Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Part I

---

The Vice Presidential Debate: It Was Civil and Had Some Clarifying Moments, But Might Not Matter

Well, last night, many Americans sat down to watch the vice presidential debate. CBS News, which hosted the debate, said repeatedly that it is the only vice presidential debate of this season. Well, you’re going to be hard-pressed to find any election cycle in which there is more than one vice presidential debate. As a matter of fact, that’s a fairly new development. It does go back to 1988. That year, the Republican vice presidential nominee was Dan Quayle. The Democratic vice presidential nominee was Texas Senator Lloyd Benson. And that was a televised event. It was mostly remembered for a put down that Benson offered a Quayle. But nonetheless, Bush went on to win the White House anyway.

What’s the big lesson there? The big lesson is it really doesn’t matter what happens in the vice presidential debate, or at least it hasn’t really mattered. You have to hold out the possibility that it could matter. But last night’s debate is not likely to matter a very great deal. If you’re keeping score, I think you’d have to say that Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, won the debate. And he won the debate because it was stacked so much against him in terms of public perception. But I think he also would have won the debate if it were scored in debate terms. But let’s just set the stage once again.

The debate took place in New York City and the two debaters included the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and the Republican vice presidential nominee, Senator JD Vance. Now, in terms of the two men, the press loves Tim Walz and the press seems to hate JD Vance. Now, on the one hand, you could say that that’s predictable, simply because Vance is far more conservative than Walz. For that matter, most people are more conservative than Tim Walz. But nonetheless, it’s that, but it’s more than that.

Because when you look at JD Vance, he hits on some of the very issues that the Liberal media find most abrasive. At least, in recent years, Vance has held to a rather intellectually substantial form of moral conservatism, and that is something that you can just count on is going to drive the left and the left-oriented media, the mass media, absolutely crazy. And one of the symptoms of that is that they will continually beat on someone and then say they’re unpopular as if they have not basically conspired to make the individual unpopular.

But nonetheless, Tim Walz, known for his folksy sense of humor, he seemed to be quite confident going into the debate, but at several points, he left the job undone. And yet, that’s not likely to make a big difference, as I said, because very few people, indeed no one I’ve ever known, has said, “I’m voting for that ticket because of the person who is the vice presidential nominee.” Or, I also have to say I’ve never heard anyone say, “I changed my mind after that vice presidential debate.” These are showpieces, but that’s not to say they’re not important.

When you look at presidential campaigns with so much at stake, we’re talking about the most powerful Constitutional office in human history. When you look at contests for the presidency, anything can matter. If something goes wrong, and let’s face it, a lot of Americans watched last night in order to find out if they were going to see a disaster. People who watch disaster movies, they are drawn to major media stories about crashes and disasters, and that’s because there is something in fallen human nature that inclines us that way. But when it comes to this kind of debate, there are people who watch them just waiting to see if someone blows himself or herself up.

Well, that didn’t happen last night. Fairly, what took place last night was a mostly civil exchange between two politicians, both holding high office. One, the governor of a state, re-elected to that office there in Minnesota and very far on the left, frankly, disguising it with a very folksy personality. And then JD Vance, who has only been in the Senate, as a matter of fact, for a couple of years, but had a career before that in venture capital and is also a graduate of Yale Law School. So he is someone the press thought should have been ours, but he holds to positions most in the mainstream media find absolutely unacceptable. So the only thing they know to do with him is to dismiss him.

I think it’s fair to say that if you were a Democrat, a democratically-inclined viewer of the debate last night, you would think that Tim Walz did a pretty good job presenting a persona that was unthreatening to America. And frankly, he hit many of the kinds of themes that the Kamala Harris campaign has been hitting, but he didn’t really score anything big. When it comes to JD Vance, it’s arguably true that he really didn’t score anything big. But on the other hand, he presented himself in a very warm and, frankly, gracious way that the mainstream media found, well, surprising. As if they’re surprised by someone who is a Conservative showing up with some kind of manners and gentility.

