How long will Catholics continue to be duped by the Pro-life crumbs tossed at us by the GOP?
There is a great post on this at the America blog:
The annual March for Life has come and gone. One of its more bizarre qualities is the way GOP presidents participate: by recorded message or telephone hook-up, but never in person. This began during Ronald Reagan’s presidency when some advisors did not want a photo beamed around the world of Reagan addressing the crowd, but those same advisors knew they had to at least acknowledge the role that pro-life forces played in Reagan’s 1980 victory. Reagan could look out the window of the Oval Office and see that marchers, as could every president since, but the phone connection has remained the means of participation. Even George W. Bush, who will never face another election and seems plenty unconcerned about the political fallout of other decisions, could not manage to emerge from his office to address the crowd in person.
Yesterday’s march in Washington was no different. Presidential aspirant John McCain sent a letter to the marchers that was read by fellow Sen. Sam Brownback. Mitt Romney, whose previous flip-flop on abortion has earned him a great deal of suspicion from conservative voters, issued a press release that is buried on his campaign’s Web site.
During the last two elections, Catholics had it impressed upon them, with constant vigor, the moral imperative of voting for a Pro-life politician. I admit I was usually swayed by this. We really believed that whom we were voting for would make Abortion the issue it deserved to be. In reality: hardly. This is similar to the tactic used to get Christians to vote for Bush: see, he’s a faithful Christian, and will work for policy that follows from Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who in fact created Bush’s public policy were a cabinet certainly not evangelical in orientation. The likes of Cheney, Romney, Rice, Rove, etc., were not at all “conservative Christians.” Their religion was the GOP, and their policies owed little to Christian principles.
Still the argument has remained for this election go-around. Abortion is THE critical issue. You have to vote pro-life, since candidates being pro-life means they will work to make abortion illegal again [false]. See, this candidate is pro-life, so you must vote for him.
This is not to say I find voting for pro-choice candidates a better option, as I do believe that Clinton or Obama would seriously work to expand abortion rights. Or at least tacitly allow those who would to do so.
What I’m wondering is, can we seriously believe anymore that the GOP is on the same page as the Catholic Church in fighting against abortion, and building a culture of life?
I guess the obvious question then is why aren’t there any Catholic candidates?
Oh, that’s right, there was Alan Keyes. How much support did you give him?
Maybe it isn’t the politicians only that fail to show up. Maybe it is the people who expect someone else to do it for them? Or maybe when there is a candidate that has Catholic values, the Catholics are the last to know about it or do something about it.
By the way, I don’t think abortion is the issue that we need to fear as much as gay marriage. Once that is legal, the priests will not be able to say a word about it, and they will be forced to do gay weddings or no weddings at all. This will undermine not only Catholic values, but the church itself.
Think about it. This is the sin that God called an abomination. Do you have the metal to stand up to the gay agenda?
Actually, I wonder if priests being sent to jail for speaking out against gay marriage might be the best thing for the Church here. BTW, I was a Keyes supporter ever since his 94 convention speech: “we don’t have money problems, we have moral problems”. Buchanan was never able to get enough Catholics to support him either.
Sen. Brownback was at the March for Life last year as a GOP candidate. He was there again this year as no longer a GOP candidate.
Where were all those Catholics when Sen. Brownback was in the race? It’s a 2-way street.
I doubt very much that Catholic clergy will be required by the State to officiate at gay weddings. The State now has a broader leniency of who can be married than the Church but doesn’t demand the Church follow all of its allowances. The Church is free to refuse marriage based on impediments under Canon Law or unwillingness to go through marriage preparation, for instance.
Keyes doesn’t draw support because he is cetifiable. One can be right on the issues, and I think Keyes is, and still be a lunatic. When he announced that he would run for the Senate in Illinois in 2004 I was enthusiastic. What a rude awakening I was in for. His campaign here in Illinois against Obama for the Senate in 2004 was the worst run campaign I have ever seen: chaotic scheduling, events at locations that made no sense, poor ads, etc. Keyes went out of his way to offend virtually every group he came in contact with. His press conferences were comic performances where Keyes would get into tedious arguments and shouting matches with reporters. Keyes did his best to convince the voters that he was unbalanced and it showed at the polls. Come election day I and 27.05% of the voters in Illinois voted for Keyes and Obama walked away with 69.7%. This was during the same election where President Bush, never a popular figure in Illinois, got 44.8%
Abortion is the most important issue. And the GOP, imperfect as it is, is the best vehicle for anti-abortion policies.
