FLS Backs Chichester

In an unprecedented half-page editorial, the Free Lance-Star came down on both the side of the incumbent John Chichester but also against the negative campaigning tactics of Mike Rothfeld:

The campaign to unseat state Sen. John Chichester, R-Stafford, by the boosters of his primary opponent, Mike Rothfeld, has been one long, shrill vilification of a serious public man who–agree or not with his politics–carries an earned reputation for devoted service and good character. The Chichester way is not one of venom. When in 1985 his handlers urged him to “go negative” in his race for lieutenant governor against Democrat Douglas Wilder, who had vulnerabilities, Mr. Chichester kept his punches up, losing with 48 percent of the vote. Yet forgiving anytime soon the orchestrated slurs of the current campaign would require that Mr. Chichester’s name be preceded not by “Sen.” but by “St.” His supporters are roused for a warpath that stretches beyond Election Day.

This paragraph means much more than what it says, because as the rest of the editorial implies, the real enemy of good politics isn’t negative tactics, it is inflexible dogmatism from Christian conservatives:

in their zeal to make a better society, conservative Christians can be tempted by expediency. As the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote, “[W]ickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.”

Was Lewis ever right. The publisher of the after-church sodomy indictment is American Renewal, “the legislative action arm of Family Research Council.” Thoughtful believers on a mission to convince a skeptical public of the truth of their positions are undercut when those acting under their flag spurn fair play and turn the cannons of ruthless rhetoric on decent public servants. Christian soldiers? These are Christian terrorists. Believers who link themselves with these ends-oriented wretches soil the causes they champion and the faith they profess.

Is he right? Well of course he is. But there’s more:

Several area political leaders who accept the label “Christian conservative” are thoroughly honorable women and men. They should amend their policy regarding primary endorsements, break their silence, and join House of Delegates Speaker Bill Howell, R-Stafford, in disavowing the Rothfeld campaign’s methods and urging Mr. Chichester’s re-election. There may be a higher imperative to do this than secular politics.

Is that so? Here the problem with the argument, and especially from a Catholic point of view. The Republican Party is supposed to be a party of principle, right? When it comes to those principles, there can be no compromise. We are either pro-life, or we are not. We are either anti-tax, or we are not. There is no middle ground, only a responsible execution of these goals.

The problem is that the principles are being confused with the tactics. Set the negative tactics aside. Of course, it becomes politically convenient to weigh down the conservative Christian argument with Rothfeld’s tactics, but there shouldn’t be a joining of the hip here. The principles should not waver, and those who are supporting Rothfeld on those principles shouldn’t be given an “either-or” proposition in terms of their honor or reputation.

Of course, the most humorous part waits until the end:

A crushing Chichester win on June 10, in a primary open to voters of every party, would tell all the slick-jowled opinion-manipulators inside the Beltway that their direct-mail attacks and church-lot sleazesheets are–in a true community–a waste of suckers’ money. “The Irish,” groused Freud, “are the only people who don’t benefit from psychoanalysis.” Let the Fredericksburg area be likewise exceptional in resisting poisonous propaganda. Never let our streets become mean streets.

GO IRISH! By and large I agreed with this editorial, and I am very content to hunker down until 11 June. Until then, I do intend to stand by my Catholic principles and work towards them accordingly.

Public life demands men and women of principle. Just because there are those who would use that principle as cover shouldn’t be a slight to those who live those principles as they were intended. I for one will stand by my principles and vote accordingly, no matter what the election.