But then again, it was a staged performance. And this is something we also need to understand. Both of those candidates were incredibly prepped for this debate, and you had political strategists as well as policy folks, campaign managers and others, simply speaking and saying, “When this comes up, you say this. When he says that, you say this. Don’t let him break your smile. Keep the eye contact.” You can just about anticipate the kind of advice that was given. And both of the candidates last night basically followed the advice.

There were some, even in the media, who thought that if it was a problem for Tim Walz in terms of his preparation, it must have been too much preparation. Because it wasn’t that he didn’t seem to know what to say, it was that he didn’t seem to know how to respond when something went a bit angular. On the other hand, JD Vance, well, he scored last night just by showing up and smiling and being gracious and not shouting and using an even-tone of voice, even when he said some things that were fairly critical and fairly hard. And he did land some punches last night. I really can’t speak of a point until near the end of the debate with reference to January 6th. Other than that, I don’t think Tim Walz landed a solid punch on Vance. Vance, on the other hand, landed several punches on Walz.

Part II

---

Tim Walz’s Obvious Obfuscation: Let’s Look at the Minnesota Governor’s Comments on Abortion During the Debate Last Night

But all the political strategy and even the presidential history behind us, I want to zero in, frankly, honestly, on the part of the debate that was most important to me, and I think will be most important to many listeners of The Briefing, and that is when the moderators raised the issue of abortion. Now, to get to the bottom line first, I want to say that JD Vance, Senator Vance did a pretty good job of making clear that the Republican position, that’s the position that has been held by Donald Trump as the presidential nominee of the party–basically what’s seen in the party platform this year–it’s a disappointment to me, but he made very clear that it is light years from the position held by Governor Walz and by Vice President Harris and the Democratic Party on this issue.

Now, it was actually Governor Walz who made that point most graphically, as I will point out with specific statements that he made in the course of the debate. As I said, I’m not satisfied with Senator Vance’s position, or at least the position of the Republican ticket that he was upholding. But I think it’s very fair to say it’s incredibly accurate to say that last night a very clear distinction was made; in such a way that, for instance, Senator Vance made clear that the Republican ticket would uphold the right of states to restrict abortion. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, what you have is obfuscation. That is to say intentional confusion, an effort to try to evade the actual position that has been held by Governor Walz and is currently held by the Democratic Party.

So let’s talk specifics. Let’s talk about what Governor Walz actually said. So at one point, referring to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade that took place in 2022, Governor Walz referred to the Dobbs decision as ending “50 years of personal autonomy.” That’s an exact quote, “50 years of personal autonomy.” Now, full stop here. He just let the cat out of the bag. He just showed us what is really at stake. When he defines the issue of abortion, it’s not even about terminating unborn life in the womb. It is simply about 50 years of what he calls “a right to personal autonomy.” Personal autonomy is something that all of us recognize to a certain extent, but that certain extent is defined by what our personhood means.

And when you talk about personal autonomy, our autonomy does not extend to our right to hurt anyone else. And as we understand that, you realize who is missing from the democratic equation, the little one who’s missing from the entire pro-abortion equation, and that is the little human being in development in the womb. And when you talk about 50 years of personal autonomy, you’re just saying the only important moral entity, moral agent here, is indeed the woman. That’s all that matters. And so when you consider that statement, as he was bemoaning, as he was mourning the reversal of Roe v. Wade, what he said was lost, was 50 years of personal autonomy.

Now, that tells us something else we just need to consider for a moment. If personal autonomy means the right to abortion, as was declared by the Supreme Court in the Roe decision in 1973, guess what? That meant that there was no personal autonomy before that. And your response quite naturally would be, “That’s ridiculous.” Because, that’s ridiculous. But it does show you how the modern feminist movement and now the modern progressivist movement in the United States identifies abortion as issue number one in terms of defining personal autonomy, to the extent that Governor Walz basically declared personal autonomy, at least for women, to have arrived in 1973 and then to crash on the wall of the US Supreme Court in 2022.

