Which political party should Catholics vote for in 2012? Three Notre Dame professors defended their answers to this question at “HolyVotes,” this year’s rendition of Notre Dame’s annual “God Debate.”
Professor Michael Desch of the Political Science Department moderated the debate in a humorous yet serious manner. Professor Eric Sims of the Economics Department represented the Republican party, Professor Vincent Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion and Public Life, was the Libertarian spokesperson, and Assistant Professor Sebastian Rosato of the Political Science Department defended the Democratic position.
Following opening statements by the event’s student organizers, Sims, Muñoz, and Rosato presented brief arguments in favor of their respective parties’ consistency with Catholic teaching. Then, they answered a few of the 160 questions texted in by the 330 person audience. Questions concerned the Department of Health and Human Services mandate, tax reform, gay marriage, abortion, and more.
Desch said in an email to The Rover, “I thought we pretty much covered the waterfront re: the most salient issues. Personally, I’d have liked a bit more discussion of foreign policy but that is of less relevant [sic] to Catholics and also will not be a major issue in the campaign, save Israel, because it will be hard for the Republicans to challenge Obama on it.”
All three professors contended that their party should attract Catholic voters. Rosato grounded much of his arguments on documents of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. While he drew cheers and applause from many in the audience, others of his Catholic audience were less than convinced. Christen Leen, a freshman living in Pangborn Hall who attended the debate without much prior knowledge or interest in national politics, commented: “In my opinion, at least when regarding the contraceptives and abortion issue, the Democratic representative did not do much to show that his party was pro- Catholic. Rather, I felt he just showed that some Catholics do use contraception and that making abortion illegal won’t necessarily get rid of the problem.”
Muñoz urged the audience to question whether Democratic policies will bankrupt our generation and our children’s generation. He asked the audience to consider a smaller government, arguing that big government takes money from other people to do what it wishes to accomplish.
Freshman attendee Nicholas Mahan observed, “[Muñoz] also emphasized the fact that we simply cannot continue to allow the deficit to increase– the money has to come from somewhere– and that if action isn’t taken the government will be bankrupting future generations.”
Sims’s arguments were directed toward Rosato in particular, but he emphasized that no one party has monopoly on the truth and that each party has its benefits. He called attention to the Republican party’s anti-abortion stance as an important reason for Catholics to consider voting Republican.
Mahan reflected that “the republican speaker as well as the libertarian speaker emphasized the ideas that no government legislation is going to solve unemployment but rather hinder private enterprise and that the poor and all people must have motivation to work to improve their lives rather than just relying on handouts from the government.”
When asked whether students should vote, Professor Muñoz did not hesitate. “Absolutely,” he said.
Desch offered a more reserved suggestion on Catholic voting in his email.
“I thought all three of the debaters scored points,” he wrote. “However,” he added, “I have come to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism fits poorly with all of the political positions that define American politics and given that, I think the proposition that a devout Catholic should not vote at all remains an open one. Of course, this position is civically irresponsible but morally defensible.”
Desch summarized his thoughts on the reaction of the students in attendance.
“I suspect that the Democratic position covers the model ND undergraduate but I suspect that many found the Libertarian position congenial too,” he wrote.
Elise Garton, Arnav Dutt, Malcolm Phelan, and Katie Petrik organized this thought- provoking debate, working in conjunction with Assistant Dean Joseph Stanfiel and several other dean’s fellows, who sponsored the event along with the Henkels Lecture Fund, the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, the College of Arts and Letters, and the College of Arts and Letters Dean’s Office. Garton was happy with the debate and the turnout.
“We were very pleased with the result of Holy Votes,” he said. “We thought all three debaters did an excellent job presenting their positions while maintaining a casual yet combative tone throughout the evening.”
Madeline Gillen is a sophomore art history and history major who will greatly miss her lovely sister next year. Contact her with solace at mgillen@ nd.edu.
