I listened to Fred Barnes this afternoon talk about prospects for conservatism. Indeed, he said, he was quite gloomy recently but has cheered up a bit, not because prospects have improved, but as a matter of having the best sort of attitude for living in the midst of challenging times. It's something I can identify with, since there are so many reasons to despair: but we're told, "Be of good cheer," for the world has been overcome, even if it doesn't look that way. Barnes said that in covering politics for many years he's come away convinced that conservatives have a much better sense of humor than liberals.
It seems a bit easier to labor for good and moral causes when you realize not everything rides on your cunning and your success or failures. We simply do the best we can, and with good cheer. That's why I am not the least bit tired of speaking up in defense of the innocent unborn. Those who are tired and decide to pass by on the other side of the road when it comes time to cast their one and only vote, well, all I can say is, you shirked your duty.
Barnes himself, in a tribute to Henry Hyde in the Human Life Review earlier this year, admits that as of 1984 he had paid little attention to the morality of abortion. He was listening to Henry Hyde speak at a platform hearing of the Republican Party then when a pro-life plank was being reconsidered.
I'd thought about abortion chiefly as a political issue or simply a medical procedure to be avoided if possible. But that wasn't what Hyde talked about. He said the Republican platform should oppose abortion without any exceptions, a position that seemed a bit extreme.
Hyde didn't run away from the hard cases: rape and incest. He said there was already one innocent victim in these cases, the pregnant woman, and abortion would only add a second. Aborting the unborn child would compound the horror of the crime that had been committed.
As I listened to Hyde, tears began streaming down my cheeks. This was embarrassing, unprofessional even, since I was sitting in the press section. I'd never thought of myself as a pro-lifer, but suddenly I did. A great man had persuaded me.
Once convinced, it's not position one should give up, and a cause one shouldn't simply push to the side: the defense of innocent human life.
" A great man had persuaded me."
I'd say the Holy Spirit was involved as well.
Posted by: Beth | June 18, 2008 at 07:44 AM
Since there's now more than one "Beth" posting, I'll change to "Beth from TN."
I found Barnes' story very moving. And while the Holy Spirit should of course receive all due credit for touching a man's heart, when a man speaks God's truth excellently, he is to be commended. Too many Christians today are content to let the Holy Spirit do what they should be making the effort to do themselves . . . That's why there's so much junk on Christian store bookshelves: "It's the right message, so it must be good, no matter what the craftsmanship is like" seems to be the prevailing philosophy. When I am feeling especially cynical, I sometimes suspect Christian writers of actually believing that to work hard at the craft itself is a sign of self-centeredness and an affront to God's work . . .
Posted by: Beth from TN | June 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM
>>>Once convinced, it's not position one should give up, and a cause one shouldn't simply push to the side: the defense of innocent human life.<<<
Amen.
Posted by: GL | June 18, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I had a similar 'light-bulb moment' when I was in college, and I realized that, as an adoptee, I had once been someone's 'unwanted pregnancy', and abortion suddenly took on a very personal aspect. . .
Posted by: CKG | June 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Couldn't agree more on never giving up. The question, however, is how to best achieve the goal. Not voting for a Democrat (so long as the candidate is in line with the current party platform of abortion anytime, anywhere for any reason) is a no brainer. But is voting for a Republican simply because he is the other candidate the wisest move? Are we being played for suckers by the GOP, knowing there are few other options? Can you imagine a GOP President "phoning it in" for a crucial pro-GWOT rally like he does for the March for Life? How serious is the GOP about abortion (as opposed to how serious is a particular GOP candidate here and there)? These are legitimate questions and make it a fair decision to do the equivalent of "phoning it in" - that is, sit this one out.
