Chaput and Douthat on voting
June 3, 2008
Ross Douthat, one of the sharpest young commentators around, offers his response to Archbishop Charles Chaput’s opinion on voting for candidates completely in tune with the abortion lobby.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
The error in his argument is implicit in his own words: “reasons that go directly to issues of life and death on a scale proportionate to the scale of the abortion industry as licensed by Roe v. Wade”. The “license” for Roe v, Wade derives from the Supreme Court, not the legislature. Electing somebody who claims to be pro-life had not had any material impact on the practice of this “right”, and nor will it. For note that this is the key issue: publicing advocating a “right” to something that is no such thing, which is very different from saying that it is not a right, but that it need not be criminalized.
And one more point: I think he is largely correct the valid proportionate arguments center around what he euphamistically calls “foreign policy” (I prefer “bombing countries and torturing people”). But he pooh-poohs economic and health care policies too lightly– for a start, not by acknowleding the link betwen these policies and the incidence of abortion.
It is a mistake to weigh issues as opposed to consequences. This can be easily seen by considering a candidate for county tax assessor. Admittedly, the fairness of property tax assessments is a far less weighty issue than the legality of abortion. However, the county tax assessor has far more impact on the first than the second. Thus, in considering whether there exist proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion county tax assessor, the weight assigned to the abortion issue must be discounted by the likelihood that the outcome of this particular election will have any impact on that issue. I imagine that most people would agree that it could be discounted to zero and that the candidate’s position on abortion is irrelevant in determining whether there are proportionate reasons to vote for that candidate.
The article alludes to this consideration in the final paragraph, but it deserves far more than a passing reference. There is an entirely reasonable argument to be made that the outcome of electoral contests will have no significant impact on the legality of abortion in the U.S. If that is correct, then the weight assigned to this issue can be discounted to near zero and even a far less weighty issue (e.g. S-CHIP) could supply a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.
Because abortion is homocide, a grave sin with two victims, because it occurs in such large numbers, and because legislators, presidents, governors, and court justices all have a direct and potentially large say in the shape and scope of abortion law and funding – which directly impacts availability and thus our most innocent form of life – my view is that this issue outweighs all others and must be at the very front of candidate consideration.
What Jonathan said.
Even if it does outweigh all issues (and I don’t necessarily disagree with that), it’s a huge leap to supporting somebody you know either will not or cannot do much to reduce abortion, while at the same time will support policies that will indeed have evil implications.
MM-
In this case, the other guy has promised to enact legislation that will further the evil of abortion, and to undo policies put in place by the Bush Administration that prevent the federal government from subsidizing abortion.
Sorry, but you can’t type your way around that.
Obama is, hands down, the most radical proabortion candidate to ever run for the presidency. You don’t like McCain? Fine. I get that. Don’t vote for him. But I have yet to see a compelling argument that there are proportionate reasons justufying a vote for the likes of Obama.
MM: I would agree with that. So what is the practical application? If someone said, “I cannot support McCain because of ESCR and his propensity to bomb things” – fine and defensibe.
Obama, though, is even less defensible: never before has there been a candidate more “pro-choice”, in words and in actions and in promises. Literally – never. And it would be folly and factually inaccurate to suggest he as president would be far removed from abortion policy scope, funding, and scale, policy and funding and scope that greatly impacts the tens of millions of children slaughtered in the womb.
What Jonathan said.
What Feddie said.
What exactly will Obama do to further the incidence of abortion? If you are talking about the military bases on foreign soil, then I would say remove them (and I’m not being facetious here; I support that wholeheartedly).
And you not addressing the economic, health care, and social policies that could actually lower the incidence of abortion. One reason I like Obama is that, while he recognizes the economic determinants of poverty and marginalization, he does not shy away from the cultural factors– factors that I know weigh heavily on your mind. And with abortion so focused on the poor and minorities, any candidate who starts from this premise deserves some praise. Will he make things better? I have no idea. But we can…hope.
Let’s assume 2 candidates relatively powerless to affect the incidence of abortion. Let’s say one supports the “right” and one does not. If there are no other appreciable differences, then yes, I would say support the person who opposes this pseudo-right.
But there are appreciable differences. Look at Michael I’s post on the million or so killed in the Iraq war. This is child’s play next to to what would happen if McCain confronts Iran militarily. And I believe there is a reasonable chance he will do this. If this is not a proportionate reason, then I don’t know what is.
