Nuance is not a Vice
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Saturday, June 26, 2004
One more thing: Given the invective being thrown around by conservatives regarding Farenheit 9/11 and by liberals concerning President Bush in general, I'm led to ask a simple question.
When did it become taboo for the other side to have a valid point?
I have some follow-up thoughts on my previous post about the left's misapplication of their worldview. I spoke of the need for a new liberal paradigm of argument, but I didn't go into much detail about what that new paradigm should look like. So here goes:
Everything in moderation. That's the essential principle liberals should be building their arguments around. You can't tell someone to stop drinking or stop smoking or stop owning guns. You just can't; it comes across as smug, pretentious and you won't change anyone's mind. It's the equivalent of the right's tactic of telling women to stop having abortions. Not too many converts from that stratagem.
So, what can you do? Educate on the dangers of drinking to excess, of smoking to the point of addiction, of keeping guns lying around where children can get their hands on them. Pursue a policy that limits over-use instead of prohibiting access. Not only is such a course much more apt to catch on, but it doesn't sound heavy-handed or condescending.
People don't like changing their lifestyles, that's a fact. So instead of proposing massive change, how about nudging gently in a safer direction? Frankly, it's not anyone's place to say you CAN'T smoke, you CAN'T drink, you CAN'T own a gun; one of the things about this country is that you really, honestly are free to do all of those things. But it is acceptable and indeed responsible to promote the safe, educated and moderate use of such examples. This extends to drugs, abortion, sex, littering, etc. All the "social ills" which liberals go on a crusade against would be far simpler to conquer if a measured line is taken.
The idea that people have a right to partake in such vices -- and I understand the argument that such a right does not extend to damaging the public health -- segues into my second point. More and more recently the left has found itself in opposition to that it cherishes above all else: free speech. It's partially a reaction to the clarion call of conservatism embodied by President Bush, but it's not a new phenomenon. It's hypocritical to say that gays need to be able to march while at the same time trying to block neo-Nazis. You can't have one without the other; its the ultimate necessary evil.
People have a right to be racist. No one likes to hear that, no one on either side of the political spectrum. And those who know me can tell you that I'm a strong supporter of harmonious race relations. But look -- if someone wants to think that blacks are inferior, it is wrong to stop them from expressing that view. It is wrong to stop them from expressing that view because if they can't, then blacks can't march. And gays can't have a pride day. And a million moms can't descend on the capital. Because if you start abrogating the right to free speech, then you better be willing to see it disappear across the board.
There's nothing wrong with trying to educate that person and expose him to different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with diligently making sure that person doesn't act violently on such opinions. And there's nothing wrong with warding against government putting into place policies based around discriminatory ideals. But to ban the KKK from holding a rally or stop the neo-Nazis from protesting is just plain wrong.
Similarly, you can't seek to shut the mouth of those who disagree less radically, whether it be opponents of abortion or the NRA. This applies to the conservatives just as forcefully. Free speech is what this liberal democracy is built around, and it cannot -- cannot, cannot, CANNOT -- be allowed to degrade.
So those are my two points for the day: Liberals need to adopt a paradigm of moderation, not prohibition, and everyone needs to step back and re-establish an appreciation for the freedom of speech.
Now we're talking.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
I'm going to rant about liberals. Now, I'm quite liberal myself (and a lifelong Democrat), so this may seem an odd topic. But if you can't critique yourself, how can you hope to critique others? This post treats primarily what I term "intolerant liberalism," the idea that the left in America today has insidiously and subconciously become that which it decries the most: an institution that smugly and self-righteously declares itself correct, and in some cases seeks to limit the freedom of those who disagree.
An interesting illustration of this may be in regards to smoking. Now, I personally think cigarettes are abhorrent and a massive public health risk (and I would use solely the latter justification for legally restricting their use). But on the D.C. Metro there is a new campaign, "www.bobquits.com" and the signs include things like, "Quit, Bob, Quit," and "Man Saves Own Life". While the cause of helping smokers quit is admirable, the methodology is quintessential 21st century liberal: assume the moral high ground and patronize those you purport to help. Similar techniques can be seen with regards to gun control. It's almost as if the liberals are benevolenty choosing to show smokers the light.
[Addendum 6/26: Smokers, almost to a man, know damn well that smoking is bad for them. This wasn't the case 50 years ago, but at this point, shouting the dangers from rooftops isn't going to raise a whole lot of awareness. It just adds to the irritating nature of the argument.]
