Hart to Hart

Some of you may have read Jeffrey Hart's piece in the WSJ on modern conservatism. Some of you might even have been following the discussion of the piece on various blogs - well, this blogger has, and has very nicely summarized the discussion and what various commentors have been saying about Hart's piece.

Much of interest, including Hart's lamenting of conservatism's supposed stubborn insistence on the priority of the pro-life position as "utopian." Much of the discussion on this point has centered on the meaning of "utopian" and whether the usage is appropriate here, but I would actually contest whether the contemporary conservative movement, as a whole, cares very much about this issue at all, except as a means of preserving a portion of the political base. In ever "conservative" secular institution you will find strong pro-lifers - but you will also find mild pro-choicers and others who don't care and wish the issue would go away. I do believe there is a tension, even within "conservatism" on this score.

Then, there's Hart's wish for a new metaphysic:

"What the time calls for is a recovery of the great structure of metaphysics, with the Resurrection as its fulcrum, established as history, and interpreted through Greek philosophy."

Hmm....

Comments

[Whitcomb]

Hart is right in one sense: It is utopian to think that if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow that this would mean the end of abortion. Such a ruling would lead to legislative battles in perhaps 25 to 30 states, with a split-the-difference result in many of them--abortion would be relatively unfettered in the first trimester, perhaps a little more regulated in the second trimester and, in some states, outlawed altogether in the third trimester.

I would guess no more than 15 states would outlaw abortion entirely.

So you would have abortion legal in some form in most of the states. This is about the best that the pro-life movement can hope for.

[Donald R. McClarey]

Hart of course is completely wrong. Once Roe is overturned the battle becomes a political struggle. We have the numbers and our numbers will increase over time. We also have staying power. More than three decades after Roe we are still fighting the good fight. We will continue to do so until the unborn are legally protected in all 50 states. This is no more utopian a goal than ending slavery was in nineteenth century American.

[Rod Dreher]

I'm probably closer to Jeff Hart's view on the abortion question than my own side's. We can never give up hope or the fight; as T.S. Eliot said, "There are no lost causes because there are no gained causes." Nevertheless, to get rid of abortion, one would have to effectively repeal the sexual revolution. In time, we might get there, but I'm not going to live to see it. Last night, we had a couple of friends who live in a nice suburb of Houston to dinner. The wife was telling us how shocked she was to discover upon moving down there earlier this year how many women in her mom's group are in fertility treatment, storing up their eggs, etc. She said as far as she can tell, most of these women are churchgoing Catholics, and they haven't the dimmest idea that what they're doing is immoral. She said they want to have children when they want them, and the desire is considered to be justification enough.

That's why I think the more interesting part of Hart's essay was his criticizing contemporary conservatism for making a fetish of the free market, over and against other things that ought to be important to conservatives. He brought up Beauty as an example. I would say that the way most contemporary conservatives talk about individual rights and the economy only feeds the consumerist mindset that exalts individual choice over everything else, especially duties and responsibilities. I guess no politician in contemporary America ever got elected reminding the people of our responsibilities.

I just read an essay in The American Interest, a new think-tanky magazine run by conservative scholar-types. The piece said that America's Wilsonian foreign policy today is an expression of what the author calls "the Protestant Deformation," which he argues is a debased form of Protestantism that has become the mainstream American creed. For purposes of this thread, I am reminded of his argument that Protestantism began the process of exalting individual choice and rights over society, which (among other things) resulted in the exaltation of the free market and, ultimately, of a society based on consumerism. But as the Catholic economist E.F. Schumacher wrote, civilization exists not in the multiplication of wants, but in the perfection of human character. I think too many contemporary American conservatives ought to pay more attention to what Schumacher said.

[Frequent reader]

Really nice to hear here from Rod again.

I too was struck by Hart's point. I loathe abortion and all its vile and spiralling intellectual and practical consequences. That said, perhaps the "utopian" point is important enough to ponder with an open mind. Perhaps tying hopes on the repeal of RvW (though repeal would be welcome) and outlawing abortion is kin to the leftist heresy of utopianism, "making everything OK" here and now on earth. Partly because, as with the leftist errors, some means to do it would be contrary to human freedom, and express a disregard for that freedom, with all its sad consequences. And because it is so evidently intertwined with the prospective enjoyment of a triumphal and final "Hah! We win" on hated enemies. Maybe that is granted in the life to come. It's premature now. Tares and wheat, perhaps.

The better-schooled in the Faith than I could perhaps answer: what would the great saints do in this situation? Sacrifice of oneself to benefit those caught in the problem, persuasive sanctity of life, use of the political levers that come to hand.

But I really think somehow "pro-life" has subtly gone off the rails in spite of very good motives and understandable desperation on behalf of the unborn. It carries a slight psychological flavor of "save-the-world" in denial about personal sanctity closer to home, I say without any opinions on what that is.

If I'm flamed for this, please consider that it is sincerely and inoffensively intended as a discussion of prudence, and please forgive me for any offense.

