The dog caught the bus. Now what? The leaders of the prolife movement–especially the conservative evangelical wing of the movement–spent so much time, energy, and money chasing the Roe v. Wade bus that it failed to think deeply about what to do when they caught it. This is what happens when Christian politics is motivated by one issue. Evangelicals had fifty years to forge a biblically-based political philosophy suitable for a pluralistic democracy. Instead, they put most of their eggs in the abortion basket. Their political approach has been characterized by attacks against liberals, critical race theory, Roe v. Wade, gay marriage and threats to religious liberty with no attempting at forging a constructive playbook for Christian civil engagement. (As I wrote last week, there are several options for responsible Christian politics out there. The Christian Right has just decided to ignore them). Pro-life, conservative evangelicals are now left wondering why the American people–most recently in Kansas–are defending a woman’s right to choose with a renewed fervor.
Here is Peggy Noonan at The Wall Street Journal:
I found myself unshocked by the abortion vote in Kansas, and I don’t understand the shock of others. America has come to poll consistently in favor of abortion in the first trimester with support declining in the second and cratering in the third. The people of Kansas were asked if they’d like to remove any right to abortion from their state constitution and allow their legislators to fashion new laws and limits. They said no by 59% to 41%.
That margin in a conservative state might have been surprising, but not the outcome. The proposal would have looked to voters radical and extreme: We’re going to sweep it away, immediately? It’s all or nothing? And we’re going to hand all our trust to legislators in hopes they’ll be wise? I have never met an American who confused his state representative with a philosopher king.
In Kansas, pro-lifers asked for too much. People don’t like big swerves and lurches, there’s enough anxiety in life. They want to absorb, find a way to trust. Dobbs was decided only six weeks ago.
And those six weeks have been confusing and chaotic. Nationally, the pro-life movement spent 50 years fighting for something and then, once it won, its leaders seemed to go silent or sound defensive. It’s possible they were attempting to be tactful as opposed to triumphalist, but it left a void and foolish people filled it.
No compelling leader has emerged as a new voice. National energies haven’t been scaled down to state activity. Pro-choice forces, galvanized when the Dobbs draft leaked in May, raised money, spent it shrewdly, drew in talent and were pushed by a Democratic Party that thought it finally had a game-changing issue. Pro-lifers didn’t have an overarching strategy. But everything we know about abortion tells us that when you turn it into a question of all or nothing, you’ll likely get nothing. Thoughtful, humane legislation has to be crafted in the states, put forward, argued for.
No compelling leader has emerged as a new voice. National energies haven’t been scaled down to state activity. Pro-choice forces, galvanized when the Dobbs draft leaked in May, raised money, spent it shrewdly, drew in talent and were pushed by a Democratic Party that thought it finally had a game-changing issue. Pro-lifers didn’t have an overarching strategy. But everything we know about abortion tells us that when you turn it into a question of all or nothing, you’ll likely get nothing. Thoughtful, humane legislation has to be crafted in the states, put forward, argued for.
Moderate, reasoned, balanced approaches will appeal to the vast middle. Arguments over whether women should be prosecuted for crossing state lines to get an abortion won’t.
The public face of the pro-life movement looks at the moment loony and vicious. Last Saturday in Florida, Matt Gaetz, the Republican congressman and famous idiot, spoke at a student event and said overweight and unappealing women don’t need to fear pregnancy: “Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.” A 19-year-old pro-choice activist then drew his mockery by responding on Twitter, and NPR reports that she cannily used the confrontation to raise more than $700,000 for pro-choice causes.
We live in a democracy. The pro-life side rightly asked for a democratic solution to a gnawing national problem. To succeed, they need baseline political skills. You persuade people as to the rightness of your vision. You act and speak in good faith so they trust you. You anticipate mischievous and dishonest representations of where you stand. You highlight them and face them. There has in fact been a lot of misrepresentation of where pro-lifers stand and why, and what their proposals will achieve. You have to clear the air. You can win a lot with candor and good faith. You can impress by being prepared and ready.
Read the rest here.
Ha!
“the conservative evangelical wing of the movement … failed to think deeply about what to do … Evangelicals had fifty years to forge a biblically-based political philosophy suitable for a pluralistic democracy …”
Yeah, didn’t happen, never was gonna happen, never will happen …
The movement is indelibly anti-intellectual, and it actually can’t add the requisite intellectuality to its repertoire without destroying what it is now. That would be asking it, in fact, to commit suicide in a way (or is it “die to self”?) Anyay, as Niebuhr taught us, an individual can do that, but a society can’t.
Once upona time, it had at least the chance of making a start on “biblically-based,” though the “political philosophy” part was even then a bridge too far.
But now? Does anyone think the movement really even has the interest–let lone the capabilities necessary–to collectively pursue that task?
No argument here, John.