The Two Faces of Barack ObamaCan a pro-choice president lead a pro-life majority?
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 7:55 AM ET
"Obama Calls for 'Common Ground' on Abortion at Notre Dame," said the headline at CNN. That's a fair description: The president used the phrase three times in his Sunday commencement address. But common ground can't quite convey what he was getting at. Common ground is a two-dimensional metaphor. Abortion is more complicated than that, and so is Obama.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon"We must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity—diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief," the president told the graduates. "In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family." That's a standard American theme: e pluribus unum—out of many, one.
Within the United States, there's been a long-running fight over what this idea means. One view says we're a melting pot and immigrants should assimilate. Another view says diversity is a right and should be protected. Which view does Obama take? Both. Here and abroad, he sees a single family with a variety of beliefs.
Is this a cop-out? In two-dimensional space, it looks that way: You have to pick one side or the other. But what if the issue you're debating is really multidimensional? What if there's more than one other side? What if the alternative view you're grappling with isn't the negation of yours? What if it's a different perspective, a sideways view, on the same reality? Can both perspectives be true?
Most political issues are like that. To depict them fairly, you need extra dimensions. My favorite representation of this concept is the carved cube on the cover of Godel, Escher, Bach. Is it a G, an E, or a B? Answer: all of the above. It depends which way you look at it.
Abortion is the classic multidimensional issue. Years ago, when I was writing a book about it, one person after another told me, "The issue is about …" Each person ended the sentence differently. Eventually, I got the picture: The issue is about what the issue is about. Some people believe it's about protecting human life. Others believe it's about women's rights. Some say it's about taking responsibility for sex. Others say it's about poverty and preventing unwanted children. Some think it's about preserving the family. Others think it's about limiting the power of the church or the government.
Every day, in Congress, courts, state legislatures, and informal conversations, people who see the issue one way try to engage people who see it a slightly different way. It's a labor of imagination and persuasion, and the stakes are enormous. Since no single perspective commands a majority, the political outcome hangs on this struggle for alliances.
That's what Obama was getting at Sunday when he said that people who disagree about abortion's legality "can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions." Legality and morality aren't always opposing principles on a flat battleground. They can be alternative dimensions of the same thing. In his April 29 press conference, Obama made this multiplicity of perspectives quite clear:
There are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with. The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day, and I think they are in a better position to make these decision ultimately than members of Congress or a president. …
Is it dishonest to be morally pro-life but legally pro-choice? Or is it a recognition that the issue has more contours than absolutists perceive?
After Fort Hood, There's No Excuse for the Ban on Women in Combat
What Does "Stable Condition" Mean? Absolutely Nothing.
Jim Carrey's Admirably Restrained Scrooge
The Great New Single That's a Little Bit Whitney Houston and a Little Bit Rusted Root
Joe Biden Explains His Gaffe-Evasion Strategy
The Box: A Creepy, Confusing Thriller From the Guy Who Brought You Donnie Darko
Legally pro choice = pro choice.
Saletan points out correctly that just because a slim majority of Americans call themselves pro-life, this does little to change the fact that the vast majority of Americans still think abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.
But the fact is that the abortion debate, (while it is "about" many things), only comes down to one yay-or-nay question which determines everything: is it legal? Can someone have an abortion? The moral, ethical, or what-have-you debates that lead people to support or oppose its legality are many, but this is a legal issue.
This is why I constantly get annoyed when some of my friends say, "Oh I'm pro life, but I think people should be allowed to have abortions."
"Well," I usually reply, doing my best to hide my frustration, "if you think that people, including yourself, should be legally allowed to choose whether or not they have an abortion, then that means you're pro-choice. If you don't think people should be able to have that option available to them, then you are pro-life."
Because that's how making rules in our society plays out. I could care less what you would personally prescribe for yourself; that's your business. It's what you want to prescribe for me, and other people, that matters.
I'm fairly certain this shift in the polls is largely due to the Republican strategy of personalizing the abortion debate. The strategy has been to get individuals to think about how difficult or bad it would be to have an abortion, and then turn that personal opinion into a legal prescription for 300 million other people. When Sarah Palin was asked about her position on abortion, she said "I would council someone to choose life." Well whoop-de-doo Mrs. Palin, that tells us nothing of relevance. Politicians support or oppose laws, they don't council us personally. By using the language of the personal regarding abortion, Republicans have been able to subtly convince undecided people that the abortion debate is just one big solipsist exercise in which their own choice should be made legally mandatory for the whole country.
-- jwschmidt
(To reply, click here)
Saletan asks:
"Is it dishonest to be morally pro-life but legally pro-choice?"
No Will, it isn't. It's merely recognizing that imposing one's own views on others is not a desirable activity. Even if I had the right plumbing for it, I would never have an abortion. But I don't believe criminalizing abortion will do anything but drive the practice underground in the proverbial back alleys once again. If the goal is to actually reduce the number of abortions performed to as low as possible, then the way to achieve that is not through criminalization, but through education.
Likewise, I have no desire to smoke marijuana, but I recognize that our "war on drugs" has done virtually nothing to stem its use among people who want to.
-- Greatbear452
(To reply, click here)