absolutely not! To "sever" and cavalierly "set aside" the genocide of the incompetent and defenseless would be like severing Hitler from his antisemitism. 

Trump.  Can a Catholic intelligently "sever" Trump's odious behavior from his admirable policy on innocent life (as well as marriage, religious liberty, etc.) and his arguably positive influence on the economy, foreign affairs and such? My prudential (non-fallible) view: no. His contempt for people (immigrants, women, his opponents), his disregard for truth and reality, his polarizing and divisive effect, his disregard for expertise together gestalt into a social catastrophe. It is entirely different from that posed by the other side; it is lesser for sure. But in its totality it is gravely evil.

The Francis Papacy. For five years I labored to respect and receive the guidance of Pope Francis, to accept the good and discard the bad, to interpret him in continuity with what came before him. I gave up in the catastrophic summer of 2018. What has come since then has strengthened my conviction: his is not merely a flawed, but a failed papacy: his destruction of the John Paul II Institute in Rome and his rejection of the legacy of that sainted pope; his autocratic imposition of his personal view of the death penalty on our precious Catholic Catechism; his tolerance of McCarrick and his proteges; his deference to the odious, oppressive Communist state of China; his random, impulsive, reckless comments which carelessly disregard tradition, his confusing and polarizing policies, and more. Very much like Trump but for entirely opposing reasons, his papacy is a catastrophe that cannot be corrected.

Kennedy Legacy. Reading Frederik Logevall's balanced but appreciative biography "JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century" leads me to another look at the Kennedy legacy. I adored them when I was 14; I have despised them for my adult life; but now I am seeing the weeds with the wheat. There is lots of good here: love of family (especially on the part of patriarch Joseph), concern for the underprivileged (on the part of super-privileged Jack), an admirable internationalism (on the part of Jack in contrast to isolationist Joseph Senior) and tons of charm, humor, energy and glamour. BUT...the treatment of women...referred to as "philandering" by Logevall...is simply too odious to be "severed." The marital infidelity celebrated among father and sons, the lobotomy of Rosemary, the marginalization of Rose and her Catholic faith...all of this prepared, obviously, for their unwavering support for abortion of the unborn. We have to love the good that is there; but the mortal sin cannot be severed or minimized.

Historic Figures. The controversy over statues and memorials to historic figures (of the Confederacy, the American Founding, Columbus and others) can be understood in terms of "severability." We Catholics have long known of the deep animus against Catholicism that characterized our founding fathers right up through FDR himself. But we were able to sever that and still honor the positive legacy they left us. Something like that has to be practiced in many of our leaders: many are flawed but not entirely failed. Others (Jackson) may be beyond flawed and into failed.

Brennan Manning. At last, a splendid example of severability. I have been reading his books. He is for sure flawed: ex-priest, ex-friar, divorcee, and bad-bad-bad alcoholic. BUT...to the end of his life he proclaimed: "Jesus loves you as you are; not as you are supposed to be." He is controversial and much criticized, mostly in Protestant not Catholic circles. He is called an antinomian; and he leans in that direction. But I find him inspiring! Implicitly he strongly affirms the reality of sin and evil; but insists that God's love prevails even when evil is, to our eyes, impregnable, invincible, inexorable. For me, he is not a failed man, but a flawed man.

Aren't we all?

A Sweet Spot in the Culture War: Homosexuality

 Pope Francis is again stirring the Catholic pot with his approval of civil unions for homosexual relationships. Given my outstanding credentials as a Culture Warrior  I should be "loaded for bear" and ready for combat. But I am entirely tranquil on the issue. There are obvious reasons. I have become practiced in largely ignoring the off-the-cuff comments of our pontiff, as I disregard the tweets of our president. Additionally,  I sympathize with the case in favor of financial and legal rights, hospital visitation and so forth. Thirdly, our judiciary has already shoved gay marriage down our throats so a step toward civil union would be a positive move, currently, in the moral and cultural scene. 