The Democrats, by sharp contrast, are completely in the pockets of the abortion lobby and there can be no deviation whatsoever from this orthodoxy, especially on the national level.
It’s rather depressing.
Thanks Matt for the post.
Abortion is just the carrot in front of Christians provided by the GOP. If the GOP would be really anti-abortion, they would have done something about it a long time ago. They would’ve rallied for an overturn of Roe v. Wade as the president rallied the whole world for a war in Iraq. They don’t care about abortion. Their “pro-life” cause is one of the few reasons (if not the only one) why Christians remain Republican. Without it, they’re nothing. If Roe v. Wade is overturned tomorrow under a Republican president, would that translate into not having a Democratic president ever again elected by Christians in this country? Of course not. As long as abortion remains legal in this country we will keep voting for “pro-life” candidates. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned and time passes, people would think they can vote for anybody now and the whole non-negotiable issue will no longer remain as strong (although the “possibility” of having a Democratic president appointing “liberal” judges would still remain a reinstatement of Roe vs. Wade.)
Please. The Republicans have been tireless in attempting to pass legislation against abortion in both Congress and the state legislatures. That they have not succeeded on more occasions is due to the Democrat party, the party of abortion. As the latest round of who can out-dead-fetus the other engaged in by Obama and Clinton amply demonstrates, the Democrat party today, with certain honorable exceptions, is as dedicated to the pro-abort cause as it was to pro-slavery cause prior to the Civil War.
Abortion is the most important issue. And the GOP, imperfect as it is, is the best vehicle for anti-abortion policies.
jonathanjones02: DUPED AGAIN.
By the way, I don’t think abortion is the issue that we need to fear as much as gay marriage. Once that is legal, the priests will not be able to say a word about it, and they will be forced to do gay weddings or no weddings at all.
Oh brother.
I’ll admit the idea sounds a bit far-fetched, Michael, but then: Who would have imagined that Catholic charities would increasingly be forced out of dealing with adoptions (as they have been in parts of the US and are being forced to in all of the UK) if they don’t agree to place children with openly gay couples?
And who would have imagined that a number of Catholic hospitals would be forced to stop offering any OB GYN services if they weren’t willing to provide abortions.
I’m not saying it will happen, but it’s certainly imaginable.
You beat me too it, Matthew– I was going to post on this very topic! This has been a con from day 1: the GOP can don the pro-life mantle, while not having to do anything that would actually reduce the scandal of abortion. Oh sure, they will promise to appoint the “right” judges, but even that is no compromise as these judges are always the ones who tend to rule the “right” way on issues pertaining to big business, executive power, the death penalty etc. Nice coincidence, isn;t it?
I’m just surprised that it took so long for many Catholic voters to figure this out. Then again, after years of debating in the Catholic blogosphere, it’s also patently clear that many GOP-leaning Catholics who claim such an allegiance based on abortion also tend to quite content with some of the other policy agendas that do not quite accord with Catholic social teaching (to put it mildly…). The more sophisticated of these Catholics argued (falsely) that one could not vote for a candidate who supported an intrinsically evil act… until it was pointed out that torture too is an intrinsically evil act….. and then we are left with Catholic Answers attempting to restrict their list of instrinsically evil acts to only that stuff where the GOP looks good. Thank God for the USCCB document!
Abortion provides the veneer of respectability, even morality, to an otherwise depraved and nihilistic agenda. For indeed, how can be party of Tom Delay, of Dick Cheney, of Mitt Romney, of Rush Limbaugh, of Lee Atwater, of Karl Rove, of Grover Norquist, or Ann Coulter, or Newt Gingrich– how can this party claim to be in favor of the dignity of the human person?
“Duped” into supporting a party full of anti-abortion people advancing anti-abortion policies when one likes those policies and those people because they share your views on this issue, which is rather important to you personally ?
How about: NOPE, HAPPY TO DO IT.
The GOP cannot afford to actually work to end abortion. If they did, it would be a great victory, but they would have nothing else that serious Christians could point to as a reason to support the party. Republicans need to keep abortion legal, but make it look like they are trying to end it, so that this game can keep on going and going.
HAPPY TO DO IT.
