Should those who are genuinely convinced that abortion is a great evil, be expected to compromise their own convictions by continuing to vote for the party whose actions promise to do little if anything to end this invidious practice?
Recently, word of Michael Steele's excitement over the prospect of recruiting proponents of "choice" to the GOP ignited on this website an impassioned exchange of critical importance to all concerned with the future of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. From what I was able to gather, there emerged during the discussion essentially two rival positions.
According to the first, the Republican Party has relinquished any rights that it may have at one time had to the loyalty and support of the scores of disenchanted voters whose values it has continually repudiated even while pledging to promote them. For instance, the GOP unabashedly declares itself committed to the protection of the unborn, yet, via Michael Steele, it enthusiastically welcomes candidates who overtly favor "reproductive rights." And the doubletalk, the dishonesty, on display with respect to the issue of abortion is equally on display, and equally offensive, with respect to a host of other issues, from "same-sex marriage" to "gun rights" to "immigration." Republican politicians' rhetoric is glaringly at odds with their actions.
From this perspective, it is imperative that the GOP adamantly refuse to compromise the vision that it purports to hold. Thus, we may call it the Vision Thesis (VT).
The second position advanced stands in stark contrast to the first, and has its most passionate and able defender in regular IC contributor Dr. Phil Jackson. Those who hold this viewpoint accuse the proponents of VT of being animated by a virtually invincible naivety that seems impervious to any and all considerations of how politics actually works. Inasmuch as they demand of the Republican Party that they refrain from all compromise and negotiation concerning "conservative principles," the proponents of VT labor under a deluded and ultimately self-defeating utopian fantasy. Compromise is of the essence of politics, and unless Republicans know how and when to engage in it, the Democrats promise to remain in power.
Let's call this position the Pragmatic Thesis (PT).
Hopefully, adherents will find my characterization of their respective positions charitable. There is much to sympathize with in each. Yet for the purposes of clarity and conciliation, I submit the following thoughts.
The frustrations of defenders of VT are indeed justified, for far too frequently — and no more so than during the twelve years or so from the mid-90's until 2006 that it held power — the Republican Party hasn't just compromised, but practically abandoned, many of the key positions that it presents as being indispensable to its very identity as a distinct party and, thus, the reasons for why similarly minded Americans should support it. Furthermore, far from advancing its party's platform, the concessions made by Republicans to their Democratic counterparts proved to be their undoing, for they eventually produced, not an America whose laws are becoming ever more reflective of conservative values, but one presided over by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
The advocates of PT, though their insistence upon sharing most of the same views as their more exasperated counterparts is doubtless sincere enough, nevertheless almost always sound insufficiently sensitive to the latter's concerns. However, they provide an invaluable service in reminding their fellow partisans of the quintessentially conservative truth that in this contingency-ridden world of ours, and the world of politics especially, the perfect is indeed the enemy of the good. From Burke onward, the classical conservative thinkers that he inspired never failed to exhibit a painful awareness of the fact that government and every good is the offspring of "barter and compromise": there are no solutions, only "trade offs," as Thomas Sowell has said time and time again.
Both VT and PT, as I said, warrant sympathy. Yet both are also insufficiently nuanced, a problem observed by another interlocutor of the exchange, Patrick Mulligan, and one that his intimations at a third position were apparently intended to rectify. It is these intimations that we should be exploring.
Mulligan, like me, seemed to partially agree and disagree with both Phil Jackson and his opponents: obviously, since compromise is of the essence of politics, calls for anything along the lines of ideological purity are unreasonable, yet at the same time, it cannot be the case that all values are equally negotiable. In fact, some values aren't negotiable at all, and this for two reasons.
First, the values that the Republican Party champions are what individuate it as the distinct, identifiable entity that it is. For it to surrender these values for the sake of anything is for the GOP to surrender its identity and, hence, its very claim to be an alternative to its rivals. Second, the values that the GOP affirms are what attract like-minded voters to it. They are moral values, authorized, that is, by the dictates of conscience. Some of the world's oldest and richest moral traditions, irrespective of whatever other ideas differentiate them from one another, converge on the two-fold belief that some types of action are categorically unacceptable (the ends don't always justify the means) and to contradict one's own conscience is to gravely impair oneself and, thus, act immorally.
In light of these considerations, let's revisit the question of abortion, for it is Michael Steele's embrace of "pro-choice" Republicans that initiated this conversation. It seems to me that if there are any non-negotiable issues from the GOP's perspective, abortion would have to be it, for Republicans' opposition to abortion — their support for "life" — presumably stems from their conviction that abortion is an instance of unjustified killing. There is a not inconsiderable number of Republicans who go further in identifying abortion as murder. On more than one occasion, the abortion phenomenon in this country has been equated with a "silent holocaust."
Now, I personally am not willing to regard abortion as murder, and I am even less willing to think of the (admittedly obscene) abortion rate on the order of a "holocaust." However, I do believe that, all things being equal and in the overwhelming majority of cases, abortion is unjustified homicide. This has always been my judgment, but it became exponentially strengthened upon viewing the ultrasounds of my (now 5-month old) son during my wife's pregnancy. But be that how it may, the point is that for the Republican Party's base, abortion is a grave evil on which there can't be any compromise.
Imagine living in a society where there are two political parties, one of which openly and proudly supports the right to kill, say, Jews. The other openly and formally denies any such right, yet continues to welcome into its ranks, in the name of "compromise," or for the sake of appealing to "independents" and "moderates" by conveying the impression that it is a "big tent party," politicians who do not. And then let us imagine that the latter party's strategy proves successful and it rises to power. The abortion rate doesn't diminish in the least and, in fact, because its standard bearer, the President, becomes the first president to approve federal funding for the termination of Jewish embryos, the callous attitude toward human life of which abortion is both the cause and effect actually intensifies. The President's assurances to his base that the only Jewish embryos that will be destroyed are those that were already set aside to be discarded provide them with no solace, and his would-be successor's determination to expand indefinitely federal funding for the same purpose divests them of any vestige of hope that the party that they voted into office will be at all more likely than its rival to relegate abortion to the dustbin of history.
Should those who are genuinely convinced that abortion — the killing of innocent human life — is a great evil, be expected to compromise their own convictions by continuing to vote for the party whose rhetoric is consonant with their consciences but whose actions promise to do little if anything to end this one invidious practice that, in their estimation, to a greater extent than anything else has eroded respect for the sanctity of human existence?
