Voting & "Proportionate Reasons"
There's been a great deal of discussion of late of voting, of how one must have "proportionate reasons" for voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights in order to avoid remote material cooperation with evil, and of what those "proportionate reasons" might be. I have a more basic question: when we vote for or against a candidate, what are we voting on? Are we voting on the basis of the past, on the candidate's record, or on the future, on how we think the candidate will act once in office (using the past as a guide, obviously)? If I vote to eject Bush from office, will it be in punishment for the things he's done in the past four years, or out of fear for what he might do in the next four?
This is relevant, I think, with regard to whether the War in Iraq constitutes a "proportionate reason" for voting against Bush. Liberal Catholic blogger JCecil3, who believes the war was not a just war, makes the argument that it is.
(This isn't that much of a concern for me, since I think the Iraq War was a just war, for reasons that I've come to realize are highly idiosyncratic - my perspective is that there was one Iraqi-American War, lasting from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the 2003 fall of Baghdad, in which the active ground fighting was interrupted by a lengthy ceasefire which was broken by the Iraqi refusal to abide by its terms, and that that 13-year war was just, on the American side, since it was precipitated by the unjust Iraqi invasion of an American ally, Kuwait. That's not a common view, but I think it's the right one.)
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unjust war. Is this reason to vote against Bush? If voting is a mechanism for punishing or rewarding past actions, then surely. Bush committed a grave moral wrong, he must be punished, that punishment takes the form of removal from office.
But if voting is a prospective matter, in which voters make decisions based on anticipated future actions, this seems to me a trickier problem. Perhaps one can say that Bush's record of launching unjust wars suggests he may wage another one in a second term. I'm not sure about this empirically (given our problems in Iraq, I can't imagine the Bushies are eager to take on Syria or Iran any time soon) but if a person genuinely believed it I suppose it could be a reason to vote against Bush prospectively.
Or perhaps the unjustness of the Iraq invasion makes the subsequent US occupation unjust as well (I don't know about this either way - does Just War theory include some kind of you-break-it-you-buy-it idea, where even unjust invaders are required to restore order to the countries they invade?). Since Bush intends to continue the unjust occupation, should he be voted out for that reason? Except: John Kerry, for whom the non-Bush voter would presumably vote, also intends to continue the occupation. A vote for Kerry would thus be just as much a vote for the unjust occupation as a vote for Bush. What then, Nader?
My thoughts on this subject are largely inchoate; my point is just to suggest that it matters whether one is voting retrospectively or prospectively. I'm not sure which we're supposed to be doing. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
This is relevant, I think, with regard to whether the War in Iraq constitutes a "proportionate reason" for voting against Bush. Liberal Catholic blogger JCecil3, who believes the war was not a just war, makes the argument that it is.
(This isn't that much of a concern for me, since I think the Iraq War was a just war, for reasons that I've come to realize are highly idiosyncratic - my perspective is that there was one Iraqi-American War, lasting from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the 2003 fall of Baghdad, in which the active ground fighting was interrupted by a lengthy ceasefire which was broken by the Iraqi refusal to abide by its terms, and that that 13-year war was just, on the American side, since it was precipitated by the unjust Iraqi invasion of an American ally, Kuwait. That's not a common view, but I think it's the right one.)
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unjust war. Is this reason to vote against Bush? If voting is a mechanism for punishing or rewarding past actions, then surely. Bush committed a grave moral wrong, he must be punished, that punishment takes the form of removal from office.
But if voting is a prospective matter, in which voters make decisions based on anticipated future actions, this seems to me a trickier problem. Perhaps one can say that Bush's record of launching unjust wars suggests he may wage another one in a second term. I'm not sure about this empirically (given our problems in Iraq, I can't imagine the Bushies are eager to take on Syria or Iran any time soon) but if a person genuinely believed it I suppose it could be a reason to vote against Bush prospectively.
Or perhaps the unjustness of the Iraq invasion makes the subsequent US occupation unjust as well (I don't know about this either way - does Just War theory include some kind of you-break-it-you-buy-it idea, where even unjust invaders are required to restore order to the countries they invade?). Since Bush intends to continue the unjust occupation, should he be voted out for that reason? Except: John Kerry, for whom the non-Bush voter would presumably vote, also intends to continue the occupation. A vote for Kerry would thus be just as much a vote for the unjust occupation as a vote for Bush. What then, Nader?
My thoughts on this subject are largely inchoate; my point is just to suggest that it matters whether one is voting retrospectively or prospectively. I'm not sure which we're supposed to be doing. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
<< Home