On Friday, I took advantage of being up in Washington, DC and attended the March for Life. I had previously attended the march in 2011- my first year in DC- but, for whatever reason, I was more personally affected by this year’s march than I had been two years prior, and not just for the better. There were some elements to the March for Life that I found somewhat disturbing and that I fear may threaten the long-term political efficacy of the March for Life and the pro-life movement as a whole.
—–
I’ll start with the positive senses I gained: it was reassuring to see that, 40 years after Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement is still strong enough to generate a crowd of hundreds of thousands on a cold January morning (cold enough, at least, to keep all of my incredibly lame graduate school colleagues at home while I ventured out alone). Secondly, the overwhelming prevalence of young attendees helps to emphasize the extent to which the pro-life movement has successfully transmitted their message to the rising generation of voters. The fact that so many of these young attendees are also female helps to make last year’s campaign rhetoric of a Republican “war on women” seem somewhat suspect.
—–
All in all, then, the March should at least provide some cause for optimism for the pro-life community as a political movement. Unfortunately, however, such reasons for optimism are heavily counterbalanced by one remaining hurdle that the March for Life must clear if it ever wants to effect any kind of meaningful political change. That hurdle is the March’s explicitly Christian overtones and its failure to significantly expand past their natural support base in the Roman Catholic Church to include other slices of the American culture that should be sympathetic to the pro-life cause.
The overwhelming Christian (and particularly Catholic) influence on the participants was hard to miss: countless examples of Christian imagery and language made it very clear that the March for Life is anything but ecumenical. Is this a problem? Well, it is if the pro-life movement wants to be a force for justice inside a political environment that is actively hostile to the Christian faith, in a country where roughly ¼ of the population is, at least nominally, Roman Catholic.
- Numerous hand-made signs sported Bible verses: in addition to the predictable Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”) and Exodus 20:13 (“Thou shalt not kill”), other signs and banners cited Luke 1:44 (“The infant in my womb leaped for joy”) and Psalm 127:3 (“Children are a heritage from the Lord”), along with quotes from assorted saints and fathers of the Church.
- Images of the Virgin Mary were almost ubiquitous.
- One woman held up a display of a baby doll superimposed over a crucifix.
- Countless Catholic colleges, high schools, and churches had banners advertising their presence
- Members of Texas Youth for Life carried small wooden crosses.
Leading up to the March, a rally was held on the National Mall where attendees prayed together and received encouraging words from various speakers. These speeches were at times even more explicitly Christian than the signs and banners of the attendees.
- “I believe our country is in need of revival,” declared Senator Rand Paul. “I believe our country is in need of spiritual cleansing.”
- Father O’Malley of Boston read aloud a twitter shout-out from Pope Benedict to all those in attendance.
- A woman representing the abortion recovery group “Silent No More” implored women who had had abortions: “we want you to experience the love of Christ!”
- Other speakers made casual reference to “The Gospel of Life”: a word choice that might make literal, translational sense to those who are in-the-know, but which almost assuredly sounds like religious jargon to those listeners outside the Christian faith.
- Perhaps most egregiously, as the March began and attendees started to clear the National Mall, the speakers played Contemporary Christian artist Third Day’s song “Trust in Jesus.”
These expressions of faith, when taken together with the patently apparent fact that the majority of attendees are there because of their affiliation with a religious institution, all coalesce to create a potentially intimidating environment for those outside the Christian faith who are generally sympathetic to (or at least willing to listen to arguments by) anti-abortion advocates.
In addition to non-religious attendees, the rally’s identifiably Catholic flavor might prove intimidating to evangelicals who are in the decided minority at the March for Life, although they are well-represented in the pro-life movement. John Murdock at First Things had a recent article discussing this disparity. This is not to say that evangelicals are at all unwelcome: there were at least a couple of protestant churches represented at the rally, and I saw nothing that would indicate that Protestants or evangelicals were in any way unwelcome. However, if the March for Life has intentions of becoming a practical political movement instead of a rite-of-passage for Catholic teenagers, they would do well to be much more intentional in incorporating Protestants into their mix.
—–
Wandering around the National Mall during the rally, I spotted a large banner advertising the group “Secular Pro-Life” and went by to hear their perspective. The representatives of “Secular Pro-Life” were excited to talk to any passers-by and graciously took the time to answer any questions I had. Describing themselves as an outlet for irreligious anti-abortion advocates, as well as religious minorities (Mormons, Muslims, Jews, “spiritual but not religious”, and Wiccans), “Secular Pro-Life” has grown exponentially in the past few years. Regularly attending pro-life rallies and conferences, the organization tries to break up the perception of spiritual homogeneity within the pro-life movement. “We’re the non-scary people” explains a female representative of the organization (who proudly sports a “Pro-Life, Pro-Gay” sticker).
