Gonna start a counter-revolution from my bed...

So, this post over at Mark Shea's blog got me thinking, "What do we conservatives really mean when we say, 'We need to return to those things which made America great: individual liberty and limited government'?"

Well, I don't know what everybody else means by them--though some seem to mean, "I can do what I want, and neither man nor law has the right to stop me!"--but I know what I mean by it. And what I mean by it has been shaped by my understanding of what our forefathers meant by it. (I would note that by "forefathers" I don't just mean the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution. I mean the everyday, ordinary sort of people. You know, the ones who actually made the Constitution law by their approval of it, the ones whose interpretation of the Constitution make for its real original intent?)

So, first let us discuss "individual liberty" and what conservatives should mean by it. I take my understanding of individual liberty from our forefathers, who seemed to take it from Micah 4:1-5. To paraphrase it all into one sentence, it is when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid, or at least as close to this as is possible this side of the Parousia. "Liberty," then, is the product of a proper order--defended not just by law, but by religious conviction and virtue--that allows men to tend to their own families and such without the need for interference to make them do good or keep them from doing evil. There is no need for interference because virtuous men freely choose to live their lives this way.

Then what should conservatives mean by "limited government," you ask? It should mean that first you take care of your family, and your neighbors, and your congregation, and your coworkers, and your employees, and the other guys in the 4-H, and the other members of your fraternal order, and the guys on your softball team, and any of your countless other immediate and personal connections. You do it because you have real relationships with these people, and such relationships mean that you have duties to each other. If that isn't enough, then you turn to your town, or city, or municipality, or whatnot to pitched in. And if that still isn't enough, then you turn to your state. If that fails, then and only then do you turn to the federal government. And when it is necessary to turn to these more remote levels of government, you remember that the limitations on their power were set in place so they couldn't butt in where they weren't needed and make a mess of things. And, as such, you respect these limitations and, if modifying them is necessary, you do so prudently and through the proper legal process.

Now, the problem is that, with a few exceptions, few people use these terms this way anymore. And when we conservatives use them we are often misunderstood. So I would suggest perhaps modifying the terms a little. For example, I try never to speak simply of "liberty," but rather to speak of "ordered liberty," as did men such as Edmund Burke, George Washington and Russell Kirk, to name just a few. This calls immediately to mind the fact that true liberty cannot exist without the proper ordering of the soul and of society. And I try never to speak about "limited government" without discussing the principle of subsidiarity and federalism, which is the framework for the implementation of subsidiarity in the American political tradition.

Now, the election of 2008 makes it likely that conservatives are going to have very little influence in the corridors of power. So be it. Remember that this loss happened, at least in part, because the so-called "conservative" major party was far more right- to center-liberal than truly conservative. Make sure you let them know that. Speak out for virtue, for the priority of the local, the preeminence of the family and for all those things that true conservatives hold dear. And, more importantly, live these things in your life. If the culture is poison, then be the antidote. The counter-revolution doesn't start in the voting booth, or at the party committee meeting, or on the soapbox. It starts in our communities, in our homes, and in our hearts.

On conservatism (and liberalism too)

This essay is going to be on the topic of, "What is conservatism?" Or, more accurately, this essay is going to be on the topic of, "What is conservatism as I understand it?" I make no claims to originality. In fact, this essay will be extremely derivative. It will be derived from the thoughts of many men, men who in turn derived their thoughts from many other men &c. But that is necessary and as it should be, as I hope will be clear in the end.

First and foremost, I tend to see the distinction between liberals and conservatives as a distinction between two views on man's summum bonum and the foundation of a just society. Liberals view freedom as man's greatest good and the foundation of a just society. Since freedom is primarily an attribute of the will, it follows that liberal views assert the will as man's highest power and assert the primacy of the will in the life of man.

Conservatism, on the other hand, views order as the greatest good and the foundation of a just society. And since it is reason that orders things, it follows that conservatives view reason or the intellect as man's highest power and assert the primacy of reason in the life of man.

Now, if we accept these preliminary definitions as true, it follows that most of the so-called conservatives in the United States are not conservatives at all, but rather liberals. Far too many of them drone on about freedom and the ability to have endless choices as if these were goods in themselves. They are not conservatives at all, but rather right-liberals.

