"Abortion and the Catholic Right II" – Dr. James Hitchcock and critics

Earlier this year, I drew attention to an article by Catholic historian James Hitchcock: “Abortion and the Catholic Right” (Human Life Review Spring 2007), which observed how the Catholic (re: “traditionalist”) Right — as represented by Joseph Sobran, Paul Likoudis and contributors to The Wanderer & The Remnant — have been obsessed with their opposition to democratic-capitalism, “neoconservatives” and the Bush administration, to such an immense degree that they now hold the aformentioned issues as being “more pressing” than abortion.

In the Winter 2008 issue, James Hitchcock responds to his critics — among them Christopher Ferrara of The Wanderer and John Rao of The Remnant. As he observes, “the most common response to my article was simply to change the subject-from abortion to the war in Iraq, the economy, or whatever else seemed important to a particular individual, without apparently realizing that changing the subject exactly proved my point.”

Hitchcock’s dealings with the “fringe right” and their attitudes toward the Republicans (and/or “neocons”) are reminiscent of some recent skirmishes with a few Catholic blogs on the “progressive left” — politics makes for strange bedfellows. Consider:

In their repeated denunciations of “neo-conservatives” over the Iraq war, right-wing Catholics ignore the fact that neo-conservatives, especially in the pages of their leading publication, The Weekly Standard, are among the few secular commentators enrolled in the pro-life cause (for example, a strong article [November 5, 2007]-not by any means the first-on the Terri Schiavo case). Christopher Manion, a regular Wanderer columnist, regularly charges (e.g., November 15, 2007) that neo-conservatives’ attitude to pro-lifers “seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt,” an assertion for which he offers no evidence. Only a week before Manion made this claim, The Wanderer itself provided evidence of strong neo-conservative support of pro-life causes without acknowledging it, when it cited a Standard article that was one of the most thorough and effective exposés of Planned Parenthood ever published.

Manion’s “proof that neoconservatives are not pro-life consists entirely of raw assertion, on the assumption that Wanderer readers know nothing about the movement except what he tells them. For example, the ecumenical religious journal First Things has over the years published innumerable articles on the life issues, but Manion (January 31) falsely claimed that in its pages ‘”national greatness’ conservatism . . . crowds out the pro-lifers.”

[...]

Until he did so poorly in the primaries, it was right-wing dogma that neoconservatives were planning to impose Giuliani on the nation, an assumption that was used to justify blanket condemnations of the Republicans. In reality, however, neo-conservatives were predictably divided over the various Republican candidates, and one article in the Standard (October 2, 2007) argued that Giuliani was unacceptable precisely because of his position on abortion, a judgment also tendered by National Review (December, 3, 2007), a magazine that right-wingers dismiss as having been captured by neoconservatives. (Manion [December 13, 2007] distorted the Standard‘s argument against Giuliani by calling it a “lament.”)

The assumption by right-wing critics of the Republican Party (and many on the Left as well) that the party’s official pro-life stance is hypocritical is a dogma that, like all dogmas, is irrefutable, in that Republican inaction on abortion proves the charge, while any action is dismissed as a political trick.

And so on and so forth. It comes as no suprise that Hitchcock is lumped together with Fr. Neuhaus and George Weigel, renegade Catholics who wish to replace the saints of the liturgical calendar with “John Locke, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ludwig von Mises, and maybe Mickey Mouse.”

Hitchcock concludes:

Those who reject electoral politics as a way of combating abortion offer no concrete alternative. Disdaining the work of painstaking, step-by-step political activity, they leave the field to their enemies and direct much of their fire at those ostensible allies who consider the battle still worth fighting.

James Hitchcock on “Abortion and the Catholic Right”

“Abortion and the Catholic Right” by James Hitchcock. Human Life Review Spring 2007 — a study of how the Catholic (re: “traditionalist”) Right — as represented by Joseph Sobran, Paul Likoudis and contributors to The Wanderer & The Remnant — have been obsessed with their opposition to democratic-capitalism, “neoconservatives” and the Bush administration, to such an immense degree that they now hold the aformentioned issues as being “more pressing” than abortion — even to the point of, in the case of The Wanderer, celebrating the defeat of Republican candidates.

Some food for thought / discussion:

The opposition of these conservative Catholics to the Bush administration has also led some of them to reject important pro-life allies. In their fierce denunciations of “neo-conservatives,” Sobran and Likoudis ignore the fact that neo-conservatives, especially in the pages of their leading publication, The Weekly Standard, are among the few secular people enrolled in the prolife cause. TWS regularly publishes strong and highly intelligent articles against abortion, fetal-stem-cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other life issues, as well as against radical feminism and the homosexual movement. It is a moral conservatism that is not accidental, since “neoconservatives” are usually defined as people who became disillusioned with traditional liberalism on a variety of issues.

Similarly, Likoudis’s dismissal of Santorum as merely a puppet of the White House and of a neo-conservative conspiracy impugned the integrity of a man who had been regarded as one of the most principled and effective Senate champions of traditional moral causes, and it is not at all clear whether Santorum was opposed primarily for his lapse in supporting Specter or for his heresy on other issues. Since his opponent was also pro-life, opposition to Santorum could be justified, but some of his Catholic critics implied that he had to be turned out of office without regard for the life issues.

Economics appears to be the engine that is now driving The Wanderer’s stand on public issues, and establishing its priorities. Neither liberals nor conservatives, as those terms are understood in the U.S. today, represent classical Catholic social teachings. But since the U.S. is a predominantly capitalist country, the teachings criticizing capitalism appear more pertinent to our condition than do the teachings against socialism; so, to the degree that the Republican Party champions the free market, some Catholics draw the conclusion that it is in effect immoral to support Republican candidates.

While this is usually considered a liberal idea, in the pages of The Wanderer it has a conservative counterpart that is in many ways almost indistinguishable from the liberal position. The paper stops short of advising readers precisely how to vote in order to achieve true social justice, but its economic ideas seem logically to lead to the conclusion that only strong state action can overcome the plutocratic exploitation of the people, something that has been the premise of left-wing American politics since the 1890s. . . .

* * *

. . . Many, perhaps most, committed pro-lifers are former Democrats who were rejected by their party and found themselves welcomed by the Republicans. Most of those converts are probably not conservatives in a principled ideological way, so that their presence in the Republican ranks has the effect of helping facilitate the “betrayal” of conservative principles that Sobran and others decry.

Hard-core conservatives tend now to hearken back nostalgically to the days of Barry Goldwater, ignoring the fact the Goldwater turned out to be fanatically pro-abortion, as well as very liberal on most other social issues, something that gives pro-lifers little reason to want to be “true” conservatives. Sobran’s way of dealing with the life issues can then be seen as the conservative counterpart to the liberals’ “seamless garment”-an attempt to persuade pro-lifers to transcend their “narrow” outlook and support a wider agenda.

The widely held, apparently self-evident, assumption that the pro-life movement is the creature of the “religious Right” has blinded even most informed observers to the unexpected and intriguing fact that, for some on the Catholic part of “the Right,” the life issues are no longer paramount, if they ever were.

James Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University, is the author of The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (Princeton University Press, 2004).