Brownback backpedals

Last updated on: June 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm by voxnovablog

Brownback backpedals 2007-06-06T13:52:00-05:00 voxnovablog

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.

I couldn’t help but notice that, having spelled out his pro-life worldview and having insisted that the Republican party is “pro-life” by principle, Sam Brownback was a bit unprepared for the professorially attired and frequently interrupting Wolf Blitzer: Would Brownback support a pro-choice Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency (i.e. Rudy Giuliani)? Without explicitly stating that he would support Giuliani and without any hint of qualification, Brownback explicitly stated that he would support whichever candidate earns the Republican nomination. So, let’s do a little deduction using one hypothetical, yet plausible premise (P2):

P1: Brownback will support the Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency.
P2: Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency.
P3: Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice politician.

Conclusion: Brownback will support a pro-choice politician for the U.S. presidency.

Why do I point this out? Because I have curiously followed a number of Catholic blogs who have worn their support of Brownback on their template and have, perhaps not entirely unrelated, decried any suggestion of support for pro-choice politicians among Catholics. So here you have a Catholic, pro-life politician who has garnered the support of many Catholics concerned with ending abortion, perhaps not least among whom is Fr. Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life. And this politician went on record last night for the second time stating that he would support a pro-choice Republican nominee for the presidency.

So what now? Now that Brownback has publicly stated that he would support a pro-choice nominee for the presidency, will we see a massive defection of prospective Catholic voters to other pro-life candidates? I do not know. I, myself, I have never supported Brownback because I have been skeptical of his “pro-life” credentials, concerned over his inability to handle even simple questions without stumbling and I have not found him to be particularly striking as a real leader. A senator? Sure. A president? No. And after touting his pro-life position for the greater part of his political career, he was out-foxed by the Wolf on a national stage.

Don’t expect Fr. Pavone to divorce Brownback. You see, Fr. Pavone’s admonition that Catholics have a duty to vote pro-life is conditional, not absolute. In elections past, Catholics could always count on at least one pro-life candidate in the presidential race, and more often than not, that candidate was a Republican. In such cases, Fr. Pavone has made it abundantly clear that Catholics have a moral duty to vote pro-life. But in 2008, Catholics may face an unprecedented conundrum: both the Democrat and Republican nominees may be policy-making pro-choicers. So does Fr. Pavone remain steadfast, stalwart and sustained, encouraging Catholics to stand up for the Gospel of Life by taking our voting block over to a third-party candidate, once and for shouting from the rooftops to our undemocratic two-party system that we will not be taken for fools and we will not budge on our principles of life? We could only hope. As Michael Iafrate noted awhile back, Fr. Pavone is not consistently defending life in the political sphere. Fr. Pavone’s words:

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

So ought we to vote pro-life if one of the two dominant candidates is pro-life? Ought we to vote pro-life if neither of the two dominant candidates are pro-life? No. All of Fr. Pavone’s talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: “realistic choice.” So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a “realistic” candidate? Is “realistic” an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? “Realistic” releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a “realistic” pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a “realistic” pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an “acceptable” candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more “acceptable” than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate’s public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

The fact is that both Fr. Pavone and Sam Brownback have revealed at a very deep level where their allegiance to the pro-life cause lies. Instead of losing the faith of his party by conscientiously objecting to his party’s nomination of a pro-choice candidate for the presidency, Brownback will compromise his pro-life record, will support that candidate, and will publicly encourage us to vote for that candidate. Instead of launching what could be the greatest campaign for life in the history of the American political sphere by abandoning the two-party system and bringing with him scores of Catholic voters, Fr. Pavone wants Catholics to stick within the two “realistic” parties. I suppose Catholics will have to wait for Fr. Pavone to provide us with his take on the runner-up issue to abortion in order for us to discern which of the two party candidates is “less acceptable.”

Allow me to be candid: Brownback is a disappointment. As the Elephant Biz brilliantly opines: “So, while he’s pro-life when it comes to abortion, Brownback is pro-choice when it comes to pro-choice Republican candidates – he could vote for one but hopes you and believes you can’t.”

If you want to know who the most pro-life candidate out there is, it’s Mike Huckabee for my money. Tonight he outshone his Catholic counterpart on the pro-life talk. If abortion truly is the most important non-negotiable–and I know for many Catholics it is–than Brownback is not your man. Consider Huckabee’s pro-person response to the question as to what is the most pressing moral issue today:

“I really believe if you define a moral issue, it is our sanctity of understanding [the value of] every single human life…We value every life of an individual as if it represents the life of us all.

“We shouldn’t allow a child to live under a bridge or in the back seat of a car…People are treated as expendable. The unique part of our country is that we elevate and celebrate human life.”

Huckabee’s momentum is picking up, too. As Joe Klein of Time observed after the second GOP debate: “Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee seems to be winning the battle of the religious conservatives against Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. Huckabee is colorful and funny. In the second debate, he drew whoops from the audience when he said the (Republican) Congress has “spent money like John Edwards in a beauty shop.” Brownback appears bland, by comparison, young and not very authoritative, a Senator who seems like a member of the House. Of these six, Huckabee seems most likely to survive.”

For more on Huckabee, check out ProLifeBlogs round-up here. Bye-bye, Brownback.

Abortion

Policraticus

Politics

Previous Post

June 6, 2007

Number 6's Speech

Next Post

June 6, 2007 NFP: Part1 The Church Teaching On Family Planning

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 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 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the sign of the new covenant given in Ezekiel's vision?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Gold in the Temple Fiery chariots Rebuilt walls A new heart and new spirit