President's Bully Pulpit Competing with his Policy Shop
by Steve Watters on 05/19/2009 at 7:58 AM
President Obama's speech at Notre Dame was as good as many expected it to be--especially as he brought his bridge-building rhetoric to another divisive issue. It's encouraging to hear someone who is pro-choice use the bully pulpit to say the following:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.
It was these kinds of comments during the presidential campaign last fall that encouraged many pro-life Christians to give Obama a second look. During a stop in Colorado Springs, Donald Miller explained his hope for Obama's comments on abortion to make a bigger difference than the anemic efforts of Republicans:
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party.
So, what will be the long-term effect of the Notre Dame speech? Can we expect to see the kind of progress that President Obama and Donald Miller spoke about? That really depends on how much President Obama chooses to align his bully pulpit and his policy shop.
I couldn't help but think how the President's encouraging words about reducing abortions were greatly offset by all the pro-abortion policies and appointments he has rushed into place. It's kind of like the government spending cuts the President announced that sounded impressive until you realized that they represented less than a fraction of a percent of the new spending he had already championed. So my question is, "Once you subtract the reduced abortions that the President's speech encouraged from the additional abortions that his policies will allow, will there be a net gain or a net loss?"
James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal describes himself as "decidedly in the middle" on the issue of abortion and as such said he was impressed as he listened to the President's speech. But after he thought more about the speech, he wonders if he was had. Here are his thoughts from yesterday's Best of the Web feature on Opinion Journal:
Many surveys suggest that a majority of Americans, while eschewing both extremes, favor greater restrictions on abortion than Roe now permits. Obama may "respect" those who hold such views, but he thinks that their views should continue to be excluded from the political process. His rhetoric of respect and reconciliation is welcome and reassuring. If only it were true.
We can keep praying that the President will keep up the conversation about reducing abortions as well as the other causes he mentioned that were friendly to the pro-life community, but that conversation needs to happen first and foremost in his policy shop.
1. Dan Gill said the following at 8:43 AM on May 19:
Donald Miller was deluded to believe that Barack Obama would stand up to his party on abortion. Obama's voting record and the record of his time in the White House have proven that.
2. Jesse said the following at 9:12 AM on May 19:
He lifted the ban on the funding of abortions overseas on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade...in the midst of a financial crisis. On March 30, 2001 he spoke out against a ban on failed born-alive abortions. Regardless of what he says, it is clear where he stands.
3. Alden said the following at 9:40 AM on May 19:
I think it's important to note that the number of pro-life candidates that have actually done anything about abortion rates in the United States remains close to zero. Not that embracing a pro-choice candidate is the proper response. However, we must consider what it is that we actually want to accomplish.
To outlaw abortion would simply push them underground again (and, I think many doctors will continue to provide them illegally). This, of course, isn't an argument against the outlawing of abortion. But it seeks to prove a point: abortions will be around until we deal with the demand for them. This requires education and publicity of the emotional and psychological damage to the mother, as well as the provision of alternatives.
I think there exists among the Christian right an over-emphasis on law, on earthly means, for transforming the current situation, rather than on Kingdom means. Instead of protesting, perhaps we should be supporting Crisis Pregnancy Centers, taking care of the women who are in a place of fear and distress because of the unexpected life growing within them. We should be adopting their children so that they don't grow up in dire poverty and welcoming of unwed mothers in our churches.
Christ sought not to coerce His enemies, us, into obedience. He sacrificed Himself, taking on the very nature of a servant. He told his disciples in Mark 10:42 that the Gentile leaders lord over their followers; but we are to be leaders that are servants. We should be following His example by serving women, providing foster homes, and seeking to transform hearts with love. Angry protests and political maneuvers are simply not how Jesus operated; whether they should have a place in our outrage over abortion: this is an open question. But I know that there has not been enough Christ-like behavior among the Christian right.
If we want to accomplish Kingdom aims, then we must used Kingdom means. If we want to divide people like politics does, then we can use politics. If we want to transform hearts, however, we need to rethink how it is that we go about this issue as pro-life Christians and how it is that Jesus transforms us. I think if President Obama is interested in lowering the demand for abortions with policy, more power to him. But, I agree, if this is all a bluff, then we need to keep moving forward with a Christ-centered strategy for change.
4. Paul said the following at 10:41 AM on May 19:
He can talk the talk with the best of them, and trust me, I'd be pretty happy if his policy is what he spoke about. But can he walk the walk? So far, we've seen that the answer to that is no.