There isn't anyone who equates abortion with murder who could answer this question in the affirmative, for the voter who continued endorsing a party the policies of which are actually contributing to this "culture of death" would thereby render himself complicit in its crimes against humanity. Nor, for that matter, does there appear to be any good reason why one opposed to abortion but who didn't identify it with murder would participate in political elections, for such a person risks becoming an accomplice to a great injustice by so doing.
Of course, a person's self-diagnosis of his moral standing vis-a-vis this issue may be mistaken. If so, the onus is on the proponent of PT to point out how it is so. But the charge that refusal on the part of the sworn enemies of abortion to continue to vote for Republicans who have not only done nothing to abate the abortion rate but, in some instances, actually contribute to the culture that abortion has helped form, is a function of self-delusion or naivety about how politics occur in "the real world," is entirely misplaced. Such refusal is preeminently thoughtful given the conviction that abortion is among the greatest of evils and, given this conviction, morally unassailable.
Once more, both VT and PT are defensible positions, and both speak to important truths. But the third way, the position intermediate between them at which Patrick Mulligan hinted and of which I tried sketching an outline, has the potential to bridge the chasm between them: some stances are negotiable but others are not. Which stances are which will be the subject of debate.
Values versus Vision
The Republican Party has been undergoing a critical self examination lately. I believe that such an examination cannot be anything other than good for the future of the party.
Lately, we’ve failed to distinguish ourselves from our opposition. This is what leads to political defeat. If the only ballot choices are Liberalism and Liberalism Light; why bother? George Bush tried to win over moderates and independents with his program of ‘Compassionate Conservatism’. This political philosophy allowed liberals to get what they ultimately wanted (i.e. No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits) from the administration in power; while still allowing the left to hammer Republicans at every turn. No Child Left Behind wasn’t good enough, we needed to spend even more they said. The Prescription Drug Benefit for seniors didn’t go far enough. The progressives were awarded compromise positions by the administration and in return we collected scorn. These and other liberal mainstay programs pushed the country toward unmanageable debt levels, which bought us more grief from the party out of power; and ultimately set the stage for the defeats in 2006 and 2008 which resulted in progressives capturing both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now that they are in power, they’ve doubled down on this debt they were formerly so critical of, moved to take over several areas of the American economic engine, and through the passage of health care legislation, fundamentally rewrite the contract between government and the American people as outlined in the Constitution: And the RNC Chairman’s answer to all this is more compromise?
If one were to listen to Michael Steele; one would be forced to believe that the debate between conservatism and progressivism has ended. On one side was the argument for less government, free markets, property rights, and rule of law. On the other was a plethora of social programs, significant job protections, and guaranteed entitlements.
I suppose we are all RINO’s now? All future elections should be staffed by candidates that possess the ability to co-opt progressive ideals. In Steele’s world; elections will now always be fought on the progressive’s issues and on the progressive’s terms. Conservative parties will no longer represent small government, individual liberty, and the sanctity of life. Instead; we will campaign on the one last pitiful rationale left to us: that we can run the current social/progressive entitlement state more effectively than the progressives can themselves.
This is a formula that I’m certain the progressives hope we will engage in. Such a platform will guarantee the ascendance of the progressive social state. We are now at a crossroads. We can abrogate our values, and in doing so, destroy conservatism. Or we can unabashedly tout the conservative principles and values that built this nation into the world leader it is today. I personally choose the hard road, the road of no more compromise. We are on the cusp of defeating liberalism for all time. They’ve used their majorities to expose themselves and their true agenda: And the average American has little regard for what they see. The evidence is clear. This is why they must do health care, cap & trade, and ram the balance of their socialist agenda down America’s collective throats now. Their own poll numbers tell them they’re sunk come November 2010. To their unspoken horror, they realize that the American people realize that President Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter in ‘blackface’. A narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, incompetent; who is incapable of making the tough choices.
I’m certain that we’ll overturn the liberal majorities in November 2010. Just as I’m certain the Obama is going to be a one-term president. If we really want to immediately experience some ‘feel good’ politics; we can capture some of that feeling immediately by voting Michael Steele out of a job. Nail him for practice, and then nail the liberals for points!
Jack,
Another important distinction Phil made was between local party politics and national party politics. Phil’s proposition, as I understand it, goes like this: the national Republican party should only run candidates that conform to a set of minimum standards advanced by the GOP. For instance, a Republican presidential candidate on the GOP ticket who supports abortion should not ever be selected. However, on the local level, compromise should be made in order to form the kind of coalitions of power that are necessary to advance a legislative agenda. So, for instance, if in Massachusetts there is a Republican candidate who subscribes to all of the national Republican party positions with the exception of abortion, and he has a chance to unseat a Democrat office holder who opposes all of the national Republican party positions, including abortion, the party should accept this candidate and help advance his election in order to gain enough seats in the House to obtain a majority and implement a legislative agenda consistent with the national party values. This makes sense, of course, since the alternative is to cede the position of power to the Democrat party which will advance a legislative agenda consistent with none of the Republican party’s values. The problem in practicality is that the Republican party does not operate this way. Instead, the pro-choice Republican from Massachusetts is given a say on important committees, or a leadership position within the party, or otherwise the party is so terrified of alienating him and losing their majority that they cede the issue where they differ with the minority candidate and shelve important aspects of the national Republican agenda.
And then, as you said, there is the issue of where the line is drawn, both nationally and locally, as to what minimum positions qualify or disqualify a candidate from running as a Republican. This question is a difficult one in a two-party system where each side represents such a broad array of different ideological positions. Who decides, for instance, whether the Republican party’s main orientation should be toward a more libertarian implementation of market capitalism, or a more religious implementation of abortion regulation? Many economic libertarians don’t really care much about abortion, and many religious voters don’t really care much about free markets. In a multi-party parliamentary system, coalitions are built among a wide selection of parties or groups with narrower sets of interests. In the two-party American system, it’s either/or, winner take all. And if you happen to lose badly enough you lose the ability to even influence the governing process. So it is important for the sake of party identity and subsequent political strategy for a party to figure out what its values actually are and to what extent they are willing to compromise. I think that’s where the Republicans have been stuck for the past decade: not having answers to those questions. Fortunately, in the same way that the Iraq war did for the left and the Democrats, Obama’s agenda is providing points of agreement around which the Republican party can build voter support. That may be enough to drive Obama out of office and/or regain some legislative power in the congress, but in the long-run the GOP will still need to figure out exactly what and who they are in order to maintain that political power. Or more simply, Obama’s incompetence may give the GOP the opportunity to do what it failed to when it came into power 15 years ago.
Not to re-hash the whole argument again, but the main point I made is this, re: the VT-PT debate mentioned in the original article.
The American political system is not an ideological system. It’s a party system. There are not “Conservatives” and “Liberals” holding office, but “Republicans” and “Democrats”. These are the people who hold institutional power. These are the people who make policy.
Insisting that an American political party only embrace certain ideologies is a prescription for electoral defeat. Without winning elections, there is no exercise of political power. Without the exercise of political power, there is no advancement of interests.
The Democrats have “embraced” conservative candidates in conservative districts to defeat Republican candidates. These token, strategic elections have allowed ultra-liberals like Pelosi and Reid to remain in power. It’s a smart, successful political strategy. This is what Steele has proposed doing.
I’m one person who believes that elective abortion is no different than legalized murder. And yet, I’d follow Steele’s strategy in a heartbeat to depose the Democrats in power. I haven’t compromised my basic principles, since electing token pro-choice candidates in liberal districts that otherwise would not elect a conservative Republican (think NYC and Massachusetts) will not ‘dilute’ my principles. It will, in fact, advance my cause, because I’ve taken the real world into account instead of viewing the actual acquisition and exercise of political power through wishful thinking.
This is not an advocacy of supporting pro-choice candidates in Conservative districts that will actually elect pro-life candidates. This is not an advocacy of ‘diluting’ or ‘broadening’ conservative principles. It’s an electoral strategy to win elections to help implement a conservative agenda.
It’s the leadership of Congress that sets national policy, not individual congressmen and senators. Yes, if you elect too many of the ‘wrong’ candidates you can have a problem like Nancy has with her Blue Dogs. But the “problems” she has involves fine-tuning her otherwise liberal agenda so she gets 80% of what she wants instead of 100% on certain issues. But she still holds all the institutional power, which allows her to promote or squash bills in Congress, set the overall legislative agenda, and otherwise push her interests instead of simply talking about them.
If you want to see a conservative agenda enacted, use moderate/liberal Republican candidates to win in districts that will not elect conservative Republicans, then hold the elected national Republican leadership’s feet to the fire to push for conservative legislation.
[Steele, by the way, is not an elected leader. He’s a bureaucrat with one goal: to help the Republicans win enough seats to gain legislative power to enact a conservative agenda].
We don’t do our cause any good when we focus on abstract issues while ignoring practical politics; when we consider ourselves to be moral because we oppose an action even though the things we do to advance our agenda have no real-world impact; when we pretend that the American party system is ideological and then insist on ideological purity (and when we lose elections because of this, blame others for not being ideologically pure enough and/or bitch and moan at the sorry state of affairs now that the liberals hold absolute power), and so on, and so on.
The problem with so many of these debates is that people want to discuss what is proper conservative ideology, which is a good subject in its own right — but having delineated the qualities of proper conservative thought, they now want to jump right into electoral politics with no other thought than this. Ideology itself does not win elections; electoral strategies do. If you don’t understand or appreciate how actual elections function, you lose to fraud, superior GOTV strategies, rabble rousing polemics, or just plain electoral stupidity. None of this advances your agenda one bit. Winning isn’t everything, but without a win, you don’t have power, and all you end up doing is lecturing people about what constitutes ‘good’ conservative philosophy with no practical, real-world consequences.
Politics ain’t beanbag. Elections are about power. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
No need to engage in complex “Imagine living in a society where there are two political parties…” We have an actual example from history.
The politicians tried and tried and tried to compromise on slavery. They outlawed the importation of additional slaves after some particular date; they wrestled with whether or not to count slaves for apportionment of Congress and compromised by counting each one as 3/5ths of a person [an interesting sidebar here is that it would have been to the slave’s advantage not to have been counted at all!]; they tried drawing a line: south of it, slavery was legal; north of it, it wasn’t [they didn’t consider what a slave was if his owner took him north of the line]; they even had to decide whether a new state admitted to the Union would be slave or free. Everyone tried to maintain the “compromise”. In the end, we learned [I hope] that slavery did not lend itself to compromise; we are in the process of learning that neither does abortion.
The courts started this latter-day compromise game by saying that an unborn baby, that had been a baby, ceased to be a baby until after it was viable outside the womb, or if the health of the mother was in jeopardy. This opened a hole big enough to drive a freight train through, and a baby was not a baby until it was born. Then there is the issue of the baby that survives an attempted abortion. Is it a real baby? To solve this, they moved on to a baby not being a baby as long as the tip of its head was still in the birth canal. Its brains could be sucked out with impunity, thus avoiding the nasty problem of surviving outside the womb. Then there is the baby whose mother is murdered while pregnant. Is the baby a baby? The courts say it is and count the murder as a double homicide. [Because the mother could have aborted her baby, the unavoidable conclusion is that the law recognizes the mother’s property rights over her baby, just like the courts recognized and tried to protect the slave-owner’s property rights over his slave north of the line.]
Compromise might serve to delay the inevitable on issues like slavery and abortion, but that’s all it does. Eventually, this country has got to come to terms with abortion.
Re: “Should those who are genuinely convinced that abortion … is a great evil, be expected to compromise their own convictions by continuing to vote for the party whose rhetoric is consonant with their consciences but whose actions promise to do little if anything to end this one invidious practice …?”
This is a false dilemma. There is a third choice: continue supporting a party that is not interested in expanding it [as opposed to another party I can name] and work for reduction in abortion and its eventual end.
>This is a false dilemma. There is a third choice: continue supporting a party that is not interested in expanding it [as opposed to another party I can name] and work for reduction in abortion and its eventual end.
Sedona — excellent point! Sometimes success is measured by halting the other side from advancing their interests.
This point is lot on Jack and others because they continue to mix discussions of ideology with discussions of election tactics. Pursuing a smart, real-world political strategy to win elections does not automatically “compromise” principles. Nancy compromised no principles by running token Democrat conservative candidates in conservative districts, and by doing this displacing Republicans. It preserved her power, and allowed her to advance her ideology.
Our side has a tendency to look at politics in black and white, support-a-principle or you automatically oppose-a-principle terms. This is evident in Jack’s summary of my position as compromising “principles”, which is nothing of the sort. Electing a moderate or even liberal Republican in NYC (thus displacing a moderate or liberal Democrat) compromises absolutely no principle. The district was going to elect a moderate or liberal anyway. My proposal increases Republican representation in Congress. And given the fact that the leadership of the elected Republicans tend to be more conservative than Nancy and Harry, we’re going to get some positive movement on our interests (vs. a virtual certainty that we won’t in Harry and Nancy stay in power). Or, as you pointed out, if we don’t actually advance our interests, we’ll at least block the advancement of theirs.