But in worldview analysis, it’s just really important to recognize that everyone has a hierarchy of the things that are most important. And what the Governor said very clearly there is that in his personal hierarchy, and in the hierarchy of those who stand in the progressive Left with him, at the very top is what they see as the good of personal autonomy. It’s a radical vision of personal autonomy. How radical? Well, Governor Walz made that clear last night. Now, referring to abortion, he also went on to say that “that’s nobody else’s business.”

Now wait just a minute. He said that kind of thing before. Let’s do a little worldview analysis here. First of all, who is the nobody in contrast to the somebody? Well, the somebody here, whose business presumably it is, once again is just a woman. That’s all. Of course the Democratic Party is pretty careful to say in print, “pregnant person,” because of the LGBTQ revolution, which is hand in hand with the sexual revolution. But notice again who is absolutely absent, absolutely invisible, and that is the inhabitant of the womb who clearly has no say. When Governor Walz says it’s nobody else’s business, he means just that. It’s just the woman’s business, period.

Now, once again we just need to recognize that’s a position far more radical than was held by even the majority of justices on the Supreme Court in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision. They at least went so far as to say there was a balancing question. Now, we see that as insufficient, but nonetheless, it’s telling that when it comes to Governor Walz, he doesn’t even acknowledge the necessity of any balancing or balance position. What he sees is absolute personal autonomy. It’s nobody else’s business, period.

Now, at this point, Governor Walz was presented with a question about what restrictions he would allow. He was basically allowed to avoid the question. But the bottom line is that if you say it’s nobody else’s business, if you refer to the period when Roe was in effect as the reign of absolute personal autonomy, 50 years of personal autonomy, then at what point during a pregnancy would that end? Well, clearly we know by the legislation Governor Walz signed in Minnesota, he doesn’t think it ends at any point in the pregnancy. I only wish someone had made that clear last night. I wouldn’t expect the moderators to have made that clear, but it certainly would have been helpful if you had Senator Vance make that issue very clear. It’s because, in moral terms, it’s so incredibly important.

Predictably, he referred to abortion almost entirely as what he simply reduced to healthcare. But there was one other point, a very important point, because Senator Vance and others have pointed out that when it comes to Governor Walz, he signed legislation that basically says that if a baby survives an abortion, a doctor, well, just comes to some decision about what to do with the baby. Some medical authorities there in Minnesota say as many as eight babies have died since that legislation was signed. And here’s where Governor Walz was allowed to get off the hook last night. He simply said there’s nothing in the bill that says that.

Well, that’s, in one sense, true. That’s because the legislation he signed replaced previous legislation that said that if indeed a baby was born after an abortion, reasonable medical efforts had to be taken to keep that baby alive. If you take that language out, guess what? You have just changed the law. He was let off the hook, and that was a big mistake. He should never have been let off of that hook.

Well, I hope you watched the debate last night, simply because it’s a part of our responsibility as we think about being informed Christian citizens. I think it’s even important, as I heard from people last night who are citizens of other nations watching this, because as we know, what happens in the United States can affect elections elsewhere, and what happens, for instance, in Great Britain has more than once affected what has taken place here. And so, even as we’re looking at these questions, and as American Christians understand, this comes right down to our vote. When it comes to many others around the world, they know they have a stake in this too, especially given the issues of moral gravity that were covered last night, starting with the issue of life.

Part III

---

The State of Georgia Becomes Ground Zero on Abortion: Georgia Judge Rules State’s Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional

But all right, on the issue of life, we need to change from the vice presidential debate and go to the state of Georgia, where a Georgia judge just in recent days struck down that state’s law restricting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and he did so in a very unique way that deserves some attention here. It’s a very sad development, but it’s particularly important to recognize he didn’t make his decision based upon recent decisions by the US Supreme Court or even by the United States Constitution. He made his ruling, he said, in effect citing the Georgia Constitution.

CNN reported that Judge Robert McBurney there in Georgia said that by his interpretation “a review of our Higher Court’s interpretations of liberty demonstrates that liberty in Georgia includes, in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights, the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices.”

