Executive Order: What is it good for? Absolutely…a year or two

The last post dealt with how Obamacare will make it EASIER to obtain abortions through private insurance companies. This post will focus on the newly created Community Health Centers. Rep. Stupak and other Pro-Life Democrats withheld their approval of the bill until recently because they were worried Obamacare will pay for abortions. The Bill stated that “health services” will be provided, but did not specify what constituted such a service. The controversy was whether abortion would be covered. President Obama won over Stupak and Co. by promising to issue an Executive Order that would forbid CHC from providing abortions. An Executive Order is a written pronouncement by the President telling officials in his branch how to enforce an ambiguous law.

The problem with this arrangement is someone will sue the CHC on the grounds it is denying a woman a basic right and it will have to be resolved by a Federal Court. The existing precedent (Beal v. Doe) states federal funds can cover an abortion UNLESS there is a law that forbids it. The question then becomes: Is the Executive Order a law? It is not because a law passed by anyone other than Congress would be a violation of Separation of Powers. The Executive Order will be struck down and tax dollars will DIRECTLY pay for abortion.

Nudge-ocracy at work: Obamacare on abortion

Last year, The New Republic labeled President Obama as neither a pragmatist nor liberal; instead, it identified him as a “Nudge-ocrat.” Here is what that means: “Rather than force markets to conform to his wishes, he shapes their calculus so they conclude (on their own) that their interests coincide with his wishes.” Obama sees “…the appeal of manipulating incentives and altering the context in which we make decisions.”

The TNR piece focuses on economics, but I found him speaking this way on abortion too. During his campaign, he said he wanted to see the number of abortions go DOWN, but he wanted to do that by creating conditions in which women would CHOOSE life; he did not want to directly restrict abortions.

One week into office, Obama put his philosophy into practice, but not in the way he promised. The President reversed the Mexico City Policy so federal tax dollars could pay for abortion overseas i.e. he created the conditions in which it would be EASIER to choose an abortion.

The latest debate is what Obamacare will mean in regards to abortion and here again I think you can see Nudge-ocracy at work. This is what will happen to Private Insurance Companies:

In a section entitled "Prohibition of Use of Public Funds for Abortion Coverage," she [Rep. Lois Capps (D) of California] proposed that insurance companies set up two separate accounts -- one filled with money from the federal government, and one with money from consumer premiums. When a consumer sent in her premium check, it would go into the premium account; when the federal government kicked in its share, the money would land in a different pile. Insurance companies would then have to guarantee that abortions would be paid for only by money in the account made up of premium dollars, not from the account filled with taxpayer dollars.

The following analogy illustrates what is going on above: Imagine a man who wants to purchase a firearm, but doesn’t because he has to pay his monthly mortgage payment. He asks you to lend him the money so he can make the purchase, but you refuse on the grounds of pacificism; nevertheless, you do lend him the money to pay his mortgage payment. He subsequently buys the gun. What just happened? Technically, he bought the gun, not you, but you INDIRECTLY made it possible.

In the abortion case, the insurance company will have money freed up to pay for abortions due to government subsidies. Conditions are created to make the choice for abortion EASIER. Ross Douthat explains this point well:

“And yes, the health care bill, as passed, effectively tilts public policy in a more pro-choice direction: The fact that women are required to write a separate check for abortion coverage means that public money isn’t literally paying for abortion, but it doesn’t change the fact that federal dollars are being spent in ways that make it much easier to obtain abortion-covering insurance.”

The Nudge-ocrat strikes, albeit indirectly and subtly, again.

The Noble, the Dignified, and the just plain Autonomous

Tocqueville presents America as replacing Aristocratic Nobility with Democratic Dignity. James Poulos, Founding Editor of Postmodern Conservative, thinks its time for Nobility to make a comeback.

In this Bloggingheads episode, Poulos discusses how Conservatives make their case against many forms of biotechnology on the grounds of Human Dignity. He says the argument works well when it comes to designer babies, but loses steam when it comes to sexual morality. Nobility, he thinks, would be a better substitute. Poulos explains Miley Cyrus’ behavior last fall as being base and thus simply beneath her. This argument, he asserts, should be able to avoid the usual “Who are you to say…” yada-yada. It isn’t clear this is so as his interlocutor is unable to see a difference between Nobility and Dignity arguments. I’ll return to this point.

Poulos makes the argument for a switch again when it comes to the family. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been making arguments based on natural law (Dignity’s backdrop) when they should base it on “aristocratic nobility: pride in the unity of bloodline and virtu.” “Family identity and family accomplishment” should provide the standard for individual behavior.