Posted by: c matt | June 19, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Well, that sure makes sense. Why vote for someone who is lukewarm about the abortion issue when you can stay at home and get someone who wants to kill live babies instead? That'll show 'em you're no sucker.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | June 19, 2008 at 08:04 PM
>>>Couldn't agree more on never giving up. The question, however, is how to best achieve the goal. Not voting for a Democrat (so long as the candidate is in line with the current party platform of abortion anytime, anywhere for any reason) is a no brainer. But is voting for a Republican simply because he is the other candidate the wisest move? Are we being played for suckers by the GOP, knowing there are few other options? Can you imagine a GOP President "phoning it in" for a crucial pro-GWOT rally like he does for the March for Life? How serious is the GOP about abortion (as opposed to how serious is a particular GOP candidate here and there)? These are legitimate questions and make it a fair decision to do the equivalent of "phoning it in" - that is, sit this one out.<<<
We have more than our our fair share of dumb liberal posts, so I suppose it is only fair to allow the occasional really dumb conservative post to provide balance.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 06:07 AM
Allow me to agree at least in part with C Matt's dumb post. Any pro-lifer who puts their hope in the GOP regarding abortion needs to clean his/her glasses, and sit up and pay attention. The party has played Christian conservatives like a fiddle in order to gain our votes, and it's time we realized it. I don't believe that this necessarily implies sitting out the election (although that has a certain appeal to me), but we should stay on our toes about these things in the future, and be willing to tell the GOP leadership to go pound salt if necessary.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 06:18 AM
>>>Any pro-lifer who puts their hope in the GOP regarding abortion needs to clean his/her glasses, and sit up and pay attention. <<<
Really? During the past twenty years of Republican rule, either in the Presidency or the Congress, or both, we have seen a major change in public opinion concerning abortion, a marked decline in the number of abortions, the passage of legislation limiting the most horrific forms of abortion, and the appointment of judges willing to stand by the ruling of the people's representatives. Republican presidents have repeatedly issued (and in the case of G.S. Bush, reissued after their repudiation by his predecessor) executive orders preventing the use of American foreign aid funding to facilitate abortions abroad.
All of these just happen to be incidental to the governing position of the Republican Party? The party that has an explicit anti-abortion plank in its platform?
I am curious as to what people who echo Rob's opinion think is possible in the present political climate of the United States? Do they not understand that ours is a system that operates only through consensus, and that consensus means compromise, which in turn means all change must be incremental? There is no consensus in the United States to ban abortion. It is certainly clear that, given the political division in the country, no national law banning abortion would ever get out of committee. There is little the President can do, beyond what has already been done, to accelerate the process of removing abortion as a public shame upon the nation.
So, explain to me again how the Republicans have played anti-abortion Americans for chumps? Also explain to me again what you think might be accomplished by either sitting on your hands or voting for some unviable third party candidate will accomplish to further your long term objectives. Do you think that your ideal presidential candidate, whoever he might be, can just waltz into the White House and ban abortion by fiat? Perhaps, instead of sex education classes, our schools ought to beef up on civics (as we used to call it) or "government" (as is presently preferred, since civics implies that you would actually exercise your rights and obligations as a citizen)?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 06:34 AM
"All of these just happen to be incidental to the governing position of the Republican Party?"
Not incidental, but not directly related either. I don't see the 'major change in public opinion toward abortion.' And the reduction in number of abortions may partially be related to an increase in sex education and contraceptive use, neither of which I think is a good thing. The majority of people still want abortion to be legal in at least some circumstances. The other things you mention are reasons to be optimistic, yet the overall cultural trend is still moving the wrong way. These small victories are backwards currents in a forward-moving river.
Voting for an independent or a third-party candidate is a waste of time, given that there's no viable third-party at present. If the crashing and burning of the GOP enables a true conservative party to rise from its ashes, so be it. Right now our choices are two liberal parties; one's just more liberal than the other.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 07:31 AM
>>> I don't see the 'major change in public opinion toward abortion.' <<<
Then, Rob, you haven't been paying attention. For the first time since Roe, a majority of Americans agree that abortion takes a human life. A majority want some restrictions on the availability of abortion. A majority would severely restrict third trimester abortions. A majority support parental consent laws. A majority support the ban on partial birth abortions. This is a major turnaround since the 1970s and 1980s, when a majority felt that abortion was a strictly private matter, and when most wanted no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Not coincidentally, the number of abortions, and the rate of abortions is down. And, perhaps more importantly, the number of young people who believe abortion is morally wrong has risen at the same time.
Do you think this would happen if the Democrats controlled not only Congress and the Media, but also appointed all of the Federal justices? Do you think that the progress we have made to date would be sustained under a Democratic administration? Are you so determined to get the whole loaf now that you would forego the half loaf you can get in favor of no loaf at all for the foreseeable future?