The American political system which gives elected officials power is not an ideological system. Pretending it is by saying that an effective electoral strategy is in effect a compromise of principles is both naïve and foolish, not to mention a proven prescription for giving the other side the electoral political power to advance their interests.
should be “lost on”, not “lot on” …
Phil:
Thx. One problem the Republican Party has that the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to is the “INO” [in name only] problem.
sedonaman;
I believe the Democrat Party does have DINO’s. For example; the fiscally conservative democrats run in conservative districts in 2006 & 2008. A good portion of these were noted as complaining about the overall cost of the proposed health care legislation in the Congress and the cost of specific portions (i.e. ‘public option & abortion funding) in the proposed legislation.
Progressives ran these candidates as ‘stealth’ candidates expecting them to tow the liberal line once they arrived in Washington and have been unpleasently suprised at their reticence. They didn’t suspect for a minute that these people were truely fiscally conservative. They believed these to be of their stripe; willing to hide their true character and say anything just to get elected. As far as the progressives are concerned; anyone not willing to abrogate each and every principle upon command cannot be anything other than a DINO; as a ‘true’ ptogressive has only one principle: That the ‘ends-justifies-the-means’.
As a democrat, if you’re not willing to throw anyone and/or anything under the bus for the sake of the party, then you are not a true progressive.
I gotta go with milbrat on this one. The difference is, Republicans automatically condemn all RINOs for not being ideologically pure, while the Dems embrace their DINOs as a way to preserve the Far Left’s political power.
The only DINOs who get tossed under the bus are the ones who have outlived their usefullness (their district is now more liberal than conservative, so the Dem’s can run a true liberal). We, on the other hand, think that the voters of Harlem will embrace conservative principles if we just explain it to them properly (ignoring the fact that their entire existence is based on generations of public aid).
We may actually get to that point one day, but it’s a long process. Until then, there are elections every 2 years that decide how political power will be exercised in Washington.
I’d never support a RINO in my district, because we’re solid conservative. But I’m not foolish enough to apply this same “principle” to every other congressional district in the United States. I don’t like losing elections but feeling morally superior about it, with the practical effect being that the opposing party (whose leadership is much more liberal than any Republican leadership would be) can implement their programs and policies.
Elections have consequences. They are about the acquisition and exercise of power. Focusing only on whether your candidate is a pure-enough “Republican” is a prescription for certain defeat.
Phil,
I understand your argument completely, but was I correct in stating that this is a tactic you recommend only at a district-by-district level in order to consolidate legislative power? Or stated differently, do you think that there do exist fundamental party platform ideologies that a candidate at the national level must possess in order to be given support by the RNC? Even at the local level, is there any ideological threshold where a candidate becomes too much of a loose cannon to be useful to the party?
Patrick: You’re exactly correct that my comments have always been about Congressional elections (the subject of Steele’s comments). Presidential elections involve different strategies and tactics, although some broad themes are similar. I held my nose and voted for McCain not because I supported him, but because I knew the alternative would be a disaster for this country.
To your other questions: Party platforms are primarily for show. They are designed by committees, and represent the interests of the special interests sitting at that table. Candidates are not bound to them.
This isn’t to say the platforms are irrelevant. They can point to broad, general philosophical differences between the parties. But we shouldn’t make them out to be something more than they are — i.e. hard and fast philosophical statements that bind candidates and “define” the party in unwavering, concrete terms.
All this goes to my point that we need to understand and accept something for what it really is (its actual institutional purpose and how it actually functions in the real world) and make decisions based on that. Taking the rhetoric of a party platform and imbuing it with more real-world substance than it actually has just leads to confusion and disappointment when the “reality” one imagines doesn’t match up with the reality that actually is.
Finally — again speaking to congressional elections — since parties (not ideology) determine who gets power in Washington, you look at each individual congressional district or statewide Senatorial race. If my district in Texas in 1990 will elect a rock solid conservative Republican, you settle for nothing less than that. If demographics change by 2010 so that only a moderate Republican can win that same seat, you hold your nose and vote for that person (and work hard between elections to create a more favorable terrain for 2012.) You don’t vote for a conservative Democrat (even if that person is a better candidate) if doing so preserves the ultra liberal power of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
Democrats understand this, which is why they have a virtual lock on institutional political power in Washington. We don’t, which is why so many on our side are happy to make moral statements about ideological issues that translate into election losses. But at least we feel “good” about ourselves, even though the other guys — thanks to us — still have the power to implement their policies which work against our interests.
We make a mistake when we pick out one issue or one factor and pretend that this alone is ‘what the election is all about’. Falling for a “conservative Democrat” head fake to preserve ultra liberal power does us no good in the long run. And voting 3rd party in an institutional 2 party system is no better. [Instead of going 3rd party, work to fundamentally change one of the parties like Reagan did. He pursued a multi-year strategy to successfully transform the Republican party. This takes time and effort though, which the impatient ideologues are normally unwilling to suffer through … so they lose elections but feel morally superior doing so. But the practical effect is to keep in power people who not only oppose their interests, but have the power to work against those interests].
So, to answer your question about national elections (“do you think that there do exist fundamental party platform ideologies that a candidate at the national level must possess in order to be given support by the RNC?”), platforms are important as part of a get out the vote (GOTV) effort. But people should not be fooled into thinking that they ‘bind’ a candidate. They are better understood as tools used by a party to get money and mobilize certain constituencies than as a true philosophical statement of principles.
As far as an ideological litmus test, I’ve always maintained that the primary process is where you focus on the candidate who best reflects your world view. But if your guy loses the primary, then the only choice you have is between the Republican and Democrat party candidate — with all the policy tentacles and power implications their election brings. Then the calculation is pretty much similar to what you do when you vote for your local congressman. Try to elect the better of the two candidates today, and work hard between elections to hold the elected leadership’s feet to the fire (give/withhold money, join Tea party-like movements, etc.) and change the political realities on the ground to pave the way for a stronger conservative candidate the next time.
Phil:
Re: “…parties (not ideology) determine who gets power in Washington,…”
That’s one reason I can’t stand to hear someone say, “I vote the man, not the party.” Another is that these same people have turned elections into popularity contests, not serious selections of officeholders. On the other hand, as I have posted before, there is something to be said for Pathological Politics:
“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.”
Beyond Politics, Mitchell & Simmons
Perhaps it would be better if we moved more toward indirect elections.
Phillip,
I have to agree with portions of your postings; and disagree with others.
I will relate this allegorically;
I have a Brother-in-Law who belonged to the UAW for 35 years while working at Chrysler and spent some of that time as a shop steward.
