A Lifeline into Power or an Abortion of Principles?

Views on the gutting of cultural messaging in the GOP

It’s no secret Trump has dropped a wrecking ball into business-as-usual politics, and it’s also no secret that the GOP is now Trump’s party. All the nay-sayers from 2016 have either converted to his cause or been relegated to obscurity, and he is now capable of running the entire organization with an iron fist.

Some of this has been red meat for his supporters, and most are cheering his much harder stances on immigration, his intentions to completely dismantle the D.C. bureaucracy, and his willingness to punch back at his opponents. This has not come without many other changes that are putting social conservatives on edge, most primarily his watering down of official Republican stances on abortion and homosexuality. Others are exclaiming how Trump did more for the Pro-Life cause than anyone in the last fifty years, and are accusing the pro-life cause of being impractical. They argue adopting their stances will cause an implosion of right wing power as the hard-line stances are unpopular with voters.

Fundamentally, the issue is not cut and dry, and points to a fundamental issue in representative politics, and the nature of the Right Wing.

The Case for Conscientious Objection: Edward Feser

Edward Feser is a brilliant legal mind in Church politics, and I have been immensely enriched by reading his thoughts over the years. He has just the right amount of academic rigor and a grumpy impatience with nonsense that I know whatever he writes will be forceful, direct, and well-reasoned.

He is of the camp that pro-lifers should not vote for Trump or Harris, but either a third party or not at all. His argument is the same as the Zero Seats movement in Britain, that it makes no sense to support someone who will not deliver the goods to your constituency. The Zero Seats people didn’t see the point of supporting a party that made immigration go out of control, and social conservatives don’t see a point in supporting someone who does not support pro-life causes.

This blog post goes over his thoughts in detail, and remains the best steel-man of this argument I’ve found.

Despite his recent betrayal of social conservatives, Donald Trump remains less bad on these issues.  Indeed, his appointments to the Supreme Court made possible the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  It is understandable that many social conservatives have concluded that, his faults notwithstanding, they must vote for him in order to prevent a Harris/Walz victory.  The argument is a serious one.  But the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose, because the problem is not merely that Trump will no longer do anything to advance the pro-life cause.  It is that his victory would likely do positive harm, indeed grave and lasting damage, to the pro-life cause and to social conservatism in general. 

Feser starts on a positive note, noting his positive contributions to the pro-life cause. He also makes a strong statement in that Trump will not even keep the status quo, but will do damage to the pro-life cause. For all the positive he did the first round, the second round will be actively negative, and must therefore be reigned in.

Consider first his change to the Republican party platform, which not only gutted it of its longstanding pro-life language, but introduced elements positively contrary to the pro-life cause.  The platform’s longstanding general principle that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” was removed.  Only “late term abortion” is explicitly opposed.  Not only was support for a national ban on abortion also removed, but the new platform indicates that the matter should be left entirely to the states.

He is also against the idea of moving pro-life politics back to the states. The logic is that a grave evil like abortion, whatever strategic reasons you have, can’t be delegated to lower levels of power. Higher powers, like congress, have a moral obligation to coerce lower powers, like the states, to assure human rights are maintained.

It gets worse.  On the one hand, Trump says that he is in favor of letting the states decide whether to have restrictions on abortion.  But he has been critical of those who have tried to enact such restrictions at the state level.  For example, when Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after six weeks, Trump said: “I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” 

This is probably the most effective point Feser makes, that even though Trump said he wants it delegated to the states, he knows such actions get national attention, and impact federal elections. It’s hypocritical to demand the states handle it, then countersignal when states handle it.

Overall, he thinks that to survive as a political force, social conservatives need to flex their muscle to show that the GOP needs social conservatives, and will be unable to win elections without them. It’s a good article I recommend everyone read.

Person Online

also gave excellent thoughts on this.

The Case for Trump: Gain Power First

Trump is a transactional person, and if you want something, he needs to know you’ll give something in return. Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, and any further pro-life agenda is predicated on insuring he is not stabbed in the back for delivering on what he promised. He has given more than any republican politician in our lifetime to the pro-life cause.

While Trump wants new abortion laws off the table in this election, it’s because he already accomplished what he intended to do. He understands the hot-potato that is the abortion topic, and doesn’t want it to impact his more important policy intentions, like immigration. While you can argue that Trump counter-signaling aggressive pro-life legislation is damaging to States trying to assert their new rights, to him it’s just good business to get elections, and he has no control over these measures.

Obama famously said he was against Gay Marriage, but everyone knew that was a lie. The left always talks moderate in election then hard-left in office, and republicans tent to shift to the center. Trump is different, and he understands what he needs to say to get elected, and understands he can get away being more lard-line when he gets elected. There are also a multitude of issues that don’t even extend to the letter of the law that he will be in control of in the executive level. Do you want pro-abortion NGO’s deprived of federal funding? Do you want more freedom of association so you don’t have to cater to the woke mob? Do you want enhanced rights for religious freedom? None of these require new laws, but they do require access to the massive federal bureaucracy that dictates how laws are enforced.