[c matt]

I don't see that he is necessarily lamenting the stubborn insistance on the pro-life position as much as he is simply giving his observed impression of its chance for total success. I didn't note him saying it should be dropped; only that we shouldn't get disappointed at its only incremental success at best.

[c matt]

I thought he was also quite astute in pointing out that the pro-abortion view/ruling is a libertarian, not liberal position. Pro-life does not seem to be inherently conservative or liberal - it is simply the application of right reason to the biological facts.

[c matt]

What the time calls for is a recovery of the great structure of metaphysics, with the Resurrection as its fulcrum, established as history, and interpreted through Greek philosophy

Gee, that sounds awfully close to Catholicism.

[scotch meg]

What I objected to was Hart's statement that Roe and Casey combine to provide an accurate reflection of the American social process. If that were true, why so many cases continuing to the Supreme Court? Why so many laws attempted, and attempted, and struck down by the courts? The repeal of Roe is not going to eliminate abortion (I agree with Mr. Dreher's assessment about repealing the sexual revolution), but it surely would restore the ability to debate the issue within the political process without fear of court -- at least not the national court (my own state court is another matter, living in MA).

[Tony A]

I have no doubt that many in the conservative movement are motivated by firm pro-life convictions. But I equally have no doubt that many are hijacking the abortion issue-- secure in the knowledge that nothing will change-- to push forward all kinds of stuff unconnected to the gospel of life: from anti-gay initiatives to a retrograde economic agenda.

[Father Ethan]

I agree that the idea of banning abortion is a utopian idea. I think abortion should be banned, but there were abortions (and many of them) before Roe vs. Wade. The Church should be teaching against the prevalent contraceptive mentality that brought about the sexual revolution. Once people started using contraceptives in the U.S. beginning after WWII in the 50's and 60's, the seeds that produced the great weed of the culture of death were planted.

In order to reverse abortion, homosexial marriage and adoption, embryonic destruction, or even liturgical abuse and heretical theology is to reverse this contraceptive mentality. It is the only way.

[Kevin Jones]

But I really think somehow "pro-life" has subtly gone off the rails in spite of very good motives and understandable desperation on behalf of the unborn. It carries a slight psychological flavor of "save-the-world" in denial about personal sanctity closer to home, I say without any opinions on what that is.

Any movement can have its "More righteous than thou" streak. To remedy this, I suggest pro-lifers carry signs saying things like "Have Mercy on us, O Lord, for we are a profane people." No dualism there, I hope.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Somehow I don't think we were living in utopia just 35 years ago. To seek a return to the legal status of 35 years ago is hardly utopian. I think people who suggest it is are looking for excuses.

This doesn't mean that it will be easy or quick but it is hardly utopian.

[Francesca]

I agree with Rod, and btw I'm sorry it's physically impossible to read the Dallas Morning News from the UK (you need to
enter a zip code).

I realized around ten years ago that the idea of radical reform to the current abortion laws is impossible (or 'utopian') because too many people's sex lives revolve around, or at least include, the possibility of abortion. Of course married people have abortions also, but I'd say the key thing is extra-marital sex - it can't be normal (as it currently is) without factoring in the possibility of abortion.

Sure, one has to fight on, but no change can be expected until extra-marital sex ceases once again to be normal - ie, when society once again takes on a Christian hue. I can't see that in my life-time, even speaking at the last smoker in Scotland.

Francesca

[SiliconValleySteve]

Sorry, but I think Francesca and Rod are being too idealistic here.

There was plenty of extra-marital sex before 1973 in the US but abortion was outlawed in most states. There is still plenty of extra-marital sex in Chile and Argentina where abortion is illegal. Sin isn't going to be repealed (that is truly utopian) but there are even secular civil libertarians who can recognize the intrinsic worth of human beings in a mother's womb.

[Frank Gibbons]

Why are people embarrassed about wanting Roe v. Wade repealed? I hesitate to discuss my prayer life, but I pray regularly for the unborn. I pray that the Lord will work to change hearts and minds concerning the sanctity of life in the womb. I pray that He give those considering abortion the grace to bring their child to term. I pray for those in particularly difficult circumstances and I pray that we in the Church share in these peoples struggles. I also pray that the abortion laws be overturned, that abortion be made illegal. This is the tough part. I'm tempted not to make this prayer, that perhaps I'm overstepping my bounds, that maybe even God doesn't want the abortion laws repealed. I find myself feeling guilty. Praying for God to change hearts and minds is so much easier, isn't it? It gets to the real heart of the issue and hey, I'm not laying my trip on anyone even from the solitude of my prayers. But I wind up praying for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, etc. As awkward as it feels, I have to trust that this is want God wants me to do. The truth is, we have all become influenced by the reigning protocols of our culture.

On a more mundane note, why is "pro-life" Jacobian? Please, I'm not looking for an answer to that question.

