I’m not going to offer yet another left-secular endorsement of Barack Obama for President. Instead, I offer a far more radical endorsement: Obama is the better choice than John McCain based on the editorial principles of The Warrior.
Obama will do more for Marquette students. He will do more to hold the federal government and the financial sector accountable. He will thoroughly expose George W. Bush’s abuses of executive power. He rose by merit, not family connections like Bush and McCain. His administration will be more transparent and efficient. He understands that free markets are not free when actors with privileged information make a mockery out of equal access. He will be the more fiscally responsible President. He lives by his Christian faith. Most of all, he projects a realistic vision of a great America.
Obama has proposed an annual, fully refundable American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000 for every U.S. student. To receive this credit, students will invest 100 hours of service to our communities. This is laudable for two reasons: first, it helps to show that Obama is not a stereotypical “something for nothing” Democrat. Second, it would get students out of the “MU bubble” and doing something about the real needs existing all around Milwaukee and thousands of other college towns nationwide.
Obama will do better than John McCain to protect Americans at home and our military forces abroad. In the vice-presidential debate, Gwen Ifill asked the candidates whether Iran or Pakistan was the greater threat to U.S. security. Sarah Palin, speaking for McCain, said Iran was the greater threat.
Conversely, Joe Biden, speaking for Obama, said Pakistan was the greater threat because it already has deployed nuclear weapoans, most likely harbors Osama bin Ladin and other senior al-Qaeda leaders and is a new democratic regime in need of our support. These are convincing arguments if we are serious about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and hunting down al-Qaeda. Focusing on a country that is several years away from obtaining nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to multilateral sanctions, and does not harbor senior al-Qaeda leaders is a preposterous policy.
Obama also supports letting Iraqis determine the destiny of Iraq. He does not support McCain’s policy of leaving an American colonial edifice in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time.
General David Petraeus, in his September 10, 2008 testimony before members of Congress, underlined the key role of Iraqis in choosing to say no to sectarian violence in their own country: “The tribes and the sheiks decided to say no more to Al Qaeda. They were tired of the indiscriminate violence, tired of the Taliban-like ideology and the other practices. They are Sunni Arabs rising up against a largely Sunni Arab Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Iraqis are a responsible, mature people. They do not need foreign tutelage to defend their lives and property. The billions of dollars that John McCain proposes to spend there are best spent at home.
Those billions are better spent on affordable health care for every American. In the second presidential debate, McCain spoke of health care as a responsibility; Obama spoke of it as a fundamental right. The teachings of the Catholic Church are on Obama’s side. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states, “Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safe- guard of human life and a fundamental human right.” Insurers are only too willing to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, leaving me to reluctantly conclude that only national health care can overcome the problem of moral hazard – the systematic pattern where the healthy can readily find insurance and the sick struggle to get basic coverage. Unequal access to health care shows unequal regard for human life.
Many Catholics, Christians and voters of goodwill support McCain for his alleged “pro-life” platform. Leaving aside the self-evident truth that warfare and healthcare are life issues, let’s look at abortion and stem-cell research. I am quoting a posting that I made on an external website devoted to Catholic issues:
Abortion is abhorrent and repulsive. At the same time, we have a systematic breakdown in family life and sexual morality in this country. Would making abortions illegal, right now, universally in the U.S., change this? Would it not enable wealthy mothers to travel abroad and poor mothers to risk death? Would an abortion ban keep schools from failing? Would it keep fathers from abdicating their Godly calling to familial leadership? Would an abortion ban bring blue-collar jobs back into America’s cities from Bangladesh and Mexico and enable one parent to stay home with their children? Would it keep teens from absorbing and internalizing the message of their DVDs, TV series, iPods and websites that casual sex is fun, feels great and has no lasting, eternal consequences?
Which candidate is married and faithful to one wife? Which one stands before God in adultery, according to the teachings of the Church? Which vice-presidential candidate rebounded from great tragedy to rebuild his family and take time out of a busy official schedule to be present for his children? Which one cannot discipline her children from having unsafe sex, and then obliges her daughter to marry the father for political cover? Think about whose values Catholics should applaud.
Embryos are discarded en masse every day, so why not use them for stem-cell research? Do you want to pretend that embryos are never being discarded, or should an unwanted embryo preserve the life of another intrinsically valuable human being? Or are you neo-Gnostics who care only about the soul and deny the body?
Senator Obama stands for rebuilding America’s reputation abroad, reconstructing America’s broken domestic economy to bring prosperity back to our parents and our own pocketbooks, rethinking our mixed record in the Middle East and renewing the American belief in a better life through hard work. He deserves your vote on Election Day.