He said: “While we must have had 2,500 members at the plant where I worked in the early 90′s, only the 100 or so most passionate (read radical) ever dependably attended the monthly meetings where all sorts of union business was conducted. While 100 people could be considered a quorum for voting purposes; literally 4% of the membership routinely decided how 100% of the membership was going to behave.”
You speak about truly informing yourself before casting a ballot in a national election, and in some political version of the physician’s oath, attempt to determine who first ‘will do no harm’. While that may seem the pragmatic manner in which to repair, albeit slowly, the system; it becomes a ‘one-step-forward-two steps-back’ approach which serves merely to hold the present.
Both you and ‘sedonaman’ speak of the ‘migration’ of district opinion that may cause such a course of action as public political opinion itself migrates. If I intend to fix something, I want to fix it once and not over and over again.
Looking at this from the standpoint of the above story, it is fairly obvious to me that those that choose to participate are those that set the tone. We have a system of representative government that has abrogated our portion of the representative process. We know that progressives believe overwhelmingly in the ability of government to solve all problems. So; while we’re lamenting what is happening on the national scene; what is going on in the statehouse, on the county boards, and on the school boards of your states’ districts?
We spend most of an election cycle screaming and throwing stuff at the TV. We wring our hands and blog about the issues, challenges, and questionable practices of incumbent politicians. We inform ourselves, vote the best choice: AND THEN THE PROCESS STOPS! We either heave a long sigh of relief or gloom depending upon the outcome; and like insane persons, go back to screaming and throwing stuff at the TV; as if performing the same behavior over again will somehow yield a different result.
Love him or hate him, it is here that I believe that anyone of any political persuasion can agree with a statement made all the time by commentator Rush Limbaugh. Whenever anyone ever asks him when he will hang up his gig and get out from behind the EIB microphone, he says; “I’ll quit when everyone agrees with me!”
Representative government works best when we spend the time to hold our elected officials to their oaths. Where I live in Arkansas, we have several political officials who have run unopposed for so many years; they’ve collected enough years to retire in their respective offices.
Across the state, over the last decade, over 300 people have retired under such circumstances. They collect their 30 years, retire in September, two months before the election. Win the election for the same office. Begin drawing retirement for their elected position in December, then assume that same office for another term in January; drawing both a retirement check and a paycheck from the same office they’ve represented unopposed for decades.
This; along with what has been going on in Washington since our collective inattention has allowed one political party to seize both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has caused an awakening here in Arkansas.
As I stated previously; progressives believe in the infallibility of government. Henceforth; what political persuasion do you think is ubiquitous at the county level? Which party makes up the overwhelming majorities of the school boards, the county commissioners, and other county positions? These positions will fall to the small percentage of people who hold the passion. These positions are also the ‘farm teams’, if you will of the political future. Just as sports uses high schools and colleges to groom future professional sports stars, these positions are where people get the ‘hands on’ training to successfully campaign for higher offices.
In my state we’ve formed a Citizens’ Caucus. We’ve done this deliberately in order to influence public opinion at the district/county level. We are right now, in the process of identifying candidates we intend to support for Justice of the Peace (county supervisor or commissioner) positions, County Judge, and City Board of Directors positions.
We are an apolitical group, as we believe that at the county level, the names democrat, republican, and independent, are just the method used to print a ballot. There are unequivocal beliefs we all aspire to;
Accountability – We expect an elected official to promise to ensure accountability to the people he/she represents. We expect them to establish lines of communication and keep them open. We expect them to do their best to explain decisions made, and the process they used to arrive at those decisions.
Respect – We expect our elected officials hold each constituent they represent in the highest regard. We expect them to represent all persons within that district; those that voted for them, those that did not, and those unable to vote. We demand they do their best to accord all persons the dignity which they deserve.
Results – As constituents we expect a demonstrated track record of accomplishment from these elected representatives. While we may not always agree, we expect them to promise to do their best to demonstrate that the decisions made in the Quorum Court enhance the every day lives of the people of Garland County.
We’ve had several meetings; each has been attended by more people than the last. We have our slate of candidates, and are now in the process of determining which we will support in 2010. We have also received commitment from the members of this caucus that they will not allow their attention to lapse after the election, but will remain engaged with the candidates to ensure they keep their promises.
It’s a different method. Representative government only functions when the people remain engaged with the people they elect. All politics is local. If we, as candidates, focus on our primary duty of representing our constituents at this level: And if we mentor new persons to supersede us; we cannot help but cause our future candidates to represent our interests.
You may not have the patience for this process. We believe that we can effect county government in 2010. We believe that our effect will be felt in the statehouse and beyond in 2012. And we expect, as an ancillary duty, for our state representatives, along with the newly elected Congressmen and Senators, to either pledge to truly act as our representatives, or retire.
There it is. Our three year plan to ‘take back’ government. We’re not proposing any specific political affiliation. But what we’ve found, is that a majority of people both registered democrats and republicans, don’t have the stomach for what is currently happening in Washington. Once we gather and talk to one another, there is much common ground among a solid majority of citizens in each political party.
Washington is currently controlled by a radical few, the ‘regular union meeting attendees’ if you will. And a majority of the other representatives follow them because of the threats of non-support in local elections from the national party if they refuse to follow along. They must be made to understand that we, as voters, pose a larger ‘threat’ to their continued employment than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid do.
We have a caucus in each of the 75 counties in Arkansas. This was our response after the April 15th T.E.A. Party when we asked the question “What now?”
Ruminating and blogging have their place. We all have families and jobs. But our original representatives were not professional politicians. They were businessmen and family men that agreed to make some room in their schedules for their neighbors and friends. We must reclaim that. We believe this is the thirty-six month solution to taking back government. What is yours?
(P.S. I have agreed to take this bull by the horns and run as candidate for Justice of the Peace, District Nine, of Garland County, Arkansas.)
Milbrat:
Enjoyed your comments. See my thoughts below:
>You speak about truly informing yourself before casting a ballot in a national election, and in some political version of the physician’s oath, attempt to determine who first ‘will do no harm’. While that may seem the pragmatic manner in which to repair, albeit slowly, the system; it becomes a ‘one-step-forward-two steps-back’ approach which serves merely to hold the present.
*** I’m not sure anyone can ever be “truly informed”. I’d settle for just not acting on the basis of platitudes without taking reality into account. In a two-party system that allows the majority party great institutional power, it is self-defeating to vote for “candidates” instead of parties. Nancy ran “conservative” Dems in conservative districts to win individual elections — and protect her ultra liberal power base. You’ve got to look at how the whole game is played, not just one part of it.
