Trevin Wax points out a few things that people of faith can learn from the 2012 election. In summary, we need a constant reality check.
First, this means we cannot afford to ignore changing demographics:
The days when the “male white voter” dominated elections are over, which explains why Romney was able to maintain a substantial lead among white men and still lose the election. When your target is a shrinking number of people and your strategy is to keep them on board by alienating the rising urban ethnic groups (by, let’s say, failing to come up with a sensible immigration plan), it’s no wonder you lose elections.
Translating this into the religious sphere, “if your church is an upper-class, predominantly white congregation in a city that is no longer upper-class or predominantly white, then you’ve got a problem.”
“We can’t ignore facts that make us uncomfortable.” We must take care not to reinterpret polls and data to convince ourselves that we are in the lead, so to speak, as many Republicans did. We need to be aware of the reality of the situation. For Catholics, the HHS mandate, for example, seems to have fizzled as an issue. Despite much support and months of statements from the U.S. bishops in opposition, Obama still won the Catholic vote.
“A good leader will paint a picture of reality, however disconcerting it may be. It’s only when we see where we truly are that we get motivated with a sense of urgency to complete the tasks God has given us.” Christian churches can by no means be equated with a political party, but in this case, both the Republican party and people of faith should move forward with eyes opened.
h/t Touchstone
November 7th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
This strikes me as both the most obvious and most important lesson of the presidential election, and I hope it’s taken to heart. I say this as someone who is happy with how things went. My own leanings notwithstanding, the country needs a conservative political bloc that is less prone to confusing its most excessive rhetoric with reality.
November 7th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
RE: HHS Mandate, Catholics and “Issue Fizzling”
1) The issue always lacked a certain stickiness among church-going Catholics precisely because the many, weekly in-the-pew Catholic sees no moral problem with contraception. So while they might understand the threat to the church and sympathize with it, if that moral teaching means relatively little to them personally it simply might not move them.
2) Those outside Mass-attending Catholics and conservative blog-reading audiences had really little-to-no knowledge of the depth of importance of this issue. This isn’t to say many people didn’t fight hard, but the message did not seem to reach the general public, who I think, on the whole might be sympathetic to the religious freedom plight. Of course, in light of point 1, the net impact and passion of that might not be the case. Which is why what was needed was not a focus-tested message but a bit of leadership on the issue from the top-of-the-ticket.
November 7th, 2012 | 5:39 pm
i’m sorry, moderator…. call me cynical….
i am not sure, say, a “sensible immigration plan” would have made an iota of difference to people whose chief concern appears to be whether the president “cares about people like me.” (fox news exit poll) you’ll note that “feeling cared for” has nothing to do with valid arguments, wisdom, and truth seeking, but everything to do with warm and fuzzy feelings. why would anyone trust the future of a country to this “changing demographic?”
regarding what some folks have called the dumbest generation, the problem isn’t really the way they vote, all things considered. it’s that they are, well, dumb. but at least their thumbs are very strong from all that texting, video gaming, iphone scrolling, and voting for the next reality tv celebrity.
and then there’s barack obama, who (from his victory speech last night) apparently thinks these folks can lead the country toward a more perfect union, a union where, alas, everyone “can make it.” i wonder how many in the crowd even caught the reference to the constitution, swept away as they were by feelings of being cared for.
ah, yes, these changing demographics….
November 7th, 2012 | 6:04 pm
Your post and the links you embedded are right on. Now, as always really, is an appropriate time to evoke the CL judgment toward politics, “The first order of politics is living.” This means defending the most basic rights–the right and dignity of human life from natural conception to natural death; the right of the human person to live her constitutive, uniquely human, relation to destiny (religious freedom). The most basic way that we affirm these rights and constitutive first principles of political life–before and beyond any political structure or system–is in living them in our daily existence; such a simple witness is are greatest evidence and apologia for their reasonableness and truth. Of course, such witness intrinsically and unavoidably includes, although not limited to, involvement in the democratic political process in our respective capacities–proposing, articulating and supporting legislation that affirms basic human rights and principles, as well as opposing legislation and measures that attack such human rights.
Our responsibility is simply to accept responsibility and never substitute our freedom for pre-packaged structures or, worse, ideology. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, (paraphrasing) olitical structures–the State, governments, markets–are all necessary and important but in and of themselves are insufficient. Neither any political system nor social can replace work and responsibility. Even the best designed political structures and polices are dependent on human freedom. Pope Benedict recently reminded us of our “original dependence” on our Creator. The human person is naturally a dependent creature in a constitutive relation to her Creation. Before any social arrangements or social ties, a person’s constitutive and dependent relation on God defines his or hers existence as a man or woman. Monsignor Luigi Giussani reminds us that if we lose a true-self awareness, an awareness of our constitutive relation to a destiny greater than any human power or temptation to self-absorption, nothing is of help to us. Paradoxically, the awareness of our ontologically dependent nature is the true source of freedom because one who lives with an awareness that she is a relation with “Thou who makes me” is aware that something greater than the world’s inhuman reductions defines her life.