>>>The majority of people still want abortion to be legal in at least some circumstances. <<<
Take what you can get and work for the conversion of all people. The line dividing good and evil runs, as Solzhenitsyn says, through the heart of each individual person. You can probably no more legally abolish abortion than you could stamp out alcohol. But, you can make it so socially unacceptable that it becomes rare and stigmatized. Which, by the way, is already happening--hence the bleats from NASAL about the shortage of abortionists.
>>>Voting for an independent or a third-party candidate is a waste of time, given that there's no viable third-party at present. If the crashing and burning of the GOP enables a true conservative party to rise from its ashes, so be it. Right now our choices are two liberal parties; one's just more liberal than the other.<<<
The two party system is the strength and glory of American politics. It prevents the fratricide so common in parliamentary systems (with which I am far too familiar). It requires people to work together to get what they want. It provides for stability and unity, without which chaos ensues. That's why we have had one constitution since 1789, while the French have had no fewer than eight. That is why we have a smooth transition from one administration to the next, while the Italians have had more than sixty different governments since 1945.
To say that a true 'conservative" party will emerge in the United States, over the dead body of the GOP, or through some other means, ignores both the structure and history of American politics since the foundation. The Constitution militates against narrow, ideological parties. That is why, in the long term, the Democrats are dead meat. You are far more likely to see the emergence of a new center-left party out of the carcass of the Democratic Party, than you are to see a far right party emerge from that of the DOP (which is a center-right party).
Those are the immutable, permanent operating factors of American politics. Wishful thinking cannot change that, no matter how much we do believe in fairies.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Did not the GOP itself rise from the ashes of the Whigs? I fail to see why a similar thing couldn't happen again. And by the way, I have no idea why you think I'd want a "far right" party, unless you equate anti-neocon with far right. What I'd like is a "real right" party, not a "soft left" one, which seems to be what the GOP country club leadership wants.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 08:45 AM
>>>Did not the GOP itself rise from the ashes of the Whigs?<<<
And the GOP was essentially nothing more than the abolitionist wing of the Whigs. Once you got beyond slavery, both Republicans and Whigs stood for protective tariffs, infrastructure improvements and a more active role for the Federal government in the development of the West. See Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins Wars" for a good analysis of the policies and demography of both the Whigs and the Republicans from the 1850s through the 1860s.
>>>And by the way, I have no idea why you think I'd want a "far right" party, unless you equate anti-neocon with far right.<<<
Actually, I consider the Paleos to be the "far right", since their view of conservatism is definitely not classical liberalism (Whiggism) but much more closely aligned to pre-Disraeli Toryism. That is to say, the Paleos give every indication of being both the King's Party, the Church Party and the Country Party all rolled up into one.
As for the notion of "neo-Conservatism", I've believed what I have believed since I was twelve (the Vietnam War was my formative experience, Jimmy Carter my abiding nightmare), and since I've actually seen what happens when you allow the loonies of the left to rule even for a decade, I am far more latitudinarian that a lot of other conservatives who prefer to curse the darkness rather than turn on a light, if turning on the light means deviating from some abstract notion of ideological purity.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 09:28 AM
"And the GOP was essentially nothing more than the abolitionist wing of the Whigs."
Yes -- I've not read Phillips but I have read Michael F. Holt and others on this.
"if turning on the light means deviating from some abstract notion of ideological purity."
I don't think it has anything to do with "ideological purity," but with the realization that all 'conservatisms' are not the same.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM
>>>I don't think it has anything to do with "ideological purity," but with the realization that all 'conservatisms' are not the same.<<<
Yet, surely all conservatives must hang together, or they will all hang separately?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 10:32 AM
"Yet, surely all conservatives must hang together, or they will all hang separately?"
Perhaps; yet, some of the differences are fairly crucial, which will make cooperation very problematic in the meantime.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM
>>Yet, surely all conservatives must hang together, or they will all hang separately?<<
And don't call me Shirley.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I couldn't agree more with Judy. To sit home and cry whilst not partaking of the American process may serve to kill more babies, rather than save them.
Posted by: Shirley | June 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Stuart, please disregard the 'Shirley' post by "me." I'm afraid it was an impostor.
Posted by: Rob G | June 20, 2008 at 01:28 PM
"So, explain to me again how the Republicans have played anti-abortion Americans for chumps?"
