Having spent some time distancing myself from Dobson and company this week, I will now come to their defense, well, a little.
Ed Cone noted today that James Dobson had issued a statement to the effect that he and other “pro-family” leaders would look elsewhere if a Republican presidential nominee could not take a clear position regarding the sanctity of human life.
Ed goes on to take issue with Dobson and Co’s use of the “pro-family” rubric or designation.
James Dobson, along with many others, including myself, believe that human life is sacred and that it begins at conception. Sacred human life includes the lives of the weak and infirm, the handicapped, the homeless, and the mothers of unborn children – all human life.
I myself would or could never ever vote for a person who actively advocated for abortion rights.
In one sense, if we’re talking about abortion it might be better to call Dobson, the Pope, and anyone else who holds this view “pro-life” rather than "pro-family." Yet, if one views unborn life as human life, and as sacred, he would consider that yet-unborn life as part of the family of whoever was bearing the child. So, there is an overlap between these designations. Would a person be considered “pro-family” who advocated for infanticide-rights? I doubt it. I would suspect that most folks reading this, even if they didn’t agree with the comparison of abortion and infanticide, would grant the point that being “pro-infanticide rights” might not be consistent with being “pro-family.”
Well, pro-life folks believe that abortion is a form of infanticide. So, if being pro-infanticide rights would not be considered pro-family, then to a pro-life person, being pro-abortion rights would not be considered pro-family either.
But the rubric of “pro-family” is broader than just the issue of abortion. It includes views about marriage, about marriage and divorce, about the relative intrusion or non intrusion of the state into essential family issues. Obviously Ed and others who may be more supportive of abortion rights, gay marriage, and no fault divorce (I don’t know Ed’s view on that issue) may indeed have wonderful families and care a lot about families. They may even be pro-abortion rights or pro-gay marriage because of the way that they are, in their minds, pro-family. And, as can be easily pointed out, there are many things which bring harm to children (even unborn children), and to others who are weak and defenseless, which are not on the radar of pro-family groups like Dobson’s.
So it might be better to change the rubric to “pro-traditional family,” or something like that, and it would be better yet for pro-traditional family advocates to be more broadly and consistently pro-life and pro-family and weigh in on issues where the lives of children and needy adults are at stake, even economic issues whereby families are torn apart due to extreme financial pressure or lives are lost due to unavailability of health care.
This is where I part somewhat with Dobson, because I would like to see pro-traditional family advocates be more consistent and not cherry pick just the abortion or gay marriage issues. Many issues impact human life and impact families.
As to voting for Guliani, that will hard for me as well. I may take some comfort in the nuanced manner in which he has taken his abortion position. It appears that he is hiding behind the courts, and that he might prefer to address the issue through the appointing of more strictly constructionist judges. I have yet to discover his view on partial birth abortion, an issue where legislation has made a big difference. I could never vote for a person who supported the rights of women and doctors to abort partially born babies, or to allow babies who have survived abortions to die – even if you held a big gun to my head. Go ahead and shoot. It won’t be happening.
But for Dobson and all to support a third party candidate will almost certainly give the election to the Democrats. Maybe Dobson would prefer this – it would certainly give him lots of debating and fundraising grist for four to eight years, and it would allow the American public to become re-energized as they see the impact of a Democratic president and congress with respect to these issues. I think it may be foolish however for the pro-life cause since, all things considered, even Guliani will be more sympathetic to Dobson’s issues than the average Democrat, or Hillary Clinton, especially in the naming of judges. It may be a cynical gamble for them to abandon the Republican nominee.
I agree with Ed that this may be just bluster when the rubber actually meets the road. We’ll see how high minded these folks are when faced with a likely win by a serious and consistent abortion rights advocate on the other side.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Joel - another great post. You explained your position very well.
One area that I would question is that of gay marriage. I understand that it's not a "traditional" arrangement. However, consider this: There are now - and have been for a long time - de facto families headed by gay people. These de facto families aren't going anywhere. They have kids from previous marriages or by adoption, the adults in those situations support and rely on one another. Is it not in our best interest as a society to make those arrangements strong, rather than weak? What purpose is served by trying to undercut them? They may not be "traditional" families, but they are families nonetheless.
