Two Governors

I’ve personally attended only two lectures by governors in my life. The second time was this week, when Governor Haslam of Tennessee came to JPII as part of our “Distinguished Lecturer” series. The first time was in 1984, as a senior at Notre Dame, when I attended a lecture by Governor Cuomo of New York. Coincidentally, both talks were about the same topic: How should one’s Christian faith inform one’s political leadership? They gave strikingly different answers to that question.

Cuomo’s speech centered on abortion and was hailed in the press as an example of enlightened tolerance. As a Catholic, he said he fully respected the authority of the bishops that abortion was wrong. He would uphold that view, he said, for his wife and children. But as governor of a state that was predominantly pro-abortion, he did not believe it was proper to impose his religious belief upon his constituency. In a pluralistic society, one cannot govern by one’s faith, lest others’ freedoms be infringed upon in the name of his religious belief. This “personally opposed but cannot impose” position became the foundational position of a generation of politicians since that time.

Haslam, a Presbyterian, reasoned differently, drawing on the ideas of Pope John Paul II. Freedom, as the pope understood it, must be linked to the truth, or else it ends up being a pretense for tyranny, as the stronger person asserts his “freedom” over the rights of the weaker party. The pope was an unapologetic defender of the truth, known for directly challenging the assumptions of socialism and the excesses of capitalism with great vigor.

Did that make him boorish and judgmental, as we often regard people who claim to know “truth”? No, said Haslam. In fact, he was recognized as a model of Christian civility, admired by even those who disagreed with him. That was possible because John Paul II understood his Christian faith as a “gift, not a club.” Instead of using the truth of one’s faith to club people over the head, as we are often tempted to do, we should speak the truth while manifesting the gifts of our faith, namely, temperance, forgiveness, patience and kindness, to name a few. Haslam said that Christian politicians should never waiver from the convictions of their faith but must live out that faith in a manner that is charitable and befitting of their Christian vocation.

It is ironic that between the two governors, one Catholic, the other Presbyterian, the Presbyterian makes the more “Catholic” argument. Democracy in the Catholic tradition is a means and not the end, as Cuomo assumes. The end is the “common good,” whereby human dignity is protected and thrives. All laws must serve that common good. Exalting the notion of individual freedom to the extent that we cannot “impose” a value system on someone, even when that person uses his freedom to trample on the freedom of others, is self-contradicting. Further, it strips us of the ability to make any laws premised on a moral assumption. If we believe rape is wrong, can we not “impose” laws which punish rapists? Thieves? Murderers? Or should we merely be "personally opposed" to these things?

Thomas More, in Robert Bolt’s famous play “Man for All Seasons, ” confronts the same issue that both governors addressed. Though he is opposed in conscience to the divorce and remarriage of King Henry VIII, should he assent to the divorce out of loyalty to the king and in the interest of the peace and unity of England? More is unequivocal:

“I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

The vetting of candidates during an election cycle serves an important public purpose: Candidates should make known their moral positions, and where they are evasive, we should pin them down. In my view, once elected, we should then expect them to govern according to the convictions of their conscience and their faith. If we don't approve of what that turns out to mean, we vote them out of office in the next election cycle.

"Personally Opposed, but..."

I was a student at Notre Dame in 1984 when then governor of New York Mario Cuomo came to campus and gave a much heralded/much reviled speech that attempted to reconcile his pro-abortion policies with his Catholicism. His "personally opposed but cannot impose my beliefs on others" argument has since become the mantra for over a generation of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Recently in my junior morality class, we had occasion to re-visit his speech. Here's my brief response to Cuomo's argument, some 25 years later:

Cuomo treats a civil right, the right to live, as if it were a matter of personal taste. All laws, especially those which protect the most vulnerable of parties, are founded not on preference or private sentiment, but upon a fundamental belief about the natural rights of man, rights that precede civil society and those which governments must protect to remain legitimate.

The Catholic Church does not believe abortion is wrong because it says so. Nor is the argument against abortion one from Scripture. The Church opposes abortion because it destroys our most basic right – the right to life –the foundation for all other rights. The Church does not “create” right and wrong; rather, it derives right and wrong from the natural order of things. Cuomo’s argument that “because I am Catholic, I am opposed to abortion, but as governor I cannot impose my religious views on my constituents” assumes the Church is making a sectarian religious argument that only applies to Catholics (a belief about the Eucharist or Mary, for example). But a natural rights argument is not a sectarian one. The same sentiment that inspires us to protect the rights of the criminally accused, that cares for the poor or that protects ethnic minorities--constituencies but for our nobler instincts could easily be taken advantage of – animates our laws. Those instincts are not “Catholic” ones, but human.

The flaw in Cuomo’s logic can be most easily shown by substituting other crimes into the formula: “I am personally opposed to rape, but I cannot impose my views on my constituents.” “I am personally opposed to murder, to slavery, to robbery... but I can't impose my views.” Because these crimes trample upon the civil liberties of others, their prohibition is rightly enshrined in law and punishable by imprisonment.

Governments exist to protect and extend what our founders called “certain unalienable rights” and that “among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Indeed, the very justification of our Declaration of Independence from England was that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter (or to abolish) it.”

The right to life is the most basic of all civil liberties. Our leaders have a duty to alter laws that don’t protect it adequately, independent of their religious convictions, pro or con.

Abortion is not a “religious” issue.

Lies, 'Danged' Lies and Abortion

This is Mr. Weber's address to the student body on Monday, February 9, 2009.

