First Principles

On Friday, President Obama predictably re-opened the funding sluice to abortions overseas.  Leaving aside the propriety of the federal government paying for abortions at all, much less people in foreign countries getting abortions, especially at a time when we don’t exactly have the extra ducats to throw around, Obama’s statement about the decision bothered me a great deal.  He said:

“For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House. “I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”

“Stale and fruitless debate.”  This is Obama “reaching out” to people who disagree with him on this issue?

“International Family Planning.”  That’s an interesting euphemism.  If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, what’s wrong with simply calling it that?  If there is something wrong with it, why should we pay for it and encourage it, as we are now doing?

I understand that there are people who have no moral qualms with abortion being used as a birth control.  OK.  But to pretend that there is not a legitimate argument against that idea is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.  Of all people, given the circumstances of his conception, one would think Obama would be capable of understanding the other side of the abortion debate.

It is not “bipartisan” or “nonpartisan” to marginalize and delegitimize your political opponents’ sincere disagreements.  It is, in fact, highly partisan.  At least Bill Clinton acknowledged often that abortion ought to be rare.

Now, there is a lot to be said for partisanship.  On balance, I’m very glad we have it.  North Korea certainly hasn’t benefited from a total lack of political bickering.  A healthy, robust, and honest debate allows all the cards to be laid on the table.  It allows the decision makers to weigh all their options.  It lets bad policy be starkly contrasted with good policy.  And it lets well-intentioned but badly crafted policy be vetted, such that potential problems are fixed before implementation rather than after they start paving the road to hell.

But this type of dishonest partisanship – a rejection of debate, the demonizing of your opponents’ motives, and attacking the messenger instead of the message – is dangerous to the nation.  I’m sorry – but not surprised – to see the new President so engaged in the practice so quickly in direct contradiction of his promise otherwise.