“The Pragmatic Party of Death”
Yet another excellent post by my good friend, Joe Carter, over at the Evangelical Outpost. Here’s a taste:
I am a political realist . . . Because I’m a political realist, I also believe that in the long run electing Rudy Giuliani will be even more detrimental to the pro-life cause than would a Hillary Clinton presidency . . . .
Giuliani supports abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion. He supports public funding of both abortion and embryo destructive research. Giuliani is unapologetically in favor of the right to end the life of the unborn. His position is almost indistinguishable from that of Hillary Clinton.
Anyone who thinks that Giuliani would disregard his deeply held commitment to abortion rights to placate a constituency who he despises doesn’t know the former Mayor of New York. He will relish sticking it to social conservatives, a group that will have done nothing to help him get elected. He will reason that his socially liberal positions will help win over enough Democrats to help him during his reelection efforts. And besides, if conservatives were willing to compromise and vote him in as the “lesser evil” in 2008, why would they do otherwise in 2012? Will the Democratic candidate be any better?
So on the issue of abortion, there will not be a shred of difference between Clinton and Giuliani. What will be different is that Clinton and the Democrats are already members of what Ramesh Ponnuru calls the “party of death.” . . . . However, if Giuliani is elected everything changes. Despite what a plank in the party platform might say, when the de facto leader of the GOP is pro-abortion then the party has crossed the line over into the “party of death.” A pro-abortion Republican President would be devastating, leaving the pro-life movement without a viable political party.
I can only speak for myself but I want to make the message clear: If Republicans choose to spurn the field of pro-life candidates, chooses to spit on the values of social conservatives, and chooses to remake the GOP into the “party of death”, they will do so without me. This isn’t a bluff; it’s a statement of principle. I’m a pro-life conservative who will never cast a ballot for a pro-abortion liberal. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. And God help this country if social conservatives aren’t willing to stand with me.
To that, all I can say is: Amen, my protestant brother.
Comments are closed.
And I’ll ditto that Amen.
Despite what a plank in the party platform might say, when the de facto leader of the GOP is pro-abortion then the party has crossed the line over into the “party of death.”
“Party of death” language is not only unhelpful, it is a flat out lie to use it exclusively in reference to the Democratic party. What we are dealing with is what Pope John Paul II, et al, called the “culture of death” and this permeates of American society (and of course throughout the world as well). JPII, nor any other ecclesial spokesperson or document, has used the term “party of death” and it is important to understand why. We must not kid ourselves by thinking that the Republican Party is only now, because of Giuliani, passing over into the “party of death.” 1) Giuliani isn’t the first GOPer to argue for abortion and 2) the culture of death has to do with more than abortion and the GOP has been a proud sponsor of the culture of death for a long time now, in its own way. When the GOP hails war as the way of protecting and promoting “our way of life” it means one thing: making the world safe for “choice” of all kinds, including abortion.
it is a flat out lie to use it exclusively in reference to the Democratic party.
Ramesh Ponnuru, who wrote the book The Party of Death did not use it exclusively in reference to the Democratic party, and alexham’s point is that the any person or party that refuses to protect the unborn is a member of the pary of death.
Michael-
FWIW, if you read Joe’s post, he does include the following quote from Ramesh’s book:
“The party of death should not be confused with a conventional political party: It has members (and opponents) within both of America’s major political parties, although it is much stronger today among Democrats than Republicans.”
If that’s not a fair statement, then I don’t know what is.
Paul and Alexham,
That is a fair statement. I think Michael’s point is the same I made in another combox when he says that
the culture of death has to do with more than abortion
which is clearly expressed in JPII’s thought.
To be clear, I do not support Rudy Giuliani; I think he is objectionable for many, many reasons, and loathesome for more than a few. I really hope he does not get the Republican Party’s nomination, and agree entirely that a GOP which no longer stands clearly with unborn persons is a far, far less attractive political party.
That said, when Joe — whom I admire — writes (and Alexham approves): “Any pro-lifer who thinks Giuliani’s position on judges makes him the ‘lesser evil’ is only fooling themselves”, my response is, “well, no.” Now, to avoid personalizing the issue, I won’t say, for example, “any pro-lifer who fails to appreciate that Giuliani’s position on judges is better than the position of his likely opponent is fooling him- or herself.” Instead, I’ll just suggest that, in fact, for Giuliani to win, he will, in fact, need the support of social conservatives — millions of them. So, it is not at all obvious to me why we should assume that his Administration — and all of the various people he will appoint to all the various executive posts he has the power to fill — will not be, at the very least, more receptive to the concerns of pro-lifers than will the officials who will staff the Clinton Administration.
