You know, I reamed Dr. Charlie Camosy once, because he remained a Democrat, in the face of their abortion immorality. I wasn't fair to him, and I deserved the silence I got. It turns out that we would meet here in the middle on this. Dr. Camosy wrote a book about abortion dialogue, and hopefully turning the temperature down a bit. I should have listened to him.
On the other hand, he's since left the Democratic Party because of these radical positions in the party on abortion. Someone pro-life will have to run and win as a Democrat, to face down Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and whomever else. Maybe become president. And then, maybe, such a visible person could give others the courage to be pro-life Democrats again. Maybe one day soon.
And that's the other thing: it is an outrage that there is no room among major players in that party for the pro-life position. I can't in conscience vote for their presidential candidates, because there's no ambivalence at all: a Democrat today will not do anything to restrict abortion.
A pro-life position as a political matter is a public declaration that the opposite position of "choice" is morally unacceptable as such, for all people. A pro-life politician moves to restrict abortion, because it is a moral stain upon all of us, whether or not we participate in procuring or providing one. It is beneath a people who claim to be decent and compassionate. It doesn't seem that way to many people; hence, the stain. We're so used to it that we tolerate all sorts of flimsy arguments to keep it around.
In my experience, most pro-life Republicans actually do the things pro-choice Democrats say they do not do: helping mothers, fighting poverty, etc.
On the other hand, I actually believe that most serious policy debates of moral consequence are happening inside the Democratic Party. Even before the Republican Party became a full-blown cult of personality, the Republicans had become unserious about our most pressing problems. On the one hand, this is to be expected: parties exist solely to win elections. Expecting coherence from pragmatism is a fool's errand. Yet too many times I realized: If I want to actually solve this problem--whatever it is--or to acknowledge it as a problem, I can't think like a Republican.
A party as an heuristic for an ideology had become confining. In addition, I realized that my anger at the Democrats over abortion and related ethical missteps wasn't useful. I wasn't actually helping anything or anyone. That's what they want. If the powerful on both sides of the issue can keep us angry and voting while changing nothing, all aboard the gravy train.
I'm no Democrat; I don't believe that any form of individualism--in the bedroom, or in public--truly reflects love and solidarity with others.
I'm no Republican; I don't believe that the biggest threat to our existence is government at any level. I believe that government that doesn't work and doesn't respond to people's real needs is a bigger threat. I don't think we should crowd out private associations doing good, but make no mistake: Government is philosophically and actually primarily responsible for the common good. A government that exists legitimately only because it hasn't been overthrown is no way to found a country.
I don't believe in capitalism. I don't believe in socialism, either. We can't even have a real discussion about that, because some people are afraid of the Reds again. Moreover, the same people are so enraged at the advocates of "choice" on abortion that they won't listen to any other moral claim about anything else.
I have no credibility to lecture anyone about contempt for others, but I know that contempt precludes thinking and rational dialogue.
On the other hand, he's since left the Democratic Party because of these radical positions in the party on abortion. Someone pro-life will have to run and win as a Democrat, to face down Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and whomever else. Maybe become president. And then, maybe, such a visible person could give others the courage to be pro-life Democrats again. Maybe one day soon.
And that's the other thing: it is an outrage that there is no room among major players in that party for the pro-life position. I can't in conscience vote for their presidential candidates, because there's no ambivalence at all: a Democrat today will not do anything to restrict abortion.
A pro-life position as a political matter is a public declaration that the opposite position of "choice" is morally unacceptable as such, for all people. A pro-life politician moves to restrict abortion, because it is a moral stain upon all of us, whether or not we participate in procuring or providing one. It is beneath a people who claim to be decent and compassionate. It doesn't seem that way to many people; hence, the stain. We're so used to it that we tolerate all sorts of flimsy arguments to keep it around.
In my experience, most pro-life Republicans actually do the things pro-choice Democrats say they do not do: helping mothers, fighting poverty, etc.
On the other hand, I actually believe that most serious policy debates of moral consequence are happening inside the Democratic Party. Even before the Republican Party became a full-blown cult of personality, the Republicans had become unserious about our most pressing problems. On the one hand, this is to be expected: parties exist solely to win elections. Expecting coherence from pragmatism is a fool's errand. Yet too many times I realized: If I want to actually solve this problem--whatever it is--or to acknowledge it as a problem, I can't think like a Republican.
A party as an heuristic for an ideology had become confining. In addition, I realized that my anger at the Democrats over abortion and related ethical missteps wasn't useful. I wasn't actually helping anything or anyone. That's what they want. If the powerful on both sides of the issue can keep us angry and voting while changing nothing, all aboard the gravy train.
I'm no Democrat; I don't believe that any form of individualism--in the bedroom, or in public--truly reflects love and solidarity with others.
I'm no Republican; I don't believe that the biggest threat to our existence is government at any level. I believe that government that doesn't work and doesn't respond to people's real needs is a bigger threat. I don't think we should crowd out private associations doing good, but make no mistake: Government is philosophically and actually primarily responsible for the common good. A government that exists legitimately only because it hasn't been overthrown is no way to found a country.
I don't believe in capitalism. I don't believe in socialism, either. We can't even have a real discussion about that, because some people are afraid of the Reds again. Moreover, the same people are so enraged at the advocates of "choice" on abortion that they won't listen to any other moral claim about anything else.
I have no credibility to lecture anyone about contempt for others, but I know that contempt precludes thinking and rational dialogue.
Comments