“What exactly will Obama do to further the incidence of abortion?”
- co-sponsor of “Freedom of Choice Act”
- wants increased federal funding, including for Planned Parenthood
- wants to end ban on military bases
- 100 percent rating (and endorsement) from NARAL and other groups
- opposes the Mexico City policy
- actively opposed and lobbied against a bill to define as a “person” a fully born baby who survived an abortion
- opposes ban on partial-birth abortion
- has said he will not put up justice nominations unless they are committed to Roe v. Wade
This is off the top of head…..but need one really continue?
Obama, like Bush and all other presidents post -1973, has significant power to affect the incidence of abortion. How is restricting or expanding access and funding powerless?
I didn’t say powerless, I said marginal. It may or may not be outweighed by the positive impact from the economic, heath care, and social policies. But let me be clear: I am not in anyway defending anything on this list. I deplore these policies (though I stand by what I said earlier on military bases).
Marginal? No, not at all since the Supreme Court took abortion policy from state legislators and gave it to the federal government. A president exercises considerable influence on abortion policy by executive order alone!
Then why have we not seen major changes in the incidence of abortion from “excutive order”? After all, were not Reagan and the two Bushes “pro-life”? That’s 20 years…
One thing that absolutely astonishes me about modern America is how little members of one sub-culture know about another. It’s really fascinating to watch, and so very different from how it is in other–perhaps smaller, and, thus, more intimately CONNECTED–societies, such as those found on the continent of Europe.
Do you “conservative Catholics” REALLY not understand how deeply felt the right to “CHOICE” is for MILLIONS of American women who consider themselves “feminists” and who would literally rive your bare semblance of a national community in half, if the “right” to “choice” is taken away from them? I myself–not very much of an American, for sure–know SCORES of women out here in the desert Southwest (near zany, leftist Santa Fe) who will take to the ramparts and BURN YOUR COURTHOUSES DOWN, if this “right” is taken away from them.
What you are asking for, in asking for the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade, is CIVIL WAR.
Rampant capitalization does not make an adolescent rant any more convincing.
digby – let’s just forget about extending legal protections to unborn children! Sure, why not? Who cares?
“Then why have we not seen major changes in the incidence of abortion from “excutive order”?”
Here is one example:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/22/MN96633.DTL
“After all, were not Reagan and the two Bushes “pro-life”? That’s 20 years…”
We came very, very, very close to saving countless of lives with the Casey decision, as abortion would have been returned to the states. This was because of Reagan, even as his justices were/are disappointments to pro-life advocates – a) the Democratic Senate would never approve the sort of nominee, like Bork, who clearly would have overturned Roe, so justices have to be cryptic, even as all activists have a decent idea of this “game,” as we saw with Alito and Roberts b) there is no way Mondale and Dukakis would have appointed justices who did not pass the Democratic “litimus test” on this question.
You want to remove abortion further from the political process? You want to most directly save unborn lives? Overturn Roe. And even that is one of the weaker arguments against Obama, as hypothetically – although it is extremely unlikely – one of his nominees could vote to do so.
There is already a civil war.
There have been 40,000,000 casualties.
Digby I very much doubt that there would be a Civil war. Where the feeling is most heated in the pro choice views that chances are those states would have abortion legal.
Digby seems to be suffering from a common (but elementary) confusion, i.e., thinking that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would instantaneously make abortion illegal everywhere.
Digby, all you’ve done is demonstrate how deeply disturbed many proaborts are in their thinking.
He also REALLY LIKES to CAPITALIZE things.
Digby – Wouldn’t fighting such a civil war instigated by those how would murder helpless children be just?
I think these arguments are all very good. It is good practice to try to defend the prudential aspects of the anti-abortion argument against those who would render the whole issue irrelevant in the name of material equality.
I must say however, that it seems we might have to admit there is no way to resolve this disagreement – and hey, maybe that’s the intention of the Holy Spirit. We can’t all agree about everything, because that would have its own separate negative consequences.
I mean, honestly, digby, MM, etc, look at abortion in the United States and see something totally different than do myself, feddie, jh, jonathanjones02, etc. It’s like we live on two different planets.
I mean, as someone who believes in the possibility of political truth, it’s hard for me to give up an argument especially when I’m convicted. But I cannot help but think this conversation, with these interlocutors, is pointless. There is nothing we could ever say that could convince MM or digby etc to vote for John McCain.
