Cathy Kaveny's Response

With all due respect, I think Greg Sisk missed a fundamental issue in Cathy Kaveny's post. Even if one accepts everything he says about Kerry's record on abortion as true, that does not change the important point Cathy made (also well made by Michael Perry in his anaolgy to an election in the context of slavery) about the choice we face on Tuesday. Catholics must use their prudential judgment to decide whether the common good is better served by voting for Kerry or for Bush. I myself don't think trying to convince people what an awful person John Kerry is because of his pro-abortion positions is very helpful at this point. John Kerry's lack of judment on abortion is matched, if not exceeded, by George Bush's poor performance as the leader of the world's only superpower, particularly when it comes to the promotion and preservation of the global common good, and the protection of weak and defenseless persons both at home and abroad.

I have not yet read any post that makes a convincing argument that the Bush administration's pro-life postion should cause a voter to ignore all of the other evidence about the international havoc another Bush presidency will likely wreak, nor has anything been offered that counters the clear evidence of Bush's, as Cathy put it, "arrogance" and "Manichean world view." To have the leader of the world's most powerful nation pursue policies that could destroy the planet because of the simplistic (and completely irresponsible) "us/them; good/bad" terms Geroge Bush employs to justify American actions is a frightening prospect. It is just this kind of unthinking and dehumanizning dualism that helped slavery endure for so long in this nation and which then promoted such unyielding racism in the United States once slavery ended. No need to appreciate the complexities of human experience or dignify the struggles of the marginalized, people are black or white. Black is bad, white is good. It's just that simple.

Given that such dualistic thinking is completely legitimate in the Bush administration, and given the ugly historical consequences of such thinking in American culture, it seems to me completely reasonable that a pro-life Catholic might determine that the prospect of a less violent and more humane world is far more realistic under a Kerry administration. Many prominent former supporters of George Bush and his policies have come to the same conclusion. In yesterday's New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote:

I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade.

If the Bush team wins re-election, unless it undergoes a policy lobotomy and changes course and tone, the breach between America and the rest of the world will only get larger. But all Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have told us during this campaign is that they have made no mistakes and see no reason to change.

Friedman's point goes directly to Cathy's assessment of Bush's lack of prudence, his arrogance, and his poor judgment in his choice of advisors. There has been no indication whatsoever that any of this will change in a second Bush term. It is, however, clear that John Kerry will inspire much greater confidence amongst most world leaders. As a global citizen, the United States has to rise to its responsibilities in community and solidarity with the other nations of the Earth, it cannot simply claim the raw privileges that come with power.

Vince