Key to the liberal exaltation of the will and freedom is the idea of autonomy. The autonomous individual is a law unto himself. As long as he is not causing physical harm to others, there can be no legitimate rule or norm imposed from without to bind or limit his will. This does not simply include the freedom of being left alone so favored by pure laissez-faire capitalism, which holds that, as long as one party is not harming another party by violence, theft, breaking faith on a freely entered into contract &c., there is no reason for there to be any laws governing the trading of goods and services. It also includes the freedom, so favored by feminists, homosexuals, abortion supporters &c., which actively seeks to destroys any law, custom or norm that that seeks to limit the number of choices open to individuals through legal punishment, social scorn, cultural ostracism &c.

Conservatives, as previously stated, do not see freedom, but rather order as the foundation of a just society. This order is not, however, an arbitrary arrangement. The order conservatives favor is an order rooted in the natural law and in human nature, permanent truths and principles of what it means to be human.

This does not, however, mean that conservatism is founded upon pure abstractions. This is far from the truth. The truths of the natural law and human nature are arrived at not by beginning with the universal and trying to reason them out. Rather, they are found in the human experience as lived by particular individuals and observed across the centuries. It is through history, the memory not simply of an individual, but of a people, a race, a species, that we may find the experience necessary to discover how man should live, how he should not and the consequences of each.

Some may think that even though history and the particular deeds of particular men and particular societies are the source of our grasping the principles of the natural law, it follows from the fact of the universality of these principles that they have universal application. Such a view may be true or false, depending on the meaning of the "universal application." If it meas that the principles of the natural law are valid and binding on all men at all times, then this is true. But if it means that the application of the principles of the natural law must be the same for all men at all times, then it is false.

The application of universal principles to particular situations requires particularity. It requires the use of prudence, or practical reason, to discern what the universals principles of the natural law require in these particular circumstances. The primacy of reason in the foundation of a just society is the primacy of prudence, for it is prudence that allows for the universal norms of the natural law--as discovered through human nature lived out historically--to be applied to the particular and concrete circumstances each society faces.

Prudence forces us to realize that in many things, especially the form of government that a society adopts, there is not necessarily a single, universally applicable solution. What is best for one society may heavily depend upon their specific circumstances. Trying to force other societies, especially ones with completely different historical and cultural circumstances, to fit the mold of our own is the height of folly. A conservative in a democratic society would feel no need to try to eliminate another societies monarchy, for he would realize that either form of government is capable of establishing and sustaining a rightly ordered society.

The primacy of prudence also favors the more particular over the less particular, the more local over the less local. Or, to put it another way, solutions should not be further removed from problems than they must be. This is because particulars differ in their circumstances, and thus sometimes differ in how one should properly apply the universal norms of the natural law. This is not to say that we can never treat things as members of a species or type rather than particulars, or that laws can never be passed on a level higher than the most local. It only means that one should not do this if it is not necessary. If something is a problem for a town rather than for the country, then there is no reason to pass laws at the national level rather than the local. If an action is not objectively evil in its species, then it must be dealt with according to the particulars of intent and circumstances.

The favoring of the local and particular does not simply mean that, all thing considered, laws should be passed by local communities rather than at a higher level. It means that non-governmental, non-legal organizations should be respected and can be forces that stabilize society and enforce moral norms without the need to pass laws and prosecute people. Societal pressure, backed by the support of local religious communities, civic organizations, commonly accepted morality &c., can be influential and effective in supporting the common good.

The primacy of prudence is also demands respect and deference to tradition and custom. For tradition and custom are nothing less than the prudence of our ancestors. They are decisions made to apply the universal principles of the natural law to the particular circumstances of our society that have been found to stand the test of time. This does not mean that traditions and customs can never change. If circumstances change, then it may be necessary that they change also. But in changing traditions and customs it is important for the change to happen gradually and organically. For if we are mistaken about the need for change or about what kind of change is necessary we may find that radical change--change that cuts off tradition and custom at their roots--causes more evils than it cures. Gradual and organic change allows us to observe the effects the change is having as it is being made, as well as allowing us to alter or abandon the changes we have decided upon if it appears they are not for the best.

