Pro-Lifers Still Aren’t The Problem
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
There are other problems with Jeffrey Hart’s latest. He observes that a majority opposes repealing Roe, but then most of these people do not know what Roe required and what it allows. Ross is correct that so long as Roe is the law, compromise is out of the question simply as a practical matter, because the ruling does not permit any meaningful compromise. Indeed, to speak of compromise under the current regime leads pro-lifers to assume that any and all calls for compromise are nothing more than demands for capitulation. One can almost understand why pro-choice people would make these demands–they have the high ground, so to speak, and they believe they have pro-lifers outnumbered, so you can see their point in a Borg-declaring-”resistance is futile” way. Part of it is also the self-understanding that pro-choicers have that they are actually very reasonable, thoughtful people, unlike the theocrats and “fanatics” (Hart’s term) on the other side. “Look at all these compromise deals we keep offering you people–why can’t you be reasonable?” they say, comfortably situated behind the walls of full government support. Of course, defenders of Roe are no less universalist than their opponents, and perhaps may be even more so, as they take it as a given that they are defending a constitutional right that cannot be treated differently in different states. Even though a federalist and democratic compromise, which would entail the repeal of Roe, commands much broader support, and a narrow majority favors some or many restrictions on the availability of abortion, we are supposed to take the uninformed majority support for Roe to be decisive. Frankly, that doesn’t make any sense.
The argument that opposition to abortion in particular is somehow a drag on the GOP is one that doesn’t seem persuasive even at first glance, and it becomes less so the more one engages it. In state after state, somewhere between a quarter and a third of Democrats right now say that they are pro-life, but for a variety of reasons they remain in the Democratic Party because they find its positions on economic policy, social services and the like to be preferable. The ever-elusive 60-70% of the Hispanic vote that keeps going to Democrats, despite the alleged “natural” Republicanism of this community (a “natural” Republicanism defined by claims of socially conservative attitudes), remains elusive because of other policies endorsed by the GOP. That doesn’t mean that these voters would move into the GOP column even if Republicans altered their views (i.e., moved to the left) on a number of other issues, but it almost certainly does mean that it is not pro-life planks in the party platform that are driving them away. As I mentioned earlier this month, the rising generation is neither more nor less pro-life than its elders, so you cannot blame the loss of young voters on this, either.
The GOP is losing younger voters, but it is not particularly because of its abortion stance. Part of the shift is structural: non-Christians, non-whites and singles are much less likely to be Republican voters, and there are a lot more non-Christians, non-whites and singles among Millennials than in the past. What is notable about this for our purposes here is that despite significant demographic and cultural changes–Millennials are less religious and more ethnically diverse–young voters’ attitudes on abortion are essentially no different from older generations that tend to be more religious and more white. Another is simply backlash against the Bush administration–most Millennials became politically conscious at the beginning of or during the Bush Era, and like all other groups in the country they have soured on the GOP as a result. An important part of this is what happened in Iraq between 2004 and today. Kerry still won 18-29 year olds in 2004, but not by the large margins that Obama did this year. It is partly the case that Bush made most of the 9/11 generation into Democratic voters primarily through his national security and foreign policy decisions, which his other prominent policies did little or nothing to counteract, but these just exacerbated the party’s problem with younger voters that has its roots in demographic and cultural changes.
Now Mr. Hart opposes the war in Iraq, and this is very good, and I think he also understands the damage this has done to the party’s credibility on national security. Why then does he seem to make a habit of treating the GOP’s pro-life position into the main albatross around its neck? Doesn’t it seem obvious that foreign and economic policies, in which the GOP is widely viewed as having failed, have much more to do with the woes of the party than pro-life views? These would be the policies that the administration put into action, as opposed to its pro-life rhetoric, which has more or less changed nothing. Changing those foreign and economic policies would also alienate some voters, but it would alienate far fewer and probably gain many more than junking pro-life positions would. Of course, we all know that there is a far better chance that the GOP establishment would weaken the party’s pro-life stance before it would ever consider altering its foreign and economic policy views, which should tell us something about who is really in charge of the party and why all of these exercises in lamenting the power of religious conservatives are pointless.
Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Responses to “Pro-Lifers Still Aren’t The Problem”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not sure that you’re grasping the distinction between being morally opposed to abortion, and being supportive of its criminalization. My suspicion is that many democrats who are “pro-life” or who in various ways affirm such views are simply morally opposed to abortion, but not in favor of its criminalization. The pro-life movment thus exagerates its numbers even in such polling exercises. There’s some in-between views as well, of people who want government to discourage abortion by various rules and regulations, but not to criminalize it.