5. Mark W said the following at 11:28 AM on May 19:
His speech was a joke. It amounted to "I respect you, and I respect your views, and we can have conversations about this, but I have the power and I disagree so tough crap."
Is it possible for Sudanese gov't to "respect" the views of Darfur protestors while continuing to be complicit in the ongoing genocide? Obama's feel-good rhetoric about infanticide is just as hollow. When it comes to mass murder, only one side of that argument can express the desire for "civil dialogue" with a straight face.
6. JB said the following at 11:28 AM on May 19:
President Obama apparently believes that access to abortion is good, but utilizing that access is undesirable. That's a pretty typical sort of position for people to take in a liberal democracy, where we believe in the individual's right to choose their own course in life but have pragmatic preferences concerning what choices they choose to exercise. In this light, Obama's policy positions are perfectly consistent with his statements on abortion.
7. Ted Slater said the following at 11:51 AM on May 19:
Alden (#3) -- Focus on the Family is very supportive of and heavily involved with both crisis pregnancy centers and adoption programs.
We aren't an either-or group of people. Instead, we *both* speak our minds about policies that hurt our neighbors *and* we provide practical help for those in crisis pregnancies and who are in need of forever families.
Jesus was not always gentle. Recall that on at least one occasion, he made a whip and stormed the Temple. He's a lamb, yes, but also a fierce lion. There are times when it is appropriate for us to imitate both extremes.
8. Mark W said the following at 12:08 PM on May 19:
Re Alden #3,
I agree with and respect the gist of your argument about political involvement. I dislike and distrust political power, and think that our government has far too much of it. I also think American evangelicalism has become way too enamored with the idea of political influence, and often tries to wield it in ways which later come back to bite them. The reason why I think political action is appropriate here, is because the one legitimate purpose of gov't which few would dispute, is to defend the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens. By providing an exception for doctor-assisted infanticide in laws against murder, manslaughter, etc., the state is failing in the one responsibility that just about everyone agrees is actually the state's responsibility! Consider an analogous argument in a society which permits all kinds of murder and not just infanticide, "murder will only end when everyone's heart is transformed by the gospel [which is true], so therefore we shouldn't work to make murder illegal." I think you'll agree that that's patently absurd.
Re JB #6,
"a liberal democracy, where we believe in the individual's right to choose their own course in life but have pragmatic preferences concerning what choices they choose to exercise."
When Obama starts believing in liberal democracy and respecting among other things, my (or others') choices to own a gun, not pay income or property taxes, or use "controlled" substances, then I'll give some consideration to your argument. But as a preliminary thought, I have to say, he hasn't worked too hard to give unborn children much "right to choose."
9. JB said the following at 12:31 PM on May 19:
Mark W,
Of course, a liberal democracy is not an anarchy and some limitations on individual rights are always going to be necessary. Those limitations should be as minimally imposing as possible and serve a legitimate state interest. Thus, you can't own a grenade launcher (you don't really need one, and they're dangerous to your neighbors) and you can't make your own oxycontin (a doctor will give you what you need, and unrestricted access is socially disruptive). Of course, we frequently disagree about the precise limits imposed, but we do so within the shared framework of liberalism.
So, if you take seriously the position that a zygote is not morally equivalent to a human person (and thus has no or inferior interests or rights), Obama's policies make sense. Banning abortion, under this view, would be an incredibly coercive act in which the state lays claim to a woman's physical integrity to no legitimate end, since abortion, while possibly undesirable, is not close to being as morally wrong as a ban would be.
10. Trisha said the following at 3:18 PM on May 19:
The federal government is not going to help us anti-abortionist's so we have to work at the grass roots (local and state levels) and change people's hearts & minds about abortion one by one. Reducing unwanted pregnanices comes though educating kids/tweens/teens/young people & unmarried adults how not to get preganancy & that Birth Control is not fool proof....only not having sex is!
11. Simon from Texas said the following at 3:43 PM on May 19:
MarkW,
The problem with expecting federal politicians to pass laws against abortion is that it is a top-down approach. As long as it is not universally regarded as murder, as long as there is demand for abortion, there will be abortion. Outlaw it and you will have a black market. Last time the feds tried to do that, we had prohibition, the growth of the Mafia, and expansion of federal policing powers. I don't know about you but I don't want all that just so the pro-lifers can feel like they've "done something" when all they have done is pushed the problem underground.
