Abortion, war and the hypocrisy of CNBC’s Larry Kudlow

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow is probably best known for his unbending defense of free markets and low taxes, but today he wades — perhaps jumps, considering that he’s possibly a candidate for the Senate in Connecticut — into some sticky non-economic waters. His post at National Review’s The Corner is titled “As a Catholic I Oppose Obama’s Actions.” And he writes:

How can you destroy a life in order to save one? That’s a key question Pres. Obama is not answering as he aborts Pres. Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. We already have existing stem-cell lines, plus blood cells and skin cells. So why must we seek new stem-cell lines from human embryos?

And why is taxpayer money necessary for this? That means those of us who oppose embryonic stem-cell research — for ethical, moral, or religious reasons — must finance it. Why not leave all this to the private sector and private capital? That wouldn’t make me any happier from a moral standpoint. But at least I wouldn’t be paying for this research with my tax dollars.

So he did bring it back around to the free markets. That’s Kudlow for you.

Now let me tell you: I hate abortion politics. Hate ‘em. I completely understand why pro-life people think it’s murder. And I also completely understand why pro-choice folks see it as an issue of freedom over their bodies. The whole subject makes me queasy, I’d like to avoid taking sides and I’m probably dumb as hell to raise it here.

The standard paradox that gets raised in pointing out hypocrisy is that a venn diagram of pro-lifers and death penalty proponents would depict a substantial overlap between the two groups. (The opposite would be true of pro-choicers and death penalty opponents.) But there’s another, more stark paradox at work — and that is the overlap (and political alliance between) folks who are pro-life and hawkish advocates of the use of American military power.

To demonstrate what I’m talking about, let me take you back to 2002. I give you Larry Kudlow, advocating for an invasion of Iraq. Because, well, it would be good for the stock market. (Kudlow always brings it back around to the free markets.)

Decisive shock therapy to revive the American spirit would surely come with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why not begin with a large-scale special-forces commando raid on the Iraqi oil fields? This will send a shot across Saddam’s bow; an electrifying signal to all terrorist nations. The message will be that the game is up. Surrender now or you will be crushed in a short while.

The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand points. We will know that our businesses will stay open, that our families will be safe, and that our future will be unlimited. The world will be righted in this life-and-death struggle to preserve our values and our civilization. But to do all this, we must act.

I’m not Catholic, so maybe this is an unfair cheap shot. But I want to ask Larry Kudlow, why did you not proclaim that “As a Catholic, I oppose President Bush’s invasion of Iraq?” After all, Popes John Paul and Benedict — whatever else you think of them — have pretty consistently opposed the war there.

But Kudlow thought the war was needed. A war that was certain to result in death and injury to innocent civilians — certain, because even when minimized these tragedies always accompany war — and that ended up being far worse in these regards than any initial supporter of the invasion would’ve suspected at the time. Why? To keep our businesses open. And our families safe. And our future unlimited. And Kudlow judged the benefit to be worth the cost.

When the subject turns to stem cell research, though, Kudlow asks a good and important — vital — question. Let’s repeat it here:

How can you destroy a life in order to save one?

For what it’s worth, I think the moral dimensions of stem cell research should be carefully weighed — but I also think that such research should proceed. I’ve also opposed the Iraq War since the beginning. So I’m not saying that I’ve attained a higher standard of moral rigor or consistency than Larry Kudlow. (Although I would argue that the killing of actual humans is morally worse than sacrificing a few cell clumps.) But I wonder, given the certainty of his statements, if Kudlow has considered the paradox. Or if he would even acknowledge it.