Check out the animated show Bat out of Hell on YouTube!

Is the Democratic Party on the Side of Intrinsic Evil?

Well, yes, insofar as abortion without any restriction whatsoever is an immovable plank of the party platform. But this paragraph from a recent post at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex caught my eye for its pithy attack on Democratic economic policies. As the seemingly farthest politically left member of Korrektiv (except for, possibly, S.G. Chivo) I have doubts about whether the the Democratic Party is really as bad as outlined below, but it does give me pause. And I, like Binx Bolling cheering for one side and then the other, have to admit I enjoy how hard Hierothee’s boot herewith connects with the Democratic ass:

Cioffi, at least as his views are presented in the article, fails to mention that Republican economic policies cannot be said to be intrinsically evil. In fact, I would argue that a better case can be made for intrinsic evil in the Democrat Party’s economic policies, which are driven by the intention to destroy free association and pre-political communities. The pre-political institutions that are targeted above all by the Democrats? The family and the Church. The entire party platform of the Democrats, economic and social, is oriented toward the ruination of these. They think that everything must be nationalized. They want nothing to stand in the way of the state’s control of the individual. Thus, they hold implicitly (though they can never come out and say it in mixed company) that the family and the Church must be destroyed.

Go read the entire entry and the comments as well, which are instructive. And then by all means vote your conscience.

Comments

  1. Silverback McCain says

    I broke the quoted segment down into pieces—my take on it is that it is terribly knee-jerk writing—rampant with inaccuracies and emotionally charged rhetoric.

    Cioffi, at least as his views are presented in the article, fails to mention that Republican economic policies cannot be said to be intrinsically evil.
    When I finally found that article, I didn’t see where Gioffi says that Republican economic policies are intrinsically evil. I don’t think they are either, but the current “leadership” has done some evil things, in my view.

    In fact, I would argue that a better case can be made for intrinsic evil in the Democrat Party’s economic policies, which are driven by the intention to destroy free association and pre-political communities.
    This is a terrbily dogmatic piece of writing. Where does he come up with this “ . . . driven by intention to destroy . . .”?

    The pre-political institutions that are targeted above all by the Democrats? The family and the Church.
    Either this guy is from another world or he hasn’t paid any attention to which party has been the most involved in strengthening families and improving social conditions.

    The entire party platform of the Democrats, economic and social, is oriented toward the ruination of these.
    What!!!!!!

    They think that everything must be nationalized.
    Nonsense. But “privatise” social services and see what would happen. The reason we have governmental involvement in social services is because the needs weren’t being met. But to say Democrats want to “nationalize” everything is nuts. In the last eight years, the Republicans have been the most egregious as to intrustion in family privacy, decision and generally their civil liberties. Where the hell is this guy coming from?

    They want nothing to stand in the way of the state’s control of the individual.
    Nonsense. What has Bush been doing for the past eight years? Again—what rock has this guy been under? Interestingly, we have seen the greatest centralization of power ever in the country under the current Republican administration.

    Thus, they hold implicitly (though they can never come out and say it in mixed company) that the family and the Church must be destroyed.
    Can you really give any credence to anyone writing such a piece of crap as this?

    Here is what Cioffi did say:

    “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”

    He puts both abortion and racism as equally evil—I agree.

    This writer is terrible. He would have flunked my “Methods of Research and Writing” class.
    ————————————————-
    I’m still puzzled at how abortion has become the single issue as to how one votes. It certainly is a big issue, and while I’m anti abortion on demand, what the writer fails to address is how to deal with the underlying problems that lead one to abortion. It’s not a simple issue, but poverty, lack of employment, difficulty obtaining workable birth control are all parts of the problem. Right frankly, Republicans fail the smell test when it comes to addressing these problems.

    It is interesting to me that this writer apparently has forgotten that under a Republican administration habeas corpus has gone away, torture has been condoned and used, thousands of innocents have been killed in a war that should never have been started, and on and on.

    As for economic policies—it is an unrefuted fact that the distance between the rich and poor has grown more in the last eight years then in the past 20 years. The middle class is carrying the tax burden (families) while fat cat corporations pay very little tax. That’s the Republican way.