Dupes are often quite happy.
By the same reasoning, Democrats don’t really care about helping the poor, stopping the war, fighting global warming, etc., because if they did there would be no more war, poverty, or environmental degradation. And of course, if that happened, then all the people who voted for Democrats based on those issues would stop doing so, and the party would be hurt at the polls.
You keep it classy and full of substance, Michael. And should you have any points not related to name-calling, I’m happy to engage.
Government grants and contracts to Planned Parenthood increased each year while the Republican’s held the White House and the Congress. Just saying.
Blackadder,
Well, that is true in a way. But one difference is that ending abortion is a limited, achievable goal that the Republicans promise is just around the corner if you’d only vote for them. Ending poverty and war and environmental destruction are sadly not as immediately achievable as ending abortion. But Democrat policies can in some ways move us toward systems in which poverty, war, etc are curbed a bit more.
But I do agree that the Democratic party does not, on the whole, care about the poor or ending war. And their environmental concerns are not radical enough an protect big business just as much as the Republicans.
jonathanjones02 – I have made my point; you simply don’t like it.
Touche Blackadder. This is very true.
Again, gay marraige is the issue we need to watch.
It is the one nobody is willing to talk about, on either side of the fence. It is political suicide to oppose it openly.
You will be guilty of a hate crime if you do. It is a hate crime to follow God’s laws.
Think about that.
When the people who want to feel good about being Catholics who vote for the modern Democratic party finish thumping their chests:
Maybe someone can explain to me why it is that I should not suspect that a party which enshrines the “right” to abortion, radical feminism, and gay advocacy as some of its core tenets has something seriously messed up in its conception of what the human person is what what our purpose in life is?
There are problems with the Republican party, and while I disagree with populist economics, I understand why some people support them. On economics and healthcare and welfare, I can see why Catholic of good conscience might want a progressive agenda (though I think they’re wrong.)
But I remain kind of shocked that people manage to convince themselves that social issues are so peripheral to the two parties. The fact that the Democratic party has managed to come down solidly on the wrong side of nearly every single family issue suggests strongly to me that there is something very rotten in the heart and mind of the modern American progressive movement, and it makes me suspect all their other stands of being based on wrong understandings of reality.
Michael,
I don’t think ending abortion is any easier than ending poverty (even if abortion were criminalized in all 50 states there would still be a lot of abortions). And in terms of what is immediately achievable (e.g. partial birth abortion, parental consent ect.) I think the GOP has done a pretty good job, and are certainly better than the Democrats (who would give us full taxpayer funding for abortion, not to mention ESCR).
Stopping the war, by contrast, is an immediately achievable goal. Yet I’m willing to bet that even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, we will still have troops in Iraq come 2012. So if anything I think the charge of dupedness is much more credibly made w/r/t the Democrats and the war than it is for the GOP and pro-lifers (as it happens, I don’t buy the argument in either case, but that’s another story).
Re: what MM wrote above.
Please. Most of us are not stupid, and have been under no delusions regarding the GOP’s tepid endorsement of our agenda.
I will not be lectured on how I’ve been “duped” when the person doing the lecturing has embraced a party whose be all and end all is an unfailing commitment to abortion on demand. Clean up the mess in your own house. Post the sort of criticisms of your party and your candidates that you will find on my blog and others with respect to the GOP and its candidates. When you begin to make some headway with the Moloch gang, then come talk to me.
As it is, you’re just posturing on behalf of your party of choice, pointing out the specks in our eyes while ignoring the humongous beam in your own.
Great point DarwinCatholic.
It is one thing to agree or disagree with policy, or in other words, the how we get were we want to go. But you have to wonder where the Democrats want to go? We all want prosperity, peace, and for everybody to realize the American dream. But the Democrats seem to support at every turn those who want to undermine the church.
You really have to question whether someone is Catholic or not.
“… party of choice …”
No pun intended.
The fact that the Democratic party has managed to come down solidly on the wrong side of nearly every single family issue suggests strongly to me that there is something very rotten in the heart and mind of the modern American progressive movement….
The Republican party has come down consistently, as a matter of party policy, on the wrong side of nearly every economic issue and every issue regarding foreign policy from a Catholic point of view. These are life and death issues, and not less important than “family issues.” How can you overlook these issues or suggest that a Catholic can “in good conscience” overlook these issues in their support for the Republican party?
