A statement for a friend

[fpb]

I, Fabio Paolo Barbieri, the author of a blog read by a few dozen people, find myself in the ridiculous position of having to take a firm stand about a candidate in the American election, neither more nor less than if I were a newspaper or one of the real political blogs. I have been placed in this situation because a friend who is making what I regard as the wrong choice has told me that mine is one of the few "political" blogs he ever reads, so "if [he] ever heard any propaganda, it would be from [me]". So I have to clarify my position with respect to Senator Obama.

Senator Obama is the most spectacularly talented politician of the new generation in America. No wonder that the Daley machine adopted him from the start and started a presidential campaign for him from the moment he was elected to the US senate. However, he has several flaws that would make me refuse to support him even if the opposing candidates did not impress me as much as John McCain and Sarah Palin do. (With respect to Sarah Palin, incidentally, one simple principle will carry you very far: do not believe a single word the mainstream press and television say about her. Not one word. If they tell you that she has dark hair and wears glasses, make sure you check by yourself or read a conservative blog first. The amount of lies spread about her would make Josef Goebbels' jaw drop, and beats anything seen in the Western world since the sixteenth-century wars of religion. This is not a violation of Godwin's Law, by the way: I mentioned Goebbels as being the best-known political propagandist, but I might as well have spoken of Willi Muenzenberg or Giuseppe Bottai.)

Barack Obama is visibly politically inconsistent. He has ridden to the Democratic candidacy through the support of the party's hard left, and still has the unwavering and unpleasant backing of all the lunatics, from the Daily Kos leftward to various communist and islamist groupings. (One wonders about the party structure's evident support of Obama against Hillary Clinton. I suspect that the percentage points lost to Ralph Nader's leftist candidacy in the last two elections may have scarred them into resolving that this time the hard left must be kept into the party at all costs.) While this has no effect on his actual platform, which is by European standards quite moderate, it means that it is literally impossible to establish where he really will stand, when the chips are down, on any issue. (Except one: abortion. More on that later.) It is worrying to read, for instance, that he is unsatisfied with the Constitution's establishment of "merely negative" liberties; and to a person to whom the issues of poverty and stratification are very real, one can see the point. Freedom to starve to death is not much of a gift. However, it is also clear that this was Obama the intellectual thinking aloud - thinking the inconceivable, as Tony Blair once asked Frank Fields MP to do; and the realities of politics - in which Obama is already well steeped - are seen in the fact that when Frank Fields did just that, Blair promptly sacked him. I do not for a minute think that Obama wants to seriously change the Constitution by his own acts, although his choice of future federal and SCOTUS justices does worry me greatly; the point is rather that with such a candidate, one for whom there is effectively no precedent in the USA, it is - I repeat - literally impoossible to forecast, from what he has said so far, what he will actually do. Presidents are elected on character as much as on their platforms. With Obama, it is exactly that aspect of his character which is a blank. To elect him would be an act of faith at best. From most electors, it would be faith that the moderate, unifying, respectful face he has worn through the national election is the one he would take to the White House. For the Kos Kids and others who have brought him to the nomination, it would be exactly the opposite.

That is one immediate reason not to vote Obama. When you do not, repeat, do not, know how a man will perform in a demanding role, you do not give him the keys to the house or the family jewels. Even if the first impact he makes is favourable, and even if the alternative looks bleak. There are many people who think that anything would be better than eight more years of Republicanism. Some of them insist, against all the evidence - I have met them - that John McCain's destruction of the establishment candidate Mitt Romney, his visible dislike for Romney and Bush II, his record of ignoring the party views whenever he thought right, the violent propaganda aimed at him by the established right - Limbaugh, Coulter and so on - are all a nefarious conspiracy by Karl Rove and other demonic figures to lead us to accept yet another incarnation of the inevitably wicked and dishonest Republican soul. I have stopped trying to convince such people to enter the real world. They will never be convinced that everything is not a nefarious Rovian conspiracy to make them look bad. And this sort of thing is one of the reasons why I hate the party spirit. There has been a lot of talk lately about what the Founders did or did not want, but one thing should be clear: they loathed "faction" and established parties, and they were quite right to do so. When a real party structure emerged over the election of Jefferson, it did so against the wishes of nearly everyone involved. Party spirit blinds people and makes them stupid.

NOw if Obama were not the Democratic Party's official candidate, no Catholic (or Jew) would dream of voting for him. His support for abortion, the most extreme of any Senator, would make it absolutely impossible to back him. But because he is a Democrat, and because the ancient tribal identification of Dems and Catholics (especially Irish Catholics) is still alive in some minds, and because some people find Republican governance so abhorrent that they believe anything would be better, there still are supposed Catholics who can bring themselves to underline the supposed good things that the end of Republican governance would mean, and neglect the fact that abortion would be double-riveted on the land for ever. Some of them, who do not understand that the doctrine of procreation is at the centre of the whole Catholic doctrine of man, would even be relieved to see the issue closed by edict, and may imagine that the Church would then be forced to accept what it does not like. To these people one can only say that they have not the slightest notion of what Catholicism really means - or, for that matter, human conscience. Any edict in favour of abortion, such as the so-called Free Choice Act, would be as effective in closing the issue as the Dred Scott case. But at any rate the issue for members of the Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, subscribing to the Catholic doctrine, is absolutely simple: you either are a Catholic or an abortion supporter. Tertium non datur.