But something else is happening in me. My "liberal-liberational-anarchistic" streak, strong in my youth but recessive in my adult life, always coexistent and in tension with my fervent moral conservatism, has been reasserting itself now in my old age. At the moment I am reading an appreciative biography of JFK by Fredrik Logevall "JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century" and reviving (in chastened form) the enchantment of "Camelot." My favorite writer at the moment is hardcore Catholic bohemian Heather King. I am thinking fondly of my college years near Chicago and  the influence of Saul Alinsky on the resurgent Catholic passion for justice for the underdog (even as the Catholic Right is horrified by his explicit identification with Satan, "the first revolutionary.". I think often of my anarchist-iconoclast hero Ivan Illich. Some of my favorite nephews have gone maverick and are having a (good?) influence on me.

Regarding homosexuality: I remain fervent in my advocacy of the sacred unitive/procreative meaning of sexuality as proclaimed so elegantly by St. John Paul the Great. But I also love homosexual men. They are interesting, delightful, intellectually stimulating, and tons of fun. I really really like so many of them. And they like me. This has been true throughout my entire adult life. We work together, enjoy each other, and admire each other. I cannot recall an explicit argument or disagreement. These issues of morality and politics simply never come up. It is not a problem. I know what they think; I think they know what I think. The mutual affection and respect entirely dominates. In the real world, on the ground level, us conservative Catholics and homosexuals and gays get along just fine...It is not a problem. 

So...I am not worried about the Pope's comments. I am not worried about this battleground of the Culture War. We just love each other; and like each other; and enjoy each other. It is easy!

Two Different Worlds: The Cultural Peace of USA 1945-65; The Culture War of USA 1970-Today

 In The New Class War, Michael Lind contrasts the current war (between the elite, powerful, secular, uprooted, educated upper class and the populist, marginalized, religious, localized, uneducated under class) with the social peace that prevailed in the years of our upbringing: 1945-65. His description perfectly confirms my own memory. There was broad, pervasive cultural peace. We were coming out of a unifying war and so relieved it was over. We together faced a formidable foe, Communism, that dwarfed our social differences. We were the uncontested global power. Our economy was cooking with gas: surely the most prosperous, productive and affluent society in human history. And his point: there was peace between the upper and lower classes, between capital and labor. It was in everyone's interest to "get along" and the pie was big enough for everyone. The working class exercised power through a network of intermediary associations that countervailed against the rich and powerful in three significant arenas: in economics through their unions; in politics through their ward-based politics; and in culture through their churches. This is the world in which I was raised: our family... modest economically but satisfied, secure, safe, confident, optimistic, and expansive... was cocooned within a network of benevolent, powerful institutions: the union, the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church....all entirely at home in a diverse, magnanimous USA! It was a good world! The enemy: the Communists. And they really were bad; and they still are! We contrasted ourselves with the Republicans (Ike), the Protestants (Billy Graham), and the public schools...but in a benign manner...as we might compete with a neighboring parish basketball team in the CYO league. No bad blood! Ike and Billy Graham and the kids who went to public schools were decent enough chaps; but they weren't us. No real hostility; no defensiveness; no superiority. We were peaceful and confident and happy in our America. This Camelot peaked in the early 1960s with the election of Kennedy and the Vatican Council. 

A brave new world emerged in the 1970s and afterwards: the Cultural Revolution, new technology, a globalized economy, a widening economic gulf between the rich and poor, the decline of intermediary institutions, the replacement of local, ward politics with the influence of wealthy donors and ethnic identities. 

Lind does not really address the Culture War except as it accompanies the class war. It is not clear where he stands. He concerns himself with the exercise of power in all its manifestations, the economic, political and the cultural    

However, reading him provoked me to ask myself: What were the cultural/moral/religious dynamics of 1945-65?

It was a remarkable era of peace, a real Camelot. I will, of course, be accused of nostalgia and an indifference to the suffering of minorities: blacks, women, immigrants, and so forth. Let us consider this.