I hope this isn’t too much of a buzzkill. Also, I don’t mean to speak for anyone so please correct me if I’m wrong.
But does anyone else have this sentiment, i.e. that these conversations are sometimes a waste? Even MM or digby?
digby,
Do you want to know why this is important? Here is why:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_ypoajCNi_ew/SDRoWEpLo9I/AAAAAAAAAHM/ga0qqtCXpAg/s1600-h/24weeks.jpg
Zach — I could not agree more. The poisonous stalemate around this issue makes its pointlessness almost an objective fact.
I am friendly with people in both camps, and can see problems and strengths in both. But I cannot tell that to friends in either camp without being tarred as some kind of traitor. It’s like the two polar positions are black holes that suck in and devour all nuance and the capacity for empathetic engagement with different perspectives.
But alas, I can’t see this situation as the workings of the Holy Spirit. While claims about the impending Civil War are hyperbolic, I don’t think it’s too much to see this issue as evidence of a crisis of the Republic (not the only evidence, mind you). And in such a situation, history would suggest that Ol’ Scratch is much more likely to take hold of us….
A modest proposal. A moratorium on talking about the abortion issue per se. Instead for a time let us imagine and talk about what a conversation about abortion should actually look like. A real conversation that might make a real difference. Maybe then we could hope for some workings of the Holy Spirit.
As I say, I have friends in both camps so I know how such a proposal is likely to be greeted. Let the howls of execration begin.
Hey Prince,
Thanks for the note – it helps to know I’m not entirely crazy.
But I should clarify I am firmly on the side of supporting a Presidential candidate who is anti-abortion and intends to appoint conservative justices, especially at this particular moment in history. I also think we should have the abortion conversation with everyone we can, perhaps exempting this particular forum due to our habitual inability to persuade anyone of anything. We’re all set in our ways here, and we all have innumerable (sometimes inscrutable) reasons we use in self-defense.
I should also clarify that I didn’t mean to say disagreement is the work of the Holy Spirit; I suppose I meant that the disagreement may be somehow intended providentially – just as much as everything is, I guess.
That all being said, on everything excepting abortion, I would argue the conversations here are very worthwhile – I for one have learned a good deal about Catholic Social Thought and its implications for our politics.
Hey Zach — Agreed that Vox Nova is very worthwhile — wouldn’t bother to comment if it wasn’t. Even the discourse on abortion is far better here than elsewhere. The folks here are really trying.
And regarding the Holy Spirit, certainly I believe it will manifest itself if we are open despite our disagreements, despite all our worst failings.
I can see how abortion can be the decisive issue in the presidential race, but is it important for congressional races or state offices? If laws restricting abortion can’t be passed until Roe v. Wade is overturned don’t other issues (such as health care funding) rise in importance?
“I can see how abortion can be the decisive issue in the presidential race, but is it important for congressional races or state offices? If laws restricting abortion can’t be passed until Roe v. Wade is overturned don’t other issues (such as health care funding) rise in importance?”
There is still an inportance because the foundation must be set in the state level for the day Roe is hopefully overturned. Of course I guess if you are voting for the lets sya people on the Railroad Commission or State Controler their Pro-Choice stance is perhaps much less important in the scheme of things
You know, I think that people writing here are very, very stupid for the most part. I NEVER said that I was in favour of abortion on demand (I’m not). I just made the observation that the society is deeply polarized on this issue and suggested (by inference) that some sort of compromise might be preferable to civil strife. (And, no, I’m not confused about federalism and understand perfectly well that some states would keep abortion–just like some states would have kept slavery for a little while, if a solution more reasonable for THAT controversy than CIVIL WAR had been found.)
And, yes, I LIKE caps; it’s an 18th century writing style I like. I don’t agree with the modern convention that it represents YELLING, but think it indicates EMPHASIS, and I WILL continue to use it as much as I please.
What exactly will Obama do to further the incidence of abortion? If you are talking about the military bases on foreign soil, then I would say remove them (and I’m not being facetious here; I support that wholeheartedly).
But he isn’t going to remove them, and he is is going to authorize abortions on them, and particular children will be murdered in cold blood on them.
You can’t change the subject as though a vote for Obama was a vote for you, with all that you say you would do. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, not a vote for yourself.