“Again, gay marraige is the issue we need to watch.
It is the one nobody is willing to talk about, on either side of the fence. It is political suicide to oppose it openly.”
Actually, every single declared candidate for president in both the Republican and the Democratic Parties have stated they do not support gay marriage.
Where the Democratic and Republican candidates differ is that all of the Democrats believe that a corporation should not have the right to fire a worker simply because he or she is gay, while Romney, McCain and Huckabee believe corporations should have that right.
Really, Michael?
What’s the Catholic position on per child tax credits? What’s the Catholic position on the inheritance tax? What’s the Catholic position on whether the welfare state LBJ constructed had a massively adverse effect on the families of the lower classes? What’s the Catholic position on school vouchers? What’s the Catholic position on farm subsidies?
There aren’t official Catholic positions on these questions. We, as Catholics, may take what we know from our faith and form positions on these issues, but honest and faithful Catholics can come come down either way.
I would disagree with you and say that the Republicans have been right on nearly every economic issue, and a great many foreign policy ones.
Because there can be NO legitimate disagreement within the Church on more than a few of the social issues, abortion of course foremost among them. One must engage in some serious political and religious mental gymnastics to truly believe that questions of tax policy and the like are as “life and death” as abortion.
There aren’t official Catholic positions on these questions. We, as Catholics, may take what we know from our faith and form positions on these issues, but honest and faithful Catholics can come come down either way.
The ones you listed, yes.
I would disagree with you and say that the Republicans have been right on nearly every economic issue, and a great many foreign policy ones.
Then you aren’t very familiar with Catholic social teaching or the Church’s just war tradition. Learn it.
One must engage in some serious political and religious mental gymnastics to truly believe that questions of tax policy and the like are as “life and death” as abortion.
Not talking about tax policy. The major issue I had in mind is war. And that IS just as much a life and death issue as abortion.
Jay: I’m not a Democrat. It’s not “my house”. Neither of these two American behemoths can house Catholics. It’s very misguided to claim, as some of you do, that the Republicans are better on that score. Just pick up the Faifthful Citizenship document and go down the list– the result is depressing.
On Darwin’s point:
“The right to abortion”. OK.
“Radical feminism”. Huh? This sounds like something from the throat of Rush Limbaugh. I would argue that many so-called conservative Catholics are overly-influenced by evangelical theology concerning the submission of wives to husbands on that front, and don’t quite appreciate John Paul’s unique contributions on the ultimate equality of man and woman.
“Gay advocacy”. Again, huh? If you mean laws to protect discrimination against gays, then call me a gay advocate. If you mean supporting civil unions, I will say that the state can do whatever it likes on that ground (as it can with divorce laws that I do not support). If you say marriage should encompass same-sex couples, then I will disgaree. If course, the Democratic party contains shades of every opinion. One more point: the USCCB document does not list opposition to same-sex marriage as one of the “intrinsically evil” list. I would include it among such topics as war and health care, rather than with abortion, euthanasia, and torture.
More fundamentually, the minset that leads a person to support abortion on demand is the same mindset that leads to free market absolutism and to supprt for same-sex marriage. It’s all about the satisfaction of individual wants and needs, never about the needs of society and the common good. It’s Enlighment-era individualism run amuck. It’s about a social contractarian approach to public life. This mindset is prevalent in the ideologies of both major parties. This particular post shows very clearly that the GOP is not what some would like it to be, or claim it to be.
Michael,
Then why did you say “economic and foreign policy” rather than “war”?
As it happens, I have read a fair amount the Church’s social teaching and just war teaching, and while I don’t think either party is a perfect home for them, I’m currently far more comfortable with the Republican fit and the Democratic one.
MM,
I was thinking of groups such as NOW and Human Rights Campaign when I referred to “radical feminism” and “gay advocacy”. Both are stalwarts of the Democratic party, and neither is anywhere close to being in keeping with Catholic teaching on either issue.
Darwin,
Because the philosophy and policies endorsed by the Republican party that contradict Catholic teaching are not limited to war, but war is one of the clearest examples.
I’m currently far more comfortable with the Republican fit and the Democratic one.
1) Not sure why you feel you would have to choose. Don’t be duped. The best approach, I think, is to take the entirety of CST seriously and refuse any party loyalty.