These smug overtones leave a bitter taste in many peoples' mouths, especially those who see themselves on the recieving end of the condescending message. This, i submit, is why liberals are seen as elitist - there is no folksy appeal in telling someone declaratively that what they're doing is wrong and that they need to fix it. Moreover, it gives the conservative propaganda machine an unending source of fodder to paint liberals as weak northerners from the upper crust of society who choose to make themselves feel better by raising up their lesser bretheren.
If liberals are to have their message ring clear across the nation, they must take a hard look at the paradigms and connotations used to convey that message. In public discourse, how you say something is nearly (if not more) important as what is being said. Liberals must construct arguments built on logic, fact and an understanding that others may - and are allowed to - disagree. An ethic of liberalism which doesn't come across as heavy-handed and a moral missive from On High has a far better chance of sticking then "Quit, Bob, Quit."
Next Time: The Death of Free Speech
Related Link
Sunday, June 20, 2004
A public service announcement: Since I've started my job at the State Department, the time I have to devote to writing blog posts has diminished. Though I will continue posting, expect the site to be updated only a couple times a week for the next few months.
Monday, June 14, 2004
I offer you, my loyal readers, a comparison. As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court threw out Michael Newdow's challenge to Pledge of Allegiance, saying he did not have legal standing to sue. First you will see the Washington Post.com's account of the story, then Foxnews.com's.
Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality
Justices Do Not Decide Constitutionality of Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance
By William Branigin and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 14, 2004; 1:30 PM
The Supreme Court ruled today that a California atheist did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court's ruling in his favor but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional.
The ruling effectively preserved the phrase "one nation under God" that is recited daily as part of the pledge by millions of schoolchildren across the country.
But by basing the decision on a procedural issue, the Supreme Court left open the prospect that a challenge to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance could come up again.
In a ruling that, coincidentally, was issued on Flag Day -- and on the 50th anniversary of the addition by Congress of the words "under God" to the pledge -- the justices voted 8-0 to overturn a ruling two years ago by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge was unconstitutional in public schools because it violated the separation of church and state. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.
Five of the justices voted against the 9th Circuit's ruling on the grounds that Michael Newdow, the California atheist who filed suit to ban the pledge from his daughter's school, did not have the legal standing to speak for the girl because he did not have sufficient custody to qualify as her legal representative. The girl, who is in elementary school, was not named in the case.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and two other justices -- Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas -- agreed that the lower court's ruling should be overturned, but not on the standing issue. Instead, they argued that the words "under God" in the pledge do not violate the Constitution.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
Newdow, a emergency-room doctor and law graduate who acted as his own attorney, is involved a custody battle with his daughter's mother, Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian who has custody of the girl on school days. Banning, who has never been married to Newdow, has told the court that she has no objection to her daughter's reciting the pledge.
Newdow rejected the ruling that he lacked legal standing to speak for his daughter.
"She spends 10 days a month with me," he said, according to the Associated Press. "The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."
He vowed to continue his fight. "The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."
If the 9th Circuit's decision had been upheld, it effectively would have deleted the reference to God from the pledge as recited by millions of schoolchildren nationwide. The 9th Circuit's ruling had applied to nearly 10 million schoolchildren in California and eight other western states.
The words "under God" were added to the pledge by Congress on June 14, 1954, during the Cold War as a way to distinguish the United States from atheistic communism.
The 9th Circuit ruling sparked a furor when it was issued, drawing intense criticism from religious conservatives and opposition from the Bush administration.
The Bush administration's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, has argued that the pledge with those words did not constitute state-sponsored prayer, which is banned from public schools under a Supreme Court decision, or any sort of prohibited religious ritual. Instead, Olson has said, the reference acknowledges America's religious heritage in a ceremonial and historical sense and does not substantially differ from the motto, "In God We Trust," on U.S. currency.
In a separate action today, the Supreme Court also declined to allow former U.S. hostages in Iran to sue the Iranian government for $33 billion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had ruled last year that legal action against the Iranian government in the case was barred by an agreement with Iran that led to the hostages' release after 444 days in captivity. The hostages, mostly diplomats, were seized in at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held until January 1980.
The Supreme Court declined, without comment, to reconsider the lower-court ruling.
Supreme Court Dismisses 'Pledge' Case
Monday, June 14, 2004
WASHINGTON — "One nation, under God," will remain, at least temporarily, in the Pledge of Allegiance (search), the Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath.
