This will be the only post I make about the upcoming 2024 election. I reserve the right to make posts about any events that occur after the election, but until now I’ve intentionally not waded into the online pre-election debate.
A few weeks ago, I responded to the BBC’s call for American voters who were interested in talking with journalists. To my surprise, I got a call! Earlier this week, I was interviewed by Rachel Looker about how I’m planning to vote. She mentioned that this particular article would focus on women voters, and in the end included a quote from me in her article. I’m flattered at having the chance to speak up, and can confirm that Ms. Looker mostly quoted me accurately.
Image: LBeaumont
I actually told Ms. Looker that I am writing in “none of the above,” and mentioned that I’ve not voted for a major party presidential candidate since the 2000 election, which was only the second time I was eligible to vote for president. I explained that I can’t bring myself to vote for either of the two major party candidates, and that while I mostly align with the American Solidarity Party, it’s not 100% agreement and I don’t know enough about this year’s candidate to feel comfortable voting for him. (On his web site, he quotes the party’s platform in lieu of stating his personal one; he also gives no concrete plans.)
In addition, I pointed out that every election I’ve been able to vote in has been characterized as “the most critical election of the generation,” with the survival of the United States supposedly hanging in the balance. After thirty-plus years, that line has gotten old, and like most members of Generation X, I approach things with a healthy dash of cynicism. Given that it doesn’t seem likely that either the House or the Senate will flip majority parties this year, I don’t think much will change as a result of this election. “We’ve muddled through before now,” I told her, “and we’ll probably muddle through this time too.”
While Ms. Looker clearly wanted to talk about abortion as the premier issue affecting women’s votes, I admitted that, if I’m going to be a single-issue voter, that single issue is going to be health care access, not abortion, and that neither side had come up with anything new or interesting this time around. This was when I said that Vice President Harris was “doubling down on abortion as reproductive health.” My next statement was that I didn’t consider abortion to be healthcare at all, and that women’s reproductive health involved a lot more than the abortion debate.
I also, as quoted in the article, said that I didn’t understand how any Catholic could vote for a candidate who routinely spews — and yes, I used that word — the racist and nativist rhetoric that comes out of Mr. Trump’s campaign. I commented that a lot of Catholics are planning to vote for him strictly because of the abortion issue, but that he’d flip-flopped too many times on that topic for me to trust him. (In addition, he supports IVF, which contradicts Catholic teaching.) That’s when I partially quoted the Corporal Works of Mercy and said that I took those, and the instruction to welcome the stranger, very seriously.
I am very glad that Ms. Looker partially quoted that last sentence, as so many people hear “Catholic” or “pro-life,” and immediately assume that this means abortion. It doesn’t; it’s far more comprehensive than that. Being able to make that statement in a large-circulation publication is important, as anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that many non-Catholics (unfortunately, correctly) believe that Catholics are hypocrites about protecting the vulnerable among the post-birth population. If even one person reads that and realizes that at least some Catholics look at “pro-life” more holistically, then I’ll have done my job.
If that person also comes across this blog post, I recommend checking out the USCCB’s brief introduction to the themes of Catholic Social Teaching. There is nearly nearly a century and a half of official documents supporting them, many of which were authored by popes both before and after Vatican II. They’re not new concepts and they’re not optional for Catholics (although we certainly can, and probably even should, debate how to do so).
In summation, I told Ms. Looker, “look, one side’s going to call me a bigot and the other side’s going to call me a traitor. So under those circumstances, I’ve got nobody I can vote for.” Or, in other words, a vote for a “lesser evil” is still, in my book, a vote for evil. I’m not willing to do that.
Ms. Looker’s final question to me was what I would tell the candidates about their planning for 2028. My answer was straightforward: I don’t want to hear any more complaints and I definitely don’t care for any more rhetoric and mudslinging. If a candidate wants my vote in that election, their best bet is to hit the drawing board the minute this election is over and start drafting position papers and policy frameworks. They have four years to develop and propose solutions, not identify problems. I’m quite capable of doing that last part on my own — and so, I suspect, is the American public in general.