Katerina:
I agree with that as well. It certainly extends way past abortion, and Ramesh’s book makes that abundantly clear.
If that is Ramesh’s true position, then I fail to see the benefit of even using the term “party” of death. If “culture” of death is really what he means, as something that transcends any particular party, then to use the word “party” confuses the issue and can mislead Catholics who are still hypnotized by the two party system. And that seems like purposeful confusion to me.
Katerina, I agree.
Rick, your point is well taken. And I agree that Rudy is much more likely to appoint Federalists as judges or to high-level positions in the executive branch than HRC. I guess the bottom-line question is: Is that worth the price of inflicting long-term damage to the pro-life movement and the Republican Party? I answer that question in the negative, but I certainly understand why others view the matter differently.
MI-
I think what Ramesh means is that there is a political subculture within the broader “Culture of Death” that makes up a de facto political party of sorts, and that this “party” includes both dems and Republicans.
Paul/Alexham,
That book you guys are mentioning may be interesting then.
Rick That is a good point
TO be honest I think all this ” we pro-lifers” are going to bolt the GOP if the Good Mayor of New York gets it is very very counter productive. Pro-lifers should be spending their time working for the various pro-life people in the race. The fact is that this is not 1960. Many people that have “r’s” by their name when they go do their civic duty are going to have very little knowledge of all these threats to bolts. In other words theirParty ID and knowledge oif Party dynamics is weak. Most GOP voters will not be thinking I better for aRudy or else the GOP will go boom.
I really think the GOP is going to a brokered convention. I know that scenario is always predicted and wished by political nerds but it might happen. In the end of the day if Gullani gets it there is the VP slot. I suspect that would go to a pro-lifer and a deal would be made that he or she could vote their convictions on tied votes in the US senate on pro-life issues
Further, and I hate to burst Pro-life people’s bubble. The fact is the so scalled more “moderate ” wing of the party has been voting for PRO-life Tickets for decades despite many of them being pro-choice. I know people hate to admit it but we need their votes. We can’t say on one hand if Rudy gets the nods we are leaving with our toys and on the other if say Huckabee gets it demand the moderates vote and be loyal to the GOP. One must see it from their shoes.
The solution is to quit the threats(which voters respond in a negative way too) and work to get a pro-life person in. I am not all convinced that Rudy is going to survive his pro-choice views plus his gun control views. THE NRA is going to declare all out war to make sure he doesnt win the SOuth, in Michigan, and in certain Western States. Therefore people should be working for the pro-life person of their choice to get in.
It is an excellent book, and well worth your time.
It is unacceptable to vote for any politician of any party committed to advancing and protecting the “right” to abortion.
JH-
One can both work for the election of a prolifer and against the candidacy of a proabort at the same time. It’s called multi-tasking, I think. :)
Alex – The word “party” though does not refer to a “political subculture” but to just that: a party. It’s intentionally misleading.
I believe that is what they call, “The Editor chooses the title.” IIRC, Ramesh didn’t care for the title.
MI-
Well, that’s your take. I respectfully disagree.
My experience has been that many of those who find the use of the term “Party of Death” offensive just happen to be members of the Democratic Party, a party that has completely sold its soul to the proabortion movement. Needless to say, I have little sympathy if that label cuts a little to close to home for those folks.
MZ-
That’s my understanding as well.
I understand that ALex lol. I am just saying people need to think of tactics here and just how people work.
It just seems to have my email stuff edfull of anti Rudy spam and hardly nothing on Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, etc is counterproductive months before a election. In effect I think it is helping RUDY and drowning everyone out.
I admit I am tad biased at whom some of the people I see oushing this. This just reeks to me of people that bring me the daily “BUSH IS PLOTTING TO FORM THE NAU OMG” please send us $$$$$. Now I am not talking about you or other bloggers(at least not most of them) but the people that profit off all this.
I just think this is all overreaching at this point is very dangerous and will cause GOP voters to do the opposite of what we pro-lifers want.