Zippy,
While it is true that particular children would be murdered on military bases were such a policy to be enacted, it is also true they go off base for abortions now and would continue to do so if such a policy weren’t implemented. It is a question of geography and is not a particularly high consideration in a vote for President.
The only clear cut case where support would be untenable would be the case where the license to abort children would be expanded. Given the liberality of our abortion laws, this scenario is near impossible. Presently, the Republicans aren’t proposing to limit the abortion license, so it is pretty difficulty to hold their position as morally compelling. I know you don’t find either candidate compelling, but that is not the plane where many of us our making our choice.
MZ: nonsense. It is a grave moral evil to legalize abortion within any given geography under one’s jurisdiction, independent of speculation about what people may or may not have the opportunity to do elsewhere.
Under older theories of law and as is the case with many countries today one is governed under the laws of his country when not confined within that country’s territory. The U.S. in fact has a few laws asserting jurisdiction for acts commited overseas. Where this is particularly relevant is that the military is governed under the USMC which enjoys universal juridiction for all military members. There is no law in the USMC against seeking or procuring an abortion. Therefore it is indeed a case of geography, not that I support increasing the geographic footprint of abortion.
By a similar token one isn’t compelled to support a law preventing an abortion clinic from being sited within a 1000 feet of a school although I wouldn’t be against such a measure.
…not that I support increasing the geographic footprint of abortion.
You certainly appear to support increasing the legal ‘footprint’ of abortion, as long as doing so gets you other things that you want.
I think you mean ‘UCMJ’. Your whole discourse is a sidetrack, an attempted red herring, from the simple fact that Obama will in fact make abortion legal in places where today it is not.
My interest in abortion is not where it is carried out but upon whom it is done.
The implicit wasn’t enough for its own sake so I’ll make it explicit: I have no issue proscribing where abortion occurs for its own sake. Like most any rational person I will cede lesser goods for greater goods. I can’t for the life of me fathom why I should vote for McCain to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, injure countless more, and displace equally as many so Obama won’t elminate the abortion free zones at bases overseas. It’s tantamount to claiming opposition to drug free zones around schools is encouraging drug use.
I never suggested that you should vote for McCain. In fact, I think you shouldn’t. I think it is probably impossible to vote for either McCain or Obama without doing moral wrong.
- co-sponsor of “Freedom of Choice Act”
yes, but no chance it will pass either House of Congress.
- wants increased federal funding, including for Planned Parenthood
There is no federal funding of abortion. You can’t increase what doesn’t exist.
- 100 percent rating (and endorsement) from NARAL and other groups
And not one issue in NARAL’s scorecard is a direct abortion issue.
- opposes the Mexico City policy
which is not a direct abortion issue.
- actively opposed and lobbied against a bill to define as a “person” a fully born baby who survived an abortion
No. There was already a federal law as to this.
- opposes ban on partial-birth abortion
which has no chance of being repealed.
The items here may give evidence to the fact that Obama is pro-choice, something we already knew. They do not answer the question that is election would cause a rise in the number of abortions (the last major rise was under the pro-life/”me generation” individualism administration of Ronald Reagan. The steepest decline was under Clinton).
Kurt,
You need to get your facts straight. The Mexico City policy does, in fact, have something to do with abortion, Planned Parenthood gets more than $250 million in taxpayer funding a year, and the federal born alive bill, like most federal laws, applies only in certain circumstances, meaning that the state born alive bill Obama killed would not have been redundant. Whether the Freedom of Choice Act might pass if you had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and a Democratic President is debatable. That nothing on NARAL’s scorecard has to do with abortion is just laughable.
Blackadder,
I do have my facts straight. I repeat, nothing in NARAL’s scorecard is a direct abortion vote. The votes are as follows:
HR 976 – has to do with nomenclature. HR 2764 pertained to a dispute over activities of the UNPF and presidential authority. HR 2764 (2 votes) had to do with contraception and overseas groups. HR 3043 had to do with contraception and domestic groups.
The indirect connection with abortion had to do with making grants available to non-profit groups to distribute contraceptives. It was proposed that private groups that use their private money to provide abortions should not be allowed to apply for these grants. Fair enough. There is a debate as to if “all money is fungible” or not.
For an example of politicians rank hypocrisy, observe this debate when the issue is school vouchers (illegal financing of religion?) or health care services (Planned Parenthood?). Few, on either side, show any consistency.