The problem with the pro-life movement is its theocritization of the issue. It’s one thing to make a strong moral, religious, ethical, and even scientific case against people having abortions, with the aim of convincing people not to do this. It’s another thing entirely to use the power of the state to criminalize it, and thus compel women against their will to carry through with a pregnancy. This has theocritized not just the abortion debate, but the entire conservative movement, to the point where even abortion itself is no longer the main reason democrats or independents might find the GOP unpalatable, it is the generalized theocratic message of the GOP that disturbs them and makes them not want to be a part of the GOP. This is particularly the case with younger voters, who also see such campaigns as the denial of gay rights or gay marriage to be not just wrong, but theocratically motivated. There’s simply no question that the GOP has acquired a powerful theocratic flavor that is not limited to its views on abortion, but has spread through the entire brand. You must have noticed this. Sarah Palin is a consequence of this theocratic branding, and as much as you deplore her, you can’t seem to grasp how your own mixing of theology and politics in regards to the abortion debate has resulted in her ascension, and the general theocritization of the party, and the consequent “dumbing down” of conservatism.
At this point, separating the toxicity of theocracy from the morally uplifting spirituality of religion is virtually impossible, precisely because of the determined desire to mix the two. The church has a moral message to deliver about abortion that should be considered seriously by anyone who takes spirituality seriously. That doesn’t make it persuasive to everyone, but it should at least be listened to, and debated on personal, spiritual, and moral terms. Women considering having an aboriton should think deeply about such things. But failing to persuade on that basis, religion should step aside, and allow the state to remain impartial on the matter, or at least not persuaded to base its laws on these predominantly religious beliefs and ideals. Because religion has not stepped aside, the GOP has become infected with a widening theocratic agenda that does not confine itself to the abortion issue, but spreads to almost every aspect of its politics. Likewise, in doing so religion has been corrupted by its theocratic urges, and has become even less respectable and persuasive on moral issues than before. So I don’t see how this has really helped anyone. It has debased both conservatism and religion, and brought the GOP into a state of ruin it may find it impossible to recover from any time soon.
‘they take it as a given that they are defending a constitutional right that cannot be treated differently in different states.’
What’s a constitutional right? AFAIK all rights are bestowed at birth no matter where you are born so I’m curious about this subset you mention. (Just to let you know I’m one of those crazies who feels that the constitution guarantees rights, it doesn’t grant them.)
If abortion were to be made illegal how would it be enforced? I try asking this of my ‘pro-life’ friends and they just want to launch into a life begins at…, public money shouldn’t be used to support…., there are options besides… screeds and they never answer me.
You keep using the word theocratic, but there simply is nothing theocratic about what you’re discussing. There is an enormous difference between real theocracy and religious conservatives pushing for certain kinds of laws, or opposing other kinds of laws and court rulings, in the context of republican democracy. Iran is arguably the only theocracy in the world, and even that oversimplifies things. Maybe you could call Dominionists theocrats, but as I understand it even they do not necessarily endorse religious figures wielding political power. They are also not representative of the Christian right, much less the GOP.
The “widening theocratic agenda” is neither widening nor theocratic. I would be intrigued to hear some examples of how this agenda “spreads to almost every aspect of its politics.” Honestly, I find the idea that the GOP is overflowing with theocrats very hard to take.
If the state should remain “impartial” about one kind of moral outrage, when is it appropriate for the state to take an interest in such things? The weaker the victims of injustice, the less involved the state will be? That’s an interesting standard.
This seems to be a discussion mostly about doctrinal matters, so perhaps my comment is out of place. But since you also seem to be discussing how best to enact national laws based on doctrine exclusive to your concept of true Christianity, I want very much to comment.
I am not a Christian. I was raised as a Jew and, if I had to have any religious affiliation, I supposed I would describe myself as Jewish, More accurately, though, I straddle a line between agnostic and atheist. I can’t call myself an outright atheist simply because I don’t know everything, and therefore concede the possibility that there might be some sort of disembodied high-order intellect at large in the universe. However, I don’t believe for one moment that there is such a being as Yaweh (or whatever you wish to call it), much less one with the attributes usually associated with Yaweh.
That being the case, I strenuously object to encoding any purely religious principles into law; including, emphatically, laws regardjng human sexuality and reproduction.
