« Metastatic Politics | Main | Do Conservatives *Need* Darwin? »
May 17, 2007
Dobson on Giuliani
Focus on the Family's James Dobson has speaks out today on the GOP presidential candidacy of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Dobson responds to Giuliani's abortion apologia speech at Houston Baptist University last week, also taking into account other issues up to and including Hizzoner's very public abandonment of his wife and children for another woman. The evangelical leader concludes:
Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 04:34 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d835318c5b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dobson on Giuliani :
Comments
By this statement, Guiliani has killed his chances for the GOP nomination. The sentiments Dobson expresses above are mine as well. I think the field is narrowing to McCain and Romney. But perhaps Fred Thompson will pick up the slack that Guiliani's statement will leave?
Posted by: Bill R | May 17, 2007 4:51:06 PM
I'm afraid I'm generally in the same place myself, at least in the primary. I've not yet thought through the question of a "lesser of two evils."
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 17, 2007 4:53:07 PM
Fred Thompson's anti-Moore commercial that's floating around now sounds like a presidential commercial. He's just playing a waiting game. He also has a fairly solid (as far as everything I've read) voting record. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Posted by: Nick | May 17, 2007 6:24:22 PM
I don't understand the principles behind such an adamant position. What does Dobson think a vote entails? Does he think it is a declaration of spiritual confidence or approval? Does he think his character will be tainted by having anything to do with such a man? This is foolish. The lesser of two evils is a principle at the heart of worldly politics. There is never the perfect candidate. Many times the most moral and spiritual is more foolish than an immoral pagan.
If your house is burning down and firemen show up, but they are immoral men who nonetheless are excelent firemen, will you say, "I don't want you to enter my house"? If you knew that one group of them were poor firemen, but they were faithful to their wives and never drank, while another group were notorious drunks and adulterers but excelent firemen, which group would you want to fight the fire in your house?
General Grant was a heavy drinker. Lincoln, who was almost as adamant about the evils of alchohol as he was about slavery, wanted to know what Grant was drinking so he could send it to his other generals.
If you're not ready to make these kinds of decisions than maybe you're too holy to sully your hands with worldly politics. There's a phrase for that, "So heavenly minded that you're no earthly good".
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 17, 2007 7:01:58 PM
I drove home tonight working out what I was going to say on this thread, only to discover that Christopher Hathaway has already said most of it, better. I will add that there is a kind of narcissism in holding oneself too pure to participate in politics if the candidates are not ideal or in voting for a marginal candidate to make a statement. The reality is that you are then complicit in the election of the worse candidate. That's how Bill Clinton got elected -- by people who were above the dirty political process voting for the pure non-politician Ross Perot, if you recall.
I have a lot to say on the specifics of the politicians involved and if I have time I'll post more tomorrow.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 17, 2007 8:46:31 PM
Mr. Hathaway,
I think you miss Dobson's point. This isn't so much about Guiliani's personal morality as it is about fighting for the direction (soul?) of the Republican Party. Politicians care about (1) money and (2) votes. Staying home or voting for a third party candidate with no chance to win may result in the election of *someone* that is even worse than Guiliani; however, that is the short term harm to attempt a long term corrective. Future Republican candidates may learn from this upcoming election, if Dobson's scenario plays out, and determine to reflect a pro-life position in the future. In other words, this is an opportunity to teach future Republican candidates that a pro-choice position is a losing one.
Posted by: The Recusant | May 17, 2007 8:57:51 PM
Hmm...works for me. I'm with Dobson on this.
Posted by: philippa | May 17, 2007 9:29:29 PM
No recussant, I unfortuneately do get Dobson's point, and he has no clue how politics works in this world. If you want to fight for the soul of the Republican Party you do it in the Primaries. Dobson has a lot of influence. He should use it at the grass roots to support good candidates for the nomination. If his candidate doesn't get nominated this time sucking his thumb in the general election is not an option for a responsible voter. Claiming that there is some greater plan in letting the worse candidate be elected by boycotting the lesser evil doesn't wash. Deliberately letting evil happen so that a better good may happen later is not a decision for us to make. We are not God, with the omnicscience and ominpotence required to do that.
Politicians are stupid. They won't "learn the lesson" you think they will. Look at the Republicans right now. They lost last November by alienating their base. Now they are acting even more like Democrats, misreading why they lost.
Besides, we may not have the luxury of time to let the Republicans wise up to be as good as you want them to be. You may be willing to sacrifice your house to "educate" the decadent firemen and make them chose to be more worthy to be chosen to fight fires,but there are a lot of people who will die in that fire.Frankly, Dobson is sounding like a petulant child ready to commit suicide because his life sucks. Yeah, life can suck, but death is worse.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 17, 2007 9:34:56 PM
italicsoff
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 17, 2007 9:36:58 PM
A similar charge could be made against those who vote for the lesser of two evils. Such a vote can only be cast if one fears what they perceive to be the greater evil, but a vote caste for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Yet they allow themselves the luxury of thinking it is okay to vote for an evil because of pragmatisms, that’s what doesn’t wash. Conservatives have been doing that for years, and where has it gotten us? It has gotten us to the point that a pro-abortion, pro-gay candidate has a good chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Posted by: Bob Gardner | May 17, 2007 9:44:22 PM
Is it unreasonable to think that Dobson might be replacing the recently departed Jerry Falwell as the conservative with whom we do not associate? As Richard John Neuhaus wrote, many people would have said that they were conservative, but not Falwell's type of conservatism; this made him a convienient target for liberals and conservatives. By making this kind of comment, Dobson does seem to have an attitude that smacks of "holier than thou," which is a real turnoff. I might be a conservative, but I'm not his type of conservative.