My problem with Dobson & Co's appropriation of the term "pro-family" is not that I doubt their commitment to families, at least certain kinds of families, but that the label as used implies that people who disagree with them on given issues are not supportive of families and cultures that nurture them.
I am very much in favor of traditional families. My wife and I lead very traditional lives with our children, and we are ourselves the products of loving traditional families. We are pro-family, and pro-traditional family.
I do not see abortion or gay marriage as threats to traditional families, nor do I think all laws should be made in deference to the interests of traditional families alone.
I do believe that economic and societal factors (access to health care, education, jobs) have a great impact on families, traditional and otherwise.
Ed,
I see your point and think I understand your concern regarding Dobson's appropriation (good word!) of the phrase "pro-family," or even my use of the phrase "pro-traditional family." I may have to go back to the drawing board to find a more appropriate way to out it. In the end, I think I can say that most conservative Christians would just disagree with you regarding the relative threat of abortion rights and/or gay marriage on both the concept and the on-the-ground reality/health of traditional families. But I'm gunna have to ponder that one...
Anthony, there is a point when the fact that certain arrangements have been allowed and that have become defacto families, however non traditional, that certain measures have to be taken to assure their well being - particularly when children are involved. Thus certain of the many legal benefits that accrue to families, such as rights of inheritance, must be extended to these non traditional families as well. As you are aware the word "marriage" is just very hot button. I think some sort of "compromise" will eventually settle in, where many or most of the legal benefits that accrue to the married will accrue to gay partners, but that they will fall short of winning widespread use of the word "marriage" for the arrangements. Well, maybe I see that as a medium term compromise. In the end the gay lobby will win.
Is it is our best interest to make those arrangements strong rather than weak, since we are not going to undo them? I see the point.
I will need to ponder a response to this question as well. In the real world in which we live (in contrast to the world of debating on the internet), dealing with gay advocacy groups and their agendas in schools and the like, with more and more gay stuff on television, I think that it may be underestimated (or just considered weird or paranoid) how much all this comes as a threat to many parents as regards their own children. Remember how deep and visceral a moral issue this is as well. It almost begs either for a Dobson-esque response or a cultural retreat into isolated protected Christian enclaves - sort of like the Amish. I am not comfortable with either response but finding a third way amidst it all is very hard.
Joel:
Like Ed, I also have problems with Dobson, Bauer and others appropriating the "pro-family" label. I sincerely hope that the "pro-family" side means well but I have to wonder when I consider the association between their policies and actual family outcomes.
Divorce rates are actually higher in the bible-belt states than in liberal states like Massachusetts. The same holds true for teenage pregnancy rates.
Similarly, educational and health outcomes for children are better in so-called blue states than in red states.
Finally, outcomes important to families, including poverty rates and uninsured household rates, are better in blue states than in red states.
If the states in the bible-belt are indeed "pro-family," why are families and especially children there doing so poorly?
I understand the strong feelings about some elements of the "pro-family" agenda, but the agenda seems to overlook if not actively derail other important things that would help families.
Dave,
The root cause for the poverty and poor health and education in the "red" southern states is hardly the fault of a conservative "pro family" agenda. That just seems disingenuous to me. I think you know better than that.
Joel:
But many of us also see these as important "pro-family" issues.
Of course ranking in the bottom as regards education, personal income, health, infant mortality, and other such things is detrimental to families. To be consistently pro-family and pro-life would include concern about all these things. "Pro-traditional family" advocates need to expand the list of issues that impact families. But this should and cannot mean dropping concern about marriage and about abortion and the general anti-family slant of media and general popular culture.
But I will up you one and give you grist for future milling. A particular kind of age old Christian heresy has taken deep and profound root in the evangelical church in the United States. This is the heresy of Antinomianism, which I have written about on my other blog - http://joelblog.wordpress.com/. Along with poverty and the other issues spoken of above this is contributing even further to moral and family breakdown and to the inconsistency between presidential voting habits in the red states and the on-the-ground behaviors and trends in the red states. This is also undermining the credibility of the church to speak to any of these issues. The evangelical church does not need to become the liberal church, it needs internal renewal so that it can become in actuality more like what it believes to be true and right.
