The Art of the Possible

The Art of the Possible

It was German Chancellor Otto von Bismark who described politics as the art of the possible 150 years ago. At its heart, he meant that the realm of politics is not meant for lofty ideals, platitudes or disingenuous political slogans. In its smoky arenas, practicality and realism fight for goals that are humanly achievable, given the circumstances of cultural mores and public sentiment.

The Catholic Pro-life Movement seems upset with former President Donald Trump’s position that abortion is a state, not a federal matter. They feel betrayed by his not fully including it in it in the Republican Platform. The only reference to it is We will oppose Late-Term Abortions. This wasn’t haphazard. It was strategic because this extreme form of abortion is the only one that sickens most Americans. 

They also are critical of his stance on the abortion pill. The abortion pill mifepristone is a federal issue because of the FDA’s approval. So, this complicates Trump’s opposition to it. I think he will focus on the serious dangers its holds for women’s health, but his position is evolving.

They are also dissatisfied with Trump’s stance on the rationale of the Dobbs decision. But in this world of politics in 21st century America, it is the only viable possible and reasonable position to take. The Democrats only have two issues they can hide behind: abortion and some vague notion of a mysterious threat to Democracy that they think Trump poses. In one sentence, Trump took the Democrats’ best issue away from them.

Trump knows that the Democrats will try to win the election on the tails of opposition to the Dobbs decision, which for the Left is their Roe. The Legacy Media is already using abortion to try to split his following and defeat him at the polls. We cannot let anyone drive a wedge between Trump and his pro-life followers. I do not think it is possible to beat them on this issue. Pro-abortion Democrats are energized like the Pro-life Movement was after Roe. If Trump does not win the election, it will not matter what his abortion views are. 

When Roe v. Wade was issued in 1973, the Berger Court had unilaterally and undemocratically repealed the abortion laws of all 50 states, some of which had very liberal abortion laws while others prohibited all or most abortions in their states. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe, over a year ago, simply returned the issue to the states, restoring the status quo of 1972. It did not and could not abolish abortion. It was once again a state issue, which the pro-life movement needs to fight on, not at a federal level but 50 different battlegrounds. 

I think the pro-life movement has tried to rely on federal actions for too long. Immediately after Dobbs, many prolife leaders called for federal laws to make abortion universally illegal in all states. To me, this follows the false logic of the Roe decision. I find, if such laws were ever to pass, without an amendment in the Federal Constitution, which included the unborn in its protections for human life, they would be unconstitutional as well. The states is where this battle was fought before Roe and should be fought after Dobbs.

Trump’s views on abortion have historically been the solid ground on which the anti-abortion issue had been founded. Over the years, President Trump was the only one who put his policies where his mouth was. With the sole exception of Ronald Reagan, all the alleged pro-life presidents did little more than pay lip service on this crucial issue. Trump named three conservatives to the supreme Court, and it over-turned the Roe v. Wade decision. No other Republican president had even come close to that. 

I remember standing with thousands of my fellow pro-lifers in the hot sun in the 1990s in prayerful support of David Souter, President H. W. Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court. What a mistake we made! Souter was a fraud and quickly joined the other side. In just a few years he was voting consistently with the liberals against any laws prohibiting abortion in any way. In my experience, this kind of disappointment besmirched my faith in the Republican Party and its allegiance to the pro-life movement.

After Dobbs, the Democrats went immediately to work on state constitutions, especially in red states, like Arizona and Ohio. To date this strategy has worked well. We were not at all prepared for this. The other side was. Most of my contemporaries in this fight are elderly, deceased or in need of a long vacation. The future looks less than optimistic to me because many of us are worn out by the constant pressures of the movement.

If the Democrats win in November, they can drop their states strategy and replace it with an attempt to embed Roe in federal law, remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court to the extent that there will never again be a Trump-like Court that will follow the dictates of the United States Constitution, which is still the Law of the Land. Then the fight will be officially over. We can all assume that the Democrats’ presumptive presidential candidate, Vice-President Kamala Harris, the face of the Joe Biden’s abortion policy, if elected, will pledge to do everything in her power to preserve and expand a woman’s right to health care. (Abortion)

For a little perspective, I think I should include the fact that the pro-life movement has always been analogous to that of slavery. Slavery abolitionists were of all kinds. The most extreme were the root and branch groups, which wanted to destroy all slavery where it existed without concern for the political and financial costs. In moral terms, this is the only logical kind of opposition, but it will never win any democratic contest.

While they had moral high ground, their ideas did not sell very well outside of New England. Most people hated slavery, even many slaveowners, but their culture had protected it for so long, they were hogtied to do anything to change it. The Southerners and even many in the North hated the abolitionists as well, for their extreme positions, which were tainted with threats of violence and even revolution. Like the unborn today, slaves lacked human rights. 

In fact, even the Supreme Court did not legally consider them human beings with inalienable rights. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision declared that black slaves were chattel, and the property of the Southern plantation owners. 

The 2012 film Lincoln dramatically demonstrated how hard it was for the president to win the legislative fight to attain the necessary rights of humanity, citizenship and voting rights, consistent with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments for the slaves. Had it not been for the residue of a bloody civil war that had claimed over 600,000 American lives, I seriously doubt any of these historic amendments would have become law. One can only imagine the plight of black people and the country had this been the case.

The same is true of the unborn. While Science (no matter what Dr. Fauci may think.) is 100% in favor of life, in that all science books have historically taught that human life begins at conception. While this scientific definition is 100% inclusive, it has extraordinarily little legal status. In effect, the unborn have no political or legal protection until birth.

This is the lesson that slavery holds for the pro-life movement. Unless they can pass a United States Constitutional Amendment, which declares that the unborn have the right to life from conception to death, they will always fail on the federal level. Such an amendment is the only thing that can ensure that unborn babies, like black slaves, have these rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including the eventual right to vote granted them in all 50 states. Unfortunately, we tried that in the seventies, and it never gained any traction. According to Bismark’s dictum, would this even be possible in today’s climate? Without this the battles will have to remain in the states.

In some ways, those of us who have been against abortion, are akin to the black voters, who have supported all Democrats for generations, despite getting very little but lip service in return. The Democrats have controlled most major cities for seventy years and crime, poverty and inferior education still reign in most of them. The Republicans have treated us similarly for far too long. That is until Donald Trump got us a favorable court, which recognized Roe for the travesty of constitutional law it was. Imagine finding a right to an abortion out of a shadow on the wall. Even Plato would have cried foul.

By standing on Dobbs, Trump has brilliantly eliminated half their key issues. For someone who has been accused of being above the law, on abortion, Trump has embraced the Supreme Court decision, and it is the Democrats who are saying they are above the law, and even the Supreme Court they don’t like.

Right now, supporting Trump’s candidacy is the only reasonable option that makes sense on abortion. While practicality may seem amoral, eventually it should harvest better results. No one really expected that he could flip the court in three quick years. Local constitutional amendments are the only battle now. The Left is ahead of us. I hope a Trump administration will lend its support to the states where it is possible to preserve human life where for the most vulnerable of all human beings. Right now, he is the unborn’s’ only hope. Change hearts and minds and you can change votes and make victory for unborn life possible. It is an art we all need to learn.

Written by
William Borst

Menu