The Post-Roe Political Landscape
A new era of American politics was ushered in by the Supreme Court. Here's what it all means.
This week begins the rest of my life, at least so far as politics goes. The origins of my voting patterns began when I was 14-years-old. It was the summer of 1984. I was hanging out at my grandparents’ old farmhouse and putting on my usual ten pounds eating Grandma’s cookies. I picked up a Time magazine that was sitting around and began to read the commentary on the presidential race between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale.
There was a story of how Mondale’s running mate, Geraldine Ferraro, was in the midst of a public squabble with the Catholic cardinal, the late John O’Connor in her home Archdiocese of New York. It was over the question of abortion. I read through the article, which went into what an abortion actually was. I felt my blood pressure rise. How could anyone—Catholic or not—think this was okay?
In the ensuing 38 years, my belief on this subject deepened. I heard liberal men give sanctimonious talks about the rights of women, while suspecting that they were really wanting easy ways out of a swinging lifestyle. I prayed the rosary outside abortion mills in my old hometown of Pittsburgh—something made easier in that for four years I worked right across the street from one of those mills.
I learned about the tremendous work being done by crisis pregnancy centers—places that operated with meager resources, but stretched themselves to the limit to provide for women in difficult situations. These centers are living proof of the Big Lie—the one that says pro-lifers don’t care what happens after birth.
Politically speaking, my activity and even interest ebbed and flowed. My opinions on a wide range of issues have developed and sometimes changed. But on this question of human life, I’ve never changed my mind. And in November of every fourth year, the first factor I always considered was how to get judges on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. I voted for candidates I was lukewarm about (hello Bob Dole) and some that I flat out couldn’t stand (looking at you Mitt Romney) in the hopes that this might happen. Finally, it did.
So, where do we go from here? We’re in an entirely new era of American politics. How does someone like me go about voting now?
Listen to a video discussion of what the fall of Roe means from the standpoint of faith, philosophy and culture. Dan Flaherty and John Tuturice co-host this video edition of Corned Beef Catholicism.
As soon as the Supreme Court agreed to take up the Mississippi case that was used as the vehicle to overturn Roe, I knew it was a threshold moment. Either the Court would do what it did on Friday. Or it would not—in which case, I would have to look at a Court lineup of six Republican appointees and conclude that my voting strategy wasn’t delivering. Either way, the era was going to end and I’ve been preparing for it. Nothing I’ve written about the future of Republican politics since starting this page in December has changed. But here is a concise summation of how I want to evaluate candidates—at least on the presidential level—in the post-Roe era.
*I’m looking for a candidate who will permanently end the post-World War II era of American foreign policy—one where the U.S. gets sucked into providing blood and treasure every time conflict breaks out overseas. This article outlines my thoughts on a new foreign policy, and getting presidents who will adopt a principled antiwar posture is a big priority.
*I want a president who will push for increased tariffs—a tax on foreign imports--while giving tax breaks to American companies that produce domestically. The only way we are going to get real social justice—the ability for working-class people and immigrants to get a piece of the economic pie—is if we get a revitalized manufacturing sector that offers good-paying jobs further down the financial ladder. A tariff-driven trade policy, protecting our industries from products made overseas with cheap (or slave) labor, is where that starts
*The state level is where abortion decisions will be decided. I’ll still be voting for candidates who will make protection of the unborn the top priority. But I also hope that this new landscape can create some room for reaching across the aisle once elections are over. Access to health care has been shown to reduce the number of abortions. Access to housing is often vital for women in difficult relationships that want to give birth.
Healthcare and housing are issues that were traditionally associated with Democrats , at least before worrying about pronouns became what Democrats cared about. And as much as I believe in the great work of crisis pregnancy centers, the sheer expense of healthcare and housing can make some type of government program at the state and local levels necessary. Let’s talk. Let’s come and reason together.
*I also hope that, after the outrage some are feeling dissipates, this can usher in a less toxic era of political discourse. Abortion is an issue a lot of us feel strongly about. The twisted nature of the Roe dynamic meant all that passion had to get poured out onto presidential races generally and Supreme Court picks specifically. Now, that passion can be diffused across 50 states and towards practical solutions that bring the best of both sides together.
