Samuel Adams once famously stated, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” For Adams, to hold the office of president, the candidate must show two necessary traits: wisdom and virtue. If one agrees, these are qualifications that one must consider alongside with the policy positions of candidates who are running for political office. In this day and age, where the two major political party candidates are mired in various moral scandals and hold immoral positions, one must wonder how should the conscientious voter cast his/her ballot?
But what is the Catholic to do when the two major party candidates are neither particularly wise nor virtuous? Given the current presidential election, a critical look at what the US Bishops teach can further elaborate as to why Catholics should look to a third party within this election cycle. In their document, Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, it is very clearly stated,
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 legal abortion… a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support (no. 42).
The morally conscientious voter, at this point, ought to disqualify any candidate who supports legal abortion, since as the Bishops say, “Abortion the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never [emphasis mine] morally accepted and must always [emphasis mine] be opposed” (Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, no. 64). So those candidates who support legal abortion, such as Hillary Clinton, ought not to receive any support from the truly informed Catholic voter. It is a definitively clear argument since she defends and promotes an intrinsic evil such as abortion.
But what about the other major candidate, Donald Trump, who is partially pro-life and seems to have a better chance to beat Hillary than other third party candidates? How does Faithful Citizenship address some of the questions that the conscientious Catholic voter is facing today with respect to Mr. Trump? In order to do this properly, the most common objections people have to voting third party will be examined:
1) A third party vote is a wasted vote: First of all, nowhere in the document Faithful Citizenship do you find any acknowledgement of only a two-party system. In fact, paragraph no. 14 is quite revealing when it clearly states “As citizens, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group.” As Catholics our first loyalty is to God and his Church, not to any political establishment.
The first goal of the Catholic voter is to understand that “responsible citizenship is a virtue” (no. 13). This means informing one’s conscience, as was discussed in a previous article. But the US Bishops are also informing the reader that just because one may have a history of voting for a particular party does not mean that the person is morally bound to that party. This point is emphasized when the Bishops further elaborate, “When all [emphasis mine] candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma” (Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, no. 36). Note that the document does not say “both” which would imply only two candidates. Instead it reads “all”, which not only includes the two major party candidates, but third party candidates as well. The Bishops are very familiar with the fact that, in reality, there are more than two parties within the American electoral system. And at times, a third party candidate may better address issues that concern the conscientious Catholic voter. This, by no means, is a “wasted vote”. That is merely rhetoric with no logical basis. The truly conscientious voter is going to vote for the candidate who is truly the most qualified for the office. This is not only a personal statement, but a public statement as well, insofar as the voter has made the determination and voted for a particular candidate on a legal ballot. The third party candidate may lose, but that hardly means that the vote was wasted. A wasted vote is something along the lines of voting for “Mickey Mouse”. In essence, a wasted vote is when someone votes for someone or something that will not be counted.
2) Even though Mr. Trump is seriously flawed he has the best chance of winning: Again, the reader will not find any passage that supports a utilitarian view such as this. Rather, the moral integrity of the candidate is something that Faithful Citizenship does address. The US Bishops are quite clear,
Catholic voters should use the framework of Catholic social teaching to examine candidates’ positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace, and they should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and performance [emphasis mine]. It is important for all citizens ‘to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 33)” (no. 41).
When a candidate has a history of notorious misogynistic behavior throughout his adult life, numerous infidelities, an appearance within a Playboy pornographic video, and little regard for the dignity of the human person including the disabled, it is little wonder why the electorate would question his moral integrity. Coupled with the fact that this candidate has flip flopped on some serious moral issues as well is also seen as very troubling. Simply, Mr. Trump has not remained consistent for very long and his current views seem to reflect a desire for political expediency rather than any heartfelt conversion. As a result, many have prudently looked to third party candidates that are viewed as being morally qualified for the office of the presidency.
3) There will be four Supreme Court vacancies that will be filled and one must vote for the most pro-life candidate that has the best chance of winning: This argument is pure conjecture. This is not an absolute by any means. Again, this argument hinges on a utilitarian view that one ought to pick the most expedient candidate. It essentially denies that the voter has any responsibility in informing his/her conscience and should only vote because of the perceived threat of bad Supreme Court nominees. But rather,
The Church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church (Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, no. 17).