In the middle of the largest anti-abortion rally in the country, the representatives of “Secular Pro-Life” seem to be just as excited as their Catholic counterparts. The religious folk surrounding them seem gracious and genuinely appreciative for the participation of this little island of irreligion in their midst. The sight of the “Secular Pro-Life” banner is a nice addition to the sea of crucifixes and Blessed Mothers engulfing it. But one wonders how many non-Christian pro-lifers would be willing to stand alone in a crowd such as this.
—–
The pro-life movement prides itself on the fact that it is growing stronger with the passage of time. And there is certainly something to be said for the fact that, 40 years after the passage of Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement seems nowhere giving up. If the opponents of abortion ever win a decisive victory- and I pray they do- it will be because the general culture in America has taken a dramatic turn toward life. And when that happens, it will have precious little to do with the March for Life.
The Catholic Church has anchored the pro-life movement for 40 years. When evangelical Protestants were slow to take up arms in response to Roe v. Wade, the Catholic faithful spurred them to action. But, barring a major shift in the country’s demographics, the Catholics cannot win a decisive victory for life on their own. For that matter, neither can the evangelicals; both camps need to come together to find a way to appeal to those outside the Church.
—–
There is another troubling aspect at work here: by solely focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade, pro-life advocates are ignoring much more promising avenues for eliminating abortion. While the culture wars may not be fairing so well for conservatives on the national level, the Jacobins have yet to fully penetrate the American heartland. Why not pour efforts into the nascent 10th Amendment resurgence?
Secondly, Focusing exclusively on overturning Roe v. Wade gives the case a sense of legal legitimacy that it does not deserve. Roe v. Wade is bad law, not only because they made the wrong policy decision, but because its conclusion is supported absolutely nowhere in the Constitution. Why treat it as if it were binding law at all? Why not encourage states to nullify Roe? Why not encourage Congress to pass a bill clarifying that the term “person” in the 14th Amendment applies to unborn children?
We’ve had 40 years of the pro-life movement telling us to wait for a personnel change on the Supreme Court. I say we’ve waited long enough. 40 years of Roe: that should be enough to show any conservative that the Court is not the defender of the Constitution that we like to pretend it to be.
Emile
bdouglass
Benjamin David
Chuck O'Shea
Edmund Babbitt
joeptak
Kelse Hillery
Lucie
John David
prsancho
Radagast
The Lancastrian
wmsamuelbradford
You didn’t tell me you were going, I might have gone. My roommate invited me, and I would have gone with him, but I would have been the only one in the group that wasn’t from the John Paul Institute. That plus I typically don’t like political rallies, as odd as that might seem.
Benjamin, I think that there are several issues here that need clarification. Before asking for changes in a thing, one needs to understand that thing – its nature (which includes origin and trajectory/ history) and its purpose. Let us do that with the March for Life.
So, what is the March for Life – what are its origin and history? Its origins are with one woman – yes, a single person – Nellie Gray, who started this thing almost single-handedly in 1974, the year of the first March, at the one year anniversary of Row v Wade, and in protest to that (march that already drew an astonishing 20,000 people). Ms Gray continued this initial effort, resigning her day job, and dedicating herself to this thing. She was a convert to the Church, and her faith was her driving motive from the beginning, and throughout. From those humble beginnings, the movement grew to several hundred thousands people coming from all the corners of the country – and from abroad – every January. Nellie Grey oversaw this, and for about 39 years, until her passing last November at age 88, she was the central person at the heart of this particular initiative. In these 40 years, the effort grew in concentric ways, I would say, the center being the faith, the tradition, the teaching on life issues, and the institutional structure(s) of the Church. None of this would have happened without these – for example, the large numbers present each January are also due to the mobilizational effectiveness and to the tools of the specific structure of the Catholic Church, including its hierarchical structure and the many educational institutions associated with the Church in the US. At its core, it (the March for Life, specifically) remains a movement deeply driven by what has become a core dimension of the popular Catholic ethos in America (among practicing Catholics) – namely, the focus on life issues (they are important everywhere, but here they are enhanced and brought continually to prominence by a peculiar socio-political context).
So, it has a Catholic nature, in its origin, history, and driving mechanisms. This might come across a little grating for certain Evangelical sensibilities, (some of) which have historically-embedded, and at least culturally, diffusely still present, anti-Catholic streaks. (Things have changed greatly since the eighties, but at a popular level, they can still be present – culturally, diffusely.) This being said, does this is or should be a “Catholic thing” (in the sense of cultural identifiers)? No, but more on this later; first, let’s examine what it is, this March for Life.