Do you want a seat at the table to hash out these provisions? Are you willing to work with a pragmatist who will give you more of what you want if you support him? Get Trump in office and you will have a listening ear. Power extends far beyond the letter of the law, and ensuring a friendly ear has power in the highest office in the land will give you opportunities you wouldn’t have otherwise.

At worst, Trump will maintain the status quo, allowing pro-lifers to expand their ground game at the state level. Maintaining the status quo is far better than the alternative, and you have the opportunity to do much more. Trump is always willing to make a deal.

The Case for “Conscientious Objection”: The Grifters and Beautiful Losers

I’ve attended many Right-to-Life events in my life, from simple dinners to elaborate galas. I’ve written checks to support good causes like pregnancy resource centers and outreach to women who regret their abortions. I’ve also been involved in praying outside of abortion centers(and being accused by passerbys of being a Pharisee). There is much good done in this community, and they take an enormous amount of abuse on all sides.

That being said, a lot of animosity toward social conservatives is, admittedly, self-inflicted. Not by the well meaning people writing checks, but the insufferable grifters who run many charities that are more interested in getting the cash to flow than any real results. These are also the people who are most vocal about their “principles”.

I noticed this at first when an abortionist turned pro-life advocate made the rounds in pro-life dinners, and I noticed she made a very good living for herself doing so. While every social movement needs its celebrities and salvation stories, she left a very bad taste in my mouth. While we forgive even the worst sinners, we shouldn’t be supporting lavish lifestyles in booking speaking tours for them. She was also very obnoxious online, clearly a brand, and probably turned off more people than she helped.

Then there’s the non-profit grift, and you have people like Lila Rose making a killing in donations while doing very little for the cause she advocates. She’s fleeced honest people of millions while only getting herself and her friends enriched. Keeping pro-life politics at the national level is good business, and they know it.

Revenue of 14 million and 22k in grants. Impressive.

There’s also the proliferation of people who have never won a political victory in their lives, but their identity revolves around them being “above it all”. Sam Francis called these people “Beautiful Losers”, as their action revolve around their personal purity, and countersignaling their “allies” for not living up to their standards. David French is the most clownish version of this archetype, but a mass of public facing people would fit the bill, along with some friends who think huffing about principles and the hypocrisy of the other side might not win elections, but it makes some above the fray. These people controlled right-wing discourse for decades, losing year after year. For obvious reasons, the right-wing is sick of them.

The Case for Exit: The System Can’t be Reformed

Edward Feser makes an interesting comment later in his article, one that I’m not sure if he realized the connotations of.

But as Burke’s remarks indicate, one problem with this attitude is that it threatens to give scandal.  It “sends the message” that social conservatives put politics over principle, and that winning elections is more important to them than the ends for which they are supposed to be winning elections in the first place, such as protecting innocent life and the institution of marriage. 

Note that you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the right who is pro-life without exceptions and against same-sex marriage, not to mention against modern divorce law, contraception, and countless other social issues. The hardline social conservatives are stuck in a situation that voting for anyone requires a compromising of social views for the purpose of taking power. Social Conservatives are trapped in a society where a vast majority of people are against their views, and the idea there is a “silent majority” has always been a cope to hand-wave away the stark reality that the left had utterly dominated the country on social issues for decades. The question then becomes, “is there any reason to even engage with the current system?”

Is participating in basic politics now damning, a grave moral evil no man of good conscience can endure? If the culture has become so degraded that “changing hearts and minds” enough to gain representative power is impossible, social conservatives are may need to fortify themselves and create alternate structures to live in this country.

Rod Dreher

‘s Benedict Option would be a template here, with the goal to create tight-knit, autonomous communities that can weather the storm that is coming and make peace with the Regime as you create alternate institutions and culture.

It is a retreat, but retreat isn’t necessarily a coward’s position, especially when confronted with forces there’s no way you can overrun. Someday in the future your community will be the standard people aspire to, as the slow cultural progression seeps into mainstream culture and becomes a dominant force again.

The Case for Martyrdom: The System Must Be Replaced

The pro-life side has always had a schizophrenic mindset with regards to abortion. Even the ones who say abortion is murder, full stop, are nervous to extend that morality to its obvious conclusion. A clear example was when Trump famously said that women who have abortions when it’s illegal should be punished, which resulted in screeching and grandstanding about how women were victims of abortions. Whether prudent or not, the logic of what Trump said was obvious, and the pro-life movement has trouble coming to grips with the facts most abortions are for the convenience of the women, and there are rarely any evil men in the background trying to coerce them. They also can’t come to terms with the fact that women are the most fanatical devotees of abortion. It’s also no coincidence the grandstanding grifters screeched harder about Trump making that comment than a statement from any pro-abortion woman.