Now, you’ll notice a lot of parallelism with what that judge wrote just a couple of days ago in a decision that he handed down, certain to be appealed, and the statements made by the candidate for the Democratic ticket in the vice presidential slot, Governor Tim Walz, last night. It’s a very similar logic, referring to abortion simply as a woman’s healthcare choices. But it’s also interesting to note that this judge says that, without reference to the US Constitution, in Georgia, the State Constitution, again this is really important, includes in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights, a very interesting statement, in a bundle of rights, “the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it.”

Well, once again the issue is made abundantly clear. Once again you see reference to the woman here, and at this point, no reference to the baby. Now, I do have to recognize that this judge went on to say that there was a point during pregnancy, and that point was viability, in which the personhood of the baby becomes important. So here’s something important to recognize. He didn’t strike down the entire Georgia law that restricts abortion. He said that it could not Constitutionally, given the Georgia Constitution, be restricted before the moment of viability. And at this point this judge said that in Georgia, that point of viability is at about 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Now, lamentably 22 weeks is a long period after six weeks, but I do want us to notice that there’s a very clear distinction in this disastrous decision by this judge in Georgia, and on the other hand, the even more disastrous position of the Democratic ticket when you look at the issue of abortion. Because at least this judge recognized that at least at some point the baby has to be recognized as a person. Again, not in Minnesota, but at least in Georgia that much was conceded.

Now, as I say, this decision, lamentable decision, in many ways a disastrous decision, it is going to be appealed. It’s sure to appealed, and there will be debates over whether or not that kind of language is even found in the Georgia State Constitution. But it’s also interesting to note that when it comes to this issue, an awful lot of state courts are understandably deferring to the action by the United States Supreme Court. This story in Georgia is certainly not over. But also remember the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris went to Georgia just to make the issue of abortion rights in her campaign more clear. So if nothing else, we know that the state of Georgia right now is ground zero, in effect, over this issue. And that means that both sides, understandably, inevitably, are going to be watching Georgia very, very closely.

Part IV

---

The Social Pressure to be Pro-Abortion: How the Pro-Life Movement Faces a Massive Uphill Battle Within Our Society

Finally for today, I want to point to an article that ran at Religion News Services by David Crary of the Associated Press. The headline is this, “Euphoric two years ago, US anti-abortion movement is now divided and worried as election nears.”

Well, the story was datelined September the 23rd, and no doubt it’s a very legitimate story when you just think about the fact that, indeed, you have a pro-life movement right now that is not standing exactly in the same place, when it comes to the issue of how we respond to the challenge after the eclipse of Roe, after the reversal of that Supreme Court precedent, and especially it has been very humbling, very disappointing, heartbreaking indeed, to see state after state vote for abortion rights in response to the Dobbs decision, even states like Kansas and Kentucky. Then again, we’re looking at the fact that about 10 states are going to be looking at the abortion question on the ballot in November. So we understand how much is at stake, even just in the coming days.

But one of the points made in this article, and it’s made rather sharply at some points, is that the pro-life movement should have seen this coming and should have been ready with a political strategy after the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Now, on the one hand, you could say, well, that’s a particularly relevant criticism. It’s probably quite apt, because we should have known that if Roe were to be reversed, as it was in 2022, that we would face an enormous cultural wave trying to press for the codification, legislation, and for that matter, Constitutional provision when it comes to abortion rights. People would press for that to happen. And there are many, who in the wake of defeat since 2022, who say, “Look, it’s our fault, or it’s your fault you weren’t prepared for this.”

But this is where we have to understand in Christian terms something about the contours of a culture and how a culture changes. The bottom line is you don’t know where you stand until you find out where you stand. And so as you look at polling in surveys that Americans responded to over the course of say 30 to 40 years before the Dobbs decision in 2022, far more Americans indicated that they were pro-life. It turns out they just didn’t vote that way after 2022. So you have to ask the question, did they change their mind, or are these different people? Well, in one sense, the samplings are so large it can’t really be different people.

