Does the pro-life cause have the wrong allies?
[Today’s post is by Robert Christian, a progressive Catholic. It is a response to last week’s “Election Reflection” blog post. It was originally posted at Millennial and is reprinted with permission.]
A recent blog post at Secular Pro-Life addresses the question of whether or not the pro-life movement has the wrong allies. It does.
The post notes, “When the pro-life movement is allied with fiscal conservatives, who are inclined to cut social programs, it’s all too easy
for abortion supporters to accuse us of not caring about people after
they are born.” Conversely, “The Democratic Party, with its historic
concern for those who cannot speak for themselves, would seem to be a
better fit– in theory.”
The Democratic Party is a much better fit, both theoretically and
practically. Pro-life progressivism is based on a far more coherent
political philosophy in terms of its understanding of the role of
government and the protection of human life and dignity. In fact, in
the 1970s, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to oppose
abortion, and Congress was filled with pro-life Democrats.
It was only in the mid- to late 1980s that abortion became strongly
associated with party identification, according to scholars Robert
Putnam and David Campbell. This is a relatively recent development, and
it is not irreversible.
In the post, the argument is made that the Democratic Party is
“married to abortion.” That’s true if one focuses exclusively on party
leaders and activists. Overall, however, one third of the Democratic
Party is pro-life. Pro-life Democrats are elected at state and local
levels across the country, even in deep blue states like Connecticut and
Massachusetts. These numbers would be considerably higher if so many
pro-lifers who oppose economic libertarianism had not left the party
over the past 40 years.
It is true that wealthy pro-choice liberals have disproportionate
control over the party’s agenda. This can only be countered by
organizing a large grassroots network of pro-life Democrats. Every time
another frustrated pro-lifer flees the party, given the reality of
campaign finance rules and closed primary elections, they make this more
difficult.
And they hurt the cause by joining a party married to anti-government
rhetoric, whose top priority is minimizing taxes on the wealthiest
Americans. It’s not a myth that many self-identified pro-lifers are not
that interested in protecting life from threats other than abortion.
Some critics want to say that pro-lifers are really pro-birth or
pro-baby. That’s a bit charitable. You can’t oppose access to
affordable, quality healthcare for pregnant women and deserve the label
“pro-birth. “ You cannot be completely indifferent to infant mortality
rates and be reasonably identified as “pro-baby.” And the basic
incoherence of this type of worldview rightfully exposes many pro-lifers
to the charge of being hypocrites or insincere in their commitment to
defending innocent human life.
Framing the pro-life cause around the themes of equality and human
rights and backing up this rhetoric with a commitment to policies that
reflect these values, for both the born and unborn, is a far better
strategy. This rhetoric and worldview is also far more appealing to
Millennials, many of whom are not affiliated with an organized religion,
yet still have a strong belief in social justice and other values. The
pro-gay marriage movement has found the right formula to appeal to
Millennials and its support has grown rapidly. The pro-life movement
cannot keep relying on the extremism of the pro-choice movement and its
continued use of hyper-individualistic rhetoric to prevent the
pro-choice cause from making similar inroads.
The devotion of the pro-life movement to the Republican Party has led
to the endorsement of candidates that have embarrassed and discredited
the movement. This includes candidates whose understanding of women’s bodies and pregnancy is as sophisticated as the theory of where babies come from put forward by Maude Apatow’s character in Knocked Up.
It also includes Scott Desjarlais who opposes abortion, except in the
cases where he pressures his wife and mistress to abort his own
children. Numerous pro-lifers stood by these ridiculous and repulsive
candidates until the very end.
But is there hope for a new Republican party? The post argues:
Repackaging existing policies designed to aid the wealthiest
Americans is not going to fool Millennials or anyone else who sees
pro-life conservatism as incoherent or hypocritical. Further, the
elected Republicans using this rhetoric were not serious about debt
reduction. A balanced-budget plan that starts with large tax cuts for
multimillionaires and billionaires and ends with no projected balanced
budget for decades is more properly called a tax cut plan. The argument
that we must slash essential programs that help the neediest Americans
so that we will not be in a position where we might have to slash
essential programs that help the poor in the future is patently
ridiculous.
It is not impossible to envision a Republican Party that is more open
to those with a whole life perspective. In the wake of Mitt Romney’s
loss, many are arguing the party needs to move in a more moderate
direction. If the party does shift in this direction, three options
appear most likely. First, it could moderate its position on
immigration and eliminate its hateful, divisive rhetoric (the 47%,
makers v. takers, etc.), while basically maintaining its current
understanding of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatism.
Second, it could moderate its position on social issues like gay
marriage and abortion, weakening its commitment to both, while
reaffirming its commitment to its current economic agenda. Finally, it
could develop an economic agenda that actually addresses the concerns
and needs of working and middle-class Americans and/or one that tackles
the budget deficit, while maintaining its opposition to abortion.
