Moral Reformation in Democratic Politics

History tells us that, on abortion, the long view is needed.

Political compromise toward a more just society is inherent to democratic politics. Social change, even positive social change, forced upon a populace is destabilizing, and the conservative instinct will almost always react against it. It may seem paradoxical at times, but balancing moral reformation with political stability is the project of just constitutional stewardship. There are a couple of historical examples that come to mind that are illustrative of this point; the 19th century anti-alcohol prohibition movement and the movement to end slavery and ensure civil rights for blacks in America. These movements have profound implications for social conservatives in the 21st century who have a zealous desire to push back against immoral excesses of our current legal and social culture. 

History is rife with examples of both prudent reformation leading to positive change, and also overzealous reformers leading to political disorder. One example that I have often pondered is that of alcohol prohibition. As a Seventh-Day Adventist, I am well aware of the history surrounding the 19th century temperance movement. Many leading Adventist figures were intimately involved in that project, and I have some sympathies for their goals. Given the history of Prohibition, however, I have come to believe that from a legal paradigm they made some tactical errors. Uprooting alcohol entirely from society was too big of an ask, and the task of enforcing its ban when vast portions of the populace had no intention of obliging was antithetical to principles of limited constitutional government–not to mention the unintended consequences of giving a massive boost to organized crime.

Anyone who is intimately familiar with the rates of alcoholism and related abuse and dysfunction in 18th and 19th century America would have sympathy for the good and moral goals of the 19th century reformers. Physician and Declaration of Independence signer Benjamin Rush wrote and spoke extensively about his concerns with the amount of drinking Americans post-Revolution did. It was in this period that the primary drink of choice went from beer to the hard spirits and liquor made in the early nation’s burgeoning distillery industry.

It was also very common in those days for children to drink, and drink copiously–no regulations or laws limited this. Into that context came the alcohol prohibitionists, who received lots of support and ultimately a signal legal and political victory in the 18th amendment. Ultimately their total victory was short lived, but I would argue their moral cause was furthered on by their more pragmatic and prudent intellectual descendents. In the 21st century, alcohol and alcoholism are not the same level of blight on American society as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries. Minors are prohibited from purchasing alcohol, and there are punishments for furnishing them with the beverage, endangering others by driving, or acting disorderly in public spaces under the influence. Increased legal protections for women and children in abusive relationships blunt some of the possible harm from alcohol on domestic life and provides some recourse for victims.

These and other legal innovations over the course of the 20th century have answered the call of the passionate, albeit overly zealous, early social reformers, but have not inspired massive resistance from the populace at large. They make our society better and safer for everyone, and they shape public opinion in ways consistent with constitutional democracy and a free society.

The Israeli-American political philosopher Yoram Hazony has written quite eloquently about conservatism as a political project being aimed at repair and reform as opposed to revolution and degenerating stasis. As Hazony points out, the reform minded conservative would not be opposed in the 1960s to the extension of protected civil rights to Black Americans, but they would seek to limit the political remedy to the specific issues at hand rather than cobble together a broad solution which could be copy and pasted to the legitimate plights of other marginalized groups. The legitimate issues faced by women in society required a different set of political solutions than those Black Americans required. This same principle holds true for every varied interest group in society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, while important in extending the recognition of legal protections to all citizens regardless of race, has some legitimate problems in this regard that are playing out to this day. 

In order for moral reform to be translated into durable political change, it has to be done in such a way as to work with and appeal to the better angels of the people. In a constitutional democracy that means incremental progress based on broad consensus. It is simply a reality that, in 1776, American colonial society was not ready to accept political solutions justly abolishing slavery and instantaneously recognizing African-Americans as the full Image Bearers of God that they are. Tthe 3/5 Compromise was the best flawed solution available. The slavery hesitant and skeptical North agreed to a political solution for their moment, and the abolitionist movement kept up their righteous cause of cultural transformation. In 2008, America became the first nation in modern democratic history to elect a member of a non-majority race to be its chief leader–and incremental moral reformation was vindicated on the racial justice question (not saying there isn’t room for improvement).

Given these historical reference points, what can those living in 2024 America who wish to see their society become more just and advance toward Lincoln's “more perfect Union” take to heart? On the pro-life question, the lesson has to be that being right doesn’t equate to saving lives through legal protections when the culture is heavily biased against one’s position. You have to be willing to accept short term compromises that you know are morally lacking if they mean a “more” life affirming culture. That means that, even in the most pro-life states, the killing of the unborn will be legal at the earliest moments of the pregnancy. In the most pro-choice states you will have to come to terms with fighting over limits on the MOST extreme late term/post birth abortions. This democratic work will make you sick to your stomach (speaking from experience), but if done faithfully through constitutional means, can very possibly mean your children or grandchildren’s generation will someday view elective abortion the way we today view Southern slavery. A long term view is needed. 

The final take away I want to leave everyone with is that that old Andrew Breitbart quip that, “politics is downstream of culture” is incredibly true. Moral reformation of society starts not with Congress, state legislative assemblies, or committees, but with the moral transformation of the heart of the reformer. From a heart renewed by love and passion, more hearts will catch the bug. It is how Christianity completely changed the world without any political power. To quote one of the early Adventist prohibitionist era reformers I referenced before, Ellen G. White, “Christ’s method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathyfor them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, ‘FollowMe.’”

Joey Carrion is a political science student at Andrews University, studying pre-law as well as psychology. He co-hosts the Gio and Joey podcast and operates the Michigan Reagan Caucus Twitter/X account. @adventistcowboy