Dear ********

I have not forgotten your invitation to Notre Dame and look forward to seeing the
improvements as Fall approaches and our life circumstances enjoy more normalcy.
Below are some reections, which I know you will value even if there's a measure of
disagreement. You've just always been a Spirit-lled discerner and thoughtful deliberator.
The chief takeaway I hope is that The Widow's Vote, Like the Widow's Mite, remains a
crucial participation in the Kingdom even when not otherwise a decisive contribution to
an election result. It still enjoys manifold efcacies!
Be well.
Deep peace and great love,
your student always,
john
Voting Angles
1) Strategic Voting - inuencing outcomes
Reasonable people can disagree regarding which administration (or even which level of
governance) will most likely effect the best, while avoiding the worst, outcomes for
values which they share.
Using one's vote to inuence an outcome, whether sooner or later, is called "strategic"
voting. Based on the historically high unfavorability ratings for both major party
candidates, it seems likely that very many people will be voting strategically this cycle,
as no major candidate adequately embodies the values so many aspire to express and
realize.
2) Expressive Voting - voicing positions
Whether individually or collectively, our votes can become "expressive" as well as
strategic. And, while we cast our individual votes in privacy, modern polling techniques
can telegraph (and amplify) --- not only our collective choices regarding candidates, but
--- our collective voices regarding issues. So, our votes can give voice to our deepest
values, whether heralding our hopes or trumpeting our dissent regarding either a moral

reality, itself, or a practical approach to that reality.

3) The ValueS of Voting
Even when our votes are not decisive in changing an election result, they will remain
crucial, pedagogically, in (re)forming public opinion, and politically, in mitigating policy
outcomes.
In our catholic tradition, we have always celebrated --- not only the extrinsic values of
practical or instrumental approaches, but --- the intrinsic values of life's higher goods,
hence expressive approaches. For example, we celebrate in our approach to truth the
often lonely voice of prophetic protest. In our approach to beauty, we celebrate the
eremitic vocation of the hermit, whose witness keeps green within us all our own
longings for the kingdom and desires for beatitude. In our approach to goodness, we
celebrate the vocation of the pacist, whose witness reminds us that eye has not seen
nor ear heard nor the heart of wo/man conceived what has been prepared for those who
love, even while, at the very same time, we celebrate the holy sacrices of those who
contribute to our armed services.
Thus, beyond the extrinsic rewards of those personal outcomes that might ensue from
voting strategically in our enlightened self-interest, we also cherish those extrinsic
rewards that advance the common good, altruistically. Social scientists create all
manner of silly voting paradoxes when modeling voting behaviors, primarily because
they ignore both intrinsic rewards and altruistic motivations, modeling only extrinsic
rewards and self-interested factors (an impoverished anthropology, both empirically and
spiritually).
The intrinsic rewards of voting expressively, even if seemingly as a lone voice crying out
in the wilderness, realize the beatitudes of our vocations as prophets, priests and kings,
celebrating truth, beauty and goodness just as prophets, hermits and pacists always
have, reminding us of life's higher gifts and witnessing to their Giver.
This all remains the case even when our votes do not ostensibly contribute strategically
or decisively to election results, which do not, alone, determine the value of one's vote,
which remains crucial as a form of participation in the Kingdom, eternally and spiritually,
even when not otherwise decisive in contributing to immediate results, temporally and
materially.
4) Choosing Approaches
In a less than perfect world, we cannot always realize, in the same instant, the values of
both expressive and strategic voting. For example, one may feel they're faced with

choosing the lesser of two evils and/or one may vote in a deeply ideologically
homogenous district or state. Most moral philosophers would agree, I suspect, that one
could defensibly choose either approach in such circumstances. They'd also hold that,
while we may all bear responsibility for expressing our values in deed, always, and in
word, if necessary, expressing one's strategic views and practical approaches to those
values is a privilege but not, necessarily, a responsibility. Simply put, one may vote in
private and keep it private! Even, then, one gives witness to the Kingdom value of
participating in the advance, however meager, of the common good, where we have
always highly valued the effects of salt, of leaven, of the widow's mite!
5) Therefore, Be It Resolved I have family, friends and acquaintances, all of large intelligence and profound goodwill,
all sharing the very same values even, who have otherwise expressed their intention to
vote for different POTUS candidates this cycle. And their reasonings, while variously
compelling to me, are intellectually defensible and morally sensible, however otherwise
subject to both known and unknown UNKNOWNS, which creates a lot of latitude for lively
speculation and stimulating conversation (potentially, anyway).
Conclusion Seems to me, anyway ...
6) Regarding Possible Policy Outcomes
a) The most critical factor in effectively reducing the abortion rate is a thriving economy.
(see attached)
Trump's geopolitical isolationism, trade protectionism and anti-immigration policies
would have catastrophic economic consequences.
As laudable as overturning Roe v Wade would be, it would be substantially less effective.
Arguably, it continuesto be much less politically feasible than many seem to imagine,
year after year, cycle after cycle (even SCOTUS appointment after SCOTUS
appointment!).
In short, the economic effects of Trump's policies would be considered highly probable
by economists of every political stripe, while the 43 year old political strategy of
overturning Roe remains somewhat dubious. Incremental legal strategies can still be
effective, so this is to recommend a comprehensive strategy (political, legal & economic)
over a narrow approach (e.g. trying to stack the SCOTUS). However, it's not to say that

any given strategy (e.g. overturning Roe) should necessarily be abandoned.

b) Many long-established GOP (and other) security experts have warned us about the
substantial risks a Trump presidency would pose both to our national security and to
global stability. Supercially, it might seem that Clinton's more militaristic approach
would indeed be more likely to get us into a war on purpose, while Trump's reckless
temperament would only get us into a war accidentally. Problem is that, while her war
would be conventional, there's the haunting spectre that his could be thermonuclear.
Don't get me wrong, the former seems much more likely an eventuality than the latter.
Problem is, though, that the latter poses an existential threat, the type of risk most
prudent persons aspire --- not to manage, but --- to eliminate.
c) Stipulating, for argument's sake, that character analyses produce a draw, I would
maintain that, in my strategic view regarding social, economic and foreign policy
outcomes, HRC royally ushes The Donald.
For those who choose to vote conservatively and more expressively [2], I commend Gary
Johnson.
For those who feel the need to vote strategically [1], I've seen no robustly compelling
arguments, in my view, to vote for Trump, even though I admit there are some that are
clearly defensible, intellectually, and sensible, morally.