Embryo triangles

Ross doesn't think that the president's position on stem cells is as inconsistent as Matt does (though he says nothing about my objection). He raises some interesting points:

I feel like I've heard this line of argument a lot, and in some sense of course it's true: If killing embryos is wrong in the way that Bush suggests it's wrong (and in the way I think it's wrong) then it should be prohibited, not merely left unfunded. But in another, more accurate sense, the critique is somewhat silly. Bush's approach isn't a "goofy split-the-difference compromise," it's a politically realistic split-the-difference compromise, which is what politics happens to be all about. Let's suppose, for instance, that a President believes - as many people do - that free health care is a universal human right, and that the government, not private organizations, should provide it. And let's suppose that the Congress passes a bill that gives free health insurance to children, but not to adults. And let's further suppose that said President signs the bill, and in the course of the speech remarks that "I applaud the Congress for recognizing that health care is a universal human right." Obviously in one sense this is BS, since the bill doesn't recognize any such thing - but it's still a smart thing for the President to say. Sure, he could be completely honest and say: "This bill is a small step in the direction of my real goal, which is the complete takeover of the health care industry by the U.S. government." And similarly, Bush could have vetoed the stem-cell bill while remarking that he hopes to one day ban all embryo-destructive research, and maybe even pass some Italy-style laws protecting embryos in general. That would have made him consistent; it would also have made him an idiot.

Fair enough. But to be completely accurate, the president isn't just saying "this is a bad bill" but rather "this veto is important because taking human life is murder and murder is wrong."  It's also prohibited by law. And the implications of that are stronger than are the implications of a president's desire to see government run the health care system, which, while a worthy goal isn't mandated by the Constitution. Ross is right that it wouldn't be smart politics for this president to say he "hopes to one day ban all embryo-destructive research," or for a different president to say "this bill is a small step in the direction of my real goal, which is the complete takeover of the health care industry by the U.S. government." But there is greater hypocrisy in the former. And, I should say, it's a hypocrisy compounded by the fact that the GOP takes all kinds of money from the companies supposedly engaging in mass murder.