Trump at the March for Life
And where are the pro-life Democrats?
President Trump Speaks at the March for Life
There has been plenty of good writing on President Trump’s appearance at the March for Life. In particular, Jake Meador’s article for Mere Orthodoxy had some worthwhile insights. I want to add to Jake’s thoughts here.
My main point is this: Conservative Culture Warriors have forgotten about the culture. Religious conservatives often suggest their support for Trump is transactional—that they know Trump does not really share their values but they believe Trump will deliver on policy because he needs their votes—but they’ve given Trump more than their votes: he has had his way with their platforms, their language, their moral authority.
Trump has delivered some pro-life wins. Most notably, he appointed two Supreme Court justices who social conservatives hope will deliver key decisions on abortion—though, of course, abortion is represented in a sliver of the cases the Supreme Court considers. Even with these concrete victories, while social conservatives tell the world what a great job Trump did and how good he has been to them, they worry that Brett Kavanaugh, in particular, may not be dependable in the most critical moments.
But to think Trump’s pro-life record means he’s “worth the cost,” religious conservatives have to forget what they’ve always known best: culture matters. Moral standing matters. Beliefs matter.
In the Trump era, many religious conservatives have openly treated their issues as if they were lobbying for ethanol subsidies or the coal industry, while the American public views abortion quite differently. Now horsetrading on special interests isn’t exactly approved by the American people, but it is understood and, to some degree, accepted. People understand Senators representing states where the coal industry is important are going to be more favorable to coal. These issues are not devoid of morality—little in politics lacks a moral dimension—but they do not quite turn on morality in the same way as abortion.
When it comes to abortion, however, while there might be other novel arguments we could concoct for opposing abortion, opposition to abortion predominately rests on a moral argument. The argument against abortion rests on moral knowledge, not some economic theory or profit-motive (though the case for abortion rights is increasingly, explicitly economic). President George W. Bush was right when he called for a “culture of life,” and the “culture” part is essential. It makes clear the impossibility of opposing abortion in public policy only. Opposition to abortion only makes moral sense if it is situated within a broader set of commitments.
If one does not hold to that broader set of commitments, if anti-abortion policy is separated from moral judgment, then it truly does open up the pro-life cause to the charges that have been leveled against it by the most extreme pro-choice advocates: a disregard for the bodily autonomy of women, a way of manipulating gullible voters for other political ends, a tactic for morally blackmailing conservative religious folks into ignoring other areas of policy by making a stark moral claim about abortion.
That pro-life views are represented by and associated with Donald Trump does not help the pro-life cause. Politically-motivated pro-life advocacy will never lead to a culture of life, which requires more than a favorable Supreme Court. It requires something Donald Trump cannot offer: integrity.
Pining for Pro-Life Democrats
There has been another wave of discussion about the Democratic Party and abortion. This one started when Democrats for Life’s president, Kristin Day, asked Pete Buttigieg at a Fox News townhall if he’d support platform language welcoming pro-lifers to the party (like the 2000 platform language). He didn’t directly answer the question, but it sounded a lot like a “no.” His conversation on the issue with Meghan McCain left McCain (and many pro-life Democrats) unsatisfied. Then, NARAL and other progressive orgs hosted a cattle call event in NH where they once again sought to get the Democratic candidates on the record with the most extreme pro-choice positions as possible, and Bernie Sanders indicated that being pro-choice is an essential part of being a Democrat. Then, finally, my friend Chris Crawford asked Amy Klobuchar for her position on whether pro-lifers should be welcomed into the Democratic Party, and she said yes.
Al Mohler tracked some of these conversations, and recently offered his thoughts on pro-life Democrats.
I’m not going to provide a full recap of the post, but you can read it for yourself. Mohler’s not the only conservative to ask about pro-life Democrats. It has become common for Christian conservatives to say (perhaps seeking to signal some level of discomfort with Trump or partisanship) that IF ONLY they had a pro-life Democrat to vote for, they wouldn’t have to support Trump.
The Democratic Party keeps moving to the left on abortion, in large part, because there is little tangible evidence that they lose much doing so, and because it is difficult to argue that they gain more than they’d lose by moving back toward the center (it’s difficult to argue they lose more than they’d gain too, but that topic is for another post).
This is because NARAL and others are telling Democratic strategists exactly what Mohler is telling his listeners: that for pro-lifers, there is no such thing as a moderate position on abortion. Pro-choice advocates tell Democrats that there are no voters who will vote for a Democrat with a “more reasonable” position on abortion who are not already voting for Democrats, it will only “depress turnout” among progressives and cost foolish Democrats who do move to the center the funding they need to get re-elected. This makes sense as a strategy for pro-choice activists. It does not make sense for pro-life advocates, particularly those who also express shock that pro-life Democrats are not elected more often.
If a Democrat who supports a 20-week ban is no better than a Democrat who supports no restrictions at all, what political incentive or support is there for the 20-week ban position to carry the day? Indeed, if that’s the approach we’re going to take, what is even the point of cataloguing the Democrats’ move left on abortion if there really is no moral difference between where they were in 2008 or 1992, other than to raise the pressure on those who are uncomfortable with Trump and send the message that it’s a moral requirement to support him?
If Al Mohler was interested in actually strengthening the position of pro-life Democrats in the party or in the presidential race, he could urge his followers to support Democrats for Life or another pro-life organization that influences the Democratic Party. Instead, he only critiques the very existence of such a person as Kristen Day. Instead of making the false statement that there are no Democratic candidates that support any restrictions on abortion (Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard continue to support late-term abortion restrictions), Mohler could have encouraged his followers in New Hampshire to vote in the Democratic primary yesterday to support the Democratic candidates with the best positions related to abortion in his view.
