Constructive gadfly

Conservatives of convoluted thinking love to impugn the left for being quasi-compassionate while at the same time taking credit for being compassionate for those who are in need through no fault of their own. Then they diminish the list of the deserving by frowning on what they holistically perceive undeserving, such as teenage mothers are sluts, but ignore their courage or stupidity not to abort, object to health care for poor children whose parents are shiftless and can’t lift a finger to learn how to be parents, refuse to acknowledge that poor wages are a hindrance to those on the low-level of mental quality to provide for themselves.

In attacking the left as being elite fops, conservatives in political dialogue arrogantly corner the market on pragmatism and claim the engines of society, while liberals lie back and pare their fingernails as an icon of foolish idealism. It is politically correct for conservatives to denigrate Kerry for “band-aid” purple hearts, yet claim an exclusive right in supporting troops and veterans, many of whom hold these very same band-aid medals. They justify singling out Kerry because he was the one that made an issue of his Vietnam experience, omitting that they themselves painted him into a corner by questioning his experience to lead as a “wartime” president.

In addition, conservatives ignore their own faulty logic by condemning one who is pro-choice but still against abortion as having it both ways, when the logic is that in favoring pro-choice or pro-life is not the domain of politics but is a personal decision for a woman and perhaps the spouse. Taking the life of a fetus generically may very well be the jurisdiction of religion but still does not make it right when applied to a fetus in the private womb of a woman. Kerry can still be a Catholic opposed to abortion and still logically defend a woman’s right to her own body. Actually the conservatives were hoping to paint him into another corner so they could claim he based his thinking and leadership on a permission slip from the Vatican, and thus pleasing no-end the Christian coalition.

Conservatives also claim divine right to foreign policy. For two decades Nixon and his followers worked feverishly to keep China from a seat in the UN, but when Nixon visited China it was deemed an extraordinary accomplishment; had a Democratic president tried this he would have been crucified. When Clinton lobbed missiles into Afghanistan, it was Lewinsky’s tail wagging the dog. However, when Bush insensitively exploited 9/11, for a devious war in Iraq, it was strong leadership. Any hint of questioning the validity of our presence in Iraq is immediately countered with the inference that critics are not supporting the troops or placing them in unnecessary harm’s way. When liberals parry that it is not a matter of supporting troops but saving them, it is tossed off as soft and fuzzy foreign relations.

Conservatives take their lessons from Madison Avenue, knowing that politics is brutal sophistry clothed in emotions. Liberals are still parked on the boardwalk in search of people with common sense and looking to the sea to bring to our shore a redemptional wave of sensitivity.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 21, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Oct 21, 2004
Best. Title. Ever.
on Oct 21, 2004
Best. Title. Ever.
I hope you didn't take it literally.
on Oct 21, 2004
Damm. You needed to mention sex at least once with a title that has lusty in it! I Feel betrayed.
on Oct 21, 2004
The problem is though, the belief that life begins at conception and its implications are the foundation of the pro-life movement. It's one thing to say that you don't personally think abortion is good, but it shouldn't be illegal. It's another thing to embrace the philisophical core of anti-abortionism but say it is legally meaningless.

Suppose that you believe human life begins at conception. This means that an unborn baby has comparable rights to a born baby. Therefore, saying that parents have unlimited discretion to get an abortion is like saying that parents have unlimited discretion to kill their children.

on Oct 21, 2004
In search of people with common sense. I was thinking of writing an article called whatever happened to common sense.
One of your best!
on Oct 21, 2004
Excellent, Steven. I can't add anything to this.
on Oct 21, 2004
"Conservatives take their lessons from Madison Avenue, knowing that politics is brutal sophistry clothed in emotions."

Actually, everyone on both sides takes their lessons from Madison Avenue but follow it up with different approaches. The Left believes in couching emotional issues in reason (thus the Kerry statements on healthcare and jobs). The Right couches emotional issues in rhetorical doublespeak designed to connect with those who don't want to think about the issues in the first place (We're safer, We're safer, We're safer AND He flip-flops, He flip-flops, He flip-flops AND He's a liberal, He's a liberal, He's a liberal). Don't talk to the issues because you have no idea of what do about them.

on Oct 21, 2004

The Right couches emotional issues in rhetorical doublespeak designed to connect with those who don't want to think about the issues in the first place (We're safer, We're safer,
A very crisp[e]y comment!
Suppose that you believe human life begins at conception. This means that an unborn baby has comparable rights to a born baby. Therefore, saying that parents have unlimited discretion to get an abortion is like saying that parents have unlimited discretion to kill their children.
A very big suppose; a woman who truly believes life begins at conception is not going to abort unless she has health problems that would be hazardous. Still, you missed my point that in the last analysis, it is a personal, angonizing decision. 

 

on Oct 21, 2004
Wow. Great article. I wish that I had even the tiniest bit of your understanding, your knowledge, your experience, and your ability to explain and describe the truth in such a sensible but profound way. Amazing.
on Oct 21, 2004
It is so nice to have one as sensitive as you on my side, Texaii. It is even more gratifying considering the sad, vacant feelings you have over your husband's continual tours of duty.
on Oct 24, 2004
Madine: "The problem is though, the belief that life begins at conception and its implications are the foundation of the pro-life movement. It's one thing to say that you don't personally think abortion is good, but it shouldn't be illegal. It's another thing to embrace the philisophical core of anti-abortionism but say it is legally meaningless. Suppose that you believe human life begins at conception. This means that an unborn baby has comparable rights to a born baby. Therefore, saying that parents have unlimited discretion to get an abortion is like saying that parents have unlimited discretion to kill their children. "

And therein lies the problem. The foundation of the pro-life movement is rooted in speculation or a "belief" but not rooted in anything that comes close to resounding fact. As I have stated in other posts, no one really knows the precise moment a "life" actually begins. As such, the government cannot pretend to presume to know that which it does not. It cannot impose what the pro-life people want it to simply because they have a particular BELIEF that neither science nor facts can confirm. The government has no right to impose the pro-life movement's beliefs on the society at large or on the individual woman who either does not share their belief or is indifferent to it. Imposing certain beliefs on the entire body politic, particularly ones rooted in religion, is not the function of a democratic, republican government. The government is not telling a pro-life person they don't have the right to believe life begins at conception. Nor does the government's failure to make abortion a crime a rounding endorsement of the practice. The government is simply saying neither you nor it can impose your belief on others. If a God truly does exist and abortion truly is a sin, that is between the woman in question and her God, as I can neither presume to know what is in that woman's heart anymore than I can presume to know what is in God's mind. I am in no position to judge her or her decision to terminate a pregnancy much less impose a law upon her that criminalizes her ability to do so. Neither is the government.

You simply cannot compare aborting a fetus with killing a child who is born in the context of murder. You might BELIEVE that a fetus is the same as a living child but you have to have something more than a mere belief before you start making demands that the govenment act to prohibit the individual rights of women to make choices regarding reproduction. I can't imagine anything more intrusive than the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her womb without the benefit of scientific facts. Mere belief is simply not enough. It may be enough for you and others in the pro-life movement, but it is not enough to justify such a governmental intrusion on the privacy rights of the woman.
on Oct 24, 2004
I can't imagine anything more intrusive than the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her womb without the benefit of scientific facts. Mere belief is simply not enough. It may be enough for you and others in the pro-life movement, but it is not enough to justify such a governmental intrusion on the privacy rights of the woman.
Bravo, great response.
on Oct 25, 2004
Thank you Steven. I value your endorsement of my arguments.
on Oct 25, 2004
Justice:Your very welcome and nice to have you in the "club" however small.