Voting by principles or outcome

Congressman Amash

When Congressman Justin Amash decided to run for Congress out of Michigan's 3rd District, after serving as a Michigan State Representative, I was excited. I had watched his progress from afar, and like most of his 'fans'... on Facebook. He had a novel thing that he did while in the Michigan House: he posted all of his votes online. He also had a set of principles that he followed regarding how he voted as well, which included not voting on a bill he hadn't read.

···•°···

a principled approach?

When Congressman Amash won the U.S. Congressional race, I knew that this "approach" was going to get him in "trouble" down the line with some conservatives. I knew that that fast pace, and crazy "tricks" that politicians play with some of the bills were going to butt-heads with Amash's principles. Now I am not trying to make light of either side here, I am simply stating the facts. You see, on Amash's campaign website, he expounds on his voting principles which he calls his principled approach. 

In fact, Amash is known to vote 'Present' for bills where he isn't given the time to read the entire bill. This has created push-back from conservatives that don't necessarily know about his approach to voting and only look at how he voted without asking why he voted that way. [I don't know if this is always true, but I have noticed that Rep. Amash usually votes 'present' on bills that he would more than likely vote yes on but for some procedural or principled anomaly.

···°•···

why does this matter to Catholics?

This is an important question for politicians, especially Catholic politicians. [For the record Amash isn't Catholic]. At issue is whether or not politicians should vote on the intent of a bill, or what the bill actually does. Thrown into this question is also what I call the Amash principle which is where a politician adheres to procedural or philosophical principles concerning their function as an elected representative. So the question becomes a philosophical inquiry. First, should politicians adhere to a set of principles about how they vote on all bills? I would imagine the answer from a philo-political and a theological level is yes. If this is the case, should politicians ever then abandon this set of principles to vote for bills that prima facie are good bills? I would say No, because any bill that is prima facie good, but ultimately not [due to some defect] would then contradict the first question – the set of principles.

···•°···

for those who are lost, dont care, or are wondering where I am going

So this situation came to a head recently when Rep. Amash voted 'present' for the Pence Amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. Here is the story as Right to Life of Michigan puts it:

Our U.S. Congressman from the 3rd District, Justin Amash, failed to join fellow prolife U.S. Representatives to stop tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood and instead cast a vote of "present" on the recent Pence Amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Both National Right to Life and Right to Life of Michigan are very concerned about this vote as it effectively was a "no" vote. Rep. Amash voted "present" despite communications from National Right to Life and Right to Life of Michigan members. In addition, Rep. Amash had previously committed to "support all efforts to eliminate tax funds for any organizations and institutions which perform, promote, counsel or refer to abortion."

Representatives from Right to Life recently met with Rep. Amash to express our deep concern with his vote.

Rep. Amash explained that he could not vote for the bill as written because it expressly mentioned a particular organization - Planned Parenthood - which he felt was not lawful, and in voting "present," he felt he was taking a principled position. Prior to the Pence Amendment vote, National Right to Life provided information to Rep. Amash on the legality of this amendment approach.

Also, although Rep. Amash supports, instead, HR217 to de-fund Planned Parenthood, as he claims this is a stronger of the two bills, this does not seem to be correct as HR 217 only denies Planned Parenthood Title X funds whereas the Pence Amendment denies Planned Parenthood ALL federal funding.

We believe this is a defining vote for all prolife supporters, and we have encouraged Rep. Amash to re-consider his vote if and when the opportunity arises once again.

RLM encourages all prolife constituents in the 3rd Congressional District to contact Rep. Amash and express their disappointment with his vote on the Pence Amendment. Rep. Amash's Grand Rapids' district office number is: (616) 451-8383; his D.C. number is (202) 225-3831.

We have provided some ideas for responses but encourage you to express your concerns in your own words.

* "I want to express my disappointment with Rep. Amash's vote on the Pence Amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood. I am prolife and believe we should make every effort to deny our tax dollars to the largest abortion provider in the country."

* "I am prolife and want to express my disappointment with Rep. Amash's vote of 'present' on the Pence Amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood. I believe he should have voted 'yes' even if Planned Parenthood was named in the bill."

* "I am disappointed that Rep. Amash didn't vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood in the Pence Amendment. I feel his vote of 'present' was a missed opportunity to stand up for the unborn despite his explanation as a rule of law."

* "I want to register my displeasure with Rep. Amash's vote on the Pence Amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood. I feel his explanation is a feeble attempt to justify a vote against denying funds for the largest abortion provider in the country."

Please remember to be courteous but firm. See the RLM web site, www.rtl.org, for information on the home page about the February 18th Pence Amendment vote. Thank you on behalf of the unborn.

So then, what is a Catholic politician to do in this situation? Maybe Rep. Amash is wrong in his understanding, ultimately, of this bill, but based on his set of principles that seem sound - is he wrong to vote present? Is it 'effectively' a 'No' vote? 

I take issue with RTL-M here because they seem to be taking a by any means necessary stance on this vote. Their reasoning seems to ignore any set of virtues or principles that one might have as to how they vote as an elected official. So what is the right thing to do? I think in this case, we need to have more Representatives like Amash. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Pence, and of this Amendment. I think ultimately that Amash is mistaken on this particular vote, but at the time he voted, I really cant fault him for sticking to his principles and voting 'present.' We cannot put our feathers in the cap of outcome-based-politics. We cannot adhere to a principle of by any means necessary, we cannot abandon the virtues of justice, knowledge, and diligence, solely to vote for a certain 'outcome.' 

Thoughts?

†††