The commentary and rancor accompanying the passing of yet another anniversary of the ill-conceived Roe vs Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court brings to mind a more neglected, but possibly even more fundamental truth about the controversy:
From the pov of outside looking in, the fact is that Abortion Advocacy of the hardline type is in fact the greatest stain by far on Liberalism's (or if one prefers, the Left) supposed champion of ideals and concern for the unwanted. By hardline, I refer to such things as partial-birth abortion, and the refusal to readily grant parental notification rights, and the insistence on unlimited abortion on demand and for any reasons including psychological ones.
What is so amazing about this is at a stroke this advocacy negates and undermines the possible overall message of Liberalism, and makes a mockery of its stated goals. After all, on other so-called Left issues, like gay/lesbian rights, the Civil Rights movement in general, the correctness of offensive war in policy, the harshness of capital punishment ---- EVERY one of these issues boils down to an attempt to seek a gentler and more restrained solution to problems. Most of the causes also share in common a concern for those of lesser means, or opportunity, to defend or look out for themselves. This at least, is the stated goals of Liberalism. In my opinion, it was even true, prior to the rise of the Pro- unrestricted Abortion clique imposing their will by judicial fiat and resisting any attempts to in any way modify or lessen the harshness of their cause.
You see, there are many Conservatives, `Right-wingers' whatever the Left wishes to term them in turn, that would give more credit to the Liberal point of view if it were not so casual and naked in its hypocrisy. Advocacy to abolish capital punishment, complaints about destroying enemies in war, mistreating saboteurs and terrorists --- all these fall on deaf ears as long as the Left lets itself to appear to not only approve, but glorify abortion of definite innocents.
Consider: the very foundation and point of the Civil Rights movement, and egalitarianism in general, was to establish safeguards and protections for the less advantaged, the dependent, the downtrodden, or those with little political voice or means. Protect them particularly from the depredations of larger agendas and social attitudes. Allow such lives a fair chance. The campaigns on behalf of the handicapped are a good example of this as well. Yet into this mix drops unlimited, unconstrained Abortion. The very act of sacrificing millions of lives waiting to be, those with almost no legal option or voice just because they are dependent in much the same way that the bedridden elderly are. Sacrificing these unborn for what on any honest analysis is really the insistence on the right to have careless, unplanned, and irresponsible sex. Abortion as birth control to secure casual sex is by far the vast majority of the millions of abortions now performed, with the oft-touted `triage' of Rape/Incest/Danger to Mother being comparatively rare.
Even if one wishes to argue some cases that legislation should exist to allow an abortion option, the real issue is the unlimited and flagrant abuse of the civil rights of the unborn, and that this was imposed by judicial fiat with no room for modification. After all, medical science has shown that all the genetic components that will make the person-to-be are present from the start. The only difference inside and outside the womb is the dependency on the environment --- much like exists in nursing homes.
This is not denying that sometimes special and tragic individual circumstances that are not frivolous or a product of casual behavior lay behind some abortions. The real problem is the Left's continuing failure to call for some restraint, to aggressively explore more humane and thoughtful options to the challenge of unwanted pregnancies. In a real way, the issue with Liberalism and Abortion-on-Demand is not even about the act of abortion. It is about how this is really the single-greatest stumbling block to the Liberal, or Progressive, or whatever one prefers, paradigm and stains their credibility.
The irony is, if this is realized, if Liberalism itself turns from a near advocacy of slaying the unborn for convenience(and statements like "the sanctity of abortion" prove this tendency) , then it can likely regain the noble and inspiring role it played in our history in "raising the bar" and imagining a better nation for all. Once the abusive excesses of unlimited abortion are confronted by Liberals, consistency on matters of life and dignity will be regained, and overall habits of callousness in punishment and even policy will begin to fade. It can't happen now. This because to thoughtful Centrists and Conservatives the loudest voices and spokesmen of Liberals - and their party of choice, the Democrats - at present come across as hateful, intolerant, and glorifying of abortion and the trampling of decency. Ironically, the very things they once opposed, and claim to still do.
That is the challenge for Liberals in the coming years, and a long-overdue new crop of spokesmen for the Democratic Party.
- Anthony
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
This week showed how race dialogue is deliberately twisted
Its no secret that `playing the race card' rhetoric seems to have reached new lows in the past few years, with members on the political stage, not just from the left, but also the right, ever-ready to react with off-the-cuff stereotypes and remarks designed to appeal to their audience or `push' certain buttons.
This week that began with the commemoration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King ended up providing some striking examples of this phenomena at work. A tendency to use race or react to racial matters in sound-byte fashion designed to pander to audiences, with no regard to its overall harmful effect. Two examples this week served to illustrate this clearly: New Orlean's Mayor Nagin's remarks upon the desired demographics of the recovered city, and Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton's bald-faced and rather embarrassing pandering just to slam the House of representatives.
The context of both scenarios help underscore the fact that there currently exists in the body politics large segments who have a vested interest in perpetuating cheap race-baiting talk, and are not the least interested in seeking to understand context or what is really going on. Instead, they leap to press emotional buttons.