It should be obvious, then, that conservatism is not revolutionary, at least not insofar as "revolutionary" means "in favor of overthrowing the current order in order to institute a new, better and more just order." Such an idea is antithetical to conservatism. Overthrowing the current order cuts a people of from its history and traditions, i.e. from its memory and its attempts to prudently apply the natural law to its concrete circumstances. Such a loss makes the further application of prudence towards the implementation of the principles of the natural law incredibly difficult, if not impossible. More importantly, the total overthrow of traditional political and social norms is foolish in the extreme, for it destroys the good as well as the bad, making it more likely that a greater evil will arise than the evils that the revolution attempts to abolish.

In another sense, however, conservatism is revolutionary. For insofar as "revolution" means "a returning, a turning back," conservatism is inherently revolutionary. For conservatism has a constant impetuous to return to the principles of the natural law, to return to history as the place where these principles are discovered and clarified through the concrete actions of particular men, to tradition as the prudent application of these principles to the particular circumstances of a people &c.

It follows, then, that where a revolution in the first sense has been successful and destroyed the organic traditions of a people it becomes the conservative's job to bring about a revolution in the second sense, a counter-revolution. The conservative has the duty to follow the reactionary imperative that the situation demands. He must do all that he can restore that which has been senselessly destroyed and to stay true to those truths that have been betrayed.

It must be remembered, however, that the power of conservatism does not come through force of arms. A conservative does not shy away from war when it is prudent or necessary. He does, however, realize that war is primarily the means of the revolutionary, for war is inherently destructive. War may be prudent, necessary and just when no other means will be successful in defending the traditions and order of society, and when the evils of not fighting will be greater than the evils brought about by war. But war is always to be a last resort.

No, the primary power of conservatism is the cultural and spiritual capital inherent in the traditions of a people. It must be remembered that the revolutionary has no true understanding of human nature, and thus the way of life the revolution tries to enforce upon people is non-human. The conservative brings about the counter-revolution by cultivating the truly human way of life found in the cultural and spiritual traditions of his people. He cultivates these in his own life, the life of his family, the life of his community &c. In-so-doing he concretely expresses and demonstrates the superiority of these traditions.

What, then, should be the prospects for conservatives today? I can speak with no authority other than what little I have as a man who seeks to know the truth about reality and to live in accord with this truth through prudent action. But I would suggest the following: Believe in God, go to Church, live your faith. Pass it on to your children. Stay true to the traditions of your family, your town, your state and your country (in that order). Teach your children to do the same. If you can or must, home-school your children. Keep your garden. Do what you can to support your town, especially local businesses. Work to keep it self-sufficient rather than tied to uncaring corporate giants on the other side of the country, or even the other side of the world. Seek the true and ordered liberty that comes when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid (Micheas IV.i-v).

Now, there are some who will say that this is nothing but a retreat. They will argue that it is required that we engage the culture. But "to engage" can mean "to enter into battle with." And the culture is poison. What enters into battle with poison? Nothing but its antidote. Living such a life is nothing less than becoming an antidote to the poison of modern culture. And as long as poison and its antidote are together, either in the same blood stream or the same society, they are engaged by definition.

As I said in the beginning of this essay, there is most likely nothing original in it. And this is as it should be, since I am a member of a tradition of better and wiser men than myself, who have gone before me and shown me the way. If I can show others the path they have shown to me, then that is enough. And, if by some chance I have said something that is both original and true, if I have gone further down the path they uncovered, it is only because they showed me the path and taught me how to walk it.

This is one of the ironies of conservatism. Trying to shake off the past in an attempt to be original destroys piety while simply repeating old errors. Staying true to the past out of reverence and piety, on the other hand, is the only true source of originality. May I never seek to be original and may I always seek to be pious.

On the car

Some half-formed thoughts from my morning drive to work:

In the ~10 years that have passed since I obtained my license to drive a car, I have gone from being enthralled by the freedom it offered me to being disgusted by how it enslaves me.

I do not miss many things about life in the District of Columbia, but do I miss the MetroRail.

Why have we gotten rid of streetcars?

Surprisingly--or perhaps not so surprisingly--I have come to agree with those (in the words of Marion Montgomery) "men I have chosen for my fathers," such as J.R.R. Tolkien and Russell Kirk: the car is--to quote Kirk--"a mechanical Jacobin."

