BRIDGING THE ABORTION DIVIDE
A Modest Proposal for the Abortion Divide to Unite the USA — Part 2
How to fairly resolve the debate in state capitols
This essay is presented in eight parts. The intent is to outline a balanced solution for resolving the pro-choice/pro-life divide.
This discussion continues my introduction from Part 1, which can be accessed here. It also establishes the need for visibility of the hidden themes of traditional conservative thought, from whose well the push for abortion bans has supposedly sprung.
I continue my convention of using interchangeably the following terms to refer to advocates on the political right: “conservatives,” “contra-liberals,” “traditionalists,” and just simply “contras.”
Two Faces to the Same Coin
The tension between the polar right and our modern liberals belies the fact that both, historically, were necessary for a functioning republic. To paraphrase an African proverb, they could no more be separated than a zebra in the Sub-Sahara from its own stripes.
Therefore, to alleviate the rancor that is our politics, I wish to temporarily play the devil’s advocate for conservatism — perhaps to the annoyance of progressives, many of whom I call friends. Nonetheless, I have argued elsewhere for the importance of diversity & inclusion, and it is only fair that should include receptivity to different viewpoints.
But receptivity does not imply acceptance.
Thus, this discussion should provide some clarity to both liberals and conservatives regarding the underlying logic of the contra perspective. And that is entirely different from just nodding to the sound bites of pundits, protesters, and fundraising profiteers.
Without that clarity, we have meager reason for accepting or challenging the current contra outlook on female or fetal rights. Hence, we will continue our “desert journey” away from the oasis of Roe v. Wade — but wearing the boots of old-fashioned contra-liberals.
Admittedly, we may circumvent aspects of that version of conservatism where some political actors have erected their golden idol.
They may claim conservatism as their banner, but I fear there are embryonic Adolfs and Benitos in their ranks.
Can there ever be harmony between conservatives & liberals?
So here’s my working hypothesis: No democratic republic can last long without both an active conservative and liberal tradition. They are the yin and yang of the body politic.
How can this harmony occur when all we see today are opposing formations on political battlefields? Well, the operative notion here is balance — as opposed to extinction of the contrasting viewpoint.
The political right restrains liberalism and keeps it from spinning off into impractical flights of fancy; liberalism keeps conservatism from devolving into fetal forms of fascism and autocracy (i.e., those embryonic Benitos).
Or in gothic horror terms, liberals keep Dr. Jekyll from transforming into Mr. Hyde. Conservatives stop Victor Frankenstein from animating his experimental monster.
But notwithstanding the abortion divide, I posit this basis for agreement: Both conservatives and liberals should concur that the Siamese twins of fascism and communist totalitarianism must be aborted — as soon as detected in Lady Liberty’s womb.
Hence, here is what I have spied (with my desert goggles) of the various intellectual sources describing this political outlook, which strives to exist as both a creed and a political philosophy.
And it is a challenge for any set of convictions to attempt to be both.
Exploring the elements of conservatism
The structure of this doctrine called conservatism appears to rest on six pillars to form its desert temple.
Several of these are alluded to by one of the 20th century’s high priests of conservative thought, the writer Russell Kirk. Others have been cited by various observers and scholars of the social attitudes described as conservative.
So, consider the following as the findings of my archaeological tour of this controversial ideology.
1) Tradition
This is cited by Kirk as his second principle of conservatism in his essay “Ten Conservative Principles.” Tradition includes the cumulative legacy of mores and institutions of a society. It sees no need for radical change and believes change, when adopted, should happen slowly, incrementally at best. This is why I also refer to conservatives as traditionalists.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leader with restricted physical mobility, was critical of this attitude and had this quip:
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
Thus, the pace of this traditionalist capacity for change can be maddening, particularly for women. To illustrate, marital rape was not recognized as sexual violence — or disavowed — until the 1970s. That was years after the nation had enacted human rights laws to protect Black Americans.
Notwithstanding the snail’s pace, there is an inherent logic in this contra love affair with tradition. Traditions arise over decades and even centuries of trial and error. They provide consistency of expectations and societal glue for maintaining public order and arrangements.