After understanding its origin and past, we have to ask – what are the goals/meanings of the March for Life. Is it meant to be or to become a political movement? I think that the answer is irrevocably “no”, although the political implications (and the political dimensions) are blatant. In first instance, again given its concrete history, it was meant as a movement of protest – a reaction. in many ways, it is still that – marches are by definition a means of expressing popular sentiment, and not of formulating or passing policy. Second, it is a natural expression of very deeply held positions, of a thing that matters a lot to many, many people; and that makes them travel for thousands of miles, get lodged in less than welcoming conditions, and endure the bitter cold (as you mentioned); it is an expression of fervor – and of faith (religious). Third, it has a social dimension, namely that it is a means of coalescing many people and organizations into a (yearly) common effort, people who spend (also) the rest of their time, during the year, doing pro-life things – either full time, or part-time (I have many friends who participate occasionally, from a few times a year, to more often, in side-walk counselling or in vigil prayers outside abortion clinics). Thus it is a galvanizing event for a larger – and ongoing – social reality, which otherwise involves many different pro-life structures. Fourth, it also has a political dimension, because politics in the US has picked up this issue and has made it a central part of itself, for better or worse. To sum it up, the march is a movement of protest, an expression of an ongoing and ardent interest with the issue, a galvanizing event for a myriad of micro- and macro- initiatives across the nation (and beyond), and has inevitable political dimensions, given politics in the US, and also the fact that politics is key to solving the central, “original” issue that started the very march – the Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court. .
Indeed, in this description of its nature and meaning, I somewhat neglected the central aspect. Namely, that this is a march that was started on the one year anniversary of Roe v Wade, in protest to that decision, and is held every year on the anniversary of that decision, in protest of that decision, and as an expression of popular sentiment for changing that decision. Hence also the fact that the march starts somewhat in front of the Capitol, and ends in front of the Supreme Court. The centrality of Roe v Wade is thus a given – this march is about Roe v Wade; or at least it was… but perhaps it has grown beyond that, in its meanings and implications.
Perhaps this is the case, that it has grown beyond that “issue” and starting point – I would sure hope that it has. I think that, in fact, it has, as its participants and echo have grown way beyond the original Catholic impulse and motivation (although that is still its basic motivation and structural backbone, see the many education institutions involved), and as it has become for many a symbol of a socially widespread involvement with the issue – involvement that is inter-denominational, even inter-religious, and even non-religious. Yes, and that is why you have groups participating that carry signs such as Lutherans for Life, Rabbis for Life – and Secular Pro-Life, as you mentioned.
And I think that this is a good thing, and I think that the impulse that you expressed in the blog post is basically correct. In fact, your reactions correspond to a degree with my reactions, when I first participated. I do think that the fact that it has grown beyond its origins is a very, very fortunate thing. So what would I like to see, at the March for Life – or in relation to it (without asking for “changes,” because I would feel uncomfortable to sit on the sidelines and comment; if I want to change something, I need to get involved with it)? .
1. The inter- and extra-religious aspect. I could not agree more wholeheartedly about the necessity to involve, organizationally and structurally, and in a conscious and pro-active manner, the many pro-life networks existing in the US (and beyond). Pro-actively, as opposed to leaving it at their initiative, or based on a certain connections. Remember that the success of this march (as a one day event, in terms of size and such) is due to prolonged, arduous organizational efforts that involve numerous institutional structures; it is a pity not to use the structural resources of so many other denominations who are about the issue – both in terms of bringing participants, and of diffusing the echo of the event. Indeed, and of course, pro-life is an issue that goes beyond specific denominational boundaries, and even beyond religious motivation – and that is a good thing, in terms of effecting societal change – but also (remember the origins) political and legal change.
2. The religious dimension as such. I would seriously disagree with the need to tone down any religious manifestation. To the contrary, this is an “alive” movement, because people are fueled by deep motivations (whatever they might be). If that comes across as grating, than we are perhaps talking about a melting-pot vision of the public sphere, an artificially neutralized vision of public sphere. Well, I do not agree with that vision. No, one does not – or should not – need to hide the religious dimension of his life, from the public sphere. Of course, there is a false understanding of religion in this society, which separates faith from reason, thus “religious motives” become associated with personal “feelings” or “irrational” bases for action. (In fact, this is how religion is lived by some, as something based on emotions, and situated outside reason.) But it is not so – and even if it would be, my vision of a healthy public sphere is one in which the colorful reality of the many different driving motives is visible, including in its cultural manifestations, rather then being artificially tuned to gray. Yes we are there for various reasons, but those are not extraneous to the pro-life dimension – they are the very origin of why we care about life. For example, knowing that our Muslim brothers and sisters are, doctrinally, strongly anti-abortion, makes me actively desire to see their signs and symbols, associated with the March – if that is what drives them.
So, I would say that the direction in which this should be taken, is again to structurally and institutionally (and very consciously) involve “all” the networks who are connected with this issue; to but it more simply, to dilute the image by diversifying it. I would rather see more vocal and visible presence of many religious (and non-religious) groups, rather than a less visible presence of what we have today. Because honoring the personal motivation also means allowing for the space for people to be fervently and actively motivated to take part in this; trust me, they are there because of the Virgin Birth – one can not be separated from the other. And it also means excusing the eventual exaggerations – which I have noticed and which have grated me as well. (Again, for my sensibilities, I could perhaps do with less instead of more, in terms of signs that might go overboard. But do not forget that this is a popular march, and people come with their own home-made signs and symbols. Which also means that nobody stops me from manifesting myself in my own restrained way.)
