on common ground and odd couples
It's no secret that I've been struggling for sometime with the whole idea of "the sanctity of human life". That's not to say I don't believe all life is sacred--I do. In fact, it's that very belief that has all sorts of problematic implications. I've written about it blithely at times, using it as a discussion-ender on issues of capital punishment and climate change. I have to confess though, in the middle of all of that, there are unlikely allies who emerge, seemingly from the ether. The result is a sort of "odd coupling" of individuals, organizations, governments and movements that I might suggest point to a burgeoning hope.
Odd Couple #1:
The State of New Mexico and the National Coalition for the Abolishment of the Death Penalty (NCADP)
I joined the facebook group for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty because I find the Death Penalty to the most basic rejection of the sanctity of human life, even over and above all other issues. (I've written some about this and am glad to tell you the various reasons why if you want to have that conversation privately--I'd rather not has it out on here).
After joining the group I continued to get updates advising me of recent advocacy efforts, requests for contacting congresspersons and letter-writing campaigns. I must confess I turned a deaf ear to most of these until it got local--the pending execution of Georgia prisoner Troy Davis. I did, however, take notice of an unlikely news story the NCADP was plugging. In March, the State of New Mexico repealed the death penalty. Though there was some speculation of the "feared" innocence of some of those sentenced in the "pre-DNA" era, the principle reason cited was that capital punishment is simply too expensive an enterprise to maintain. Admittedly, the NCADP is glad to welcome any help it gets, regardless of motive, but they lauded the result as New Mexico became just the second state (after New York) to remove the death penalty altogether.
The motives clearly don't match and yet the desired result was the same--put an end to capital punishment (at leas tin New Mexico). There are plenty of folks who would write off such an incident as a pure coincidence--the rare point where a "win" for one vested interest shares turf with another.
Odd Couple #2:
Mike Huckabee and the ONE Campaign
It was early 2008. The ONE campaign, which leads in advocacy and education efforts to address HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as other issues of global poverty, was featuring a campaign called "On the Record" where every presidential candidate (all 15 at the time!) went on record regarding their plans to combat extreme poverty and global disease. You could (and still can here) view up to three presidential candidates positions in a convenient comparative grid. I decided to go with then Senator Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and, out of morbid curiosity, Governor Mike Huckabee.
I found more or less what I expected to find--both Clinton and Obama pledged unparalleled support in actual dollars, while Huckabee maintained Bush's PEPFAR (arguably the most influential contribution of his administration) as well as increasing certain items, though not at the amount pledged by Clinton or Obama.
What was fascinating was Huckabee's reply to the issues of "wat-san"--the availability of clean water and sanitation. Huckabee's reply was
This is an especially cost-effective goal because each dollar spent on water and sanitation generates an economic return of about $8 in savings of time and health costs and increased productivity. I will build water and sanitation infrastructure and invest in increasing agricultural productivity.
Admittedly, there's no dollar amount given, and talk is cheap, particularly in an election year, but Huckabee had said elsewhere something closer to a "blank check" policy than any of his counterparts when it came to water and sanitation.
This is not say this earned my vote at any level, but it did make me consider how there are multiple ways to come around to something. Huckabee's rationale for clean wat-san, as well as his commitment to bed-nets to combat malaria, high-light his most basic political commitment to spending less. The logic is that people who are invested in at an early age--clean water, good sanitation, with mosquito nets and nourishment--these people are more likely to live longer, require less aid and services then people lacking such basic services, and will subsequently make greater contributions to their own well-being and the well-being of others.
Odd Couple #3:
Robert P. George and Planned Parenthood
Last week saw the brutal murder of George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who, among other things, had become a lightning-rod for the anti-abortion movement because of his willful decision to perform late-term abortions. He was killed in the foyer of his church , shot while handing out bulletins for the morning worship.
There are all sorts of responses popping up in the media maelstrom--some have recognized their own complicity in espousing hate towards Tiller while others have questioned the apparent silence of much of the religious right. Then there are the heinous statements of some who claim to follow Jesus and are yet gratified by his death.
Perhaps the most interesting posts I found, however, come from the office of Planned Parenthood (of which Tiller was not a participating physician) and Robert P. George, the noted conservative Princeton Law Professor and anti-abortion activist. Planned Parenthood said nothing of the maliciousness of the shooter, nor did they make any allegations relating to his agenda (as many others have.) In fact, in terms of moral assessment, it was only George who used such language, calling it gravely wicked. Furthermore, the stoic, widely regarded Catholic professor said simply:
"Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious."
Somehow the "sanctity of human life" was co-opted into meaning an often theoretical un-born child, with little thought given to the life/development/genetic issues that child may or may not bring. I recognize many who read this will see it as a cop-out, but I think it's naive to say anything other than "these things are complicated." Moreover, people rarely ask about the sanctity of the life of the mother, or of the death-row inmate, or of child in Niger dying from Malaria, or the Congolese woman left incontinent by rape.
Still, I find in the unlikely pairings here (and the thousands more we don't hear about or read about) a sense of hope an cooperation--that a better world is possible. I've been struggling through a book for about a year now called Blessed Unrest by environmental and social activist Richard Hawken. It's filled with details and minutiae, facts and figures--it's brilliant, but heady, and so I keep picking it up and putting it back down. I find I'm always drawn back to it, mostly because of the subtitle:
"How the Largest Movement in the World Came Into Being
And Why No One Saw It Coming."
It' may be a ploy to sell books, but by and large, I believe it. I believe there's something in the air--something that means that in spite of great pain and atrocities, a better world is possible. Whether it's on economics or the environment, capital punishment or reproductive education, there's something blowing in the breeze. I'm not sure if it's God's spirit or not, but either way, I'd hate to miss it.
