Abortion and the Future of America
Abortion is evil, a grave evil. It should be eradicated.
This is a long term, aspirational goal on which Christians should not give up and to which they should continue to recruit support. Yet, speculating about what could have been or could be if only the coalitions aligned exactly right unto this end is counterproductive, especially at this moment.
Recognizing that a grave evil stalks the land and the precarious situation we find ourselves in politically are not mutually exclusive conclusions. Further, recognizing the limited range of options to deal with each problem, their political relation and urgency, and then acting accordingly is not morally compromising or contradictory, but prudent and realist. Ranking priorities given our present condition is necessary and instrumental to any progress on moral reform.
As we’ve said before, our political system, especially at the federal level, is approaching a state of nature. Its ability to function according to basic ends, namely, the protection of its citizens, is faltering. A multiplicity of peoples sit within our borders, some with diametrically opposed interests and ways of life, morals and vision for society.
In the spirit of our founders, light and transient abuses should be endured as long as possible. Now is not a time for wanton action. The state of nature we speak of is not sought but progressively imposed on the American people by mismanagement and neglect. We mean only that the prior way of political orientation, marked by high expectations of the federal government to provide uniform, agreeable policies for these united states and enforce them effectively and impartially, is becoming evidently outdated. Federal policies of the past half century in particular have only fractured America and exasperated conflicts.
In a state of nature, our political priority should be to protect our own communities. We do this by making pragmatic alliances and supporting policies that check threats against us. This is basic, real politics. Security and stability are prerequisites for any way of life.
The Neoconservatives, the Bushers, Romneyites, and Kristolites, sought to impose liberal democratic values worldwide, even in societies unconditioned for those values, and even on populations that largely rejected them. The Neocons had expansive, universalist ambitions. Whatever the merits or demerits of their moral proscriptions–a debate for another time–their failure was, at least in part, owed to a fatal lack of realism and prudence. Wild ambition and aspiration–a Pelagian impulse to create ex nihilo by sheer force of will–governed their action.
We Christians on the right in this late stage republic also have expansive ambitions. We aim to promote our values and convert people, not just to said values but, ultimately, to Christ. But we should be realistic in our short-term political strategies, cognizant of what policies and governmental systems can be achieved given particular populations and conditions.
As Montesquieu instructed, policy must be fitted to a people given their character, situation, and history. This does not negate the fact that law and policy are pedagogical and should lead men to virtue. It is rather an affirmation of the fact that men must be led to virtue gradually. More importantly in the near term, it is a conviction that, in some sense, survival is at stake. The longevity of the commonwealth hangs in the balance on many fronts and so do our communities therein.
We are in a perilous political moment. Most pressing is the defense of our geographic sovereignty and the preservation of the American people. We should accordingly vote for those who will best protect our communities today, even as we work toward a positive vision for the future. As Michael Anton observed recently, we must think in terms of producing the best possible environment, the best raw material, so to speak, for building anew.
“Whatever comes next, and whenever it comes, the facts on the ground will matter enormously; the more favorable to our cause we can make those facts via present action, the better. For instance, it will matter whether there are 20 or 50 or however many million illegal immigrants in America, and to the extent that sound federal policy can keep those numbers down, we should pursue every lawful means to achieve that, even if some of us are not sanguine about the prospects of renewing our grandparents’ America even with a totally secure border.”
We should also temper our expectations and political scope. The incessant pursuit of sweeping, federal-level policies by conservatives–usually from the judiciary–over the past half century has, on balance, yielded more defeats than wins, and has sometimes distracted us from civilizational cultivation, and the “wins” have hidden deeper socio-political rot. Our federalist polity was never really supposed to work like that anyway. Inordinately elevated expectations via these means have a way of skewing the political calculus.
The Dobbs decision along with newfound assertiveness from red state governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis signal a nascent reinvigorated federalism. This is a welcome development, a return to constitutional normalcy. Trump is the most in tune with this development and the one most keen to further it. When it comes to abortion, Christians should consider whether arguments dependent on an expansive application of the 14th amendment to the states has been or will be good long term. Forcing a federal confrontation on abortion at this juncture is imprudent–it would not go well for us. Providentially, our polity provides optionality on sovereignty. Effective strategy for our purposes depends on selecting the right vector of sovereignty in a given situation.
More fundamentally, as Christian men, we also have duties to our families, churches, and towns. These duties to protect, defend, and seek the common good of each interlocking community do not dissipate with the existence of atrocities committed within our borders, even those celebrated by some populations and encouraged by the incumbent elite.
The endurance of abortion on demand or state-sanctioned child mutilation does not compel us to push accelerationism, to accept the demise of our country, or to invite yet more calamities upon us and our communities. Rather, we should seek the best possible conditions for our way of life and look for ways to acquire space, literally and metaphorically, for that way of life.
Rather, we are duty bound to avail ourselves of opportunities to protect, defend, and cultivate our communities, prioritizing the wellbeing of those near to us. This posture is not moral equivocation or compromise. It is action tempered by prudence. As we prepare for what’s next, we should work to form workable coalitions, both for near term expedience and long-term aspirations. This will be uncomfortable. We haven’t had to flex these atrophied muscles for a long time. Again, welcome to the return of real politics.
Image Credit: Unsplash
The more selective we are in determining which issues are crucial, the more we are preparing ourselves to take the role of the Pharisee from the parable of The Two Men Praying. This is especially true when it comes to being pro-life. The name pro-life itself implies that those who identify as being so are concerned about life from conception to death. But is that what is illustrated by the article above?
If we want to talk about abortion, our biggest opponent is not the government but our own demographics and education. At best,, we can make legally elective abortions a state issue. That’s at best. But that means state governments, rather than the federal one, would be those who would impose the choice of getting an abortion on us. And in terms of education, we are focusing so much on legislation that we are neglecting explaining too people why life begins at conception.
However, other pro-life issues, that is if we take that name literally, abound. One such issue is climate change. Climate change is already increasing deadly conditions, such as through longer wildfire seasons and more extreme weather. And this is only a small portion of the beginning of the changes coming from climate change. Employing an economic system that has consistently increased wealth and income disparities between the classes and between the races further conditions of poverty. And though poverty alone prematurely ends life unnecessarily, cutting social safety nets as well as not adequately funding public education adds to the number of those whose lives end unnecessarily early. Allowing more toxins in our food, water, and air also prematurely ends life unnecessarily and so cutting regulations that protect our food, water, and air must be resisted. That we are reentering a nuclear arms race with a nation run by tyrannical dictator, guess who, should also be a pro-life concern. In fact, history tells us that resisting such dictators who want to expand their territories or influence should be included here. In short, whatever conditions that lead to the premature ending of life unnecessarily become pro-life concerns.
And so when we consider all of the issues that could be counted as pro-life concerns, as the name itself implies, how can we so focus on one issue and not realize that both major political parties and their presidential candidates have mixed pro-life records. Of course, we can just reduce what pro-life means down to the one or two of the issues that we are most concerned about and can thus thank God in our prayers that we are not sinners like those on the other side. BTW, such a prayer is only a temporary feel-good prayer.