The Train Kept A-Rollin'

One of the most interesting things to come out of CPAC over the weekend was Charles Murray's impromptu speech (he declined to read his prepared remarks) on how the GOP should freely accept gay marriage and abortion.  Murray, a social scientist, is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and usually comes out with arguments that go against the liberal orthodoxy, which no doubt makes him popular in conservative circles.  Here is Murray in his own words:

The question on his mind was “How can conservatives make their case after the election?,” and the answer he wanted to share was drawn from his experience with his own four children. They range in age, he said, from twenty-three to forty-three. While they share many of his views on limiting the size of government, and supporting free enterprise, he said, “Not one of them thought of voting for a Republican President” in the last election. Their disenchantment with the Republican Party was not specifically because of Mitt Romney, he added, but because, “They consider the Party to be run by anti-abortion, anti-gay, religious nuts.” 

“With gay marriage,” he went on, “I think the train has left the station.”

Senator Portman would concur. 

Murray says that he "'was dead-set against gay marriage when it was first broached,'" and he thought that what all gays "'want is the wedding, and the party, and the honeymoon—but not this long thing we call marriage.'”  Murray says his mind was changed when "'he had discovered that the gay couples he knew with children were not just responsible parents; they were “excruciatingly responsible parents.'”

But, as with my problems with Sen. Portman, Murray's argument is based on nothing more than passions and majoritarianism.  Just because someone may want something, no matter how deeply felt, is  not a standard of right and wrong.  A kleptomaniac would surely like to steal anything he sees simply because he "wants it."  In no way does this make the actions of such a person right or just.  And simply because a majority of people want something again does not make it right.  Might does not make right.

Murray's stance on abortion:

The disquiet grew further as Murray suggested that abortion, too, was an issue better left, for the most part, to “moral suasion” rather than criminalization. Personally, he said, he regarded abortion as a “grave” moral issue, and favored some restrictions. He said he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and abortions regulated at the state level. But, he said, “the extent to which they can be legislated remains in question.” Rather than absolutely banning abortion, as many conservatives in the room clearly preferred, Murray quoted his friend Karl Hess, a Goldwater speechwriter turned “charming anarchist,” on the idea that abortions should be thought of as homicides—with the caveat that, “It’s a murder—it’s a homicide—but sometimes homicide is justified.” Murray said that he’d long thought that Hess was too harsh, but now thought that his language was right.

I honestly could not make sense of the reasoning here.  He begins by decrying the need to criminalize abortion buts ends with the claim that abortion should be regarding as homicide, which of course is within the jurisdiction of law enforcement officials... .  He also injects in this analysis the typical conservative "federalism" argument--that abortion should be left to the states--seemingly without the knowledge of the current political and legal landscape.  It was in fact Roe that duly overturned laws in the 50 states.  We can't go back to the state of affairs before Roe without a resolution at the federal level.  

I thought this was perhaps the most important insight Murray had in the course of his speech:  “'I’m not known as an astute electoral analyst.'”