Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Libertarian Delusions

Jacob Levy and Glenn Reynolds both think that the Bush camp is in denial over the risk that a significant number of Bush's base voters will defect to the Libertarians. Maybe, but I doubt it. The Libertarian platform is anti-war, pro-abortion on demand (the Party Platform says government "should be kept out of the question," which is a disingenuous way of avoiding the issue, but clearly amounts to abortion on demand), pro-same sex marriage (indeed, since the Libertarian Party defines marriage as "a private contract between two consenting adults," presumably incestuous marriages are okay too). Setting aside a few big name bloggers, I have a hard time imagining very many members of Bush's base supporting a party whose views on both the foreign and culture wars are so antithetical to what principles for which the GOP stands. For anybody who is center-right on both defense and social issues, the Libertarians simply are not a credible alternative. Instead, among Prof. Levy's various scenarios, I worry most about turn out. But if the fiscal conservatives and hawkish libertarians think Kerry is going to be any better, they need their meds checked out. Prof. Reynolds, at least, has grasped this point: "my support for Bush has more to do with the character of his opposition." I'll take it.

20 Questions

I'm the latest to answer Crescat Sententia's 20 questions.

Catholic Voting

In her post Voting Catholic, Amy Lamboley raises a very important issue:

The New York Times has an article stating that "The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has issued a pastoral letter saying that American Catholics should not receive communion if they vote for politicians who defy church teaching by supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, euthanasia or stem-cell research." This does not strike me as a good idea.

First off, it is not the case that in all elections voters will be offered a choice between a pro-life and a pro-choice candidate. In more liberal areas of the country, often both candidates are pro-choice, and disagree only to the extent to which abortion should be regulated and/or subsidized by the state. Must Catholic voters abstain entirely from the election?

Second off, these are not the only areas about which the church has politically relevant teaching. Capital punishment, just war theory, and various social justice issues are all areas in which Catholic teaching can reasonably be applied to American politics, and in a way that does not so squarely line up with the Republican party line, but which a Catholic may wish to consider in choosing a candidate to support. So, for instance, in an election in which both candidates are pro-choice, but one is for the war in Iraq and one against, a voter could well feel that it was vitally important to vote for the antiwar politician. ...

I certainly don't believe that Catholics should check their Catholicism at the door of the polling-place. In fact, I don't understand how one could fail to consult fundamental religious beliefs in deciding for whom one votes. It just strikes me that, given the seriousness of the sanction involved, and given the fact that there is no party in U.S. politics that takes the "Catholic line", many decisions on which politician to support will involve weighing a number of different factors, and making unfortunate tradeoffs, it seems terribly misguided to reduce the decision to a few-issue test.

I think Amy is basically right, although I would want to tweak the analysis a bit. First, let's remember that Bishop Sheridan did not say that Catholics who vote for, say, pro-abortion candidates will be denied the Eucharist. Nothing in his pastoral letter suggests that priests will be grilling their parishoners on their voting habits before administering the sacraments. Instead, I read the Bishop's letter as calling upon Catholics who do so to voluntarily refrain from participating in the sacraments (or, better yet, to be reconciled with the Church through renunciation and penance). Second, while I applaud Bishop Sheridan for his strong message that the Church's Gospel of Life has pride of place in any faith-based analysis of public policy, I think he has failed to give adequate attention to the legitimate complexities Amy raises. The most authoritative recent Church treatment of these issues is to be found in the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, which acknowledges that Catholics should not be single issue voters:

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.

On the other hand, the Note does support Bishop Sheridan's view that the Church's Gospel of Life takes highest priority:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.

Even so, however, the Church acknowledges that even as to abortion compromises may be necessary in the political arena:

As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.