Happy de Maistre Day!

Today is the 255th anniversary of the birth of Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre.

Celebrate by reading some excerpts from his works.

"The 1795 constitution, like its predecessors, was made for man. But there is no such thing as man in the world. During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian; but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me." ~Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France, Chapter VI.

Some more on voting

(This started out as a response to the a comment left on this post, but it grew long enough to become a post in itself.)

The point of the post was not to argue that people have a moral imperative to vote for a third party candidate. It was more to argue, contra what some bloggers and commentators seem to be arguing, that one has a duty to vote for John McCain.

I am of the opinion that it is very hard to commit a mortal sin by voting, at least for the President, since the electoral system is set up in such a way as to make every vote only remotely connected to the outcome. Unless one formally cooperates with evil by voting for a candidate with evil policies because you agree with these policies, I am doubtful that one can commit mortal sin by voting for a particular candidate.

But I think that one can still commit venial sin by voting. A venial sin is an act that "weakens charity" because "it manifests a disordered affection for created goods" (CCC 1863). I think that too often both Democrats and Republicans convince themselves, out of a disordered affection for their political party, that their candidate is so much better on one set of issues that their incorrect views on other issues are not relevant. I think the "lesser of two evils" approach is more likely to slowly make people comfortable with stomaching evil than it is to help people actually accomplish something good.

For example, why do people stomach the Republicans simply because they say they will appoint pro-life judges? The current Supreme Court is consists almost entirely of Republican appointed justices. Should Roe v Wade not have been overturned by now? And why was Ron Paul's H.R. 300: We the People Act killed by being sent to committee? The Congress of the United States has the Constitutional authority to limit the Federal courts' jurisdiction. Why have the Republicans not fought to do so for important life issues? Is partisanship for the GOP really the answer? Or does it do nothing more than habituate people to voting for the GOP no matter what their candidate believes? Why do some pro-life groups recommend voting for GOP candidates over Democratic candidates even when both are pro-abortion? Perhaps, just perhaps, pro-lifers have been sold a bill of goods, or at least told that our issue is more important than it seems to be when our elected officials are done canvassing for votes and are ready to get down to the business of actually governing.

So, at least for me, the question does not come down to "what is not mortally sinful?" but rather to "what is virtuous?" I do not think I can virtuously vote for John McCain. It is true, of course, that politics is often "the art of the possible." But it is also true that prudence is the guiding virtue of the active life, and thus it is the guiding virtue of the political life. I am currently of the opinion that I cannot prudently vote for John McCain for the same reason that I could not have voted for many of the other GOP candidates. They were not all that bad. Not great mind you, but on many of the issues I care about they were not all that bad (the exceptions being Rudy Giuliani, who was horrible, and Ron Paul, who was great). But this is exactly the problem. I have been willing to make the concession of voting for a "not great" candidate before, and all it did was make me more attached to the party and the candidate. I would react viscerally against any criticism leveled against them, even if said criticism was something I knew to be true and was delivered without malice by people I had reason to trust. This is not virtuous. I still have problems with this, even though I am, at least intellectually, thoroughly disenchanted with the GOP. This is not virtuous. It is not acting in accord with right reason. It is acting in accord with irrational emotions born from a disordered affection towards a political party. If I were to continue voting for Republican presidential candidates because they were "good enough" or "better than the alternative" I would simply keep habituating myself to the same kind of disordered affection.

For this reason I made the choice a few years ago to only vote for candidates whom I believe to be the best choice, regardless of how likely they are to win. Only by doing this can I do my part to work for justice and the common good without being in danger of damaging the supernatural virtue of charity by developing disordered affection for a political party that does not do everything it can to make a difference on the issues that are of supreme importance. If nothing else, my vote can register as a protest against the way the two-party system currently operates. It may only be a drop in the bucket so far as notice goes, but it was only a drop in the bucket anyway.

On the Necessity of Voting for the Candidate Who is the "Lesser of Two Evils"

Edits: A few small edits for clarity and the addition of two paragraphs before the concluding one. (And an edit to this disclaimer so I could clarify which two paragraphs were the ones I added.)