Furthermore, by developing conscience one can also develop the virtue of prudence,
Prudence shapes and informs our ability to deliberate over available alternatives, to determine what is most fitting to a specific context, and to act decisively. Exercising this virtue often requires the courage to act in defense of moral principles when making decisions about how to build a society of justice and peace (Forming Consciences for a Faithful Citizenship, no. 19).
When this teaching is applied, the conscientious voter will look at Mr. Trump’s own words when it comes to US Supreme Court nominees. Earlier in his candidacy he suggested his own sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, would make a fine Supreme Court Justice. The problem is that his own sister is a well-known former federal appellate court justice who ruled in favor of the partial-birth abortion practice. It has only been within the last year that Mr. Trump has begun to make comments that he would appoint Scalia-like judges. Again, this kind of back and forth has led voters to look for third party options because it appears that Mr. Trump’s own pro-life philosophy is either politically expedient or not important at all.
4) If Hillary Clinton wins it is the fault of third party voters that did not rally around Mr. Trump: The truth is a candidate wins or loses an election because of what he or she does. It is the candidate’s responsibility to make the case for the office that he/she seeks. Failure to do this is the candidate’s own fault. Again, many Trump supporters try to make the argument that those pro-life advocates who do not vote for Trump are somehow acting contrary to the virtue of prudence. However, what some seem to forget is when the Bishops mention that prudence often “requires the courage to act in defense of moral principles when making decisions about how to build a society of justice and peace.” Basically, in addition to prudence, the voter needs another cardinal virtue, fortitude. When a very questionable candidate presents himself, even if he is politically expedient, the question becomes for the voter how to best defend moral principles? This statement from the Bishops is not saying that it is fine to vote for the most expedient candidate, but rather it is telling the voter that it also takes fortitude to make the very real and hard decision to uphold moral principles when looking and voting for a candidate, even if it means voting against an expedient candidate.
For many, it would seem as if they desire to pick the lesser of two evils when it comes to the current prospects. However, this idea vastly misunderstands the electoral system. Firstly, because there are more than two parties within the electoral system and several of these third party candidates do offer not only policy positions, but also moral character that voters can find to be reassuring. Secondly, one must understand that Mr. Trump does approve of direct abortion in certain circumstances, which is still advocating for an intrinsic evil in a limited way. This partial “pro-life” philosophy in addition to his moral character poses a significant problem. Thirdly, people must overcome the mentality that there is only a two-party system in the US. For the conscientious Catholic voter there are a few candidates worth investigating. For example, Mike Maturen of the American Solidarity Party or Evan McMullin, an Independent, are candidates that many serious Catholics are exploring.
Samuel Adams certainly understood the necessity of electing virtuous people to office. Many people today are seemingly willing to turn a blind eye to that moral principle. Electing morally vicious people to an office sets a very dangerous precedence and sets a nation on a very precarious road. Many people should take heed from the exchange between Sir Thomas More and William Roper in the play A Man for All Seasons when deciding who to vote for this election cycle:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Joe Kral has been involved in the pro-life movement since he has been in college. His MA in Theology was completed at the University of St. Thomas where he specialized in bioethics. From 1996-2003 he was the Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life. During that time he was also a lobbyist for the Department of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life. From 2004-2007 he consulted the Texas Catholic Conference on pro-life legislative initiatives. In 2006 he was awarded the “Bishop’s Pro-Life Award for Civic Action” from the Respect Life Ministry in the Diocese of Dallas. He currently serves as a voluntary legislative advisor to Texas Alliance for Life, is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, taught as an adjunct professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, teaches as a Forward Toward Christian Ministry instructor for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and is doing doctoral studies at Harrison Middleton University where he is specializing in the ethical and legal theory of St. Thomas Aquinas. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 2004 and they have 2 children together. They attend St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Sugar Land.
- Regnative Prudence and Pro-Life Legislation Part 2: The Dismemberment Abortion Ban
- Regnative Prudence and Pro-Life Legislation Part 1: The Heartbeat Bill and Abortion Bans
- The Moral Case for States to Pass Partial Birth Abortion Bans
- Blessed Margaret of Castello: Patron for Legislation Protecting the Disabled Unborn
- The Moral Case to Eliminate Wrongful Birth Suits
