Armchair Pro-Lifers

I was expecting to feel like utter crud because my family doesn’t have enough resources to do as much for pro-life as I wish we could, we can’t go protest in front of abortion clinics, and that’s always how it goes… I was utterly shocked to see someone finally calling out the “pro-life defeatist” types.

The responses are a little funny, though– personal attacks and mis-characterizations, by and large. It really must have stung.

Red Cardigan seems to sum up a lot of the more angry responses with her:

Hear that, sidewalk counselors, crisis pregnancy volunteers, 40 Days for Life participants, Rosary for Life devotees, and anyone else who prays and works daily to end abortion in America? You’re not really pro-life unless you vote Republican; and if you hold your nose whilst doing so, you’re probably an evil fifth columnist who will be first on the waterboard when the revolution comes.

But that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what Patrick is critiquing. Rather, he’s going after the people who sit on the sidelines and opine that they would be very, very enthusiastic to join in pro-life work and advocacy, but really the pro-lifers long ago all became GOP shills, and it’s just so icky to think about rubbing elbows with someone who might once have been in the same room as someone who held a sign showing an aborted baby.

Excellent Paul, thanks for the link-

This is a more authentically “Catholic” position. But it will likely offend the ideology of the ritually pure. From Archbishop Chaput:

“Don’t get trapped by partisan politics. But also don’t undervalue the importance of politics.

Politics is an arena where prolife action can have very practical results. Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Christifideles laici, “The charges of careerism, idolatry of power, egoism and corruption that [are] directed at persons in government, parliaments [or] political parties,” are often unwarranted. So is “the common opinion that participating in politics is an absolute moral danger – [on the contrary, these things do not] in the least justify either skepticism or absence on the part of Christians in public life” (42). Or to put it another way: Public office and political activism are not just acceptable for Christians; they can also have real nobility when pursued in the service of truth.”

“And by we, I of course mean China.”

I always knew you were a commie.

Well, guys, the migraine I’ve had all day makes me disinclined to exchange witty repartee with you all–but if you want to see how I deal with the substance of Archbold’s piece, check out my fisk of it.

Honestly, I should have done that in the first place. Will know better next time.

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2011/03/maybe-this-will-clear-things-up.html

Ouch! My wife has had a migraine for 32-and-a-half years.

In Christian charity, we must pray for conversions of sinners and tacit abortion supporters, e.g., these secularized peace and justice types who give priority to making this earthly life the “end all and be all.” For as long as they live, they may come to a better mind.

As always I believe it it best to steer a middle ground between being completely beholden to one political party, or one faction within it, and assuming that because they are right on abortion, they are infallibly right on all other issues — and taking the “pox on both their houses” approach.

Obviously the Republican Party is not ideal on all issues, nor should one vote for a manifestly corrupt, untrustworthy, or incompetent candidate purely because they are a Republican or claim to be pro-life. I will vote for a Democrat if 1) they are pro-life and up against a pro-abort Republican or 2) they are running for a position where abortion is not an issue (e.g. sheriff) and their opponent has demonstrated unfitness for said office. I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that voting Democrat is always and everywhere a mortal sin.

However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the Republican Party as a whole tends to be more morally acceptable than the Democratic Party. The Republican platform does NOT explicitly endorse torture or unjust war in the manner that the Democratic platform explicitly endorses abortion.

And in defense of Erin here, I have to admit that at least parts of the article immediately made me think of Mark Shea, who seems to be the biggest promoter of the “I don’t vote for either the Evil Stupid Party or the Stupid Evil Party” approach. I have never agreed with him in that regard; he seems unable to tell the difference between actively cooperating with evil and doing the best we can with the imperfect choices available.

Pro-lifers should not treat politics as a dirty business unworthy of serious participation or consideration; nor should we make it the prime focus of our concern. Voting is important but let’s not kid ourselves that ending abortion depends solely on electing the “right” people or getting the “right” judges appointed.

How angry some get when their ideology is questioned. I do find the offense taken to be something of a stretch. I mean, its not like there are no caricatures written by bloggers of their ideological bent. “Rubber hose right” “Debate Club at Auschwitz,” etc. So Mr. Archbold offers one, “Armchair Pro-lifers.” Would “Electronic prose pro-lifers” be better?

Of course, that caricature would be accurate if they actually wrote about pro-life actions. But most seem to only do so when something comes up that seems to prove their ideological bent.

There is no “Ron Paul Revolution”

Art-
sure there is! They’ve sold a LOT of pre-printed “spraypaint” banners and posters! ;^p

“Put up or shut up” is only one step removed from the pox. And if you don’t follow through with the put up threat (that being, if you don’t put up, we will leave), the put-up is basically toothless. Enough voters moved from the “put up” to the “pox” position in 2008 (or at least the GOP so sensed) that it motivated the GOP. And even then, the GOP only capitulated in some districts and with much kicking and screaming from the national powers that be.

Yes, at least they did move reluctantly, which is more than the Dems will ever do (at least for the forseeable future). But that put-up threat needs to remain, and to remain credible, for any further movement. And that means the “pox” needs to be an ever present reality. So, I think Pat was a bit off with his criticism of the “pox” people, because many of the good things the GOP is doing today are a result of the pox (or threat thereof).

Politicians generally understand and respond to one thing – power. So put-up or shut-up needs to go both ways: the politicians need to act pro-life if they claim to be pro-life, but the voters need to drop their support when the pols fall through to stay as a credible threat of loss of power. I don’t see the “pox” vs “put-up” as too distant from each other, and I just didn’t think Pat’s a fair criticism of the poxers.

The “pox on both their houses” that Pat described had little to do with “put up or shut up”– he rather expressly pointed out that it had more to do with patting one’s own back over how lovely and pure you are than with a practical consideration like “I will note vote for you if you just talk a good fight.”

On a practical level, having highly motivated people showing up saying “put up or shut up” is at LEAST three times as effective as the preemptive pox Pat mentioned: there’s nothing you can do to get the Poxers to care, they don’t have much effect vote-wise, and they don’t have much effect activism-wise; the put-ups, on the other hand, can be won, definitely WILL vote, and will either work for or against you. (Especially true currently– Obama supporting killing fully born babies wasn’t enough to make some of these folks stop supporting him, there’s no way they can be moved.)

C Matt-
Many is the poxer who “votes for the person.” (See also, the independents who somehow still vote more dem than registered dems.)

Poxing the house somehow doesn’t actually translate into not voting for either, it just translates into an excuse to ignore the stated goals and records of the parties.