>Both you and ‘sedonaman’ speak of the ‘migration’ of district opinion that may cause such a course of action as public political opinion itself migrates. If I intend to fix something, I want to fix it once and not over and over again.
*** Life doesn’t work this way. No repair lasts forever, whether it’s my roof, or a 1994 Conservative mandate. Politics is a constant struggle with daily victories and defeats. If you expect to win and walk away, you will win in the short run and lose in the long run. The war must be fought every day.
> …We wring our hands and blog about the issues, challenges, and questionable practices of incumbent politicians. We inform ourselves, vote the best choice: AND THEN THE PROCESS STOPS! We either heave a long sigh of relief or gloom depending upon the outcome; and like insane persons, go back to screaming and throwing stuff at the TV; as if performing the same behavior over again will somehow yield a different result.
*** This is exactly my point above. The process never stops, but some people do stop, and let the other side prevail.
>Representative government works best when we spend the time to hold our elected officials to their oaths.
*** Yes … and no. If a candidate runs as anti-war, should he never vote to go to war? Never, ever? Circumstances change. The fact is, what a candidate says while running for office may or may not actually reflect what they believe. But even if it is 100% reflective of their POV, once in office they have a responsibility to govern as well. If circumstances change, they should adapt.
Now, this isn’t an excuse to just do whatever they want. Part of governing is leading, and part of leading is educating the electorate to understand why X is now necessary. Sometimes this is a straightforward process. Sometimes it isn’t (Bush couldn’t tell us everything he knew for National Security reasons to justify some of his actions).
So, at the end of the day, it’s about a lot of things besides simply following a stated philosophy or not: changing circumstances, character, trustworthiness as demonstrated by other actions, leadership, etc. You can’t reduce this to a simple calculation.
>In my state we’ve formed a Citizens’ Caucus. We’ve done this deliberately in order to influence public opinion at the district/county level.
*** This is exactly the kind of thing I suggested when I said that we need to work between elections to pave the way for educating the people to accept more principled conservatives in the next election.
>We are an apolitical group, as we believe that at the county level, the names democrat, republican, and independent, are just the method used to print a ballot. There are unequivocal beliefs we all aspire to.
*** Again, just to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with pursuing common goals in an apolitical manner. That helps broaden your potential base of supporters. But when it comes time to vote for a candidate to hold political power, the system is not apolitical. Voting for an independent, or a conservative Democrat who will keep Nancy in power, does not help you advance your goals beyond rhetoric.
We’ve got to pick a party. Either take over the Dems or reform the Republicans. Those are the only two practical choices. You take over the Dems if there are a lot of conservative Dems already in office, and you try to push the party over the edge. If the conservatives are just a token number to preserve liberal power, you’re better off getting the Republicans back in power, and then using your “apolitical” group to pressure the leadership to pursue more strictly conservative goals.
Ideology and electoral tactics are related broadly, but they are not the same thing. You can’t let ideology determine your election strategy, but you can use ideology to help influence officials already in office (or make it easier for certain people to run and win in an individual district).
>Accountability – We expect an elected official to promise to ensure accountability to the people he/she represents.
*** Yes. But do you feel equally strongly that Nancy should be 100% accountable to her far Left constituents? They are actually more liberal than her. Based on your statement of “accountability”, she should be harder Left than she is. And since she also has the power of the Speakership, she should use it to pursue her constituent’s agenda locally as well as nationally.
Be careful with absolute statements that can cut two ways. You can’t only support “accountability” if it favors your views, but not equally embrace and accept the concept when it works against your interests.
>Respect – We expect our elected officials hold each constituent they represent in the highest regard.
*** Ok. Does your representative hold a constituent in “high regard” if, in a liberal district, he guts the Patriot Act because these idealists want him to do so, even though it puts them and the country at higher risk? The problem is you are using value laden words like “respect”, “high regard”, etc. in a system that is about the exercise of discrete power (spend X dollars, pass X law, etc.). I can make an abstract case that anything I do as an elected official is to show my highest regard for my constituents by keeping them safe, keeping them “employed” (even if it’s with your money!), etc. You know what you mean by these value laden terms, but as a practical matter, they are just rhetorical images, not concrete thoughts.
So, be careful about mixing philosophy with policy/tactics. If you are stating a principle as a policy, then it’s as valid for the Left as it is for the Right. But if you are instead stating general principles of Conservative philosophy, that’s a different matter. You state the principles (which involve things like liberty/freedom, limiting government control of the private sector, etc.), and then form strategies and tactics to gain enough power to implement them in concrete ways.
>We expect them to represent all persons within that district; those that voted for them, those that did not, and those unable to vote. We demand they do their best to accord all persons the dignity which they deserve.
*** This is a good sounding principle, but not practical. I don’t want a candidate I worked hard to elect telling me he’s only going to pursue 60% of my goals because he needs to represent the wishes and interests of the 40% who voted against him or did not vote. Elections have consequences. This is one of them.
>Results – As constituents we expect a demonstrated track record of accomplishment from these elected representatives. While we may not always agree, we expect them to promise to do their best to demonstrate that the decisions made in the Quorum Court enhance the every day lives of the people of Garland County.
*** Again, these are good public positions to take. I don’t mean to belittle them at all. They are precisely the kinds of tactics people should use to broaden their base of support. But don’t let them become automatic “principles” about what happens when a candidate takes power. The fact is, you don’t want a conservative candidate to represent liberal interests, never change a position in office if circumstances dictate, etc.
Now I realize that all this sounds devious and Machiavellian, and to an extent it is. It’s because the exercise of political power is about power, not ideology. It’s about representing some, not all interests. It’s a constant battle, not a one-time event (even if your guy loses an election, you can still work to limit his power by making it politically painful to pursue his goals).
>Representative government only functions when the people remain engaged with the people they elect. All politics is local. If we, as candidates, focus on our primary duty of representing our constituents at this level: And if we mentor new persons to supersede us; we cannot help but cause our future candidates to represent our interests.
*** Yes! This is absolutely correct. But be sure to strip the practical application of this from any “ideological” baggage about abstract accountability, abstract respect, abstract results. The simple truth is that you want your official to use their power to represent your interests, period. Some of those interests have a stronger philosophical component than others (limiting government involvement in the economy vs. build me a bridge over main street). But don’t deceive yourself into thinking that “limiting govt. involvement” is simply “philosophical” while building a bridge is just base politics. Limiting govt. involvement will direct impact your personal tax rate, your business’ profitability, etc..
As a good tactic, in times like today stick to “principles’ between elections to help change people’s minds and make it possible to get a stronger conservative in office. But once elected, demand that your representative represent your interests (those who elected him), not the district’s.