First the easy part: the marginalization of the Jew and the Catholic by the WASP elite, as well as the hatred and distrust between Catholics and Evangelicals...all of this simply disappeared in this era. Effortlessly. The bias against the Catholic JFK was overcome. By the late 1960s overt prejudice against Jews and Catholics was already retrograde: both groups attended Ivy League school and were succeeding marvelously.

Statistics I have seen indicate that the black community made remarkable progress in this era. They shared in the expanding pie, albeit at the bottom of the hierarchy. Family structure, in spite of the history of slavery and Jim Crow, was strong...especially compared with subsequent developments. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950-60s was a demonstration of immense confidence, purpose and moral integrity on the part of the faith-inspired black community. Without denying the violent resistance from entrenched  racist interests and habits, the movement was warmly and generously welcomed by all our nation's powerful interests: academia, Churches, sports, entertainment, law, the media. It was an extraordinary, exuberant and magnificently triumphant movement. It peaked before 1970 and was the crowning expression of the post-war Camelot. And again, with it's success, there emerged an entirely distinctive threat: sexual liberation, the decline of honorable virility and the family, the emergence of ethnic victim-complex and resentment.

The women I knew growing up, family and friends, were not oppressed by a patriarchy. They were happy with families, faith and their identity as women, mothers and workers. They were happy that their husbands were making good money so they could care for their children. They were relieved that the war was over. If anything, there was a significant group who could not marry because some men had not returned from the war and would loved to be part of the family renaissance. But the ones I knew (ok...I grew up in a happy world...it is not the whole story...but it is my story and it is part of the whole story!) were happy with their faith, their extended families, and their work. By the early 1970s, women's liberation was emergent and this movement also was welcomed systematically across the power centers of society. Within a few decades women were outperforming men in many areas. I just never saw the hateful, destructive patriarchy that is so infamous. Here again, however, just as women were stepping into a new pubic position of prominence...at the very tail end of Camelot...again...a different enemy emerges. With the cultural revolution, the liberation of sexuality from spousal fidelity and fecundity, women become increasingly instrumentalized: as vehicles of production and consumption for the economy and as objects for men's pleasure. 

And so again: we consider the remarkable cultural peace that prevailed in 1945-65. There prevailed a Christian consensus that incorporated Catholics and Evangelicals and others as well as WASPS and was friendly to Jews. The historically oppressed blacks were flexing their muscles and demanding their fair place at the table. Women, for a generation, enjoyed domestic tranquility but were now moving out into the public arena. There was a miniscule, marginal bohemian, beatnik movement that was hardly visible although it was the seeds of an unanticipated explosion after 1965. 

Life was good. It was not perfect. But it was a good time to grow up. Am I nostalgic? Yes I am! Who wouldn't be?

The Inevitability of Truth

 In the delightful cinematic murder mystery, All Knives Out,  the brilliant Sherlock-Holmes-esque detective (played by Daniel Craig with his usual gusto) ruminates:  "...the inevitability of truth...the complexity and the grey are not in the truth, but in what you do with the truth when you get it..." He speaks of the arc of evidence, fact, clues that lead ineluctably to the truth. We know the genre; we know someone did it; and we know that he will eventually and infallibly discover it. At that point we are mystified but we know the truth is coming and we wait patiently with joyous expectation. He does not disappoint!

"The inevitability of truth." Such a pregnant, provocative phrase! Yes, the Truth is inevitable. It is unavoidable; ineluctable; efficacious; invincible. Truth is powerful and irrepressible. Finally, truth will prevail. It will manifest itself; it cannot not unveil its splendor. It cannot retreat; it cannot be defeated or repressed (except temporarily); it cannot not glorify itself. 

Blessed are we who know truth; happy are we who are grasped by truth; privileged are we who... in whatever manner, minor or grand, heroic or humble...have the honor of witnessing to it.

The late-liberal order echoes Pilate:  "What is truth?" The sadness of cynicism, skepticism, agnosticism, distrust!

