« An unusual reader bleg | Main | Back to Ireland »
October 30, 2006
The Michigan race
(post corrected. I read too fast and too early initially.)
Michigan Catholics and the vote for governor:
Michigan Catholics are on their own in this year's race for governor.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm, while supportive of many of the social policies the Roman Catholic Church favors, is for abortion rights, and she supports expanded embryonic stem cell research -- two positions the church can't abide.
Republican challenger Dick DeVos passes the litmus test on abortion and stem cells -- he opposes both -- but he doesn't have Granholm's record of protecting the social safety net or fighting for an increase in the minimum wage and an earned income tax credit that aids the working poor. The governor drew high praise from the church for those battles.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
The one supports perennial Catholic teaching on issues that pertain to one of the fundamental rights of God, i.e., His authority over life and death. The other disdains these Divine rights but concerns herself with derivative and mundane (in the literal sense) issues, according to a decidedly modern reinterpretation of Catholic principles regarding social justice.
There is no equality between these respective sets of issues. This one's a no-brainer.
Posted by: Somerset '76 at Oct 30, 2006 9:33:38 AM
Do we need to listen to this bs about "protecting the safety net" for another generation?
It's such a hogwash. No group of people on the planet have advocated policies as economically harmful to the poor as liberal Catholics.
Posted by: Fletch F. Fletch at Oct 30, 2006 9:36:41 AM
The governor drew high praise from the church for those battles.
I'm not so sure about that. She may have gotten some praise from this or that churchman or religious in the liberal Catholic establishment, but the remarkable thing here in Michigan is the deafening public silence of Church leadership about this election.
Where are the bishops? AWOL as usual.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Oct 30, 2006 9:41:01 AM
Still can't get passed the part that Gov. Granholm thinks executing innocent children is ok. "Protecting the safety net" rings a little hollow, don't you think? Protect the safety net for whom? Only the ones who managed to escape the womb get the benefits of this. If that's not a discriminatory policy, I don't know what is. It's the same with all the other fiscal issues. Save the environment for whom? Only those that we deem worthy of living. Welfare for whom? Only those that we deem worthy of living outside the womb. Health care for whom? Only those who can escape the first doctor's "visit."
Posted by: Becky at Oct 30, 2006 9:54:56 AM
The silence of Cardinal Maida and the other bishops is indeed maddening, but not surprising.
Then there's this from Boethius at Fumare.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Oct 30, 2006 10:01:51 AM
DeVos is Reformed Dutch I believe. I think a Catholic would have a very difficult choice in this race. We are not exactly talking about a man who theoretically supports manipulating and taking advantage of the poor. His entire family fortune has come from manipulating and taking advantage of the poor. His father started Amway, and DeVos worked there practically his entire life. For those unaware, Amway is a pyramid scheme; often health-and-wealth-gospel-types will try to get poor people active in these schemes.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 30, 2006 10:05:26 AM
Looks like the reporter has been spun by the new Catholics in Alliance. . .
Posted by: Jack Smith at Oct 30, 2006 10:15:42 AM
It's not a difficult choice at all M.Z. I'm 41 years old and I've never seen a candidate come out against the poor. Not one! Though it seems those who clamor most about the poor end up oppressing them with their policies. Oh, and never mind the poor in whom Granholm would allow to have their brains sucked out in the birth canal. As Becky pointed out, if they make it past that they can look forward to making $7.00 and hour.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Oct 30, 2006 10:27:16 AM
Rick,
I don't think I could bring myself to support Granholm. We know what is reserved for those who steal the widows's mite. What DeVos and his family did may be legal - there have been numerous lawsuits by Attorneys General, most settled - but it is most certainly immoral.
I don't see much of a choice between a person who supports killing the unborn and a person who steals from the poor.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 30, 2006 10:41:40 AM
I don't see much of a choice between a person who supports killing the unborn and a person who steals from the poor.
The difference, I think, is that when someone steals from the poor, the poor still live. When someone supports the killing of the unborn, the unborn are gone and never coming back. Ideally, I wish we were in a position that we could focus on something like a candidate's support for the poor, but the practical purpose of our voting as Catholics is to save lives, because life is the most fundamental right. We can help the poor after they are robbed out of our own pockets; we can't bring dead babies back to life.