Posted by: Sam | May 17, 2007 10:12:50 PM
That's how Bill Clinton got elected -- by people who were above the dirty political process
Many would say that's how GWB got elected.
Conservatives have been doing that for years, and where has it gotten us?
Ditto from the progressive corner.
Posted by: Juli | May 17, 2007 10:18:04 PM
a vote caste for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Isn't it time to wake up now and realize you aren't in heaven? You're voting for a WORLDLY RULER!!! That in itself is an evil. We create government to control the wickedness of men. Governments do this by the use and the threat of violence. It puts bad people in jail, and worse. There is nothing but evil and stupidity to vote for. The best we can hope for in this world is less evil and less stupidity than otherwise.
This really makes me despair, when the "good" people start to think like idealistic idiots. This is the same genius that forbids the CIA from dealing with criminals. Now we don't have an informant network to penetrate the terrorist cells. It's a good thing this thinking wasn't in charge when we fought Hitler. Churchill said he would ally with the Devil to beat Hitler. Obviously he wasn't "spiritual" enough.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 17, 2007 10:47:02 PM
Judy and Christopher have said it. Isn't there a principle articulated by many Christians, including Dorothy Sayers and St. Teresa of Avila, that intelligence / craftsmanlikeness / honesty may be preferable to someone's pre-defined "sanctity" in selecting for certain roles. I've met Giuliani; he's smart enough to have told us what we want to hear. He didn't. He may not be the man, but the one-note analysis is troublesome. Longing for the early saccharine days of Jimmy Carter? A viable candidate unspotted from the world is seldom on offer.
Fervent prayer for a clear vision of "thy will be done" as the time for voting nears will probably serve better than leaping into too-good-for-this-world demands, particularly since a President even maximally preoccupied with pro-life issues would not, per se as to the role, make a particular difference. Signaling allegiance is not accomplishing results.
Look around the most orthodox churches. Do they uniquely form men who seem to be robust and fortitudinous enough for the relentless rough-and-tumble, and the influential seductions, of high office? It is more likely to be a matter of reasonable emotional maturity, scope, competence and adequate experience, at the end of the four- or eight-year day.
And we can contribute at all times by praying for our leaders, whether or not we voted for them.
Posted by: dilys | May 17, 2007 10:58:32 PM
The Presidency of the United States is a unique office. The President sets the tone for the country in many ways. He is not just a "fireman." Of course I don't demand that my fireman be pro-life: I only seek his competence in fire-fighting. But what is the President's "competence"? Leadership. He represents our vision for the country and its direction. I don't expect a saint; I do expect a man who represents the vision and direction of his party for this country. Guiliani is not that man. He is a Democrat in Republican's clothing. If you do not see this, I honestly believe you are not pro-life. You have "faith," but you have no works. Your faith is dead.
Posted by: Bill R | May 17, 2007 11:20:53 PM
Christopher,
This was discussed at length during the last federla electoin.
We Christians may not give material support to grave evil. Votes count that way.
Recusant, that is true, but, if HIllary wins, will there -be- a next election? Will Christians be allowed to vote? With the passage of the thought crimes legislation, who will lead the Christians still at large? I'm serious. Vote third party if necessary, but keep your powder dry.
Primaries are national party events. Caucuses are the democratic way to work in the parties.
Christopher, for Christians, death is not worse.
You almost seem to have a sort of quasi-manichean political philosophy. Who again is rightful King over all the Earth?
Posted by: labrialumn | May 17, 2007 11:22:31 PM
A good internet friend wrote: "Anyone who supports this grisly procedure [partial birth abortion] doesn’t have the Christian morality to speak on ANY subject. Period. They may, by accident, be on the right side on this or that issue. But their judgment must be permanently disqualified by such callousness and selfishness, and inhumanity."
This good friend's name is none other than Christopher Hathaway! Do the above sentiments apply to Rudy G.?Just kidding, just kidding bro'.
My guess is that a lot of people will vote for other GOP candidates in the primaries because of Rudy's position on abortion, but if Rudy should still win the GOP nomination, he'll get the majority of the votes from the GOP base for the national election.
And why not? He's strong on national security, will nominate strict constructionist judges, and he's not Hilary or Obama or John Edwards. And he may get some cross-over Dem votes because he's pro-abortion and strong on national security.
Rudy's taking a very calculated gamble on the long game. He and his strategists think he's the most electable GOP candidate. But ya gotta win the short game to get to the long game. And his abortion position might fatally damage his chances in the primaries so that he doesn't even get a chance in national election, unless he runs as an independent spoiler.
[Nice seein' ya over here Christopher!]
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 17, 2007 11:31:00 PM
>>>There is nothing but evil and stupidity to vote for.<<<
Really? In that case, I might as well write in Donald Duck on my ballot. At least he's funny. In all seriousness Christopher, do you really think it's as bad as all that? There will never be an ideal candidate in this world, of course, but politicians aren't all entirely evil and stupid.
Posted by: luthien, B.A. | May 17, 2007 11:32:03 PM
"he'll get the majority of the votes from the GOP base for the national election."
I don't think so. I sense the base is fed up with the big business liberals (who run things) who throw an occasional bone to the conservative base. Rudy is not a conservative, he is a libertarian with pragmatic law-and-order leanings. In a national election, many many conservatives (myself included) go for a third party in the hopes of A) sending a message and B) possibly starting the grass roots movement that will lead the conservative movement away from the GOP. Give me an honest liberal (Hillary, etc.) over a dishonest one any day - THAT is the lesser of two evils...
Posted by: Christopher | May 18, 2007 12:38:05 AM
This debate was previously held on the thread "Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road."
Christopher H., Dilys, and my friend Judy are wrong here for several reasons here. The "fireman" analogy fails because:
1) In the case of the fireman, his moral character are unrelated to his work and expertise; whereas in the case of the presidency moral character is both directly related to and a primary qualification for the office. And, as my friend Bill R. pointed out, a fireman is not in the position of leading the entire nation. Let us also beware of the false but comforting presumption that someone there can and will be in a leader a complete dichotomy between his "private" morality and his "pubic" character. The two are inherently intertwined.
2) Despite the danger of terrorism, we are not in a "our house is burnng down" immediate-crisis-with-no-other-alternatives mode, as if e.g. our nation was suffering actual military invasion by a foreign power. This aspect of the analogy only serves to push emotional panic buttons rather than critical reflection.
3) The "completely competent but evil" vs. "completely incompetent but good" dichotomy is false in more than one way.
First, one often finds those supremely competent at evil, but seldom those completely incompetent at goodness.
Second, why would we *want* for our ruler someone who is competent at doing evil??? The fallacy here is in supposing that the competency/incompetency factor is uncorrelated to the good/evil factor by supposing "evil *but* competent" vs. "good *but* incompetent"; whereas in fact, it is usually a matter of "evil *and* competent", i.e. very competent at advancing evil, because evil becomes plausible by stealth, deception, and assuming an outward guise of good.
Third, on the "Damascus Road" thread, friend Stuart Koehl advocated a position similar to that of Christopher H. and Judy. I was thus surprised and intrigued when, on a recent thread where someone made a contrast between a "holy" and a "wise" spiritual director with a preference for the latter, Stuart rightly pointed out that the dichotomy was false, for a wise director would necessarily also be a holy one. A similar dynamic holds here. A *truly* competent leader will also be a morally good one, for competency in a national leader must be defined first with reference to goodness. One may have a morally good man who is practically incompetent; but let us not delude ourselves that a man committed to working evil can and will provide us truly "competent" leadership.
The fact that none here are angels does not provide a rationale of voting for someone who will actively labor to advance the agenda of the devil. As the old saying goes, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it."
4) Our present choice among Republican candidates is not the false dichotomy suggested here. One may have specific objections to e.g. McCain and/or Romeny, but thorough-going incompetency is not seriously among them. The choice here is not the implied false dichotomy of voting for someone who will save our country from imminent destruction at the cost of advancing abortion, vs. voting for someone who opposes abortion at the cost of the ruin of our nation.
Finally, Christopher writes: "Give me an honest liberal (Hillary, etc.) over a dishonest one any day - THAT is the lesser of two evils..."
Hillary is an *honest* liberal??? Or, perhaps, we need to distinguish here between someone who is "honest" (i.e. open about or committed to) as to being a liberal, as opposed to someone who is a liberal and is also personally honest.
Without meanng to tar all (or even most) liberals invidiously, also consider the logic of this statement by substituting "Nazi" or "pederast" for "liberal". In other words, it depends again on what is meant here by "honest", and to its frame of reference. If one means "insincere" in the sense of "less than fully committed", well, I'd rather have a "dishonest" Nazi who is not really committed to the full Nazi agenda and just pays it lip service than an "honest" one who is.
Enough of insomnia --- off to back surgery! And thanks to many here for their prayers.
Posted by: James A. Altena | May 18, 2007 3:26:37 AM
As James A. notes, this debate was previously held on the thread "Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road." I must join Dobson on this one, but I am with Bill R. in believing that Rudy's campaign is now toast, so it is in all likelihood a moot issue. Dobson is often guilty of the Utopian perfectionism of which Christopher accuses him, but one has to draw a line somewhere on how much compromise he can except and, for me, Rudy has crossed that line.
Run Fred Run!
Posted by: GL | May 18, 2007 7:25:07 AM
Rudy Abandons Hypocrisy,Clarifies the Abortion Issue for Pro-life Voters
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
Friday, May 18, 2007
For years Rudy Giuliani tried to finesse his position on abortion with pro-life Republican voters. In order to disguise his support for so-called abortion rights, the former New York mayor professed to hate abortion.
“I’m against abortion,” Giuliani declared in a recent campaign appearance in South Carolina. “I hate it. I wish there never was abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion.”
Hoping to parse the issue in such a way that would neutralize (or confuse) pro-life Republican voters in the presidential primaries, Giuliani repeatedly professed his personal loathing for abortion while sadly acknowledging that a woman’s right to choose is the law of the land and must so remain.
This dodge finally collapsed. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “The bottom is out of the tub.” Recent revelations that in the 1990s Giuliani and his former wife gave hundreds of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider, dramatically underscored the hypocrisy at the heart of Hizzoner’s position.
Reportedly, Giuliani has decided to stop the charade. According to the New York Times, Giuliani will give up his earlier strategy of posing as a personal opponent of abortion and start running as an avowedly pro-abortion candidate. He will bypass early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina where pro-life voters predominate and focus instead on the Feb. 5th super primary in states such as New York, California, and New Jersey that allegedly would be more receptive to a pro-abortion candidate.
