by Frank Turk
Now, the question, really, is, "WHY?" Why endorse a Mormon son of a Mormon who was not very conservative in Massachusetts and has not demonstrated very safely-right ideology in governing in the past rather than, for example, sit out the election or vote 3rd party?
This is where my story comes in, before we get to the meat and potatoes. I know a Fellow named Jack, who believes that every human life is sacred -- they are all in the image of God. He would tell you that the slogans which minimize this are utterly false, utterly deceptive, utterly blanched from any human kindness or parently instinct -- let alone real moral courage. Jack is intent on making sure EVERY abortion is made illegal, and he has branded all intermediate steps to that end as complicity with evil. He says it is a matter of personal holiness. His syllogism goes like this:
[1] Murder is immoral
[2] Abortion is Murder
[3] Abortion is immoral
[4] If you assist in any way with an immoral act, you are an accessory to that immoral act
. . . [3] Abortion is immoral
[5] Voting for a candidate who supports any abortions assists that candidate in creating abortions
[6] Voting for a candidate who supports any abortions makes you an accessory to that immoral act
[7] Personal holiness requires shunning sinful acts
[8] Accessory to immoral acts is itself a sinful act
[9] Personal holiness requires shunning Accessory to sinful acts
So Jack is going to vote for someone who cannot, mathematically, win the Presidential race because in his view, there is no difference between one candidate who wants all abortions legal and another who would make only 98% of all abortions illegal -- the 2% is the deal-breaker. Jack has a brother named Mack, and Mack agrees with the whole scheme here except who to vote for: he's voting for nobody.
Now, here's the thing: the advocate for abortion -- the people who want it legal in all cases -- wants a better life for someone. (One example)(Another example) In their view, an abortion is a legitimate way to make sure someone has a better life.
The problem for Jack and Mack is that they are using the exact same reasoning, and achieving the exact same end, as the pro-abortion advocate. The Pro-abortion advocate is perfectly satisfied if there are abortions as long as someone's choice or alleged economic freedom is protected; Jack and Mack are perfectly satisfied if there are abortions as long as their personal holiness is still intact. Jack and Mack protect their holiness by doing nothing -- or worse, doing something they know cannot change the outcome -- but that's fine as long as their understanding of their own holiness is protected and justified.
Doing nothing and calling it a moral victory is cowardly. It may actually be evil. But if it is nothing else, it is certainly this: failing to do as much as possible to make a difference toward the improvement of those things which you can effect and can make better. Failing to show that much compassion and effort is morally lazy.
See: if we imagine that the world is a place where there are no abortions right now, of course saying that 40,000 abortions a year should be considered as a policy is evil. But in the world we actually live in, where in our country there are about 1,200,000 abortions every year, one candidate/party is saying that we could eliminate 960,000 abortions by saying the only exceptions might be physical health and welfare of the mother (though formally: they actually exclude that option). It's moral malpractice to say that seeking to reduce the number of abortions by 80% is the same as saying 100% of all abortions are politically and morally OK.
So the primary answer to the question, "Why write posts advocating to vote for Mitt Romney for President?" is this: "To avoid the obvious moral failing of doing nothing at all -- or participating in the moral equivalent of performance art -- to turn back an unacceptable outcome even if the alternative is only less-unacceptable."
Now, the question, really, is, "WHY?" Why endorse a Mormon son of a Mormon who was not very conservative in Massachusetts and has not demonstrated very safely-right ideology in governing in the past rather than, for example, sit out the election or vote 3rd party?
This is where my story comes in, before we get to the meat and potatoes. I know a Fellow named Jack, who believes that every human life is sacred -- they are all in the image of God. He would tell you that the slogans which minimize this are utterly false, utterly deceptive, utterly blanched from any human kindness or parently instinct -- let alone real moral courage. Jack is intent on making sure EVERY abortion is made illegal, and he has branded all intermediate steps to that end as complicity with evil. He says it is a matter of personal holiness. His syllogism goes like this:
[1] Murder is immoral
[2] Abortion is Murder
[3] Abortion is immoral
[4] If you assist in any way with an immoral act, you are an accessory to that immoral act
. . . [3] Abortion is immoral
[5] Voting for a candidate who supports any abortions assists that candidate in creating abortions
[6] Voting for a candidate who supports any abortions makes you an accessory to that immoral act
[7] Personal holiness requires shunning sinful acts
[8] Accessory to immoral acts is itself a sinful act
[9] Personal holiness requires shunning Accessory to sinful acts
So Jack is going to vote for someone who cannot, mathematically, win the Presidential race because in his view, there is no difference between one candidate who wants all abortions legal and another who would make only 98% of all abortions illegal -- the 2% is the deal-breaker. Jack has a brother named Mack, and Mack agrees with the whole scheme here except who to vote for: he's voting for nobody.
Now, here's the thing: the advocate for abortion -- the people who want it legal in all cases -- wants a better life for someone. (One example)(Another example) In their view, an abortion is a legitimate way to make sure someone has a better life.
The problem for Jack and Mack is that they are using the exact same reasoning, and achieving the exact same end, as the pro-abortion advocate. The Pro-abortion advocate is perfectly satisfied if there are abortions as long as someone's choice or alleged economic freedom is protected; Jack and Mack are perfectly satisfied if there are abortions as long as their personal holiness is still intact. Jack and Mack protect their holiness by doing nothing -- or worse, doing something they know cannot change the outcome -- but that's fine as long as their understanding of their own holiness is protected and justified.
Doing nothing and calling it a moral victory is cowardly. It may actually be evil. But if it is nothing else, it is certainly this: failing to do as much as possible to make a difference toward the improvement of those things which you can effect and can make better. Failing to show that much compassion and effort is morally lazy.
So the primary answer to the question, "Why write posts advocating to vote for Mitt Romney for President?" is this: "To avoid the obvious moral failing of doing nothing at all -- or participating in the moral equivalent of performance art -- to turn back an unacceptable outcome even if the alternative is only less-unacceptable."
