Many evangelicals are truly political partisans. There are many others who are not partisan, but nevertheless have the appearance of a partisanship because of their consistent support for Republican candidates. For those of us who fall in the latter category, the explanation is rather simple. The Democrats and Republicans couldn’t be more polarized when it comes to the most important human rights issue of our time–abortion.I cannot improve upon Robert George’s analysis of this polarization and the effect that it has on conscientious, pro-life voters. George writes,
However much one might dislike Republican policies in other areas, it’s clear that the death toll under the Democrats would be so large as to make it unreasonable for Catholic citizens, or citizens of any faith who oppose the taking of innocent human life, to use their votes and influence to help bring the Democratic party into power.
I find no cause for joy in this. I wish that it were possible for pro-life citizens legitimately to support Democratic candidates. I wish that the party of my parents and grandparents had not placed itself on the wrong side of the most profound human rights issue of our contemporary domestic politics. I wish that the killing of embryonic and fetal human beings by abortion and in biomedical research were resolutely opposed by both parties so that we could cast our votes based on our assessments of the candidates’ and parties’ competing positions on taxation, immigration, education, welfare, health-care reform, national security, and foreign policy. It is hardly satisfactory that pro-life citizens—representing a variety of views on the range of issues in economic, social, and foreign policy—find themselves bound to the Republicans because the only viable alternative is a party that has abandoned its commitment to the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family by embracing abortion and embryo-destructive research (source).
Right on.
(HT: Justin Talyor)
One Comment
dennyrburk
September 28th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Reasons why I (a pro-lifer, to be sure) can support democratic candidates:
1)neither side is going to realistically do anything about the abortion issue: When South Dakota outlawed abortion recently, the Bush administration…you know, the culture of life, “Jesus changed my heart†George Bush administration was strangely silent. They squandered their chance for a late term abortion bill, and they have not attempted to bring back that bill with modified language. How much more proof do you need? It’s one thing to talk a big game, it’s another to play a big game. These folks ain’t playin’.
1a) Knowing the above, it’s time that pro-lifers act as pro-lifers and not pro-birthers: I want the party in office that won’t ignore children once their born. I want the party in office that believes that comprehensive welfare reform begins with education (and educated populations have less tendency toward unwanted and aborted pregnancies), not with minimum wage jobs. I want the party in office that realizes that the solution to the very problems that we speak of is a holistic solution. And, I’m sorry, but the south side of Chicago (where I’m from) is proof that the republican party is NOT that party.
2) Europe has proved that realistic sex education is the true key to lowering abortion rates: one good thing that might come from democratic control of the legislature (and therefore committees that look after such things) might be more effective sex ed in the classrooms. Abstinance-only sex ed doesn’t work in urban areas which (I’m assuming) account for most of the abortions and teen pregnancies that occur. Again, Sweden bans abortions after 12 weeks AND they have comprehensive sex ed. If Europe can do it right, why can’t we?
Finally, the assumption that is made in the article, that more abortions would occur under democratic rule is baloney, and you and I both know it. Putting that thought out there is irresponsible of you. I do not have the statistics (and admittedly, I’d have no idea of where to find them), but I can’t believe for a second that there’d be a massive increase (as was stated in the article) in abortions if the democrats took office.
And calling for people to be single issue voters in the first place? Sheesh. Talk about politically irresponsible. Look at all of the atrocities going on right now in Afghanistan and Iraq because of our government! Look at the way our poor are treated by our government! Look at the ground we’re losing to India and China because of the policies of our government! And you’re going to tell people to be single issue voters over an issue that won’t change one iota in the next 100 years? (if I were a betting man still, I’d mortgage my house on that bet, btw)
That’s disgusting. And any poli sci student would tell you the same thing.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
“Reasons why I (a pro-lifer, to be sure) can support democratic candidates:
1)neither side is going to realistically do anything about the abortion issue.â€
Paul-Brilliant! Absolutely right. Neither side will do anything because there is no public outcry about it. Most Americans are complacent about the issue. Preachers are scared to preach about it and so Christians will contiue to ignore it. Republicans have used Christians for too long now and Democrats are controlled by the far left so the best option may be to just not vote. Maybe that’d send the Republicans a message. What if they gave an election and nobody came?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I’m pro-choice. A mother should be able to choose if she wants an abortion. Recently a boy who had cancer, won the right to decide that he didn’t want chemotherapy for his cancer, even though he’s a minor. I applauded his win. It’s his life and his body.