In the current race for the next President of the United States it is almost certain that John McCain will be the Republican candidate, while it is certain that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate. I will not vote for any of these candidates. I do not believe that any of them will do what is necessary to protect the unborn. (McCain supports some forms of embryonic stem cell research and I do not trust him to appoint the kind of judges necessary.¹ The problems with both Democratic candidates are, I trust, obvious.) I think all three candidates will use their influence and authority over foreign policy in imprudent and unjust ways. I think all three candidates will use their influence and authority over domestic policy in imprudent and unjust ways.

Now, some would argue that I have a duty to vote for McCain because he is the "lesser of two evils." I think this is false. I think it would be false even if we could adequately agree on a way to quantify the evil of the positions of all three candidates--and I am not at all certain that this is possible. To examine this, let us examine how my vote can effect the outcome of the election

1) Not voting for McCain is not the same thing as voting for the Democrat. If I vote for McCain, I add one vote to his total. If I vote for the Democrat I add one vote to his total. If I vote for neither candidate, I do not add a vote to either candidate's total. Thus, if I do not vote, then neither McCain nor the Democrat's lead or lack thereof is effected in any way. This is not the same outcome as my voting for the Democrat. If I voted for the Democrat, then I would lessen McCain's lead or increase McCain's trailing by one vote.

2) If my vote is the vote that costs McCain the election, then it is impossible for my vote to have been the one to give him the election. If my vote were the single vote that cost McCain the election, then it would be necessary for McCain to have the lost by only one vote. If this is so, then voting for McCain would not give him victory but would only give him a tie with the Democrat. In the same way, if my vote would have won the election for McCain, then my not voting for him will not result in a Democratic victory. It will instead result in a tie. In either case the tie would have to be broken in accordance with the law, something that may or may not be in McCain's favor for any number of reasons. Moreover, the likelihood of such a situation is extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that my vote will be either the one that failed to give McCain victory or the one that allowed him to be defeated.

3) The national popular vote is not what matters anyway. In truth, the worst my not voting for McCain could do is give the Democratic candidate Pennsylvania's Electoral votes. Pennsylvania currently has 21 votes in the Electoral College. This is certainly not a completely insignificant number, as it is one of the largest number of Electoral votes for a state. But neither does the loss of Pennsylvania mean the loss of the Electoral vote. President Bush failed to win Pennsylvania in both his successful Presidential elections. Thus, everything I said in point 2 still holds, but for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania rather than for the country as a whole.² For my vote to be responsible for McCain's loss of the Presidential election, it would not only have to be true that McCain lost Pennsylvania by only one vote--which, again, is completely improbable--but you would have to prove that is was specifically Pennsylvania's Electoral votes that cost him the Electoral College. But this would seem to be impossible to do, since all the Electors vote at the same time and it is no guarantee that any of the Electors will be faithful. The best chance you would have for arguing that Pennsylvania's Electoral votes were the deciding ones would be if the Democrat won Pennsylvania and won the Electoral College by 21 votes. But for the strongest case, the Democrat would also have to not win any other states whose total electoral votes can be added up to 21. This would include, first and foremost, losing Illinois, which also has 21 electoral votes. And the Democrats have won Illinois in the last two Presidential elections.

Now, since nothing about my choosing to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in candidate or to abstain from voting would require that I will the victory of the Democratic Presidential candidate, let alone require that I will said candidate's evil policy, there is no way that it is formal cooperation with evil. I can, in fact, guarantee that it will not be formal cooperation with evil, since I will not will the victory of the Democratic Presidential candidate--let alone their evil policies--for any reason. Thus, I cannot be said to formally cooperate with evil.

It is also true that my action cannot be said to be immediate material cooperation with evil. For it to be immediate material cooperation evil I would have to act in a way that is necessary for the implementation of the Democratic candidates evil policies. But even if McCain loses Pennsylvania's Electoral votes by one popular vote, and loses the vote in the Electoral College by 21 votes, and the situation is such that it is only Pennsylvania's Electoral votes could be responsible for McCain's loss in the Electoral College, it would still not be true that it is my vote specifically that was necessary for the victory of the Democratic candidate and thus responsible for the implementation of their evil policies. This is because the situation that exists during an election is fluid and one where no particular voter can know all circumstances and variables at the time of his vote, so his vote, when it is cast, cannot be called the exact vote that necessitates the victory of one candidate or the other. But to say that my vote was the one that gave victory to the Democratic candidate would be to treat all other votes as a static existing situation that I can know, which would be false. Moreover, even in the improbable situation outlined above, it would be just as true to say that one of the people who voted for the Democratic candidate was the one whose vote necessitated said candidates victory. And which one would this be? The last one to vote in the entire state? How could any voter know if that was the situation? Thus there is no way to say that my vote or any vote could be immediate material cooperation with evil.