Fianlly we got to think long term. Keeping the moderate votes in the GOP(and by we I mean GOP conservtives) in the party and together post convention. Making threats to bolt this early if we can not win a contest fair and sqaure is not going to help that.
We have enough trouble anyway. It appears that Tancredo is the face of the GOP to many Hispanics despite the fact that is not true. Already I am looking at poll numbers in Florida, in Colorado, in Nevada, and New Mexico that scare me silly. At the end of the day we have to get more votes to get in and have some influence. It looks like to me at this rate we are running out of people to needlessly annoy and to hurt us.
If it goes to a brokered Convention I do not see Rudy getting the nod. Even though I do think that he would in that scenario have to be offered the VP slot. If not the party goes boom and hello Hillary. The one good thing going for Pro-lifers is that Rudy strikes me as the type of guy that would not want to be VP.
If it is not brokered I can see hardly NONE of the GOP delegates that would be attached to Hopefuls that have to drop out going to Rudy. Huckabee delegateswould not. I don’t think most Thompson delegates would. Ditto for Romney.
Michael’s right–the term “party” is imprecise and vague, and I do not think its use is purely incidental. It’s irresponsible and prone to a political interpretation within the contemporary American political climate. Despite what he may say, I believe Ramesh understands this ambiguity and is perfectly fine with allowing it to set up camp. Either he is being disingenuous, which is what I believe is the case, or he is just sloppy with his choice of wording. In either case, Ramesh has done a disservice with his title.
jh-
I think you have a point there, and today I wrote a post that more or less said it’s time to move on and pick a candidate to rally around. In other words – the anti-rudy stuff is all well and good, but we also need to affirmatively back a candidate. I’ve personally narrowed it down to Romney and Thompson. Huckabee intrigued me, but he’s just too populist for my taste.
But I also think it’s important to hammer home the point that a Giuliani nomination would split the party into pieces. Some people are genuinely unaware of the antipathy towards him, and are backing him almost solely because they deem him to be the most electable candidate. So while we should dial down the tone a notch, it’s important to make other voters aware how deep our feelings go.
Michael I is absolutely correct and I would go further and argue that the use of the term “party of death” is highly offensive, as it is basically taking something associated with Catholic social teaching and dressing it in tardy partisan garb. That’s bordering on blasphemy. I don’t buy Ponnuru’s mealy-mouthed explanation– every dog on the street knows what he means by that term. Note also that the use of the term is carefully chosen, so that everything the GOP does on the death front (bombing countries without provocation, hiriong mercenaries to shoot people without consequence, executing people, torturing people etc etc) is off the table. It’s an Orwellian strategy to turn a war party into a party of life.
My experience has been that many of those who find the use of the term “Party of Death” offensive just happen to be members of the Democratic Party, a party that has completely sold its soul to the proabortion movement. Needless to say, I have little sympathy if that label cuts a little to close to home for those folks.
That may or may not be true, but it certainly does not apply to me as I am not a member of any political party. For me, it’s not that it “hits close to home.”
…it is basically taking something associated with Catholic social teaching and dressing it in tardy partisan garb.
MM is right here. This term “party of death” is even more offensive, I think, than George W. Bush’s appropriation of JPII’s term “culture of life” as his own. Bush’s use of the Catholic term is a severe misappropriation; Ramesh’s use is a politicized perversion of a Catholic term.
MM-
Ah yes, that’s what the GOP is all about: bombing other countries without provocation, hiring mercs to shoot people for at will, etc. That’s in our party platform, right?
These type of comments are what causes many commenters to respond to your posts in the way they do. The GOP may not be perfect, but it is a Hell of a lot better than the dems on life issues, and deep down I suspect you know that.
Yes, war is tragic (albeit necessary in some cases). But your party, the Democratic Party, promotes as a public good the wholesale slaughter of unborn children, and there’s no amount of whitewashing you can do on this blog or anywhere else that will change that fact.
As for your comments re: Ramesh, I think they say a great deal more about you than they do about him. Ramesh is a devout Catholic, and a good man. I am proud to call him my friend.