Mark Twain once said: “There are lies, danged lies and statistics” (or words to that effect). He means, of course, that statistics can be manipulated to say whatever we want them to say.

Nowhere is this truer in our public policy debates than over the question of abortion. It is widely assumed that the majority of Americans favor our existing laws regarding abortion, but that all depends on how the question is asked.

Here’s an example:

Lake Research Partners conducted a poll in July of 2006 of 1,000 registered voters nationally and concluded that: “77% of Americans agree that the government and politicians should stay out of a woman’s personal and private decision whether or not to have an abortion. “

So 77% of America is in favor of abortion? Any statistician worth a nickel will tell you the language of that question is so biased as to make the data meaningless—once you load up the question and use phrases like “personal and private decision” or “keeping government and politicians out” of a woman’s decision, you get predictable results.

In fact, that question is so poorly worded I wondered what self-respecting statistician would stand behind it, so I did some research and found out two things: First, that the poll was sponsored by NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, a political lobbying agency representing abortion clinics and the abortion industry in this country. But even more revealing, if you read the actual study by Lake Research Partners, it wasn’t designed to be a neutral study to measure what America truly thought about abortion, but as a marketing survey designed to measure the most advantageous way to frame the debate on behalf of pro-abortion candidates. Framing the debate in terms of freedom, privacy, choice, government intrusion into the private lives of women provides, in the study’s words, “an opportunity for pro-choice candidates to capitalize on the public’s opposition to divisive attacks on a woman’s right to choose.” So this was never meant to be a neutral study on what Americans believe about abortion—but it was presented as such by NARAL, who knew better, but figured most of America would not.

There was a more scientific study conducted this fall by NBC News/Wall Street Journal, which asked this question:

"Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal; should be legal most of the time; should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life; or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Here were the results:
• 25% said it should be “always legal”
• 24% believed it should be “legal most of the time”,
• 37% said it should be illegal except for cases of rape, incest or threats to mother’s life,
• 10% said it should be illegal without exception, and
• 4% were unsure. (September 6-8, 2008, with a margin of error of 3.3).

As balanced as that survey is, note how easy it would be to manipulate results for either side: the anti-abortion side could say that “75% of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand without restrictions”, whereas the pro-abortion side could say “90% of Americans are opposed to restricting all abortions”—two ways of twisting the data to make the results sound as if they conclude exactly opposite positions.

The most balanced, honest conclusion would be the following:

• 49% of Americans believe abortion should be always or mostly legal, whereas
• 47% of Americans believe abortion should be always or mostly illegal

Because the margin of error is 3.3 points, that means that Americans statistically DEAD even on the question about abortion in this country.

So what is our responsibility as members of a democracy that is so evenly divided on such an important social issue? I think we can do three things:

First, we need to be a people who honor and respect children so much that the idea of an abortion becomes nearly unthinkable. When I was younger, I lived next door to a municipal policeman and his wife, a nurse, with no children. He was a big burly guy—almost the stereotypical southern policeman—tough, not one to become emotional, someone that would evoke respect. By then, my wife and I had two children, ages 4 and 2. One afternoon, as we were both doing some yard work, he told me that he and his wife were having their first child. I stopped what I was doing, went over to shake his hand and congratulate him, and told him what a great thing it is to have kids. Much to my surprise, his eyes got a little watery and he said: “You know, I’ve been telling people all day and you’re the first one to congratulate me and tell me it’s a good thing. All I’ve been getting is ‘you thought MARRIAGE was the old ball and chain—well, now your life is over!’ Thank you”.

We joke like that about children, as if they’re a curse, but nothing is further from the truth. The best thing that will ever happen to most of you, after getting married, will be to have children. They’re work, but they’re a lot of fun, and they will make you a better person—not just because they will call you to responsibility—but because they will help you see the world again through their eyes, and thus re-create in you a sense of wonder. Let’s be a people who so love kids so much, who celebrate them so much, who esteem large families so much (and not snub mothers with many kids as if to say, “Geez, how ‘bout a little self control?” as some stranger once told a pregnant woman I knew with 8 kids), that abortion is unthinkable.

The second way we can help to limit abortions in this country is to support unwed women who are pregnant. It’s very difficult time for these women—they must endure the raised eyebrow, the whispers, the gossip. At a time of their greatest need, we need to be supportive of them, whether that’s through financial support as a Church, or simply the support of friendship. It’s seemingly so much easier to abort a child before the woman begins to “show”, and then nobody would know, but the strong woman, the woman of faith, honors the life within her. We need to honor these women and support them.

Finally, yes, within a democracy, we have a responsibility to lobby for laws that promote justice for all peoples, that defend the civil rights of our most vulnerable members, be they unborn children, the poor, the aging, or those with mental or physical disabilities. It’s not enough to say we’re “personally opposed” to abortion but “support a woman’s right to choose” any more than it’s OK to say we’re personally opposed to rape, or theft, or murder but support their sanction in law. We must protect the civil rights of others, and especially children. The function of a democracy, understood clearly by our founding fathers, is not to create license to do whatever we want, but to support a “common good” within which all members of the democracy flourish.

In the mean time, let us be as “wise as serpents and gentle as doves” –wise, in that we’re not misled by those who would misquote statistics to manipulate us, but gentle in the way we conduct ourselves in this important debate, mindful that the respect we give those who disagree with us usually has more power to persuade than our arguments.