2) For someone who is supposedly only somewhat comfortable with the Republilcan party, you are defending them an awful lot and arguing that their positions reflect Catholic teaching. If you’re “far more comfortable” with a party that in fact systemically promotes war, torture, corporate welfare, environmental destruction, etc then I think something is dreadfully wrong. Oppose it all and refuse to choose.
Duped is the word for it. The sheep have been herded along by clever politicians, religious leaders who enjoy acccess to the halls of power based on how many votes they can deliver, and others whose motives dovetail nicely with the republican agenda of Let Them Eat Cake. Anyone who knows the facts can see “God’s Own Party” has no intention of stopping abortion. They certainly haven’t lacked opportunities, most recently 2003-06, four years of total govt control, White House-Supreme Court-House-Senate. So how did the “prolife party” use that golden opportunity??? They invaded Iraq, cut taxes on the rich, flirted with pages and built a bridge to nowhere. Now the sheep are finally starting to wake up.
Roe v. Wade has been upheld by a majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices for the last 35 years which isn’t surprising given the fact that it was a majority of Republican-appointed justices which gave us Roe v. Wade to begin with back in 1973. Six of the seven justices who voted in support of Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents.
The Republican controlled Congress did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe, even though Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives congress the authority to except and/or regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
O’Connor and Kennedy, both appointed by Reagan, have written landmark decisions favoring abortion and gay rights.
Stevens and Souter, nominated by Bush 41, turned out to be liberals (gasp!)
Shortly after John Roberts was nominated, he proclaimed Roe “the settled law of the land”. Not terribly encouraging.
SINCE THE ROE v WADE DECISION of 1973, REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUSTICES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE MAJORITY BY A MARGIN OF AT LEAST 7-2. Any THINKING person would have to wonder just how many Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices it takes to overturn Roe v. Wade????
They certainly haven’t lacked opportunities, most recently 2003-06, four years of total govt control, White House-Supreme Court-House-Senate. So how did the “prolife party” use that golden opportunity??? They invaded Iraq, cut taxes on the rich, flirted with pages and built a bridge to nowhere. Now the sheep are finally starting to wake up.
SINCE THE ROE v WADE DECISION of 1973, REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUSTICES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE MAJORITY BY A MARGIN OF AT LEAST 7-2. Any THINKING person would have to wonder just how many Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices it takes to overturn Roe v. Wade????
Thanks man. Truth hurts.
“Any THINKING person would have to wonder just how many Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices it takes to overturn Roe v. Wade????”
Probably one more to join Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito. Thank you for asking. Oh, and in regard to Roe, your numbers are incorrect. Marshall was appointed by LBJ and Douglas was appointed by FDR. Brennan was a Democrat, appointed by Ike in a misguided attempt at bipartisanship. Eisenhower later stated that his appointment was the biggest mistake in his life.
“Duped” into supporting a party full of anti-abortion people advancing anti-abortion policies
Ha! Duped again, yes! Jonathan, tune into the Republican debate tonight where five men are competing for the REPUBLICAN nomination for the highest office in the land. How many are “advancing anti-abortion policies”? Exactly.
I missed part of the debate last night. I heard about plans for more tax cuts. Can someone post what was said about the candidates anti abortion policies if it doesn’t take up too much space. Thanx/
just skimming this discussion, but the excellent point was made that, in reality, making aborition illegal would lessen the appeal of the republican party. in that sense, i feel compelled to choose to whom my votes will go based on other issues, as, with our party system based on wealth, such a decision would never be made (banning abortion), as it would have too much potential to damage the finances of career politicians. i choose, instead to spend my time working for and voting for things that will improve the lives of those who would consider abortions–making housing affordable, improving the quality and availability of healthcare, advocating for more realistic maternity and paternity leaves, improving the maternal healthcare system itself, increasing the minimum wage to a living wage, etc. the number of abortions will not decline until people are taken care of…how can i work to create a law when a social system is not in place to take care of the increased number of children? and, while i claim no allegiance to any party and am frankly sickened by the political system, i feel that my duty as a catholic is to vote for a candidate who will work to put these systems in place and will therefore reduce the perceived need for abortion, capital punishment (reduction of poverty=reduction of crime), and a lesser focus on war, financially….or i reserve my right as a catholic to not vote, if i find no candidate appropriate on these issues. being anti-abortion is not enough.