Slate‘s Human Nature says, under the subhead “Bush’s hypocrisy on stem cells and the death penalty”:
President Bush said he would veto [legislation to expand federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research] because it “violates the clear standard I set four years ago. This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life.”
The standard Bush set four years ago and repeated last week is that we shouldn’t take one life — even an embryonic life — in order to save others. Cost-benefit analysis is never sufficient grounds for the premeditated killing of civilians — except when it comes to the death penalty. When the discussion shifts from embryos to murderers, Bush and his spokesmen routinely argue that killing is justified not because murderers deserve it, but because it’s moral to take one life in order to save others. He doesn’t say that Person A should be executed because Person A is a danger to society. He says that Person A should be executed because the execution will deter Person B from killing Person C.
Before Bush vetoes the stem-cell bill, maybe he should explain how his comments about stem cells in the left column below square with his comments about capital punishment in the right column [giving examples].
Well, that’s interesting — let’s have a look at a speech that Slate quotes as an example of the President’s comments on capital punishment:
“I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.”
Here’s a funny thing: If we start the quote a few sentences before, here’s what we get (emphasis added):
Q Can you please talk about a little bit about your view of the death penalty and how that fits into your vision of a culture of life?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Thanks. I have been supportive of the death penalty, both as governor and President. And the difference between the case of Terry Schiavo and the case of a convicted killer is the difference between guilt and innocence. And I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I’m comfortable with my beliefs that there’s no contradiction between the two.
Say, isn’t that President Bush “explain[ing] how his comments about stem cells . . . square with his comments about capital punishment”? Maybe you aren’t persuaded by it, but doesn’t it absolve him of the charges of “hypocrisy” (though not of the charges of error, if you think he’s mistaken)? And might it have been worthwhile to quote that sentence as well as the two afterwards, if one’s complaint about the President is that he’s supposedly not reconciling his supposedly inconsistent views?
Or, if you’d like, here are Scott McClellan’s comments on April 4, 2005:
Q Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty is warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the president fully supports the death penalty, use of the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, “culture of life,” and still support the death penalty, which the pope expressed . . . .
MR. MCCLELLAN: No. Let’s separate out — I mean because I spoke about this issue last week and why the president’s view is the way it is, and that’s because we’re talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.
So why don’t President Bush and his spokespeople mention this every time they discuss the death penalty? Because it’s such a commonplace in our death penalty debate that it goes without saying. Virtually every American — including, I’d wager, the author of the Human Nature column — is well aware that this is a key argument of those who support the death penalty but not (say) infanticide or abortion. A public speaker may reasonably conclude that there’s no reason to repeat such a well-understood proviso every time he makes an argument.
One can of course disagree with this position, and conclude that cost-benefit-based killings are never proper, even as to the guilty — or that they’re always proper, even as to the innocent. But one should recognize that most people (not all, I suppose, but most) who talk the talk of deterrence as to the death penalty are implicitly making the guilty-innocent distinction. One can call them wrong, if one thinks the guilty-innocent distinction doesn’t suffice to justify their position. But don’t call them hypocrites on the grounds that they have supposedly failed to articulate a distinction, when this distinction is widely understood to be implicit in most death penalty supporter’s arguments.
And certainly don’t say that “Before Bush vetoes the stem-cell bill, maybe he should explain how his comments about stem cells in the left column below square with his comments about capital punishment in the right column” when President Bush gave such an explanation in one of the very statements that you quote in the right column, immediately before the material that you quote — and you failed to quote that explanation.
Comments are closed.