 But the Joy of Truth: the hope and expectation!  The delectation! The ecstasy of triumph! 

 

Am I Weird, Eccentric, Idiosyncratic...Or Just Unique?

Lately I am aware that my thought is quite unique, if not eccentric: no one else really thinks like me. I share values, beliefs and sensibility with many close friends and family, but with each there is a clear difference. This is probably good and wholesome, but it brings a loneliness. For example, recently I have been thinking about the charismatic renewal, which greatly influenced me, and it strikes me that almost no one in my social world shares that with me. An additional sadness is that recently several younger family members who are very close to my heart have differed on important issues on the meaning of sexuality and related realities.  

So, I have recollected seven important sources that have greatly influenced me.

1. I grew up, 1947-65 St. John's Parish in Orange NJ, in a family which was loving, safe, peaceful and nurturing so I was able to receive a Catholic faith that was traditional, observant, pious, steady, quietly confident and certain, open-minded, optimistic and expansive. This is my bedrock. My faith is indescribably lovely and has opened me, despite the shortcomings of my person and my tribe, to receive, affirm and embrace the True, the Good and the Beautiful. The next six currents flow into and out of this font of life; they deepen, elaborate, and expand on it.

2. Already in childhood I felt an impulse to serve the suffering and the poor. This, of course, was encouraged by my entire Catholic education/upbringing; led me to college seminary with the Maryknoll priests; and prompted me to open Magnificat Home with family and friends in recent years. It left me with sympathy for the poor and marginalized even as I moved passionately to the right on cultural/moral divide.

3. In early adulthood, the time of my marriage, I studied Catholic prayer and spirituality with Joe Whelan S.J., himself a holy, wise mystic. He introduced me to Von Balthasar and prepared me to embrace the thought of Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratizinger, my spiritual fathers, my captains, my heroes. These deepened, sharpened, broadened and enlivened my received Catholic faith.

4. Likewise in early adulthood my wife and I encountered the Risen Jesus in the Cursillo movement and then the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the charismatic renewal. This likewise deepened, inflamed, and exploded my faith with joy and zeal.

5. Concurrent with these two trajectories, our society surrendered to the Sexual Revolution and pushed me into the role of Cultural Warrior, defensive of innocent life; the dignity of sex, masculinity/femininity and marriage; the sacredness of tradition, authority and the Church. I defined myself and what I value in opposition to the emergent culture of "liberalism." 

6. From adolescence I was drawn to countercultural figures and movements critical of bourgeois consumerism, careerism, meritocracy, technocracy, and materialism. Some were non-Catholic or even anti-Christian in many ways, but my spiritual sensibility and feeling for the poor resonated with them: Eric Fromn, Paolo Freire, Ivan Illich, Paul Goodman, Christopher Lasch, Saul Alinsky, Catherine Dougherty, Dorothy Day and the like. With one foot I softly distanced myself from mainstream suburban life in favor of a moderate quasi-bohemian, countercultural life even as my wife and children kept my other foot firmly planted in ordinary, working-middle class routines. Maintaining this equilibrium within this tension has been a challenging for my wife and children. So we have lived in a sweet twilight zone: never quite middle class but never jumping into the various countercultures that we admired: charismatic covenant communities, Catholic Worker farms, the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Latin Mass groups and others.

7. In middle age, I found in the 12-steps (especially "acknowledgment of powerlessness" and "surrender to higher power") comfort and encouragement in the contest with resistant patterns of compulsivity. This again came to me as a deepening and clarification of my received faith.

These confluences collaborate in my heart, intellect and spirit in a joyous, serendipitous and creative manner. Far from contradicting each other, they compliment, balance and arouse each other in a happy symphony (is what I experience). For example, the ego-deflation of the steps brings relief to the fevers of indignation, anger, defensiveness and arrogance that come with the task of culture warfare.