Thus, Poulos, and Tocqueville for that matter, present Nobility and Dignity as butting heads. Yet is interesting to see Peter Lawler, who also blogs at Postmodern Conservative, portraying them as kin:

“It was with such Greek reflections in mind that the Roman word dignitas took on a basically aristocratic connotation. Dignity is a worthiness or virtue that must be earned, and the dignified man is someone exceptional who attains distinction by his inner strength of character. Dignitas is a self-contained serenity, a kind of solid immobility that cannot be affected by worldly fortunes. For the Stoics, and especially for Cicero, dignity is democratic in the sense that it does not depend on social status; it is within reach of everyone from the slave (Epictetus) to the emperor (Marcus Aurelius). Dignity refers to the rational life possible for us all, but it is really characteristic only of the rare human being who is genuinely devoted to living according to reason.”

It might be that Poulos is not against Dignity per say, but the simply the Christian or Democratic understanding of it. Tocqueville believed Christianity set up Democracy and were linked an in opposition to Pagan Aristocracy:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Whether it is Classical Nobility or Christian Dignity, POMO Cons of all stripes do not want to see Cultural Libertarian’s ‘Autonomy’ crowned King. Stephen Pinker, who Lawler is responding to in the article cited above, says “informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice.” Bedrock? More like shifting sand. But moving on…

This common cause between Classical and Christian concerns can be found in the President’s Council for Bioethics which was disbanded by Obama last fall. Lawler points out the different nuances of the two approaches. The Classical concern is with “living well in the acceptance of necessity” or what I would call the ‘life within limits’ approach. A life well lived is one which operates within boundaries, which is why the Classical thinker also aligns with the Christian in the broader Culture Wars. The Christian is more interested with the “denial of equal treatment to the disabled or otherwise “unfit,” murderous eugenics, abortion, and the scientific destruction of human embryos.” Any of these actions are considered intrinsically evil, regardless of its frequency or circumstance.

Lawler says the two views are the “egalitarian and inegalitarian dimensions” of Human Dignity. I would add the Christian is concerned with individual acts while the Classical thinker is interested in life as a whole. The difference emerges because Divine Revelation brings into focus what appears blurry to unaided Reason. Revelation, like Death it seems, has a way of concentrating the mind.

Rambo and Custer rolled into one

While Avatar is likely to win Best Picture this Sunday, my pick is the dark horse candidate, The Hurt Locker. Leaving aside disputes over the film’s veracity about the Iraq War, the film is first and foremost a character study of its hero/anti-hero, William James, played superbly by Jeremy Renner.

The film opens with the following quote: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

In the first half of the film, we proceed to see William James save the day over and over again. Each situation is more difficult than the last and he doesn’t even seem to notice. Up to this point, he is the guy every other guy secretly wants to be which is why others resent him.

But in two crucial scenes the films takes all this back. James, who is usually cool under pressure, loses his composure as he discovers a ‘body bomb’ which he believes to be the corpse of a boy he knows. He subsequently engages in a wild goose chase to avenge the boy which ends with him being run out of a house by a domestic housewife (the only time a woman appears in the film.)

The second scene occurs when he sees the after effects of bomb that detonated in the city. Outraged, he wildly speculates where the perpetrators might be and persuades his team to go after them. It ends badly as one member of his team is shot in the pursuit. That man’s take on the escapade is important since he alludes to the film’s opening quote. He says in effect that he had to get shot so James could get his adrenaline rush. James, who feeds of his emotions, lacks judgment.

In the classical view, the virtuous man is the one whose passions submit to his reason, while the vicious man has things the other way around. James, who is a slave to his passions, is not heroic in this picture.

His addiction is so severe that he is unable to live at home when his tour ends (Aristotle’s harshest criticism of the Spartans was their inability to live in PEACE). He quickly signs up for another tour and film ends with him back to his old bomb-detonating ways.

Yet the ending does finish on an ambiguous note. Having spent the second half of the film depicting James in the most negative light, the final scene leaves us with an image of James as an Achilles like character. What person doesn’t want to walk into such dangerous situations without flinching? Right judgment seeks the golden mean between two extremes, but not all extremes are equal. Better to be recklessly bold than spinelessly afraid.

The War Films of the ‘70’s and ‘80’s (Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Stone’s Platoon, and Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket) favored black and white messages about War’s dehumanizing effects on people.

More recent films (Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker) prefer a more subtle approach, weighing matters more carefully. Avoiding Homeric War-Mongering and Modern Pacificism, their balanced look is nice media via.

Tocqueville on Tap

Patrick Deneen and Peter Lawler will be in Dallas on March 20th for ISI. Officially, they will not be renewing the Front Porch Republic v. Postmodern Conservative debate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes up in the Q&A. And even if it doesn’t, it should still be interesting to hear what these two have to say about the Founders, Tocqueville, and Orestes Brownson.