But whether or not the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state was not directly addressed at the procedural ruling.
The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
The father, Michael Newdow (search), is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia (search) did not participate in the case.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (search) and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
The case involved Newdow's grade school daughter, who like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
The First Amendment (search) guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God."
The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson (search) argued to the court.
It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.
Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.
The child's mother, Sandra Banning, told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.
The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
It's a pretty fascinating juxtaposition, from the title down to the phraseology. Godless communists, indeed.
Fair and balanced sure have taken on interesting meanings these days.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
The Bush Administration is at it again. Today the State Department (my place of employment which I love dearly) issued a mea culpa...because they issued a report saying the exact opposite of what was actually true.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims -- success in countering terror.
Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said.
Now, the claim is that the error was accidental, and they had bad data at the time (that seems to happen a lot...WMDs, anyone?). But a Washington Post Op-ed on May 17th actually portended this retraction with remarkable accuracy:
Are we winning the war on terrorism?
Although keeping score is difficult, the State Department's annual report on international terrorism, released last month, provides the best government data to answer this question. The short answer is "No," but that's not the spin the administration is putting on it.
"You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight," said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. As evidence, the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report says that worldwide terrorism dropped by 45 percent between 2001 and 2003. The report even boasts that the number of terrorist acts committed last year "represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969."
Yet, a careful review of the report and underlying data supports the opposite conclusion: The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 -- 36 percent -- even using the State Department's official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation -- and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.
[...]
So how did the report conclude that international terrorism is declining?
It accomplishes this sleight of hand by combining significant and nonsignificant acts of terrorism. Significant acts are clearly defined and each event is listed in an appendix, so readers can verify the data. By contrast, no explanation is given for how nonsignificant acts are identified or whether a consistent process is used over time -- and no list is provided describing each event. The data cannot be verified.
International terrorism is defined in the report as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets" involving citizens or property from multiple countries, "usually intended to influence an audience." An event "is judged significant if it results in loss of life or serious injury to persons" or "major property damage."
A panel determines whether an event meets this definition, but the State Department refused to tell us the members of the panel or the practices used to count nonsignificant terrorist acts.
We do know that the definition leaves much room for discretion. Because "significant events" include such things as destroying an ATM in Greece or throwing a molotov cocktail at a McDonald's in Norway without causing much damage, it is easy to imagine that nonsignificant events are counted with a squishy definition that can be manipulated to alter the trend.
The alleged decline in terrorism in 2003 was entirely a result of a decline in nonsignificant events.
Another curious feature of the latest report is that its catalogue of events does not list a single significant terrorist act occurring after Nov. 11, 2003, despite averaging 16 such acts a month in the rest of the year...
I'm really starting to wonder how many deceptions the Administration can get away with before the public loses faith in them. This isn't a case of "whoops, our numbers were a little off," this is a case of "whoops, we said one thing, got called on it, and miraculously discovered some typos! Damn you, tens column...!"
Disgraceful.
Related Link
Monday, June 07, 2004
Sudanese are dying, and no one cares. Genocide is occurring in the Darfur province, ethnic cleansing by Arab Sudanese against African Sudanese. So far, over 30,000 -- that's THIRTY THOUSAND -- men, women and children have been killed, and more than a million driven from their homes. Yet, the world sits silently. We do not act. Why? Using the example of the Darfur genocide, I am going to attempt to answer that question. My thesis: Collective identity is to blame. Simply put, Sudan is an "other," and therefore none of "our" concern.
Any discussion of collective identity must begin by understanding what that term means. A collective identity is built on the idea of imagined communities -- in lay terms, I do not know a single person who lives in Nebraska, yet if someone came up to me in a foreign country and said they were from Nebraska, I would instantly feel camaraderie with them, because we both belong to the imagined community of "America". Similarly, I share a bond with everyone who goes to and has gone to the University of Virginia.
The implicit circle drawn by an imagined community creates a sense of "us" (everyone in that circle) and "them" (everyone outside of it). So, when the Vikings invaded England in the 8th and 9th centuries, they forced all of the previously disparate English kingdoms together, and gradually a collective sense of "Englishness" grew. The American Revolution began in much the same way, with the colonists gaining a sense of "Americanness" set in opposition to the Britishness of the King. In the Cold War, you were either Democratic or Communist; we felt solidarity towards those in the former category and hostility towards those in the latter. Today, it is easy to see that there is a sense of collectivity in "The West" -- America and Europe. Following the same logic, anyone who is not Western is not within our sphere of common identity.
