Published on Commonweal magazine (http://commonwealmagazine.org)
The Single-Issue Trap
What the bishops' voting guide overlooks
Created 09/13/2012 - 5:46pm
Cathleen Kaveny
In 2007 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,
a guide for American Catholics seeking to discern their political
responsibilities in view of the upcoming 2008 national elections. In
2011 the bishops reissued the same document for the 2012 elections,
along with a new introductory note.
Though no one doubts that the ballots cast by Roman Catholics are a key
factor in national elections, it’s unclear what impact the bishops’
guide has on that vote. A 2011 poll suggests that only a small minority
of American Catholics consulted Forming Consciences before the
2008 election. Nonetheless, journalists, politicians, political
strategists, and political scientists take the document seriously,
viewing it as a significant intervention in American political life made
by the religious leaders of a powerful segment of voters.
How should Forming Consciences
and other voting guides issued by the bishops over the years be
understood? What, exactly, is their purpose? The guides do not endorse
any candidate or list of candidates—indeed, they can’t without the USCCB
losing its tax-exempt status. Yet clearly the bishops intend to
influence Catholic voters by shaping their consciences in accordance
with Catholic teaching. Furthermore, while the voting guides acknowledge
the enduring principles of Catholic social teaching, their emphases
clearly reflect the bishops’ perception of the challenges facing the
American people during a particular national election. One might more
properly say, then, that the bishops’ guides are “issue” guides, largely
dedicated to articulating Catholic teaching on controversial issues in a
particular election.
To situate these guides in the
context of Catholic moral and political thought, it’s instructive to
note their evolution since the original 1976 version. In Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year,
the bishops addressed themselves to all Americans; insisting that “we
specifically do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc,” they
assumed implicitly that the interests, responsibilities, and
perspectives of Catholics were broadly consonant with those of all
Americans, particularly those who are religious. The guide’s title
expressed its worry over widespread political apathy, cynicism, and “the
abandonment of political participation.” While it did not flinch from
the problems facing American society in 1976, Political Responsibility
tacitly presupposed that effort and commitment in favor of the common
good would be rewarded with results. Moreover, it presumed that the
church’s political efforts would be joined—or at least appreciated—by
all people of goodwill. Such a belief rested on an array of optimistic
assumptions; there is a natural, almost youthful energy in the guide’s
call for all Christians to “join together in common witness and
effective action to bring about Pope John’s vision of a well-ordered
society based on truth, justice, charity, and freedom.”
By 2007 these optimistic assumptions had evaporated. The tone of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
is decidedly battle-weary, suggesting a lament for a nation mired in
political crisis and trapped in a moral self-contradiction verging on
hypocrisy. Whereas in 1976 the bishops addressed the challenge of
political engagement, by 2007 the predominant concern is moral
skepticism and relativism; the bishops worry more about the human
capacity to recognize moral truth than about the motivation to act upon
it. Accordingly, their text emphasizes the church’s capacity to teach
the moral truth relevant to political society. “What faith teaches about
the dignity of the human person and about the sacredness of every human
life helps us see more clearly the same truths that also come to us
through the gift of human reason.” As its title indicates, the guide is
concerned about faithful citizenship—citizenship exercised in accordance
with the truths recognized by the Catholic faith.
Forming Consciences is
directed primarily to Catholics, and manifests a pervasive desire to
steer the Catholic population toward a distinctly Catholic type of
political engagement, one that will “apply authentic moral teaching in
the public square.” In 1976 the bishops hoped their words would “provide
an opportunity for thoughtful and lively debate,” whereas the 2007
document invites deference, even obedience, stressing “the moral
responsibility of each Catholic to hear, receive, and act upon the
church’s teaching in the lifelong task of forming his or her own
conscience.” One might say that the 2007 drafters suspect there has been
too much debate over the past few decades—and not enough effort on the part of Catholics to accept and act upon magisterial teaching.
The two guides show
striking differences in both content and treatment. In 1976 the bishops
identified eight issues for the reader’s consideration—abortion, the
economy, education, food policy, housing, human rights and U.S. foreign
policy, mass media, and military expenditures—and covered them for the
most part with brief summaries, referring readers to other documents,
listed at the end, for a fuller explanation. In contrast, the 2007 guide
identifies many more issues, and circles around them again and again.
Part 1 lays out seven key themes: the right to life and the dignity of
the human person; the call to family, communion, and participation;
rights and responsibilities; the option for the poor and vulnerable; the
dignity of work and the rights of workers; solidarity; and caring for
God’s creation. Part 2, titled “Applying Catholic Teaching to Major
Issues: A Summary of Policy Positions of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops,” groups fifty-seven (!) issues under four broader
themes: human life, family life, social justice, and global solidarity.
Finally, part 3 identifies ten “policy goals that we hope will guide
Catholics as they form their consciences and reflect on the moral
dimensions of their public choices.”