3. Finally, the political dimension. I would approach this issue from a different perspective. First of all, I think (and would like to know) that the March for Life is an expression of a social state of affairs, and not a political tool or instrument. I.e. that it is not meant to build a political movement, but to impress its message on the society at large; to change mores in order to change politics, so to speak. In that regard, the pro-life movement overall has been amazingly successful in the last two decades, given that currently there is actually a pro-life majority in the US. But the March itself – which is just a one day affair, once a year – can be, and perhaps already is, a focal point for social mobilization. Second, we should not forget that Roe v Wade was the original starting point, the very reason for the march. I do think that there are many other solutions, paths, and ways to effect change(s), and I do think that the pro-life movement, in its many aspects, is already more sophisticated than to focus solely on this judicial act. Thus I think that you are right to suggest other avenues, and could not agree more with the need to pursue them all.
Third, I would say that a problem that bothered me (in terms of the echo of the event, and of reaching the broader society) to the same degree as the relatively small number of visibly non-Catholic or even non-religious groups, was the unidimensionality of the political dimension of the March itself. Namely, that all the “political” speakers, with rare exceptions, were usually from the Republican party. Now, this is part of a greater problem, namely the way in which the pro-life (or, rather, anti-abortion) issue has been instrumentalized in this two-party political system, especially in the last decade of incredibly vicious partisanship and lack of dialogue; and the way that this ideology has invaded (and, yes, infected) the religious sphere in the US. But given all that was said above, and knowing very well that pro-life is not an issue that stops at the door of one party, the annual March for Life, as a manifestation of a broad social reality, should express and in fact actively encourage and make very visible the pro-life voices belonging to all political groups. The pro-life Democrats have a very difficult life in their party, as it is – the last thing they need is to NOT be given a prominent platform.
Ben,
I would like to follow up with regards to K’s reply and what you’ve said.
First, I think the nature of a march is to be ideological. It’s a rally, an emotive effort, not a policy platform or a think-tank. I think in large part the March supports more pragmatic political efforts on the other days of the year by displaying and encouraging a fervent and unilateral opposition to abortion. Is overturning Roe absurd and unrealistic? Absolutely; if it did not happen with Casey we won’t see it today, or ten years from now. There are other avenues – but why tell the March that? In a way such a massive rally needs its focused enemy – protest Roe, despite the states that allowed it before Roe was passed, despite the ways abortion happened even before it was a procedure carried out by medical doctors. Roe represents an idea.
Secondly, I agree that the March absolutely needs to reach out to non-Catholic (and non-Christian) and especially secular sects. I don’t believe that toning down the pride people take in their Catholicism or religion as such is a pragmatic move, as much of the fervor comes from the ability to be that proud. “Come, but don’t be TOO Catholic” would alienate a massive core base. Nonetheless, certainly in speaker choice, there needs to be more variety – it’s great that a Cardinal spoke, but we need Seculars for Life, Evangelicals for Life, etc, to form a truly open movement. In my experience, as well, the off-beat (read: non-Catholic, especially non-Christian) groups are exciting to see and truly welcomed. Considering the secularism of the youth AND the strong pro-life (or at least anti-abortion) sentiment among them, the March could draw a new significant group without alienating its core body – and if alienating the Catholics is truly the fear, assuming new groups enter, then the March is more about Catholicism than against abortion, which is a case of misplaced priorities.
In my view, neither Catholics nor Evangelicals, nor any combination thereof, could win a true victory. Only if it achieves a truly popular appeal, across religions and non-religions, can it lose its stance as a factitious perspective. As long as one can say “Look at all those Catholics marching” or “Look at all those Christians marching” the March will be ineffective. Only if one can honestly say “Look at all those PEOPLE” will it have achieved what it set out to do. By remaining heavily Catholic in its organization and countenance, the March over time will alienate others who would be allies. By reaching out to other groups the Catholic element can still remain; Catholic means universal, after all, and the more people that recognize the value of life the more truly catholic the movement is.
Where I DO agree with you is the need to tone down the Christian elements of the official March organization – no more Trust in Jesus music, for instance. These things are superficialities that get in the way of a truly ecumenical movement, where those of many beliefs can be welcomed, can display their fervor and faith, and join together in a common cause. These displays should be encouraged, but should originate in the attendees and the speakers who represent them, not the displays and actions of the March Organizers, who I believe are (though nobly driven by their faith) sadly narrow in their vision. I think K and I might depart ways on this point.