Yet the problem for Giuliani is that the Republican Party is the pro-life party. It has not nominated a pro-abortion candidate since 1980. Pro-life voters turn out in large numbers in all of the primaries. If Mr. Giuliani does indeed start running as an avowed champion of abortion, then pro-life voters will be highly motivated to go to the polls in all of the early primaries to deny him the nomination.
Giuliani is not the first American politician to try and finesse a sticky moral issue. His now-abandoned position on abortion was eerily reminiscent of the position on slavery adopted by Abraham Lincoln’s political adversary Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. Like Giuliani on abortion, Douglas professed his personal opposition to slavery. In the celebrated Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, the “Little Giant,” as Douglas was known, repeatedly asserted his personal revulsion for slavery, calling the institution immoral. Yet, as Lincoln pointed out, Douglas’s personal opposition to slavery, while undoubtedly sincere, was irrelevant when it came to public policy.
While Douglas hated slavery, he would do nothing to impede its expansion into the new territories, would not set his hand against the institution in the southern states where it existed, and supported the infamous Fugitive Slave Law that returned escaped bondsmen to their masters when captured on the free soil of the northern states.
For all practical purpose, Douglas’s position was pro-slavery. While his hatred for slavery was heartfelt, Douglas’s personal convictions probably were little comfort to those African-Americans held in servile bondage.
But unlike Rudy Giuliani on abortion, it is not known that Stephen Douglas ever made donations to pro-slavery causes. Douglas’s personal aversion to slavery would have made it impossible for him to contribute money to an organization devoted to the defense, promotion, and extension of slavery in the United States.
Yet this is precisely what Giuliani did by contributing to Planned Parenthood, an organization that supports the most extreme positions on the issue. Planned Parenthood opposed the federal ban on partial-birth abortion – a hideous procedure that entails the abortionist killing a baby at the very moment of birth. Planned Parenthood opposed the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act that banned the practice of so-called “live birth abortions,” in which allegedly “unwanted” babies born alive are left to die without therapeutic care. Planned Parenthood even opposes parental notification in cases of minor children seeking abortions.
The revelation that Rudy Giuliani contributed to Planned Parenthood was the last straw for pro-life voters, many of whom already had penetrated the smokescreen about his personal beliefs. Donations to Planned Parenthood could not be explained away or dismissed by declarations of one’s personal beliefs. It is simply impossible to believe that someone who genuinely abhors abortion on deeply held moral grounds could contribute money to Planned Parenthood, the chief perpetrator of abortion in America.
Rudy Giuliani is a pro-abortion politician. That is the plain truth of the matter. The revelations of his support for Planned Parenthood made this abundantly clear and rendered his pretenses to the contrary unsustainable. So he is now ready to own up to his pro-abortion position and stop trying to finagle pro-life Republican voters into believing he is something he isn’t. As was made clear in the great slavery debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, moral issues cannot be finessed. One cannot be personally opposed to a moral evil and yet do nothing to ameliorate it – much less take overt actions to lend aid and comfort to the perpetrators of that evil. By abandoning his previous hypocrisy and embracing an avowedly pro-abortion position, Mr. Giuliani has clarified the choice for pro-life Republican voters.
-----
I would support Rudy G. if he... flip-flopped!! to becoming a staunch anti-abortion politician and stayed anti-abortion.
If he doesn't, then I actually support Catholic bishops disciplining him in some manner, e.g., denying him the Eucharist (along with any pro-abortion Catholics such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and other House Democrats).
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 18, 2007 7:26:26 AM
>>>The choice here is not the implied false dichotomy of voting for someone who will save our country from imminent destruction at the cost of advancing abortion, vs. voting for someone who opposes abortion at the cost of the ruin of our nation.<<< -- James Altena
There is a difference between taking a laissez-faire position about abortion, and advancing abortion. Deroy Murdock reported on National Review Online:
Asked if he could name any Giuliani plan to push abortion, New York State Conservative party chairman Mike Long told me, “I don’t remember, and I don’t think so.” He added: “I never remember seeing him promote the issue, to my knowledge.”As New York Catholic archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling said to me: “Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any instances when Mayor Giuliani’s and John Cardinal O’Connor’s different positions on abortion came to the fore while O’Connor was New York’s archbishop.”
...“Much of the national decline in the incidence of abortion can be attributed to more states enacting pro-life laws,” says Michael New, a University of Alabama assistant professor of political science. “However, it certainly seems plausible that Mayor Giuliani’s efforts at improving New York’s economy, reforming welfare, and cleaning up the city played a role in New York City’s above-average abortion decline.”
Giuliani also would have been feted in this pro-abortion city had he attempted anything as mayor to make abortions more common, available, or economical. His local critics would have stopped bellyaching, at least temporarily, to cheer Giuliani had he pushed abortion. Despite the rose petals that most New Yorkers would have tossed in his path, he did no such thing. (Conversely, in 2002, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg ordered eight city-run hospitals to add abortion training to the required curriculum for OB-GYN residents. Giuliani could have done this, but did not.)
There is, as Bill points out, the moral leadership role of a president, and that is not unimportant. If that were the only qualification, Mike Huckabee would have my vote based on his eloquent defense of life in the last debate. But it is not the only thing.