The Church, in general, likes to keep its collective head down and hates confrontations with the civil authorities. For thirty or more years, ever since the abortion bloc took over the Democratic Party, most Bishops have kept quiet on the issue. And they might still have done so, but for the unconscionable folly of some born-Catholic Democratic leaders (a folly in which Obama and his adviser Axelrod had no part, but which touches them in the person of their VP candidate), who actually took it upon themselves to try and rewrite Catholic doctrine in a direction that suited them. Faced with such a gross interference on their own teaching duty, the Bishops of America had no choice but to respond. Believe me, it takes a lot to move such a peace-minded and diplomatic fellow as Donald Wuerl of Washington DC to battle; but even he issued a clear and unambiguous condemnation of Messrs Biden and Pelosi's dogmatic effusions.

So now you do not even have the excuse of the pragmatic silence of the Church. The duty of any Catholic in this election is simple. It is not up to you to decide what the Church is supposed to believe; and if the Church tells you that abortion is a sin of special gravity, and that those who support it cannot possibly be supported by Catholics, it is not up to you to second-guess it. You can either be Catholic, or support abortion. And that means that if you do not see any possible candidate except abortionists, you should stay at home rather than stain your soul with deadly sin.

Comments

[rosedemon.livejournal.com]

I adore the comment about the "Daley Machine". Most who live outside of Chicago find the idea of a political machine disgusting. We Chicagoans (and ex-Chicagoans) understand the importance of it. Unlike other cities in the seventies, like New York, that were begging the Federal government for relief from their debts, Chicago never did. Be it that "Hizzhonor", Mayor Richard Daley kept a tight hold on the city or the fact that Midwesterners don't like to ask for help can be debated. The fact is, the city government works. Remember, Jane Byrne was elected mayor primarily on the fact the snow did not get removed from the streets the winter before. Chicagoans want their kids in school, the garbage picked up, O'Hara airport open and the snow removed. All else is just fancy wrapping. A very good read on the Daley Machine is Boss by Sun-Times writer Mike Ryko. Neither complementary or damning, the books documents Chicago politics and its one time hold on US Presidents.

Aside from that your post is an interesting outsider's look at our politics. From someone who has been following Sen. Obama's campaign since the get-go, I have been more astounded at the fact that people dislike him more for his color, their conviction that he is not Christian and a host of other fabrications. The issues regarding abortion seem less of a problem to most here. And, if Sarah Palin has had issues, she has incurred many of them herself. In listening to her, she has a unique knack for putting her foot into her mouth at the worst times. I honestly think McCain made a very bad choice in her and it may have cost him the election. The polls here have the two of these men running neck and neck for the finish line. Neither has the election in the bag.

But like I said, this has been interesting to read and good to see how those who live outside of the US regard the election that will happen in a few days. No matter who wins, the rest of the world will have to deal with the winner for the next four years and I understand the concern there.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Obama's Christianity, even taking it seriously, is of a most peculiar kind. Most Christians would find it at the very least fringe or heretical - the racist Rev. Wright was his pastor for twenty years. Don't tell me that is a minor fact. There is also the uncontested fact that he was a Muslim as a child, and that throughout his life he has got along very well with Muslims - and not just any Muslims, but powerful and influential Muslims with definite agendas, from Rashid Khalidi to the Chandoo brothers to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who shoehorned him into Harvard. Bear in mind that if these people really believed that Obama is an apostate from Islam (and he was counted as a Muslim in Indonesia as a child), they would not touch him with a barge-pole, except to swing it very hard at his head. He may or may not be playing them for what they are worth to him, but at the very least here is another point in which Obama raises more questions than answers.

[rosedemon.livejournal.com]

He might be Muslim. In my opinion, it matters little. In this country the seperation of church and state is complete and adamant. Even if the influences were to rise up, there are too many agencies, aides, watchdogs, a house of representative, a Senate and a Supreme Court to stop it. Impeachemnt would follow and he would be out of a job overnight. Sen Obama is far too smart for that. Besides, he strikes me as too secular to be influenced by any one religion.

The same sort of debate raged when JFK ran for president. In fact, JFK had to assure the Democrats that he would not be taking orders from the Pope. Ludicrus as it may sound today, it was a concern at the time. If anyone had even thought about it, the Kennedys had been Americans first and Catholics second for generations. But here we go again.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Except in the fantasies of Jack T Chick readers, no Catholic ever posed a security risk to the United States.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I realize that this is the last thing you meant to say, but I perfectly agree that his "colour" is a "fabrication". He does not have one drop of African-American blood in him, and the support of people like Colin Powell can only be defined as a misguided racist phenomenon.