An Interview with Deal Hudson, Part I: The Pro-Life Legacy of George W. Bush

[Michie]

January 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) –

Deal Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com, director of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture, the former publisher and editor of CRISIS Magazine, a Catholic monthly published in Washington, DC, and the author of seven books. His articles and comments have been published in many newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, and the National Review. He served as director of Catholic outreach for George Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. He also assisted with presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign.

In Part I of our interview with Hudson, he responds to questions about the pro-life and pro-family legacy of former president George W. Bush. In Part II, which will be published tomorrow, he addresses questions about the pro-life and pro-family movements during the Obama administration and into the future.

Q: What is your general impression of the last 8 years, particularly in regards to President Bush’s contributions to the pro-life and pro-family cause?

A: No president has accomplished more for the pro-life cause than George W. Bush. He kept all his promises that he made in the 2000 campaign, specifically to Catholics who supported him and worked for him. He declared himself a pro-life, culture of life president in his first televised message to the nation when he addressed the stem cell debate. His decision on stem-cells wasn’t perfect but he did use the opportunity of that televised speech to tell the nation that he was a pro-life president, which was to his credit.

What a lot of people don’t realize about the two terms of the Bush administration is that his pro-life initiatives were not just legislative, not just policy-driven, they were personnel driven. And when you look at the staff that was put in place in crucial departments like Health and Human Services and the Justice Department, the people that were put in these positions transformed the culture of the government that was left them by the Clintons. And so you had appointees with pro-life convictions who were found throughout the administration, and made a huge difference in our government and in the impact of the presidency on the culture.
Look at the fact that there was a marked drop in abortions in between 2000 and 2006, to a level of 1974 in this country. And that’s a tribute not only to President Bush, but to a great extent to him, because when a leader of a nation says that life is precious and that life should be protected, that gives heart to a lot of people who are in the middle and who aren’t sure which way to go. That kind of leadership helps those people go in the direction of life. And of course that’s the issue with the Obama presidency.

On the issue of marriage, the President spoke out against gay “marriage” on a number of occasions. He didn’t get aggressively behind a marriage amendment, because prudentially he knew it couldn’t be passed. But he did let his views be known, and he did give his personal backing to block gay “marriage” in-state.

From the point of view of the life and family and marriage, I think Bush gets an ‘A.’

Q: What do you think some of his most noteworthy pro-life and pro-family accomplishments were?

A: I think helping support and signing the three bills that came through Congress. The faith-based initiative was important because it made Church-related social services – not just the big national networks, but local regional networks – it made them more powerful because they received funding which before had only gone to institutions like Catholic Charities, or some Washington-based charity. So actually bringing in apostolates from cities and regions around the country and showing them how to write grants and how to receive more support. I think that was very important in pursuing his fundamental respect for the role of religion and culture of life.

Q: What would you say to people who say they’re disappointed in Bush because there were only a handful of visible pro-life measures, that he was all talk and not enough action. What would you say to them?

A: I think they’re wrong. I think they’re dead wrong. And the drop in the level of abortions I think is evidence for it.

I haven’t seen any polling, but I would be very surprised if a high percentage of Americans, if you asked them if President Bush was pro-life, if they wouldn’t know that he is pro-life. I bet you 90% of America knows he’s pro-life.

And I mean, the very fact that he talked is important. Talk is not unimportant. Talk is what leaders do. Much more than that, he declared pro-life policies throughout all parts of his administration. And the White House helped to support the passage of three very important pieces of pro-life legislation. He immediately reestablished the Mexico City Policy, I think on the first day of his presidency. He defended the Hyde Amendment. His administration cut off funding, all kinds of funding, to Planned Parenthood and Marie Stokes, that were ostensibly providing abortions overseas on federal monies.

I think pro-lifers tend to look at the glass half-empty. And I think that’s the case with President Bush.

Q: If Bush were standing here right now, and you had the chance to say a few words to him, what would you say?

A: I would say, “Thank you for keeping your promises to those of us in the religious community who worked for you, who supported you, who trusted that you were going to defend life and marriage, which you did. Thank you for keeping that promise.”

(By the way, you’ll notice that even in the last months of his presidency another major decision was made at HHS, which tells you that it stayed on his mind all the way to the end.)