No one fully shares all of this with me. Thus a certain loneliness. My wife has been through all of this with me; we are in communion in the truest, deepest, loveliest things...which is why our marriage is happy. But our sensibilities and thought habits are radically contrasting. This is both painful and fruitful. The fruitful part is in our seven children who (along with their spouses and children) reflect our dearest realities but in utterly distinctive, creative, and delightful fashions. 

I find comfort, however, as I consider that those I most admire and emulate all are themselves outliers, mavericks, creative combinations of a symphony of disparate influences. This includes old heroes like Illich, John Paul, Balthasar, Day...and more recent inspirations like Heather King, Brennan Manning (of happy memory) and Judge Amy Coney Barrett (herself a Catholic Charismatic...Praise God!) 

To Vote...or Not to Vote...Perchance to Sin

Felix Miller's "Why Voting for Biden Isn't Necessarily a Sin---And Why That Matters" is a helpful, refreshing piece in the conservative Witherspoon's symposium on our 2020 election. (https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/category/2020-election). Happily, the series of articles offers a range of voting options: two predictably endorse Trump; one argues for the no-vote; one supports the American Solidarity Party; and Miller surprisingly shows how Catholic moral principles allow for a sincere, principled and reasoned decision for Biden. The piece and series are noteworthy for a number of reasons. 

Thought experiment: can you imagine a progressive symposium in which a participant laid out the grounds for a justifiable vote for Trump. It is unthinkable! For several reasons. First, the man is morally offensive in unprecedented ways. Secondly, he is himself a nearly absolute populist contradiction of the values and views of the liberal, elite overclass. But thirdly, there has occurred tragically in recent years a pronounced narrowing and debasement of the progressive mind into moralism, condescension, paranoia and hysterical emotionalism. There is a near total incapacity to listen to and consider adversarial opinions. By contrast, the conservative mind, at its best, is open to argument, contradiction and actual diversity of thought. The "conservative" mind true to itself is "liberal" in the classic sense. 

Even more reassuring, for this Catholic, is use of the word "sin." Politics and policy are arenas of morality and so the reality of sin is fundamental. There is original and actual; mortal and venial; all of it in its dark, dismal density and duplicity, at the core of politics. Sin is the choice for evil and a personal offense against God and creation. Do you ever hear mention of it? The "woke" worldview of the technocratic, liberated elite has replaced sin with the "...isms" and "...phobias."  Such are viewed as  moral/psychic infections of the deplorable underclass. They are largely involuntary, the curse of the uneducated deplorables who cling to guns and religion. I myself, for example, do not see systematic white racism so I am a certified racist; I hold strong traditional views on the distinctive vocation, responsibilities, and rights of women and men so I am a misogynist; I view sexuality as inherently sacred in its unitive and procreative purposes and so am rabidly homophobic. I am among the most deplorable of deplorables. There is hope for me nevertheless, not in confession-contrition, but in "diversity training!"

Miller's piece retrieves the classic Catholic discussion on "cooperation with evil" and the decisive distinctions which are so important. Cooperation with evil is evil; so, the pro-choice vote is a participation in the evil of millions of abortion. That is simple enough. But there is the key distinction between formal and material cooperation. The later involves material but not intentional or full participation; while formal means there is real knowledge, consent and collaboration. Contrast: a taxi or Uber driver brings me to the bank, which I rob, and drives me home without knowledge of my mission. He is materially but not formally cooperative. If on the other hand, he accepted 20% of the take for his services he becomes formally cooperative. So, we can imagine a German in the early 1930s voting for Hitler, not to kill Jews and conquer the world, but to stave off the Communists, or revive the economy and national pride. Materially he aided the Nazis but that was not his understanding or intent. Objectively he participated in a catastrophic political evil but subjectively he may be innocent of sin. 

We can also distinguish between remote and proximate cooperation. If I drive my girlfriend to the abortion clinic and pay the bill, that is proximate; if I buy a cup of coffee at a restaurant fundraiser for Planned Parenthood that is quite remote. 