J,
I think that most of the points you made are reflected in my long comment. What is not clear perhaps at first sight, is that I make a distinction between defining what the march is (as said: it is a movement of protest, centered on a specific event, with Catholic original impulse, both emotionally and in terms of organizational structure) – and what it can be (where I agree with Ben, that it has to expand pro-actively; but disagree about toning down natural expressions of the religious motivations of the individual participants; and also add the need to expand politically as well, i.e. neyond Republicans). Overall, just to reiterate, we should not forget what it is, in origin and nature, but neither should we neglect what it can be – i.e. it can and should be more.
I think that the middle term here, that I did not cover, is what it is NOW. Clearly, and contra Coyle (in whose reply said anti-Catholic accents are noticeable, unfortunately), right now it is NOT a Catholic affair, although the core organizational and motivational efforts are Catholic. My approach is more ecumenical – and perhaps more human/humane – the presence of all other denominations, of non-religious groups, and of other religions, of which the Muslims should be a key component – is part of what the march has already become, and HAS to be a part of it in the future to even greater extent. With the change in leadership (the founder and key organizer of the march passing away last year), as far as I know this pro-active expansion is one of the directions in which they will go.
As said, my first impulses (when attending) were along the lines of what Ben noted, of course without being grated by openly Catholic signs and symbols, as such, but , as J said, thinking that the emphasis needs to be on the message (pro-life) and not on the sustaining Christian symbols. The goals is to have a “loud” impact, notwithstanding the media black-out. Because, indeed, in terms of the American society, the pro-life issue covers a much wider range of motivations and groups – and, in terms of bringing the issue itself into focus, one should mobilize all the available resources, tap into all the networks, and mobilize all that – in support of the goal.
My first reaction was indeed that I found it a pity that the vast organizational resources of the evangelical networks were not tapped into more heavily. Because they are present, of course, both as individual attendees and as groups, just like all the other mentioned groups are present, but could be present in a much larger degree. The original post itself expresses this current state of affairs – it is a much wider thing, already, and that is a good thing -and it should consciously continue this way, without diluting the component motivations.
This is a really interesting debate that is shaping up. I’ll try to be shor
First, I think I agree with Ben for the most part when he suggests that there is a practical necessity that the March for Life become more exclusive in order to effectively respond to the cultural challenge that is abortion.
While I am sympathetic to K and J’s positions that (seem to be) to defend the religiosity of the marches against a claim of over-zealousness that Ben seems to make, I don’t think Ben is advocating a position that would necessitate that the March be replaced with a public sphere that is “grey” (as K seems to suggest). , I think that Ben’s pragmatic request for a March for Life environment that is more inclusive off non-Catholic (and non-religious or irreligious) pro-life advocates is more consistent with the American historical tradition than the overtly Catholic displays that become the norm in the March. It may mean that the religiosity is toned down, but that’s the way to be more inclusive. The problem is that people such as Ben are marginalized or unwelcome. That needs to change in order to undue Roe v Wade and shift this culture in a direction that is more respectful of life, I think.
And that shifts to a most interesting question, which has been taken up by Ben as well as the other commenters on the post: if it is a Catholic action – and we can grant K’s points here rather than challenge them – then I think that the March for Life has an interesting set of implications to confront. First, it has to stop calling it the March for Life and call it the March for Catholics (and a particular segment of Catholics who possess the ideological fervor for the politics of conservatism in America). So maybe it can be known as such as the March of Conservative Catholics on Washington. The second, and perhaps more disturbing implication is that we may be open to an interpretion of the relationship between abortion and this segment of Catholics that is pretty banal: certain structures and individual members of the institutional Church have instrumentalized abortion in a way that is similar, and equally disturbing, to the way that the politicians and political parties in the US have used abortion in order to effect their own political goals.
A couple of points in addition to my earlier comments
1) I don’t know where Ben or J stand, but I am unsure of either the necessity or the relevance of a teleological explanation which K asserts is necessary in order for Ben to proceed with his advocacy of a change in the March for Life.
K, why “[b]efore asking for changes in a thing, [does] one needs to understand that thing – its nature (which includes origin and trajectory/ history) and its purpose”? That doesn’t seem necessary for Ben to do, nor does it seem necessary (or particularly useful/helpful) in order to answer the criticisms Ben raises.
2) With regard to J’s comment about this ideological nature of the march for life, are you suggesting that in contrast to I think K and I think to Ben, the March for Life is in some fundamental way a political action first and a religious action second? If that is the case, then how would you explain the predominantly Catholic composition of the March, which would seem to support the claim that the Mach is in some fundamental way religious, specifically Catholic?
Good post Ben! I especially appreciated your points about pursuing other paths and not focusing so much on Roe v. Wade…
A couple of things in response:
1) Technically I suppose there’s nothing to stop Evangelicals or other pro-life folks from likewise descending in droves on Washington and participating in the March as it stands now. (I know there were some churches and seminaries who sent delegations of various sizes.) While the Catholics are the organizers, if we Protestants want to crash their “protest” in some twisted frenzy of irony, we can of course do so.
