Principle Before Party
In response to a commenter's invitation "to take a look at the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party" should the Stupid Party nominate George Pataki—or presumably a more viable pro-abort such as Rudy Guiliani—as its 2008 presidential standard bearer, Publius responds:
The Constitution Party I understand, but the Libertarian Party? How does that make sense?Of course, it doesn't, but not merely in terms of the Libertarian Party.
I would hope that after countless betrayals that we have learned at dear cost—dearer for the victims of abortion and euthanasia than for us—that we should not rest our hopes, much less our trust, in partisan political parties.
It is challenging enough to find a candidate we can vote for with a reasonable expectation that he will not prostitute the noble ideals he professes—often in the partisan service of his party, pace Rick Santorum.
Would I endorse the Libertarian Party?
No more than I would endorse the Republican Party or the Reform Party.
But would I vote for a candidate nominated by the convenience of a party whom I believe would honor his pledge to defend innocent life—say a Pat Buchanan or a Howard Phillips?
That's another matter entirely.
That being said, President Bush's successor in the Oval Office will be nominated by the Republican or the Democrat Party.
Inasmuch as the only realistic chance of a pro-life nominee lies in the Republican, it is essential that we work to defeat any anti-life Republican candidates in the primary and, God forbid, should one prevail in the general election.
The nomination of a pro-abortion presidential candidate must be suicide for the Republican Party because the alternative is continued genocide for the unborn. That is why we—unlike political hacks of Santorum's ilk—must continue to honor principle before party.
Posts
Following the 2004 Presidential election, we've expanded our discussion to cover the public policy decisions of Catholics in public service on both sides of the political divide.
|