What this means is that all politics involves strategy and tactics, first and foremost. “Principles” are important, but once we move beyond abstract discussions of principles, they must be viewed and utilized tactically. Principles for principles sake have no place in politics because the ignore tactics, ultimately lead to a candidate’s defeat, and end up putting a person in power who will work against your interests.
>You may not have the patience for this process. We believe that we can effect county government in 2010. We believe that our effect will be felt in the statehouse and beyond in 2012.
*** I think 2010 could bring in great changes … if the people advocating change are smart about how they actually elect candidates. Again, focusing on whether a candidate is conservative or not is not the key, as Nancy has shown.
>And we expect, as an ancillary duty, for our state representatives, along with the newly elected Congressmen and Senators, to either pledge to truly act as our representatives, or retire.
*** This is a great public, rhetorical position to take. I mean that sincerely. But as a practical matter, it’s not worth much. I’ve pointed out above how a true leader can justify acting against the people’s short term, sometimes uninformed “interests” as the only way to actually, truly fulfill their pledge to be their ”representative.”
Publicly, take this stand. But in practice, the exercise of power to protect your interests requires a great deal more understanding than this
>I have agreed to take this bull by the horns and run as candidate for Justice of the Peace, District Nine, of Garland County, Arkansas.
*** Good for you! Publish your campaign address and I’ll send you a contribution. We need more people willing to stand up and change the nature of the public debate. It’s the only way to get the Democrats out of power so we can re-introduce some sanity into the election.
(Drop me a private email off line if you don’t want to post your campaign address for some reason. I can be reached through the contact number in my website).
Take care, Phil
Phillip,
Interesting comments all. The response we’ve formed here in Garland County is, we feel, straight out of the liberal playbook. The decidedly uphill battle we’re fighting to get conservative principles re-instilled in the general population is a ‘generational’ challenge. Liberalism has built itself firmly into lexicon of politics because liberals never stop campaigning.
They are constantly placing their agenda in front of the people, almost daring anyone else to either go along or develop a better idea. I believe that we’ve reached a point where enough people have begun to seriously doubt their representation. I also believe that these same people are finally motivated to ‘do something’. I don’t hear the phrase; “Someone should do something about that (insert subject here).” nearly as often as I used to. Now I hear a lot more of; “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
I think the technique here is to keep the motivation running high. People are engaged now; and the overriding thought here is to keep them engaged.
I prefer to think of it as never-ending debate of ideas. There is a ‘fringe’ among both parties that is reflexive. They are the twenty percent that will never be swayed by discussion. Actually; they discourage discussion. Theirs is a ‘lock-step’ world that brooks no dissent. But, in most cases, twenty percent isn’t sufficient to secure an election. Only when the opposing twenty percent is disillusioned from participation, that things go askew.
As I said in a previous post to this essay, progressives ran ‘stealth’ candidates in certain districts in 2006 and 2008 believing that these candidates shared all the progressive traits of mis-representing themselves just to achieve the goal of power. Both Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are literally ‘herding cats’ trying to find a method of passing health care legislation. (I’ll not go into all the arcane procedures being utilized by both these people in order to attempt this. As an astute observer of the political process, you are well aware of how this ‘sausage’ is being manufactured.)
While conservatives may have a real uphill fight on their hands in Nancy Pelosi’s home district; that overwhelming opinion doesn’t exist all across the nation. It is the exception rather than the rule. I would suppose that there are as many ‘safe’ conservative districts as there are liberal ones. But I do believe that vigilance, and a dedication to take action, will ensure that the struggle remains viable. Liberalism has already proven that with the constant application that dedicated foot soldiers can bring to focus, almost anything is possible.
I choose to reform the Republican Party. Not just because I’ve been a life-long adherent, but because I believe that the Republican Party may be more easily pulled toward the ideals of Classic Liberalism that I aspire to, than trying to untangle/dismantle the amalgamation of special interest groups the Democrat Party has become.
I’ve always ascribed to the liberty of individual citizens; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly all being core commitments: As is the belief that the proper role of just government is the protection of individual liberty and property rights; with just enough monitoring of the economy to ensure no fraud or deceit exists in those markets.
It has been my experience that it is often not so much the actual issue that is at stake; as it is the question of exactly what is proper role of government in the issue. Abortion, gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state; all these are issues of constant debate. There is no headway to be made by Demagoging any of these from either side. The debate truly lies in what is or is not government to do regarding these issues.
I agree that each must formulate his/her own policy, and that mostly is a product of one’s philosophy. This works equally for both sides of the political fence. One side has spoken out for years, while the other has plodded along in relative silence, always finding a method of making the best of a bad situation. I submit this is not a path that leads to success.
For once, we’ve taken time away from our jobs and our families to voice our displeasure at some of the ‘goings-on’ in Washington; and the most encountered sentiment I’ve experienced is rather euphoric. People are amazed at how much more empowered they felt by giving themselves an opportunity to ‘vent’. They are also enamored at the attention, the chord if you will, they’ve collectively struck. They most want to know how to keep this movement alive.
This, if you’ll pardon the expression, becomes a ‘teachable moment’. You confront them with a choice. Go back to what you were doing before this all happened, or choose to act differently. Act in a manner that continues to give you that feeling of empowerment. Liberals don’t need to practice this. However; conservatives have subsumed this characteristic for ongoing activity in support of their agenda. Their ability to do these things, in my mind, has atrophied like an unused limb.
There are two sides to this equation. We as candidates promise to do “X”. As constituents, we promise to ensure that our public servants work toward “X” or are replaced. Intentional participation in this may not always yield your personally intended result; but you will always now possess an outlet. Actively campaign for office, or actively campaign for another you respect and agree with that seeks office. Vigilance and participation can effect change.
I have no qualms regarding anyone possessing my address or identity. In fact, I’ve considered for quite some time that I discard my moniker, and begin participating on this forum with my actual name. I am Bill Wavering. I live at 272 Riggs Trail in Bonnerdale, Arkansas, 71933. It is the only address I have as I have not yet set up a PO Box for campaign purposes. This is most likely the last time anyone will hear from ‘milbrat’.
Regards All,
Bill: Thanks for taking the lead on this. This is why I think there’s some real hope for 2010.
My check is on the way.
Phil
I hope you don’t mind me jumping in with a post. I discovered this blog yesterday and read with interest.
First, I am against abortion. I think it is an unconscionable waste of God’s gift of life.
It is, however, a personal moral issue to me. I cannot imagine myself advising a conflicted pregnant woman one way or the other. She must decide. I certainly think it is no place for the intrusion of the state.