What is really clear is that the abortion rights movement was able to mobilize very quickly after the Dobbs decision reversed Roe, but it’s also clear that there were other factors that have played a big part. One of them is the enormous power of the mainstream media and the cultural elites to respond to this so quickly. And so just even looking at the last couple of years, it’s really, really amazing when you think about it that so many people have put themselves on the line for abortion as the most important human rights issue, they would claim, of our times. And that tells us a whole lot.

For one thing, it tells us that when you look at Hollywood, when you look at Manhattan, you look at say Los Angeles, and you look at even places like Atlanta, you look at metropolitan areas and the people who have the greatest influence in those metropolitan areas, guess what? They’re pretty much sold out to what Governor Walz was celebrating, and that is this idol of personal autonomy. It turns out that people were willing to express some kind of pro-life sentiments so long as it didn’t cost them anything. And that means not only it didn’t cost them anything in terms of their own personal behavior, but it means that they were willing to make those statements or to voice those moral sentiments, even when what was at stake was their standing with their friends.

Well, it turns out right now that when you think about social standing, you’re not going to get too far as a pro-life activist. If it is known on the campus that you’re pro-life, guess what? On most Liberal campuses, you’re going to be seen as one of them, and treated as one of them. When you look at the creative and the artistic circles in our country, it’s almost unthinkable that someone who is consistently pro-life could show up and be well-received. You want a good review in the New York Times? You want a good review in the Los Angeles Times? You want a good review in just about any major media source? Well, you better be in the right place on the political issues. Your name better show up at the right parties and in the right fundraiser list. You better show up at the right receptions and have your name printed in the patrons and the sponsors. You better have the right bumper sticker on your car, or more likely these days, use all the right hashtags in your social media postings.

Older people, and this includes older Christians, are often perplexed why so many younger people, and even younger Christians, seem so susceptible to this kind of pressure, but it’s important to us to recognize, it’s important for us to see that there is no analogous pressure coming from the other side. There is no way that the Conservative movement operates in exactly the same way. And one of the reasons is that the Conservative movement is so deeply rooted in people who don’t show up at those kinds of events, who don’t go to those kinds of receptions, whose names don’t appear in those kinds of artistic programs, and they’re not there at the latest artistic unveiling, they’re not invited to the premiere of the next big screen movie.

Part V

---

The Three Arenas Pro-Life Christians Must Win with the Younger Generation – We Must Win in Christian Family, Christian Education, and the Congregation

So in conclusion today, I just want to encourage us as Christians to think about three arenas where we have to win, we simply have to win, or we’re going to lose the young people in this generation. Number one, we have to win in the family. Christian parents have to raise children in Christian conviction, and that means with thick understandings and explanations for why we believe what we believe based upon Scripture and why we are accountable to Christ. We also need Christian education. We need Christian schools and Christian homeschooling circles, and we need classical Christian education, and we need all forms of Christian education, including truly, genuinely Christian colleges, and yes, Christian deeply-convictional seminaries.

We need all of this because we have to have institutional resources in which we can push back against the educational establishment. Otherwise, well, everything is going to look like your local Ivy League university or the university that wants to act like it belongs in the Ivy League, it wants to emulate the same worldview. And make no mistake, the vast majority of America’s colleges and universities, well, that’s exactly what they’re doing. But the first arena is the home. The second arena I mentioned is Christian education. But I saved the other for last, and that is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, represented by biblical God-honoring gospel-centered congregations.

It is because we can’t expect young people who are not deeply committed to the life of a congregation, accountable to that congregation, encouraged and nurtured by that congregation, joining in worship with that congregation, submitting ourselves to the preaching of the Word of God together in those congregations, even submitting ourselves to the discipline of those congregations. If we do not have that, if what we have instead is a thin Christianity, then guess what? We’re going to end up with a very thin, brittle Christian commitment. We need to keep that ever in mind.

And so just bringing this to conclusion today, we began by talking about the vice presidential debate and ended by talking about the church. And that is because we do understand this, and sometimes we need to hear ourselves say it out loud: elections are important. Wow. We know they’re important. But even more important than elections is whether the Word of God is preached in gospel congregations, and not only preached but heard, and not only heard but obeyed.

If that doesn’t happen, no election can mean very much.