BIG RED DISCLAIMER: What’s mine is mine. The blog belongs to Jimmy, of course, but the opinions in my posts on JimmyAkin.org belong to me, Michelle Arnold. Not to Jimmy Akin, not to Catholic Answers, but to me. (Even though JA.org has been a group blog for some time now, there is still some confusion on this point, so it bears repeating, especially in a post like this one.)
Today is Election Day in California, which means that I am willing to use the occasion to answer a reader’s question, one I would ordinarily have ignored as it was phrased in a rather snarky manner and was placed in the combox of a a post that had nothing to do with the subject. Here was the dialogue:
Reader: "You’re not a red stater, Michelle. You’re a wannabe at best."
Michelle: [Flippantly] "Very true…. I’m a native Californian who wants her blue state to be red."
Reader: "Okay, so exactly which issues are you ‘red’ on? By the way, Mark Shea is right about everything political, and he says he hasn’t found a political home.
[Less than 24 hours later, previous paragraph repeated and this comment appended] "Michelle is afraid to respond."
I cannot speak for Mark Shea, although I imagine that he would appreciate the vote of confidence for his political views.
As for my political views, that is something that I can speak about.
On social issues I am solidly red state (e.g., abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, homosexual marriage). Because of the preeminent importance of these issues, I place them over and above other issues such as the economy, the environment, the war, etc. My first concern is the life issues and I will do my best to vote for the candidate or proposition that best furthers the cause of life. Failing that, I will do my best to vote for the candidate or proposition that does the least damage to the cause of life.
On the secondary issues, I am more blue state. For example, I plan to vote today to thwart Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s "reform initiatives," apparently so-called because they mask what I believe to be a power grab. At the same time, I will be voting an emphatic "Yes!" on Proposition 73, a California state initiative that seeks to require parental notification of the planned abortion for a minor.
I don’t know whether or not Mark Shea has found a "political home" — I haven’t read what he may or may not have said on the issue — but I do know that I don’t have such a "political home," if by such is meant a political party affiliation. Since I turned 18 some fifteen years ago, I have not been a Republican, a Democrat, or a member of a non-influential Third Party. I am a non-affiliated registered voter, and plan for the foreseeable future to remain that way.
BIG RED DISCLAIMER: What’s mine is mine. The blog belongs to Jimmy, of course, but the opinions in my posts on JimmyAkin.org belong to me, Michelle Arnold. Not to Jimmy Akin, not to Catholic Answers, but to me. (Even though JA.org has been a group blog for some time now, there is still some confusion on this point, so it bears repeating, especially in a post like this one.)
Jimmy:
What’s the matter with you? Why don’t you want to be a Republican?
By the way, could you tell Michelle we’re glad she’s feeling better? 🙂
Chris,
Look at the byline again: this is one of Michelle’s posts, not one of Jimmy’s.
Publius, he knows. It’s a joke.
What? Not funny? I thought with, not one, but DUAL DISCLAIMERS. It had to be said…
Publius, he knows. It’s a joke.
Ah.
Michelle, are you able to vote in primaries as a non-affiliated registered voter in the state of California?
“Michelle, are you able to vote in primaries as a non-affiliated registered voter in the state of California?”
Billy, although there used to be open primaries for a short time in CA, there are now closed primaries, which means that a non-affiliated voter cannot vote for a party’s candidate to run in the general election. He can, however, vote on any propositions and any office elections. I don’t mind not voting for a party’s candidate, since I see it as a fair trade-off for the ability to avoid aligning with either major party (both of which I severely disagree with on some issues).
BTW, the original disclaimer was the serious disclaimer. The second one was my attempt to be cute (i.e., “Just in case you didn’t notice it the first time…”). 😉
Michelle, how can we ensure good candidates in either party if good Christians such as yourself don’t join the party to vote in primaries? How will either party change those policies with which you disagree if you don’t join the party to vote on those policies?
“Michelle, how can we ensure good candidates in either party if good Christians such as yourself don’t join the party to vote in primaries? How will either party change those policies with which you disagree if you don’t join the party to vote on those policies?”
At the present time, neither party is in a position that my joining would influence the direction it takes on life issues. Indeed, being non-affiliated means that I am not constantly disappointed with my own party when the major parties fail to support prolife action (e.g., enacting prolife laws, nominating prolife judges) although I may be angry and frustrated that the cause of life has not moved forward. Unless or until that situation changes, I’m comfortable with my decision to remain a non-affiliated voter.
Actually, you could vote in primaries in CA by registering as Decline-to-State. Then you get to select which party’s ballot you want when you arrive at the polling place. There are some limitations. Each party can specify whether DTS voters can vote on each race. The ballots then include only the races that allow DTS votes and the propositions. In my (limited) experience, the major offices are always open to DTS. So depending on what candidates you want to support in the primary, you could get at DTSRepublican, DTSDemocrat, DTSLibertarian, DTSGreen, etc.
