Trump, Abortion, and a Better Conversation

By now you have probably heard the joke that Donald Trump has finally come through one of his major campaign promises.

“I will be a great unifier,” Trump boasted last October.

He finally did it. Donald Trump came through on his promise and unified the country. Democrats and Republicans have turned against him.

It started last night during an MSNBC town hall with Chris Matthews, who brought up abortion. Trump seemed very uncomfortable as he skirted around the issue, but Matthews continued to press him. Finally, Trump said that abortion “is a very serious problem” and that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have an abortion.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders quickly condemned Trumps remarks. Trump’s republican rivals for the GOP’s nomination, John Kasich and Ted Cruz, also criticized Trump for stating that women need to be punished when they have an abortion. Planned Parenthood accused Trump of being, “Flat-out dangerous.” Even Jeanne Mancini, president of the pro-life March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said Trump is, “completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion.”

So, Trump has managed to unify each side of the hotly contested abortion debate. At least we can all agree that Trump is an idiot.

But can we find a better answer to the abortion debate than to unite against Trump? Or, as Daniel Kirk asks in his brilliant article, “Abortion: Is a Better Conversation Possible?”

Kirk gives the best answer that I know, which is to find “the good that each side it trying to maintain.” For example, if we take Trump at his best (which is admittedly hard for me to do), he is trying to protect potential victims. That’s the argument of the pro-life side of the debate. It’s an argument about “rights.” The unborn have rights, and if we don’t protect their right to life, then they become our victims.

But those who advocate for a woman’s right to have an abortion claim that women should have the right to protect their bodies, to financial security, and to privacy. If we don’t protect a woman’s right to have an abortion, then they become our victim.

So, each side is trying to maintain the good of protecting a potential victim. It’s worth pausing here to consider how important and rare in history the concern for victims is. As René Girard claims, the concern for victims is found primarily in the modern world:

 Examine ancient sources, inquire everywhere, dig up the corners of the planet, and you will not find anything anywhere that even remotely resembles our modern concern for victims. The China of the Mandarins, the Japan of the Samaria, the Hindus, the pre-Columbian societies, Athens, republican or imperial Rome—none of these were worried in the least little bit about victims, whom they sacrificed without number to their gods, to the honor of the homeland, to the ambition of conquerors, small or great.

But Trump’s statement reveals the dark side to the modern concern for victims. Trump is able to gain power by actually claiming to be a victim. He declares himself to be a victim of “political correctness.” As he claims the title of victim, he’s able to assert the authority to demean and punish anyone he sees as a potential victimizer. He is consumed with power, and his method to gaining power is to claim to be a victim of the media, the liberals, the republican establishment, and anyone who might criticize him.

Trump has corrupted the modern concern for victims. We should be concerned for victims, but when we become victimizers in order to protect victims, we become the very thing we are against.

And this is where those of us who are finding a sense of unity against Trump need to be careful. As Trump becomes hostile towards women, Muslims, Mexicans, the poor, and even the handicapped, we can easily mimic his hostility by uniting against him.

And that’s exactly what he wants us to do. He wants to be our victim, so that he can rally his supporters with a spirit of hostility and bitterness.

Playing by Trump’s rules will not help us have a better conversation about abortion. It will only lead us down the path of hostility and bitterness. Having a better conversation about these hot button issues begins by acknowledging that the other side is directed towards the good desire to protect potential victims. A better conversation continues with the fact that in a democracy, sometimes we have to make difficult choices about issues like abortion. But when we start by assuming the good intentions of the other side, we will refuse to demonize our opponents and we hold our positions with humility, grace, and mercy.

That’s how we can have a better conversation.