Politics
Dobson, Abortion, & the 2008 Election
by Clay Staggs
I’ve been pretty hard on Dr. Dobson for his political activities, especially in this cycle. Basically, I’ve accused him of being too desirous of political influence. I probably shouldn’t beat a dead horse like this, but Dobson’s statements display at best political miscalculation, and, at worst, a betrayal of one of his most loudly proclaimed issues.
Dr. Dobson is VERY pro-life. I am too. As a Christian, I believe abortion to be morally wrong. As a lawyer, I believe that Roe v. Wade was based on shoddy legal and constitutional reasoning, and should be reversed. So, know that in all I’m about to say, Dobson and I share the same goal, ostensibly.
Here’s a key excerpt from Dr. Dobson’s op-ed piece from the New York Times:
If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.
Now, let’s reason this thing through, shall we? The most basic political reality of the universe is that neither party can hope to win if its base doesn’t support it. Pro-life and religious conservatives are the base of the GOP. So, if they go voting for a minor party with no chance of winning, then they’ve basically ensured the victory of the Democrat. Putting this into simpler terms, a vote by Dobson for a minor party is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Now, contrary to the way everyone talks, the president can do one and only one thing to hope to meaningfully influence abortion policy in this country: appoint judges who think that Roe was wrongly decided to the US Supreme Court.
Let us grant for a moment that Rudy Guiliani is not in perfect harmony with the base on abortion. Here is the real crux of the matter: who is more likely to appoint a justice that will reverse Roe - Rudy or HRC?
The chances of HRC appointing anything but a raving liberal (her husband’s first appointment was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former general counsel for the ACLU - that’s a clue) are absolutely zero, and everyone with a pulse know it.
Rudy’s spokesman on judicial appointments is Theodore Olson, who was solicitor general under GWB and a legal advisor in the Reagan administration. His conservative bona fides are challenged by no one. Ted Olson has said that Rudy is committed to appointing federalism-minded justices (who would return the matter to the states, as the law was pre-Roe), like Roberts and Alito. This is far more likely to produce an anti-Roe judge than HRC.
Not only is supporting Rudy more likely to produce a Roe reversal, but even a candidate like Fred, who’s expressly pro-life, won’t guarantee a vote to overturn. After all, Reagan appointed Sandra O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, and GHWB appointed David Souter, all three of whom refused to vote to overturn when given the choice.
So, my question is, what’s up with Dobson and this issue. If he truly cared about getting Roe overturned, any Republican, Rudy included, is infinitely more likely to move the court in that direction than Hillary. Yet, he’s bound to know that urging Christian conservative voters, with whom he carries a great deal of influence, to vote third party, that he’ll insure the election of a president who will use SCOTUS nominations to keep abortion legal. How does this advance the cause?
Is this a failure of wisdom, or personal pique?
Posted by Clay Staggs at October 11, 2007 03:40 PM
Like you alluded to yesterday, I think emotion is playing much more of a factor than is logic in Dr. Dobson’s insistence on conservative evangelical Christian’s third party voting instead of thinking it through and going the route that is actually likely to get Roe v. Wade overturned.
I agree with what you stated. I have a caveat that has been running through my mind relative to this. Yes, Roe needs to be overturned and we should help this to happen whenever possible. This may or may not ever happen.
Therefore we, who are of the Word have to become pro choice- or more specifically ‘pro helping people making right choices.’ (see below)
I don’t expect non believers to respect life necessarily or make decisions in accord with Scripture - some will, some won’t. What our job has become, in this regard, is to help people gain and understand a Biblical worldview from which to make choices. I think that we, as modern evangelicals have been so focused on changing the secular world that we have often forgotten about the individual hearts in our midst. We have bought in so thoroughly to the ‘personal relationship with Jesus’, combined with the American individualism it seems that the church has largely left people to interpret/misinterpret Scripture & given only platitudes from many pulpits.
Jeff,
I think your analysis is spot-on. And, I’ll admit that, for me, the Roe problem is a legal one (i.e., abominable consitutional law) in addition to being a moral one.
While agreeing with everything you said, I do think it’s a worthwhile endeavor for Christians to work to get Roe reversed. I’d say it’s also worthwhile for Christians to work to convince the country to adopt a human life amendment to the Constitution, though I doubt this will happen. (FWIW, I think trying to judicially impose a nationwide ban on abortion from the US Supreme Court is as wrong in one direction as Roe was in the other).
I probably harp on Christians pursuing their goals wisely too much. But a part of that wisdom should be acknowledging what God is and is not making possible - for his own good reasons - and resting in that. As you rightly point out, Roe or not, there is much work for Christians to pursue right in their own back yards.
I agree. Roe needs to be opposed and hopefully reversed and we should use our voice as often and as clearly as possible. My hope would be that by helping people within the scope of our influence flesh out worldview/life issues that it would help make something like a human life amendment possible. Might even convince some of those outside our walls through God’s grace of the validity and worth of life.
Hope you guys have had a great week!!