Here's a specific example of the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier comment.
Joel:
I would never suggest that anyone drop their concern with abortion, or more generally with human life (for the sake of discussion, let's put aside the issue of homosexuality, as none of the Gospels directly addresses the topic).
It seems odd, however, that people would not balance this concern with others. A statement along the lines of "I myself would or could never ever vote for a person who actively advocated for abortion rights" suggests that you are willing to ignore every other concern to advance this particular one.
The statement is even stranger because there are few politicians that are actively promoting more abortions. Clinton's position on this is that she would like to see abortions reduced. Also, the position is strange because there is so little that even the most ardent pro-life politician can accomplish. The best that the pro-life movement can hope for is that (a) the Supreme Court overturns its 1973 decision, and (b) several right-leaning states then outlaw abortions. Universal prohibition does not appear to be a possibility. And if by some chance universal prohibition was enacted, illegal abortions would continue. So as a practical matter, the best that can be hoped for in the political arena is that abortions become harder to obtain.
I can't speak for Ed, but it does seem that the issue then becomes using your vote (as well as your time, energy, and money) to do the most good--or to eliminate the most evil.
We could call the Dobson et al. position "quasi-antinomialism" in which one or two laws are "kept" (again, as a practical matter, it's not clear that much is actually accomplished by the "pro-family" votes) and many of Christ's other teachings are then minimized or even ignored.
Drawing the line at "love God" and "love your neighbor" would be one thing but picking and choosing just a few other narrow laws--and in such an ineffective manner, no less--seems somewhat arbitrary.
Dave,
I realized after I posted this that there was an inconsistency in my own argument, in that I was challenging the idea of handing the election to the democrats when I myself was saying I could not vote for anyone who advocates for abortion rights. I've got to figure out myself on that one.
I think we agree that the definition of what is "pro-life" is too narrow. I think we agree that there are gradations as to what positions on various issues ultimately promote and protect life.
I don't agree with how you have described Hillary Clinton or others who would take her position. I don't think they are as "neutral" as you seem to depict. She openly advocates a right of a mother to kill her unborn child. She may say she wishes that that didn't happen very often, but she still advocates what she advocates.
I cannot support a person who advocates what is to me, ultimately, a form of murder.
I've heard Guliani dance around and equivocating on this matter. He seems to be taking a position that he will be supportive of what the courts have decided, and otherwise more or less stay out of it. I'd like to know if his view is really the same as Hillary Clinton or the majority Democratic Party view. I think he would appoint judges who would be less likely to see abortion as a right to be protected by the federal government. Seems like Thompson has a clear position on the matter but thinks it should be a matter for states to decide.
Anyway, the more I write, the more I think my "never ever" comment does reflect where I am on this.
Joel:
There's no way to know this for sure, but my guess is that many, if not most, politicians who announce an absolute "pro-life" stance actually have views that are closer to former Vice President Quayle's. You'll recall that in an unguarded moment, Quayle said that he would "support" his daughter if she made a decision to obtain an abortion.
This hunch also partly comes from polling data that indicate that an absolute pro-life position rarely garners more than 25 percent support. The polling numbers and statements like Quayle's suggest that there is a lot more ambivalence about this issue than people might let on (candidates now dodge the Quayle question by saying "I won't allow my family to be dragged into this campaign"). It also suggests that a genuine absolute position would ultimately be politically untenable. Given that the ultimate goal of most politicians--right and left--is to keep their jobs, my guess is that many would go back on their position if forced to cast a vote that would actually outlaw abortion.
We certainly see this with at least three of the Republican front-runners, who either have taken pro-choice positions (despite their churches' teachings) when it was politically necessary or, worse, worked on behalf of the pro-choice cause because it brought in money. The leading candidate with the most consistent position over time is John McCain, and even he falls short of the absolute position.
Again, though, this ambivalence is probably not unique to these candidates.
Post a Comment