There is also the practical question of what the next president can do to advance or discourage abortion. The main one is the good chance that there will be at least one Supreme Court vacancy. There are two considerations here: one, whom the president appoints, and two, how adept the president is at getting his nominee confirmed in a Senate that will under no circumstances have the 60 Republican votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. At the moment the first is still an unknown with Giuliani, since he has made contradictory statements, and it is unclear whether a judge favoring Roe would be included in his definition of strict constructionist. For the second consideration, Giuliani stands head and shoulders above anyone else at getting what he wants in the face of a hostile legislature and hostile media. This ability is not important if he is going to appoint pro-Roe justices; it is overwhelmingly important if his appointees are anti-Roe.
There are other life issues, and we can thank President Bush for having vetoed the embryonic stem cell bill. More life issues will no doubt come up. I know McCain favors embryonic stem cell research and Romney opposes it; I don't know about the others, though I can't imagine Giuliani opposing it.
Then there is the question of how dire our national security situation is and how much we should give up on other issues in order to have the president who can best defend our country and defeat our enemies. I consider our situation pretty dire, and I consider Giuliani the best person by far for national defense. I also point out that in the event of a large-scale attack, a nuke would kill the unborn along with the born.
But illegal immigration and control of our borders is part of national security and I am waiting to hear from the various candidates how they view the current Senate bill and the entire issue.
I am trying to present some of the complexities in politics that have real consequences. I haven't gone into the consequences for our national security, life, and our national character of electing Hillary. In a nutshell, the worst Republican candidate would be vastly better than President Hillary Clinton, despite the dictates of Dr. Dobson's conscience.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 18, 2007 8:03:30 AM
"There is a difference between taking a laissez-faire position about abortion, and advancing abortion."
True, Judy. This makes the Lincoln-Douglas comparison somewhat inaccurate. Lincoln wasn't campaigning to end slavery, but to halt its spread. Is Rudy stating that he would like to do the same with abortion? If so, that complicates the issue to some extent, as some pro-lifers seem to be comfortable with incrementalism, and some don't.
Posted by: Rob Grano | May 18, 2007 8:16:08 AM
Apart from its moral reprehensibility, the continuing abortion regime will ultimately cause economic stagnation and a greying population clamoring for state assistance. It's not surprising that the furthest along this path is Japan, one of the first non-communist countries to legalize abortion.
Giuliani's position (in as far as he has honestly stated it) on abortion is spiritually and economically suicidal for the US. The prospect of GOP supporters voting him in conjures for me the final scene from Animal Farm of Jones and the pigs becoming indistinguishable from one other.
Posted by: coco | May 18, 2007 8:19:58 AM
On the Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road, I posted the following on Nov 28, 2006 at 9:35:49 AM. I repeat it here:
[W]hile one must weight competence and character, one should not place competence over character no matter what the character flaws are. If the very competent candidate favors abortion, ESC research and gay marriage while the incompetent candidate opposes them, I would choose the latter and place my trust in God and not the prince. It seems to me that vote for the former because you believe he is better able to manage the economy or win the war even though he will advance the murders of millions of unborn children is to put your trust first in the prince and not God. I would also pray that I not have to make such a choice in the voting booth and do what I could to prevent my having to do so.
I suspect many Republican primary voters will agree. Again, Rudy's presidential aspirations are toast. His candor has saved us the need to decide between him and Hillary in November 2008. If it has not, I am no longer a Republican. (That will, in fact, be a great relief because the last few years has made it increasingly difficult to be one on a variety of other issues.)
Posted by: GL | May 18, 2007 8:48:55 AM
It's a paradox, isn't it? Tares and wheat, and be ye perfect, and the profoundly unsettling cross-currents of living among and influenced by the mammon of unrighteousness.
Oink, I guess. May God have mercy on this country and all mankind...
Posted by: dilys | May 18, 2007 8:56:18 AM
Truth, are you a Roman Catholic? (Maybe you've already said, but the search function on my antiquated browser no longer works on this page, so I can't easily double check.)
If you're not, I think it's out of place for you to be expressing opinions about what RC bishops should do. I thought that was really the point of Romney's refreshing answer on the subject in the first "debate" - he wouldn't presume to tell RC bishops what to do, because in the first place, he is not RC.
For that matter, if you are RC, it still seems wrong for Christians to be fretting about what their bishops should be doing to discipline other sinners. Certainly in Orthodox Christian spirituality, if one is approaching the chalice preoccupied with judgments about other sinners, perhaps it's time to fast from communion for a time oneself.
Posted by: Juli | May 18, 2007 9:07:02 AM
Dobsonis at his best when he's not political, and at his worst when he is.How else to explain the contradiction of condemning Guiliani's infidelity while offering lockerroom congratulations to Newt for his.
Posted by: macleod | May 18, 2007 9:07:27 AM
I agree with MacLeod that Newt ought to be off of Dobson's voting list as well. I discussed this very issue with my mother-in-law a few days ago. She is convinced that Newt is a repentant sinner and deserves our forgiveness. I asked her if that were her position with Clinton was the repentant sinner (knowing full well it was not) and this suggested that I was more than willing to forgive him, but I was not willing to vote for him for president. Given my position on Clinton's infidelity, it would be hypocritical for me to apply a different standard to Newt or Rudy. That would be kind of like NOW, who suddenly forgot its principles when the man with power taking advantage of a much younger and less powerful woman was "their man."
Posted by: GL | May 18, 2007 9:20:38 AM
Make that "I asked her if that was her position with Clinton when he was the repentant sinner . . ."