Those are the opportunities that lie ahead. But lest there be any naivete, there will always be forces that oppose moving to a new era.
The Obstacles Ahead
Two great saints in the history of the Catholic Church have some pertinent insights about what happens when progress gets made. They’re talking in one’s personal spiritual life, but the insights can still apply here. St. Teresa of Avila penned the spiritual classic Interior Castle and likened the journey of the human soul to moving through different rooms in a great mansion. And that when you enter a new room, it’s always a sign of progress—but that there were always serpents trying to pull us back. St. Faustina Kowalska, author of the great Divine Mercy Diary, lamented to the Lord that whenever she met one challenge, ten more stood in front of her.
For our purposes here, I have a less spiritual analogy in mind. I’m thinking of a scene in Godfather III. Michael Corleone has worked out a deal that will be the crown jewel of his career as a mafia boss—one that will make his enterprise legitimate. He calls his associates together for a last meeting at an Atlantic City hotel.
Michael talks with them about how together they have prospered, and now it’s time to move on. As a reward, he hands them all a check for $50 million. But not everyone is pleased with this new landscape. A helicopter appears outside the windows, a machine gun assault is unleashed and Michael barely escapes with his life.
We’d be naïve to think there isn’t a political helicopter assault coming—or, at the very least, that someone doesn’t at least want to unleash one. And the question would be this—who?
The simplest place to start is to look at who is going to lose power under this new landscape.
I’m currently in a Zoom book club where we’re reading about how foreign policy has been historically crafted, both in the United States and abroad. In yesterday’s reading, we learned that during the Bismarck era of German politics, support for an expansionist and aggressive foreign policy was sustained by having a domestic base of political support from the working classes—support built on issues other than foreign policy.
I noted that it sounds strikingly similar to the United States of late. The Bush wing of the Republican Party retains support for its adventures abroad by holding social conservatives in place—not because we liked their foreign policy, but because the dynamic of American politics (namely, that the Democratic Party despises our very existence) left us no other choice. We became their domestic base of support.
It only sort-of worked out for us—we still needed the antiwar Trump to give us 3 of the 5 Supreme Court votes we needed. He got those three in four years, while it took 12 years of the Bushes to get the other two—one of which (Alito), Bush II had to be pushed into nominating against his will.
But while this arrangement “sort of” worked for us prior to Trump, it worked out spectacularly well for the traditional GOP. They got their foreign wars. Only now, we don’t need them anymore. We don’t need the Bushes, the McConnells, the Cheneys, the Lindsey Grahams, the John McCains and their new heirs, from Mike Pence to Dan Crenshaw to Nikki Haley.
I’m willing, as Michael Corleone was, to shake hands and leave on friendly terms. As much angst as some of us have had at Mitch McConnell, he kept a Supreme Court seat open during 2016 and ensured Donald Trump could fill it the following year. McConnell, after the September 2020 death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, immediately told Republican senators to keep their options open—i.e., not to rule out confirming a Trump nominee so close to an election.
Without McConnell’s work, Friday’s historic day would not have happened. Liz Cheney, my personal scourge of late, complimented the Supreme Court (in sharp contrast to the Bush Family, who has still said nothing). If they want to shake hands and part as friends, that works for me. But we are parting, because I think their vision of foreign and trade policy is a proven disaster.
Will the McConnell/Cheney wing of the party agree to part graciously or will they unleash a political helicopter attack? The answer, unfortunately, is that we’re probably looking at an attack. Actually, that attack is already in motion. It’s called the January 6 Committee.
It’s worth noting that, besides Trump, the prime targets of this Committee have been aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. Bannon and Navarro are the most outspoken and effective advocates of the type of foreign and trade policies that I’ve outlined here. If the Committee—with Liz Cheney leading the way—continues this witch hunt, there is no choice but to accept that they prefer a helicopter assault to a friendly parting.
The coming month of July will tell us a lot how the Republican Old Guard wants this to play out. But we aren’t just rolling over for them. If they doubt us, ask Planned Parenthood how persistent we’re ready to be.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade can usher in a new, more edifying period of American political discourse for everyone. But we’ll have to fight for it. And our first weapon must always be prayer—specifically the rosary. Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn and of the Americas, pray for us.