Query from a reader in India:

I hope you are in good health.  As your country approaches its presidential election, I was wondering about your thoughts on federal policy toward abortion post-Dobbs.  You may wonder, why I ask about these matters, but politics in the U.S.A. always has global ramifications, often serving as a template for other countries, whether in the right or wrong direction.

The Harris/Walz campaign seems to have crossed over into the realm of the demonic by actively celebrating killing innocent lives.   On the other hand, the stance of the Trump/Vance campaign is that abortion should be left up to the states, so that the culture war over this issue would be ended.  Mr. Trump says he would veto a nationwide ban on abortion.  You have said some favorable things about the sincerity of Mr. Vance’s change in attitude toward Mr. Trump, with which I agree.  However, you must know that certain comments of Mr. Vance seem to support nationwide access to the abortion pill.

Given the grave evil of abortion, but also the political reality that there is no consensus on abortion and no prospect of a ban, do you think that saying “I would veto a ban” is permissible on prudential grounds?

Reply:

A federal ban is the ultimate goal, but at present, the question “Should we have a federal ban?” is moot.  At present almost all of the pressure at the federal level is to promote abortions, and this is the Harris/Walz policy too.  A federal ban could not be enacted, and if it could be, it would be overturned the next day.

This does not make it harmless to say “I would veto a federal ban.”  Words have consequences even when they cannot be acted upon.  The danger of such words lies in how they demoralize the friends of innocent life and encourage its enemies.

I understand that the Trump/Vance team does not wish to attempt the impossible, and I do not expect it to push for a nationwide abortion ban.  What I want to know is whether it will attempt the possible.  Since at this time there is no chance whatsoever of a federal ban, the pro-life strategy at the federal level must be incremental. 

First, the federal government must not be allowed to promote abortions, for example by performing them in military hospitals, by requiring insurers to cover them, by subsidizing them, or by denying medical personnel the freedom of conscience to refuse to assist in them.

Second, small restrictions on abortion can be advanced little by little even at the federal level, taking what we can get at each stage.  An obvious first step is to require enforcement of existing legislation prohibiting the killing of babies who are born alive.  Each such small gain will shift public opinion and prepare the way for the next small gain.  Another small step could be putting an end to the practices which are used to evade the ban on partial-birth abortions.  Presently, abortionists just stop the heart of a baby ready to be born and then deliver a dead baby.

Third, although turning the matter over to the states has changed nothing in the pro-abortion states, for the first time it has enabled pro-life states to do something for babies.  So another aim of action at the federal level must be to preserve the ability of pro-life states to do so.  For example, it must be made impossible to purchase mail-order abortion pills over state lines.  Probably because most abortions are now done by pill, the number of abortions is just as high now as it was before Dobbs.

Although the Trump/Vance campaign does not echo the demonic “joy of abortion” rhetoric of the Harris/Walz campaign, it has been disturbingly silent about these other aspects of federal abortion policy.  Concerning the abortion pill, it seems to want to sit on its hands.  Would it at least be willing to restrict if not forbid this deadly traffic?  These chemicals are not only murderous to babies, but highly dangerous for mothers.  And what about the other life issues?

The two strategies for ending the culture war – incremental restrictions, and “leaving it up to the states” – have a history.  In the 1800s, the Democratic Party wanted to leave slavery up to the states.  In those days too Democrats were “pro-choice,” but about slavery, not abortion.  In those days too they thought “leaving it up to the states” would end their culture war.

That hope was futile.  It didn’t end the culture war over slavery, but only prolonged and inflamed it.  Eventually we had a real war which nobody wanted.  “Leaving it up to the states” won’t end the culture war over abortion, any more than it ended the culture war over slavery.  As slavery exercised a malignant influence on our politics and culture then, so abortion exercises a beastly influence on our politics and culture today.

Ironically, in our time the mantle of “leaving it up to the states” has been taken up not by Democrats, but by the Republicans.  The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is treated as an excuse to drop the whole issue.  I am not surprised that the Democrats of our own day take “joy,” as they say, in the liberty to kill children, but I am gravely disappointed that the Trump/Vance campaign is repeating the mistakes which the other party made over slavery.

One would have hoped that they would take their inspiration not from Stephen Douglas, but from his opponent Abraham Lincoln.  Mr. Trump, Mr. Vance, we are listening.

Since we throw around so many buzzwords without thinking, a little bit of linguistic reverse engineering can tell us a lot about ourselves that we might not otherwise have noticed.  Let’s start with the buzzword “self-expression.”

Dressing, decorating, and defacing ourselves are called self-expression.  So are choosing where to live, enjoying entertainment, playing games, making music, and, for that matter, making noise.  Doing things, and not doing them, are both called self-expression.  It’s self-expression to sleep around, but it’s also self-expression to be chaste.  It's self-expression to go to church, but it’s also self-expression to avoid it.

Is there anything that can’t count as self-expression?  Apparently not.  In the narrow sense, we “express” an idea, a feeling, a judgment, or an opinion only by giving voice to it.  But in the broad sense, we “express” something by manifesting or revealing it, and we manifest or reveal our “selves” in literally everything we do, whether or not we intend to.  The murderer reveals or divulges his character by murdering; the sick person reveals or divulges his state of health by throwing up.

Even so, we don’t normally use the term “self-expression” for everything we do whatsoever.  We tend to use it either for innocent things we expect others to applaud, or for unsavory things we want others to applaud.  For example, most people call writing a novel self-expression.  But people don’t ordinarily call making a pornographic film self-expression unless they want us to tolerate or approve it, and hardly anyone would call a snuff film self-expression.  (Snuff films, if you aren’t familiar with the term, are films which depict real-life murders which are committed just in order to be filmed.  Yes, that’s a thing.)