Posted by: Jason at Oct 30, 2006 10:52:28 AM
Each is grave evil. Are you arguing Jason that a Catholic must support a grave evil?
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 30, 2006 11:06:13 AM
Each is grave evil. Are you arguing Jason that a Catholic must support a grave evil?
No, what I'm arguing is that politics is a practical way to do what we can for the common good, and to stop the bleeding. If we have a chance on one hand to give the poor more help, and on the other hand a chance to stop people from killing babies, I think the choice is clear: we have to vote for that candidate who has the best chance to stop the killing. Like I said, I wish we lived in a perfect world and we had viable Catholic candidates who supported the Church 100%. But we don't, and unless we're going to leave politics to the pagans and let them do what they want, we have to compromise and make practical choices about which candidate will do the most for the common good. The common good requires life above all else. If the government cuts social aid to the poor, I can still help the poor directly, out of my own pocket and with my own time. If an abortionist kills a child, I can't do anything for that dead child, except try to vote for politicians who can possibily prevent the same fate for another child in the future.
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae"
Posted by: Jason at Oct 30, 2006 11:36:11 AM
I'd hate to have to choose between the cafeteria Catholic and the Amwayist.
Posted by: Jeannette at Oct 30, 2006 11:42:18 AM
Amway has made thousands rich, and I think most people who engage in pyramid schemes, know that unless you get involved early (a matter of luck), it takes years to build the kind of cash flow that Amway advetises.
Amway, in this sense is not different than state sanctioned lotteries and gambling. Most people know ahead of time, that their chances of winning are exponentially slim, but they do it anyway. The State advertises lotteries all the time. Yet, the biggest customer of lotteries are those who make less than $40,000 per year. Michigan has both state lotteries and state sanctioned gambling enterprises. The winners of the big jackpot lotteries do so at the expense of those millions who willingly pay into them. Unless those people who oppose Amway also oppose gambling, I think they don't have much room to complain.
Posted by: JP at Oct 30, 2006 1:06:02 PM
I don't think much of either Amway or gambling, thought I don't think either is itself immoral, as abortion is. I've never known anyone to get rich off Amway, but I have known people to obtain a useful supplementary income from it. And I understand they make good soap, although my personal experience is limited. I do know that they have been brought to court for being a pyramid scheme and have won. Personally, I would not want to get into selling Amway, but then I dislike selling anything. That's not my style.
If Mr. DeVos is not Reformed, I should be very surprised, since most persons of Dutch extraction in southwest Michigan are (although Hendrik Meijer wasn't, but that's another story).
I do know that a political position on raising the minimum wage is prudential, that it is debatable whether the result of it is good or bad, and that if it is good, then the good that may come from doing it, or the harm that will come from not doing it, is merely probable. Abortion, on the other hand, is always wrong, and to permit it willfully therefore wrong. To permit a known evil in order that some uncertain good may come is in general wrong. (If anyone in our parish had the least doubt about this, the blistering prolife sermon from our pastor this Sunday would have told him otherwise.) I don't know if, should he be elected governor of Michigan, Mr. DeVos will be able to forbid abortion entirely (probably not), but he certainly would not encourage it, and, I have reason to believe, do what he could do reduce its incidence. I know of no good of equal value that could proceed from the reelection of Gov. Granholm, or any countervailing evil that seems more probable from the election of Mr. DeVos. She is probably the prettiest governor in the country, but I don't think that's a very weighty reason for supporting her.
(Interesting sociological note: On major-party tickets in Michigan, there are four married women--three Democrats and one Republican--among the candidates for statewide office. None uses her husband's surname.)
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Oct 30, 2006 1:53:45 PM
Remember that voting for a personal who supports evil acts is not the same as choosing those acts oneself. In fact, it may be remote material cooperation at best. A Catholic shoudl feel free to vote for either of these candidates.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Oct 30, 2006 2:12:01 PM
"A Catholic shoudl feel free to vote for either of these candidates."
And abotion is just one of many issues...
Leave it to Morning's Minion to parrot the liberal Catholic line, refusing to deal with the most serious of issues seriously.