So, we should understand that conservatism historically suffered from a severe case of PTSD. The late 18th-century pioneers of conservative thought had witnessed the excesses of the French Revolution and saw — in its brutality and the kiss of Madame la Guillotine — the rationale for societal transformations occurring gradually.
Hence, the contra temperament acts as a screeching brake. It restrains those racing advocates who think they are progressive, thus serving as a source of friction from fully implementing what may be the revolutionary fashion of the day.
Granted, the inertia inherent in tradition also had allowed the American South to cling to slavery — notwithstanding its inconsistency with constitutional assertions of unassailable rights.
And the same traditionalist mindset later tolerated the injustices of segregation and the denial of one gender of the right to vote.
In short, radical change is abhorrent to conservatives. But more on this prickly point later.
2) Appeals to a transcendent order of existence
In similar fashion, the appeal to a transcendent order ties society to the dominant religious perspective: For America, that would be Christendom or, at its most inclusive posture, a Judeo-Christian outlook of morality.
For Iran or Saudi Arabia, the dominant dogma of conservatism would be the dictates of Islam. That also may suggest a very remote kinship between American and Iranian conservatives. Remote — but kinship nonetheless.
Kirk alludes to this moral foundation as his first principle of the contra’s outlook. Thus, the traditionalist creed looks ultimately to a society’s interpretations of God as the underpinning for the moral order, the pillar it sees necessary for society to survive — whether that be the American republic or the Saudi monarchy.
God, indeed, may well be the transcendent source of righteousness.
However, humanity’s understanding of Heaven’s moral imperatives has always been, let’s just say: imperfect. The Thirty Years War of 17th-century Europe stands as singular evidence of that deficiency.
3) Human imperfection
But, to compensate for mankind’s brutality and the impetus to religious wars, conservative principles are based on the recognition of imperfection. Kirk cites this as his sixth principle.
And this belief in human imperfection is, perhaps, the most crucial hinge upon which conservatism swings.
That jaded view of human failings encompasses — not just mankind’s moral nature — but also our psychological and intellectual powers. Thus, the structure of the classic contra-liberal ideology is supported by an acknowledgment of, if not outright contempt for, our human frailties.
What’s more, that contempt for human nature extends deep. It seems that conservatives hold the view crime and human misery are inevitable and that grand attempts at perfecting a society are ultimately futile.
Admittedly … that is a tad depressing. They view human beings as inherently immoral and greedy — at their worst — and irrational and of limited wisdom at their best. In this respect, conservatives can be real Debbie Downers.
(Yes, I’m aware that will puzzle my liberal tourists as they grapple with modern conservatives’ allegiances to a former game show TV host.)
Nonetheless, this assertion of human imperfection is a contra axiom. Yet, philosophers — not necessarily considered conservative — have questioned whether mankind can even know what is ultimately true and what is unquestionably right.
While this contra notion of man’s inferiority is slap-in-the-face sobering, it serves to inject fine streams of practicality, as well as humility, into the certainty that liberals often bring to their policy debates. Contras recognize the grandest visions of social engineering may have complex, unintended consequences.
To wit: Remember Victor Frankenstein’s experiment.
Something to the effect has been said that liberals dream of possible utopias, while conservatives have nightmares of well-intentioned dreams morphing into dystopias.
Ergo, Robespierre’s Reign of Terror during revolutionary France and Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution provide the classic support for the pessimism conservatives adopt as their brand.
Yet, could it be possible for contra-liberals to cause the creation of their own Frankenstein?
We will wrestle with that question as we bridge the abortion abyss. But first, we shall see the temple of conservative ideology does not stand on just three pillars alone.
So, there is more to share. This inspection of conservatism’s structure and the solution to our bedeviling abortion issue will continue in Part 3. We have more steps to tread on this desert tour, as states in the nation stray far away from the judicial oasis of Roe v. Wade.
Thanks for your continued attention. This proposal will unfold in future posts, and you can press the button on the side to follow me and them on this platform. The next installment will be released within days. — Geronimo Redstone
