A couple weeks ago I wrote a post weighing three presidential candidates - Romney, Gingrich, and Obama - against a series of issues I laid out earlier. The short version of those ramblings was this: President Obama flubbed all of them. He supports same-sex marriages in all but name and is beholden to the National Education Association, one of the biggest obstacles to school reforms. He has shown no interest in overhauling the tax code or passing comprehensive immigration reform. With regard to the national debt, his latest proposal is to expand spending, but expand taxation more. That'll eventually get us there, but we need more.Gingrich and Romney fared only somewhat better than the president. Both support school choice and Gingrich understands the three-fold requirement for immigration reform. But both are questionable on marriage - Gingrich' personal life leaves much to be desired in this regard, and Romney has a history of waffling on social issues - and although both gesture in the right direction with regard to the tax code and deficit, both seem more interested in slashing taxes than addressing the issues I am considering.
Meanwhile, events have overtaken my analysis. With wins in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, Rick Santorum now appears to have edged Gingrich out and may even be passing Romney in polls. So how does he do?
Debt. Santorum favors a balanced budget amendment, and is willing to talk about Medicare and Social Security reform. Some of his particular proposals - such as halving the staff of USAID - I am less excited about, but there is a real commitment here to actually tackle the national debt crisis.
Tax Code. Santorum explicitly favors simplifying the tax code.
Immigration. Santorum favors reforming the immigration process, but only after securing the border first. He is opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. While I understand the opposition to amnesty, I don't see evidence here that he's considered the scale of the problem (10-12 million people) and the fact that some families are of divided nationality. Likewise, while I have no problem with securing the border first, per se, I worry that subsequent reform might never happen.
Education. Santorum favors pushing educational regulation toward the local level and increasing school choice.
Marriage. There is no question that Santorum is a solid supporter of a traditional definition of marriage.
I would be equivocating if I did not say that this is easily the best slate of positions on these issues of any candidate I have yet considered here. I will, however, make a few caveats. There are other issues - foreign policy, healthcare, etc. - that I have not considered. Likewise, there are other candidates I have not mentioned. And Santorum has other positions I did not weigh. (Perhaps typical of these is his first policy statement, against illegal pornography. I quite agree that pornography is a pestilence destroying the soul of our nation; I do wonder, however, if government is the best tool for attacking it, or if there are more pressing matters to which government alone can attend.) Moreover, a candidate with the right positions does not necessarily have a strong chance of winning a general election or passing his agenda if elected; prudence must dictate how far voters are able to compromise for political expediency before violating their consciences.
My colleague Stephen has made a compelling case that there is little a Catholic - or, indeed other persons of traditional faith - can do in the present political climate. He argues that we must conduct intellectual and cultural resistance, beginning in our own hearts; we must withdraw from the politics that have already exiled us, while still caring for the society around us. I find Stephen's comments quite persuasive, but I am certainly also intrigued by Santorum's recent success; does it represent a real breakthrough?
Image via ABC News.
7 comments:
Forget the PR. Check the delegate count. The media will try to keep this alive because Santorum and Romney will keep paying money for ads. Paul is spending his money in a bid to win the delegates- a strategy the media dislikes in a candidate because it means he's not dumping a lot of money on them.
I don't think it will matter much in any case. Santorum indicated he was all for the rumored assassination of that Iranian nuclear engineer a while back. Not my idea of a pro-life, or even a sane, candidate.
August, thanks for raising the Iranian nuclear scientist issue; it's one I'm uncertain about. The Church - or at least some of its leading thinkers, eg Thomas Aquinas - has recognized the legitimacy of tyrannicide, an old-fashioned term for the targeted killing of those engaged in unjust and oppressive behavior. With regard to these particular circumstances, I think three major questions apply:
(1) Is the Iranian nuclear program a sufficient tyranny to merit the use of force? No sane analyst believes it exists simply for domestic electricity, but the question remains whether Iran actually intends to use nuclear weapons, or whether the program is intended primarily as a tool of diplomatic leverage. Perhaps a leading Iranian nuclear scientist would have insights into that question - suspicions at least - but then again, he might not.
(2) Would killing a particular individual end the injustice or produce a worse outcome? The Iranian program is rather large, and a single individual (or a handful of them) are probably not essential. Then again, progress has been quite slow, suggesting that Iran's scientific infrastructure is rather weak, in which case a few extraordinary individuals might be essential. How would Iran respond to further targeted killings? Will it lash out, perhaps through its terrorist proxies, creating more harm than that avoided?
(3) Is preventative action ever permitted? I think the debate about whether or not WMDs change the thinking on this matter is still open. Most people would probably agree that use of a nuclear weapon, probably against Israel, would be a sufficiently grave injustice to merit an act of tyrannicide; at that point, however, the better part of the Israeli nation might not exist any more.
I do not mean to defend Santorum's position on this matter; I know too little about either his views or the complexities surrounding the Iranian nuclear program. But I would contend that support for assassinations of top Iranian scientists, however undesirable, may be defensible within a sane, Catholic, pro-life framework.
Aaron, assassinating scientists fails to meet basic just war criteria. For one thing we're not at war (there's no legal declaration as such). For another, a scientist is not a combatant. For another, we don't know that every peaceable alternative to killing the man had been explored. That's just for starters.
What we do know is that Santorum, without specific knowledge of the situation or scruples to the contrary suggested that he hopes we were behind killing the man. There's no way that can be called "pro-life". "Pro-life" does not hope that a man needed to be killed nor does it hope that we killed him. Rather we see the plain attitude of thinking it's a tragedy when one of ours dies, but when it's one of theirs... America, f*** yeah.
As August points out though, Paul is currently ahead of Santorum in delegates. Why not give serious consideration to him?