Posted by: GL | May 18, 2007 9:33:36 AM
Juli, I'm not RC. You write: "If you're not, I think it's out of place for you to be expressing opinions about what RC bishops should do."
Please look at what I wrote: "If he doesn't, then I actually support Catholic bishops disciplining him in some manner, e.g., denying him the Eucharist (along with any pro-abortion Catholics such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and other House Democrats)."
Juli, I'm not saying what Catholic bishops should do. I'm saying that I support those who would urge the Catholic bishops to administer biblical discipline to wayward, erring, unrepentant parishioners who deliberately disobey the Church's teaching.
There is a distinction.
For that matter, let me then go on the record to state that there are many negative consequences arising from the refusal by clergy to exercise biblical discipline. Example, the Anglican Communion is going through a very difficult time because the province in America, The Episcopal Church, is defiantly thumbing its nose at the communion for its unbiblical practice of ordaining gays, especially the ordination of Vickie Gene Robinson to bishop for New Hampshire.
Also, there are calls by some for Rick Warren to discipline Rupert Murdoch for the content shown on his television channels.
What did the elders do with Ted Haggard at his church? They removed him. That's biblical discipline with the hopes of restoring him.
Please try to understand that there are two extremes that need to be avoided: One, Overzealousness to discipline without any grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Two, Avoidance of any and all discipline.
Juli, please don't adopt the extreme of #2 because of an unfounded fear of #1. God disciplines those whom He loves.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 18, 2007 9:50:29 AM
If it's pragmatism you want, I'm pragmatic (opitimistic? delusional?) enough to think that if Hillary is elected, she will be a one-term president. It was four years of Jimmy Carter that made Ronald Reagan seem less of a bogyman to many, as I recall. Thus I side with those who will not vote for a candidate who favors baby-killing, no matter what the options. If the nation is so sunk in depravity that it can only offer us a pro-choice choice, then it can do so without my participation.
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.
Second, I find it a bit strange that there are those who would "fast" from communion for a time, for what? A sense of personal unworthiness? That translates only as seeing ourselves accurately in the eyes of God. Folks, we can never, ever be worthy, no matter what we do. Thus, I believe we should commune daily if possible and weekly at the minimum. The more sinful we find ourselves to be, the more we need Jesus inside us. Paul's admonition against receiving "in an unworthy manner" in 1 Cor. 11 is aimed at those who receive "without discerning the body." We who know just what it is -- Who it is -- should receive as often as possible. Why arbitrarily cut yourself off from Grace?
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | May 18, 2007 11:13:51 AM
We who know just what it is -- Who it is -- should receive as often as possible
Except, reverend Deacon, where one knows oneself to be in serious sin?
Posted by: coco | May 18, 2007 11:55:25 AM
I think that a Giuliani candidacy will mean the fragmentation of the Republicn coalition of traditionalist conservatives, moral/Christian conservatives and economic conservatives. In the end that might not be such a bad thing.
Posted by: Jody+ | May 18, 2007 12:05:39 PM
'Second, I find it a bit strange that there are those who would "fast" from communion for a time, for what? A sense of personal unworthiness? That translates only as seeing ourselves accurately in the eyes of God.'
The way I understand it as an Orthodox is that if there is a particular sin (or sins) on your conscience that you haven't had the opportunity to confess before the Eucharist is offered, then you should avoid the Chalice. This is in line with St. Paul's injunction to "let a man examine himself." Assuming a general state of unworthiness is not the same as feeling guilt for a specific sin or sins.
Posted by: Rob Grano | May 18, 2007 12:40:05 PM
"I suspect many Republican primary voters will agree. Again, Rudy's presidential aspirations are toast. His candor has saved us the need to decide between him and Hillary in November 2008. If it has not, I am no longer a Republican. (That will, in fact, be a great relief because the last few years has made it increasingly difficult to be one on a variety of other issues.)"
True. The GOP is at a real crossroads. The coalition between libertarians (Rudy is one for practical purposes) and conservatives is at a breaking point. This is not as well known as it should be, due to the fact that the media (being hard leftists) do not understand the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. The big business republicans ('Rockefeller', whatever you want to call them) have not done enough to hold the base together (today’s amnesty bill which benefits business at the expense of taxpayers it a good example). The GOP has not really given a conservative much of a reason to continue to support them, other than rhetoric (judges arguably being the only exception). A Rudy on the ballet will be the anvil that broke the camels back…
Posted by: Christopher | May 18, 2007 12:45:07 PM
"For that matter, if you are RC, it still seems wrong for Christians to be fretting about what their bishops should be doing to discipline other sinners. Certainly in Orthodox Christian spirituality, if one is approaching the chalice preoccupied with judgments about other sinners, perhaps it's time to fast from communion for a time oneself."
I disagree completely. It is incumbent upon all the Faithful to help keep the Faith and proclaim it. Bishops, being sinners, need help. If they are doing wrong (by allowing abortion supports to partake of the Cup with such a powerful unrepentance) it is necessary to point it out. Shoot, take to such logic to it's conclusions, Touchstone would be impossible...
Posted by: Christopher | May 18, 2007 12:48:33 PM
"Juli, I'm not saying what Catholic bishops should do. "
I am, and so should you. As an Orthodox Christian, according to RC and EO beliefs it is incumbent on a Bishop to teach the Faith. They can't teach "Thou shall not kill" unless explicit, unrepentant sinners such as those who directly aid and support the holocaust of the unborn are held accountable...
