For those not following, Thompson announced that he doesn't support a Human Life Amendment (as he also doesn't support a Federal Marriage Amendment, except one which would restrict the definition of marriage to a states' rights issue), for reasons of federalism. As the conversation continued, Thompson basically took the Stephen Douglass position which Lincoln so rightly criticized --that he doesn't care what the states do. As a matter of political philosophy and statesmanship, that's irrational --how can the question of who is and who isn't a citizen of the United States not be a federal question?
Compounding the damage, Thompson seemed to allow himself to get caught up in the a Planned Parenthood shibboleth --that anti-abortion laws necessarily entail punishing women in crisis pregnancies. That's just stupid --particularly since the part of the Republican platform he was repudiating expressly calls for a human life amendment, with accompanying punishments for abortion providers --not women.
Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions (p. 84).Stupidity acknowledged, there is this to be said yet for Thompson:
- Social conservatives place far too much stock in professed support for a Human Life Amendment. Apart from "the bully pulpit," the President plays no role in the constitutional amendment process, and we often make the mistake of allowing politicians to use support for an HLA as a "get out of active pro-life measures free" card. I don't say that supporting a human life amendment means nothing --it's an indicator-- but practically speaking it means very little.
- Much more important to me is Thompson's impassioned statement (the passion is evident in his voice) :
my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion.
Is there anyone else making that pledge (including no embryonic stem cell research)? And making it in those terms --no official encouragement of abortion-- as opposed to simply telling the SoCons in their venues what they want to hear? - Also important to me is Thompson's description of seeing his daughter's sonogram --and how that persuaded him that life indeed begins at conception.
Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before.
The sonogram is something he brings up all the time --and I think it's a far more effective and persuasive means of advancing the pro-life position than simply parading the list of your policies and compromises, which only activists on both sides of the question truly follow. The "bully pulpit" doesn't work by mere assertion, and Thompson's position is one I think most Americans will find attractive. - What we need from a President on the culture questions is: sound judges, swift vetoes for pro-abortion measures, and courage in using the bully pulpit in favor of pro-life measures (this latter being the least important if we're talking about a GOP president with a Democractic Congress). To put that in the terms of a previous post, can I imagine Fred Thompson vetoing a a major appropriations bill just because the Hyde amendment's not there? Absolutely.
With him there's no doubt --not just because he's pro-life, but because he's serious about federalism (even if I think he misapprehends the principle) and reducing government spending. - And then, I liked the rest of the interview. He seemed knowledgeable about foreign policy, resolute on the war on terror, and completely unflustered by Russert's attempts to mischaracterize things he's said over time. I liked his measured words about Musharraf (shades of John Bolton) and I liked this:
The stakes are too high, Tim. It’s not, it’s not a matter of, of just Iraq. The—we’re being tested. The whole world is watching to see whether or not the American people have the will and the ability, the unity, the determination to, to succeed in any front that we happen to be engaged in, and this is a front in much larger war. We—we’ve provided stability ever since the end of World War II in the world. Some people—some countries have not gone nuclear because of us, because of our strength and stability we’ve provided. We don’t want to see Iran fill that vacuum that we would leave there. We do not want to see the Saudis, for example, to go nuclear in response to what they perceive Iran is doing, and especially if we pulled out of, of that area. So now of all times when we’re seeing so many good things happening there and so many good reports from generals who we respect there, we should, we should not be thinking in terms of deadlines.
But can he beat Hillary?