Bringing that back to Sudan: If there was a similar genocide occurring in a small Eastern European nation, there is no doubt whatsoever that the West would intercede; in fact, in Bosnia and Kosovo, we did. We would intercede swiftly and with little debate, because Europe is within the West's collective identity. Sudan lies in Africa, a far-away land most people can't point to on a map, and the people dying there are just statistics. There is no sense of urgency, no sense of moral imperative to back up words with actions. This is the same set of circumstances that allowed the Rwandan genocide.
Our policymakers today still have a Cold War mentality, and a worldview infused with 40 years worth of collective identity that left Africa out of the equation. Not even 9/11 -- one shocking event against 40 years of conditioning -- has forced the politicians to see that we have strategic security interests in Africa, that it is not simply a moral imperative, a humanitarian imperative, but a defense imperative as well.
Realism is the dominant theory of foreign policy, and it states that nations act in the interest of putting themselves in the best position of power. Realism dictates in 2004 that Darfur cannot be allowed to become a wasteland of lawlessness; we gain both from a security and reputation standpoint. Realism, however, treats nations as unitary actors, deprived of emotion. Logically, since we are not acting, there must be another answer. It is simple:
America sees Sudan as an "other," and an "other" is not worth sending American boys to die for. That's what it boils down to.
I fear that this mindset will not change until the next generation of policymakers takes over. We are a generation whose defining moment was 9/11, a generation reared in the Era of Terrorism. We know that the world is completely interdependent, that what happens in the remotest corner of Afghanistan can have the most severe impact in New York City. We know that the only way forward is to begin to form a global identity, one where every country, every human feels solidarity and connectivity with every other.
Our realism will be one of sweeping global change.
For now, there is little to do but cajole and plead for our leaders to stop the brutal slaughter that is occurring in Sudan. It's going to be another decade before my generation starts rising to power; I pray the world can wait that long.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
This is a letter I sent to my State Delegate (even though they're out of session):
Dear Delegate Watts:
With the debate still raging over gay marriage, I have a suggestion: the state of Virginia should cease recognizing marriage of any kind. Instead, Virginia should pass legislation that would allow all couples to be legally joined in civil unions, and receive the material benefits thereof. Religious institutions can perform marriage ceremonies if they wish, and per their private status can determine to whom to extend that opportunity.
Marriage is an inherently spiritual bond, and government should not be lending legal credence to a religious procedure. Indeed, most arguments against gay marriage are biblical in nature and speak to the “sanctity of marriage.” It is not the government’s place to recognize a religious practice and grant material advantages to those who choose to participate in it. However, it is perfectly acceptable for the government to recognize two cohabitating people with shared income, joint tax returns, etc. as a special-status group. This is why civil unions should be offered.
Civil unions take religion out of the equation and instead offer secular, indiscriminate recognition of a formal joining of two people. Couples are welcome to also undergo a religious ceremony at any private location which will perform it, but material benefits offered by a secular government should go through a secular institution.
This arrangement allows opponents of gay marriage to maintain the sanctity of their institution while offering all loving couples the recognition and advantages they deserve. I hope you’ll consider bringing up this proposal in the next General Assembly session. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Elliot Haspel
What are the logical arguments against it?
Say what you will about the man, but former President Reagan led the country for eight years and, icon of conservative or not, deserves respect in death.
Here's to you, Ronald Reagan.
Related Link
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
A few additional thoughts on the abortion issue in general. With abortion, much as with affirmative action, a media-sexy, horribly divisive political battle rages to the exclusion of the root cause: in the case of affirmative action, inequality of opportunity in primary and secondary schools; in the case of abortion, too many people having unsafe sex.
The easiest statistic I can preface my comments with is that ~50% of all pregnancies are unintended, and ~50% of all unintended pregnancies result in abortions. Both sides generally stipulate to those facts. This essay will treat secondarily for the moment sexually transmitted diseases, but whenever I speak of contraceptives' benefit to the public health, STDs are just as prominent as unintended pregnancies.
While many on the right put forth correctly that the only completely effective way to prevent unintended pregnancies is abstinence, this is simply not a practical course to pursue. Even Catholic schools cannot prevent their students from having sex -- who honestly believes, no matter the amount of education, people across the nation will not give in to their natural urges? There's no reason not to include abstinence education as a part of any comprehensive safe sex plan, but it shouldn't be taught at the expense or exclusion of contraceptive use.