“Snarky” – I like that word. Michelle, you don’t have to explain yourself to that guy. We live in a democracy at last check – although some seem to think that we must all walk in lock-step – you are obviously a woman with principals and well considered opinions. You have something to say — and we want to hear it.
And, of course you’re right — no political party has a lock on “the truth” — although at this point in history the Republican party is more often on the right side of social issues — we mustn’t look to a political party to provide us with “the truth.” We don’t worship a political party, but we must attempt to bring our knowledge of truth informed by our faith to our political decisions. And, it sounds to me like that is what you are attempting to do.
Michelle, as another unregistered voter, let me say that you rock for coming out of the closet. Can we found our own Christian Democrat Party? It’ll be pro-life and pro-worker, but pro-wrestling will be banned. Plus, the universal healthcare program will cover homebirths.
A Christian Democrat Party sounds good to me too.
I, too, am unaffiliated with any party, though the Democrats have consistently made it impossible for me to support them for quite a while, making me a de-facto Republican since Reagan.
The country may not be ready for a third party yet, but we can still have a big influence.
People forget that, if not for Ross Perot, Bill Clinton would likely never have been President.
I don’t like bullies and mean people.
Unfortunately, the anti-union propositions are tied to abortion (though the Governor didn’t intend this). Lemme splain…
Maybe the Gov’s propositions were “a power grab” but they were no more so than Union opposition was a ‘power hold’. Michelle may be “pro worker” but Union leadership most surely is not. Their entire m.o. is to keep their members’ wages high by restricting competition for jobs. What do they do when hard working non-union people try to compete for the same jobs? They respond with intimidation at best and outright violence at worst. This is not a very Catholic response to labor issues.
How does this tie into abortion you ask? Since the Unions are more concerned with political power than the welfare of their membership, they function as an agent of the pro-abortion Democratic Party. They spent $40 million of member dues to defeat the Gov’s propositions and their voter guides all say ‘NO’ on 73. I even heard a commercial paid for by the NURSES Union, no less, which lumped in 73 with 74, 75, 76, and 77 without mentioning that it had nothing to do with the other propositions. Just remember to vote NO they said. Of course, the turnout for this election is heavily slanted towards the unions because they turned in a massive effort in mis-informing and turning out their voters.
This has implications for abortion politics in CA (and the whole country by extension) beyond just prop 73. Passing prop 75 could have severely curtailed the political influence of the unions. It could have diminished the huge resources that they have to help the Democratic party defeat every pro-life candidate and initiative in CA. Even the people who walk around your neighborhood and pass out flyers that say NO on 73 are typically paid by the Unions or are members ordered to do so by their leadership. Without the unions, the entire Democratic infrastructure for mis-informing people on abortion issues would collapse. The Republican Party relies almost entirely on volunteers who are just average folks. When we get a chance to limit the Unions’ political power, we should jump at it.
I’m not saying anybody should drink the Republican Kool-Aid, they are wrong about many things. For good or ill, however, we operate in a 2 party system. If the Dems are more aligned with your thinking, excepting abortion, then you should register as Dem and work to make them pro-life. If the Republican agenda is more to your liking, save ‘workers issues’, then you should join the GOP and work to shape that part of the platform. While ‘independents’ can have a huge influence in general elections, a la Perot, they have zero influence at the grass roots level where lasting changes are made. Pick a side and get ‘in the arena!’
Sorry for the super-long comment. I have my usual post election day blues here in CA and I needed to vent. 🙂
Kudos Michelle!!!
I agree with you and probably with tens of millions of others that find no political home in this de-facto two-party only country.
again, I am all for anything that addresses real issues, real people, stops seeing money as more important than people and stops dividing and judging each other.
it would be nice to have each state’s electoral college votes be proportionate to percentage of the state’s votes – most states would be purple… and better express the USA… not this us versus them but it still is all of us.
Maybe the Gov’s propositions were “a power grab” but they were no more so than Union opposition was a ‘power hold’. Michelle may be “pro worker” but Union leadership most surely is not. Their entire m.o. is to keep their members’ wages high by restricting competition for jobs. What do they do when hard working non-union people try to compete for the same jobs? They respond with intimidation at best and outright violence at worst.
Hey, that sounds a lot like France.
One thing…before you get too wrapped up in Democratic economic policies, I’d recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. I’m only halfway through, and already I’m seeing that many “worker friendly” policies, although they might have good intentions, have disastrous effects.
it would be nice to have each state’s electoral college votes be proportionate to percentage of the state’s votes – most states would be purple… and better express the USA… not this us versus them but it still is all of us.
I disagree. The electoral college was made for a reason. By distributing the vote, it allows the president to be selected on the basis of issues which are important to everyone, not just the issues important to the people who live in population centers.