The most obvious contrast between
the two guides is their different prioritization of the issues—in
particular, the emergence of abortion as the paramount issue. In 1976
the bishops began with abortion only because they presented topics in
alphabetical order. In contrast, the 2007 begins with abortion and goes
on to treat the topic repeatedly and with special emphasis. Affirming
the status of the unborn has not only acquired pride of place in the
years since the bishops’ first electoral missive; it has also acquired a
certain organizational force and power. The right to life for the
unborn is repeatedly used to provide the touchstone for the theoretical
evaluation of other issues. Quoting Pope John Paul II, the USCCB goes so
far as to say that any concern for human rights is “false and illusory”
if it does not include an antiabortion program. The document regularly
mentions the plight of the unborn in connection with other issues to
which it is not commonly linked, such as the preferential option for the
poor and marginalized, and the need to combat violence. The moral
framework of Forming Consciences presents the right to life as
standing at the center of all other rights. For the bishops, there is no
doubt that the right to life is the fundamental issue of social
justice.
This ordering of issues shapes
the bishops’ advice regarding voting. “A Catholic cannot vote for a
candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as
abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position,”
they write. And while they also remind us that “a voter should not use a
candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or
inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and
dignity,” note the contrast: a clear prohibition against voting for a
candidate because he or she supports abortion rights, but only a vague
admonition against “indifference or inattentiveness” to other important
moral issues. The USCCB could have made the point in the reverse way,
with a clear prohibition of voting for someone with an unacceptable
stance on other moral issues, set over against an admonition against
“indifference or inattentiveness” to abortion. But the bishops did not
do so. The logical structure of the passage prioritizes abortion.
So when can a Catholic vote for a prochoice candidate? According to Forming Consciences,
“a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position” may vote
for that candidate “only for truly grave moral reasons.” Regarding
abortion, the bishops’ discussion seems to limit this option to a
situation where there is no prolife candidate available. “When all
candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil,” the guide
advises, “the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide
to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after
careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less
likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to
pursue other authentic human goods.”
Given the guide’s sustained
emphasis on the importance and uniqueness of abortion, what does it mean
for the bishops to affirm that “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,” the bishops assert. “Yet a candidate’s
position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as
support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately
lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” Nowhere
does the document straightforwardly allow a Catholic voter to select a
prochoice candidate if there is a prolife candidate in the race. In
contrast, on numerous occasions the USCCB affirms the decision to refuse
to cast a vote for a prochoice candidate, even if the only alternative
is to refrain from voting altogether. The ordering of issues is clear:
First consider abortion and then consider everything else. Other moral
issues become important after the candidates successfully pass the abortion hurdle.
Consequently—in
contradistinction to the 1976 document—the USCCB now strongly encourages
Catholics to walk into the polls with one particular issue at the top
of the list. Only after emphasizing again that “the moral obligation to
oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences
and our actions” do the bishops gesture toward other factors involved in
electing a candidate: “a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity,
and ability to influence a given issue.” This one lonely sentence
pointing to the need to evaluate the personal qualities of the candidate
reads like little more than a half-hearted afterthought in the context
of Forming Consciences’ overwhelming emphasis on abstract
issues. The guide does not pursue the logical follow-up questions. The
bishops do not even raise, for example, the possibility that a
particular candidate (or party) might fabricate a commitment to end
abortion for strategic political reasons. Forming Consciences
does not caution voters to evaluate the sincerity with which a candidate
holds a particular position; rather, it seems simply to assume
candidates will enact their platforms if elected to office.
But aren’t questions about
character, integrity, and efficacy the crucial questions? What do we do,
after all, when we vote in an election? Selecting a candidate for
public office means judging a candidate’s probable exercise of his
responsibilities while in office. It combines judgment about the merits
of the candidate with a prediction about the nature of the challenges he
or she will face during the upcoming term. In assessing candidates for a
particular office, four considerations are paramount: 1)
Competence—does the candidate have the intellectual capacity, the
experience, the temperament, and judgment to do the job? 2)
Character—does the candidate have a good set of moral values and the
integrity to pursue them in situations of temptation and fear? 3)
Collaboration—can the candidate work well with other people, both
political allies and opponents? 4) Connections—what are the moral and
practical ramifications of the candidate’s political and financial
connections for the manner in which he or she will carry out the job?
Politicians, after all, do not act alone; they operate within networks
of political power, including party affiliations, lobbyists, and big
corporate and individual donors.
The point of electing candidates
to an office is to empower and enable them to accomplish a set of tasks
in service of the common good. Various qualities go into being an
effective political servant. These qualities are not fungible, and a
certain minimum level of achievement is indispensable with respect to
each: saintly demeanor does not make up for lack of experience or
intelligence; strategic brilliance does not compensate for antisocial
behavior, and so on. Precisely because politics is not a solitary
activity, the same criteria for holding political power ought to be
applied with respect to the party with which a particular candidate is
affiliated. In some cases, in fact, the voter’s view of the party ought
to be decisive. Depending on the situation, “voting the party” rather
than voting for a particular candidate may be a morally justifiable
strategy. If party politics are strong, then voters in a general
election often find themselves choosing between already assembled
political teams with competing governing strategies and priorities.
Such reflections allow us to gain some critical perspective on the idea of faithful citizenship—and on Forming Consciences.