  2. Rufus McCain says

    My initial response to the blog post I quoted here was that it nailed down for me what it is that fuels the extreme antipathy towards the Democratic Party that I see in my good buddies Henri and Quin. I don’t think the writer’s view of the Democratic Party is accurate either, although I think it might get at an extreme socialist impulse that does exist within the Democratic Party. I was kind of hoping my post would provoke some fiery comments like yours, but I was also hoping Henri and Quin might chime in and shed further light on their views which I respect (because they are both extremely bright and critical thinkers) but the extremism of which I have to admit I’m a bit dumbfounded by. On the other hand I’m also dumbfounded by the Democratic party line on abortion rights. And that’s where I get tripped up on Obama, whose view is far from moderate. If I do vote for him, it will be (after viewing his address to Planned Parenthood) with a pretty troubled conscience on that particular issue. I agree, though, that a corrective of the past 8 years is what we need.

  3. The Ironic Catholic says

    I’m still hoping for the pseudonymous presidency.

    And the retrospective tell-all book would be such a hoot….

  4. Quin Finnegan says

    I’ll try to comment more later, as I’m pretty well socked in by work right now. “Socked -in”, as if by fog … the fog of work … I think that works …

    Anyhoo, a couple of quick things: one, I haven’t read the original article, but the phrase “intrinsically evil” now functions as a kind of linguistic bogeyman. Readers are supposed to shiver as they read it, but I think more often readers of all manner of political stripes are likely to yawn (“here comes the ballyhoo!”).

    Two, I have an antipathy towards politics in general and political parties in particular. I’ll admit to a greater antipathy towards the Democrat party, which perhaps I can expand on later, but it certainly isn’t out of love for the Republicans. All in all, I get along with Democrats better Republicans, as long as politics doesn’t come up.

    Three, I’m not sure single issue voting is necessarily a bad thing. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but how many issues should one consider? Five? Ten? None in particular, but the general feeling one has while listening to the media buzz surrounding a particular candidate?

    Abortion is one of the most divisive issues of our day because … it’s one of the most divisive issues of our day. Or something like that. What I might mean is that Silverback is right to bring up poverty, lack of employment, and perhaps even the difficulty obtaining workable birth control (for non-Catholics, of course), and we’re all accountable for our contribution to these social evils. In my view, however, there’s a world of difference between the clarity of Obama’s speech to Planned Parenthood and the fog of statistics by which we determine that accountability for poverty, unemployment, and so many other contributing factors to the widespread, state-sponsored abortion with which very few people are comfortable.

    Silverback, you seem to think Republicans are more responsible for these evils, intrinsic or no. Very well then. Let us see the Democrats say so – as these issues are specifically related to abortion. Let us see that they’re serious by at least allowing anti-abortion Democrats a place in their own party.

    Perhaps Silverback should be given a slot under the “K” (not necessarily saddled with the “McCain” moniker, which seems cruel). It’s the season for politics after all.

  5. Deucerman says

    Rufus: “I don’t think the writer’s view of the Democratic Party is accurate either, although I think it might get at an extreme socialist impulse that does exist within the Democratic Party.” Okay, so it would be sort of like me saying, “John McCain is a stupid old man,” — not entirely accurate, but certainly getting at some extreme physiological properties within the body and brain of the candidate. Also, I would argue, not worthy of excerpting, linking, using as a source for further discourse, or any response beyond completely disregarding it and moving on. I would have treated Hierothee’s words similarly, Rufus. But by excerpting and admitting, however eloquently, to “enjoy[ing] how hard Hierothee’s boot herewith connects with the Democratic ass,” you have played your hand. Neutrality is no longer an option.

    Also, and this is a serious question, does anyone know what credible historical sources show that the church is “pre-political”? (That is, that religious institutions pre-date political institutions?) This seems a basic assumption in Hierothee’s posting, so it would be interesting to know the source of it.

  6. Rufus McCain says

    Deucerman: Your example isn’t quite fair. The paragraph I quoted here was not a personal attack on Obama or any other individual in the Democratic Party, but rather an attack on what this writer sees as an unspoken philosophy that undergirds Democratic policies. And I think there is that element within the Democratic Party.

    There are also elements in the Republican Party that have resulted in the erosion of civil liberties, fear mongering, war mongering and torture. That’s also despicable. I’m not claiming neutrality, I’m claiming equivalent malice. I also enjoy seeing the Republicans take their licks. But in the circles I move in Bush bashing is such easy sport, I try to give equal time to highlighting where evil also lurks in the Democratic heart. To me the obvious place is abortion policy. But I think the paragraph quoted in this post touches on a more general wrong turning within the party. Democrats like Tony Compolo and Jim Wallis give me hope that that’s not the end of the Democratic story.

Speak Your Mind

*