Political Pragmatism

 I have been reading and listening to post mortems on the recently (almost) complete mid-term elections, and why the results for Republicans were so disappointing.  There are lots of reasons thrown around, some better than others.  But what those analyses have prompted in me is a big question which I'm starting to ask myself: At what price political power?  Or to put it another way: Which of your convictions are you willing to sacrifice to gain and hold political power?

This was brought home to me while listening to the local conservative radio host on his morning show. He was talking about why in my state of Michigan, Tudor Dixon lost to Gov. Whitmer. His comment was that Dixon's "no exceptions" stand on abortion was a major reason for her loss, and "most people" are OK with some kind of cutoff (8 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks, or some other arbitrary number) but they don't want a complete ban with no exceptions.

Now, this host (I'll call him "H" for anonymity here) seems like a really great guy, and I enjoy his show tremendously.  I'm not trying to bash him or throw him under the bus or anything like that.  But when he made that statement, instantly in my mind was that very question - at what price power?  Which prompted even further questioning:

1. Is political pragmatism a valid moral position?
2. Is "the will of the people" the end of the question?
3. How do these questions shape my participation in the political process in the future?

I don't think I'll get to all of those questions in this post, but I at least want to touch on the first.

Is Political Pragmatism a Valid Moral Position?

I mentioned abortion earlier because that is what really brings this question home to me, as it has such huge moral and spiritual implications for humanity.  On one side of the abortion question is the "Pro Life" position - that human life is sacred and begins at conception, and to kill that child is murder.  On the other side, the "Pro Choice" position - that the clump of cells that is the product of conception is not human and not viable until birth, and what to do with that material is under the complete control of the woman in whose body it is contained, and those choices include abortion as a legal right.

As you might expect, someone who describes himself as a "conservative, Christian, dad" is going to be  in the "Pro Life" camp, and indeed I am.  I believe that there are very few cases where the life of the woman is in immediate and serious jeopardy such that to save her life the baby must be taken.  Ectopic pregnancies are one of those, but there are a few others.  Anything outside of those few instances is in fact murder and should be dealt with accordingly.   There is theology and Biblical imperative behind this position that I would be happy to deal with in another post, but for the sake of *this* post let's just state the position and proceed.

H's position is based in the idea that in order to make change you have to get elected, and anything that keeps those who hold to my position from getting elected is bad.  So in this case, a "no abortions" stance is bad because people won't vote for it, and you won't get elected and you won't be able to implement the changes you want.  So if abortion is the issue that keeps you from getting elected, then soften your position.  Compromise.  Since most people seem to want some restrictions but not a total ban, then we'll take a "no abortions after x number of weeks" position, and people will vote for us so we can do all this other good stuff we want to do.

Believe me, I understand that position.  There are so many crises in the country today that conservative principles and policies would improve or solve that it's easy to rationalize away that issue, telling ourselves it's for the greater good.  But how good are you, really, if you can justify building your political (or personal) resume on the foundation of the murder of innocents?  That is the real cost of such pragmatism - millions of murdered humans. A million a year nationwide, roughly.  And everyone needs to take that into account as we consider what we want to be as individuals and as a society.  And not just because it's good to do a moral self-assessment every now and then, but because some day we will stand before God and have to answer for everything in our lives.  I know personally I have enough to answer for without adding a pragmatism that allowed me to rationalize the murder of the innocents so I could have economic prosperity or border security.

So to answer H - no, I won't be pragmatic about abortion.  A state or a nation that has economic prosperity, good roads, and a secure border but still allows infanticide is in fact evil at its root, and cannot stand.  

Let me bring in a little scripture at this point, from Matthew 16:

²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life^[g] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶ For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? ²⁷ For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.   (emphasis mine)

If we gain political success, policy success, and public acclaim by means that cost us our very soul, why would we do that?  Shouldn't both our personal and political calculus start with this verse, by asking the question "will this cause me to forfeit my soul?"

I hope we as individuals and as a nation can find our way to the right answer to that question.