While the third might seem to be the best way to expand its electoral
appeal, the first two are more appealing to the wealthy supporters of
the party. They would rather see the party move in the direction of a
Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or a real life Arnold Vinick (of the West
Wing) than see a genuine compassionate conservative or tax-raising
budget balancer alter the direction of the party. And over the past
decades, these supporters have been the most powerful in the party. As
Jonathan Chait notes,
“The Republican Party has been organized around defending the material
interests of the very rich — largely by defending low top tax rates as
its maximal policy goal.” Change is always possible after a loss like
Romney’s, but it is not clear that this organizing principle will
change.
The pro-life movement’s devotion to the Republican Party has not just
led to the endorsement of fools, but to coordinated campaigns to
eradicate pro-life Democrats. It is difficult to overstate how
counterproductive this is. Any movement that requires one party
reaching and maintaining a durable supermajority to achieve its goals is
doomed to failure. The two-party system is not an endangered species
in America. Bipartisanship is necessary for success. Gaining equal
ground in the Democratic Party will be a challenge, but it is a fight
worth undertaking.
The biggest reason why the pro-life movement needs progressive allies
is because the Republican strategy, which relies on the appointment of
enough conservative Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and
return the issue of abortion to the states, would neither result in the
legal protection of unborn life nationwide nor address the underlying
causes of abortion. Only a comprehensive approach that guarantees
constitutional protection for unborn lives and addresses the economic
and social needs of pregnant women and children, born and unborn, can be
fully successful.
The biggest obstacle to the pro-life movement finding its natural
allies is that many important pro-life activists are highly partisan and
would be devoted to the Republican Party regardless of its position on
abortion. The pro-life movement is filled with people who think food,
healthcare, and other basic needs are privileges to be earned, not
rights based on human worth and dignity. I have seen pro-life leaders
who are Ayn Rand devotees. Others spread the prosperity gospel. If the
pro-life movement wants to be successful, it does not just need new
allies, it needs new leaders.
I appreciate how penetrating this article is. Moreover, I can appreciate that the issue at hand is more political than philosophical. However, as a pro-life libertarian who is in no way wedded to the Republican party, I do take issue with the blithe dismissal of classical liberal ideas on economic policy as inconsistent with being pro-life. If it's consistency you're going for, I haven't found anyone more philosophically consistent than, say, Libertarians for Life (worth checking out their web site).
It's important that while we criticize one another for our faults, we also acknowledge that we are all searching for the same things. No reasonable human being–conservative, libertarian, or anything else–opposes access to food or health care. The question we disagree on is how to find the best system for providing this access. I agree that politics drives a lot of people to illogical and sometimes insane beliefs, but for the sake of charity, at least, let's not add fuel to the fire by throwing all ideological opponents under the rhetorical bus.
A particular criticism that I give to most people of a progressive persuasion is that the "rich/rest of us" narrative is a bit naive in its telling. Certainly wealth has huge political effects on the rest of us, but it is not so clear that there's anything truly ideologically homogeneous about the group of people who happen to have a lot more money than the rest of us. What is fairly clear, actually, as that very few of them are truly libertarian. The "small government" rhetoric of the Republican party rings pretty hollow with anyone who has actually read F. A. Hayek or Milton Friedman; but even more than that, most of the nation's wealthy vote Democrat!
OK, enough of my concerns. I will conclude by saying that of course the author is right, it will be death for the pro-life movement if all our hopes are placed in the hands of conservative Supreme Court justices and Republican presidents who nominate them. I will also say that there is a great deal to be said for pro-life progressivism of the type supported by the author, although I believe it cannot actually achieve it's desired goals through the means it proposes. It's certainly time for the pro-life movement, just as much or more than the Republican party, to look inward and ask where we've gone wrong in making bad alliances that will ultimately lead nowhere.
I appreciate efforts to expand the political base of support of the right-to-life movement, but I do think that the movement should be careful to avoid taking clear stands on non-essential issues. The more issues the movement takes on, the fewer supporters it will have.
Yes this is why pro choice people like me think pro life people are cruel hypocrites. Not only do you need to leave the uneducated religious crazy people behind but you need to stop denying people access to comprehensive sex education, birth control, and affordable pregnancy/birth healthcare. The only way to lower abortion rates is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Embrace real medical science and education or you will exacerbate the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Stop calling women murderers and ask why they make that choice and what you could have done to stop them from being unexpectedly pregnant. Stop cutting funding to programs that help women afford to carry a pregnancy to term and then raise the child, because as you may well know, women do have abortions for economic reasons because they can't afford to parent. Learn from other countries that have proper sex education, access to birth control, universal healthcare, subsidized child care, free education and healthcare for children, and a healthy non shameful attitude towards sexuality. Those countries have legal abortion but at much lower rates than here. Learn, change, and stop aligning yourselves with the crazy Akins, Santorums, and Ryans of the GOP.