In the current political moment our country faces, perhaps as always, the human person faces reductive attacks in every direction. All sides are evidence to Pope Benedict’s observation that “the notion of man as creature has largely gone out of fashion.” One side conceives freedom as complete autonomy over the body–essentially complete freedom over the person, although such an integral anthropology is lost on the neo-gnostic dualism that informs much of post-modernity’s sexual culture. Unsurprisingly, the proponents and propagators of this reductive anthropology—rooted in a volutnarist notion of freedom—use the State as the medium to house their barren and wanting vision of human life. Those who see under this ideological lens ontology view the State and government as the constitutive source of human relations—for them, State and government are synonymous for society. Despite the disruptive effects that such overreach has on family structure, especially on low-income families, State-centric voluntarism reminds popular due largely to a rhetorical obfuscation. As aforementioned, proponents of such an ontology conceive of the State as the manifestation or expression of the social or public will and thus rhetorically tout State or government endeavors as “public” efforts directed to the “public” good. In actuality, “public” in this sense only means that such endeavors are funded via tax-dollars collected by federal, state or local governments and may benefit or harm the common good.
Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that while the government can and ought to serve an important role in fostering a culture of subsidiarity and solidarity, primal and truly constitutive relations and institutions—Church, family–retain primacy over the State. Furthermore, while government programs and agencies can and ought to play a role in fostering social justice, solidarity is un-synonymous to solidarity among beaurocrats—“solidarity” among government agencies and social workers is never solidarity among the men and women.
Nonetheless, the “conservative” variant of liberalism makes a similar, and related, obfuscation—one that both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI give equal concern to as the first. Whereas “progressive” variants of liberalism obfuscate the distinction between the State and society, the “conservative” variant obfuscates the difference between the market and society. In her social principle of subsidiarity, the Chruch emphasizes the importance of local energies independent of government bodies in fostering a culture of true human flourishing. John Paul II famously affirmed the importance of “empowerment” for the poor, and the importance of involving the poor in the “cycle in which goods and services are produced and exchanged.” In many aspects, markets undeniably provide greater range than government bodies for persons to express and contribute their talents and abilities toward the common good. Nonetheless, Pope Benedict XVI, building on his predecessor’s work, regularly notes the disruptive effects of commercial cultures on family stability. The notion that “life’s a market” begets a commoditized, monetized and utilitarian view of work and even of charity—a true notion of gift and givenness in human work is increasingly absent.
Faced with the conservative reduction, Catholics and all citizens of good will ought to recognize that subisidiarity and social-empowerment are un-synonymous with indiscriminate economic-decentralization
Both liberal fallacies—the “progressive” and “conservative” variants—root in an autonomous ontology that denies the givenness of the human person as creature. The “progressive” fallacy sees “government as the thing we most have in common”—a constitutive body that is the source of all human relations. Such a purview views the human person as an organ of a larger autonomous body called, indistinguishably, “society” or the “State.” The complete unimpeded autonomy over human nature is the moral imperative that guides the “progressive” ideological ontology.
The “conservative” variant of liberalism is also rooted in an autonomous ontology, although one that appeals to, at least some semblance of, a constitutive human nature. Yet, proponents of this ontology tend to view the notion of a constitutive human nature and constitutive human relations in, at least implicitly, a utilitarian matter. That is, human nature and constitutive human relations are useful principles only to the extent that they protect against what conservatives view the real threat to human “freedom,” the State. The compromises among many social-conservatives on contraception and divorce are evidence that they are willing to gradually, in their minds prudentially, accept revised understandings of human nature on the grounds that autonomous individual choice, rather than State-coercion, is the source of such social revision. Although many “conservatives” may tout protection of the “little platoons” against the State, they often view these little platoons as means to autonomous freedom and success. The notion that human beings are dependant creatures revolts many conservatives, including many Christian and even specifically Catholic ones.
“Progressives” rhetorically boast of some altruistic notion of dependence but this essentially translates to dependence on government bodies. Many progressives tend to never consider the possibility that bureaucratic agencies—however “perfect”—might depend on something other than other governing bodies.
