May

May

Mosher

Mosher

George

George
Democrats and the Fudging of the Abortion Issue PDF
by Joe Capizzi, Ph.D.   
There are some arguments the force of which I just do not get. In a Commonwealth piece, Eduardo Peñalver defends the view that Catholics should reflect on the “panoply” of social issues before they vote. Of course his point is to educate Catholics to resist the reductio ad abortion; that is, the perceived tendency of conservative Catholics to vote only for candidates who oppose legal abortion. Peñalver and others believe pro-life Republicans try to bully Catholics into voting Republican because Republicans alone are typically pro-life: thus he and others, like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, remind Catholics that liberals are people, too, and one can be a faithful Catholic and vote Democrat. There are some arguments the force of which I just do not get. In a Commonweal piece, Eduardo Peñalver defends the view that Catholics should reflect on the “panoply” of social issues before they vote. Of course his point is to educate Catholics to resist the reductio ad abortion; that is, the perceived tendency of conservative Catholics to vote only for candidates who oppose legal abortion. Peñalver and others believe pro-life Republicans try to bully Catholics into voting Republican because Republicans alone are typically pro-life: thus he and others, like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, remind Catholics that liberals are people, too, and one can be a faithful Catholic and vote Democrat. Peñalver seems mistakenly to assume that somehow good Catholics have been led astray by abortion politics; that indeed they should be drawn to the Democratic side of things because the Democrats square with “Catholic Social Teaching” in ways Republicans do not. Peñalver is right: regarding some aspects of Catholic social teaching, Democrats do get things right that Republicans get wrong. But he is wrong to imply that somehow Catholics are confused by Republican rhetoric about abortion; in particular, that Republicans promise more than they deliver, and if it is results abortion foes want, they should turn to the Democrats. This is wrong for at least two reasons.First, Peñalver gets the narrative wrong. He writes, abortion does the “heavy lifting for Republican activists who are trying to capture the Catholic vote.” He continues, [T]he logic of Republican Party apologists is as follows. The issues where traditionally Democratic policy positions have tended to reflect church teaching-economic justice, the death penalty, war, environmental protection, and others-are issues for which the church’s positions are flexible, making policy disagreements permissible even among those who accept Catholic principles. The intrinsic immorality of abortion, on the other hand, allows for no dissent, and a vote for a prochoice candidate is therefore a vote for someone whose views are unquestionably opposed to what is right and good.By reference to “Republican Party apologists” and to “Republican activists,” Peñalver implies that this is a top down movement; that apologists and activists are leading hapless Catholics down a primrose path. He couldn’t be more mistaken. If he had reflected even momentarily on why abortion does the “heavy lifting” he may have noticed that abortion is able to carry Catholics to the Republicans because many Catholics understand the particular wrong posed by legalized abortion. Democrats created the mess they find themselves in by misunderstanding what standing for the small guy means. Again, Peñalver is right that “traditionally Democratic policy positions” reflected church teaching. But the Democrats gave many Catholics no choice; those Catholics who fled to Republican pro-life candidates did so with a sense of loss and regret. In addition to the many Catholics who completely abandoned the Democrats, many other Catholics I know remain nominal Democrats, registering for the party where they continue to feel more at home, but voting for Republican candidates willing to stand against abortion. Second, Peñalver, like the “Voting for the Common Good” guide issued by the Catholics in Alliance group, makes a lot of the issue of effectiveness. Thus, the “Voting” guide: “Many ‘pro-life’ candidates talk a good talk on ending abortion, but don’t produce results. On the other hand, there are candidates who don’t believe in making abortion illegal, but who support effective measures to promote healthy families and reduce abortions by providing help to pregnant women and young children.” Ignore the silly quotation marks around “pro-life” candidates; chalk that up to the same editor who threw quotation marks around “’wrong’ Catholic positions” as though the guide wasn’t really sure there are right and wrong Catholic moral positions. Notice instead how the argument enables you to hide a vote against principle behind the unknowing cloud of statistics. So Peñalver makes much of the claim that under Clinton abortions decreased, while under Bush the decrease slowed or disappeared altogether. Aside from the accuracy of this as a statistical claim, why should anyone conclude that the decline or rise of abortion is attributable to Clinton’s or Bush’s policies, and not some other factors? And since we really have very little idea of the connection of those policies to the demographic changes, why would we sell out the principle in favor of dubious assurances about the effect of certain policies? Peñalver and others are telling us to abandon opposition to the pro-life cause on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim that certain policies might reduce abortions. This would be tantamount to asking the civil rights movement to abandon integration because, arguably, segregated education works better for African-Americans. Who would make that choice? Who would sacrifice the principle of integration (and the practical benefit that would clearly accrue over time) for short-term effect? Ultimately, of course, nothing will diminish abortion in this country more quickly than making it illegal and punishing the doctors who perform illegal abortions. Democratic candidates could expedite this much more by voting to change the law than by offering floral and fatuous statements about promoting healthy families.

Democrats know as well as Republicans that abortion is an issue like few others. Few people today maintain the illusion that abortion is something other than the deliberate choice to kill an innocent human being. Being for or against the death tax, or the environment, or even the Iraqi war just does not raise the same questions in the same way. Abortion is such a different issue that already in the 1970s Catholic Democrats were leaving the party whose positions they helped craft and support their entire adult lives. Whatever divide exists between Democrats and Republicans on the pro-life issue is the consequence of pro-life and pro-choice voters and not the work of shrewd Republican activists. The Democrats picked the wrong side a long time ago, and the deal they made with the devil has now come due.

Joseph Capizzi is Fellow in Religion for the Culture of Life Foundation and Associate Professor of Religion at Catholic University of America.