{"id":4164,"date":"2020-10-21T00:22:36","date_gmt":"2020-10-21T00:22:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/?p=4164"},"modified":"2023-04-01T04:35:02","modified_gmt":"2023-04-01T04:35:02","slug":"election-year-weirdness-an-american-tradition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/election-year-weirdness-an-american-tradition\/","title":{"rendered":"Election-Year Weirdness: An American Tradition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A presidential election is looming in my country. We have one every four years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>\"Great<\/a>Maybe I’d get more attention by demonizing or deifying a candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or saying that nobody should vote, because “they” put subliminal messages in ballots. Oddly enough, I haven’t heard that claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or I could express deep despair over the demonizing, deifying and drivel that dominates news and social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could do any or all of the above. But my heart wouldn’t be in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am quite sure that no candidate is a fascist, the Antichrist or a pawn of the Illuminati-pixie cabal. I don’t even think the Illuminati-pixie cabal exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, although I’d prefer election campaigns with less sound and fury, that’s not how my country works. Emotional appeals and wild claims are an old American tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Looking Back on Brawls of Yesteryear<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"(left)<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Take the 1912 election, for example. Some folks still don’t agree about Roosevelt, Taft and anti-trust policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Grant<\/a>Then there were the 1896 election’s campaign issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Panic of 1893 was still in progress. It was an economic depression, a bad one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suspect it felt even worse, since America’s economy had been growing during the 1870s and 80s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Over-) investment in an Argentine bank, a failed coup and a crop failure spooked European investors, who started pulling gold out of the U.S. Treasury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad failed. Americans started pulling their money out of banks and academics are still discussing why the house of cards collapsed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1896, some folks thought America should switch from a gold standard to a silver standard. Or maybe bimetallism, linking a monetary unit’s value to two metals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>\"Watson<\/a>And all that’s an over-simplified version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Small wonder that some politicos boiled the issues down to America being nailed to a “cross of gold.” And reminding voters to be angry at the usual suspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That sort of thing’s much easier to remember, come election day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1876 elections were no picnic, either. In some ways, they were even more \u2014 contentious? polarizing? \u2014 than the 1896 or 2020 fracases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1796 election was the first time we had political parties pushing candidates: not today’s parties. The 1804 Burr-Hamilton duel threatened a cherished tradition,1<\/a><\/sup> and that’s another topic. Topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Love of Country: Within Reason<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

My life might be easier, if I stayed offline and busied myself in reading Nero Wolf novels and playing solitaire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>But that’s not an option. Not if I take being a Catholic seriously. Patriotism comes with the territory. I’d better explain that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says a patriot is someone “who loves and supports his or her country.”2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a Catholic, I should act as if loving God and my neighbors matters. And see everyone as my neighbor. (Matthew 5:43<\/a>–44<\/a>, 7:12<\/a>, 22:36<\/a>–40<\/a>, Mark 12:28<\/a>–31<\/a>; 10:25<\/a>–27<\/a>, 29<\/a>–37<\/a>; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1789)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being Catholic also means I’m obliged to do what’s possible in public life: which includes recognizing humanity’s solidarity and respecting authority. Within reason. (Catechism, 1778, 1915, 1897-1917, 1939-1942, 2199, 2238-2243)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And loving my country. Again, within reason. Letting love of country slop over into worship of country is a bad idea. A very bad idea. (Catechism, 2112-2114, 2199, 2239)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Happily, loving my country doesn’t take much effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I like being an American, on the whole. My ‘could take it or leave it, and would rather leave it’ attitude toward my country’s politics notwithstanding, I don’t even mind voting. I think it’s a pretty good way of getting citizen feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I don’t think our system is the only ‘correct’ form of government. Different cultures and eras have different needs, and that’s okay. Provided that the system follows natural law: ethical principles that apply to every time and place. (Catechism, 1915, 1957-1958)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Thinking, Voting and a Hypothetical Situation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Recapping: as a Catholic, I should be a good citizen, contributing to the good of society and taking part in public life. (Catechism, 1915, 2239)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In America, that includes thinking<\/strong> about issues and candidates, voting for whoever and whatever is best; or likely to do the least damage, as the case may be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clarifying “do the least damage” \u2014 I don’t mean “choosing the lesser of two evils.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few things are just plain wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Murder, killing an innocent person, is one of them. (Catechism, 1750-1756, 1786-1789, 2258-2283)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s take a hypothetical situation \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Someone running for Minnesota governor supports my state’s farmers, resort owners and middle-to-lower-income taxpayers. For me, that might be an almost ideal candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just one problem. This nearly-perfect wannabe governor also promised to euthanize Minnesotans who are too old or sick to enjoy my state’s resorts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobody’s going to run on a platform like that. Not blatantly, at any rate. Like I said: a hypothetical situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think Minnesota’s tourism and agriculture industries are important. I also figure that non-upper-crust folks matter as much as those in the social register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I’m getting to be too old for water skiing, and have several health problems. And I prefer to keep breathing. Even if I was young and in perfect health, euthanasia would be the opposite of a good idea. Whether I was the euthanee or the euthanor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’d be a bad idea, even if I had an emotionally-compelling reason. (November 24, 2019<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing how I should think about voting helps. But it doesn’t make the process easy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve voted in every election since I’ve been old enough, and have yet to see an ideal candidate. I have, however, had many opportunities to practice patience and detachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that’s yet another topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Resources \u2014 or \u2014 Not Emulating the Burr-Hamilton Duel<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\"Edison<\/a>I’ve updated my list of election resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They don’t tell me who to vote for, but do show me what’s important and what’s not in deciding how I vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This year I’m adding “Civil Dialog.” It includes a seven-point list of “… possible ground rules for civil dialogue:”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Share your personal experience, not someone else’s.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Listen carefully and respectfully. Speak carefully and respectfully. Do not play the role of know-it-all, convincer or corrector. Remember that a dialogue is not a debate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Don\u2019t interrupt unless for clarification or time keeping.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Accept that no group or viewpoint has a complete monopoly on the truth.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. “Be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than [to] condemn it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2478, quoting St. Ignatius of Loyola).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Be cautious about assigning motives to another person.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    And now, resources from the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops):<\/p>\n\n\n\n