Faced with both, Catholics and all citizens of goodwill ought to recognize that, while government—at all levels–can and ought to serve a role in fostering solidarity and social-justice, truly responsible work toward both ends requires more than federal and fiscal expansion. The problems that “the least among these” face—high rates of incarceration, impaired education attainment out-of-wedlock births, abortion, prevalent domestic abuse, chronic and long-term unemployment, impaired mobility—require more than simply creating a new agency and program. Likewise, and reciprocally, subsidiarity means empowering true local efforts close to the people—not simply empowering private business firms via indiscriminate economic decentralization. Although political writers such as Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru are right to note that certain regulations turn businesses into clients of the federal government—empowering both business and government while crowding out local bodies—too many Catholics naively assume that more competition will automatically empower the “little platoons.” More skeptics of progressivism ought to more thoughtfully and creatively consider how to reform the welfare-state, using federal-funds, into a platform for assisting subsidiarity and empowerment.
Nonetheless, to evoke Pope Benedict XVI’s aforementioned phrase, even the best designed political systems and structures are flawed, because imperfect persons design them and their relative benefit to the common good depends on the seriousness of all engaged citizens. Either our politics are rooted in an ideological vision that we hope will remove and eliminate work and freedom—giving us some false semblance of freedom divorced from any criterion beyond ourselves (whether we hide ourselves behind the government or market)—or our politics are rooted in human experience; reality, pure and simple.
Human persons, as Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, are originally and naturally dependant beings. First and foremost, the human person is dependant on God and this original dependence constitutes one’s dependant relation with others and the world. In a strictly practical or material sense, we depend on one another and the world for sustenance. Unless one grows and hunts his own food, makes his own clothes, and builds his own dwelling place, the human person depends on others for all of these life-sustaining necessities. Even if someone does supply all of these things for and by himself, he still depends on the earth which provides all sustaining materials goods. Politics is concerned with the way we order public life and the relations that constitute the public sphere—the way we order the intersection between faith, governance, business, commerce, education and all work. A just political order depends on a right ordering of our true constitutive relations. Our contribution to politics—in the capacity appropriate to our abilities and talents—depends on the awareness and seriousness with which we live our relation to God. The way we live our religious nature will determine our political life. Simply, do we give credence first to political systems and structures or to our relation with “Thou who makes us”—a relation that neither any State nor government nor market nor any political system nor social structure can provide.
The choice is clear—power or God.
November 7th, 2012 | 9:04 pm
“My own leanings notwithstanding, the country needs a conservative political bloc that is less prone to confusing its most excessive rhetoric with reality.”
My own leanings notwithstanding, the country needs a liberal political bloc that is less prone to confusing its fantasies with reality.”
Our present course unabated, some morning you will hear that “credit default swaps” on US bonds are spiking. Most of the left will disregard that, but the top officials will notice, when the bondholders (especially the international ones) tell them they need to lower the risks of default. But they won’t, because they can’t. Dependent constituencies will revolt at the ballot box, and there won’t be enough taxpayers to put the hurt on. You’ll know it hit the fan when you hear about an unsold issue of bonds.
Serious people, (serious, not morally incorrupt, but still less greedy that the parasites on K Street) those greedy Wall Streeters you are taught to disdain, but rely on in ways you can’t imagine-showed how badly Obama’s economic policies are-the market fell 1000 points in 2008, and over 300 today.
November 7th, 2012 | 9:51 pm
“Despite much support and months of statements from the U.S. bishops in opposition, Obama still won the Catholic vote.”
Well, no. There was no “Catholic vote” in 2012. Consider the Fox News exit poll. White Catholics voted for Romney 59-40; whites overall voted for Romney 59-39. I haven’t seen any data on how Hispanic Catholics voted, but they must have been close to the overall 71-27 Hispanic vote for Obama in order to get the overall Catholic vote to 50-48 Obama.
In short, Catholics voted their race/ethnicity, not their religion.
November 7th, 2012 | 10:18 pm
I think our current situation, demographic and political, was summed up beautifully by Alexander Pope in the last lines of his Dunciad:
Religion blushing veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires.
Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And universal darkness buries all.
November 8th, 2012 | 5:31 am
Andrew
You have identified the fundamental error of liberalism, in all its guises
It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person’s relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract,” and from it is derived the notion that the only obligations are those voluntarily assumed.
For the ancients, of course, like Plato and Aristotle, to consider the individual in isolation from the polis, or community, was like talking about a foot or an eye, without reference to the body, as a whole. In modern times, it was Hegel and his followers, notably Fichte who championed the ancient insight. For them, the highest activity in the natural order is the free arrangement of men about what is good brought together in an actual polity where the good is no longer a mere abstraction, but realised in a concrete fashion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact