Posted on 03/06/2007 5:39:37 PM PST by markomalley
They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.
They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.
We won’t.
Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.
Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.
In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.
The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.
Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.
Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.
But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.
When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.
We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.
We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.
Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.
A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend.
Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time.
Would his commitment to the war on terror be worth it? The United States has built the first abortion businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq, ever. Shamefully, our taxes paid to build and operate a Baghdad abortion clinic that is said to get most of its customers because of the pervasive rape problem in that male-dominated society. And that happened under a pro-life president. What would a pro-abortion president do?
The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.
> And is it actually Catholic doctrine that, in a situation
> of two evils, one should strive to do the least harm
> possible?
One statement of the rule: "...it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, [but] it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it."
Humanae Vitae
Paul VI
I know that as a (Christian) though not -Catholic, I could not support Rudy (probably wouldn't vote for Him, or MCCainiac, and DEFINATELY not Romney (Snake)~! I certainly (even if I did "suck it up") wouldn't "work hard" for them!
Peace in the world,do I win.Do you ever answer questions and you never mentioned JR so you didn't have to ping him to answer your question . You know my question.
SHUCKS; if the REPUBLICAN Nominee ticks off both the gunnies and lifers, he is doomed in the heartland..IMO.
Very interesting.
Then where would this leave the crowd that states it's okay by them to see (and I quote) "the spawn of Satan" elected rather than vote for Rudy Giuliani?
I guess they argue that there's no difference between Rudy and the spawn of Satan?
Is it fundamentally possible for there to be "no difference" between two candidates and the respective administrations they would put in place?
I wouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But that is not relevant in the case of Rudy Giuliani. There is only a sliver of the good in him and I expect that the war will be better left to the Democrats. When we get hit again for the third or fourth time the Democrat, especially if it is Mrs. Bill, will lash out explosively and will end the Jihad for this century. A Republican will be forever hampered with a congress that prefers suicide and national destruction to winning a war with a Republican president. The most forthright and militant Defender of the Nation, if he be Republican, will not be able to do a thing constructive after 2008 with the war. My only hope now for the 2008 election is that Bush takes care of Iran in the next few months. We do not have to invade. We need to destroy the modern military capability of Iran and the refineries and much of the modern infrastructure, seize the offshore and maybe some of the onshore oil wells, and render ports and airports unusable. There should be no HeartsandMinds crap, no rebuilding. It does not matter that the Iranian population may be proAmerican- that will change when the real war comes and it will come, whether now when we can do it relatively cheaply or later when it will be much more expensive and damaging to the homeland, our homeland.
Thank you. Your point about his speech at CPAC is an excellent one in particular. I hope that Hunter gets greater exposure. At this point in the current field of candidates it is key that he does especially at the level of grassroots contact of one's friends and Republican neighbors.
Personally I see him as a loser on the national front
yeah, but don't you think there are Many Roman Catholics (as well as evangelicals) that don't take their political views "becuase the Church told them so", but take their views becuase their FAITH leads them to these decisions, we are not all followers of Man, some are followers of God, and their beliefs dictate their actions!
Your behavior is reprehensible. Stop it.
Fatima is badgering me to "answer a question" and yet refuses to state what the question is. How is that reprehensible?
Good post! Thank you!
Good night.
thank you arthurus.
As for the "sugar britches" line it was a good natured joke that ended with a smile. I'm very sorry you have no sense of humor.
The other part was in response to being badgered to answer a question when none was posed. Again I ask how I am to answer a person who is demanding that I answer a question THAT THEY DID NOT ASK?
I haven't seen you on these pages for a while. Nice, very nice, to have now.
I have an excellent sense of humor. Have a good night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.