|
Life and the Politics of Pragmatism
Date: February 4,
2000
To: Mary Beliveau
Director of the Pennsylvania
Pro-Life Federation
For pro-lifers, the fight to eradicate America from the evil of abortion
is a cause that ranks with abolition of slavery and the fight for American
independence from England.
Heretofore, leaders in the pro-life movement have eschewed pragmatism in
favor of ardent activism in the same manner as those who carried the
banner of magnanimity during the aforementioned struggles in American
history.
No longer. Add Mary Beliveau--Legislative/PAC Director of the Pennsylvania
Pro-Life Federation, to the list of those who have been dissuaded from
supporting the most pro-life candidate in the presidential race.
In Ms. Beliveau's defense, the pragmatism ploy is a convincing one: "If we
don't support Bush, the liberal Gore will win." Obviously, a Bush
presidency is preferable to a Gore presidency as far as pro-lifers are
concerned. But what Ms. Beliveau and all others who've succumbed to
pragmatism need to realize is that the only way for the pro-life movement
to make serious advances in achieving its ultimate goal is to stick with
the original plan of supporting the most unabashed, vehement pro-lifers.
The abortion battle has been raging since 1973. It isn't likely to end in
four or even eight years, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Bush's Supreme Court picks would undoubtedly be more favorable than Mr.
Gore's. However, do we pro-lifers really want to throw our weight behind
someone like Bush, who cannot even commit to choosing pro-life judges? Do
we want to support someone like Bush, who named a Texas highway after a
prominent abortion doctor over the loud objections of pro-life activists?
Do we really want to support the son of the man who gave us David Souter?
And while Bush is the choice of the GOP Establishment today, who might it
be tomorrow? Tom Ridge? Christie Whitman? George Petaki? Sue Collins? Has
Ms Beliveau considered that Mr. Bush may even choose a pro-abortion
politician for his running mate? I think not.
In short, a vote for George Bush rather than the most pro-life candidate
is extremely myopic. Pro-lifers must continue to look at the big picture.
Their votes at the ballot box are powerful, but the moment they allow any
major political party to take them for granted, they become feckless.
Political parties aren't about any single issue, they are about winning
majorities. Period.
If pro-lifers have the opportunity to vote for candidates like Alan Keyes
or Patrick Buchanan in a primary or general election, they should vote for
such candidates, not Milque toast characters such as George W. Bush.
Joe Sterns - Communications Specialist
House Republican Communications
Department
Pennsylvania General Assembly
Harrisburg, PA
jsterns@hotmail.com
| 