9 Supreme Court Justices: 7 appointed by Republican Presidents.
4 California Supreme Court justices who forced "gay marriage" on the state: 3 appointed by Republicans.
Federal largess to Planned Parenthood under Republican Presidents and a Republican Congress? hundreds of millions of dollars
(As a Catholic, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, but with no illusions; it's politics and it's ultimately about money and power - bellying up to the public trough.)
Posted by: tony o | June 20, 2008 at 08:33 PM
"So, explain to me again how the Republicans have played anti-abortion Americans for chumps?"
9 Supreme Court Justices: 7 appointed by Republican Presidents.
4 California Supreme Court justices who forced "gay marriage" on the state: 3 appointed by Republicans.
Federal largess to Planned Parenthood under Republican Presidents and a Republican Congress? hundreds of millions of dollars
(As a Catholic, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, but with no illusions; it's politics and it's ultimately about money and power - bellying up to the public trough.)
Posted by: tony o | June 20, 2008 at 08:35 PM
>>>9 Supreme Court Justices: 7 appointed by Republican Presidents.<<<
Boy, we are getting the silly ones this week. Is this what happens when I go away to a conference for a few days?
So, tell me, just how do YOU ensure that a Supreme Court nominee lives up to YOUR expectations after he is confirmed and sitting in his life tenure position?
>>>Federal largess to Planned Parenthood under Republican Presidents and a Republican Congress? hundreds of millions of dollars<<<
Apparently, you have very little idea of how the Federal government works. Precisely what do the President and Congress have to do with how Federal grant money is distributed? Or have you not heard of the Code of Federal Regulations and the permanent Civil Service that administer it?
>>>(As a Catholic, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, but with no illusions; it's politics and it's ultimately about money and power - bellying up to the public trough.)<<<
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find politics corrupting the political system!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 08:40 PM
In the case of at least some of the Supreme Court justices in question, the Republicans were not playing anti-abortion Americans for chumps as much as the nominees were playing the Republicans -- including the presidents who nominated them -- for chumps. Or they started out one way and "grew" in office. One thing I admire about Bush junior is that he learned from his predecessors' mistakes in this area and gave us top-notch Supreme Court justices. Bush senior seems to have nominated Clarence Thomas quite by accident, wanting only a black man but getting an excellent jurist.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | June 20, 2008 at 08:42 PM
>>> Or they started out one way and "grew" in office. <<<
Ah! Judy has cracked the code. A conservative goes to Washington and becomes more liberal: he has "grown" in office. On the other hand, a liberal goes to Washington, and becomes more conservative: he has "sold out".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 20, 2008 at 08:55 PM
I believe the discussion was whether one could rely on the GOP to advance the pro-life cause politically. Will the GOP appoint and approve pro-life judges? Will the GOP at least attempt to de-fund the anti-life agenda of the left?
If these question are "silly" they will, I suspect, appear less so in November when significant numbers of dispirited conservatives (who apparently also have little idea how government "works") decide they have had enough and sit this one out.
Posted by: tony o | June 20, 2008 at 09:55 PM
>>So, tell me, just how do YOU ensure that a Supreme Court nominee lives up to YOUR expectations after he is confirmed and sitting in his life tenure position?<<
The only sure-fire solution I can think of is the threat of assassination, which, to my knowledge, has yet to be employed by any sitting or former president.
Posted by: Ethan C. | June 21, 2008 at 12:30 AM
>>Actually, I consider the Paleos to be the "far right", since their view of conservatism is definitely not classical liberalism (Whiggism) but much more closely aligned to pre-Disraeli Toryism. That is to say, the Paleos give every indication of being both the King's Party, the Church Party and the Country Party all rolled up into one.<<
I must admit that that description is quite appropriate in my particular case. The question of whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely separate.
However, I would put Church Party first, Country Party second, and King's Party third, if I were allowed to make a hierarchy. And you know how we Tories love hierarchies. :)
Posted by: Ethan C. | June 21, 2008 at 12:34 AM
The problem with Toryism in an American context is the negative orientation of that brand of conservatism. American conservatism of the Reaganist variety is really Whiggism, and I do confess that I have always been a Whig, albeit of a monarchist inclination.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 21, 2008 at 08:26 AM
>>The problem with Toryism in an American context is the negative orientation of that brand of conservatism.<<
I'm not sure what you mean by this. TO ask a potentially dangerous question, would you mind expanding a bit?