I suspect, however, that this won’t happen- mainly because Protestants and most of these other pro-life groups in America lack the resources and organization to participate on the same scale. So tomorrow if, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or some such decided that they wanted to bring large numbers of their own to DC, they simply wouldn’t have the funds or organization to do so. (They certainly lack the droves of religious high schools to coerce into the District.)
2) In response to “K”- I understand there’s more that goes into a protest of this size and duration than just the court case that started it, but presumably the political issue is still at the heart of the matter. However true it may be that the “march is a movement of protest… political dimensions,” presumably should abortion be outlawed in America tomorrow there would be no more March for Life the day after. Even if the movement lingered, it would certainly be nothing approaching its current scale. The comparable anti-Vietnam War protests didn’t survive the Nixon withdrawal in the 70s, and they too were as much protest/social/political/et al as you describe the March for Life to be.
Coyle:
Thanks for your comments (and yay for friends). I have a couple of questions in response.
1) To the extent that you are knowledgeable of the grassroots Protestant pro-life networks, what can say you say is the relationship between such networks and the larger, system-wide activity that is the March for Life? To be more specific, is there a general perception of a value attributed to the March by such groups? I’ll be blunt when I say that I’m curious if, in addition to the organizational and institutional deficiencies that a few have pointed to in order to explain the relatively low presence of Protestants at the March, a certain apathy or other negative perception may be a factor which provides additional room for explanation of the disparity between the participation Protestants in the pro-life movement in general and the participation of Protestants in the March for Life as a specific activity (which might then bring into the mix the point K briefly touched on, that being a culturally diffuse and lingering anti-Catholicism which serve as a source of the general apathy). Or do you think I’m shooting in the dark by going down that thought progression?
2)Since you seem to echo what it is that J said above when he claimed that the March is an ideological activity (as opposed to primarily a religious or social or other action), I’ll ask you a question similar to the one I asked J: how do you reach your conclusion that it is primarily (or inherently) a political activity? If Roe v. Wade were overturned, would that not just demonstrate that the a non-political goal of changing the culture to change politics (to echo K), was reached?
Joe,
Always happy to stick my nose in where it doesn’t belong
1) I confess to not knowing as much about the activist side of Protestantism. Most of the circles I’m involved in focus more on missions than domestic politics. Based on my limited knowledge, it seems that the nuclei of activism tend to be either seminaries/universities (Patrick Henry College and Southern Seminary both had a presence at the March for Life, however unofficial) or larger local churches (Saddleback, I think does some of that sort of thing). In both cases any “Grassroots” effort is naturally limited in scope. My sense is that Protestants have tended just to jump on board with secular movements and organizations rather than putting their own together.
Which, for what it’s worth, is theologically fine with me. I don’t want my church to turn into a political party.
2) I confess I’m not sure I understand your question- could you clarify it a bit? I’m not sure I caught how the two questions relate to each other…
I think Coyle is right to say that if Roe was overturned the March would stop. Thought game: If Roe were overturned and the abortion question reverted to the states instead of being solved (states decide, rather than outlawed nationally), would the March be able to survive? Historically, of course, we’ve always nationalized answers to questions, and I’m not sure that there are many examples of a national law becoming localized.
Without the specter of Roe, even if abortion were legal in a patchwork manner, could the March occur? It’s an interesting question, at least. I think it would continue in a much smaller manner, unless the Church maintained strong mobilization.
Here’s the extent to which I say that the March is _not_ political but instead ideological:
1) It lacks a politically responsive policy platform. By which I mean, it does not engage current events or issues beyond the one that was created 40 years ago.
2) It eschews any notion of give-and-take or politicking as such – there is no compromise possible.
But the response to that:
Ideological activity is not non-political solely by nature of its unilateral approach. Organized protests are by their nature political; they publicly display citizen discontent, encouraging political action by displaying a significant power-base that politicians could utilize, whether in office or running for office. They show support for significant change. To accomplish this clear message _and_ gather enough members to make the display politically relevant (five people with signs are easy to ignore, 500k people with signs are less so) the platform has to be distilled significantly.
Thus, the political-ideological difference is a false dichotomy. Realistic policy changes don’t really have a place in a protest march. No one ever took a bus to DC to rally for a marginal gain. Marchers aren’t politicians but they are acting politically.
The challenge for the March is whether it can exist outside of the Catholic Church’s substantial organizing structure, and whether that structure alone can continue to furnish the substantial showing we still see. At what point does the Catholic-icity of the March become more of a hindrance than a help?
The question the March for Life has to ask itself is whether the extreme Catholic nature of the event is limiting action on the topic. Would reaching out to other groups in a pro-active manner make for a stronger message? I maintain that it would, and that the March would be far better off if it did so now than waited until the event started to lose momentum due to increased secularization.