[Laura(southernxyl)]

Around Thanksgiving my brother and I talked about Condoleezza Rice's Presidential chances. I regretfully told my brother that she is at least mildly pro-choice, which he was sorry to hear. My dad made some noises about the need to be willing to compromise. I told him that the Republican party can compromise all it wants to, but what matters is whether Joe Blow goes to the polls, and pro-life voters do not want to compromise. I know I don't.

Maybe Condi will change her mind. She wouldn't be the first pro-choicer to do so. I think having her as the next President would pretty well wrap up the war on terror.

[Francesca]

Responding to SiliconvalleySteve:

Of course people have always had extra-marital and pre-marital flings, and commit adultery etc.
The difference is the comparative lack of social stigma attaching to this. When I speak of the 'normalacy' of extra-marital sex today, I mean it's accepted as normal, OK, cool, by the great majority of people. It's not just that people's behaviour has changed, but the code seems to have changed. The 'right' to an abortion is a right not to have a negative interpretation placed on one's behaviour.

Both Rod and I said we wanted the permissive abortion laws to be repealed. We said we thought this would take much longer than many pro-lifers seem to imagine, because social mores changed in the mid-twentieth century. Social mores have changed for the worse and for the better before, and probably they will change again. I have no doubt that prayer will affect the outcome of events.

There is only one way in which I don't think Hart's 'realist' conservativism fits his 'aestheticism.' It's no good saying one would like to see more beauty about the place and disparaging conservative and even puritanical or purient sexual attitudes. Because, for instance, the evening newspapers which used to carry short stories (thereby making it possible to earn a living writing stories) seem to have been driven out of business by papers which carried explicit sexual material. It's the rule of bad money driving out good - even movies may have had a higher general standard when they were censored for the mildest sexual material. It's much easier to make money catering for the lowest common denominator.

Francesca

[Frank Gibbons]

I read a book by Jeffrey Hart in the early eighties called "When the Going Was Good!: American Life in the Fifties". Apparently I was one of the few people who read it because I can't find any reviews about it anywhere. But I clearly remember agreeing with Hart's contention that, culturally speaking, everything was better in the Fifties than it was in the Sixties and beyond. The movies were better (On the Waterfront, Vertigo, From Here to Eternity, A Streetcar Named Desire, Rear Window, Shane, The Searchers, etc.) literature was superior (The Adventures of Augie March, Lord of the Flies, Invisible Man, On the Road --yes, Hart listed this, etc). Poor dumb Ike had it so much more together than JFK did. You get the drift.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Francesca,

In latin America extra-marital affairs are quite common and accepted and have been for a long time yet they have far more restrictive abortion laws than we have. I wouldn't call the situation ideal but it indicates that we can make progress on abortion without changing the entire moral climate.

[Francesca]

I'm not sure how far an analogy from the way what people do in another culture can take us. I've heard such analogies over the years - it took me back in thought to the 1970s and '80s (perhaps too long ago for you to recall) when one often used to hear that we could do certain things or live in certain ways because Indians, Eskimos and Azteks did them. It was generally a 'back to a more ecological style of living' argument, and it has not, in fact, taken place, partly because it was not possible for Western Europeans or Americans to just start living like Oziboo tribes people.

I have not visited Latin America. From what you say, it sounds like they have a somewhat decadent Catholic culture, with a strong believe that hypocrisy is the tribute which virtue pays to vice. Whereas, America is somewhat a decadent Protestant culture, with a strong belief in sincerity and thus a conviction that what one says is right should reflect the way people actually live.

With strong patterns of Hispanic immigration, it is not impossible that America could eventually turn into a decadent Catholic culture, or even a thriving one. I would have imagined that this will take a long time.

If anyone is interested, you can get to a good debate between Hart and various opponents via the First Things website.

Francesca

[Francesca]

I meant, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue :)

Francesca

[SiliconValleySteve]

Hart's biggest blunder is his utter hypocrisy regarding the limitations of the market. On the one hand, he (and Rod jumps to agreement here but not regarding the value of unborn life) states that there are limits to a utopian market-based approach to the world. Beauty, for instance, is expressed as a value above market forces. The market however is just a mechanism to "give em what they want." As a conservative it is easy to agree that much of what people want is undesirable and it is quite conservative to limit the reach of markets into every arena of life. Why not just sell all sex to the highest bidder or body parts or ...? well you get the arguement

But then he uses just such an argument to talk about protection of the unborn as utopian and jakobian. In other words, he so disregards the value of the lives of the unborn that he is quite comfortable saying "give em what they want" regarding the option of abortion. In the follow-up letter that he sent many people and is reprinted in the NRO Blog, he makes the ridiculous statement that woman "know" what a life is and they have decided that it doesn't include the unborn. I don't see how that argument settles anything except perhaps current political reality.

The rest of what he says regarding the french revolution etc is just silliness to obscure his main point. The point being that the unborn are unworthy of basic human protection because lots of woman don't want to grant it to them.

[Donald R. McClarey]

Roger Kimball of the New Criterion has an excellent response to Hart.

http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/armavirumque.html