Tuesday's Election Day; How Would Chesterton Vote?

My husband and I belong to a Chesterton book club that meets monthly. Yesterday's topic was Chesterton and politics with a lively debate about the morality of voting: Trump vs. Harris, whether voting for a third party candidate like Randall Terry is justified, whether canvassing voters is disappearing in favor of social media, etc. I'm happy to say that the group always argues in the classical, Socratic sense and everyone treats everyone else respectfully even when we disagree (well, for the most part).

After the meeting I got to pondering how Chesterton would have viewed our discussion and what decision he would make if he were voting in Tuesday's election. I confess, while I've read a lot of Chesterton, I'm unsure. In What's Wrong with the World, he excoriated both Hudge and Gudge who represent political positions of the governing class. Hudge is the plutocrat, someone who rules by reason of his class and wealth. Gudge represent the socialist Marxist do-gooder. There is a third character Chesterton presents, however. His name is Jones and he represents the common man or, in today's lexicon, a piece of garbage or a deplorable. All Jones wants is a humble home where he can raise his family and dandle his grandchildren on his lap. That dream is denied him by both Hudge and Gudge as they pursue their approach to the world.

Chesterton sums it up embracing the dream of Jones saying:

The idea of private property universal but private, the idea of families free but still families, of domesticity democratic but still domestic, of one man one house -- this remains the real vision and magnet of mankind.

As a Catholic, Chesterton, I believe, would have preferred the reign of Christ the King to any worldly political party. Unfortunately, Jesus is not on the ballot. Chesterton (and myself as well) would never seek salvation in politics of any persuasion. But Chesterton was also eminently practical. I think he would have cast a vote in this election for the candidate who would most likely defend Jones' desire for the "wild domesticity" of the home, the place where the humble and simple can experience adventure and even anarchy:

For the truth is, that to the moderately poor the home is the only place of liberty. Nay, it is the only place of anarchy. It is the only spot on the earth where a man can alter arrangements suddenly, make an experiment or indulge in a whim. Everywhere else he goes he must accept the strict rules of the shop, inn, club, or museum that he happens to enter. He can eat his meals on the floor in his own house if he likes. I often do it myself; it gives a curious, childish, poetic picnic feeling. There would be considerable trouble if I tried to do it in an A.B.C. tea-shop....For a plain, hard-working man the home is not the one tame place in the world of adventure. It is the one wild place in the world of rules and set tasks. The home is the one place where he can put the carpet on the ceiling or the slates on the floor if he wants....

As every normal man desires a woman, and children born of a woman, every normal man desires a house of his own to put them into. He does not merely want a roof above him and a chair below him; he wants an objective and visible kingdom; a fire at which he can cook what food he likes, a door he can open to what friends he chooses. This is the normal appetite of men.

Ah...how that description reminds me of the Shire, where the residents enjoy second breakfast, songs and a pint at the tavern, dancing in the moonlight, and, of course, fireworks. 

I'll answer my question now.  How do I think Chesterton would vote? I think he would vote for the candidate he thought would most protect the dreams of Jones for himself and his family. I think he would support the candidate who would not deliberately impoverish Jones by taxing him into oblivion to support pointless, foreign wars, encourage an unbridled illegal invasion that destroys communities and suppresses wages, etc. Based on the Catholic principle of double effect I think Chesterton would vote for Trump, holding his nose no doubt. 

Joseph Matt, President and Publisher of The Wanderer offered this insight recently in his article,  Suicide Of A Nation . . . Never Trumper, “Principled Vote,” Abstain From Voting: What Are You Thinking?:

Abstaining is simply not a viable moral choice. We have a moral obligation to vote, especially if one candidate is an enemy of religion, morals, and liberty. Let’s look at reality: unless there’s a totally unexpected turn of events, either Harris or Trump will be elected president — a vote for anybody other than Trump, or abstaining from voting because of Trump, is a vote for Harris and that is a simple fact.

Given the completely foreseeable evils that will follow a Harris-Walz victory, this constituency of non-voters or voters for another candidate will share in the responsibility for the immoral effects of a Harris administration, all of which will contribute to the suicide of our once great nation....

God has allowed a situation of two possible outcomes — you do not have to look too deeply to see that one is far superior to the other.... How can abstaining from the polls, which is effectively voting for Harris, be called “principled”, when we know she will increase abortions and possibly completely stamp out legal resistance to pro-abortion policies?....

Withholding your vote is dangerous and careless in this particular case — it is not only life itself that is on the ballot this election, but issues that have bound the fabric and soul of our country together from its inception. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, the second amendment, and freedom of the press — these are just some of the liberties we stand to lose with this election.

For those of you who intend to withhold your vote or waste it on a non-contender, it is difficult to argue that you won’t bear some of the responsibility for securing your children and grandchildren a country which will not only include more abortion but will be on an accelerated path to a completely Godless, communist rule....

Just wait for what they have in store for us if they achieve power this time around.... Do you really think this nation can withstand another four years of unlimited immigration, uncontrolled government spending, a court system that continues to remove itself from the Constitution, laws that continually go unenforced, a media that is controlled by the state, and on and on?...

Trump has already delivered more for the pro-life cause than any other president, and we must hope he can be persuaded to do so again. 

Read the whole article which offers much food for thought.

Whoever wins on Tuesday (or whenever we get the final result), God is still God. Nothing "just happens;" all (except sin) is God's will. He only allows sin/evil, that he might bring good from it. If the Harris/Walz ticket is victorious, we must embrace the cross which will likely include economic collapse. If Trump wins we must continue to fight for conversion and repentance, especially for the heinous sins against the littlest ones. 

In a country that has murdered millions of babies and the sick and elderly for convenience and to save money, economic collapse is the least we deserve. May we all fall to our knees begging God's mercy on us. Are you praying the rosary? The Blessed Mother is our great intercessor and the mediatrix of all graces. Jesus came to us through her. He wants us to return to Him through her. If we want to follow in His footsteps, we will walk with His mother as He did!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!