First, there was Mayor Nagin's comment during a speech, about the reborn New Orleans should be "chocolate again and "that this city will be chocolate at the end of the day". This rather defensive speech and poorly chosen turn of phrase immediately led to the speech being turned into an objection of derision. There is no denying that at first glance, it seemed rather divisive, even potentially insulting, using a colloquial phrase to refer to the fierce debate going on in New Orleans about what direction the rebuild should take and what regard o f its demographics.
In many boards across the country, Mayor Nagin's comments became grounds to accuse him of reverse racism, of a reflexive bigotry toward whites similar to the bigotry that so concerns civil rights movements. It certainly sounded that way. However, this turns out instead to be an object lesson in the importance to try to avoid sound-byte style rhetoric and `quick to the draw' accusations about racism or implied slurs.
It has been brought to the attention by New Orleans insiders that there is an irony in all this: Mayor Nagin in fact is far from being any kind of latent bigot, and indeed, much of the former black constituency of New Orleans had concerns and complaints that he seemed to be too friendly to business and Uptown interests. (IMO, this is probably not the case --- it seems rather that Mayor Nagin had a strong dedication and vision for the city, and this involves sometimes difficult choices and balancing acts, as all politics do). There have even been insinuations that Nagin does not want some of those who left to come back. The speech being given on MLK Day by the Mayor was intended to re-assure people that he wants the New Orleans that existed before --- It was chocolate before Katrina, as he said, and was really trying to say that he intends for it to be as much like it used to be as possible. The long story short -- -what sounds like racist comments to perhaps the other 49 states, or outside New Orleans, was not at all even subliminally meant that way. New Orleans insiders see it as reference to the extraordinary racial mix and amalgam that made - and hopefully will again -- "NOLA's ambiance" what it was . Videos tend to support this --- the speech is not rabid, or with bouts of rage, or anything of the kind.
The point is that this is a case where the `over-nationalization' tendency and `leap to over-simplification' of the mass media has given a `wrong read' of a very local-specific speech and ongoing debate. It was a mistake to "nationalize" it, and make it a bone of `racial contention', because it was a speech that was answering specific misgivings and competing interests and questions that are being raised within the New Orleans political leadership at this time. Yes, it is true Mayor Nagin invoked racial make-up and demographics in his speech, but it was in a context that was arguably even objective and simply colloquial in its delivery that whether they voted for him or not, most New Orleaners probably can relate to. After all, the amalgamated character of New Orleans is quite famous, and one of its charms.
On the heels of this however, the next day came a true, bona-fide example of `playing the race card' and blatant racial pandering. One that rated all the calling out it did get from some of the media, and deserved far more. And that was when Senator Hillary Clinton said on 17 January:
" The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
When heard this, did an absolute double-take. It was such shameless, naked pandering to one segment of Hillary Clinton's voting block, that it staggered the mind. To talk in terms of a plantation was to needlessly demonize the House of Representatives and evoke comparisons to slavery that were so out of line that a CNN panel duly censured her statements about it, right along with the expected talk radio and FNC.
It was political character assassination of the worst sort, for it was making allusions to the fact that many of the House Republicans are Southern Senators, and was the kind of statement designed only to affirm and encourage the most cynical and skeptical attitudes among black voters. After all, Clinton's comments wouldn't have even made much sense to much of her own party, many of whom's key figures have wealth far in excess of long-extinct plantation masters.
By invoking such a charged comparison, and right after the day dedicated to Dr. King, who worked for a far better and less divisive American than the kind Clinton's comments tends to encourage, she way overstepped the line of basic decorum. Arguably entered the zone of patronizing and condescension. Sadly, such comments and off-the-cuff `pushing racial buttons' has become too commonplace, and the `heat' and `noise' they trigger tends to obscure and drown out the fact that as much as race is being thrown around as a bait-word, there is a palpable silence on any real serious talk about taking a long hard look at addressing what really has gone right and improved since Martin Luther King, and where things are not only still falling short, but quite possibly, are stumbling, or being willfully led down a regressive path that serves the interest of a small select group of wealthy activists or politicians pandering for votes without ever really tackling genuine discussion.
These two examples of this week, IMO, show how flawed and over-charged to the point of total irrationality, the topic of race and any speech about it has become. The first example warns of how eager some who wish to have their stereotypes of minorities confirmed are, and how ready they are to leap and demonize a conversation, a turn of phrase, or a speech, without first checking to see if it has a clearly local or inoffensive context, or how it was received in its own place. The second example is but the most recent of an arguably more egregious and routine mis-use of the sad legacy of first slavery, and then pre-civil rights period to push emotional buttons just to score political points and pander to a base.
What both have in common is neither is useful or constructive for building a bridge across what real racial divide may remain, or for discerning how much of it is actually simply a fading echo kept alive past the time of its natural passing by demagogues and cynical manipulation.
-- Anthony
This week that began with the commemoration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King ended up providing some striking examples of this phenomena at work. A tendency to use race or react to racial matters in sound-byte fashion designed to pander to audiences, with no regard to its overall harmful effect. Two examples this week served to illustrate this clearly: New Orlean's Mayor Nagin's remarks upon the desired demographics of the recovered city, and Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton's bald-faced and rather embarrassing pandering just to slam the House of representatives.
