I’ve long been a fan of Russell Arben Fox, an immensely thoughtful Mormon philosopher and “crunchy conservative”. Though Russell is strongly pro-life, he is voting for Barack Obama tomorrow, and in this lengthy post, works through his reasons why. It’s worth a read for its breadth, its depth, and its persuasiveness. Money quote:
To walk away from standing up for many good things in the name of speaking out against one great bad thing doesn’t necessarily lead to McCain…
I do have hopes for what a President Obama will do–a lot of hopes, in fact. And my fears regarding what his presidency will mean for the future of abortion in America do not outweigh those hopes.
Send his post to your Catholic friends and neighbors who would vote for Obama, save for his position on abortion. As usual, Russell (with whom I frequently disagree, but even more frequently admire) hits it out of the park.
Pingback: A pro-life Mormon for Obama: a link to Russell Arben Fox | Pelican Project Pro-Life
Thanks for the link, Hugo. Like so much that I write these days, it really ended up being a long argument with myself, trying to chart all the ways in which it seems as though my religious beliefs ought to direct me to voting against Obama, but don’t. Maybe I’ll throw something up tonight with a more positive (and briefer!) account of why I’ll be voting for him tomorrow.
Mr. Arben Fox,
I’m struggling with the same issue. I’ve considered a) sucking it up and voting straight Democratic, b) voting for Obama for President and a Republican for Congress, c) voting for McCain, d) writing in Sen. Harold Ford, and e) voting for Ralph Nader, who at least is less extreme on abortion than Obama. My state does have a stem cell issue on the ballot this year, so at least I can vote against that.
I am trying to tell myself that the environment is the biggest issue the human race currently faces, and that rising sea levels or desertifying croplands will kill more people than abortion will. I also think that if you do want to see a Christian-Socialist current emerge on the world stage, its best hope is in Latin America (where just about everyone, Christian Socialists included, is pro-life by U.S. standards) and the Republicans, much more than the Democrats, will do their best to keep such a current from arising. Finally, one of the world’s countries where there is actually a chance that abortion might be rolled back in the next few years is Russia- and McCain, much more than Obama, has declared himself to be the enemy of the same political currents (i.e. Slavic nationalists) who would take steps to suppress abortion.
Finally, it’s important to remember that abortion is the natural outgrowth of the Me Culture, which was the natural outgrowth of liberal capitalism- and that the Democrats, for all their faults, at least have some more misgivings on liberal capitalism than Republicans. When Ezra Pound wrote “Usura slayeth the child in the womb” he was being prophetically accurate. The moment that American civilization accepted the idea that there is no pre-existing Nature to which we ought to conform, and that we are the sole masters of our destinies, was the moment that we set our feet on the long road to Roe v. Wade. Inasmuch as Republicans are more likely to defend that rights-based, individualist conception of the world, they will never be the ones to return America to respect for human life.
It’s with that in mind that I am getting ready to vote for Obama. But I’m not happy about it, by any means, and whether it’s the right thing to do, I confess I don’t know.
Hector, thanks for the thoughtful reply (and thanks also for reading my very lengthy ruminations!).
I’ve considered a) sucking it up and voting straight Democratic, b) voting for Obama for President and a Republican for Congress, c) voting for McCain, d) writing in Sen. Harold Ford, and e) voting for Ralph Nader, who at least is less extreme on abortion than Obama.
I can’t vote for Republicans for Congress (not that it’ll make much difference here in Kansas), because of the way their leadership has enabled all of Bush’s abuses over the years. I really liked Harold Ford in 2006, and was rooting for him from a distance; I wish he had run for something this year. As for Nader…well, I’ve voted for him twice in the past (1996 and 2000), and I still have some real affection for the man. But his moment to serve as a vehicle for a message has passed; admirable as many of his stands are (his strange mix of conservatism, populism, and egalitarianism in particular–it’s a mix I like, though not exactly in the way Nader does it), I think endorsing, if only symbolically, the narcissistic quest he’s been on lately, is something I’m not willing to do.
I also think that if you do want to see a Christian-Socialist current emerge on the world stage, its best hope is in Latin America (where just about everyone, Christian Socialists included, is pro-life by U.S. standards) and the Republicans, much more than the Democrats, will do their best to keep such a current from arising.
Right. Not to endorse or support Hugo Chavez in any way, but he’s an example of the kind pro-life leftism you’re talking about.
One of the world’s countries where there is actually a chance that abortion might be rolled back in the next few years is Russia–and McCain, much more than Obama, has declared himself to be the enemy of the same political currents (i.e. Slavic nationalists) who would take steps to suppress abortion.
You make a good point about McCain’s Russia-phobia, but the Slavic nationalists you mention bundle up their hostility to abortion with an Orthodox hostility to gay people and an awful lot of the freedoms I think the West should be proud of. So I think I’d rather look to Latin and South America than the former Soviet Bloc.
Finally, it’s important to remember that abortion is the natural outgrowth of the Me Culture, which was the natural outgrowth of liberal capitalism–and that the Democrats, for all their faults, at least have some more misgivings on liberal capitalism than Republicans….Inasmuch as Republicans are more likely to defend that rights-based, individualist conception of the world, they will never be the ones to return America to respect for human life.
I can’t go as far as as it appears you want to go–for philosophical and theological reasons–with the idea of a pre-existing “Nature,” but everything else you say I’m entirely on board with.
It’s with that in mind that I am getting ready to vote for Obama. But I’m not happy about it
All conflictedness aside, I actually am happy to cast a vote for Obama–not deliriously happy about it, but mostly content anyway. I should write something quick about that today.
Mr. Fox,
Thanks for your response.
If you don’t like Chavez, of course, Correa and others are more moderate examples of “pro-life leftism”. Correa’s new constitution was condemned by many bishops because it endorsed family planning and reproductive rights, but that was wrong- the constitution also, explicitly, said that life was to be protected from conception. As for Slavic nationalists, well no doubt the “Nashi” crew are nasty people, but there are many people more moderate than them. The abortion rate in Russia is fiendishly high, and I’m glad that at least some efforts are being made to restrict them. Poland and Ireland are also, I think, taking steps to further restrict abortion.
Yes, I understand that many Christians aren’t comfortable with natural-law, teleological reasoning. I’m not entirely comfortable with it myself, partly because it has often been used to apologize for the status quo, and of course I disagree with many of Aquinas’ specific conclusions. However, I think that the basic method of trying to discern purpose and meaning by considering the facts of our physical, emotional and spiritual natures is a good one, and the best general framework for moral reasoning that I know of. Other attempts as moral reasoning, such as any variant of ‘do no harm’, always break down at the point where you ask ‘What counts as harm?’, and to answer that question you really need to have some vision of the Ideal Man or the Ideal Life.