THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Listened to Laura Ingraham recently. She was interviewing neoconservative Robert Kagan. The topic: Russia vs. Georgia. The verdict: Russia acted irresponsibly for having given the diplomatic middle finger to the West; Putin has little to no regard for the opinion of the international community; and Russia forced the poor Ossetians to side with them.

This is only run-of-the-mill reporting in the US. Too bad it’s piss-poor reporting. It falls within the silly category of being “true except where it is false.”

First, for Kagan to make remarks such as these is beyond outrageous. Kagan is the co-founder of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and has been a staunch interventionist for years. He supported Bush deciding to invade and occupy Iraq, considering the opinion of the international community to be of little or no concern in regards to how America dictates her foreign policy. In fact, he sees this as a sign of strength in an executive. As if it couldn’t get any more hypocritical, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributor to the Weekly Standard, and a foreign policy advisor to John McCain. One would think, were Kagan to be consistent, that he would praise Putin & Co. for their move, having displayed (were US reporting of the situation to be correct) the style of maverick and muscle-bound foreign policy he has advocated and championed for years. His condemnation, then, is curious indeed.

For the truth on the Russia-Georgia-Ossetia debacle, watch this video by SouthernAvenger.

What would election years be like without voter’s guides? Think tanks love them, and special interest groups deem them an absolute must. Piecemeal pundits and single-issue groups hand them out like candy. While this isn’t meant to discredit the general utility of voter’s guides, it is my hope to point out what should be obvious in hope of encouraging those of good will and common sense to approach such documents with due caution.

The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics provided by Catholic Answers is a case-in-point. While it is most certainly helpful, they boil the “non-negotiable” issues down to five: Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual “marriage.” While I agree that these matters are of grave concern, and most definitely non-negotiable, I am a more than curious as to how they came to their conclusion. On what basis did they decide that these five, and these five alone, are the most (or only) non-negotiable issues for Catholic voters? Unfortunately, they fail to mention this.

For those who wish to take the Church at Her word, the matter is far more complex. Overlooked are the candidate’s positions on issues such as freedom of speech, pornography, no-fault divorce laws, Just and Family wages, equitable distribution of property, worker associations, Trusts, usury, military interventionism, international trade, the universal distribution of natural goods and resources, accessible health care, modernism, and a host of others “life” matters dealt with by the Church in Her social doctrine. These would be included, if encyclicals may be taken as a single body of teaching, within what Pope John Paul II referred to as “the right to life at every stage of its existence.” Thus it is strange for them to be entirely omitted by Catholic Answers.

Now lest I be taken the wrong way, let me make clear that I am well aware of the fact that Catholic Social Doctrine admits of a hierarchy of values within the political and economic sphere. Still, one would be amiss to overlook the complexity of our position and the difficulty it poses for Catholics in the public square. Worse yet would be a gross ignorance of, concealing of, or disregard for the position of the Church on the plethora of moral principles, political matters, and economic activities that She has dealt with since Rerum Novarum. This, I fear, is likely at the heart of the matter concerning the voter’s guide in question.