I would say that, “I think that history will show that you were a good president, that you responded very effectively to 9/11. That you were very mistreated by the mainstream media, who are largely responsible for the drop in popularity in polls. And that I wish, Mr. President, I wish that you and your staff had done more to fight back against the way your image was being mistreated, the way your image was being so negatively portrayed in the media."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012803.html

 

[AMDG]

Thank you Michie. Another good article. And I bet that there are some here on this board that were never allowed to know just how pro-life President Bush was and what some of his pro-life accomplishments were.

 

[Fantine]

Thank you Michie. Another good article. And I bet that there are some here on this board that were never allowed to know just how pro-life President Bush was and what some of his pro-life accomplishments were.

We live in a country where the First Amendment is alive and well.

There is at least one television station that is aggressively conservative (Fox News) and numerous talk radio shows that are aggressively conservative (Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, etc.)

There are conservative newspapers--The Washington Times, Wall St. Journal.

There are Catholic media outlets on every medium--EWTN, EWTN Radio, Relevant Radio, diocesan and national Catholic publications.

Most of these media outlets have web presences, and there are conservative and internet e-zines, too.

The idea that the American public was not "allowed" to see "how pro-life President Bush was" is ridiculous.

There are numerous conservative voices in the press--most of them loudly proclaiming the illusion that the press is all liberal.

Media bias exists--but it comes from both sides of the aisle. If you want proof of that, just reread the article posted at the beginning of this thread.

 

[ChinaWhite]

The rehabilitation of a mass murderer, tormentor as a national policy, rob the poor to give to the rich, war aggressive was war, turn a blind eye to consumer safety, corporate rape of the environment and general greed is well under way I see.

Observation:

Hitler loved dogs.

That didn't make him a nice person

Anti-abortion legislation doesn't make you pro-life.

 

[Michie]

January 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Deal Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com, director of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture, the former publisher and editor of CRISIS Magazine, a Catholic monthly published in Washington, DC, and the author of seven books. His articles and comments have been published in many newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, and the National Review. He served as director of Catholic outreach for George Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. He also assisted with presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign.

In Part I of our interview with Hudson, he responded to questions about the pro-life and pro-family legacy of former president George W. Bush. In Part II, he addresses questions about the pro-life and pro-family movements during the Obama administration and into the future.

Q: Obama is now the President of the United States. In your view how does this change things for the pro-life and pro-family movements?

A: Well, it changes everything. I think you saw my piece on the pro-life summit last week in Ann Arbor. That meeting confirmed something that seems pretty obvious, and that’s that there’s a huge amount of energy in the pro-life community, and it is an energy that won’t be denied. It just needs to be channeled. It needs to be made effective through leadership. I would say that Obama and his administration should be very careful about how quickly they move to remove restrictions on abortions because they may find that they pay the price in the 2010 election in a very significant way.

Americans for the most part are not pro-abortion. Americans for the most part don’t like abortion, and they would prefer that it be limited and that abortion rates are lower. And if Obama and his administration quickly, radically, as it were, corroborate the worst fears that pro-lifers have, I think that there’ll be a political price to pay.

Q: If most Americans are against abortion, as you say, then why do you think that Obama was elected?

A: I think, unfortunately, that the life issues just got lost in the economy in particular, Iraq, national security. And most of all, most of all, the negativity that was built up toward Bush and, by association, the Republican Party. I think there were people - I know there we people - who were sincerely pro-life, whose desire for a new face in the White House, their animosity towards the Republican Party and John McCain caused them to pull the lever for a pro-abortion candidate. Because they were frustrated. They felt that much animus against the president and the party.

Now some people would say they’re not pro-life. Well, that’s one way of looking at it; but the other way is to admit how high the passions were running during this election cycle, regarding the legacy of George W. Bush, the Republican Party. With the Iraq war, and throwing the economy on top of it, and that being unfairly blamed on Bush. I think both parties share the blame for that. This whole housing mess was created on both of their watches.

Voters are human beings who don’t necessarily pull the lever in principled fashion every time. I don’t see any reason why we can’t recognize that pro-life people were fed-up with a largely negative view of Bush driven by the media.

Q: Now, you mentioned that the pro-life movement has a great deal of energy at the moment. Why do you think that is and how can we go about capturing that?

A: Well, it is because of the fear of rolling back all the restrictions on abortion that have been put in place since 1973, especially since the beginning of the Reagan years. And also, of course, because of marriage and gay rights issues. There’s a possibility of hate crime legislation being passed. That would endanger religious speech. So there’s a lot of energy.
How can it be captured? I think that the summit was very clear about things. Again, none of the speakers conferred with one another, but practically across the board the speakers were saying much the same thing.

First, we have to work with Democrats. We have to support and recognize truly pro-life Democrats. There are Democrats who have very laudable pro-life voting records. These people need to be part of our movement. And encourage other pro-life Democrats to step forward.

Secondly, it needs to be a real coalition of absolutely everybody who is committed to putting pro-life politicians in the White House and back in Congress. It can’t be owned by any one group; it has to be a real spirit of collaboration, partnership, between everybody on the ground. And that’s going to be very hard to pull off, but we really have to try.

Thirdly, we have to take advantage of the recent outspokenness of many individual bishops, to encourage them to continue to do that. To thank them for what they’ve done, to encourage them to continue. Because only they can correct the harm that was done by the twisting of Faithful Citizenship by Obama’s Catholic supporters. They need to continue to tell Catholics that that document was not intended to provide cover for Catholic voters to ignore the politician’s stance on abortion.

Finally, there needs to be some sort of parish level program on the authentic version of Faithful Citizenship. What happened in the 12 months after November 2007, when that document was passed, was the important factor in Obama winning the Catholic vote. The seminars and study groups that were held all across the country at the parish level, and many of them had the same message. Often they were put on by individuals who wanted to make sure that these loopholes in the document were underlined and bolded. Of course this led to Bishops Martino storming into one of those seminars and declaring that it was “madness.” And I think that if there is any rallying cry going forward it’s what Bishop Martino said: “People this is madness.” That’s our rallying cry.

It’s the madness that we have to fight. And it is a fight. Because we all know that throughout the middle management of our Church there are powerful people who don’t see the Church’s social teaching the way the pro-life movement does. And those people are in charge of access to parish communities, to media, and there has to be a way to have this madness exorcised and not be blocked by these folks.

Q: I spoke to two other leaders in the pro-life movement today, and each of them suggested that during the Obama administration one response should be, while not discounting the role of politics, to recognize that politics isn’t going to save us, and instead focusing on a more grassroots approach. What are your thoughts on that?

A: Fr. Pavone spoke to that at the summit, where he said that the country is gradually rejecting the pro-abortion message at the cultural level. I think there’s some truth to that. I think that is right. But, it also shows you that culture and politics are two, as it were, tectonic plates that slide in different directions, creating a chasm. And that’s what we’re looking at right now. We’ve elected a president who isn’t where the country is on this issue and he’s bringing into the administration people who represent a minority view.

Unfortunately, though, with the bully pulpit of the White House, this administration can adversely affect the country in the opposite direction of where President Bush led them over the last 8 years. That’s what leadership does. It influences people. It changes people’s minds. It helps define and deepen beliefs. The danger here is that we lose ground in the culture because of this administration.

Q: While at the same time there is an increase in energy in the pro-life movement, you hear some people just throwing up their hands saying, “Well, we’ve elected the most pro-abortion president ever. Game’s over.” How would you respond to that?

A: Be not afraid! Be not afraid.

Let’s put it this way. I doubt if they really mean it. I know they’re saying it. I don’t think they mean it. I think they’re just frustrated. And I think that a lot of people worked very hard in this last election. A lot of people sacrificed and gave a lot of themselves. And then, when they saw so many Catholics supporting Obama it was very frustrating for them.
The person who has the energy to throw up his hands in disgust is the kind of person who’s not going to stop working.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012904.html

 

[AMDG]

The idea that the American public was not "allowed" to see "how pro-life President Bush was" is ridiculous.

Perhaps you might think so, but I stand by my statement.

The schools today are liberal secular. By law of the land, no morality is taught--and God is not allowed. (Talk about violating Freedom of Speech.) Yet our impressionable youth are "force fed" what the texts say and what the teacher thinks. They have to regurgitate it exactly or face a poor grade. Add to it, the peer pressure, and a youth having a conservative idea would have an extremely rough time of it.