Last random thought: The Catholic Church is still doing well due to the influx of Hispanic members, but is this demographic as willing to protest as older European demographic is? If not, this could also prove to be a challenge.
Hey J,
I have a few things to say in response to your comments.
First, thanks for the comments. Seriously, this is a thread that is relevant, important and useful. And, it seems to demonstrate some of the divisions between Protestants and Catholics, which is always fun.
You caught me and called me on my equating of “political” with “ideological.” i appreciate your response, which gives me a way to further clarify my views and an impetus, I suppose, by which to do so. So yeah, thanks for being able to flesh out implications and nuances in a way that I cannot, ha.
I don’t think it was a particularly thoughtful choice, but it nevertheless was a deliberate one, to implicitly draw an equivalence between the terms (and constitutive definitions) “ideology” and “political.” Your explication and then conclusion that it is a “false dichotomy” to separate the two is a bit fancier than what was going on in my head: I just didn’t see it as useful (or “meaningful,” if you’re into that kind of thing).
Ok, so… as for your thought experiment: I like it. I’ve been curious, myself, as to what we can observe and infer from the available data (qual or quant) about the pre-Roe v. Wade anti-abortion movement. My “intuition” (or whatever you want to call a pretentious guess) is that those of us interested in the attempt to effectively distinguish and establish a causal (or interpretative explanation; i don’t judge, i’m a relativist, er, pluralist) explanation for a portion of the March for Life with the effect that we can convincingly (well, intellectually honestly, and to ourselves) state the “force” behind the March as predominantly religious or non-religious – we should look to the behavior of this class/group of people prior to Roe v. Wade and with the additional background knowledge provided by that data, conclude what we can (or want, or will) about the contemporary (early 21st century) anti-abortion movement. I guess I’m saying to run a quasi-or-natural (thought, not thought, who cares?) experiment to further build the knowledge base that we have in order to develop some relatively generalizable useful causal and interpretive (scientific, to varying degrees) explanations of these empirical phenomena. Or, we could just be really well informed (as if political theory doesn’t get crapped on enough as it is). My thinking is that a researcher would find in pre-Roe decision data a state that might within reason anticipate the socio-political environment of a localized abortion environment that you, J, posit in your thought experiment. it’s kind of a shot in the dark, but I figure, hey, I’m writing this response, I’ll put in whatever I want. But seriously, i would be curious to see if we can take anything useful from pre-roe anti-abortion data, to the extent that it exists. i bet that is an untapped mine. or at least ignored a whole lot, i have more important matters to split hairs over than the appropriate use or non-use of metaphor in a blog post: like the utility of distinguishing between ideology and politic/al. that’s right. i’m going back there.
To pick up from where I left off in my disagreement with your over your distinction between political and ideological, I’ll provide my thoughts about the two descriptions you provide as a way to draw distinctions between the terms political and ideological, and in the process of discussing your two observations, I will offer my thoughts by way of disagreement and and eventual agreement with the conclusion you reach, which is that the dichotomy is false.
1) that it “lacks a politically unresponsive platform” (which you then define).
while an interesting observation, i don’t know if that cuts it for me. it’s not that i disagree with you over the facts, but rather i don’t know if the fact is all that important to the matter, this is because the roe v. wade is, in a way, current given the persistence (and in a way its “ahistoricity”) of the legal ruling and consequences of Roe v. Wade providing a somewhat unfalsifiable (and also, up to this point, un-restrictive and indefinite) politico-ideological point of reference for the Marchers. i don’t know if i can accept that this relatively static view is sufficient to conclude that it is ideological other than political. It may have been created 40 years ago, but its historical age is not the extent of its essence nor does it define its socio-political scope. And there is the detail that, in my experience with the protesters, they can always figure out a way to bring Roe v. Wade and abortion back into the picture. It is persistently relevant and, more importantly in response to the claim that you are making (because you do not deny its relevance) constantly new and re-defined in the practical effect that comes from attaching abortion to whatever other social ills that are confirmed by the existence of abortion x years after Roe v. Wade, In that regard it is constantly responsive and consistently engaged in a struggle that transcends the temporal-spatial boundaries you, to be frank, artificially and arbitrarily impose upon the issue, the activists, and the broader culture in which the experience their political existence. To summarize. while I am sympathetic to your first point, I don’t think it is convincing given the internal and self-sustaining character of the of Roe v. Wade which persists in the minds of those who protest it.
2) While I again am sympathetic to your claim, I have to disagree with you about the importance that you place on the concept of compromise in the measurement that you use (whatever it ultimately is) in order to distinguish between and then determine whether or not to term a behavior “political” or “ideological” in order to effectively explain the behavior. I also have to disagree with the conclusion you seem to infer from the definition itself (which is kind of tautological, or something like that). I write all of this in order to say that, you’re employing circular reasoning if you’re not fleshing out your assumptions and concluding that an ideological position is ideological because there is no compromise.
