The clock ticks ever closer to the Presidential Election of 2008. The candidates have debated, they have slung accusations and claims at one another (both within and without the respective parties), millions of dollars have been spent, and many have already thrown in the towel and called it quits. So where do I stand, you ask? Some think that a monarchist would have no interest in a democratic election. Others think that, while I may have an interest, I would not take part in a process of government in which I have no belief. So, here's what I've got to say.
First of all, for a country that values democracy so much, we have a very undemocratic way of electing our presidents. I'm not talking about the Electoral College (although that too is a very undemocratic body, as the members of the College are allowed to ignore the will of their constituencies and vote as they please), but I'm talking about the primary process. Firstly, let's face it: only the rich can run for office. In order to get your party's nomination, you have to run a very aggressive campaign filled with television, radio, and print advertisements. You have to have money to travel to the fifty states to give speeches. Secondly, the media to a great degree determines which candidates are the front runners. If the media doesn't think a candidate has a chance, they simply don't cover that candidate in their coverage, or even worse dissallow that candidate from televised debates. Do you know that Alan Keyes is running under the Republican ticket? I didn't until quite recently--he's never talked about on the news and as been forbidden from the big debates on TV. Then factor in the fact that each state has different caucus/primary schedules. The result is that people in those states with later caucuses/primaries don't have the chance to vote for several candidates simply becuase by the time they get to vote said candidates have already dropped out. To some it up, if we truly believe in democracy and egalitarianism in this country, then why don't we have a truly democratic and egalitarian way of electing our leaders?
Now on to my own views regarding the candidates. I won't vote for any Democrat, since each and every one is a hands-down supporter of abortion. But the Republicans aren't much better. The Republican candidates are either pro-abortion to one degree or another, or claim to be pro-life but say that they woud "leave it up to the states" to decide if Roe v. Wade would be the law in their respective states. That's neo-con code for "I'll do nothing to stop abortion." Abortion is the worst, most terrible crime ever known to man. I don't care if Roe v. Wade is overturned by illegal or unconstitutional means. Heck, I don't even care if it's overturned by a military coup (as long as said coup is bloodless), I just want innocent babies to live! I'll have nothing to do with any candidate who supports it under any circumstance, and you know what? No self respecting Catholic should either. I will not choose the "lesser of two evils" by choosing a candidate who "would do less damage to the pro-life cause" than the opponent. We as Catholics can never do evil so that good may come from it. Since it's evil to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I will not vote for the one who I think will do the least damage to unborn babies. I'd rather stay home with my conscious intact.
So in conclusion, if I had to make my decision now (which, by the way, Washington state doesn't vote until the 19th of this month), I'd have to say that I will vote, in the words of Richard Pryor's candidate in the movie Brewster's Millions, for "None of the Above!"