In his article, "Two Cheers for John McCain: How the Democrats Lost My Vote," David Carlin presents us with an interesting take on why he will—and other Catholics should—vote for John McCain come election day. A self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat," (Carlin, par. 2), Carlin cites issues such as the Iraq war, abortion, and patriotism as reasons for his switch to the other side of the isle. While his article provides much useful analysis of McCain and Obama policies, Carlin’s very credibility is undermined—and thus too, is his argument—by the fact that he once considered himself a Democrat and will now vote for a Republican based on social and moral values.
While the meat of Carlin’s article concerns itself with the Iraq war (from invasion to surge), the part most worthy of discussion is the section dealing with abortion. He states that, “...the single biggest issue is, and has been for many years, abortion” (Carlin, par. 5). He follows this by revealing his Catholic faith and the Church’s stance that abortion is “unjustifiable homicide” (Carlin, par. 5). Furthermore, Carlin says essentially that as the Democratic Party is (primarily) comprised of pro-choice Senators and Representatives, a Catholic cannot in good conscious vote outside of the Republican Party.
How can a lifelong Democrat who feels that abortion is the most important issue to be considered when voting for a candidate be, well, a Democrat? Of course, the Democratic Party has not always been labeled as the “pro-choice” party, but it has been associated with the pro-choice message for at least two election cycles now. By jumping ship and voting Republican this time around, Carlin comes off as a bit of a hypocrite, and his underlying argument in the piece suffers. He offers no explanation for his seemingly sudden realization that abortion is a serious issue, nor does he provide any background concerning when the Democratic Party became associated (in his mind) with a pro-choice message.
“Two Cheers for John McCain: How the Democrats Lost My Vote,” gives us some very interesting material to mull over. How can a voter decide which party to support? Is it simply a numbers game, or can one really apply a “level-of-importance” meter to the various issues that crop up in an election? This article, unfortunately doesn’t answer these questions, but does help bring them to light and gives us a nice starting place for discussion. Carlin may have convinced a few Catholics to vote for McCain on November 4th, but his hypocritical jump across the isle makes it very unlikely that he has convinced anyone outside of his intended, religiously-minded audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
After reading the article, I had only one question in mind: why would Carlin switch to the Republican Party now? Logan hit the nail on the head with his post, investigating the very same question, and doing so effectively. I loved how Logan pointed out that the Democratic Party “has been associated with the pro-choice message for at least two election cycles now,” which leads all to be speculative regarding the timing of Carlin’s switch to the Republican candidate. Logan’s thought provoking questions were also very strong, and I enjoyed how he asserted that the article did not answer these questions. Wholeheartedly, I agree with Logan’s assertion that Carlin’s attempt to swing voters to McCain will prove to be little more than futile. After reading the abortion paragraph, the rest of the article lost all credibility to me, and I struggle seeing how anyone could be moved by Carlin’s work. This lack of effectiveness is not only obvious to Catholics, but to all faiths and ideologies alike. The hypocrisy is evident to the point that no one would struggle to see it, and it will not lead to a significant amount of conversions to the Republican ticket.
Logan does well in this post to point out the author's inconsistencies. While Carlin certainly writes with conviction and passion, his zeal causes him to state matter of factly what should probably be merely opined. When I first read Logan's post, I wondered how an early paragraph on abortion - an issue that was not the meat of the article - could really be most important or discussion worthy. But Logan is right; despite an admirable, if at times misguided, commentary on McCain's history and plans for Iraq, Carlin gives the reader a simple reason to skip over it. Placing the platform of abortion on the highest pedestal, he silently concedes that everything else he will write is superfluous to his article's intent since McCain's pro-life stance ALONE has won his vote.
There is plenty more to disagree with in Carlin's article, not least of all that a responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq still signifies Al Qaeda victory, that McCain is still the "reach across the aisle" Maverick that he was in 2000, and that a large chunk of Democrats' patriotism is "soft." But, as Logan mentions, he simultaneously claims to have been a lifelong Democrat and to have placed abortion at the forefront for many years. It's enough to make one seriously wonder - I took the time to find out what this Commonweal publication was all about - and yet, the blurb on Carlin to the right of the article shows us that he was the Democratic majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate! Simply amazing...
Logan is right: Carlin should have addressed why it is now that he is switching parties. Why after apparently decades of being a Democrat is he now switching over? Carlin says that abortion has been the most important issue for many years, and the Democrats have held their pro-choice stance for those many years. No one knows why he changed now because he did not tell us why. We could guess that perhaps other issues outside of abortion had overpowered his pro-life beliefs. But I take issue with calling him hypocrite. Is Carlin secretly performing abortions in his spare time? If he were converting over abortion alone then this may be suspect. But he cites numerous more recent events that may very well have pushed him to change his political party affiliations.
I have to disagree with the original poster, as well as everyone who’s commented thus far – I don’t believe Carlin’s commentary on abortion reduces his credibility at all. He does, in fact, specify the era during which he was a staunch democrat when he says, “Even though-being a Democrat of the FDR-Truman-Kennedy-LBJ variety-I’m pretty conservative by contemporary Democratic standards, still I’m a Democrat, and that means that I have deeply ingrained anti-Republican prejudices” (Carlin). This description makes perfect sense when looking at his abortion views, since abortion did not really become an issue until LBJ was already out of office, so it makes perfect sense that he would consider himself a staunch democrat during that particular era. He also indicates later in the article that he believes that abortion has been the most important issue for “many years,” implying that he has voted based on that issue in the past. Does he go through and say whether or not he’s voting based on abortion in every election since the seventies? No. But then again, why would he? That’s not the point of his article. Instead, he included the information that I’ve already listed above and trusted his readers to put two and two together, so that he could get on with his article and make the point that he set out to make.
I think it is very clear that we could argue about Carlin’s hypocrisy, or lack thereof, all day. But what I don’t think anyone can contest is the fact that sweeping claims such as, “theirs is a “soft” patriotism, a patriotism twice diluted, once with the waters of cosmopolitanism, and again with the waters of something tasting of pacifism,” are extremely ineffective in any academic writing. Carlin may have a valid reason for switching his vote, but to imply that Democratic Party leaders are incapable of defending the country is inexcusable. On the other hand, for someone to acknowledge that a presidential candidate very well may be a warmonger and have no problem with that, is disconcerting to me. As an aged man I’m sure Carlin understands the atrocities of war, does he think these more excusable than “unjustifiable homicide?” To me it seems Carlin’s article does little more than explain why he’s voting Republican, by today’s standards, he is indeed a Republican. One cannot define their political position today by what they were yesterday. Carlin’s rhetoric and opinions of “goings-on” for lack of a better term, say to me, that he has finally shifted to the right side of the spectrum.
I don’t agree with Alexa’s post. I think it is entirely possible for a life-long Democrat to vote for a Republican. Voting for a Republican doesn’t mean that they are necessarily one or becoming one. It simply means that they feel the Republican candidate is more qualified for the job. Before the 2008 presidential election, I had never heard life-long Democrats openly admitting in public that they were backing the Republican ticket. However, during this election it was quite easy to find many life-long Democrats who were voting for McCain. I personally know many life-long Democrats who are well into their seventies and early eighties that felt this way, not because they were becoming more conservative, but that they believed McCain had more experience and was more qualified for the job.
Post a Comment