First, it would have been wise for the bishops to focus on what it
means to vote for a candidate rather than an issue. Yes, the bishops’
tax-exempt status prevents them from endorsing or opposing particular
candidates; it does not, however, prevent them from reflecting on a
candidate’s competence, collaborative abilities, connections, and
character. What are the virtues of a good public servant? Recent
Catholic moral theology has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the
role of virtue in the moral life; it would make sense to extend the
analysis to the virtues necessary for political leadership, particularly
in a pluralistic liberal democracy such as our own.
In that context we might ask, Does someone who does not support overturning Roe
possess ipso facto a defective moral character that renders him or her
unfit for office? In my view, the answer very much depends on the
reasons underlying the position. Living in a pluralistic society
requires citizens to develop a sense of which views fall within the
category of “reasonable, but wrong.” So, for example, the character of a
candidate who thinks that unborn life has no value whatsoever at any
stage in pregnancy should be evaluated differently from one who thinks
that American society is too divided over the issue to make fundamental
alterations to U.S. constitutional law.
Let me emphasize that I am not
implying that abortion is not important or even fundamental. I mean only
to say that part of the reason abortion is such an intractable issue is
that social patterns have crystallized around the fact that abortion is
a readily available, widely used, and legal option. Moreover, the
fundamental legal status of abortion is not subject to significant
immediate change by any elected official, including the president.
Because the Supreme Court has conferred constitutional protection on a
woman’s right to choose abortion, it will take the Supreme Court to
reverse its own holding—or a constitutional amendment. It is true that
the president appoints Supreme Court justices who then go on to serve
life terms. No president, however, can control how many nominations he
or she will get to make, or whether the Senate will confirm them—or, for
that matter, how a justice votes after he or she is confirmed. Finally,
there is good reason to think that the justices are acutely aware that
overturning Roe could be as destabilizing to the legal system as the original opinion was some forty years ago.
Am I suggesting
that a candidate’s stand on legal abortion is insignificant? Absolutely
not. I do believe, however, that simply correlating a politician’s stand
on Roe v. Wade with a vote for or against him or her does not
do justice to the question of how, morally, citizens should vote. After
all, apart from referenda items, voters are asked to select among
people, not positions. Election guides would do well to place more
emphasis on assessing the fitness of candidates for a particular office.
That assessment should include scrutiny of both the candidate’s moral
character—paying particular attention to the virtues and vices most
likely to be involved in the elected post—and the candidate’s social and
political networks. With whom will he or she work? To whom will he or
she be loyal? These are key questions. Many election guides, however,
emphasize instead the issues they perceive to be (or hope to be)
relevant to the voters. The election guides issued by the USCCB are no
exception.
How, then, should citizens think
morally and practically about the issues relevant to a particular
election? In my view the term “issue” is vague; too often the word
simultaneously encompasses the diagnosis of a problem, an account of its
cause, and a proposed solution. Evaluating a candidate’s stand on the
issues requires careful attention to each of these three factors.
Furthermore, political issues and the underlying problems they highlight
claim our attention in different ways. Some are important, even
fundamental, because they go to the basic structure of the political
community; others are urgent because the mandate to protect the
well-being of the community demands that they be addressed here and now.
Issues, then, are not abstract propositions about the community; they
are action items, indicating the problems that can be addressed by the
tools available to political officeholders. Instead of evaluating the
relative significance of issues in the abstract, voters should consider
whether and to what degree the problems identified by the issues can be
ameliorated by the particular candidate seeking a particular office.
For nearly forty years, abortion
has been a constitutionally protected practice, and its legal status is
not immediately susceptible to any sort of significant change at the
federal level. The difficulty of changing this reality via a
constitutional amendment has led large segments of the prolife movement,
including the U.S. bishops’ conference, to concentrate on achieving
that same goal indirectly, by electing presidents who will over time
remake the Supreme Court. It seems to me that the divisions in the
country that make the direct strategy practically impossible also tell
against the effectiveness of this indirect strategy.
Moreover, the indirect strategy
has significant moral problems. Supporting a constitutional amendment
directly targeted at undoing Roe conflicts with few, if any, of
a voter’s other duties to promote the common good, and merits serious
consideration. But the prolife movement’s indirect strategy of making
abortion a litmus-test issue for voters, with the expectation that they
will elect officials who will somehow overturn Roe, does raise
red flags. The duty of a voter is to promote the common good by
selecting the best candidate for a political office in light of the
range of factors I have outlined. Given that most office-holders have
multifaceted responsibilities, voters cannot consider only one
issue—even a fundamental issue—in casting their ballots. Presidential
elections are no exception.
Voters cannot blind themselves
and focus single-mindedly on one issue in the abstract, even if the
issue is abortion. They must select among candidates, not among
issues—and they are morally required to do so in light of the concrete
challenges and possibilities for the common good posed by a specific
election at a specific time. This, and not a litmus test of issues, is
what forming consciences for faithful citizenship is really all about.
Source URL: http://commonwealmagazine.org/single-issue-trap
No comments:
Post a Comment