Richard W. Garnett, a professor of law and associate dean at the Notre Dame Law School, differs with me on whether Governor Daniels is supportable by pro-lifers.
Garnett’s pro-life and like many other pro-lifers is defending comments by Daniels about a “truce” on social issues like abortion. Garnett wrote at National Review and was kind enough to send us the link of his thinking on the subject.
Here’s some highlights of the piece:
Many of those who criticize Governor Daniels’s use of “truce” seem to think — incorrectly, in my view — that it reflects a lack of pro-life commitment on his part or a dangerous naïveté about the real-world political and other battles that elected officials — including the president — have to fight, in order to help us become the political community that we should be, that is, a political community in which unborn children are welcomed in life and protected in law…
It seems to me, though, that if we look at Governor Daniels’s record — in particular, his record on judicial appointments — we don’t find any reason to think that “truce” means for him “caving on the merits” or “downgrading the seriousness of the issue.” He does not strike me as one of those — and, of course, there are those — who thinks that our politics would be better if only the irritating pro-lifers would get out of politics, or who imagines that there is a future for a Republican party that wavers or backtracks, in order to seem “moderate,” on such a basic, fundamental human-rights question.
Like Yuval, I would prefer that Governor Daniels add a sentence — one that, I believe, reflects his views, record, and plans — along the lines of “but if a fight is forced on us, I would obviously want (or be) a president who stands up for the sanctity of human life.”
Daniels is a curious case, I’ll admit.
So often with politicians their deeds fall short of their rhetoric. Daniels is odd in that his rhetoric doesn’t seem to live up to his deeds.
But Daniels is saying what he’s saying. We can fill our minds with things we think our candidates mean and not take them at their word but isn’t that how we ended up with Barack Obama as President? Many thought Obama didn’t actually mean that comment about redistributing the wealth or that business about being “punished with a baby.” Guess what, he did.
When viewing a candidate one must weigh their words and deeds. Both are crucial in determining if one can vote for a candidate. In fact, it’s all we have.
In some ways, Daniels is the Bizarro Mitt Romney. While Romney’s words at this stage in his life are all excellent and I often agree with him, his past actions such as his pro-choice stance and his pushing of RomneyCare disturb me. Daniels’ past actions on the other hand are all commendable on social issues but his current rhetoric scares me.
We can all agree that Daniels has a quality pro-life voting record as Governor. But Daniels is talking about how the next President of the United States should declare some kind of “truce” on social issues. That’s what he’s saying now.
Professor Garnett’s addition of an imaginary caveat to Daniels’ talking points identifies the problem with Daniels’ comments. But Daniels didn’t add the sentence. I am doing Daniels the courtesy of taking him at his word.
And this isn’t a one time thing a politician said off the cuff. He’s repeated this many times. I believe this is an election strategy pure and simple. He wants to highlight the economic issues which are currently polling his way and mute the social issues which divide the country. His consultants likely believe that because of his excellent pro-life record he can get away with such a thing. And hey, it might work.
It seems somewhat faulty strategy to me in that it appears to me to be a general election strategy in primary season. A significant part of Republican primary voters believe the life issue is THE issue. Not one of many. And they’ll ask themselves if Daniels is willing to put aside the social issues during a campaign, why not during his Presidency? They’ll say they don’t see how a healthy economy does dead babies much good.
Ironically, I believe the greatest thing that could happen to our economy is more children. So for me, if you want to help the economy, champion the unborn.
February 3, 2011 at 5:28 pm
In some ways, Daniels is the Bizarro Mitt Romney.
🙂 That has to be the quotable comment of the day!
February 3, 2011 at 6:37 pm
"Ironically, I believe the greatest thing that could happen to our economy is more children. So for me, if you want to help the economy, champion the unborn."
So true!
February 3, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Exactly right, Matthew! I have a great deal of respect for Rick, but I believe his analysis in this instance involves more than just a little wishful thinking.
That Daniels has made this so-called "truce" the centerpiece of his fledgling campaign ought to have pro-lifers everywhere looking in a different direction.
And why is it only the social issues on which these people feel comfortable calling for a "truce"? Because they take us for granted, that's why.
Imagine the outcry from the neo-con brigage should one of the candidates call for a "truce" in the war on terror. Or imagine how the Club for Growth types would react if a candidate called for a "truce" when it came to opposition to higher taxes. Would such a candidate have a prayer if he or she called for a "truce" in either of those areas? Nope. And neither should a candidate who calls for a "truce" on social issues.
February 3, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Jay,
Just a quick comment on your last paragraph.
When it comes to the war on terror, what the President says largely goes. When it comes to taxes, however, the hard fought battles are usually waged in Congress. I imagine that the issue of abortion lies somewhere between the two. While the President can play an role in the pro-life movement, it is largely Congress who makes the decisions.
This "truce," I think, is an attempt to get away from the demagoguery of the issue and address something within the purview of the office the President: the fiscal crisis.
(Btw, It should be no surprise that politicians appear more pro-life than they actually are. I have personally witnessed it myself.)
In general, pro-lifers are not taken for granted. They are taken advantage of.
February 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm
In modern presidential politics one must win the base first. For the GOP, the base is the conservatives. The primairies are driven by conservaitve turn-out. It is after winning the base that a politicians looks to go after moderates. For during a presidential campaign, it is usually the base that sticks with a canidate through thick and thin. Moderates are fickle and tend to follow the zeitgeist. Therefore, the last thing a primary candidate wants to do is focus on the Independents or Moderates; McCain tried this tack, and it failed miserably.
Govenor Daniels is an outstanding administrator, technocrat, and manager. But as a national politician he failed his first major test. Rule Number #1: do not upset your base. My own gut feeling is that Daniels is cut from the same mold as the Bush family. From a purely political point of view, governing Indiana is fairly easy. Even the Democrats in Indiana are more conservative than the Republicans in California or New York. This political homogenization tends to deflate those hot button social issues that frequently plagued more partisan states. If one is truthful, the decisions that Daniels made as govenor are the same that Evan Bayh made a decade ago. This may make for smooth administration, but it gives a pols like Bayh and Daniels a distorted view of national politics. Bayh just retired from politics; his star was always rising, but it never quite made it over the horizon. Daniels is headed in the same direction. Hoosier govenors tend to make good administrators, but poor national politicans.
February 3, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Calling for a "truce" is only a solution if the problem is that the ongoing disagreement is causing substantially more harm than the acts which caused the disagreement in the first place. I would venture a guess that the only ones seriously proffering the idea that the "fight" about abortion is causing more harm than abortion itself are those who are pro-abortion/pro-choice. Hence the rub:
A truce itself is only a *good* solution if the status quo with respect to the underlying act(s) is acceptable to both parties. Otherwise it is defeat for one side. Real-world application: A truce about the abortion issue means that millions of babies continue to be slaughtered, because that is the status quo. We all know this is true–we just need to be prepared to speak eloquently about it.
Finally, who cares about a politician's track record on abortion, if he is willing to throw it away for a few dollars for his campaign or for "the economy?"
February 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Well, that's the rub – what does he exactly mean by "truce"? If otherwise favorable economic legislation is presented to hypothetical Pr. Daniels for signature, but contains some sort of objectionable pro-abort components (eg, federal funding for abortion), what would Truce Daniels do?