Although condom use (especially among young people) has been steadily rising, a solid percentage still engage in unsafe behavior, including nearly half of all adults. Simply by using condoms, the risk of STDs and unintended pregnancies becomes microscopic in comparison to barrier-free sex.
It seems to me that everyone - proponents and opponents of abortion alike - should be able to get behind a national program to educate about the benefits of contraceptive use and more importantly supply inexpensive, readily available condoms. Perhaps not the emergency condom van like they just started in Sweden, but I'd rather see public money going to reducing an extraordinary risk to the public health than, say, producing a few more thousand pages of federal bureaucracy.
While the government traditionally does a terrible job of acting as parent, the fact is that sex ed. programs in high school which are quite graphic regarding pregnancy and STDs have been shown quite effective, and initiatives to provide accessible condoms even more so. Reproductive health isn't something to be politicized - real people are affected by unintended pregnancies and STDs every day. It puts more money in each of our pockets if the already overburdened American health care system doesn't have to handle these cases. And, it reduces the number of abortions. Everyone wins, no one loses.
We have a vision of government as this uncaring body which is primarily concerned with doing things as slowly and incompetently as possible. I envision a government which sees an epidemic sweeping through its populous and acts swiftly to stop it. Unintended pregnancies and STDs ravage millions of Americans a year; jumping condom use into the 90%s would go a long way to solving those problems. An easy solution with a myriad of benefits which is hardly objectionable when all the non-religious arguments are on the table...
I wish I didn't know with complete certainty it will not happen this decade.
Endnote: You can read my proposal for contraceptive availability at the University of Virginia, it's a program I plan to pursue in the fall.
And you thought the abortion debate was in a holding pattern. Not so fast.
A federal judge in San Francisco struck down the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act yesterday, ruling that the law jeopardizes other legal forms of abortion and threatens the health of women who end their pregnancies.
Raising the subject of partial-birth abortions was a brilliant maneuver on the part of the Pro-life camp. By bringing into the foreground a nasty procedure which only occurs in the thousands per year and making it a pivotal issue, they left the proponents of abortion rights in a vice. Either agree that partial-birth abortions were unacceptable unless the life of mother was at stake (which, not for nothing, is about the only time they are used) and give precious ground/momentum, or hold fast on a topic nearly 80% of Americans are against you on.
My personal problem with the legislation itself is the Congressional finding of fact that the procedure is never medically necessary. When dealing with issues of health, especially grave ones which could mean life or death, a doctor's hands should never be tied. That's simply common sense. Should the bill have contained a mother's-life exception, I don't think it's too objectionable. It's hard to see situations where there would be non-medical circumstances, and that late in the pregnancy the threshold for determining life is much harder to hedge around.
Of course, the precedent it sets is another matter entirely, and I think in some ways the pro-Choice camp allowed itself to be played; the partial-birth bill, in reality a relatively minor act, became exactly what the pro-Lifers wanted -- a perceived political victory. The capital and impetus they gained far outweighs any moral triumph from stopping a few thousand women getting the medical care they need.
Yesterday's ruling throws a not unexpected nuance into the works. This law is certainly headed to the Supreme Court at some point, and there the justices will have their first real chance to speak regarding Roe v. Wade. Prognosticating the outcome at this point is fruitless, because it's not even clear if the same nine men and women will be sitting on that bench come the ruling. Depending how long this takes to work its way through the appellate system, the stakes for November's election just got even higher.
To expand to a macro level:
Americans seem eminently capable of blinding themselves to hypocrisy. In post-9/11 word perhaps more than ever, we have come to clutch our individual rights to the point of violence. We have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of protecting the liberty which makes this nation great. We decry enemies of the state as those who hate freedom, those who seek to destroy our open and democratic way of life. The collective identity of "Americanness" has rarely been stronger. God Bless America, for United We Stand.
Yet at the same time, our domestic agenda seems bent on obliterating that which we seek so stridently to save. Gay rights and abortion rights are coming under heavy assault, while behind a shadowy wall of "national security," racial profiling, lawyer-less detentions and wiretaps continue unfettered. Americans need to take a hard look at what we really stand for, and make certain that we practice domestically the ideals we preach to the world.
Partial-birth abortion is but a grain of sand in the overarching landscape of the country. But by scrutinizing the debate surrounding it, the vituperative rhetoric permeating it, and today the litigious ramifications weighing on it, we can throw into relief just how torn America has become.
It's worth thinking about.
Related Link
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