The context of both scenarios help underscore the fact that there currently exists in the body politics large segments who have a vested interest in perpetuating cheap race-baiting talk, and are not the least interested in seeking to understand context or what is really going on. Instead, they leap to press emotional buttons.
First, there was Mayor Nagin's comment during a speech, about the reborn New Orleans should be "chocolate again and "that this city will be chocolate at the end of the day". This rather defensive speech and poorly chosen turn of phrase immediately led to the speech being turned into an objection of derision. There is no denying that at first glance, it seemed rather divisive, even potentially insulting, using a colloquial phrase to refer to the fierce debate going on in New Orleans about what direction the rebuild should take and what regard o f its demographics.
In many boards across the country, Mayor Nagin's comments became grounds to accuse him of reverse racism, of a reflexive bigotry toward whites similar to the bigotry that so concerns civil rights movements. It certainly sounded that way. However, this turns out instead to be an object lesson in the importance to try to avoid sound-byte style rhetoric and `quick to the draw' accusations about racism or implied slurs.
It has been brought to the attention by New Orleans insiders that there is an irony in all this: Mayor Nagin in fact is far from being any kind of latent bigot, and indeed, much of the former black constituency of New Orleans had concerns and complaints that he seemed to be too friendly to business and Uptown interests. (IMO, this is probably not the case --- it seems rather that Mayor Nagin had a strong dedication and vision for the city, and this involves sometimes difficult choices and balancing acts, as all politics do). There have even been insinuations that Nagin does not want some of those who left to come back. The speech being given on MLK Day by the Mayor was intended to re-assure people that he wants the New Orleans that existed before --- It was chocolate before Katrina, as he said, and was really trying to say that he intends for it to be as much like it used to be as possible. The long story short -- -what sounds like racist comments to perhaps the other 49 states, or outside New Orleans, was not at all even subliminally meant that way. New Orleans insiders see it as reference to the extraordinary racial mix and amalgam that made - and hopefully will again -- "NOLA's ambiance" what it was . Videos tend to support this --- the speech is not rabid, or with bouts of rage, or anything of the kind.
The point is that this is a case where the `over-nationalization' tendency and `leap to over-simplification' of the mass media has given a `wrong read' of a very local-specific speech and ongoing debate. It was a mistake to "nationalize" it, and make it a bone of `racial contention', because it was a speech that was answering specific misgivings and competing interests and questions that are being raised within the New Orleans political leadership at this time. Yes, it is true Mayor Nagin invoked racial make-up and demographics in his speech, but it was in a context that was arguably even objective and simply colloquial in its delivery that whether they voted for him or not, most New Orleaners probably can relate to. After all, the amalgamated character of New Orleans is quite famous, and one of its charms.
On the heels of this however, the next day came a true, bona-fide example of `playing the race card' and blatant racial pandering. One that rated all the calling out it did get from some of the media, and deserved far more. And that was when Senator Hillary Clinton said on 17 January:
" The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
When heard this, did an absolute double-take. It was such shameless, naked pandering to one segment of Hillary Clinton's voting block, that it staggered the mind. To talk in terms of a plantation was to needlessly demonize the House of Representatives and evoke comparisons to slavery that were so out of line that a CNN panel duly censured her statements about it, right along with the expected talk radio and FNC.
It was political character assassination of the worst sort, for it was making allusions to the fact that many of the House Republicans are Southern Senators, and was the kind of statement designed only to affirm and encourage the most cynical and skeptical attitudes among black voters. After all, Clinton's comments wouldn't have even made much sense to much of her own party, many of whom's key figures have wealth far in excess of long-extinct plantation masters.
By invoking such a charged comparison, and right after the day dedicated to Dr. King, who worked for a far better and less divisive American than the kind Clinton's comments tends to encourage, she way overstepped the line of basic decorum. Arguably entered the zone of patronizing and condescension. Sadly, such comments and off-the-cuff `pushing racial buttons' has become too commonplace, and the `heat' and `noise' they trigger tends to obscure and drown out the fact that as much as race is being thrown around as a bait-word, there is a palpable silence on any real serious talk about taking a long hard look at addressing what really has gone right and improved since Martin Luther King, and where things are not only still falling short, but quite possibly, are stumbling, or being willfully led down a regressive path that serves the interest of a small select group of wealthy activists or politicians pandering for votes without ever really tackling genuine discussion.
These two examples of this week, IMO, show how flawed and over-charged to the point of total irrationality, the topic of race and any speech about it has become. The first example warns of how eager some who wish to have their stereotypes of minorities confirmed are, and how ready they are to leap and demonize a conversation, a turn of phrase, or a speech, without first checking to see if it has a clearly local or inoffensive context, or how it was received in its own place. The second example is but the most recent of an arguably more egregious and routine mis-use of the sad legacy of first slavery, and then pre-civil rights period to push emotional buttons just to score political points and pander to a base.
What both have in common is neither is useful or constructive for building a bridge across what real racial divide may remain, or for discerning how much of it is actually simply a fading echo kept alive past the time of its natural passing by demagogues and cynical manipulation.
-- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