What then should Catholics do? There has been an active debate of this topic over at Mirror of Justice. Michael Scaperlanda's recent post notes:

Oregon Archbishop Vlazny's statement on the reception of communion by pro-choice candidates and those who vote for them. Archbishop Vlazny says that pro-choice candidates and those who vote for them because of their pro-choice views should refrain from receiving the Eucharist. In contrast, the Archbishop says that those who vote for a pro-choice candidate despite the candidate's pro-choice position should not refrain. He says:

"Should Catholics who choose to vote for pro-choice politicians refrain from reception of the Holy Communion? If they vote for them precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they too should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to Church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial."

He goes on to say that those who vote for a pro-choice candidate should make their disagreement with the politicians stand on abortion abundantly clear.

I suspect Amy would find Archbishop Vlazny's position far more congenial than that of Bishop Sheridan. Personally, I come out where Archbishop Vlazny does. Out here in LA, I rarely get the chance to vote for a pro-life candidate. Instead, I am usually choosing between two pro-choice candidates. In such situations, Vlazny's analysis that voting for one of them could still be licit strikes me as analogous to John Paul's view of permissible compromises. Since my choice between two such candidates is made on grounds other than their position on abortion, I am comfortable that I am not acting in opposition to or derogation from Church teaching on these vital issues.

Ramesh v. Andrew on the Communion Issue

Ramesh Ponnuru, my favorite Cornerite, responds to Andrew Sullivan's Time piece on the communion controversy:

We're given, in the linked piece, two arguments for why the bishops should offer communion to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. First: "How many of us Catholics are completely worthy every Sunday of receiving what we believe to be the body and blood of Jesus? The church understands this and has long left it up to the individual to wrestle with his or her conscience as to whether going to Communion is appropriate. To turn the tables and make the giving of Communion contingent on a public, political litmus test would politicize a sacred ritual that is and always should be beyond politics."

Actually, none of us are worthy to receive the Lord, and we even say so beforehand. If legislators voted on abortion by secret ballot and did not disclose their positions to the public, it would indeed be appropriate to handle the issue in the confessional rather than in public. But the sin under discussion--that of unjustly denying the unborn legal protections that everyone else has--is committed in public. A public denial of communion is thus necessary to prevent people from reaching the false conclusion that persisting in this sin is compatible with staying in communion with the church.

Second, the denial of communion would make the church seem to be allied with the Republican party. The article ignores the existence of two to three dozen pro-life House Democrats, which is not an insignificant faction of the entire caucus even if it gets little public attention. But leave that aside. The argument boils down to this: The bishops are supposed to let members of their flock endanger their souls without doing much to help them, because of a political calculation about the effects of this pastoral care. You don't have to be familiar with canon law to see that the bishops just can't follow this advice.

Yep. In the next two posts I explore the tax/constitutional issues raised by this debate and offer my own take on what Catholic voters ought to do. There's also a very active discussion of this issue over at Mirror of Justice.

Kling on Lasch

Must read TCS column by Arnold Kling on Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites, giving a hat tip to your truly for having flagged it.

Mark Helprin’s Must Read Column

Mark Helprin's WSJ ($) op-ed, available to nonsubscribers via OpinionJournal.com, is a damning indictment of both political parties' handling of the war on terror/Iraq:

In a war that has steadily grown beyond expectations, America has been poorly served by those who govern it. The Democrats are guilty of seemingly innate ideological confusion about self-defense, the Republicans of willful disdain for reflection, and, both, of lack of imagination, probity, and preparation--and, perhaps above all, of subjecting the most serious business in the life of a nation to coarse partisanship. Having come up short, both parties are sorely in need of a severe reprimand and direct order from the American people to correct their failings and get on with the common defense.

I don't entirely agree with either his assessment of the facts or his proposed solutions, but it is a provocative must-read column.

Hard versus Soft America

Michael Barone in today's LA Times (R):

It has long been my observation that American 18-year-olds are more incompetent than 18-year-olds in other advanced countries, but that American 30-year-olds are the most competent 30-year-olds in the world.

...Why should this be so? I think it's because from ages 6 to 18 Americans live mostly in Soft America, while from ages 18 to 30 they live mostly in Hard America.

