Windmillin'

Icon

Where politics and faith dance in the shadow of the windmill.

Visceral Reaction

This past Thursday not only marked the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but also the turning of an important page restoring constitutional government.

On the Mall in Washington, hundreds of thousands gathered for the annual March for Life.  And in the Oval Office—really within earshot—President Obama put his signature on Executive Orders closing Guantanamo CIA prisons and prohibiting “intensive interrogations” (that’s torture, as even government prosecutors concede).

Politically, the two actions seem to be going in opposite directions.  One pitched itself as a  rallying of the opposition — the vehemence of opposition made all the sharper by the actions and statements of then Senator Obama supporting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

For the others, the closing of Guantanamo and the barring of torture fulfills a promise. Each side celebrated with their partisans: new winners, old losers.

Yet the emotional intensity of the both positions belie the straightforward political approach.

As speakers at the rally and commentary around the web make clear, abortion remains one of the first of the major political battle lines.  But for many the position is one of over-riding moral weight.  In conversation, it is impossible to see the other side.

It’s pretty much the same when it comes to the issues surrounding “aggressive interrogation” and detention at Guantanamo.  For them the issue of torture has the same prima facie moral status.  And that’s something new.

This moral outrage, this sense of moral stain gives the left something that it has been missing in political discussion.  Morally charged politics. The other (conservative) side is not simply wrong as a matter of politics or policy, but wrong as a matter of morality.  The rejection is every bit as visceral for left as abortion is for the right.

The question for the conservative and especially the pro-life crowd will be whether they pick up on this fundamental moral positioning.  For those who see it, there is the opportunity for real bridge building: the concern for detainee rights and freedom from torture is of one piece with pro-life concern, part of what Joseph Cardinal Bernadin advanced as a consistent life ethic.

But of course, the temptation to play the partisan card instead of the pro-life one.

So we get comments from Representative Pete Hoekstra and Rep. Vern Ehlers that dodge any awareness of  the moral dimension and go straight for the policy and the political. Hoekstra becomes the security hawk, and Ehlers puts forth a vague pragmatic concern.  And Democrats smile.  Answering moral concerns with this assertiveness or worse, with a wishy-washiness simply concedes the moral high ground. Worse for Republicans, it is an obliviousness which fastens the torture label to all their candidates and pushes them further into the wilderness.

Advertisements

Filed under: Faith, National, , , ,

2 Responses

  1. the ol chrisser says:

    bill –

    the two issues are completely unrelated and i’m having a hard time bridging them. unfortunately, you once again tie the act of stopping a beating heart in an unborn child to harming or ending the life of an adult who has broken the trust we share in society to not kill or rape. a life is a life it’s true, but we conservatives get whacked for failing to see the shades of gray and here you go purposefully making a gray issue like torture or even the death penalty into black and white. doesn’t fly my friend. try again.

    your pal chris

    • Harris says:

      The issues are linked in the moral imperative they generate in their respective believers. Both see a claim on society’s behavior that over-rides what is seen as a pragmatic or utilitarian rationale. And both are grounded in some sense about the fundamental integrity of human life. I would dare say that the two really are of one piece, but let’s face it, the American pragmatism takes us all over, and so we easily end up turning our moral imperatives into something more optional, more selective. Still, I would continue to hold out that we are to seek some sort of integrity about our lives and beliefs. Far from dismissing the concern for the unborn, I’m suggesting that to hold that view requires extending to places we may, for political reasons, prefer not to go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: