John McCain and the Meaning of Pro-Life

In a recent article endorsing John McCain and his defense of human dignity, Gerard V. Bradley - Law Professor at Notre Dame, and a long-time pro-life advocate - makes some observations about the nature of being pro-lfe that are important not just for this election season, but for an awareness of what being truly pro-life must mean in this day and age

The best pro-life choice for president cannot be decided solely by counting up votes about straight-on life issues. If it were I would add to the list of life issues the matter of torture. Though death is a risk with perhaps few contemporary “harsh interrogation” techniques, all torture raises questions about the meaning of human dignity and the immunity of all persons against unjustified physical attack. In other words, torture is a life issue, too. Though not nearly so important as abortion, it is nonetheless important in its own way. A candidate’s stand on torture is revealing of his (or her) whole approach to moral questions.

. . . and also about what is means to embrace the sanctity of life on a personal, practical level

I believe that there is a profound lesson here about what it means to be pro-life, a lesson which goes beyond the important (but obvious) fact that the McCains live by the same principles which lie behind John’s voting record. “Little Bridget” was not sought out by the McCains. She was not expected or planned for. She was an unanticipated gift whom the McCains welcomed, not because she was antecedently “wanted” by them, but because she was a baby, a unique and unrepeatable human being with a right to life because she is a human being and not because some other people’s plans include her — or don’t.

McCain's Conservative Presidency

John McCain has often noted that Teddy Roosevelt is one of his favorite presidents. But when it comes to executive power, McCain could end up being the William Howard Taft to Bush-Cheney's TR. Daniel Drezner links to this Boston Globe article describing a McCain approach to making the presidency more open and accountable. McCain might be wrong on Constitutional issues such as campaign finance, the line-item veto, and prohibiting flag burning. But a McCain presidency would break from the last two presidencies and work within the law and under the scrutiny of the public. As McCain says ,"anything that makes people pay attention to their government is probably a good idea."

Some fear McCain is too much of a hawk, but of all the candidates, due to his own experience, McCain understands that America cannot have success in a war without the support of the American people. McCain knows the stakes of war as much as anyone, and will not involve our nation in any endeavor without communicating the true scope of the sacrifices that will be necessary. McCain continues to take a lot of flack from Republicans for his "Gang of 14" that allowed most but not all of the conservative judicial nominees to go forward. This bipartisan accord was fundamentally conservative, as it stopped the traditional rules of the Senate from being thrown out the window. The filibuster makes activists moan, for it is one of the aspects of the Senate that keeps the majority party in check and characterizes the body as deliberative. By not exercising the "nuclear option," it will be possible for extreme activitist judges of the Left to be blocked even in the event of Democratic control of both the Senate and the White House. This foresight that McCain showed by holding onto deliberative tradition against the wishes of the "movement" conservatives demonstrates that a McCain presidency will be a conservative one, for McCain recognizes the corrupting influence of power. The anti-Machiavellian crusade McCain has fought against the use of torture is another example of McCain's understanding that what law broken for the sake of efficiency in the moment can have dire consequences for the liberty and security of the future.

Credibility: Part 1 - America and the World

America faces a real challenge right now in terms of credibility. It is both about our place as a nation in the eyes of other nations, and also our view of ourselves and what we stand for.
President Bush has acted in what he has believed to be in the best interest of our nation and our world. And his policies have accomplished a great deal of good in the world - whether through saving lives through anti-AIDS programs in Africa or by liberating millions of Afghanis from the oppressive grip of the Taliban. And we cannot of course we should not forget the evidence provided by an absence – that we have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
Meanwhile, since the Bush administration first made the case for war against Saddam to the world and to the American people, there has been a serious diminishment of credibility. Part of this is because America did not gain the support and partnership of the UN Security Council in launching the invasion. Additionally, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons stockpiles have since been found in Iraq. The credibility gap widened as the Bush administration pursued grievously wrongheaded policy in Iraq after the initial invasion that toppled Saddam’s regime. The images brought to the world of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib shocked Americans and highlighted the problem of torture. The Bush administration, while condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib, failed to take a strong stand against torture in the War on Terror, and under the influence of the Vice President, actively resisted such a stand.
It is true that we have enemies who are willing to use torture against us and commit all kinds of atrocities, and who would be willing to continue these acts no matter what violence we forswear – as long as we represent freedom and pluralism, we will have enemies in those who oppose those ideas. It is also true that by engaging in torture we create a powerful recruiting device for these enemies. Meanwhile the most powerful nation on earth gives up the moral high ground, distancing ourselves from our allies and making it harder to achieve a coordinate response to international terror.
On this issue of moral credibility in the world, I would have a hard time voting for the likes of Romney (who says he wants to double Guantonamo) or Rudy (who says that whether waterboarding is torture “depends on who does it.”) And it's also one of the main reasons I support John McCain, who has credibility on these issues like no one else.