Lifeline
The president should speak out against cloning tomorrow night.

By Ramesh Ponnuru
January 28, 2002 4:45 p.m.

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.