Let's get the arguments right!

I heard it yet again.  A Catholic radio host tells Catholics that they must vote pro-life and that Barack Obama is not pro-life.  An angry Catholic listener calls in and proclaims that the host cannot be prolife if he supports the war in Iraq.  The host responds that he does not support the war, but that abortion is the more important issue.

Then the host offers his reasoning.  I have heard both Drew Mariani and Michael Barber (I believe it was him, anyway) say that abortion is much worse than the war because more babies are killed each year by abortion than innocent lives have been taken by the entire war.  On Michael Barber's show, the caller rightfully jumped on him for using proportionist reasoning in an inappropriate context.  The killing of innocent human life is inherently wrong, no matter if one life is taken or a thousand.  The caller was correct, but his conclusions were not.

What both caller and host don't understand is that waging a just war and killing an unborn baby are fundamentally different acts.  In a justly fought war, innocent life is only taken collaterally.  Innocent life is never taken purposely or directly.  We can argue all we want about whether or not we went into this war for a just cause, with right intention and as a last resort.  However, I don't think anybody could sanely argue that America does not fight its wars with just means.  Our men and women do an outstanding job protecting innocent life, trying to attack military targets and keep innocent casualties to a minimum.  Yes, innocent people do die while American soldiers try to defend themselves or to perform an offensive on an military operation in an urban setting.  But this life is never the direct target.

Abortion is always the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life.  There is no attempt to do anything except kill the baby.  Even in the extremely rare cases when an abortion is performed to save the life of the mother, the innocent life is directly targeted.  It would be analogous to soldiers shooting through innocent civilians in order to get at the enemies beyond them - something our soldiers would never do. 

It would be ok to argue the proportionate number of deaths between war and abortion if all else was morally equal.  However, things are not morally equal between war and abortion.  If you compare a single abortion to a single innocent person dying in the course of a war, the abortion is more evil hands down.  Both deaths are evil, but only in the case of abortion was the evil directly chosen.  If only one abortion was performed each day and hundreds of innocent lives were lost in a war each month, abortion would still be the worse evil because those thirty lives were maliciously targeted for death every month.

Yes, it is fair (and important) to argue whether or not the war in Iraq is a just war.  However, the war is not a comparable evil to abortion.  This judgment has nothing to do with the number of lives lost.  It is the judgment of the act itself.  To support the war and oppose abortion can be a legitimate position.  To support abortion and oppose the war is sheer hypocrisy.

Who is to blame? Polemics vs Virtue

I have found that having an intelligent debate about the war in Iraq is nearly impossible. Any discussion is immediately overwhelmed by partisan polemics. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of fuzzy thinking and propaganda. However, once in a great while it is possible to find an intelligent dialogue that, if not reaching the perfection of objectivity, at least shows honesty in its biases.

One such article is in the winter 2005 issue of The Wilson Quarterly, one of the coolest secular scholarly publications on the market. The article is entitled “The Real World War IV” and is written by Andrew J. Bacevich. The theory that Bacevich forwards is that the war in Iraq is not a new conflict without precedent, but part of a greater ongoing conflict dating back to Jimmy Carter. Bacevich claims that this greater conflict is actually America’s fourth world war, the third being the Cold War. The main staging area of World War IV is the Middle East, and the main issue is American access to oil.

Now, oil is usually brought up as a motivation for the war in Iraq by political liberals who do not like George W Bush and believe that G.W. is more likely to go to war for oil because he has vested interest in the oil industry. I have to reveal some ignorance here, because I don’t understand this argument. You would think that someone in the American oil industry would not want foreign oil competing with American crude in a price war. Anyway, my first reaction to the claim that oil is the motivation for war is to write it off as a party line with no real foundation. However, this article got me thinking that perhaps there is some truth to the claim within a larger historical context that does not attempt to lay the blame at the feet of one man.

In fact, this was the point that President Jimmy Carter made before World War IV began. Seeing that American affluence meant a greater demand for energy, Carter warned that unbridled consumption of oil would lead America to dependence on foreign markets. Carter’s solution was to call American citizens to reduce their energy use, to restrict oil imports, to invest in alternative energy sources, to limit the use of oil by the nation’s utilities, and to promote public transportation. In short, Carter attempted to resurrect the ideal of Republican Virtue.

Bacevich does not use the term Republican Virtue. Nor does he explain its history. Republican Virtue is one of the ideals our Founding Fathers promoted for the health of our new nation soon after the American Revolution. It may come as a surprise, but to many of the Founding Fathers, “democracy” was a dirty word. If you doubt my word, read the Federalist Papers, and even many of the responses written by the “anti-federalists.” Since Democracy meant the direct rule of the common citizenry, it also meant a government and a society run by competing self-interests. The theory of democracy is that self-interest ensures a healthy state because everyone will look out for the well-being of the state for the sake of getting out of it what he or she wants. The democratic theory holds that self-interest will be kept from turning into tyranny by the competition of various factions, each fighting the others for the promotion of its own self-interest. In contrast, Republicanism held that the state is best run on behalf of the citizenry by those who are well educated, and who display the virtues that make a good leader. Citizens would choose government representatives, not based on party politics, but based on their judgment of a candidate’s virtues and qualifications. Republicanism demands self-sacrifice of its citizens at times. The ideal was that everyone would be looking out for the good of society, and would willingly sacrifice their own egocentric desires for the sake of the common good. The republican experiment did not go perfectly. There were many struggles and even some abuses of power. However, the ideal of self-sacrifice had obvious benefits to society. The republican experiment came crashing down with the election of President Andrew Jackson and the rise of the spoils system and the professional politician. By then, political parties had become entrenched and the balance of competing self-interests had replaced the ideal of self-sacrifice and self-denial.

Jimmy Carter’s attempt to resurrect Republican Virtue was a call for all of us to live out the ideals of self-control and justice. On page 44 of the Wilson Quarterly, Bacevich quotes President Carter: “ ‘There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice,’ he insisted, calling on citizens as ‘an act of patriotism’ to lower thermostats, observe the highway speed limit, use carpools and ‘part your car one extra day per week.’” Carter was not telling Americans to limit their affluence. He was simply telling us to curb our self-indulgence enough to keep America self-sufficient. Unfortunately, his plea fell on hostile ears. Americans had already gotten used to defining themselves in terms of unlimited pecuniary growth. Carter’s political enemies pounced on Carter’s words as narrow in vision and limiting of the American dream. Carter read the signs of the times a little too late. He changed his strategy midway through his presidential term, making the first moves to begin World War IV in order to secure for Americans the prosperity that they so desired. But he lost the next election anyway, and Ronald Reagan took up the cause of American opulence through the free flow of foreign oil into America.

I am not an apologist for George W. Bush. I do not believe that he is incapable of being wrong. However, I do not respect partisan polemics that fail to see the big picture. America’s greed for foreign oil is not a one-man problem. We Americans voted Republican Virtue out of our foreign policy in a perfect example of representative government. And we cannot escape the ultimate conclusion of republicanism and democracy both: the ultimate responsibility for our government’s choices lies squarely on our shoulders.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas