There’s nothing wrong with being smart. In politics, it’s strategize or die. But at some point you must have principles or you’ll end up like…well…Arlen Specter.
Some think Brownback crossed the line with his recent vote for pro-abortion lunatic Kathleen Sebelius. Others think the pro-life criticism is just another example of the pro-life community eating its own.
The question being asked (I think rightly) is why would a Catholic Senator who calls himself “pro-life” vote for Sebelius for HHS Secretary.
Many people, including Steve Skojec writing at Inside Catholic, are comparing it to Sen. Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Specter over Toomey, which enraged many pro-lifers.
Brownback has lots of ready excuses for his actions, none of which hold much water. His vote for Sebelius – far more problematic than Santorum’s endorsement of Specter – comes in direct contrast to the 32 members of the House who wrote to the President and asked him to withdraw her nomination “in light of her close collaboration with the abortion industry.”
These political machinations wind up like this every time. When are we going to stop taking the bait? When are we going to stop going to bat for “pro-life” politicos who wind up selling their inheritance for poisoned pottage?
When I read this I sadly nodded my head. But this one surprised me. I looked into it further and there are some circumstances here that should be in evidence before Brownback gets thrown off the wagon.
One conservative Kansas blogger at Kaw and Border thinks Brownback may have made the right decision because it gets Sebelius out of Kansas. And let’s face it, whoever Obama picks to head up HHS is going to be completely lockstep with the pro-choice community. He says:
It is for those very reasons that a yes vote was also justfiable — particularly when all the other political AND policy factors are taken into consideration — such as the fact it gets Sebelius out of Kansas, for one; and two, it ensure that the winner of the Tiahrt/Moran Senate primary will be facing a much weaker Democrat than the substantial and real political force that is Kathleen Sebelius.
Now, some may be aghast at such a statement — “you’re putting politics before principle!!” There is another argument, however. First of all — there are actual principled policy reasons for removing Sebelius from the Governorship; and second of all, the fact is what we’re talking about here IS politics — there is no getting around it. Most dedicated principled conservatives compete in politics not for the political game but for the end results of such victories. However, in order to get there — you have to win. In the famous words of former Chiefs Coach Herman Edwards, “You Play to Win the Game.”
Now, does that mean you throw aside all principles for the sake of political victory? Of course note. Any effective principled politician must weigh both sides of those two words — both the “principled” and the “politician”.
Now I do think that strategy must play a role. But I do get a little tired of Republicans tossing their hands in the air over “conscience voters.”
Here’s the thing, pro-lifers have been burned sooooooooo many times that they’re fed up. How many times have Republican Presidents nominated “moderate” judges when it was the pro-life community that knocked on the doors and donated much of the money to get the President elected in the first place.
The vote for Sebelius wasn’t a close one and Brownback could’ve easily just voted against her as it was a 65-31 vote. So that leads me to believe that a deal was cut that Brownback had to vote for Sebelius thus keeping the opposition against Sebelius somewhat muted and in turn he got Sebelius out of Kansas for a few years.
Republicans in Kansas are thrilled to get ride of Sebelius. One Kansas City Star columnist said:
How do you spell “relief” in Topeka?
No more K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N.
What was striking about a visit to the Capitol last week was just how relieved — to use a form of that word again — many lawmakers were to have Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in Washington.
Yes, these lawmakers are Republicans…
So in the end, it comes down to the question of does the ends sometimes justify the means. If Kansas gets a pro-life Conservative governor, would that redeem Brownback’s Sebelius vote? It’s quite possible that Brownback himself may be eyeing a gubernatorial run.
And we all know that no matter what you think of Brownback’s vote, having a Governor Brownback would likely be a great help to pro-lifers.
But here’s the problem? Imagine that Brownback’s the Governor and he sees a possible avenue to the Presidency if he only moderates a little bit on the life issue. Now, many pro-lifers won’t completely trust that Brownback won’t give a little to get a little. That’s the problem with making deals.
May 2, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Thank you for that! I myself was very curious why Brownback would support her. But this makes a lot of sense.
Great job!
May 3, 2009 at 3:36 am
Well, now. Pray tell me, since state governments have been reduced to nothing more than pothole fillers, what difference does it make who is the governor? There is not a single governor, pro-life or not, who is going to stand up to the central government in Washington. You can replace Sebelius with the most “pro-life” person in Kansas and it will not make one iota difference. For arguments sake, let’s say that Brownback was the governor. What’s he going to do? Would he enforce the Constitutional provision which forbids killing a person without due process of law? Would he ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which violate the Constitution? Would he call out the state police to close the abortion clinics? Would he organize a state militia to keep the killing centers closed? When the U.S. Government sent in the Army would he have the state militia and the state police face off against them? The answer to all of these is “No”. The pro-life establishment has been reduced to playing a football game in which they are not allowed to advance beyond their own ten-yard line, and if they attempt to do so, the ball is returned to their own one-yard line and play is resumed. Wake up, people. You are wasting your time, effort and money playing a game which is rigged against you. Unless you are willing to play by different rules. But that would require something in short supply – courage.
