War and abortion, for better or worse, are part of our reality. But in both cases, there is a choice to be made. A lot of Americans oppose, on moral grounds, the elective termination of pregnancy, and consider themselves to be "anti-abortion." The majority of Americans, however, believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Those that support a woman’s right to choose are inevitably labeled "pro-abortion" by their detractors and media sympathizers. No one is pro-abortion. That label implies that there is a conscious effort to increase the number of abortions; that there is benefit to be derived from abortions. The label is tired and ridiculous.
Now, when it comes to war, there is no grey area where popular labels are concerned. Those that oppose war on moral grounds are correctly labeled "anti-war," pacifists, or even doves. Some see war as a necessary evil or a last resort, or an appropriate response to attack or threats to the vital interests of our nation. But there are also those who seek war for war’s sake, and we rightfully label them as "pro-war." While the inarticulate label of "pro-abortion," is vacuous in its content, the "pro-war" characterization correctly implies that there is a conscious effort to increase the number of wars; that there is benefit to be derived from war.
Are Republicans "pro-war" just for the glory of it? Hardly. The most obvious motivation for Republican war-mongering, at least during the last couple of decades, is that war is highly profitable for defense contractors who, historically, have donated huge sums of money to the GOP. But Democratic politicians also have defense contractors in their districts, and are equally motivated in this manner. I recommend the movie "Why We Fight," which opens with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic warning about the rise of the "military-industrial complex." It is obvious that Ike wouldn’t be very popular in today’s radical GOP.
The principal benefit of war to Republicans over the last few decades is that it has facilitated their acquisition and consolidation of political power, restoration of the unitary Executive Branch, and more recently, has enabled the erosion of the personal freedoms that most Americans have taken for granted. I firmly believe that one of the principal reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 was to ensure the re-election of George W. Bush, which allowed him to accomplish the objective of moving the Supreme Court further to the right. And let's not forget about all that oil. Bush stated it plainly, you were either with him, or you were a terrorist sympathizer. Americans, including Democratic senators who should have known better, were cowed into submission. The "fear factor" was just as real for them as for the "soccer moms." This was only one facet of the campaign to build a "permanent Republican majority." Had the Iraq situation gone according to plan, and not turned into the present quagmire, there is no telling what Bush, and the movement that he fronts, would have done next. Motivated by fear, real or otherwise, Americans turned out in droves in 2004 to re-elect a "war president." The rest is history.
In 2008, Americans can elect another "war president," who, unlike his predecessor, cannot be called a chickenhawk, but has given every indication that he will pursue the same bellicose foreign policy, and has all but promised that we will have "all war, all the time." Yes, McCain is pro-war and anti-abortion. One stance will put millions of dollars in his campaign chest, and the other will gain him millions of votes from people that believe in the sanctity of life. It must be nice having it both ways.