Left of moral
As Schiavo-mania continues to consume Mastodon City in a wave of mass riots, it has had the bonus effect of finally coalescing something I've been thinking about for a while. We hear a lot that the Liberals have no strong moral code (or some equivalent term) and that they are simply following polls or interest groups or some odd lumped together remnant of the New Deal. While I think we've lost sight of how to articulate our guiding principles cleanly I don't think they're gone.
Congressional Republicans want to make this about saving Terry Schiavo's "life" even though there's nothing left of it. And to do that they are dragging private citizens into a huge spectacle they shouldn't have to be part of. Wouldn't you hate to be Michael Schiavo, who now has both houses of Congress telling him from on high what a horrible monster of a wife murdering bastard he is? For someone who has done nothing illegal that has to feel pretty nasty coming from your elected representatives.
Democrats, on the other hand, are certainly not united on the Right To Die question, which is fine because for the most part we haven't had a proper debate about it. Mind you I agre with Alex that they should let her die, but I know a lot of Democrats feel differently, and that's fine. Dems do know an incredible and unjustifiable power grab when they see one though. This is not the proper channel for this case. It has gone through ALL the proper channels and there's no reason it should end up in the halls of congress. Especially when Republicans keep telling us these bills they want to pass only apply to Terry Schiavo. So the only precedent they will be setting will not be one of saving the lives of coma patients (hey, Universal Healthcare would go a long way towards that! Where's your support?) but rather one of the Legislature getting up and overturning any specific Judicial decision they decide they don't like. Specific being the key word there. That's not how it's supposed to work, and they know it.
And I do really think that comparing this sort of thing with actual proposal, debate and passage of bills, or cases which legitimately come before the Supreme Court and are decided on the merits, is intellectually dishonest. It isn't the same thing at all.
It's kind of like the torture debate. Bushies keep saying, effectively, that if you don't support torture then you want terrorists to win, but for a lot of Dems being anti-torture is simply a moral issue. Did you know that the number of captives who have dies in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan is now quickly approaching, and will certainly surpass, the number of Americans who died in custody of North Vietnam during the entire Vietnam war? (via Roachblog) That, to me, seems like a problematic moral situation. I think a lot of Republicans have bought their own hype about liberals having no strong moral values, but its only because they disagree with them. Those of us who are anti-war spring to mind.
Somehow it never occurs to anyone that pacifism, just as much as being pro-life, or any other major belief, is a strong moral decision one makes. It isn't just because war is icky, or because we're wimps. It's about believing that war is wrong and other solutions can be found. As, with Iraq, they undoubtedly could have. Now as with everything there are gray areas. Even if you outlawed abortions you might want to be reasonable and allow them in the case of rape or danger to the mother's health. Similarly, I think that in extreme cases many pacifists would admit that you simply have to go to war. This doesn't make your morals any weaker.
It is helpful, I find, to think of it as a venn diagram, with libertarians in the center. Economic libertarians and social conservatives form the Republican party on one side (I guess the right) and on the other side you have the social libertarians and the Economic liberals. Yes we believe that government can and should structure society to a degree and provide the basic needs of its citizens, including things like poverty assistance, health care, and the protection of basic rights and equality. But one of those things the government provides is freedom, and so it only gets to go so far. The government should only be getting involved in bedrooms and hospital rooms if it is to enforce safety (in the form of abuse or malpractice). Otherwise they can bug off. Think about it... abortion rights, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, these are all about defending the personal liberties of consenting adults. It is the GOP who has so magnanimously decided to inject itself into the private decisions of citizens across the land.
Thanks a bunch guys.
Congressional Republicans want to make this about saving Terry Schiavo's "life" even though there's nothing left of it. And to do that they are dragging private citizens into a huge spectacle they shouldn't have to be part of. Wouldn't you hate to be Michael Schiavo, who now has both houses of Congress telling him from on high what a horrible monster of a wife murdering bastard he is? For someone who has done nothing illegal that has to feel pretty nasty coming from your elected representatives.
