2008 AND THOUGHTS ON ABORTION

This is a conservative blog.  I am conservative on social issues and strongly favor limited government.  So I suppose it puzzles some that I have not directly tackled the candidate’s stances on the abortion issue.  At least, this fact apparently puzzled one commenter.

Citizen Tom- What are your thoughts on both McCain and Obama’s views on abortion? (from here)

In fact, I do consider John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s views on the abortion issue important.  I think abortion is wrong.  I believe the fact that it is legal to abort a baby up to the moment of birth is wholly indefensible.  In spite of that, I do not see much point in belaboring a candidate’s views on abortion.  Let me explain why.

We have a republic, not a democracy (See here for a detailed explanation of the distinction.).  As a republic, we the People have restrained the powers of the majority to rule over the minority.  That means that it tends to be difficult to get a law passed and that enforcement of any law usually requires a super-majority.  Consider for example, the death penalty.  In recent decades it has become extremely difficult execute a murderer.  Even though most of the population approves of the death penalty, a substantial minority objects.   Every time the possibly arises that we might execute a criminal, that minority works energetically to gum up the legal process.  In one respect, the not infrequent success of these anti-death penalty radicals is a good sign.  So long as the government works so awkwardly, it cannot tyrannize the rest of us.  At the same time, even though he may not executed, the murderer is still caught, punished and locked up.

Unfortunately, we have less reason to be so sanguine about some other issues.  Sometimes, instead of merely impeding what might otherwise be regarded an excess of enthusiasm, judges ”legislate” their own views from the bench.  Ordinarily, judges ensure that the Law rules.  Judges in fact exist to make certain that each of us is accorded our rights as defined in the Constitution, as promulgated in legislation, and as “enacted” by long tradition.  With the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court invented a new “right”, the right to kill the unborn (See here.).

Instead of leaving this awkward and puzzling dilemma to the discretion of the legislative bodies of the various states, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to decide the matter, when the unborn deserve legal protection.  Unfortunately, the members of Supreme Court had no special expertise or authority to decide this matter.  No one can point to any good reason why a Supreme Court decision was needed instead of that made by legislative bodies elected by the People.  Instead what we can point to is a political agenda, an insufficiency of humility, and a divided electorate, half of which feels now cheated.

Unfortunately, while it may be the most egregious example, Roe v. Wade is hardly the only recent example of judicial activism.   Consider this list.

• Much of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal should have been declare unconstitutional.
• The Court declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional (Engel v. Vitale).
• Using the power of eminent domain, it is now legal for government to take private property in order to give it a second private party.  Government merely needs to have the expectation that the second owner will pay more in taxes (Kelo v. City of New London).
• Congress’power over interstate commerce has expanded to the point where it can make it illegal for private businesses to discriminate based upon race (Civil Rights Act of 1964).
• Two state Supreme Courts have mysteriously found the “right” of same-sex marriage in their state constitutions (See here and here ).

Our nation can recover from one bad legal decision.  A steady stream of them will destroy us, and a steady stream is what we are seeing.  Why?  To argue that something is wrong is not the same thing as arguing that it should be illegal.  By the same token, to argue that something is right is not the same thing as arguing that people should be forced to do it.  But many people too readily feel others should be forced to follow their own particular preferences.  Too many of these same people also have no respect for the Constitution and tradition.  Too many think the Law is merely a means to an end.  If we want to retain our freedom, we cannot afford to elect such people to pubic office.

Everyone is imperfect.  Everyone is entitled to be wrong on one issue.  And everybody who cares already knows where McCain and Obama stand on abortion.  So it is I spend relatively little time worrying about their records on this single issue.  Instead, I look for a record that suggests humility.  I want to support a candidate who honors a code of ethics and maintains a sincere belief in God.  I want a candidate who sees protecting the rights of his fellow citizens as his primary task.  I want a candidate who sees the Law as something that protects our rights, not something for him to manipulate to his own ends.

Of our two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, I think John McCain the better choice for America.  Of these two men, I think McCain will govern with greater humility.  I also expect McCain will govern with greater respect for the Law and the rights of his fellow citizens.