May 3, 2009 at 5:56 am
Geronimo,
You took the words out of my mouth; yours is perhaps the most intelligent and truly insightful comment I’ve ever seen on CMR. The politics of abortion in the United States is utter nonsense in which no person who truly upholds the sanctity of life places any real faith. We have all this useless hand wringing over SCOTUS appointees, Presidents, and HHS Secretaries. And while we are putting overselves to a peaceful sleep at night with reassuring thoughts of how we are doing enough, of how anything more would be “imprudent”, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry is doubled over in laughter at such symbolic maneuvers because they know the truth: as long as people care more about their ability to safely go home at night after all their “valiant” pro-life work than about what happens inside an abortion clinic, they will continue to prosper ideologically, politically, culturally, and financially.
Want to make a real difference in the American perspective on life issues? Get a couple hundred truly courageous men of God together, park yourselves outside the nearest Planned Parenthood, and refuse entry to everybody. When the police show up, fight them; get arrested. It isn’t for everybody, (such as those who have families to care for) but I promise you’ll start getting more attention than any HHS confirmation vote.
This is what Catholic men do when people start murdering other people with impunity; they don’t think to themselves, “I’ll vote for John McCain because he wants to murder less people.” They get in the streets and start fighting for the innocent. Making this an issue for political action only is precisely how it became legal in 1973. We lose this fight in the end, folks.
~cmpt
May 3, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I think studying the process by which slavery was eventually abolished would be very informative here. Ending abortion will most likely follow a similar course, and politicians will be just as hesitant and wish-washy as they were back then.
I don’t see any other way it could happen.
May 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Christopher, what you’re advocating seems to imply committing violence to preserve peace. Good ends do not justify evil means, and fighting in the streets isn’t what we’re about.
May 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Advocating violence makes us all look stupid. Please don’t do it, kthx.
Also, I think Brownback’s decision was correct and morally acceptable. It gets an entrenched pro-abort governor out of office, and into a position that there was 0 chance of getting even a moderate pro-abort to fill. King Obama was going to have a baby killer at HHS no matter what.
The way is now cleared for some serious progress in Kansas.
May 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Also, going into the streets and blocking clinic access not only 1) looks stupid but 2) is simply ineffective.
Let’s do what WORKS instead of what fulfills our emotional desires. Abortion will not be ended when others feel what you feel. I know the mindset of, “If the world only knew what a pro-life meeting warrior I am, there would be no abortion” is widespread, and that mindset is part of the problem.
Make a list of what WORKS, and then do that. What WORKS?
1) 40 Days for life
2) Virtue Media
3) Crisis pregnancy centers
4) Public awareness campaigns
5) Modify local laws
6) Finding clinics breaking laws and reporting them to proper authorities (this includes tax laws)
The abortion battle, like all battles, is economics. Most abortion mills.
Fight smart, or don’t show up. When you fight dumb it hurts the rest of us a LOT.
May 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Bah, forgot to proof read.
*Most abortion mills are not turning a massive profit, if 15%-20% more women decide in favor of life, over the course of a year, the abortion mill will become a money losing business.
May 3, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The discussion on this post is about the POLITICAL solution to stopping the killing of children before birth. How do you get the LAW to protect people? While 40 Days for Life is great and Crisis Pregnancy centers are absolutely necessary, they do not address the POLITICAL solution. Please, let’s not confuse the two.
Geoffrey, you contradict yourself. Are you aware that slavery was not ended until a brutal war (also known as violence) destroyed the Republic? The war did not began as a war over slavery, but the end of slavery was one of the results of this war.
Anonymous, #5 on your list is exactly the type of strategy that I stated in my previous post is a waste of your time, effort and money. There will be no “serious progress in Kansas” because all you are allowed to do in Kansas is advance the ball to your own ten-yard line. You are not allowed to score under the rules of this game. Sure, you can pass things like what I call the “dog-notification” act, in which you must notify the family pet that you will be killing your child; or the “make an appointment the day before” act, in which you must call ahead to arrange to kill your child. These are silly games and accomplish nothing.
Sadly, it seems that almost all pro-lifers want to continue the same failed strategies of the last 35 years: “Please, let me play the game – I promise I won’t go past the ten-yard line. If I make a mistake and go further, I’ll let you put the ball back on my one-yard line. I’m just so happy to be playing your game and voting for you, even though you will never change the rules to let me score. I just love all you great Republicans. Please let me be one of you.”
Think!
May 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Geoffrey,
I’m not exactly advocating violence; I’m advocating peaceable blockading such as unions often do to businesses. I simply realize that it may come to violence and at that point one is permitted to fight in defence of the unborn and of self. But then again maybe business is simply more important than lives to some people.
And even if I were advocating violence, I would be justified in doing so. Violence is already upon us. Advocating violence in the defence of the innocent against whom the very worst violence is being visited is not an instance of the “ends justifying the means,” it is a clear cut instance of justifiable violence against an unjust aggressor, and even the most cursory survey of Catholic moral theology will readily inform you that one may use whatever level of violence is necessary to disable or stop an unjust aggressor, and that such violence is even obligatory when the aggressor presents a mortal threat, such as is certainly the case in abortion.
Tell me Geoffrey, if you saw an adult taking a child by the hand to lead the child to its death, would you not stand in that person’s path and resist him by whatever necessary?
I believe it is you who is advocating cowardice, my friend.
And by the way, it took endless subterfuge and violence to end slavery, culminating in a civil war of massive scale. And slavery isn’t even intrinsically evil; abortion is.
~cmpt
May 3, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Resistance != violence
May 3, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Re: Stefan,
Actually, and the fact Christopher points out is that, given the hardness of hearts in this, the formula is actually this:
Resistance ∩ Violence > Ø
(In English, the intersecting set of Resistance and Violence may not be empty. They are not necessarily disjoint).
That said, this is what should be strived for.
Our Resistance ∩ Violent acts of our will = Ø
Steven P. Cornett
May 3, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“Geoffrey, you contradict yourself. Are you aware that slavery was not ended until a brutal war (also known as violence) destroyed the Republic? The war did not began as a war over slavery, but the end of slavery was one of the results of this war.”
[Jesus] said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur” (Luke 17:1).
Violence will come; nevertheless, shame on those who bring it. They purport to defend life, but in the end, they shall be rewarded with death.
Then Jesus said to [them], “Put your sword[s] back into [their] sheath[s], for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52).
You know, I thought it was an outrage when I first heard that pro-life advocates were being profiled as potential terrorists by the FBI (itself an organization with many conservative, traditional values affirming members).
Now after reading through these posts, and taking into consideration the extreme nature of some of my fellow pro-lifers opinions from real life, I realize there is a true and imminent danger of violence coming from our side.
Perhaps I should moderate my views? Because I want no part in an armed conflict perpetrated by hypocrites claiming to protect the life of some by threatening the livelihood and well-being of others.
No, I shall not moderate my views (though they may already be wrongly perceived as moderate by the trigger-happy war hawks here).
Ironically, I suppose some pro-lifers aren’t pro-life enough for me. I’m out of a place in this game.
May 3, 2009 at 9:40 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 3, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“And even if I were advocating violence, I would be justified in doing so. Violence is already upon us. Advocating violence in the defence of the innocent against whom the very worst violence is being visited is not an instance of the “ends justifying the means,” it is a clear cut instance of justifiable violence against an unjust aggressor, and even the most cursory survey of Catholic moral theology will readily inform you that one may use whatever level of violence is necessary to disable or stop an unjust aggressor, and that such violence is even obligatory when the aggressor presents a mortal threat, such as is certainly the case in abortion.”
Keep your “moral” theology to yourself, Christopher. What you’re advocating is extremely imprudent and will result in a greater loss of life than would otherwise occur. Writing on paper can’t always be applied in real life. It takes wisdom to know how to implement the rules you refer to, and is not something you can crank out without much thought, prayer, and calculation.
“Tell me Geoffrey, if you saw an adult taking a child by the hand to lead the child to its death, would you not stand in that person’s path and resist him by whatever necessary?”
Not by “whatever means necessary,” no. That is a loaded term and there should be limits on retribution and resistance.
“And by the way, it took endless subterfuge and violence to end slavery, culminating in a civil war of massive scale. And slavery isn’t even intrinsically evil; abortion is.”
The kind of slavery we had was indeed intrinsically evil, but it was also a dying institution. Things could have concluded peacefully; it is a result of our sins that they did not.
Your heart is ill, and you relish the thought of lording your power over others to show just how righteous you really are. If Jesus were here posting comments, he’d probably tell you, “abortionists are entering the kingdom of Heaven before you.”
