Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Monday, November 02, 2020

MacIntyre: The Only Vote Worth Casting In November

 There seems to be only one place on the internet that Alasdair MacIntyre's essay "The Only Vote Worth Casting In November" is preserved, and since it's not the original source, I'm taking the liberty of posting the entire piece. I believe that this was first published as an op-ed for the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at Notre Dame (of which MacIntyre was then director) in reference to the 2004 presidential election.

* * *

The Only Vote Worth Casting in November

Alasdair MacIntyre, University of Notre Dame

When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish. These two sentences, if fully spelled out, amount to a politics. It is a politics that requires us to be pro-life, not only in doing whatever is most effective in reducing the number of abortions, but also in providing healthcare for expectant mothers, in facilitating adoptions, in providing aid for single-parent families and for grandparents who have taken parental responsibility for their grandchildren. And it is a politics that requires us to make as a minimal economic demand the provision of meaningful work that provides a fair and adequate wage for every working parent, a wage sufficient to keep a family well above the poverty line.

The basic economic injustice of our society is that the costs of economic growth are generally borne by those least able to afford them and that the majority of the benefits of economic growth go to those who need them least. Compare the rise in wages of ordinary working people over the last thirty years to the rise in the incomes and wealth of the top twenty percent. Compare the value of minimum wage now to its value then and next compare the value of the remuneration of CEOs to its value then. What is needed to secure family life is a sufficient minimum income for every family and that can perhaps best be secured by some version of the negative income tax, proposed long ago by Milton Friedman, a tax that could be used to secure a large and just redistribution of income and so of property.

We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.

In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote cast for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.

3 comments:

J.C. said...

Wow, do you really believe this? I can understand some devout, low-information, regular Catholic Joe falling for this, but someone with your intellect and Faith formation is completely culpable for choosing evil if you refrain from voting or vote for a 3rd party candidate this election. Here's a better reprint:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/?m=1
Just one more reason I am so glad I decided not to go to Notre Dame or Steubenville many years ago... Yikes!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you've happened upon the American Solidarity Party, Darwins. This speech seems to me eerily prescient of the ASP's agenda. (Heather)

Anonymous said...

J.C., if you want to know what Steubenville students think about voting in this election, you might be interested in watching this video of a recent debate held at the school on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZaGrI9MLeY