I wonder sometimes if the pro-life movement hasn’t been too focused on politics and the law. Yes, it is important that Roe v. Wade be overturned, that we have a pro-life President who will nominate good Supreme Court Justices and veto anti-life measures, etc. But if Roe were overturned tomorrow that wouldn’t end abortion in the United States. Law and politics tend to be much more moved by culture than they move the culture, and it seems to me that pro-lifers have fallen off in recent years trying to win people to the pro-life cause, rather than simply trying to win elections.
Ramesh is one of the smartest and most decent policy commentators we have. His book is in my personal que, and I look forward to it.
The GOP may not be perfect, but it is a Hell of a lot better than the dems on life issues, and deep down I suspect you know that.
That all depends on which “life issues” make it to your list, Alex. Deep down, I suspect you know that.
Yes, war is tragic (albeit necessary in some cases). But….
There you go; a good summary of the Republican platform.
Ramesh is a devout Catholic, and a good man.
No judgment on Ramesh here, as I know nothing about him. But to defend someone’s political positions by an appeal to how “devout” he or she is isn’t very convincing.
MM wrote:
“Michael I is absolutely correct and I would go further and argue that the use of the term “party of death” is highly offensive, as it is basically taking something associated with Catholic social teaching and dressing it in tardy [sic] partisan garb. That’s bordering on blasphemy.”
Bordering on blasphemy? Wow.
MM, I read this blog frequently. I have been entertained and educated by your posts, but with regards to the issue of appropriate terminology, your ethos is severely deficient. In one of your recent posts you said that the opponents of SCHIP were “attacking sick children.” And yet, you are now oh-so sensitive about Alexham’s phraseology. Please, exhibit some charity…
…and write another post about universal health care–your ethos is firmly established on that topic.
MI-
Well, the life positions that I care about the most, and emphasize, just happen to be the same ones emphasized by the Church and PBXVI: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia. I also care deeply about only engaging in just military engagements, intervening to stop the genocide in Darfur, preventing torture, etc.
Yes, war sometimes is necessary. Were that not the case, there would be no need for a “just war” theory, now would there?
As for Ramesh, I was simply attesting to his character given MM’s personal attack (which went far beyond a mere policy disagreement).
One other point on Ramesh’s use of the word “party,” which some here have objected to.
It is not uncommon to use the word “party” to refer to political formations going beyond Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, doing so has quite a long lineage. For example, The Nation, which I suspect MM subscribes to :), has used the phrase “the war party” (as MM did in a comment to this post) to include Republicans and hawkish Democrats. Also, consider the use of “country party” vs. “court party” in early modern European countries. In short, it’s not like what Ramesh (or his publisher) did in using the “Party of death” label was novel.
At least Giuliani has common sense. If you are going to support a war that has killed over 12,000 innocent civilian men,women and CHILDREN then you damn well better support abortion. THAT certainly would be an abomonation, my friend.
I look up to ya’ll. Big brains and what not. So tell me, could I ever, as a man of concsience vote for anyone who supports abortion?
David-
Short answer: It is never licit to vote for a prabort because he/she is a proabort. Othe than that, it depends.
Proabort v. Prolife= No.
Proabort v. Proabort=Yes.
MM will take issue with my assertion that you cannot vote for a proabort if there is a prolife alternative, but he’s wrong. Pay him no mind. :)
Proabort v. Prolife= No.
Really? So, voting against David Duke for governor of Louisiana was wrong because his opponent was pro-choice and he was pro-life?
Anon-
So, voting for a person who advocates the murder of unborn children over a vile racist is somehow right?
In that case, the better course of action would have been to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate.
But that MM character, annoying though he is, has the force of moral theology on his side!
See here for full details: http://vox-nova.com/2007/05/23/can-catholics-vote-for-pro-abortion-politicians/
And the notion that the Republican party is more pro-life than the Democrats is patently absurd.
The notion that the Republican party is not more pro-life than the Democrat party is patently absurd Tony. Your beloved Democrat party is as pro-abort now as it was pro-slavery in 1860. I hope a century from now Democrats are just as ashamed of the position of their party on the abortion issue now, as I assume most Democrats today are ashamed of the pro-slavery past of their party.
The solution is to quit the threats(which voters respond in a negative way too) and work to get a pro-life person in.
jh, imagine the following scenario. You’re zipping along the road and you come to a blind curve. As soon as you turn the curve, you notice you’re heading for a bridge that is out, and you can’t stop in time, and you plunge into the ravine.
