by On the blog Mirror of Justice, writing from an explicitly pro-life perspective, Greg Sisk posts “Two Cheers for Bart Stupak.” http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/two-cheers-for-bart-stupak.html
Sisk argues that Stupak has a long history of supporting the pro-life cause, and that although he erred at the end through bad judgment and “stumbled at the finish line,” he should still be respected and embraced by the pro-life constituency. “At any dinner of pro-life leaders,” Sisk says, “I would be proud to have Rep. Stupak at my table.”
With all due respect, this strikes me as an instance in which charity has overcome honest judgment. If Sisk merely means that it’s not for any of us to judge Stupak’s soul, I agree. I can imagine that Stupak was under tremendous pressure which would have made it difficult for anyone to think clearly. When the fog clears, he may spend the rest of his life regretting what he did, essentially throwing away a career of supporting the pro-life cause just when he could have made a real difference. We can feel sorry for him; I do. Even so, the fact is that Stupak caved in at the tough moment, compromised his professed principles, and almost as soon as the vote was taken began attacking the people who a few hours earlier had been his allies in the pro-life cause. In this whole sordid spectacle, it may be that Stupak comes out looking the worst: unlike Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who depending on your point of view adhered ferociously to their principles or else had no principles to start with, Stupak stood adamantly on his principles over and over again until the crucial moment arrived, . . . and then effectively betrayed them. I’m not likely to be at dinner with any pro-life leaders, but I’ll have serious doubts about the bona fides of any such table that proudly welcomes Bart Stupak.
I agree with just about everything Steve says (and thank him for characterizing me as acting out of charity, even though misguided), except for the conclusion. I think Bart Stupak made an error in judgment — and I tend to agree that the consequences of that error were powerful — but I am not convinced that the error was as obvious to those caught in the moment as it appears to us now. Maybe I should give him only one cheer rather than two, but I still like and respect the guy. While I hold no brief for such fair weather pro-lifers as Senator Bob Casey who toss the pro-life cause out the wind at the first sign of a storm cloud, I’m not willing to toss Bart Stupak out of the pro-life club based on one mistake. In any event, I have to say, any fellow who draws the ire of such an execrable figure as Michael Moore has to be doing something right.
Being somewhat preferential to Aristotle, I can only conceive that such an error in judgment is a result of some history of poor judgments made when there was no pressure. The famous quote (attributed to many) that Waterloo was won on the playing fields at Eton exemplifies, I think, this idea.
Of course, the other side of the coin is exemplified by Anscombe’s idea in MMP that “…if someone really thinks, in advance, that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration‑-I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind,” followed by the footnote “[i]f he thinks it in the concrete situation, he is of course merely a normally tempted human being.”
So, Stupak may indeed simply be a normally tempted human being, looking perhaps at the difference as that between the category of manslaughter rather than murder.
I can imagine that Stupak was under tremendous pressure which would have made it difficult for anyone to think clearly.
Or maybe not enough charity. This is an odd claim — it sounds a little like some of the things that new atheists say about religious believers: Poor unfortunate people. We should pity them, because it’s clear that they just aren’t thinking clearly. And if they would just snap out of it for a moment, they would see the error of their ways. They would give up their silly superstitions, and they would make much better decisions for themselves and for the rest of us.
If you reject the idea that people can reasonably disagree about complex and important moral and political decisions, then maybe you need an explanation of this kind. The other side just couldn’t have been thinking correctly, because the only other alternative is that the other side is self-interested, morally bankrupt, or evil.
But there is a much more likely explanation for Stupak’s decision, which he gave rather straight-forwardly in a recent Washington Post op-ed. He believed in the importance of making sure millions of people who are uninsured get coverage. Unlike many “pro-life” opponents of health care reform, who were opposed to reform for reasons having nothing to do with abortion, Stupak believes in universal coverage. And he got sufficiently strong assurances about federal funding of abortion to think he could, in good conscience, vote for the bill.
Now you might disagree with his conclusions about abortion funding. And you might disagree with him about the importance of universal coverage or how to provide it. But there’s nothing here to suggest he wasn’t thinking clearly. That’s basically just an insult, with not much behind it besides a moral and political disagreement about how to balance competing values. Stupak made a hard choice (and one that, according to many studies, will probably reduce the overall number of abortions in this country). Not everyone would make the same choice. But it was a perfectly intelligible one.
To Oxlan– You’re surely right about this much: there are and have been lots of generally pro-life people who believe (a) that the health care bill would not permit federal funding of abortion or would not increase the number of abortions, or (b) that even though the bill would lamentably provide some support for abortions, the benefits it would provide and the deprivations it would relieve made it worth supporting anyway, under a “lesser evil” rationale. The problem is that, at least going by what I’ve read, right up until the last moment, Bart Stupak didn’t appear to fall into either of these categories. He thought the bill did provide support for abortion, and that this was an unacceptable feature. Given those views, his last minute reversal would seem defensible only on the assumption that the promised executive order would actually provide significant protection for the pro-life concerns. And that assumption doesn’t seem very plausible. Which is why I and others find ourselves searching for other explanations.
I understand that Stupak has since been floating a somewhat different account, along the lines of “Pelosi had the votes anyway, so I cooperated in order get a smidgeon of pro-life support (the executive order) and to let other reluctant Democrats protect themselves by voting ‘no’.” If that’s the story, well, . . . let’s just say that a lot might be said about it.