As far as cable TV, not everyone has it. One of my daughters does not. She gets maybe two channels--just on the public airwaves. Now those are not "neutral" and they are definitely not conservative. (In fact, there was a joke during the campaign that Obama had to check with his base--NBC, CBS, and ABC.) And as for your suggestion of FoxNews, even on this board, it is mocked and dismissed "out-of-hand" even if it happens to have a really good piece.

As for radio, there are some (like me) that don't get reception in the house. Sooo unless we are out somewhere (or just drive around so we can hear the radio) we can just forget it.

Newspapers or magazines? Haven't you noticed the liberal bias? It point blank sticks out.

I found Michie's articles rather good--and not what I usually hear. Even on OBOB, when someone mentions how prolife Bush was, I hear "well for the past eight years Bush had his chance to be prolife, and he did nothing."

 

[Fantine]

One of the problems in media today, particularly in radio, is that the FCC laws changed to allow monopolies in many metropolitan areas. These monopolies mean that often only one point of view is heard in that area's market.

Of course, Bush and Republican Michael Powell, as Chairman of the FCC, had a lot to do with that negative turn of events.

By all accounts Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell knew his crusade to eliminate decades' worth of media ownership limits was going to be a bruising fight, both inside and outside the commission. The prospect of a rush toward more media consolidation raises all sorts of hot-button issues about the future of American media and the role news plays in a democratic society.
Powell now looks likely to emerge victorious, via a party-line 3-2 vote among FCC commissioners set for early June.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/23/powells_fight/index.html

Look behind the problem, and there's often a Republican lurking.

 

[Joachim]

One of the problems in media today, particularly in radio, is that the FCC laws changed to allow monopolies in many metropolitan areas. These monopolies mean that often only one point of view is heard in that area's market.

Of course, Bush and Republican Michael Powell, as Chairman of the FCC, had a lot to do with that negative turn of events.



http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/23/powells_fight/index.html

Look behind the problem, and there's often a Republican lurking.

Those monopolies exist because that is what the demand is for. I personally would love nothing better than to see Rush Bin Limbaugh taken off of the air. He is a no-class, no talent, drug addict hack that has done nothing but poison the political discourse in our nation for the last few decades. However, there are plenty of deluded people who listen to his poison and enough of them do to make advertising on his show worthwhile where it airs. If people wanted to listen to liberals blather about how it is wrong to execute a child molester murderer or how it is so terrible when civilians own guns then Air America wouldn't have failed like it did.


The government should not regulate content. That is not what America is about. If there is a market for it they will hear it. If Rush Bin Limbaugh loses listeners because the government makes stations not carry him, he wins. If he loses listeners because people get sick of his drug addict nonsense then he loses them the right way and America wins.

 

[AMDG]

Still pursuing Fantines' posts--I believe she has now gone into the purposed Fairness Doctrine--which might have made sense long before cable and the internet but not now since there are opposing point of view. Have to say that there is nothing at all "fair" that only one point of view (the liberal) is easily accessed 24/7. Honestly, in the mainstream media there is nothing neutral. No "just reporting the news". It's all editorialized. (Reminds me of "yellow journalism".) So, it seems to me that the shows y'all are raving about (told you that I don't get radio reception--never heard Limbaugh) are just a matter of fairness themselves to the "top heavy" liberal media. (Hey, now there's a choice even I can get on board with--let people choose what they want to listen to, okay so I can't, but there's cable and internet, but not for my daughter and who knows how many more people--err, can we bring back neutral journalism?--woops that would mean that morals would be taught in school...and perhaps God might be allowed back in.)

 

[Fantine]

Perhaps you live in a blue state, AMDG (or perhaps your daughter does.) I can only tell you that where I live in the Bible Belt if NPR didn't have a bandwidth that covered quite a difference I would sometimes have no talk radio to listen to other than "Gun Talk," where people call up to ask what kind of gun to buy their 8 year olds for Christmas and the lunatic host takes them seriously rather than advising psychiatric counseling.

No, we don't get Air America here. We go from Boortz to Limbaugh to Hannity to Humphries. Hannity is the worst of the bunch.