Posted by: John M at Oct 30, 2006 2:45:48 PM
...in Michigan, there are four married women--three Democrats and one Republican--among the candidates for statewide office. None uses her husband's surname.
And note that Granholm's husband has taken her surname in hyphenated form.
I distinctly recall that during the previous election Granholm claimed that her position on abortion was irrelevant because it was a federal issue and that as governor she would really have no say in the matter. We know better; and the proof came in the form of the ban against partial-birth abortion which the so-called Catholic governor vetoed.
A pro-life position is an absolute must for any candidate at any level, IMHO.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Oct 30, 2006 3:07:57 PM
John M,
You want to debate seriously? Bring it on! Please see the precise theological argument from the link below: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/theology-of-voting-guides.html
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Oct 30, 2006 3:24:46 PM
DeVos has only one year of college education.
Posted by: Renee at Oct 30, 2006 3:46:35 PM
"His entire family fortune has come from manipulating and taking advantage of the poor."
Oh Please. With a few exceptions "poor" does not exist in the United States. In Haiti, Brazil, Africa, ect yes.. The "poor" in the US generally have cell phones, automobiles, cable TV, and food stamps to buy their meals. Which is more than probably 3/4 the world's population.
Posted by: Pio at Oct 30, 2006 4:30:12 PM
Pio,
Given the number of personal bankruptcies involving folks in Amway, the statement can be substanciated. This is not to mention the cultish practices that many distributors for Amway were and are using; those practices were brought to Dad DeVos's attention and the distributors engaging in them were allowed to continue doing so without reprimand. The average schedule C for all direct distributors in Wisconsin was $100. Yes, DeVos's money came from manipulating the poor.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 30, 2006 4:39:19 PM
Something I sense neglected in some of the above posts is the free will of individuals to reject Amway products or Amway employment. No one HAS to buy their stuff or work for them. However, aborted babies have no choice but to be aborted if their mothers choose that for them.
DeVos is a conservative, pro-life Christian; Granholm is a left-leaning, pro-choice-of-death Christian.
Beyond the Abortion/Amway issue, it's *far* from clear that any Granholm policy or action has benefitted the working class or the unemployed poor whatsoever in the four years she's been in office. The state's economy has been in near-freefall, with no sense of leadership from her. A person with business connections conceivably might have a *chance* at getting some investment -- and thus job growth -- happening in the state; a former state attorney general who's shown no ability in the business arena doesn't seem likely to aid the poor in Michigan at all in four more years.
I live in Michigan and am not particularly enthused about either of my choices, but it's clear DeVos is the better of the two. At least he's not a proved failure, and on the abortion issue, he's not working with the Enemy.
Posted by: MarkAA at Oct 30, 2006 6:35:58 PM
When Granholm came out with her support of making Michigan the leader in embryotic stemcell research, she lost my vote. (And my alma mater, the University of Michigan, lost my future support when I read they were going ahead with their research - at about the same time.) Added to that, she keeps coming up with non-binding mandates that sound good but don't actually do anything; e.g. her summer announcement that schools should contact parents as soon as a student starts to fail.
Her social safety net isn't worth much when people are turning in their housekeys to their banks and moving out of state with whatever they make from their garage sales. There are two "abandoned" houses in my neighbourhood and several others under foreclosure.
DeVos disappointed me during the debates when he insisted that "existing abortion laws are sufficient". However, he still supports a ban on partial-birth and late-term abortions; he supports adult stemcell research. He also has experience with pulling a failing city back from the brink. The state is another matter, but perhaps he can do what our current governor cannot.
Posted by: MissJean at Oct 30, 2006 7:45:51 PM
Morning's Minion,
You parrot the standard liberal obfuscation. When called on it, you demand that I read some article and discern the supposed "theological argument" for your disingenuous claptrap.
I've got better things to do.
But I will check later to see if you've offered some cogent argument, "theological" or otherwise, for your refusal to acknowledge the primacy of the abortion issue for Cathoic voters, particularly in the context of a race featuring a militantly pro-abortion "Catholic".
Posted by: John M at Oct 30, 2006 7:47:25 PM