Now imagine that there is a sign a mile ahead of the blind curve saying “bridge out”. Is that sign a “threat”? Would you prefer to have the sign or not? Are you going to ignore the sign and plunge into the ravine? If you do, are you going to blame the sign?
Blackadder,
I agree with you in large part. I do think that encouraging wider use of sonagrams foes have the tendency to make people pro-life, so that is one positive trend at least.
Well, the life positions that I care about the most, and emphasize, just happen to be the same ones emphasized by the Church and PBXVI: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia. I also care deeply about only engaging in just military engagements, intervening to stop the genocide in Darfur, preventing torture, etc.
Then you simply are paying attention to other issues that the hierarchy emphasizes.
David, of course you could, in good conscience, if you are voting for the pro-choice candidate in spite of the fact that he or she is pro-choice and not because he or she is pro-choice. Ratzinger articulated this position some time ago.
David-
I am afraid my friends, MM and MI, are misinformed and/or misguided. What the Holy Father has said is that one can vote for a proabortion politician if there are “proportionate reasons” for doing so.
Unfortunately, for my more liberal friends, there can never be proportionate reasons to vote for a proabort when there is a prolife alternative.
My liberal friends will point to issues like poverty, the environment, war, etc. and say, “But the pro-life candidate is horrible on these issues, and they have an impact on life as well.” And they are, of course, right. But here’s the thing, there is not one prolife Republican running for office who thinks poverty, polluting, or war, are just fine and dandy. There are differences in how to accomplish goals, or whether a war is just. These are prudential matters. Abortion is a non-negotiable. If a candidate favors abortion, he is condoning and facilitating the wholesale slaughter of innocent life.
Don’t be fooled by the attempts of some in our Church to downplay the evil of voting for a proabortion politician. It is inexcusable when there is a prolife alternative. And as a practical matter, the Democratic Party will never change its stance on abortion until members of its own party stand up to it. That alone ought to cause my friend MM to reconsider his views on this matter.
Finally, if you are interested in reading my prior posts on this ongoing debate with MM, here they are:
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/26/on-fred-thompson-and-making-excuses-for-the-democratic-party/
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/26/sound-theological-basis-for-saying-that-catholics-cannot-vote-for-a-pro-abortion-candidate-when-there-is-a-prolife-alternative/
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/26/a-few-final-points/
Alex – I agree that there must be “proportionate reasons.” I disagree with you when you say that there cannot be proportionate reasons when a “pro-life” candidate is an option. Unfortunately, the Church has not described it in the way that you have, so I only assume you are reading into it what you like.
I think it inaccurate to refer to those who advocate abortion rights as being pro-abortion. Some may be, I suppose, but the position of most seems to be that abortion is a bad thing but is sometimes morally acceptable (like war), or that abortion is an evil but that certain circumstances justify doing evil. The abortion rights advocates don’t have an awe and respect for abortion akin to the awe and respect the pro-life folks (myself included) have for the life of the unborn.
Abortion is always an evil and is never justified, and if we want to convince the opposition of that, then we need to use language that is accurate and hospitable. Otherwise we alienate them. Given that 81% of Americans think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, I’d say we’ve got a long road ahead that requires more than overturning Roe v. Wade. We need to persuade those who influence and shape the culture. A step in that direction is to seek to understand the opposition as they understand themselves.
Good call, Kyle.
Boycotting the Democrats as a tactical matter until they get their act together on abortion is a fair tactic, but there is no compulsion to do so under moral theology. I’m afraid Alex, well intentioned as he is, simply does not understand what proximity to the evil act means. Voting for a politician who supports abortion when you clearly do not share that intention, and when that politician’s influence on the actual incidence of abortion is strictly limited, is perfectly licit. The non-negotiability applies to the specfic act of directly-procured abortion itself, and formal cooperation with it, Especially given the circumstances in the US, the voter’s cooperation is of the remote material nature, nothing close to formal (assuming the intent is not there, of course). And yes, a voter’s assessment of the abortion issue does entail prudential judgment. Making a decision to vote for X because X will nominate judge Y who will overturn Roe v. Wade which will lower the abortion rate involves a number of steps that lie in the realm of uncertainty. It’s a valid position, but it’s not the only one.