Rove & the National Right to Life Committee.
June 21, 2008, 1:35 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
In his great column today, Peter Steinfels asks an important question about NRLC’s decision to feature Karl Rove as a keynote speaker at its annual convention:
Is it politically naïve to be surprised that the nation’s leading anti-abortion organization, which describes itself as nonpartisan, would make the star of its election-year convention the embodiment of the Bush administration’s politics at their most calculating and hard-hitting? Or that his presentation, on the Fourth of July, no less, is titled “Renewing Life in America — An Old-Fashioned Political Rally”?
I don’t think so. Read the whole thing right here.
As a pro-lifer, I can only say “How shortsighted!”
…NRLC, that is.
It is hard to understand this as a strategic decision. If the pro-life movement ties itself to the Bush wing of the Republican party, and that wing is completely defeated (either within the Party itself) or by Democrats, what do they do next?
But Karl Rove is seen as a magical figure–almost a wizard in the contemporary political field. People want his magic.
The mission statement of the NRLC states that the organization is non-partisan. Also speaking at the national convention, however, will be Fred Thompson and Fr. Neuhaus. If the NRLC couldn’t find some non-partisan speakers, I wish the organization would at least have sought some balance by having a pro-life Democrat speak, too.
Is it possible that pro-life Democrats are about as welcome at the NRLC as they were at the 1992 Democratic Convention when Gov. Casey was silenced?
Carl Rove is not that smart. Corrupt Catholic bishops and the former head of the cdf made him look good.
Barack is different. He has the goods and the skill. Let Rove do what he wants. It takes time for massive liars to get unraveled.
I’m reminded of a time more than 30 years ago when a neighbor and I attended a pro-life event sponsored by a church coalition instead of the local RTL chapter.
At one point, my friend looked at me and said, “I think I have met the enemy, and it is us.”
How prescient!
Very interesting the NRTL committe. No names, no list of members and for sure; Very Few Women.http://www.nrlc.org/default.html
“A lot of people would say yes, it is only to be expected. They include many Americans who more or less rank Roe v. Wade with the Emancipation Proclamation, noting, as a majority of Supreme Court justices did in a subsequent decision in 1992, that the availability of abortion has facilitated “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.” ‘
It must be repeated that the indisputable reality is that the majority TRLC on this issue are hierarchs and men. They showed themselves in the primary, yet they are slow to place the names on this organization. It is the shallowness of people like Benedict Groeschel and Cardinal Egan multiplied. Both men, incidentally, royally screwed up the archdiocese of New York. Not to mention that guy at the Catholic League.
They and callous people like them are more than willing to go back to the good old days before Roe: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html
Most people are messy virtue theorists. If a controversial agenda is embraced by a saint, it’s worth a second look. If it’s embraced by a villain, it should be repudiated. In extreme forms, these are the arguments that run; “Well, Mother Theresa thought. .. ” and/or “Well, Hitler thought. . . .”
This straightforward reasoning from the character of an endorser to the character of the proposition endorsed isn’t sound, of course. At the same time, it seems to be inevitable.
This decision on the part of the NRLC makes it all but inevitable that many people will dismiss (or embrace) the pro-life agenda according to their view of the Rove/Bush presidency.
On a pragmatic level, the flawed logic of messy virtue theory might make more sense: whatever you think of the pro-life movement in the abstract, operating in such a way as to give it political power also means giving power to their allies: the people who gave us and still endorse Rove/ Bush
I am somewhat confused. If you imagine a see-saw with pro-life rhetoric on the left seat and serious efforts at avancing pro-life measures on the right, I am pretty sure that the left seat would be touching bottom for these two. It’s not that they are politicians that should make them objectionable, it’s that they are politicians who epitomize the political use of pro-life sentiment without any substantive effort to actually do anything to advance it (because that might actually cause them some political pain — which Rove, at least, would never willingly assume). Thompson didn’t even come up with the pro-life rhetoric until his half hearted run for presidency. Weird choices.
“This straightforward reasoning from the character of an endorser to the character of the proposition endorsed isn’t sound, of course. At the same time, it seems to be inevitable. ”
Quite right, Cathy. I do not mean to link conscientious people for whom this is an issue with Rove/Bush. I am open to better ways to make the point.
Jack Abramoff. Northern Mariana Islands. Forced abortions. No more needs to be said.
I apologize for using this thread for my own purposes here.
Will someone please open a discussion of Daniel Callahan’s “Unsustainable” here. Talk about social justice and Catholic social teaching and action! What Callahan brings to the fore is so urgent!