Logically, then, although everything we do is self-expression, we normally describe an action as self-expression only to say “this is good.”  Used that way, the term is powerful.  For example, foul pictures and language weren’t formerly counted as free speech because they didn’t communicate ideas and arguments.  Today, though, they are counted as free speech, just because we say they “express” the “self.”  And of course, logically, they do.  If I spout a stream of profanities, I may be expressing nothing more of myself than an urge to blow off steam.  But I may also be divulging my desire for attention, my craving to sound tough, my enjoyment of filthiness, or even my inability to express a cogent argument.

But why should the term “self-expression” have such power to connect itself with our approval?  Probably for at least two reasons.  The first is that the idea of expressing ourselves validates our narcissism.  The second is that it shields us from criticism.

As to narcissism, the idea that I am doing something to “express myself” inverts the normal order of my response to the world, turning it into a reflection of myself.  Do I worship because God is great and good, then it’s all about Him, and I am just responding.  But if I worship “because I am a religious person,” then it’s all about me.  Again:  Does my love song only celebrate how the girl makes me feel?  Then it’s all about me.  But if it celebrates the charms of the girl who elicits those feelings, then it’s about her, and takes me out of myself.

Contrast the lyrics of the Rolling Stones’ Let’s Spend the Night Together with those of Stephen Foster’s Beautiful Dreamer, and you’ll see what I mean.

As to being shielded from criticism, if I merely say “I know what I like, and I like that painting of Prometheus in chains,” my statement isn’t really about the painting at all.  It is only a description of how I feel when I look at it.  As such, it conveys a sort of “So there.”  For you might say that you don’t like the painting -- but you would hardly tell me that you don’t like my feelings about it, would you?  That would be insulting.  But if I say, “that painting of Prometheus in chains is truly beautiful,” then I am not speaking of my own feelings, except by implication.  I am primarily speaking of the painting, expressing the judgment that its qualities make it worthy to be admired.  As such, you can challenge it without insulting me.  For example, you might call my attention to qualities I have overlooked but which detract from its beauty.  Perhaps the figure is rendered carelessly, the composition is out of balance, or the coloring is putrid.

If everything is just self-expression, then I am all that matters.  I don’t have to engage anyone.  I don’t have to take disagreement seriously.  If I see something differently than you do, “Well, that’s just how I feel,” and if you see it differently than I do, “Well, that’s just your perspective.”

In the end, the freedom to express myself means nothing but the freedom not to deal with anything that isn’t me.  It allows each of us to climb into the hole of self and pull it in after him.

Have you heard this line?  “Now that we know about brain physiology, it’s obvious that there could be no such thing as free will.”

That’s like saying that the circuitry of a cellphone determines the conversations which takes place on it.

Once again cowardice is disguised as evenhandedness.  We read that "Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier described his North Star as an unwillingness to appease one side or the other through intense protests, arrests and student expulsions on his campus."

“Intense protests,” of course, means seizing buildings, disrupting classes, defacing statues, and threatening Jewish students.  So although I hope Chancellor Diermeier’s view has been misreported, it seems that he doesn’t want to “appease” either those who do these things, or those who want to arrest and expel them to protect the peaceful mission of the university.

That is appeasement, for it means that those who do these things will get away with it.

It’s one thing not to take sides about policy toward Israel.  It’s another thing not to take sides between civility and barbarism.  Disgusting.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Caroline Aiken Koster, A Summer Break From American Disunity, illustrated a widespread confusion about what’s wrong with us these days.  It was a touching essay, and I am all for unity, but I think a mild demurral is needed.

Mrs. Koster, a New York attorney, writes that in the 1970’s, “we seemed more unified by our flag and anthem.  They represented all Americans -- whether Team USA, Archie Bunker or Fred Sanford was on the tube.  Lately, few seem satisfied with our national emblems.  Each identity group has to rejigger what should be unifying symbols to meet its separate goals.”  But “thanks to these Olympics, the nation has recaptured our flag …. every victor has been blanketed with the same star-spangled quilt and song.”

She hopes this spirit of unity might last.

What’s wrong with wanting unity?  Nothing whatsoever.  The problem lies in the underlying assumption:  That we have lost national unity because we no longer cherish it, and that we should all begin wanting it again so that we will have it again.

But no, the problem isn’t that we don’t all want unity.  What is it, then?  It would be closer to the truth – though still not quite true -- to say that our problem is that we all want different unities.  Progressives want everyone to be progressive, conservatives want everyone to be conservative.  Feminists want everyone to unite for abortion on demand, pro-life advocates want everyone to unite to protect mothers along with their babies.

But that’s not it either.  There will always be conflict and disagreement.  Wanting to become the majority isn’t bad in itself.  Conflict doesn’t threaten unity so long as we commit ourselves to rules that give each side a chance to persuade the others of what it takes to be the truth.

The real threat to unity is that in our day, one side has given up that commitment.  It wants to bludgeon, coerce, and hoodwink the rest of us into the kind of unity it wants.  Schoolchildren are indoctrinated into wokeism and parents are kept in the dark.  Opposing opinions are labelled as misinformation and suppressed.  Checks and balances are unraveled or ignored.  Opponents are sued and charged with crimes, even when the crimes must be invented.  Lying in a "good" cause is approved, and among our elites, the very idea of freedom of debate is in disfavor.

So it means much less than we think if we and our athletes blanket ourselves with the flag for a few days instead of burning it.  What matters is what we take that blanket to mean.  Don’t answer “unity.”  Ask unity in what, and how won.