What Would You Do for a Klondike Bar (or Alito & Roberts)?
Would you elect and re-elect George Bush?
In 2000 and 2004, many an anti-abortion socially liberal Catholic friend of mine voted for George Bush. Bush, while ideologically contrary to most Catholic teaching, was at least the most vocal anti-abortion candidate. In Catholic land, one’s views on abortion certainly take precedence over other issues, and therefore Bush was able to take a sizable portion of Catholically-inspired voting.
Since then, we’ve been given one of the worst presidencies of all time. I don’t know where on the list Dubya will fall, but an unjust war, complete fiscal irresponsibility, a larger more intrusive government, heightened political division, global unpopularity, and arguable breach of power add up to nothing at which history will look fondly.
That being said, it is dubious that Al Gore and/or John Kerry would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. These two justices are, for all intents and purposes, why the socially liberal anti-abortion voter punted on all other issues and voted for anti-abortion Dubya.
Bearing in mind that Bush Jr. has 18 months left of a presidency more Americans are hoping ends sooner, and that he probably has less power now than at any point in his career, it’s worth asking the person who was conscientiously conflicted in 2000 & 2004 about the choice between a competent pro-choicer that didn’t receive your support, and the incompetent anti-abortion Bush: were John Roberts and Sam Alito worth it?
To be fair, we’ll never know. Ergo, this is not a question that warrants a passionate debate. Plus, we don’t know that he won’t make a 3rd nomination to the court before he’s done.
In addition, it’s really only a fair question for the voter who hated Bush, could barely stomach voting for him, and would have campaigned hard for Gore or Kerry in a heartbeat if only they showed a sliver of thinking abortion might not be ideal. I already know what the pro-abortion and pro-Bush camps feel.
But it is an important question. Without doubt, we’ll face a similar choice in elections of all levels over the coming years. While I hope we fail to have candidates quite as incompetent as Bush II, painting him as an extreme we seek to avoid may help us in making similar decisions in the future.
And, there are a number of ways to approach answering the question. One might even approximate the number of lives that could be saved via abortion’s banning. (5%?, 25%?, 50%?, 90%?)
There are two problems with that approach: it’s overly mathematical, and (more importantly) it assumes that the law paves a way to a culture of life. I tend to think culture must change before the law does, as the law needs to be in congruence with what culture believes to be a harmonious end in order to be respected.
Since then, we’ve been given one of the worst presidencies of all time. I don’t know where on the list Dubya will fall, but an unjust war, complete fiscal irresponsibility, a larger more intrusive government, heightened political division, global unpopularity, and arguable breach of power add up to nothing at which history will look fondly.
That being said, it is dubious that Al Gore and/or John Kerry would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. These two justices are, for all intents and purposes, why the socially liberal anti-abortion voter punted on all other issues and voted for anti-abortion Dubya.
Bearing in mind that Bush Jr. has 18 months left of a presidency more Americans are hoping ends sooner, and that he probably has less power now than at any point in his career, it’s worth asking the person who was conscientiously conflicted in 2000 & 2004 about the choice between a competent pro-choicer that didn’t receive your support, and the incompetent anti-abortion Bush: were John Roberts and Sam Alito worth it?
To be fair, we’ll never know. Ergo, this is not a question that warrants a passionate debate. Plus, we don’t know that he won’t make a 3rd nomination to the court before he’s done.
In addition, it’s really only a fair question for the voter who hated Bush, could barely stomach voting for him, and would have campaigned hard for Gore or Kerry in a heartbeat if only they showed a sliver of thinking abortion might not be ideal. I already know what the pro-abortion and pro-Bush camps feel.
But it is an important question. Without doubt, we’ll face a similar choice in elections of all levels over the coming years. While I hope we fail to have candidates quite as incompetent as Bush II, painting him as an extreme we seek to avoid may help us in making similar decisions in the future.
And, there are a number of ways to approach answering the question. One might even approximate the number of lives that could be saved via abortion’s banning. (5%?, 25%?, 50%?, 90%?)
There are two problems with that approach: it’s overly mathematical, and (more importantly) it assumes that the law paves a way to a culture of life. I tend to think culture must change before the law does, as the law needs to be in congruence with what culture believes to be a harmonious end in order to be respected.
(By the way, saying that is quasi-blasphemous to some members of the pro-life community. All I can say is that the end in mind is a culture of life, not a law of life.)
My own opinion is that on all other fronts besides judicial nominees, George Bush has retarded the advancement of a culture of life. If we believe that culture has to preface law, and I think I do, I’d therefore have to conclude that, while I have every confidence in Roberts and Alito, that they’re just not worth eight years of Bush.
My own opinion is that on all other fronts besides judicial nominees, George Bush has retarded the advancement of a culture of life. If we believe that culture has to preface law, and I think I do, I’d therefore have to conclude that, while I have every confidence in Roberts and Alito, that they’re just not worth eight years of Bush.
But, I’m open to other thoughts, and I’m not particularly passionate about it either way. What do you think?
posted by Lyons at
4:14 PM
2 Comments:
I pretty much agree with this good analysis. I do think that there are examples of law facilitating a cultural change (albeit sometimes slow and gradual) in a divided nation though. Slavery and civil rights come to mind. Would change have come faster had we fought for culture change before a change in law? I don't know. I think the two should probably be done together.
4:46 PM
Thinking twice...Bush was only in for 8 years. Alito and Roberts are quasi-permanent. I'm not saying I'm changing my opinion, but tenure is a critical element I didn't include.
11:44 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home