And they might very well be.
A single heart full of hate and anger is worse than one hundred swords soaked in the blood of a thousand men.
May 3, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I agree with you Steve Cornett. Christian resistance shouldn’t employ violent means.
I just can’t square my belief that abortion is a murder of a HUMAN PERSON with my passivity about it. You see, I come from a country that allowed deportation of jews in cattle trains to concentration camps. I feel historical shame for my ancestors for condoning this and wonder whether abortions are holocaust in which I am participating.
May 3, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Geoffrey,
Keep your “moral” theology to yourself, Christopher.Okay: you openly admit you don’t really care what the Church has to say about the defence of innocent life from unjust aggressors. Then we can not pursue any further discussion, because I stand with the Church and you deny her teachings.
Writing on paper can’t always be applied in real life.Yeah, I always hate it when real life gets in the way of doing what is right. Gray areas and all that, I know…
Not by “whatever means necessary,” no. That is a loaded term and there should be limits on retribution and resistance.No? At what point do you stop? What are the limits? At what point do you say: “I’ve done enough and I wash my hands of what happens next?” It is important to know where that delineation is, because it shows what you really believe about abortion.
Your heart is ill…My heat is ill? Really? That’s the best you got? Hahaha…
If Jesus were here posting comments, he’d probably tell you, “abortionists are entering the kingdom of Heaven before you.”Please, come back and we’ll continue this discussion when you turn 13. Men don’t engage in this type of foolish speculation on the hypothetical actions of Christ.
However, what you say raises an interesting point: How would we know what Jesus would have to say about this? Hmmm… that’s a tough one there. Maybe we should trust that the Church speaks for Christ when she says that violence may be employed in the defence of self and of other innocent lives.
As you yourself readily admit, you don’t care for Moral Theology and so I will try to make this clearer for you, because you seem to labour under a severe misunderstanding of my previous posts. I am not advocating violence in the way you accuse me of doing; nor is my heart full of hate. (Full of anger, perhaps, but this is the appropriate response to mass murder) No, but rather it is precisely love which motivates such a desire to defend innocents. I am not saying we should all hunt down abortionists and do them violence in retribution for their crimes, because that is precisely the kind of wrong-minded violence which you rightly condemn but wrongly attribute to me. Rather, violence may be employed only when its purpose is preventive, such as is the case with my suggestion to blockade abortion clinics. Note the difference: the type of violence you condemn is retributive violence which is rarely justified when undertaken by individuals. However, whatever violence I may have “advocated” is designed to prevent the crime from being committed at the first. And this is permitted because it motivated, not by hatred of the person committing the crime as is the case with retributive violence, but by love of the innocent party who is in fact the true victim of violence here.
Quiet now, the Teacher speaks: “I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”
Now if such a thing is permitted in the defence of self, how much more so for the defence of others?
~cmpt
May 4, 2009 at 2:04 am
Geoffrey, I was merely pointing out your inconsistency in first, stating that we will most likely end abortion in the same manner that slavery was ended, and second, condemning any violence. Reread your first two posts – they are contradictory. I thought that perhaps you were not aware that slavery was ended as the result of a brutal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Slavery was ended through violence. That’s not to say it could have been ended without violence, but the fact remains that it was ended through violence, and you stated that we will most likely have to end abortion in the same way. What gives? Please explain yourself.
My comments are about POLITICAL strategies to protect human life. Continuing the failed strategies of the last 35 years in which we waste untold time, effort and money on electing silly Republicans, passing worthless laws such as the examples I gave above, etc., etc., will ensure that we will continue to fail.
I am not advocating violence to end abortion, since that would take it into the realm of revolution, which is another topic. I am limiting my comments to POLITICAL solutions under the current form of government.
By the way, if you are a pacifist, that is fine – it is an allowable practice under Church teaching. Or do you believe violence is allowed in certain cases, for example, self defense?
May 4, 2009 at 3:04 am
Pacifism is not an acceptable position when the lives of others are at stake. It is one thing to refuse to defend oneself, but quite another to shroud cowardice under the moniker of “pacifism.” One is bound to protect the innocent.
Anyway, I don’t think what I am talking about here amounts to revolution, but merely extreme civil disobedience. I would not advise trying to overthrow the government, but merely to force the current one to enforce its own laws. Nothing I’m talking about hasn’t already been done to protest wars or other forms of governmental injustice. (The various forms of civil disobedience which took place against the Vietnam War would be excellent examples.) I am talking about subterfuge and non-violent obstruction, not revolution.
~cmpt
May 4, 2009 at 4:12 am
You called for fighting cops dude.
You’re advocating violence.