Let me define my terms. Hard America is made up of all those parts of American life where you have competition and accountability. Soft America is made up of those parts where you don't. Hard America includes, among other things, the high-tech private sector. Soft America includes, among other things, high school, at least for the large majority of kids who aren't applying to selective colleges.

You know what? I think he's right:

Two East County high school teachers were placed on paid leave yesterday after students in their classes saw images and heard American Nick Berg being beheaded in Iraq.

We're at war, folks ... a war that probably will be dragging on when those students are my age. They need to know what we're up against. We do them no favors by hiding them away from hard truths.

Two Approaches to Conservative Commentary

Hugh Hewitt's latest post is unabashed Bush cheerleading:

Newsweek has the latest poll that shows (1) a drop in President Bush's approval ratings, and (2) a dead-heat in the Bush-Kerry poll. Proving what? That Americans wish progress was quicker in Iraq, but that even in the face of the worst 45 days of news since 9/11, the president is still understood as a war leader and Kerry is an implausible replacement. There's a stature gap when it comes to dealing with the enemy which John Kerry will never fill, which is why I remain very optimistic about the fall vote. The American people know that a vote for Kerry will be a vote to cut-and-run, and they also know that there is no way to withdraw from a war we didn't start and we cannot end, as the execution of Nick Berg reminded demonstrated again this week. ...

November's choice cannot now be understood as other than a referendum on how America is going to conduct itself over the next two decades. The Bush path is clear, and means aggressive confrontation of the enemy up to and including invasion if necessary, versus the Kerry approach of talk to the Security Council and get some subpoenas issued. The Bush approach is hard and costly, both in lives lost among the military and huge appropriations. The Kerry approach is suicidal.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for Hugh, but all of this strikes me as far too glib. Contrast Hugh's unsquelched optimism about Bush with Jonathan Last's take in today's LA Times. Last is no lefty; he's an editor at the neocon Weekly Standard, but he sees Bush in a clear and harsh light:

The Republican theory of victory in November is that John Kerry will by then have become an unacceptable choice for voters because of his well-documented penchant for flip-flopping on issues. It's a smart theory with only one problem: George W. Bush would not be immune to the same charge.

Last then cites a bunch of examples, of which a number go directly to Hugh's claim that the "Bush path is clear":

In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, Bush spoke as if the war on terrorism would be waged against all terrorist organizations, saying, "Anybody who houses a terrorist, encourages terrorism, will be held accountable." On another occasion he said, "We are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil of terrorism." And later the president proclaimed, "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves."

By November 2001, however, Bush had modified his position: "Where terrorist groups exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out, and we will destroy it." The important clause "of global reach" was added to justify ignoring regional terrorism in Ireland, Spain, Chechnya, the Philippines and Israel.

In March 2003, the president was asked if he would call for a vote on the proposed U.N. Security Council resolution backing the use of force in Iraq, which faced near-certain defeat. "No matter what the whip count is," Bush said, "we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." The vote was never taken.

The list goes on. After saying the U.N. would have only a perfunctory role in rebuilding Iraq, Bush went back to the world body seeking aid in September and more recently looked to U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to help form an interim government in Iraq. After announcing he would file an amicus brief opposing affirmative action at the University of Michigan, Bush instructed his solicitor general to file a last-minute brief that essentially punted on the issue.

Personally, I have no doubt that I'll vote for Bush in November. But don't count on me for a ton of rah-rah cheerleading. The Iraq mess daily raises serious new questions about the competence of the Bush administration. As Fouad Ajami argues: "We have been doing Iraq by improvisation, we are now "dumping stock," just as our fortunes in that hard land may be taking a turn for the better." Ajami further raises the competence question by observing "the confusion--and panic--of our policies in the aftermath of a cruel April." Conservatives do their cause no good by ignoring those questions; instead, we are going to have to make the case that Bush deserves reelection despite those legitimate questions. We also need to hold Bush 43's feet to the fire, so that the Bush 2.1 administration runs the war more competently than this one has.