Russ Hittinger Weighs In

Here is a guest-blog from Russ Hittinger of Tulsa, a leading natural law theorist:

A query for Kathy Kaveny and Michael Perry:

Perhaps either of you can take a moment to explain how a pro-lifer can
maintain solidarity with the unborn while voting for Kerry. Michael,
you can help with an analysis of just what “solidarity” includes and
how it bestrides issues of justice and charity. Kathy, you will have
things to say about the limits of justice in our fallen world. I know
that both of you will examine my thoughts in an intelligent and
charitable spirit.

Not a few pro-lifers worry about how to negotiate their disapproval of
Bush administration policies and actions and their rejection of Kerry’s
position on the life issues. Of course, they can take a bye and leave
the ballot blank at the presidential level. The pressing question is
whether to vote for Kerry as the ordinary means of expressing judgment
against Bush (for the war, the deficit, or whatever).

First, I will give you an outline of how I would answer the question.
Then, you can fire away.

Let’s begin with an example that I don’t think is inflammatory. The
peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are victims of plague, poverty, genocide,
and anarchy. We know that these things would never be tolerated in
developed countries; in fact, we would not tolerate them across our
borders. We also know that remedying the plight of these peoples is
not very high on the policy list of the affluent democracies. Most men
and women of honest conscience wish that it were not the case. But
mobilizing domestic and international politics is not so easy. Even
supposing good will on everyone’s part, the practical means for
remedying the situation are debatable, and the execution of policy will
be difficult. For one thing, there are other pressing issues
domestically and internationally. At the end of the day, however,
everyone knows that the Africans will come out at the bottom of the
agenda.

At the very least, solidarity with these victims requires one to
campaign for their interests, to take every reasonable step to insure
that their voice will not be lost or shuffled to the bottom of the
pile. Some times it requires even more, in the prophetic mode. On
balance, one does not break solidarity with the victims by taking an
incrementalist approach. Sometimes, we might have to say, “we haven’t
forgotten you, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.”
Perhaps the available political options, at this point in time, will do
more harm than good. We have learned from the Iraq war that “doing
good” abroad does not always yield the right results. In the meantime,
like trustees, we will advance your interests, and, as Christians, we
will pray for you in Kathy’s sense of the “vale of tears.” (I do not
disagree with Kathy’s effort to situate justice in a fallen world).

Sometimes, if not most times, solidarity with victims will be expressed
best on our knees.
But I would surely break solidarity with these people if I vote for a
candidate who is positively against any public measures (policies,
monies, police, etc.) to relieve the injustice and misery. Let’s raise
the stakes (and flammability) of the example. Suppose the candidate
holds that it is wrong for us to ever act in a public and corporate
capacity to relieve the injustice and misery. Let us imagine that he
or she holds that such problems must depend entirely upon cultural and
historical forces (“hidden hand” persuasions, occult movements of
history one way or the other), or upon merely "private" choices. The
candidate promises, insists, that he or she will support no public
remedy for the victims, either domestically or internationally. This
is not a case of saying that one will get around to the problem later,
or that, perhaps, we have to engage a long, incrementalist policy
culminating in public action. Rather, he or she says that it is wrong
to bring public resources to bear upon the problem. (Wrong,
constitutionally, morally, or whatever).

To be sure, I might have other reasons to support the candidate. But,
should I vote for him or her, one thing is clear. I cannot honestly
claim to have maintained solidarity with the victims. In fact, I have
voted (campaigned) for someone who insists that legal and political
remedies for the victims shall never be a rightful matter of public
prudence and policy. Having voted for him or her, I can get on my
knees and pray to God that He make history turn out differently. But
this is not the kind of prayer that I would want to make. Should I make
this kind of prayer, everyone should pray for me and my sin of
hypocrisy.

I imagine that at this point, you will want to change or emend the
analogy. Fair enough. For myself, however, I cannot see anything in
Kerry’s record or public pronouncements that give reason for thinking
that the lives of the unborn can be a legitimate public issue. I do
not detect any interest in saying, “let’s get around to this problem
later,” or “let’s build a culture of life that includes all of these
neglected persons.” I find no evidence of an incrementalist policy
such as what Kathy proposes. On the great issue of our time, the
dignity of human life at the margins of power -- more and more as
objects of technological engineering -- Kerry’s position is quite
severe. Indeed, it is much more severe than Clinton’s.

Thus far, I have spoken of solidarity with the victims. In my mind,
this is the main issue. But we should also consider solidarity with
all of the people who devote their lives to advancing the cause of the
unborn. They are vulnerable to political and legal prejudices. I am
often struck by how much they sacrifice, without the bubble of immunity
enjoyed by those of us who are tenured professors, journalists, and
think-tankers. How can I maintain solidarity with all of these people
while voting for someone who would enforce RICCO statutes against
pro-life protesters? Can I vote to make advocates of the unborn felons
in the order of social justice?

Perhaps, once again, I can get on my knees and pray to God that they
(the pro-lifers) maintain moral and spiritual integrity in their trial.
Perhaps I can pray that they learn patience, that they cultivate a
proper forbearance with regard to their neighbors who disagree, and
that they not act like mindless Republican activists whose mental life
is determined by “talking points” of the party -- but, all of these
things considered, I cannot vote against them. I cannot vote for
someone who would shut them up. Silencing the voice of the advocates
of victims is a blow against the victims.

So I cannot reason my way, or anyone else’s way, into a vote for Kerry.
That vote breaks moral solidarity with the weak and marginalized. It
cancels out the incrementalist policy. It retreats from the main issue
of justice in our time, which is solidarity with the humanum created ad
imaginem Dei, unto the image of God.

For those who believe that the Bush administration has acted
imprudently, even impudently, in the Iraq war and in questions of
international law, the choice is hard. Party discipline is not an
ultimate value. I am not sure what to say to pro-lifers who want to
leave the ballot blank. But I do not think one can vote for a
candidate who delivers the cry of weak into the “hidden hand” of
cultural persuasion even while taking every available measure to insure
that the pro-life position can find no home in common law.

What do you say?

Russell Hittinger
Warren Professor of Catholic Studies, and
Research Professor of Law, University of Tulsa