John Whitehead's Commentary
George W. Bush and the Dangerous Game of Politics
It was October 1963. As the world braced for what many feared would be the first nuclear war, our young president--despite unbelievable pressure from military brass and politicians to consider various options--was in the process of backing down the mighty Soviets. The ominous "Red Bear" had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, a few miles from American shores. And John F. Kennedy was demanding that they be removed. For thirteen days, we sat glued to our television sets and listened to our teachers debate the issue in class. In the end, JFK's principled stand was--and still is--a sense of pride for the United States.
For that one shining moment in time, Kennedy the statesman grabbed the moral high ground and refused to relent. Instead of giving in to the external pressures that all leaders are exposed to, he stood firm. Kennedy's strength serves as one of the few examples of leadership that we can point to in recent years.
And now, having just emerged from eight years of the Clinton presidency, many Americans are understandably ready for strong moral leadership. The ultimate politician, Clinton studied the opinion polls faithfully and was guided in his decision making by what he believed to be the prevailing winds of thought. Even those closest to him admitted that if Clinton smiled at you in the morning, it was for political gain. As a consequence of his lack of moral resolve, the Clinton presidency lost any true legacy it might have had.
Now Americans have George W. Bush to contend with. A likable man, Bush appears to have a moral compass, which he strives to follow, although at times he seems to lack the refined intellect, analytical ability and independent decision-making skills characteristic of some of his predecessors.
While a tendency to bend to political pressure is not always bad, when it comes to moral questions and decisions dealing with human life, it can be devastating. This is illustrated in the President's recent decision to step back from the strongly pro-life position he put forth in his presidential campaign and approve $250 million in federal funding for stem cell research.
In announcing his decision, Bush emphasized that frozen human embryos are "something precious to be protected" and that "stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards." " I believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator ... I worry about a culture that devalues the life," Bush noted, as he affirmed his role in encouraging respect for life throughout the world. Then, in a contradictory jump in logic, he concluded that he would allow federal funding on a limited basis on human stem cells.
Sadly, however, it was revealed after his speech that Bush also made a little-noticed policy change in one area of his rules on stem cell research that is more permissive than those put forward by then-President Clinton. That policy change, according to the Washington Post, concerns the removal of strict ethics guidelines governing the procurement of stem cell-laden embryos from fertility clinics. This means that colonies of cells that would not have passed muster under the Clinton administration's ethics guidelines will now be eligible for use in federally funded studies. On the question of embryo procurement, the Bush plan demands only that donors at fertility clinics give "proper informed consent," without defining what that means. The Clinton rules, on the other hand, specified in great detail how the informed consent process should proceed. Indeed, they required that consent documents use specific wording to ensure that women did not feel coerced to donate their embryos. Also, the Clinton rules necessitated that only frozen embryos be used for research so that embryos would not be taken just as a woman was undergoing in vitro fertilization. This is an emotionally vulnerable time that ethicists have said should be off-limits to researchers seeking embryos. Yet Bush has made no mention of such a restriction.
Clearly, President Bush has opened the Pandora's Box of research on human beings. The fear raised by writers and philosophers that someday science would alter human life and people would become guinea pigs for research is now more than conjecture--it is reality.
There are those who believe the outcome of such scientific tinkering and human experimentation to be inevitable. Nevertheless, we must have wisdom and discernment in the choices we make. We cannot allow those without scruples to dictate our destiny. It is up to us--and those whom we place in leadership positions--to understand the issues confronting us and have the necessary moral fiber to stand against that which would further devalue and dehumanize life.
The renowned French philosopher Albert Camus said, "The world expects of Christians that they will eschew all fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves squarely in front of the bloody face of history. We are in need of folk who have determined to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may to stand by what they have said."
What wouldn't we give to have leaders like that?
For that one shining moment in time, Kennedy the statesman grabbed the moral high ground and refused to relent. Instead of giving in to the external pressures that all leaders are exposed to, he stood firm. Kennedy's strength serves as one of the few examples of leadership that we can point to in recent years.
And now, having just emerged from eight years of the Clinton presidency, many Americans are understandably ready for strong moral leadership. The ultimate politician, Clinton studied the opinion polls faithfully and was guided in his decision making by what he believed to be the prevailing winds of thought. Even those closest to him admitted that if Clinton smiled at you in the morning, it was for political gain. As a consequence of his lack of moral resolve, the Clinton presidency lost any true legacy it might have had.
Now Americans have George W. Bush to contend with. A likable man, Bush appears to have a moral compass, which he strives to follow, although at times he seems to lack the refined intellect, analytical ability and independent decision-making skills characteristic of some of his predecessors.
While a tendency to bend to political pressure is not always bad, when it comes to moral questions and decisions dealing with human life, it can be devastating. This is illustrated in the President's recent decision to step back from the strongly pro-life position he put forth in his presidential campaign and approve $250 million in federal funding for stem cell research.
In announcing his decision, Bush emphasized that frozen human embryos are "something precious to be protected" and that "stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards." " I believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator ... I worry about a culture that devalues the life," Bush noted, as he affirmed his role in encouraging respect for life throughout the world. Then, in a contradictory jump in logic, he concluded that he would allow federal funding on a limited basis on human stem cells.
Sadly, however, it was revealed after his speech that Bush also made a little-noticed policy change in one area of his rules on stem cell research that is more permissive than those put forward by then-President Clinton. That policy change, according to the Washington Post, concerns the removal of strict ethics guidelines governing the procurement of stem cell-laden embryos from fertility clinics. This means that colonies of cells that would not have passed muster under the Clinton administration's ethics guidelines will now be eligible for use in federally funded studies. On the question of embryo procurement, the Bush plan demands only that donors at fertility clinics give "proper informed consent," without defining what that means. The Clinton rules, on the other hand, specified in great detail how the informed consent process should proceed. Indeed, they required that consent documents use specific wording to ensure that women did not feel coerced to donate their embryos. Also, the Clinton rules necessitated that only frozen embryos be used for research so that embryos would not be taken just as a woman was undergoing in vitro fertilization. This is an emotionally vulnerable time that ethicists have said should be off-limits to researchers seeking embryos. Yet Bush has made no mention of such a restriction.
Clearly, President Bush has opened the Pandora's Box of research on human beings. The fear raised by writers and philosophers that someday science would alter human life and people would become guinea pigs for research is now more than conjecture--it is reality.
There are those who believe the outcome of such scientific tinkering and human experimentation to be inevitable. Nevertheless, we must have wisdom and discernment in the choices we make. We cannot allow those without scruples to dictate our destiny. It is up to us--and those whom we place in leadership positions--to understand the issues confronting us and have the necessary moral fiber to stand against that which would further devalue and dehumanize life.
The renowned French philosopher Albert Camus said, "The world expects of Christians that they will eschew all fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves squarely in front of the bloody face of history. We are in need of folk who have determined to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may to stand by what they have said."
What wouldn't we give to have leaders like that?
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