To both of those, I ask you: where is your evidence? I know, positivism gets a bad rap around these parts (conservatives and traditionalists not being fans of a “science” of politics, apparently), but if you’re going to place a number next to a statement which, presumably, serves as a powerful point in an argument that you are making about the nature of a movement – then, for the love of God, post a link to some evidence (no anecdotes or “narratives,” please).
As for your responses to your two points: I like those, as well. Here are a couple of responses I have.
As for it not being “not non-political.” Protests by their nature are not political, but rather “social” or expressive of some other value which cannot either be reduced to or inclusive of political values; Furthermore, to claim that the dilution of a message of protest movement as evidence for its political nature is in tension with the point you make that an ideological movement is non-compromising. Regardless of the assumption we make or the conclusion that we reach with regard to the matter of dilution, we have come to a point – literally a defining point – that meaningfully distinguishes between the political and the ideological nature of protest movements. Whether or not Roe v. Wade meets the criteria for a political or ideological protest, rather than remaining a non-political and non-ideological religious or social reaction, is another matter to discuss. The point to take away is that the tension (and the potential non-exclusivity between politic/al and ideology/ical as analytic concepts) renders the March for Life specifically and these protest movements more generally as movements which are definable neither as ideological nor as political movements.
That realistic policy changes have no place in a protest march is exactly the point. That they have no place is precisely why these protest marches in general and the March for Life in particular, cannot be defined, conceptualized or analyzed as political behaviors (or actions, again, for those so inclined to assign agency to mass movements. Or for the folks who appreciate microfoundations). What you can say about these marchers and the marches as marco events is relatively modest: they are protesting a something. They are are expressing a social fact. To extend to them a political identity that you do is to generate from them a self-awareness and a directionality that is just not believable; that is, your theory is underdetermined.
As far as the relationship between the Church and the March: doesn’t this just demonstrate that this is a Catholic activity and not an ideological one? The Church is at the origin and in the center of the march. While the March may not need the Church to survive, it certainly is understandable and definable by the Church’s role as the March’s backbone and most visible participant, that is to say, as the March’s essence.
In order for the Church to reach out, the Protestants and other groups also have to grab their hands or reach out to them. These other groups cannot expect the Church to dilute its involvement or its efforts by subscribing to the type of public square that Ben and the secular pro-lifers want them to subscribe to. The fact that various groups are on the margins is simply indicative of the cultural problems that conservatives must overcome; the threat of secularization, the dependence of the march for life on the consequences born out of the institutional and structural advantages of the Catholic Church is evidence of the rampant secularism and peculiar Protestant notions of religion that have corroded the culture and brought us to this liberal relativist society in which natural and authentic religious behavior is treated as an abnormality. So, questions that ask about the viability of the March outside of the Catholic institutions that provide it the structural support it has used to thrive; and, in particular, questions that presuppose that the Catholicity of the March is an expression of an abnormal or off-kilter religious identity, is the wrong question to ask. It is a question that assumes that the reality of religious experience is one in which faith and reason diverge (Leo Strauss would have been proud). It is the Enlightenment at its fullest expression. And it is what will take is to a place from which we cannot return. So, while a broader (and as a result more inclusive) March would be more politically effective, the risk, in this culture where the move would take place in a single event, on a small scale and without much effect outside of the environment of the March, would be too great to irreparably derail, weaken and damage the opportunity for a movement that actually returns our culture to a Christian foundation which will effectively turn back this culture of death in favor of a culture of life.
If the Hispanics are true Catholics, then why wouldn’t they participate in the March for Life? Another empirical question, yay.
Since the door to this discussion has been cracked by both “K” and Joe, I’ll throw in my answer to the question “should Protestant organizations be more involved in the March for Life?”
Leaving aside the practical issues mentioned in my earlier comment, let me suggest that:
1) This is a slightly different question from Ben’s original “should the March for Life be less openly-Catholic?” musings. So I realize I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here…
2) The answer to whether Protestant organizations should be more involved in the march for life depends on which Protestant organizations we are talking about. I would love to see more individual Protestants jumping into the public fray. And if more parachurch organizations like, oh, I don’t know, InterVarsity want to get involved, that’s certainly something they can do.
But if by that is meant Protestant churches should be institutionally involved then I strenuously object. The role of a true institutional church is the spreading of the Gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, and cultivating the holiness of the church body. Promoting and pursuing public policy does not and should not make the list. If members want to get together and do so informally, power to them. (Which I suspect is more what the March for Life is in any case.) But the day the day the church formally begins organizing political is the day they have begun the attempt to immanentize the eschaton. Or at least, they’ve turned from their proper mandate.
Anyway, there’s my rabbit trail. Thoroughly enjoying the conversation, gents.
Pingback: Maybe It Is Just Wrong: More Reflections on the March for Life « Beyond the GOP