As I posted Monday night, the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement of Fred Thompson was disappointing to me. However, it was not unexpected and it certainly was not a betrayal of pro-life values (unlike Pat Robertson endorsing Guiliani). At the end of that post (”NRLC to Endorse Fred Thompson“), I recommended that individuals who are similarly disappointed read Dr. Wanda Franz’s article, “When Common Sense is Lacking“.

Unless you have been for Fred since the beginning, I think the question in every pro-lifer’s mind right now is: “Why Fred?” Why not Duncan Hunter? Why not Mike Huckabee? Why not Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ron Paul? Excluding Romney, it is arguable that each of those candidates has a solid pro-life record that easily outshines Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson has made some questionable statements in the past regarding abortion and more recently regarding Terri Schiavo. Why would the nation’s leading, most respected pro-life lobbying organization throw their hat in the ring for Fred, of all people?

I think it is most useful to look at Dr. Wanda Franz’s statement to the press:

National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization, representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters is proud to endorse former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States. Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to protecting unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win.

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973, abortion-on-demand, Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed the use of tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures, such as parental notice and consent.

Thompson has also stated his opposition to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing human embryos, while supporting the kind of stem cell research that harms no one and is the only kind producing treatments and cures.

Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls. As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency.

In other words, the National Right to Life Committee has done their homework. If you are upset about this endorsement, it means you think it matters. It means you do respect NRLC and all the work they do to save innocent lives. In other words, you trust them. Let me ask you this, what motivation would NRLC have to endorse someone who is not solidly pro-life? For what reason would they suddenly, after all these years fighting in the pro-life movement, throw it all away on a candidate they were unsure of? I can promise you that the leaders of National Right to Life have met with Fred and his staff. They have questioned him about some of the odd statements he has made. They have made absolute sure that he will make a president they can stand behind and trust. Why would they not?

I know a lot of you — and I guess I’m speaking to Hunter fans, Huckabee fans, all the pro-lifers and social conservatives who wished for another nominee — may not like Fred very much. I’ve already told you that I am not madly in love with him. Instead of getting upset with National Right to Life, I would ask you to reconsider why you chose to support who you are supporting. Do you just like their good looks and stunning charisma? Or is it something deeper, like shared values and priorities? In my case, it’s the latter. I do believe that Duncan Hunter has great charisma, but the reason I supported him was because he is socially and fiscally conservative. He has a voting record to back it up and all signs point to him maintaining his conservatism in the future. In other words, it isn’t about the person — it’s about the values.

This is where Dr. Franz’s article comes into play. For those of us wishing to see socially and fiscally conservative values protected by and promoted in the White House, we cannot lose sight of the big picture. Dr. Franz has five lessons for pro-lifers to remember when it comes to politics:

1. Elections have consequences.

Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how he unleashed the abortion drug RU-486 on this country, how he pushed the pro-abortion agenda at the UN, and how he wanted to make abortion a routine procedure within a federally mandated healthcare system. Just recall how the Democratic pro-abortion leadership in the Senate is absolutely opposed to appointing constitution-oriented judges to the federal bench.

2. There are no ideal candidates for political office — or, at best, very few of them.

3. The point is not to make a statement, but a difference.

When a “statement” (e.g., actively opposing a pro-life candidate facing a pro-abortionist) has the effect of defeating the pro-life candidate and letting a pro-abortionist win, the pro-life cause has been betrayed—no matter what highfalutin “principled” stance has been invoked to justify such moral posturing. Simply staying above the fray and not voting in such a case may not have the ringing sound of a “statement,” but it still has the same effect. Such non-voters allow the pro-abortionist to win. Again the pro-life cause loses—a negative difference, in effect. What true adherence to the pro-life cause compels us to do is to make a positive difference: actively working for the pro-life candidate, ensuring the loss of the pro-abortionist.

4. Don’t fall in love with your candidate.

We all know candidates, 100% pro-lifers, who would make great presidents, representatives, or senators—except that they just have no chance of getting elected. People have all kinds of motives for giving candidates their votes. Unfortunately, electing a 100% pro-life candidate into office motivates only a minority. The perfect pro-life candidate, if one is available, may not have the same perfect appeal to the generally wishy-washy-on-life-issues public. A realistic assessment may tell us that the election of that perfect pro-life candidate is unattainable. Sometimes, there is the temptation—especially in a primary fight—to fight so tenaciously for the hopeless candidate that the eventual winner becomes tarred as “not sufficiently pro-life”—weakening her for the confrontation against the pro-abortionist in the general election. So your guy can’t win the primary: (1) don’t demonize the other pro-life candidates during the primary race, and (2) close ranks behind the pro-life winner and support him in the general election. (ed: emphasis mine)

5. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

In many ways this principle restates what was observed above: in insisting on the unattainable we may lose the attainable.
And when we lose as pro-lifers, babies die. Think about that.

So, what’ll it be? You’ve fallen in love with your candidate. I’ve fallen in love with mine. You know your candidate is better than Fred Thompson.

Is fighting for the unattainable perfect against the attainable good worth letting more babies die?