Posted by: Ethan C. | June 21, 2008 at 05:54 PM
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by this. TO ask a potentially dangerous question, would you mind expanding a bit?<<<
Toryism in its classical form tends to be reactionary and pessimistic. it aims to preserve the status quo, and generally believes the world is going to hell in a handbasket. It also stands for privilege, both social and economic, and therefore also supports a hierarchical social order.
American conservatism is actually classical liberalism, which must be distinguished from leftism or socialism, and has its roots in the English Whig tradition. It is far more optimistic in its outlook, supports advancement by merit, equality of opportunity, free trade and laissez faire capitalism with its rejection of both privilege and a rigid social order.
American liberalism today has its roots in socialism, progressivism and (cf. Jonah Goldberg), 20th century fascism, with its overwheening belief in the power of the state, distrust of individuals, desire to control the economic system from the top, rigid regulation of personal affairs, and the belief that military style mobilization of society (the moral equivalent of war) can bring about radical social change.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 21, 2008 at 08:11 PM
I think Stuart's delineations above are okay as far as they go, but you need to allow for a certain amount of overlap and cross-pollination between the two. American conservatism has both Whig and Tory aspects; what he's describing as 'American conservatism' is what I'd (loosely) call neo-conservatism. I believe it was William F. Buckley and the other folks at NR who initiated the 'coalition' between the more Tory-ish conservatives and the Whig strain, adding some libertarians along the way.
Posted by: Rob G | June 23, 2008 at 07:25 AM
>>>I believe it was William F. Buckley and the other folks at NR who initiated the 'coalition' between the more Tory-ish conservatives and the Whig strain, adding some libertarians along the way.<<<
This is what I would call "Reaganite Conservatism"--a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives. As with any such coalition, each element will consider its pet rock to be the most important, which at times will put them at odds with each other. The mixture is inherently unstable, hence the need for a gifted leader to maintain the equilibrium. Usually, that means making compromises that one or more of the groups will consider distasteful at best and an unmitigated sellout at worst--but the leader has the ability to make the bitter pill palatable.
There is an alternative, of course, the one on which the Democrats have relied for so long; i.e., demonization of the opposition. They hold the disparate elements of their coalition together by depicting Republicans as the epitome of evil, who rob old ladies, put little kids into sweatshops, burn crosses on black people's yards and want to ship all Hispanics back to Hispania, or wherever it is they come from. Oh, and we want to pave over Yosemite and turn it into a Walmart parking lot.
The utility of this approach comes not when the party is suffering adversity, but when it is in the ascendancy. Because that is when the checks come due, and the Dems have made all sorts of contradictory promises to their constituencies that cannot possibly be kept. Also, having fostered identity politics for so many years, they are now hoist on their own petard, for one cannot simultaneously be the party of women, the party of blacks, the party of hispanics, the party of the working white stiff and the party of intellectuals. That's a hypergolic combination.
So, now, as even Democrats have conceded, they have nominated a candidate whose base consists almost exclusively of blacks and college professors, which is going to win you Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC, but not too many other places. Hence the need of Obama to mend fences and choose a good Veep. But, sadly, if he picks a running mate who would appeal to one of the other constituencies, he will automatically alienate his base. So he's stuck. And as long as conservatives don't act like Democrats--I mean spoiled brats--and keep their eye on long term goals, then John McCain not only stands every chance of winning in November, the Republicans have a good chance of winning back some of the seats they lost in 2006.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 23, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Oh, and we want to pave over Yosemite and turn it into a Walmart parking lot.
Only after sucking it dry of any conceivable natural resource, of course.
Posted by: c matt | June 24, 2008 at 12:31 PM
>>>Only after sucking it dry of any conceivable natural resource, of course.<<<
Goes without saying. How does Cajun blackened snail darter sound?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 24, 2008 at 01:08 PM
>>I believe the discussion was whether one could rely on the GOP to advance the pro-life cause politically. <<
I am still trying to figure out how a state like Kansas with two thirds of the legislature republican has an abortionist like Killer Tiller.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | June 24, 2008 at 02:02 PM
>>>I am still trying to figure out how a state like Kansas with two thirds of the legislature republican has an abortionist like Killer Tiller.<<<
Must have something to do with those three guys, the one who needed a brain, the one who needed a heart, and the one who needed some courage. Either that, or ethanol subsidies.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | June 24, 2008 at 02:07 PM