With the news that Hershel Walker demanded his girlfriend get an abortion, paid for the abortion, and sent a signed note thanking her for the abortion, GOP officials and pundits have begun to select their favorite mutually exclusive form of denial (“he’s a changed man!”, “he denies it, so the literal receipts and signatures are irrelevant!”, “even if he did it, he needs to become a Senator to stop abortions!”).
Democrats and other non-Republicans allege that, as with Roy Moore, Donald Trump, and Brett Kavanaugh, this is proof of the insincerity of Republican principles. If Walker did what is alleged, this is very serious stuff. If you truly believe that he killed a human, a child, to make his life easier, he is a moral monster. Further, if you truly believe that he is covering it up so that he can become one of the most powerful people in the world, he is an extremely dangerous person to allow to take on that role. What kind of person, what kind of voter, would think it necessary to empower somebody who is covering up his murder of his own child so he could attain political office?
Thus, the argument goes, Republicans who continue to support and empower Walker (and did so for Moore, Trump, Kavanaugh, etc.) clearly don’t actually believe what they’ve claimed. They don’t believe abortion is murder. They don’t believe that Walker is covering up his murder of his child. They don’t believe that they are trying to put a dangerously amoral person with no value for human life into office. They’re simply lying about believing abortion is murder because it provides them with a lever to political power.
I would invite people to consider the alternative possibility. Perhaps they do believe abortion is murder. Perhaps they do believe that it is necessary to make a child murderer a US Senator. Perhaps they do believe that, to defeat Democrats, murdering your child might have been necessary (even good!). Perhaps they do believe it is morally good to cover up murder by a US Senator. Perhaps they’re not lying.
At this point, the question we must ask ourselves is not whether they have principles, but if they are adhering to principles which necessitate that, what else is acceptable? What else would they consider to be “good”? If a fetus is a baby, and a candidate who kills babies but would vote to ban it is worth it, then:
It doesn’t matter if he is still doing it. As a matter of math, whether he did it in the past, or is doing it now, no individual baby’s life is worth more than that vote. Helping him cover up more baby murder is still necessary. The lack of import on the second abortion suggests this continues to be true.
It doesn’t matter if he killed an adult. As a matter of moral horror, killing a defenseless baby is considered worse than killing an adult. If it will stop abortions, better he kill an adult than a baby.
It would be better if it were a public official. As a matter of political impact, the life of somebody close to you like your child might influence your ability to gain power, but other political figures such as the Senator or Governor whose office you covet is more influential.
I cannot know whether Republicans who want to empower Walker are lying about their belief that a fetus is a human life. I cannot know if those Republicans really believe that murder to attain political power is acceptable. I cannot know if they really believe they have a moral obligation to cover up murder by Republican candidates and officials. Given the current state of the Republican party, the elevation of people like Putin, Orban, Rittenhouse, and insurrectionist candidates, I don’t think I can safely say that they’re lying.
What else can they decide to overlook, if they can overlook murder by a candidate for Senator? What else can they decide is necessary, or even good?
Comments