Popularity: 15% [?]
October 31st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jason,
Take a deep breath, clear your head and think for yourself.
Obama’s $4,000 tax credit for everybody sounds nice, help pay for education and provides a team of volunteers for the country. He is only trying to buy students and their parents’ votes. This supposedly fiscally responsible and efficient government guy is attacking what problem?
For a long time, the price of higher education has outpaced inflation due to demand and the growth of financial help or is it greed?
Obama has never held any government or business accountable, why believe him now?
He was one of the biggest backers of Fannie, Fannie supported Obama’s campaign, Obama hired Jim Johnson, EX-Fannie CEO, to run his VP search and then fired him. Congress told Fannie and Freddie they had to increase their risky lending which helped create the real estate mess we are in now. Accountability and good judgment?
I give Obama credit for the success he has achieved. He rose through the Chicago Democratic machine in one of the most partisan political environments in the country. He has shown little, if any, bi-partisan leadership in IL nor in DC, so why do you believe he can do it or even truly believes in bi-partisan leadership? Is it his judgment to associate with a shady real estate investor, who helped Obama in a sweat heart real estate deal and Obama later voted on legislation that gave this investor millions? Or was it his judgment to sit in a pew for approximately 500 sermons and throw his own Grandmother under the bus, only to have to throw the Rev. under the bus when his views went public?
Judgment and accountability?
Over two years ago the Democratic leadership promised new transparency?
Where is it with all the marks? Where is Obama?
Fiscally Obama is proposing spending more money, how can you claim he would be more fiscally responsible? Oh yea, Obama backs ethanol and McCain want wants to eliminate the corn mandate, reduce the price of corn products for everybody and the wrongheaded energy program since it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it produces. Who has judgment and character versus pandering to farmers?
First, Pakistan has assisted the USA in the successful hunting down Al-Qaeda and they work with us in the region for greater security. They have not claimed a desire to destroy another country in the region. Pakistan has a very difficult political make up but they are engaged with us regardless of their deployed nukes. While Iran has not deployed nukes, their stated desire to wipe a country off the face of the map and their support for groups that promote instability in the world have me more concerned about Iran. The European talks with Iran, backed by the US, have produced nothing. I am fairly certain it was a group of people without nukes that have destroyed lives and created significant instability in the world, AL-Qaeda. And who is the Security expert, Biden?
Questioning who the better Christian is, is not an exercise that I believe is useful in choosing a leader. Your insights into decisions by Sarah Palin concerning her personal life are rather small and petty. If you are a Catholic, the Catholic leadership in this country has been rather vocal against voting for a person supporting abortion.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Jason,
I agree with my brothers comments and would like to respond to your comments regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church. Becuase
#8 of the “Warrior goals and values” is to “Cherish Marquette’s Catholic Identity” I feel it important for a clear understanding of our Church’s teaching in order to make this all important decision on Nov. 4th.
First, you say “The teachings of the Catholic Church are on Obama’s side.” that is a complete falsehood. Then you take a editted quote from the “The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” Here you fail to include the most important portion of this teaching which would be a need for “the presence of proportionate reasons” to ignore a politicians pro-abortion stance.
Second, I would ask you to take notice the 1998 Catholic Bishops statement “Living the Gospel of Life”. Based on John Paul II encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Living the Gospel of Life restated briefly and clearly the principles that govern Catholic social thought. The heart of the document is paragraph 23:
“Adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues…Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all those areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages. But being “right” in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the “rightness” of positions in other manners affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as “the temple of the Holy Spirit”- the living house of God- then these lesser issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of the house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right-the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.”
Third, I would ask you to read the Pastorial letter from two Catholic Bishops, The Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann and the Most Reverend Robert W. Finn. It can be found here:http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29432. There are two main points, one:
“THE PRIORITY OF REJECTING INTRINSIC EVIL
There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and ‘marriages,’ repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions. To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified.”
Two:
“In 2004 a group of United States Bishops, acting on behalf of the USCCB and requesting counsel about the responsibilities of Catholic politicians and voters, received a memo from the office of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, which stated:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.”
Finally, the Archbishop of Denver, The Most Reverend Charles Chaput speaks to what a proportionate reason, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, might be in his book “Render Unto Caesar” He says “We sin if we support pro-choice candidates without a truly proportionate reason for doing so –that is, a reason grave enough to outweigh our obligation to end the killing of the unborn. And what would such a proportionate reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain or actions- as we someday will.” Jason, when you come up with the reason you will have to give these children I would love to hear it. Until then I will “Cherish my Catholic Identity” and happily vote for John McCain.