Response to Alexham, Again

Here is the crux of the problem: Alexham states:

“The Democratic Party has also repeatedly demonstrated a hostility to any and all forms of orthodox Christianity. The notion that both political parties are morally bankrupt, and therefore it is acceptable to vote for a democratic candidate who holds public-policy views in direct contravention of virtually all of the Catholic Church’s core “Culture of Life” teaching is patently absurd.”

To claim that the Republican party is any better than its Democratic alternative when it comes to embracing the kind of personalist ethic that sees every human being as made in the image of likeness of God is patently absurd. Yes, the Democratic party is somewhat inspired by post-Enlightenment views that downgrades the very idea of objective truth. But on the other hand, the Republican party derives sustenance from those very similar philosophical roots: individualism, utilitarianism, nationalism. And while it is true the Democrats are not often receptive to “orthodox Christianity”, the Republicans instead are misled by errant Christianity, which leads to notions of American exceptionalism and militarism, and the merging of Christianity into a false civic religion. And, by the way, I do not consider evangelical fundamentalism to be “orthodox Christianity”. So while Democrats downgrade and the value of the person and use consequentialist arguments to support abortion and ESCR, so do Republicans downgrade the value of the person and use consequentialist arguments to support torture and a “violence-first” ethic. So, no, Catholics are not at home in either party. The best we can do is make prudential judgments from a policy perspective. What you cannot do is tell your fellow Catholics they are bound to support any one party– all historical attempts to to this failed dismally.

Which brings me to the next point. You accuse me of attempting to make the Iraq war a “non-negotiable” issue. If you believe that, you profoundly misunderstand my position. Supporting the Iraq war is not intrinsically evil, and therefore not “non-negotiable”. But the mistake that you and others seem to make is to stop there. But you can’t stop there. Intrinsically evil simply means evil in its object, without recourse to intent or circumstance. But circumstances can still make a particular act evil. For example, although the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, many (most?) circumstances under which the death penalty is carried out are indeed evil. Facts and circumstances matter, and facts and circumstances do weigh into proportionate calculations and prudential judgments. If you believe the good effects of the Iraqi occupation (and you highlight that word as if there is something amiss– let’s call a spade a spade) outweigh the evil, that’s your own judgment. Fine, but it’s not mine. You might even think that the benefits of bombing Iran outweigh the costs, though I would dispute this vehemently.

You say there is never room for prudential judgment, but you are engaging in prudential judgment. By voting for a Republican, how do you affect the abortion rate? You are assuming that: (i) the Republican would nominate anti-abortion judges: (ii) these judges would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade; (iii) this would have a material affect on abortion rates. In all three steps, you are entering the area of probability and uncertainty, and forming your own judgments about relative likelihoods.

You touched briefly on supporting traditional marriage, and gave the example of the differential treatment of married and single people in the tax code. Is this the best you can do? Possibly the most family-friendly piece of legislation in recent memory was the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was vetoed by Bush I and only passed by Clinton. And what about the refusal to countenance universal health care, even meager expansions in children’s health care? What about other family friendly policies such as raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes at the low rather than the high end, maternity leave, greater vacation time, subsidized childcare: where do the Republicans stand on all of these issues. Family values? Republicans know how to talk about it, but talk is cheap.

As for crediting Clinton with the reduction in abortion during his two terms, you link to an article demolishing a straw man argument that I never uttered: that abortion rates increased under Bush. It’s very peculiar that every time I make this argument, somebody always counters with this one. See the post I wrote, which uses statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, which your source article seems to see as more reliable. [By the way, I see article you link to emanates from the National Right to Life Committee— I’m still trying to understand why they think having a government negotiate with drug companies, as happens in practically every single payer system, is something to be opposed right up there with abortion and euthanasia by the pro-life movement]

I showed in an earlier post that there is indeed a statistical association between poverty and abortion rates and ratios. In fact, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. And when asked to give reasons for abortion, three-quarters of women say that cannot afford a child. At the same time, black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are two and a half life times as likely. The abortion rate rate fell by around 0.3 percentage points a year under Reagan and Bush I, 0.5 percentage points a year under Clinton, and 0.1 percentage points a year under Bush II (data only to 2003). The data for the abortion ratio are even more stark: here, the decline under Clinton is double that of the overall Republican average. Simple statistical techniques show the relationship to poverty.

As for the quoted article by Archbishop Myers, the fundamental flaw is when he says that “pro-life” candidate “would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.” This would only be true if there is a direct link between this public official and the 1.3 million deaths, and that by voting for this opponent, this carnage would end. This is fallacious so many different levels. It is not an “on-off” switch between abortion and no abortion. More technically, the proximity is limited.

One final note: none of this should be read as suggesting I am happy with the current situation in the Democratic party. I favor strong and outspoken opposition to the position on abortion.