Have no fear; "How I'll Be Voting: The Ron Paul Edition" is coming soon. (Though by the NYT's count, Ron Paul is trailing, with only 18 delegates to Gingrich's 29, Santorum's 71, and Romney's 105. See http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates I've seen other figures, because both parties have unnecessarily complex systems of seating delegates, but the figures are all pretty similar.)
Paul, I'm certainly open to the argument that targeted killings, Santorum's position on the matter, or both, are wrong. However, I'd point out that Thomas argues in favor of the notion of tyrannicide. Moreover, Thomas does not limit it to wartime situations; or, rather, Thomas argues that a tyrant places himself in a state of war with the people. It can hardly be said, however, that this meets the ordinary criteria of a just war. (There is, for example, no legitimate authority, in the ordinary sense.)
To my knowledge, the magisterium has not spoken one way or another on the question of tyrannicide. Even if one argues in favor of its theoretical possibility, I think prudence demands that it be employed only rarely. Still, that Thomas would be willing to consider the possibility of tyrannicide, even outside the bounds of ordinary just war, suggests to me that we may consider it as well, in grave situations. Thus, I would like to see an argument that this does NOT constitute a grave situation (an argument I think can be made), rather than an argument that tyrannicide is always and everywhere impermissible, a position which strikes me as less defensible.
Aaron,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5FcJMBWfw&feature=related There's a bit of controversy about how delegates are counted at this stage. Given the MSM's tendency to downplay Ron Paul, it makes sense that they would count delegates in ways that do not favor him. The MSM is bad at math. Remember their counts for the March for Life?
As for tyrannicide, that could be a long discussion. First though, could you please clarify how in the world a scientist could be counted as a tyrant, or how killing him could be considered tyrannicide? (cf., http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm) It seems like a serious misapplication of principle even if we granted that the principle were legitimate--which I certainly do not. Some philosophers entertained that it might be, and a bunch of Protestants certainly embraced it, but I do not think you can assert it as a Catholic principle. At least, that's what I would argue if we were to argue.
Paul, as usual, I think we agree on more than we're apt to say.
I like to see every argument judged on its strongest form. Having danced about this question, I'll now lay out the best case I can see for the killing of top Iranian scientists, and then discuss the problems I see with that case.
Iran is an oppressive regime which harms its own people and sponsors terrorism abroad. It is now engaged in a nuclear program which few analysts doubt has as its goal a nuclear weapon. Mohammad Ahmadi Nejad has already expressed his desire to obliterate the State of Israel, something which becomes essentially possible with nuclear weapons, deployed via missiles, terrorist proxies, or both. Likewise, the use of such weapons against the US or other nations cannot be precluded. Such weapons pose a grave threat to the common good, not only in themselves, but by virtue of the fact that they constitute a kind of trump card which is extremely difficult to deter or destroy once they have been acquired. While Iran's political leaders - notably Ahmadi Nejad and Ali Khamenei - hold preeminent responsibility for this threat to the common good, top Iranian nuclear scientists working on the program cannot be ignorant of its goals and must recognize their unique role in allowing its progress (far more than a low-level functionary who could easily be replaced). Military threats and posturing, coupled with ever-tightening economic sanctions, have failed halt the program. So too have diplomatic initiatives by Brazil and Turkey, and the Stuxnet computer virus. Assassination is the last remaining tool available short of direct military action, which would undoubtedly result in significant Iranian military - and likely civilian - causalities. While Ahmadi Nejad and Khamenei would be the targets of choice, they are typically too well guarded; leading nuclear scientists, however, are less well protected, while still essential to the project and culpable in its threat.
That's more or less the best argument I can see for the targeted killings. I think it is far stronger than the critics of the practice generally give it credit for. Now for my critiques:
Iran may not actually intend to use its nuclear weapons. One of the difficulties of using nuclear weapons as a deterrent - as Iran may be intending to do - is that the threat of their use must be credible. The US encountered this problem during the Cold War? Would we have nuked the Soviets? Maybe. But most supporters of nuclear weapons would quietly admit that we had no desire to do so, but we had to SAY we would so the Soviets would not create a crisis, and therefore the weapons would not have to be used.
[to be continued]
The cost of playing a wait and see game is high, but not infinite. The cost of military action (ie, air strikes) against Iran could be high, but good intelligence and precision munitions mean it need not be a doomsday-size figure. Moreover, Iran's ability to fire missiles or arm terrorists can be degraded through missile defense systems and good counter-terrorist intelligence.
The use of tools other than force has admittedly met with limited success. However, it cannot be called failure: Iran has not yet USED a nuclear device. Moreover, earlier diplomatic efforts failed because the West did not back them; a second round, perhaps led by Turkey again, could meet a different result. Likewise, additional sanctions and Stuxnet 2.0 could produce further results.
While the Iranian regime is certainly oppressive, that question is only tangentially linked to the question of nuclear weapons. Moreover, if Ahmadi Nejad and Khamenei are indeed tyrants, primary responsibility for their removal rests with the Iranian people. While we might support such actions, we can - and should - only do so much.
The role played by individual scientists in the program is questionable. Some analysts argue that while a few key figures were once essential, the program has now hit a point where enough knowledge has been accumulated that the elimination of one or even several members of the upper tier would not end the program.
Finally, it must be remembered that a THREAT to the common good is not the same as an actual ATTACK upon it. While weapons of mass destruction intensify the concerns which prompt preemptive action, they do not fundamentally justify punishment for which no crime has been committed. I am no friend of the Iranian regime and I am highly skeptical of its goals. I might, in the future, support various forms of action against it. But I do not yet see a casus belli, or even a cause for assassination.
Post a Comment