If embryonic research means killing a fetus, than it must be done. Every year, millions of eggs are frozen and ones that don’t get used, just get thrown away. If there’s a shot at curing terminal diseases like Parkinson’s, wouldn’t you want to find a cure? For one egg that’s lost, many lives could be saved. Republicans like Bush are anti-science, they don’t believe in global warming. They probably think Gore is crazy for promoting his film. I think they’re crazy for arguing with people who have devoted all their life, all their energy, and all their knowledge into the study and furtherment of science. I’m no science major or science whiz, but I truly respect that. Science has revolutionized our lives in so many ways. It’s just amazing.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:13 am
Denny,
1) no mention of the Mark Foley scandal? Surely a GAY REPUBLICAN WITH LEANINGS TOWARDS PEDOPHELIA must be worth mentioning, right?
2) Still waiting to hear from you about your stance on the peace churches.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Paul,
Republicans are now saying the emails were fake! Hahaha. He resigned already, some fakes.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:04 am
light,
what frightens me about Denny and so many other evangelicals at this point is that these are Christians who are seemingly starting to deny the fact that those who are liberals can even be Christians. So, I’m willing to leave the sniping out of this for just a second and just look at the facts here, as I see them.
Denny’s refusal to talk about the peace churches is telling. His eulogizing of Ken Lay is more telling. Posting an article that calls democrats baby killers is even more telling besides. I truly feel that I am looking at a man who has put politics before God. But then again, from what I see from the Southern Baptists all over the place (look at bpnews.com any day of the week for proof), that’s a thing that is running rampant throughout Southern Baptist culture.
I would love to be proved wrong here, but I don’t think that I will be. I’ve put my foot in my mouth a few times in these comments, but I don’t think I’ll be needing any salt with my converse today. And that’s heartbreaking.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:06 am
“There are many others who are not partisan, but nevertheless have the appearance of a partisanship because of their consistent support for Republican candidates. For those of us who fall in the latter category, the explanation is rather simple.â€
it’s a sin to lie, Denny. You know you’re a partisan guy and there’s no sense in denying it.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Paul,
About the Foley scandel, what about Barney Frank?
The thing about Foley is
1:Everyone sat on this for three years and they bring it up 6 weeks before the election.
2:If the Democrats control the house, Frank gets a lead committee chair.
3:Shortly after the Clinton fiasco, Gingrich admitted an affair and resigned.
The point is most Republicans admit their mistakes. Democrats hide it. In the Delay incident: Tom is innocent.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Debbie,
1) The Frank incident happened how many years ago? And how many MINORS were involved?
1a) Hastert knew about the creepy e-mails at least a year ago. Had he done something then, this wouldn’t be going on now. The Dems might have pulled an October Surprise, but the Republicans let them through their inaction.
2) So?
3) Gingrich admitted an affair AFTER (not during) the Clinton fiasco. Hyde didn’t admit his until he was cornered with it. Same with Strom Thurmond’s love child. Duke Cunningham didn’t admit his wrong doing until it was uncovered. Neither did Ralph Reed. How many more do you want, Debbie?
Let’s face it, all decent politicians are scumbags. They have to be. To this day, my two favorite politicians (Dan Rostenkowski and Richard J. Daley) were crooked as the day is long. The difference? Those guys were crooked AND they did good for their communities. That’s something that nearly none of the above people can claim. So don’t give me this Republicans are saints and Democrats are sinners garbage, because it just isn’t true.
And if DeLay is innocent, I’m the pope.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
The matter is that Republicans are more angels than the democrats. There may be one or two that are pro life and Pro marriage between a man and woman.
‘And if DeLay is innocent, I’m the pope.’
The pope is a sinner like the rest of us.
The democrats are making this stuff up about DeLay because he worked to give Terry Schiavo more time to live.
Everyone said he didn’t have a right to get involved. Since DeLay is pro-life, then he did have a right to get involved.
Shiavo was forced to die a needless death.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Debbie,
You said,
“The matter is that Republicans are more angels than the democrats.â€
Are you kidding me? How would you know that? They’re all politicians and we need to remember that. The road to getting put in office isn’t exactly the straight and narrow and even less so trying to stay there. I don’t think we should be really looking for angels in any political party.
“The democrats are making this stuff up about DeLay because he worked to give Terry Schiavo more time to live.
Everyone said he didn’t have a right to get involved. Since DeLay is pro-life, then he did have a right to get involved.
Shiavo was forced to die a needless death.â€
Debbie where do you get these views from? Is there a certain news program that you watch or internet site you frequent where you get these views from? I don’t imagine you just come up with them by your self, so would you mind sharing? Just curious.
Debbie, I appreciate your willingness to speak up and share your opinion in an evironment that’s probably not always friendly and receptive to what you have to say, and with views that aren’t always popular.
Blessing,
Bryan L
October 8th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Debbie,
let’s take a look at your comments one by one, shall we?
