Today is Good Friday, the day on which Christians commemorate the death of Christ on the Cross for humankind's sins and the resultant triumph of good over evil. This "good versus evil" conflict is a tenet of many other religions and has roots in the Old Testament's Mosaic Law and in third century AD Manichaeism that taught that life was a never-ending struggle between the good and a world of light and evil and a world of darkness.
For all of us, good is a manifestation of love, life, happiness, caring and justice. Evil is the opposite of these virtues: hatred, death, sorrow, insensitivity and injustice. A question that I often wrestle with is — does this good have to be absolute? Can the struggle for good ever facilitate things that are inherently evil?
I have a conservative friend who voted for President Donald Trump for two basic reasons: He deeply disliked Hillary Clinton and, as a devout Catholic, believed Trump's election would ultimately enable the upending of Roe v. Wade, thus making abortion illegal again. I am not a proponent of abortion, yet believe a woman's decision should be between herself and God. I value life, but I have no idea what it must be like to have someone else's biology and to be in her shoes.
While acknowledging the complexity of social, moral and legal issues revolving around abortion, I have no doubt that an effort to preserve the sanctity of life is objectively an effort to achieve the good. But what happens when this also brings with it a host of bad things?
An unfettered Trump presidency opens the door to a philosophical system known as objectivism, developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand. There are many aspects to this school of thought, but two central tenets are that the moral purpose of life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, and the only political system that is suitable to this is laissez-faire capitalism. This approach to economics and public policy calls for a political system that disdains government interference in our lives in the form of regulations, privileges and subsidies. The system also rejects the need for altruism and any moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate. Objectivism has been a strong and persistent influence on conservatives such as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
One has only to look at the first draft of the Republican health care plan to appreciate the impact of this mode of thinking. We were presented with a replacement for Obamacare that played with semantics. It promised "universal access" to health care and coverage, just like we now all have universal access to luxury cars like BMWs ... if we can afford them. In doing so, the plan would've left 24 million people currently with insurance uncovered and raised costs for seniors. The bill also cut $880 billion in funding for Medicaid, impacting children, the elderly, the blind and disabled. All this was done to secure a $600 billion tax cut for the rich. Those in the top one-tenth of the 1 percent of income would get an average tax cut of $165,090. The 90 percent of us who make under $208,500 would get no tax cut at all.
Then there's Trump's budget. To secure even more tax cuts for the rich and increase funding for the military-industrial complex, the budget has targeted a host of programs that are depended upon by the poor and middle class like the Corporation for National and Community Service that funds 5,000 Meals on Wheels groups. Trump also devastatingly cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that brings us PBS and NPR; the Legal Services Corporation that provides financial support for legal aid to low-income Americans; the National Endowment for the Arts that funds museums and public arts participation; Amtrak; and the U.S. Agency for International Development that provides support for ending extreme poverty and promoting the development of democratic societies among the world's neediest nations.
See the pattern here? Anything that smacks of altruism is targeted. The sad irony is that many of these cuts fall upon the backs of people who trusted and believed in Trump and gave him their support in November.
So, is the "good" that comes with the hope of banning abortion worth the diminished well-being and quality of life for the untold millions of children and adults at home and abroad? That's a philosophical question worthy of serious debate.
Frank Batavick writes from Westminster. His column appears Fridays. Email him at fjbatavick@gmail.com.
