Douthat on Stupak

The entire post is well worth reading (click on the title), but here is an excerpt:

Here was a politician who embodies what a half-century ago would have been considered the sensible center in American politics — economically liberal, socially conservative — and whose politics represent a good faith effort to live out the social teaching of America’s largest religious body, the Roman Catholic Church. Yet who, in the political arena, really seemed to be on his side? Not the pro-choice left, obviously, which was willing to sacrifice the entire health care bill to the principle that nobody should have to pay for an abortion out of pocket. Not Stupak’s fellow liberal Catholics (E.J. Dionne, the editors of Commonweal, etc.) whose attitude seemed to be, “c’mon, Stupak, just get with the program, and sign up for the compromise that a pro-choice White House wants you to live with.” And not anti-abortion conservatives, who backed him to the hilt not because they wanted him to succeed, but because they assumed that he would fail, and in failing, drag the whole health care package down to defeat.


  1. Rufus McCain says

    Refreshingly non-reactionary. Thanks.

  2. Jonathan Webb says

    As a reactionary, I resent you knee-jerk anti-reactionaryism. Again, the right course isn't always between the two relevant political forces. That makes no sense.

    Anyway, I think that misrepresents what a lot of social conservatives felt. We preferred the House bill with the original Stupak provision, even though it included the public option, to this death dealing Senate travesty. Additionally, the Senate bill will more effectively wreck private health insurance plans that work.

Speak Your Mind