To take this a step further, you see this with an emphasis to be peaceful. They decry any actions involving destruction of property, blocking access to property, intimidating abortionists, or anything else that operates outside the scope of the law. Again, whether prudent or not, it is a hard case to make that property rights trump outright murder, and people notice this. You can make a good argument it’s not prudent, but they don’t make this stance.

In the late 2000’s there were several bombings of abortion centers in the United States. This, of course, gave the pro-choice side red meat to frame pro-lifers as extremists. Of course, the hard-left had no issues with such levels of violence in he 1960’s or the Summer of Floyd, and as unpopular as the violence was with the general public, they got concessions to their political causes. While the general population was repulsed by the actions, there were elites who low-key supported the extreme action who could pull some levers in the bureaucracy to give them sweetheart legal deals.

So why does unpopular political violence work for the left but not the right? The left, of course, always caters to its fanatics. They gave literal bombers professorships, and ensure comfortable living and often exoneration for their clients. They also make harassment campaigns and bogus charges at their enemies when they have power. The Left is open to using harsh means outside the realm of representative politics to get their way, while the right has almost exclusively relied on “opening hearts and minds” to enact social change.

The question to ask is, if abortion is truly murder, how far is too far to remove it from society? What measures are morally in bounds and out of bounds in such an ethical framework?

In such a mindset, radicalism would be the name of the game, and extra-legal measures to end abortion would not only be acceptable, but necessary. It means ignoring property rights for a higher law. It means creating patronage networks for people who take extra-legal measures to end abortion. It means turning the other way as you see abortionists leave the profession in fear of retaliation. It means total war on the system to create a new, moral order. It means lots and lots of people will go to prison to do what they believe needs to be done.

Wise as Serpents and Harmless as Doves

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

Matthew 10:16

This quote from Matthew is one of my favorite quotes from Jesus, and the one most applicable in dealing with political realities. It necessitates cool-headedness when dealing with earthly authorities, and choosing prudence over hot-headedness. It is a patient strategy, making one understand the full view of the world and working in quiet ways over dramatic ones. It requires finding advantages where they are and eschewing bull-headed focus on just one aspect of the problem.

• While the gutting of the GOP platform is frustrating to pro-lifers, throwing the entire party under the bus to grandstand wins nothing. If you want to withhold your vote, make sure you have the people in place you can trust to enact your goals next election cycle.

• If you’re supporting Trump in order to win the election, make sure you have the guts to demand he delivers and force the party harder right than his campaign, like the left does.

• If you think general politics is too demented to partake in, be ready to be in poverty-level conditions as you build new institutions and be ready to pay more in everything to support your allies. Also be ready for the State to try and crush you and be willing to live life as a social pariah.

• If you pursue some….extra-legal options¹, you better be sure you’re willing to pay the price and be sure not to sabotage other people’s efforts in other vectors of attack. Don’t throw your life away for a dopamine high. The Church Fathers warned people to avoid recklessly seeking out martyrdom for this reason. It’s not prudent and it’s certainly not holy.

Devon Eriksen

noted in this tweet the main purpose of the pro-life movement, and pro-lifers missing the forest for the trees:

Either she has forgotten, or wants all you evangelicals and other hardcore Christian pro-lifers to forget, that your goal isn't to ban abortion at all, it's to reduce the number of abortions. You only fight for a ban because you hope it will accomplish this goal. For those who consider abortion to be murder, any single abortion prevented is a life saved. And, thinking of it that way, what the hell would you say, what would you think, about someone who refuses to save one life because she cannot save them all?

An important point here is that the pro-life movement needs to be a multi-pronged war along many fronts. There are going to be factions that work on making sure the GOP is keeping their promises, others who will build institutions and culture where abortion is seen a horrific moral failing. It involves making motherhood high-status again.

Obviously laws are a part of that, but if you can get the same results law-faring every abortion facility out of existence while abortion is still technically legal, isn’t that a win? If abortion becomes seen as so morally abhorrent that its legality is a moot point, no one wants it, isn’t that a win?

While a 12 week ban isn’t a total ban, it’s sure a lot better than unlimited abortion, and after a few years will be seen as the new normal, allowing you to push harder. The question of what reduces abortion gives far wider grounds for attack, and far wider grounds to make gains than worrying on the letter of the law exclusively, as important as that is. The open battlefield also leaves far more ground for your enemies to defend, giving rise to far more actions that can be easy wins while putting minimal risk on the pro-life movement.

Every strategy has to follow the basic formula of not only reducing abortions in the current day, but five, ten, and twenty years from now. Everyone is going to have a different mindset, a different strategy, but the important part is to keep your focus on the fundamental goal. There will be no swift victory, no final battle to determine the champion until the end of the world. Life is, and will continue to be, a long grind won by those who are willing to get up every day and do their part to bring about the City of God.

1. Note that Social Matter is a peaceful publication filled with love, puppies, and rainbows that would never advocate anything illegal.