The claim that a fertilized egg, or a fetus, should have the same ethical and legal standing as a person is impossible to defend on any grounds other than spiritual – at which point the claim collides with other spiritual constructs which may make different claims, and collides as well with value systems not based on spirituality. One may certainly argue the merits of these competing value systems, but you can’t have one trump all the others based simply on the fact that it’s a religious value system that you happen to believe in very very deeply. Why should your religious values be more important than someone else’s religious values, or more important than someone whose values are based on a non-religious ethos? In America, especially, that can’t fly; there’s a reason for the First Amendment prohibition of a state-sponsored religion.
Religious doctrines, particularly Christian ones, profess to be without error, because they’re based on God’s Word, and God is without error. However, there has never in history been any state ruled by religious doctrine that applied that doctrine consistently and honestly. Secular rule evolved precisely because humanity is incapable of following even state-required religious doctrines consistently and honestly; secular rule demands that laws be based on ethical precepts that can be justified more or less objectively, on their own merits, rather than appeals to unprovable, unquantifiable religious precepts.
“Life begins at conception” begs further questions, and further moral/ethical analysis: what kind of life? what are our ethical responsibilities to that life? how do those ethical responsibilities weigh against competing ethical responsibilities – to the woman carrying the egg or fetus; to the man whose sperm fertilized the egg; to the society faced with the expense of providing for an unwanted baby? to the community faced with the consequences of unwanted, non-nurtured, possibly abused children? to the society and community faced with the enormous expense of caring for a deeply disabled baby? Even if an egg or a fetus is “alive,” its value can’t be defined in a vacuum where nothing else has equal, or greater, value.
Religious doctrine speaks in absolutes, without context. You may want to impose your religious doctrines on the rest of us – you may even have the best intentions for doing so – but unless your doctrines can be justified on their own merits, without recourse to Platonic absolutes and pristine lack of context, they have no place in American law.
Daniel, did you delete the recent answers I gave you in this thead on this issue of theocracy? It seems that not just mine, but several other people’s recent comments have disappeared from this thread. I hope I didn’t say anything offensive. I don’t think I did, so it may be a bug of some kind. If you can’t recover the comments, let me know, and I’ll try to answer your objection once again.
I’ll try to duplicate my deleted thoughts in essence.
When I use the term “theocratic” to describe the GOP’s increasingly religious agenda, I do not refer to some authoritarian form of rule as one finds in Iran, or Europe in medieval times. I am simply referring to political parties that are guided by theological principles and beliefs in designing their platforms, programs, policies, values, and agenda, and actually work to put those theologically based policies into law and practice in government itself. This is completely compatible with a democratic system of government, and is not in any way confined to authoritarian systems of theocracy as you seem to exclusively associate the concept with.
Just as there are democratic forms of socialism, and democratic political parties which advocate socialist government, and create policies guided by the principles of socialism, or even communism, while yet doing so through the process of a democratic government, so there are theocratic parties which do the same thing. Europe is filled with socialist democratic parties which try to promote socialism in their governments without calling for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Likewise, there are theocratic political parties which advocate a government that pursues policies that are based on theological principles.
This is how I would increasingly describe the Republican party. It is not entirely undemocratic to pursue this, but it does rub up against the principle of separation of church and state, and it certainly rubs many voters the wrong way. It aims not to overthrow the Constitution, but to elect politicians who are clearly guided primarily by theological principles in formulating their policies, and who will abide by those theological principles in most every respect in both passing and implementing the laws of the land.
Examples of such politicians include George Bush himself, who has tried to implement all kinds of policies that are guided by his theological beliefs, on subject ranging from stem cell research to the invasion of Iraq, which he often sees as part of a religious crusade against “the forces of evil”, conceived in Christian religious terms. Certainly his religious base is able to discern this from the various code words and cues he uses when he speaks about such things. This is why he enjoys such boundless faith from the evangelical community – they see him as an instrument of the Lord, carrying out God’s will in the world.
That is the base of the present GOP, and the conservative movement itself. That is why Sarah Palin, who is even more explicitly a faithful Christian candidate, is so popular among the base. She is seen as an embodiment of the attitude of faithful adherence to evangelical Christianity in formulating and enacting all kinds of policies, from abortion to social policy to Israel to, well, God knows what it doesn’t include. As she says, she is there to take advantage of every crack God gives her, and to plow through with God at her side.
It’s also seen in Mike Huckabee running ads in the primary emphasizing that he’s a Christian, and a minister, and thus can be counted on to govern by policies that are not only compatible with Christianity, but which are so deeply rooted in it as to be inseparable. It’s also found in Liddy Dole running ads insinuating that her opponent is an atheist, or palling around with atheists, as a sign of her unfitness for the Senate.
The goal of these politicians certainly seems to involve an increasing theocatization of American politics and government, or of at least exploiting that sentiment in order to get the votes of the base of the party. This does not mean that they have to actually advocate instituting some council of the righteous to replace our elected officials, or to have ultimate power over them as is the case in Iran. They merely have to elect enough righteous Christians to office that it won’t be necessary to do that. And ultimately, they want to dominate not only government, but every significant area of American public life, because that to them is the ultimate fulfillment of God’s will. You’ve probably heard of Sarah Palin’s church’s “seven mountains strategy”? It may sound a bit extreme when looked at here and now, but it’s a general strategy that is very much in accord with the religious base of the GOP – to put evangelical Christians (or their kindred souls in more conventional churches) into positions of power throughout Amerian society, not just in politiics, but everywhere, so that the country can be run by “sound” theological principles.
Anyway, I hope you can recognize that the program of theocratization does not require autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy, but can be persued through democratic forms of government as well. In fact, it can be persued even more freely in a democracy, because of the principle of religious freedom that is guaranteed in most democracies. It simply requires that enough people be persuaded to support such candidates and their policies,
Fortunately, from my perspective, this theocratic political agenda has not garnered enough support to elect another President. It wasn’t even sufficiently unified around one candidate to capture the Republican nomination. McCain may be many things, but a theocrat he is not. However, the main theocratic Republican candidates, Romney and Huckabee, garned more support between them than McCain did, it’s just that the winner-take-all nature of the Republican primaries allowed McCain to capture the nomination even though he had less support than theocratic wing would have if it could have settled on a single candidate.
When I refer to these fellows as theocrats, be aware that I’m not suggesting they want to turn the US into a Christian Iran. They don’t. They want to turn the US into a fully faithful, theologically correct democracy. (Of course, once that is acheived, who knows how much further they might wish to go). Now, not all theocrats agree entirely on what the correct theology is, and how it should be turned into policy and law, or how far it should be taken in the context of our time and place. but they are on basic agreement that this is the purpose of our democratic system. They do not want a secular government that separates church and state at the level of policy, they simply allow that there should be no official church of the United States, in part because they would otherwise tear each other apart.
I hope you understand what I see going on in the GOP. It’s not that theocrats utterly dominate the GOP, but ever since Roe v. Wade this has been the rising tide of the Republican party, sweeping away even the conservative movement in its wake. If one charts the decline of genuine conservatism in the GOP, it coincides almost totally with the rise of the theocratic movement. The notion that the two are one, or are somehow compatible, should by now be unmasked as a naive bit of nonsense. What was once tolerated and exploited by conservatives as a way to gain power, has now usurped and replaced conservatism with something else entirely, without their hardly even noticing, and not just in policy matters, but in the very mode of thinking that was once called “conservatism”, but is now a form of religious quakery, using conservatism as a facade to hide its real nature. It’s not that conservatism never had a place for religion, but it didn’t think in religious terms, or use theology as the basis for creating policy. This is the consequence of making the religious response to Roe the very basis for the party’s “movement”. If abortion itself isn’t the entire basis for the party, the theocratic impulse it brought to the core of the party’s agenda has become that basis, and is now the real “litmus test” for Republican candidates, not merely how they view abortion.
“The argument that opposition to abortion in particular is somehow a drag on the GOP is one that doesn’t seem persuasive even at first glance, and it becomes less so the more one engages it. In state after state, somewhere between a quarter and a third of Democrats right now say that they are pro-life, but for a variety of reasons they remain in the Democratic Party because they find its positions on economic policy, social services and the like to be preferable.”
It seems like you are undercutting your own argument. By your own admission the Democratic party is able to attract pro-lifers, while the Republican party is unable to attract pro-choicers at anything near the same rate. If it cannot, then given the overall split of the nation it will have a hard time commanding an electoral majority.
Daniel, magical thinking is simply going to doom the GOP.
For example, 70% of 2006 high school seniors (this season’s voters) would not have an abortion themselves, but 60% support Roe v Wade.
Sure, prop 8 passed but youth voted against it 2:1.
Stop lying to yourselves.
Is this sad attachment to magical thinking correlated with the nearly perfect in-party ascendancy of superstitious belief over logic and reason?