You’ll also notice that conservatives pining for pro-life Democrats often neglect to mention the pro-life Democrats who are in office. People like Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Democratic governor who signed into law one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. They don’t mention Louisiana State Senator Katrina Jackson, the Democrat who sponsored that legislation. Many fail to spend capital to rally their people to support Dan Lipinski, the pro-life Democrat in Congress who is getting primaried in large part because of his pro-life stance. They don’t talk about the Democratic Senators who voted for the 20-week ban. They’re silent as Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly tried to win their Senate elections without the pro-choice money other Democrats rely on because Donnelly supported abortion restrictions, and because Heitkamp spoke out against the DNC adding Hyde repeal to the platform. There was little support from these people who so desperately long for pro-life Democrats when dozens of them were targeted by Susan B. Anthony List in the 2010 midterms.
The fact is that we have a country that is split on the issue of abortion. In a country where a majority supports significant access to abortion, you are not going to have both political parties supporting total abortion bans. If you’re pro-life, you can basically take one of two approaches to the Democratic Party when it comes to the issue: you can seek to pursue a strategy that makes it more likely the Democratic Party will become more extreme on abortion in the hopes that a starker contrast will benefit Republicans while heightening the cost when Democrats inevitably win (and in a two-party system, it’s never too long before the opposition party gets its day in power), or you can seek to incentivize moderation so that Democrats in power have more than pro-choice groups to consider (politically-speaking) when they’re making policy on abortion.
If you are a pro-life conservative who truly wants more elected pro-life Democrats, here are some steps you can take:
1. Call on those you influence to support pro-life Democratic candidates. Donate to them. Lift them up. LA State Senator Katrina Jackson should be a hero in the pro-life movement (all due credit to the March for Life for having Jackson speak at the march this year). Pro-lifers should be trying to make her a U.S. Senator. Pro-life philanthropists should have set up a Super PAC to back a presidential bid by John Bel Edwards.
2. Praise Democrats who are moderating forces on the issue of abortion. Establish clear incentives that can begin to counter-balance the incentive structure pro-choice groups are offering. I couldn’t help but notice that Mohler didn’t even have a tweet (unlike Robert George) for Amy Klobuchar’s statement about welcoming pro-lifers just a few days after his post about how there are no pro-lifers in the party and an entire segment bashing Buttigieg for answering the question differently.
3. Engage earnestly with Democrats seeking to advance policy that would reduce abortions. As I mentioned earlier, I wrote in Reclaiming Hope and for POLITICO about how pro-lifers generally failed/refused to do that during the President Obama’s first term in a way that led directly to the current state of play.
4. Sign AND Campaign’s 2020 Statement. Support pro-life organizations with input into the Democratic Party.
If you aren’t interested in doing any of this, that’s well within your rights. Just don’t waste folks’ time asking where the pro-life Democrats have gone.
Ben Sasse and the Born-alive Infant Protection Act
Senator Ben Sasse is a Republican pro-lifer who at least seems interested in encouraging Democrats to support pro-life policy, and actually speaks in a way that would indicate that.
I wrote last year about the debate over his bill, and it’s back up this year. Read Sasse’s statement at the recent committee hearing on the bill. An excerpt:
History: Last year, fifty-three Senators, a majority of the Senate, and including three democrats – Senator Casey, Senator Jones, and Senator Manchin – voted in favor of this legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. And some of the Democrats that didn't vote in favor of this legislation said they would like to have a hearing on the legislation. So, that's some of why we're here today and I know that my Democratic colleagues on this committee think highly of their colleagues, and our colleagues, from Pennsylvania, Alabama, and West Virginia and I hope they will seriously engage the position they’ve taken in good faith rather than letting politics and rhetoric surrounding other topics consume this hearing. I’m hopeful that we can build on last year's majority and bipartisan vote.
Second, about our shared humanity: In our hearts, each of us knows that every member of our human family ought to be protected, that every baby is born with dignity. For two centuries, Americans have worked relentlessly to extend basic human rights to more and more of our fellow citizens. Senator Bernie Sanders and I, two men who don’t agree much in terms of our voting record, do agree about this - this is a recent Senator Sanders quote - “the mark of a great nation is how it treats its most vulnerable people.” Yes, and amen. That’s why we’re here today. It’s time to protect these newborn and vulnerable babies.
To close…
I thought I’d close this out with the conclusion from my Atlantic essay that I mention above:
Abortion will play a significant role in the 2020 presidential campaign, as it has in most of our presidential elections since Roe v. Wade. Observers miss its significance when they look only to where it ranks in surveys of voters’ top priorities. Abortion is one of those issues that influences voters’ assessment of what kind of person a candidate is and what kind of president he or she will be. If a candidate promises to unite the country, but uses the issue of abortion to divide it, voters pay attention to that. Voters also pay attention if candidates say they’ll listen to all Americans, but their rhetoric on abortion reflects that they don’t understand why anyone would disagree with their position. Trump will continue to use the issue of abortion as a way to neutralize criticism that he is immoral, and that will have a powerful effect on a significant number of pro-life Americans if Trump is the only candidate who speaks to them.
What the abortion debate needs is not an increase of moral outrage—we have plenty of that—but instead a sense of moral lament. It is to our collective shame that our politics seem incapable of such a development.