And so, we can imagine any number of scenarios in which a Catholic, and even a serious Conservative, might prudently, sincerely, rationally decide to vote for Biden. On the objective side: our world and its issues are boundlessly complicated so policy decisions are ever embedded in uncertainty and ambiguity. On the subjective side: political choices, especially for specific candidates, are informed by deep, largely unconscious memories, fears and aspirations. There is an immense apparently irrational dimension to such choices. Excepting inherent evils, it is wise not to moralize or personalize politics but to soberly consider policies and issues in their complexity, ambiguity and unpredictability, with openness to alternate prudential considerations. 

For me it would be a serious sin to vote in this election: both options are grievously evil. It is not a matter of a single issue; or a flawed individual; or a lesser evil. Each option,  in distinctive ways, are essentially entangled in a web, a swamp, a system of malice. Trump: his vile contempt for women, Hispanics, and those who oppose him is a grave scandal for our young and all of us; his breathtaking disregard for truth and reality is borderline sociopathic and disqualifies him as dogcatcher, crossing guard, or busboy; his hatred has polarized and degraded our nation; his blinding narcissism and dismissal of expertise (medical, environmental, military, intelligence...) make him dysfunctional, reckless and dangerous. Biden: has sold his sold to the hegemonic elite who massacre babies; deconstruct masculinity, femininity, sexuality, marriage and family; destroy our religious liberties; unshackle technology to crush what is honorable and worthy; advocate a racist "anti-racism" that oppresses poor blacks and further emasculates their men; and despise the underclass and the devout as ignorant, fearful and retrograde. Biden is much worse, But Trump is far too evil to be entertained as "the lesser evil."

The argument for the American Solidarity Party is reasonable: it is a gesture (entirely symbolic) toward positive values and an exercise in our cherished right to vote. For my part, I prefer the "no vote." I resent the constant hectoring to vote and treasure my right not to vote. The vote is a right, not an obligation. Most of us most of the time have a moral obligation NOT to vote because a responsible, moral vote demands that we study the issues, the candidates and the policies. Pulling the lever habitually for one party or the other is irresponsible. I have never voted in a school board election and never will. The way things look now, I may never vote again...I will not be a lesser man for it; the world will not be a worse place for it. Politics, like psychotherapy and the opera and hockey and metaphysics, is not for everyone; it is for those who want it. Voting is overrated! 

The "no vote position" frees from the contamination of entanglement in the conflicting systems of rancor, fear, indignation and hysteria. It allows a certain lightness, a "live and let live"  relaxation from indignation, judgment and anger. It allows for a sober, objective and even certain judgment that a vote for Trump and/or Biden is a participation substantial evil; even as it  frees from the toxic condemnation of the heart and mind of my brother or sister. Such freedom is greatly needed in this time of rancor, polarization and demonization of the adversary. It is wholesome for us to fiercely disagree on an issue, and yet respect, love and even like the opponent. With the "no vote position" we enter a luminous zone that transcends the hatred, fear and polarization. Better yet, it allows us a communion with both parties: with the one we commiserate about Trumpian decadence as we concern ourselves with the environment, economic inequality and the demise of ordinary civilizational decency under this President. With the other we protect (from the totalitarian left) innocent human life, religious liberty, the meaning of marriage and sexuality, and the dignity of the underclass. With the "no vote position" we happily impute the best intentions and a good heart to our friends on both sides of the divide; even as we renounce the grave evil operative in both camps and grieve the lack of moral intelligence that allows a vote for either choice.

Again, in 2020 we are facing something similar to, if less than, Hitler vs. Stalin. Or more accurately, our situation resembles the civil war in Spain of the 1930s. Left and right were both guilty of profound evils; neither were devoid of goodness. A Catholic would have to protect the Church; but only with deepest ambivalence.

What would Jesus do? I have never liked that question. But I have trouble imagining him, white robes and long hair and beard, with a MAGA hat or a ""By-Don" button. I can imagine him boycotting the vote as he engages in the "Kingdom politics" of joyful service of the poor and friendship in truth and worship. That's what I want to do! I won't vote!