Democrats, on the other hand, are certainly not united on the Right To Die question, which is fine because for the most part we haven't had a proper debate about it. Mind you I agre with Alex that they should let her die, but I know a lot of Democrats feel differently, and that's fine. Dems do know an incredible and unjustifiable power grab when they see one though. This is not the proper channel for this case. It has gone through ALL the proper channels and there's no reason it should end up in the halls of congress. Especially when Republicans keep telling us these bills they want to pass only apply to Terry Schiavo. So the only precedent they will be setting will not be one of saving the lives of coma patients (hey, Universal Healthcare would go a long way towards that! Where's your support?) but rather one of the Legislature getting up and overturning any specific Judicial decision they decide they don't like. Specific being the key word there. That's not how it's supposed to work, and they know it.
And I do really think that comparing this sort of thing with actual proposal, debate and passage of bills, or cases which legitimately come before the Supreme Court and are decided on the merits, is intellectually dishonest. It isn't the same thing at all.
It's kind of like the torture debate. Bushies keep saying, effectively, that if you don't support torture then you want terrorists to win, but for a lot of Dems being anti-torture is simply a moral issue. Did you know that the number of captives who have dies in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan is now quickly approaching, and will certainly surpass, the number of Americans who died in custody of North Vietnam during the entire Vietnam war? (via Roachblog) That, to me, seems like a problematic moral situation. I think a lot of Republicans have bought their own hype about liberals having no strong moral values, but its only because they disagree with them. Those of us who are anti-war spring to mind.
Somehow it never occurs to anyone that pacifism, just as much as being pro-life, or any other major belief, is a strong moral decision one makes. It isn't just because war is icky, or because we're wimps. It's about believing that war is wrong and other solutions can be found. As, with Iraq, they undoubtedly could have. Now as with everything there are gray areas. Even if you outlawed abortions you might want to be reasonable and allow them in the case of rape or danger to the mother's health. Similarly, I think that in extreme cases many pacifists would admit that you simply have to go to war. This doesn't make your morals any weaker.
It is helpful, I find, to think of it as a venn diagram, with libertarians in the center. Economic libertarians and social conservatives form the Republican party on one side (I guess the right) and on the other side you have the social libertarians and the Economic liberals. Yes we believe that government can and should structure society to a degree and provide the basic needs of its citizens, including things like poverty assistance, health care, and the protection of basic rights and equality. But one of those things the government provides is freedom, and so it only gets to go so far. The government should only be getting involved in bedrooms and hospital rooms if it is to enforce safety (in the form of abuse or malpractice). Otherwise they can bug off. Think about it... abortion rights, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, these are all about defending the personal liberties of consenting adults. It is the GOP who has so magnanimously decided to inject itself into the private decisions of citizens across the land.
Thanks a bunch guys.
6 Comments:
I hate to respond to such a broad post with such a short reply, but I think Asa is sort of hinting at the interesting theory that the book "The Right Nation" has, which is that the closest political and moral analogue to American Conservatives is American Progressives, and vice-versa.
Yeah, you really need to expand on that point for me to understand what you mean.
Well, it's simply that both conservative and progressive social movements have their roots in the same Puritan Core of creating an ideal, Utopian "City on the Hill" blablabla. The extreme Leftward quest to ban smoking in public places, or restrict guns, or to create university speech codes, are thematically and historically similar to extreme Rightward causes to legislate bedroom activities and human bodies. It's more complicated too, than a matter of, "Oh, they're so far Right/Left that they're Right/Left", but rather a reflection of America's settlement patterns and that the dominating national and civic identities (post-Civil War) were those created by Greater New England Puritans and Middle Americans (PA, OH, CA). There's no foreign analog to American conservatism, and while Leftism is historically global in its outlook, much of the connective tissue between say, French Progressives and American Progressives, is that Europe was essentially rebuilt-in America's image post-WWII.
Ahh, thank you. I understand. Very interesting.
Yeah, it really makes ya think. Provided you're not in a persistent vegetative state. Hoo-ya!
I'd like to add that the Federal Judge ruling *against* re-instating the tube would be a great sign that "the system" is self-correcting.
Post a Comment
<< Home