Posted by: Christopher | May 18, 2007 12:55:21 PM
Christopher,
Are you a different Christopher than the Christopher Hathaway that I've seen on the Titus 1:9 blog?
As for me and Giulani and Dobson, this is what I'm going to do:
I'll vote for any other GOP candidate than Rudy because of his abortion stance in the primaries. If Rudy still wins the GOP nomination and it's a choice between him and Hilary or Obama in 2008, then I'll vote for Rudy.
Easy decision. I understand what Dr. Dobson is saying, but it doesn't hold for me.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 18, 2007 1:34:49 PM
I agree about the "serious sin" part, and the necessity of confession. Perhaps I am overly optimistic in assuming that such conditions would be highly unusual among the denizens of this site. However, such conditions would not be a "fast," would they, considering that such an action is a voluntary relinquishing of nourishment for the purposes of moral improvement. No one is morally improved by not receiving the Eucharist.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | May 18, 2007 2:01:24 PM
"No one is morally improved by not receiving the Eucharist." - Dcn. Michael D. Harmon
I have to respectfully differ.
Jesus says in Matthew 5: "23 Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."
Granted, this altar that Jesus speaks of is not the same as the Eucharist table, but the principle is the same, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 18, 2007 2:49:28 PM
'However, such conditions would not be a "fast," would they, considering that such an action is a voluntary relinquishing of nourishment for the purposes of moral improvement.'
I agree, Deacon Michael. You wouldn't 'fast' from the Eucharist any more than you'd fast from attending Liturgy. It's unfortunate that the term might be used that way.
Posted by: Rob Grano | May 18, 2007 3:27:59 PM
Actually, on purely strategy grounds, Dobson is right. Social conservatives who insist on being "realistic" and not being "purists" premise their "hold your nose and vote of Giuliani" on the notion that he is, because of his supposed strength on national security, the best candidate to defeat Hillary or one of the other "worse" options.
But is that premise true? It might be if _all_ social conservatives would hold their noses. But is that strategically realistic? A pro-abort Democrat can win. An openly, rub-your-nose-in-it Republican pro-abort simply will lose enough of the Republican base in a general election as to doom his candidacy. To nominate Giuliani would be a disaster for the party. The other half of the premise--that Giuliani is "strong on national security" is also less persuasive the more one examines it.
Dobson is not clueless. He's doing precisely what proper politics involved: signalling early on that Giuliani, having finally stiff-armed decisively the pro-life segment of the Republican base, will lose that segment and for that reason ought not be nominated. Dobson is doing this at this stage precisely because this is the appropriate stage, tactically, politically.
Those who dismiss him as a naive purist unwilling to get his hands dirty actually understand less of politics than they think.
Finally, the reason the "center" today is at a place that would have been considered unimaginably Far Left 50 years ago is precisely because of the "realist" strategy of holding one's nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils." As long as the right end of the spectrum can be frightened into voting for someone left of center because the alternative is farther left, the "center" inches further to the left. Only if at some point the right end of the spectrum says, "hold it, you've gone too far for us--you can't take our vote for granted" will those seeking to move left of center move back toward the right.
The same dynamic would apply if the trend were from left toward the right, but the trend has been from right to left for much of the last century. It was slowed down but not reversed by the Reagan years--which now represent only 8 out of the last 60--since Eisenhower.
Posted by: Dennis Martin | May 18, 2007 5:11:42 PM
I think you're right Dennis. And I suspect that many GOP voters sat out the 2006 elections because they were trying to send a signal.
I hope the signal got through because the Dems won both House and Senate.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 18, 2007 5:18:10 PM
"Finally, the reason the "center" today is at a place that would have been considered unimaginably Far Left 50 years ago"
Good points Dennis. With now more the half the population getting a government check of some sort, I wonder what it will be like in 50 years!
Posted by: Christopher | May 18, 2007 5:18:57 PM
Let me try putting it a slightly different way. To say, "no, he's not what I really want in a candidate but he's the lesser of two evils" is a form of relativism. As long as voting decisions are made on that basis, the center will move steadily.
The alternative is moral absolutism: certain policies, certain positions simply are nonnegotiably bad and one cannot vote for the firm advocates of them. Clueless purism in politics would be to treat all positions as absolutes, in which case no candidate would ever meet the purist's standard and he would waste his vote and Evil will win.
But that's not what Dobson is doing. Like John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, he is saying that full, complete, defiant pro-abort positions are non-negotiables, instances where "well, he's not perfect but better than the alternative" doesn't apply. There are not that many such line-in-the-sand issues, but abortion is one of them, for reasons spelled out in those encyclicals (and Gaudium et Spes etc.)
Giuliani was asked repeatedly to modify his position. He tried to finesse it with his promise about strict constructionist judges, but couldn't leave well enough alone and undercut that position by saying that Roe could, in his view, be squared with strict construction. Then finally, last week, he gave up on the efforts to finesse and came out openly and defiantly pro-abort. At that point, it seems to me, he put himself on the wrong side of one of the relatively few non-negotiables.
I never trusted him very much and even had he continued his efforts to finesse, would not have found him a good candidate simply because he waffled so much. But at least his pro-life advocates had somnething of a case to make until last week.
At that point pro-life political realists should not have naively continued to make excuses for him but have recognized that Giuliani himself had drawn the line in the sand and that social conservatives could no longer use the "realist" political argument on his behalf.