Thus, my vote--or any vote were the voter does not will both the election of the candidate they vote for and the candidates evil policies--can at worst be considered remote material cooperation with evil. And remote material cooperation can be licit if there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation, and the importance of the reason for cooperation is proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent and there is no danger of scandal. As to the first, I am seeking to avoid the grave evils I believe the other candidates will commit by not supporting them with a vote and--in the case of voting for a third party or write-in candidate--by voting for a candidate who I believe will not be responsible for any evil policies, but will rather work to end of evil policies that are already in place and work to implement policies that will work in favor of the common good. As to the second, with all that has previously been stated it should be obvious that my particular vote is causally remote from the actual election of any particular candidate. As to the third, no one has a right to know how I voted and in talking about it here I have stated explicitly that I will in no way be willing the evil policies of any Presidential candidate when I cast my vote. I do not will any of their immoral policies on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and adoption, waging an unjust war &c. Because of this, I cannot see how my vote would cause the danger of scandal--inciting or tempting another to commit a morally wrongful act--since I in no way make any excuses for the only action that can be considered immoral and sinful without a doubt, viz. formally cooperating with evil by willing the implementation of a candidates evil policies.

All these considerations have been in light of my understanding of the principles involved in determining whether or not an act is formal or material cooperation with evil. My conclusion is especially influenced by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick on the general principles involved in determining whether or not a Catholic is worthy to receive Holy Communion under canon 915. In a final note, former Cardinal Ratzinger state the following:

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 favour 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.

If a Catholic can vote for a candidate with such serious flaws and not be considered to have committed a grave evil as long as they did so with proportionate reasons, then one should be able to vote for a good candidate who seems unlikely to win or to abstain from voting for either candidate and not be guilty of committing a grave evil for the same reasons. In fact, since the reasons for remote material cooperation have to be proportionate to the evil one is cooperating with, one would be less likely to be guilty of a grave evil by voting for a good candidate who seems unlikely to win or to abstain from voting for either candidate than one would be if one voted for a candidate with evil policies without willing the implementation of said policies.

Keeping all that in mind, I do not think that voting for a third party/write-in candidate or abstaining from voting can even be considered remote material cooperation with evil. Here is why. Those who argue that one who votes or a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting is cooperating with evil say that one is doing this because by one's action one divides the vote for the candidate who is the "lesser of two evils." In so doing, the one who votes for a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting makes it easier for the worse candidate to win. But this argument assumes that one has the duty to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the first place. Thus, those who argue that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who us the "lesser of two evils" assume as a premise the point they are arguing for. This is the fallacy of begging the question. And indeed, to even set up an election as a choice between only two candidates--which is what is assumed by anyone who argues that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who us the "lesser of two evil"--is to be guilty of the fallacy of the false dilemma. This should be obvious, since those arguing that one has the duty to vote for the candidate who is the "lesser of two evil" are, at least in part, arguing against those who would vote for a third party/write-in candidate or abstains from voting. Thus the argument is fallacious from the very beginning.

As a final thought, it has been my experience that all those who argue that one must vote for McCain as the "lesser of two evils" do so because "he is better than either of the two possible Democratic candidates and he is the only viable alternative." This is the same kind of thinking that got us John McCain as the (almost certain) Republican Presidential candidate in the first place. Viability is bullplop. If you listen to the talking heads of the media and the punditry and vote for the "only viable candidate," then you are the one who helps make him the only viable candidate by voting for him instead of another candidate who you actually favor. Vote for the person you think is best for the job, even if they are from a third party or need to be written in. If more people did that, then perhaps we would get better elected officials.