1)â€The matter is that Republicans are more angels than the democrats. There may be one or two that are pro life and Pro marriage between a man and woman.â€
So, are we really only basing religious politics on these two issues these days? If so, then I am scared for all of Christianity. But, let’s say for a second that God all of the sudden doesn’t care a lick about the planet and the environment that he created for us. Let’s say for a second that God doesn’t care about the poor, sick or elderly. Let’s say for a second that God doesn’t care about how we carry ourselves, as long as we are pro-life and anti-gay people. Then, and even then, you’re still going to have to explain away Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snow, Arlen Spector and plenty of others in congress. Not to mention, you’ll need to explain away right wing pundits like William F. Buckley, Geoge Will, Christopher Hutchins, Andrew Sullivan and all of the Goldwater style libertarian republicans out there. Oh, and the Log Cabin Republicans. Let’s not forget them either. These are all people who believe that abortion is already precedent in politics and therefore a non-issue. These are all people who believe that at the very least, a marriage amendment has no place in the constitution. If strictly being pro-life and anti-gay people is all it takes to be a political angel in your book, then you need to take a look at all of these very prominent legislators and pundits and tell me what you think then.
2) “The pope is a sinner like the rest of us.â€
You totally missed my point. I was saying that there’s no way that DeLay is innocent.
3) “The democrats are making this stuff up about DeLay because he worked to give Terry Schiavo more time to live.
Everyone said he didn’t have a right to get involved. Since DeLay is pro-life, then he did have a right to get involved.
Shiavo was forced to die a needless death.â€
First off, these charges date from well before the Schiavo scandal. He was fighting these guys off for a good year or two before the Schiavo scandal hit. But fine, let’s say that all of his involvement in money laundering schemes is all just a big democratic party ploy. You still have to explain away his closer that close ties with Jack Abramoff.
Secondly, as a legislator from Texas, there are two reasons why he had no place in this argument:
a) He wasn’t from Florida. At most, this was a state issue, not a federal one.
b) He’s from the only state in the union which drafted a law giving the state the right to pull the plug on terminal patients without health insurance.
So, is it okay to be pro killing people when money (or the lack thereof) is involved? I want an answer to that question for sure.
The Republican party is filled with scumbags. As is the Democratic party. But I’m not defending the Dems (I’m simply rooting for them), and you’re trying against all hope to defend the Republicans. There’s no defense of either party in America. And as long as politicians are expected to fund their own campaigns, politicians will continue to be bought and sold like the commodities that they are.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
i listen to Richard Land and Jerry Johnson. Both are Ethics-Oriented. They both get the political analysts the press are afraid to near. I listen to James Dobson who interviews those in politics that are not currupt.
I just hate the thought of the Democrats taking control of everything and sending the USA to hell, because that is exactly what is going to happen.
For instance, in Texas for the governor’s race, Perry is the only sane person running. The other three are a joke and proved it in the last debate.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
“I just hate the thought of the Democrats taking control of everything and sending the USA to hell, because that is exactly what is going to happen.â€
Due to your own quoting of Romans, I can’t believe that you’re even typing these words. Will it not be God’s will if the Dems take back the house and senate?
Both James Dobson and Richard Land need to lose their tax exempt status for their constant delving into politics.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Paul, you may be right or you might be dreadfully wrong. Dobson and Land speak on these issues without saying we should vote for a particular party. These men are just saying not to vote on the party but on the ones that will make a difference and I feel the christian thing to do is vote for most of the republicans because they are against abortion and gay marriage. Those like mcCain and Gulianni are some that I wouldn’t consider. I would support Hornbuckle and maybe even Romsby. Land, btw, was picked by Frisk to lead the Ethics Committee for the US besides being the leader of the ERLC so he has every right to speak his mind on the candidates.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Debbie,
unless things have changed in regards to Dobson, I HAVE heard him clearly state that the republicans are good and the democrats are bad (drastically reduced version, obviously).
I have read Land do much of the same on the Baptist Press News site, which is NOT a place where one should be grandstanding on political issues. If he wants to do such a thing as part of a for-profit enterprise, then he has every right to do so, but not on anything even seemingly connected to the SBC. Anything connected to a non-profit enterprise has to at least look like something relatively close to non-partisan. As someone who works for a non-profit, I know the ins and outs of these things, and I am nothing short of astonished that these two haven’t had the hammer brought down on them yet.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Have you noticed at the SBC, they love the Republican Party. most anyway. If Bush and Rice have a right to speak at the convention, then Dobson and Land should say positive things about the party.
Two years ago, I heard Falwell speak at Prestonwood. Falwell spoke of voting for the party that supports your values. He also said that is a democrat does support moral values he would be thrilled to vote for them.
October 10th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Debbie,
That’s just it. Bush and Rice have no place speaking at the SBC. At the very least, they have no place speaking at the convention under the guise of “President and Secretary of State.â€
That doesn’t make it less palatable for Dobson and Land to be making biased remarks about the Republican Party.
and Falwell needs to do his research. There are more than a few dems who he should be able to get next to in congress.