Posted by: Dennis Martin | May 18, 2007 5:22:16 PM
Again, when did Rudy win?
And Again, run Fred run....
Posted by: Nick | May 18, 2007 5:31:30 PM
Truth,
Good to see you too. That other Christopher is not I. How dare he use my name! ;-) And good quote! Of course I stand by that, for religious and moral discussions. As I consider politics to be of a lesser nature I hold lower standards for eligibility to hold and opinion.
Bill R, thank you but I know quiet well who Guiliani is. He is not a Democrat in disguise. He is a fiscal conservative who is liberal on social matters. He is Republican because he chooses to be and because he sides with more Republicans on more issues than he does with Democrats. Like it o not, the Republican Party is not based upon only one issue. Recognizing that doesn’t make me less pro-life. I will stack up my credentials in that regard against anyone here. If you have spent more time in jail for the cause than I then God bless you. But you have no justification to question my faith because I make a different pragmatic political calculation than you. You can question my wisdom. After all, I'm questioning yours, as well as your charity.
Labrialumn, how does saying that death is not preferable to life, even if the life is far from desirable make me qausi manichaen? Do you favor suicide? Heaven is better than this life. So waht? Why are we caring about pro-life if the preservation of life isn’t so important? Anyway, you misunderstood the analogy.
Luthien, I know you are young, and therefore still idealistic. Ahh..I remember being like that (oh it seems so long ago now, sigh), but with age comes a wee bit of wisdom and a dash of cynicism. When I say that there is only evil and stupidity to choose from I mean that there are only sinners like me to choose from. I may have moments (nanoseconds, perhaps) of brilliance, but at heart I am vain, short tempered and judgmental. We are all miserable sinners. We all have our flaws. Our best hope is to choose the miserable sinner best equipped for the office at the moment.
Put not your trust in princes, my dear. Or, to put it more plainly: don't trust a politician further than you can throw him. Now I'm not saying all politicians are liars and crooks. Far from it, although "trust but verify" would be a good motto to keep. What I am saying is that even the best will eventually disappoint you in some form or fashion. I have been dissappointed time and time again. I guess that means I am still too optimistic. Even a great man like Alan Keyes, with whom I am in complete agreement on every issue and who I believe is one of the best orators in politics, eventually was shown to have feet of clay. I recognized them because they are the same type of clay feet that I have. He, like I, may not have the right temperament to lead the nation. Others may be better leaders, but they will not be perfect. Perfection is not required. Adequacy is required.
But adequate for what. Mr. Athena thinks that a President should represent the vision of the nation. That raises the question of how big that vision should be. Should the President represent the moral vision of the nation? Frankly, I think this is getting close to a serious constitutional and theological disagreement. I am traditional in my morality and theology and in my conception of the role of the President. He says “moral character is both directly related to and a primary qualification for the office”. I question this. Since when did we consider the President our moral leader? It is great when he can be a good moral example but I think we have slipped from the autonomy the Framers intended and which God intended when we invest in a worldly leader moral authority.
Of course, by virtue of the prominence of his office his moral example has influence. But the question is whether that consequential bad influence overwieghs his competence in other matters. For it is a gross misrepresentation of the argument to say we are talking about competence at doing evil. We are talking about competence at doing another good which is a separate matter than the evil for which they are to be faulted. Thus a firemen is a good fireman if he is competent at putting out fires. A president may be competent in fiscal matters but incompetent in others.
Take George W. Bush, please. ;-) I think he is mildly competent at standing up against abortion and at fighting terrorism but grossly incompetent at controlling the size of the government, at protecting our borders, and at speaking. Which job is crucial?
Of course the issue at hand is not a choice between someone good on abortion but bad on other important things and someone bad on abortion and good on those others. We are not talking about that kind of intricate calculation in which we might be tempted to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life one for the sake of greater or more immediate issues. We are talking about a situation in which there is no viable pro-life candidate and we have the task of deciding which pro-choice candidate is preferable.
I find it hard to understand how any intelligent person can think that nothing else matters if you can’t have a pro-life candidate. Consider this: You are a citizen of a city with two invading forces threatening you. Both will enslave the city and you must vote to whom to surrender. There are no friendly forces that can save you. The invaders from the east will sacrifice your children to their sung-god and send the rest of you to the salt mines. The invaders from the west will make you work on their farms but you will be able to stay as families and worship freely. Choose. Or is the choice a participation in evil.
Of course, if these kinds of choices displease you, and I don’t like them either, then you had best do what you can to make sure you don’t face them. Get involved in the Primaries and in party caucuses. Despite what Dennis says, our slide to the Left is not from making such lesser of evils decisions. It is because the culture has moved left and we haven’t done enough to stop it.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 18, 2007 8:11:31 PM
"But adequate for what. Mr. Athena thinks that a President should represent the vision of the nation."
It's Altena, not Athena. I'm not a goddess -- yet.... :-)
I did not say this. I do believe that a political leader should have moral vision as well as practical skills. Whether that translates into the "vision thing" for the nation, or is rather a set of basic moral principles by which the leader governs his own life, and believes are universal for all men, is a distinct question.
While a laissez-faire position on abortion is formally distinct from an activist one, it is not one that I think we can afford -- any more than e.g. we could afford a "laissez-faire" position on the destruction of Israel and extermination of Jews. On some issues a laissez-faire stance is tolerable; on this one, it is not.
Posted by: James A. Altena | May 18, 2007 8:25:00 PM
