To whom does Paul say he has become all things so that by all possible means he might save some?

Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Eve Tushnet

Home
Catholic
Religious Music & Entertainment

Last updated on: October 28, 2004 at 7:20 pm by Eve Tushnet

2004-10-28T19:20:00-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

IN THE PRECINCTS OF DESPITE: So, the election. As I said below, I don’t expect to persuade anyone, for a lot of reasons: my own negativity and ambivalence, my lack of importance!, the fact that it’s already 10/28–and one big thing, which is that this campaign has been mostly waged in the subjunctive tense. Challengers generally have to do that, relying on contrary-to-fact clauses: If our guy had been in charge, we wouldn’t be in this mess! But Bush’s supporters are relying heavily on the subjunctive too: If Saddam Hussein had remained in power… if the sanctions had been ended… if Kerry had been president in 2001… and none of this, of course, is verifiable.

And the candidates have been diligently turning themselves into blank projection screens onto which various groups of voters can play out their fantasies: If you think the US rushed into war without securing necessary alliances, Kerry is all about Our European Friends. If you fear a French or German veto on American foreign policy, Kerry is all about America First. Voters end up relying on instinct, speculation, templates borrowed from previous wars (WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam…), and difficult-to-articulate judgments about trust.

So, some scattered thoughts, in an attempt to at least gesture toward the reasons why, if I were registered to vote, I would vote for (growl) Bush–the man who puts the “W” in “WTF?!”

First: Why am I not registered? 1. For a long time I was not convinced that I could vote for either major-party candidate without implicating myself in serious sin.

2. I live in DC. I know where my electoral votes are going. I hadn’t thought about the idea that it would be best to vote anyway due to the post-2000 importance of the popular vote; by the time Kaus laid out that case, the registration deadline had passed.

3. I’m really lazy.

Second: problems with Bush. I’m not even going to bother with complaints about spending, or about particular programs. You can do that yourself. My two main reasons not to vote for Bush (which would mean voting third-party or not at all; there is no way I would vote for Kerry, the altar boy of the abortion lobby) are simply jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Just reasons for war, and just conduct within war.

Jus ad bellum: I supported the war in Iraq. I couldn’t tell you whether, in the long run, it will turn out to be a disaster or a damaged but important success. I do know that some of the reasons I supported the war have vanished into air: The sanctions, which helped destroy the Iraqi middle class, also seem to have worked as far as leading Hussein to destroy most of his major weaponry. Jim Henley’s constant reminder that war is a government program with bombs, and subject to the incompetence and bureaucratic information failure that prompts libertarian skepticism of government bureaucracy in general, seems to me to have proven accurate. The flight of Iraqi Christians strikes me as a terrible sign for the country’s future. It frightens me to hear people defending the administration on the matter of missing weapons materials by saying that the materials were likely shipped to Syria in the days before the war began–which is exactly what anti-war libertarians like Gene Healy warned would happen.

Some of the reasons for war still stand, of course, but they are all subjunctive reasons: the prospect of sanctions ending with Hussein still in power and able to restart his weapons programs; the prospect of Iraq in chaos, or ruled by the Bat-$#@! Crazy Sons of Saddam, after Hussein’s death; the prospect of yet more decades of lacerating sanctions and simmering war in the no-fly zones. (Yes, I think there would have been disastrous consequences to either continuing or ending the sanctions, with the former only barely preferable.)

I do think Iraq can become, in time, a more-or-less liberal more-or-less democracy, and that that transformation would be hugely important for both Iraqis and us. I do think Bush is more committed to that future than Kerry (solely because Kerry is IMO not committed to anything at all–more on this below) but I am, to put it mildly, not convinced that the Bush team has the ability to promote that future. I do think more good happens in Iraq than we see in the papers. But I don’t know how much entrepreneurial growth, how many voters, how much new and rebuilt infrastructure, makes up for all the bodies, in the minds of actual Iraqis.

Jus in bello: The two obvious words here are “Abu Ghraib.” I totally agree with those who point out that this wasn’t solely a matter of isolated depravity, but rather, a breakdown of responsibility that made depravity much more likely and much harder to stop. I realize that this war has been conducted at a far higher jus in bello standard than almost any other one I can think of–higher than WWII (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other interesting moments), higher than the Cold War (just ask the nuns of Central America). But “Um, we created the conditions that made torture more likely, then verbally condemned it when it was revealed, then doled out a few punishments and hoped you’d forget” is pretty obviously not good enough. Moreover, any violations of right conduct in war become, implicitly, jus ad bellum failures as well: We know that war makes madness, so those who support “wars of choice” bear some responsibility for that madness even if we try to minimize it. (And yeah, that’s directed at me, too.)

So–Kerry, a.k.a. “You’re really clicking tonight, you gorgeous preppie!”

There is no “there” there. I have exactly no idea what guides Kerry’s thinking on anything at all–unless “what I need to say to placate the necessary voters and interest groups” counts as a guide to thought. He is without ideas: without what Jonathan Rauch, in a good column with which I agree about 65%, called a “road.” This makes him Silly Putty in the hands of the Democratic interest groups; which, in turn, makes him unlikely to ever support a single program or policy I would approve. On the most important domestic issues, abortion and the courts (emphasis added!), he and I are of course at odds. On the most important foreign-policy issues he is a mass of contradiction, pandering, and attack without a sense of what position he’s actually defending.

Bush would have to do something fairly spectacular to get me to vote for Kerry. I’m not going to pretend that I was ever a “swing voter” in that sense. And, as I said, I can’t vote in this election anyway. But I know a lot of Catholics, and a lot of conservatives, are considering voting third-party or sitting this one out. And I hope they won’t. I don’t think Bush’s foreign-policy failures are worth a Kerry presidency. I know this is unlikely to persuade; so I will just go back to what I have been doing, which is praying, writing fiction, volunteering, and trying to bring some kind of order and hope to my life and the lives of the people I can touch.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 28, 2004

Next Post

October 28, 2004

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

To whom does Paul say he has become all things so that by all possible means he might save some?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Jews The weak The Gentiles Everyone