|
 resident Bush doesn't
want his State of the Union to be a Clinton-like laundry list of
initiatives, and the word is that he will dwell on "broad themes"
rather than specific policies. It's an ingenious spin: The category
of "broad themes" is sufficiently capacious to include
policies the White House actually wants to push — such as an
expanded Americorps, which supposedly dovetails perfectly with the
renewal of public-spiritedness since September 11 — but narrow
enough to discourage Bush's allies from lobbying for the inclusion
of their pet causes in the speech. And there is in fact a very strong
case for the president to spend most of his time preparing the public
for the next phases of the war.
Still, the
president should find a moment to ask Congress to pass a ban on
human cloning. Almost all congressmen say they want to pass a ban,
but the sticking point concerns its scope: Some members, mostly
Democrats, posit a distinction between "reproductive cloning"
designed to yield babies, which they oppose, and "therapeutic
cloning" that creates embryos that are used for medicinal purposes
(and, in the process, destroyed), which they support.
The president
opposes therapeutic cloning — rightly, in my view. (I go into
the merits of the cases for and against a ban in the latest issue
of NR.)
Here's why he should reiterate his position tomorrow night:
1) It's a big
issue. The president is going to do a few important, constructive
things this year. Continuing to wage the war is the foremost of
these. Continuing to make the case for private accounts in Social
Security is another, although legislative action won't happen. Otherwise,
he'll mostly be fending off dumb Democratic proposals and fighting
for unimpressive proposals of his own. If embryo farming gets going
on Bush's watch, it will be part of his legacy — and not a
legacy he wants.
2) Supporters
of therapeutic cloning are on the defensive. Erik Hotmire, press
secretary for leading cloning opponent Senator Sam Brownback of
Kansas, takes heart from two developments in the debate. Tom Daschle,
under fire in South Dakota from the Family Research Council, is
insisting that he takes the issue seriously and wants to hold a
full debate. Cloning supporters are also still flailing around for
new terms to make their agenda popular. After inventing "therapeutic
cloning," they have moved on to "nuclear transplantation,"
"somatic cell nuclear transfer," and probably another
neologism by the end of this week. Each new term they introduce
is a mark of their lack of confidence.
3) The president's
role in forming public opinion is likely to be especially important
here. The public strongly disapproves of human cloning and favors
a ban. On the specific question of therapeutic cloning, however,
the poll findings are highly dependent on the wording of the question.
Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise
Institute, interprets these polls to suggest that the public has
not focused on the issue, so how the issue is framed will heavily
influence what the public eventually concludes. Nobody is better
positioned the frame the debate than this president.
4) By taking
a strong stand now, the president can prevent the recurrence of
last year's stem-cell debate. During the 2000 campaign, Bush came
out against stem-cell research that destroys embryonic human life.
But upon taking office, his position was put up for debate. The
media and the disease lobbies, seeking to influence his decision,
unleashed a massive p.r. campaign that dominated the summer and
created a political headache for him.
President Bush
has an extremely talented speechwriting team. Surely they can devise
something suitably "thematic" for the occasion.
Faith-Based Update
Last year, a few conservatives warned that the president's "faith-based
initiative," by getting religious charities into the business
of hustling for federal grants, would, over time, compromise their
independence. Conservative supporters of the initiative criticized
us, saying that there would be all sorts of safeguards to prevent
charities from losing their religious character. Looking back at
the debate, it's clear that those of us who were skeptical were
wrong: Religious groups that participate in federal programs under
the president's initiative will not lose their freedom over time.
They'll lose it right away.
Several people
who supported the initiative last year said that they would continue
to do so as long as the president kept his commitment to defending
religious groups' right to hire and fire according to their consciences.
They expected him to keep it, not least because such influential
Democrats as Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman agreed with him that
these groups should have the right to discriminate.
On Friday,
however, Jim VandeHei reported in the Wall Street Journal that President
Bush and Lieberman are working on a new faith-based bill —
and "this time around, [Bush] won't push for allowing religious
groups that accept federal aid to discriminate against job applicants
whose views or lifestyles they oppose, such as homosexuals."
He also writes that "[w]hen the details emerge, according to
one person involved in the negotiations, Republicans will see this
faith-based initiative as little more than an expansion of 'big
government programs.'"
Saying "I
told you so" is a guilty pleasure. Seeing this bill killed
would be better.
|