If you really want government to fulfill its "responsibility to protect the innocent", then pursue a different path. You should support the overturn of Roe v. Wade so states can pass laws against them. Then work within your own state to pass the laws. But don't ask the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the country. We already have enough of that. It's also not authorized by the Constitution (which is why there are no federal laws against common murder, rape, theft, etc).
--------------------
JB,
Actually, some grenade launchers are perfectly legal to own in most states. I've seen plenty at gun shows.
But since when do our individual rights have to do with "need"?
You don't "need" a big-screen TV.
You don't "need" a McMansion.
You don't "need" a gas-guzzling SUV.
Owning a high-power rifle is dangerous to your neighbor too. Should that thing go off, it would penetrate through many layers of wall and possibly flesh. The bullet could travel for miles through the air and land anywhere in the city. But millions of Americans own them anyway.
12. Mark W said the following at 6:35 PM on May 19:
Simon,
Thanks for your thoughts. I actually totally agree with you. I'm all about states' rights and limited federal gov't. I didn't say that I supported federal legislation; merely that I supported political activism to the end of outlawing physician-assisted-infanticide. I didn't delve into how I thought that should be accomplished, but yes, I agree with your Constitutional rationale. On a tangential note, the last time the feds created a black market wasn't alcohol prohibition. It's right now with the "war on drugs," which arguably is much more damaging to our country than alcohol prohibition ever was. For more on that, see CNN.
JB,
I never said I supported anarchy nor do I. I find it interesting that you say some limitation of individual rights is necessary (and I would agree), but the system your propose for determining what is and isn't necessary is if they "serve a legitimate state interest." That, to me, is an extremely scary way to determine when someone's rights can be curtailed, as it inevitably leads to tyranny by the state. (See USA PATRIOT for instance.)
On the other hand, the philosophy that used to characterize liberal democracies is the idea that people have the right to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not infringe on others' rights. Abortion infringes on the right to life of the most vulnerable in society. Sidestepping the rape issue for a moment, to act as though the woman is an innocent victim of a parasitic child is a joke. Yes, a woman has a right to her "physical integrity," as you put it, but (1) she exercises that right by choosing what she does with her body, and (2) the woman in her womb also has a right to her own physical integrity. Babies do not spontaneously appear in a woman's womb. You don't get a free pass to murder your kid because they were unexpected.
Also, your attempt to dehumanize pre-born humans by referring to them as "zygotes," is a cute tactic, if a little tired. The problem is, it's not scientifically accurate. A zygote may be a zygote, but it's also human.
13. JB said the following at 8:50 PM on May 19:
Mark W,
I'm with you on the liberalism thing, I think. JS Mill's "harm principle" is the chief justification for imposing limits on freedom, but I also think you need to allow for limitations which support overwhelming social concerns. For example, I think it's legitimate to impose a tax on people to pay for the police, even though that's a limitation which is not justified by the harm principle. This is, in other words, a limitation justified by the interest of the state in civil order. We're probably just differing in terminology here.
I think you do identify the primary issue of the abortion debate, which is the moral (not the biological) status of a zygote/embryo/fetus. If it is equivalent to that of a human person, then, I think, the conflict of rights between pregnant woman and fetus would probably come out in favor of the fetus. Otherwise, though, you get a position very much like Obama's. I think it's clear that where you differ from me and the president is the value you assign to the fetus.
Abortion is an area where your philosophical commitments pretty much guarantee your policy choices. It's completely unsurprising for Obama to support the policies he supports based on his beliefs about the moral status of fetuses.
14. Zusanne said the following at 4:50 PM on May 25:
Mark W. (#12):
"Abortion infringes on the right to life of the most vulnerable in society. Sidestepping the rape issue for a moment, to act as though the woman is an innocent victim of a parasitic child is a joke. Yes, a woman has a right to her "physical integrity," as you put it, but (1) she exercises that right by choosing what she does with her body, and (2) the woman in her womb also has a right to her own physical integrity. Babies do not spontaneously appear in a woman's womb. You don't get a free pass to murder your kid because they were unexpected."
Thank you! This is the part of the conversation that so frequently gets left out.
Technically, we're all pro-choice: we choose whether or not to engage in behaviors that create babies (zygotes, fetuses, whatever name fits the bill that isn't actually "baby").
Once that choice has been made, then it's about dealing with consequences.