Notes:

1. As an aside, the cry of "The judges! We need the judges!" as necessitating pro-lifers to rally around the Republican party is laughable. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. A Republican Congress could easily remove the Court's jurisdiction to rule on cases of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, &c. This would leave us with the same situation that we would be left with if Roe v Wade were overturned: fighting out the legality of abortion on a state by state basis. If you don't think the pro-life cause would win a number of important victories, I can only say I believe that you are mistaken. And nothing about such a solution would require pro-lifers to stop attempting to get an amendment respecting the personhood and right to life of human embryos added to the Constitution.

The fact that the Republican's have not tried strenuously to pass such legislation leads my to believe that they are either incompetent or they do not take the pro-life cause as seriously as they seem to imply they so. Such legislation has been put forward: HR 300, sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul. He also sponsored HR 1094, which would define life as beginning at conception. For more on Ron Paul on life, go here.

2. If there is a tie in the Electoral College or no candidate has a majority, then the President and Vice President are chosen by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. I have been unable to find any information on what the law is in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the case of a tie in the Presidential popular vote.

Some scattered thoughts towards a philosophical understanding of the importance of tradition

St. Thomas considers memory to be a part of prudence. This is because prudence deals with contingent things, and so it does not focus on what is true always but rather on what is true in most cases. But to know what is true in most cases requires experience, and what is experience if not the memory of many things?

Now, prudence and the moral virtues are related. The moral virtues cannot be without prudence, since living in accord with the moral virtues requires more than just being directed towards their ends. It also requires that we make the correct choices necessary to achieve these ends, and it is the virtue of prudence that directs these choices. Yet it is also true that prudence cannot exist without the moral virtues, since the making of correct choices requires that there first be a proper end that we are trying to achieve, and it is the moral virtues habituate man's actions towards a proper end.

Now, following Cicero, St. Thomas classifies memory as a part of prudence (ST II-II, 48, 1 corpus). This is because prudence comes from both experience and time, and we acquire experience through memory (ST II-II, 49, 1 corpus).

Now, politics is a species of ethics. It is a practical science aimed at directing the actions of men, insofar as they act as and are members of a community. And practical sciences require practical wisdom, or prudence.

Now, as previously stated, prudence requires memory. But a community may be hundreds of years old, even if those in charge of governing it are not. Now, if those in charge of governing the community rely only on there own memories to guide their actions, they may repeat many mistakes that the community has already suffered and try to solve problems that have already been solved.

This is were tradition comes in. Tradition, which is the sum of the way things have been done in a community and the stories behind why these things have been done the way they have, is like the community's memory. Tradition shows those who govern the community how the community responded to certain situations previously, and what the outcomes of those situations were.

Now, this does not imply that those who govern a community must act exactly as the tradition says. Memory is a part of prudence, but it is not all of prudence. There are many reasons that the tradition may have to be modified. Perhaps the situation that the tradition has previously worked well in has changed. Perhaps the tradition did not meet the needs of the common good as well as it needed too. In such cases the prudent option would be to modify the tradition as seems necessary.

Tradition, however, must develop organically. The natural virtues are means between the extremes of too much and too little. If we miss the mark, prudence is the virtue that allows us to modify our actions so that the next time we act we will be closer to the mean that is the virtue. Memory gives prudence the necessary experience needed to correctly modify our actions.

If we throw out tradition, rather than adjust it as necessary to the community's current circumstances, it will have the same effect on the community as the loss of memory would have on an individual. The community would no longer have the necessary experience to act with prudence, and will instead be forced to try to acquire it all over again.

Catholics and Immigration

A few articles that argue for border security, tighter immigration laws and related from a Catholic perspective:

Chilton Williamson Jr., A Christmas Meditation: St. Augustine on the National Question.

Idem, Rediscovered: The Nation-State In The Western Tradition.

John Zmirak, Christmas Meditation 2002: Christ, The "Other", And Counterfeit Citizens.

Idem, The Brogue Wears Off: Why The Catholic Church Is Addicted To Immigration.

Idem, Christmas Meditation 2003: This Royal Night.

Idem, The Virgin on the Border: A Christmas Meditation.

Requiem æternam dona ei, Domine...

...et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

Whatever you may think of the man, for good or for ill, he was baptized into the death of Christ Jesus. Let us pray that he may rise again in glory with Christ Jesus. Such is our Christian duty.