As a political issue, it has distorted our politics for far too long. In the entire period since abortion was legalized, I don’t think the arguments for or against legalized abortion have changed a single person’s viewpoint.
It is legal. It will not become illegal until a large majority of Americans decide that they want to push their legislators in that direction. It is not a policy problem; it is a marketing problem, and the sale has not been made. Morality cannot be legislated, it must be sold. Prohibition proved that 80 years ago.
For the anti-choice proponents, the best advice is to work to make their viewpoint the majority viewpoint BEFORE attempting to make it public policy. If they could magically make abortion illegal in the current environment they would unleash a massive backlash. They have not sold their viewpoint to nearly enough opponents to have a successful legal policy.
Meanwhile, the issue prevents a large segment of the otherwise conservative population from voting and supporting conservative candidates. We should get it out of the public political debate altogether until a compelling majority can be sold.
mlowry:
You and I have a similar thought process about morality not being legislated. Here’s a passage from an earlier eassy I wrote
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
Education, not confrontation, is the way to expose the relativist thinking that goes against the common moral code to rationalize abortion. We need to return the definition of “harm” to a practical level that is universally true in every example. This means defining harm in a way that does not allow Relativist distractions to confuse preferences, opinions, or desires with other examples of true harm. If the example we give is indeed universally true, then working backwards we can re-engage a debate that falsely labels a developing fetus as anything other than an innocent human being.
For abortion, the fight begins by validating whether the Declaration of Independence ‘got it right’ when attributing its underlying morality to God, instead of man. The answer to this question carries great implications for not only America, but for all societies under every conceivable social, political, economic or religious system. …
Free will gives us the ability to apply reason to all our decisions. A common moral code exists to help guide those actions, both in terms of how we live our own lives, and how we react to the evil around us. The desire to stop a woman from having an abortion must be balanced against that woman’s individual free will. All moral people have an obligation to educate a woman contemplating an abortion to help re-connect her thinking with the common moral code, not to harass her. Education can mean counseling, writing as I am doing now, putting up billboards, peaceful protests and picketing to show non-threatening disapproval and cause her to re-think her decision, and a variety of other methods.
When these educating actions succeed and a pregnant woman changes her mind about having an abortion, or a society decides to overturn the laws that legalize elective abortion, morality is advanced. When force is the instrument used to alter a behavior, morality is not advanced. A tactical advantage may be achieved for one case, a hundred, a thousand or more. But once the force is removed, the behavior is likely to return. Only wars between nations justify the use of force, or decisions taken by a society within that society and implemented through lawful means. As a matter of principle and a general guide to action, individuals — even groups of individuals — do not have the right to impose their free will choices on other human beings with different free will choices.
There is a practical reason for doing this, in addition to the respect we need to show for the exercise of each person’s God-given free will. We live in a country governed by laws that are made within a legitimate constitutional framework (however imperfect at times). If I choose to violate a law in the “defense of morality,” others will do the same as well. Their morality may be a Relativistic one, however. This leads to civil war or anarchy, which will have the exact opposite effect of my intentions. Whatever short-term “good” I’ve accomplished will be erased by the long-term fallout from my actions.
So, I will stop a neighbor from beating their child, or stop a man from raping a woman, or stop a stranger from killing another stranger. I will not do this because these actions are immoral, but because they are illegal and I am acting to support the law. The fact that these laws are in support of the common moral code makes it imperative that I act instead of walking away. That action could be something as simple as calling the police, or getting personally involved in the matter.
The same thing is not true of a law that is morally neutral. If I watch a person litter the street I have no obligation to call the police or make a “citizen’s arrest.” I can report him, verbally chastise him, pick up the litter myself, or just keep walking along minding my own business. We’ll call this the Gladys Cravitz Codicil (who was the nosy neighbor from Bewitched). Some things just aren’t any of my business, some things are in a limited (but optional) way, and some things demand my attention.
The confusion arises over how to behave in certain situations, because up until now we’ve been talking about two related, but entirely different things. One is how to think about issues to avoid making Relativistic judgments, the second is to determine what are the universal moral codes human beings share. We’ve identified one in this essay regarding deliberate harm to innocent life. There may be others, or this may be the only one necessary that gives rise to all related issues (do not rape, do not kill innocent life, do not enslave other human beings, etc.). I’ll leave it to others to make their case either way.
Reason, which helps us to recognize the existence of a universal moral code and understand its logic, tells us what to do. But it does not necessarily tell us how to do it.
This is because different cultures, different societies, different time periods, and different unique situations within a society, all produce too many variations to codify into a single human law. So we need another roadmap besides pure reason (i.e. the opposite of rationalization) to understand how to act where the universal moral code is involved. This is where each person’s individual free will comes in, because it is through the exercise of free will that man makes his choices.
Applying reasoning and free will to the law permitting elective abortion in America today, I understand that while pure reason will lead me to the morally correct decision, reason tempered by a recognition that God also gave everyone free will helps me decide how to act in a given situation.
I recognize that, on balance, the vast majority of laws in this country do not conflict with the moral code, regardless of whether I think my taxes are too high, or you think the Supreme Court overstepped its Constitutional authority in 2000. This compatibility with the moral code is not an accident, since our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But these principles merely inform the discussion about laws, not decide them. The fact that so many laws passed today are still in keeping with these Judeo-Christian principles is due to two things: (1) a basic respect for all laws passed within this Constitutional framework, even those we disagree with. And (2) by focusing on educating, explaining, and teaching about the universal moral code, we will help people make the proper moral decisions with regard to the laws that are passed.
Would I feel the same way if parents had the right to end their own children’s lives for any reason whatsoever? Absolutely not. In this situation, the balance between morally compatible laws, and our personal responsibility to confront wrongdoing, has changed. Depending upon the exact circumstances of that case, my actions would be different than they are today. But I don’t live in that type of society at this moment, so I can’t justify bombing an abortion clinic in the name of advancing morality.
This is why it is so important to recognize where the universal moral code came from. It came from God. Not from any “world consensus,” man’s genetic composition, or from civilization and society. It is equally important to recognize that God gave man free will for a purpose. Not every exercise of another person’s free will requires us to physically oppose it. Some do, some don’t, and some must be balanced against the good that will occur short-term, as opposed to the bad that will result long-term. If I was writing this about Somalia, the free will choices I would make for identical situations would not necessarily be the same. Those actions take place within a different social and political setting, and reason tempered by free will demands that I take that into consideration.
Why is free will so critical in this regard? Because without it we might discover truth, but not understand what to do when applying it to the world we live in.