Wednesday, September 27, 2006
George's Reply on Pro-Life Democrats
Continuing our conversation on abortion and Democrats (see here, here, here, and here), Robert George writes:
I'm grateful to Rob Vischer for his posting in response to my remarks on the First Things blog regarding the obligations of pro-life voters. Rob's questions are legitimate and important ones. They cast light on the profound and even tragic dilemma in which we find ourselves as the result of the Democratic Party's support for abortion and embryo-destructive research.
I take it as axiomatic that where multiple injustices exist, our conduct as democratic citizens should be governed by careful and sober judgments regarding the gravity and scope of the various injustices. This does not presuppose the quantifiability of injustices; but it does assume that we can assess in non-mathematical (but nevertheless rational) ways the gravity of injustices and their magnitude. My own view, having tried to think through the question as carefully and soberly as possible, is that the injustices supported by the Democratic Party (though, of course, not by all Democrats) are so grave, and their magnitude is so great, that it is not reasonable to act for the sake of bringing the party into power--even assuming for the sake of argument that the Democrats have the superior (including more just; less unjust) positions on issues such as immigration, welfare, taxes, social security, and foreign policy. Obviously, the validity of my judgment here depends on the soundness of my assessments of the gravity and scope of the injustices on both sides of the equation. Pro-lifers will agree that the authorization and funding of cloning for the production of hundreds of thousands or millions of embryonic human beings to be destroyed in biomedical research would be a grave injustice and that the magnitude of this injustice would be extraordinary. Perhaps some would argue that the magnitude of the putative injustices supported by the Republican Party in other areas offsets this. That does not strike me as a reasonable position, though I would be happy to consider any argument someone has for why I'm wrong about that.
Notice that what I'm saying here does presuppose that the relevant judgments are contingent in certain ways. Rob asks some hypothetical questions that highlight this fact. There are things that President Bush and the Republicans could do that would shift my judgment. If, for example, the President were to authorize retaliatory nuclear attacks designed to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of non-combatants in Arab nations, and his Party were to support him on this, that would make the Republicans complicit in an injustice of extraordinary gravity and scope. The element of cruelty involved would add to direct killing additional dimensions of evil that are not present in the practice of embryo-destruction. One can imagine policies along these lines involving grave injustice of such a magnitude that it would render it unreasonable for Catholic and other pro-life citizens to vote to keep the Republicans in power despite the Democratic Party's gravely unjust position on cloning and embryo-killing. One of the things this shows is that a political party can advocate policies so unjust that citizens whose consciences are soundly informed cannot in reason support the party, even though the only viable alternative party is advocating policies that in other circumstances would compel the same judgment against it.
Rob raises the question whether this sort of reasoning renders issues other than abortion or (let us add) nuclear attacks on civilians "irrelevant" for Catholics and other pro-life voters. I think the answer is no. Let's say that one judges the Republican Party's policies on welfare reform, economic growth, affirmative action, and a range of of issues to be vastly superior to those of the Democratic Party. (Assume, for example, as many people believe, that Democratic policies on these issues actually harm the people they are meant to help, and the harm is substantial.) One cannot, however, support the Republicans because of their willingness (in the purely hypothetical case I discussed) to kill millions of innocent people in retaliatory nuclear attacks. Does that mean one can simply ignore the harms and injustices of Democratic policies? Not at all. One should be working to move the Democrats away from these policies and toward sounder and more just alternatives. There are many areas in which one could act, including working and voting for candidates with what one judges to be sound (or at least sounder) views across the spectrum of issues in Democratic Party primaries.
Rob asks: "Does the effect of single-issue voting actually deter the party on the wrong side of the issue, or by effectively shutting down the competition for votes on other issues, does it give license to the party on the correct side of the issue to disregard other pressing moral concerns without fear of reprisal on election day?" The issue Rob raises here is very serious. His question highlights the fact that the bad consequences that follow from a political party's enmeshing itself in a grave injustice of great magnitude can go beyond that particular injustice. This is another tragic aspect of the contemporary Democratic Party's support for abortion and embryo-destructive research. No party should be free of fear of reprisal from morally conscientious citizens on election day. I myself would like to be able to cast a vote against the Republicans to punish them for what I regard as some rather serious delinquencies. I want the Republicans to fear that voters like me will do that. It is a deeply regrettable thing that the Democrats have made it impossible for people like me to do it without contributing to a situation of extraordinary injustice against millions of victims and potential victims of abortion and embryo-destructive research.
A final word: The title of Rob's posting, for which I suspect he was not responsible, is misleading. Far from believing that it is unreasonable to be a pro-life Democrat, I have encouraged Democrats for Life. I wish them success in their efforts to reform their party and restore it to its mission of protecting the weak and vulnerable. My personal decision to leave the Democrats and work within the Republican Party---a decision that many pro-life citizens have made over the past three decades---does not reflect a judgment on my part that it is wrong or unreasonable to stay within the Democratic Party and fight for pro-life principles. People who do stay will, of course, labor under profoundly trying conditions. Pro-life Democrats such as the late Robert P. Casey (for whom I had the privilege of working as an advisor on pro-life issues) have sometimes been subjected to ridicule and abuse by those in their Party for whom support for abortion is a non-negotiable principle. Even small victories for pro-life Democrats are few and far between. Moreover, I think that in most cases they cannot rightly support the candidates of their party in general elections---precisely because those candidates aggressively support abortion and embryo-destructive research. It isn't easy being a pro-life Democrat; but I do not say it is unreasonable or wrong.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/09/georges_reply_o.html
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
