[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: Life And War (THE PHONY PRO-LIFE STAND OF THE GOP) Life And War Posted on April 1st, 2008 by Daniel Larison Ross responds to the paleo onslaught. I would also point to Dan’s direct response to Ross’ argument as the starting point for my own reply. Dan writes: This is really the heart of the matter. For decades the GOP kept luring pro-life voters to the polls by saying, “We just need the majority in Congress and control of the White House, and then you’ll see things change.” So these people faithfully turned out every time for candidates, some of them quite mediocre and undeserving, and finally gave the GOP the unified government it had said it needed, and in return they received nothing more than they had under Reagan at the beginning. It was also obviously during this time that the GOP was wasting all of its time and energy launching and defending the war in Iraq, while scarcely being able to expend an ounce of political capital on anything important to pro-life conservatives. (Oh, wait, I forgot-Schiavo!) The question of priorities is relevant here. Dan re-states the issue this way: So here Dan is staking out a different position from the one Ross describes: even if it were likely that McCain would appoint another anti-Roe justice and the Court would then overturn Roe very quickly, that still may not justify supporting McCain because of his backing of an unjust war. However, I certainly am doubtful that McCain would appoint such a justice, or that any nominally anti-Roe justice he appointed would hold to that view when it matters. What sort of justice do we really expect McCain to appoint, when it is a question of satisfying social conservatives he probably doesn’t need to appease any longer (especially if he is going to be just a one-term President) or winning the approval of his media admirers and former Senate colleagues? What sort of justice does Ross expect a 55-seat, combative Democratic majority Senate to confirm? Ross and Dan both talk about Justice Kennedy, but there was another vote to uphold Roe in 1992 that has so far gone unmentioned. The tenure of Sandra Day O’Connor is a cautionary tale for all those who trust rather too much in certain judges (while ironically distrusting the judiciary as an institution at the same time). When nominated, she was presented (misleadingly) as an anti-Roe justice, but proved to be nothing of the kind. That may or may not happen with Roberts and Alito, but it’s worth noting that one of the things that made Roberts a clear favourite for the first Court appointment was his relative lack of a paper trail. Indeed, I guessed that Bush would pick him because of this Souteresque quality. Part of my skepticism of Bush’s justices and McCain is simply the result of my pessimism, which I think is well-founded especially when it relates to government. I assume that those seeking power in one form or another will exploit the hopes of others in order to get it, and will then do only as much for those others as is necessary to retain power, and in the case of lifetime appointments to the Court the justices don’t have to do anything to retain the unchecked and arbitrary power they now possess. At the same time, I don’t think that John Roberts sat before the Judiciary Committee and perjured himself when he said that he thought that Roe was the “settled law of the land” and then went on to say, “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” To expect that Roberts is a reliable anti-Roe vote is ultimately to believe him to be a liar, in which case it is not clear why anyone would trust him one way or the other. A stronger, long-term argument is the one Dan made in his original, excellent article: Where are the expanding Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress coming from? They are coming from, in large part, a backlash against the war. That is not the only reason, and the GOP cannot assume that ending the war would be a panacea for its unpopularity, but it is the largest millstone around their collective neck. So long as the GOP is so deeply unpopular and associated with the Iraq war and the entire foreign policy paradigm that led to that war, it will not even be in a position to confirm the sorts of justices Ross wants, much less “returning control over abortion law to the hands of the voting public,” which I agree with Ross ”remains a necessary goal for any pro-life, socially-conservative politics that takes itself seriously as a change agent in American life.” If we are going to take the long view, the best hope for putting together an electoral majority that will advance the pro-life cause would be either to decouple the pro-life cause from a party committed to perpetuating illegal, foreign wars or to decouple that party from its support for such wars. So long as they are joined together, not only will pro-life priorities take a very remote backseat to interventionist concerns (as social conservatives have always taken a backseat to the national security crowd) but pro-lifers will remain closely associated with and connected to profoundly unpopular policies. That doesn’t even touch the question of the philosophical incoherence of the people who preach the dignity of every human life while endorsing, tacitly or not, secret prisons, torture and aggressive war. McCain’s success would solidify this alliance between pro-lifers and interventionists, which might very easily break apart in the event of GOP defeat in the presidential race. That is, if you like, the long-term pro-life argument for voting against McCain.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#2. To: aristeides, Red Jones (#0)
I have always voted pro-life, and have received absolutely nothing for that vote. McCain claims to be pro-life, yet he has promised us 100 more years of wars. Wars that kill babies, children and pregnant women. What's pro-life about that? McCain also says he is against torture, but advocates a war where torture is still ongoing. Red Jones just posted an article that our own women in uniform are frequently raped, and by their own fellow soldiers in their own barracks. What kind of war is that? What kind of military do we have? Sanctity of life is so far from the NeoCon agenda, it resembles something much closer to Satanism.
For supporters of the Bush regime's wars of aggression to call themselves "pro- life" is a sick joke.
I agree with you. and yet people do it. I read an article once written by a fellow who was both a medical doctor and a lawyer, as well as a pro-life activist. He recounted how there was absolutely nothing the Republicans had ever done for the pro-life movement. He said that when they passed the law against 'partial-birth abortion', what they really did was make a law that allowed the doctors to make a small change in the procedure that was called 'partial-birth abortion' and then call the procedure something else and make it perfectly legal. So the effect of that legislation which was supposed to outlaw partial-birth abortions in reality increased the quantity of such abortions. how people can be so stupid as to say they vote republican because they are 'pro-life' is beyond me.
I wasn't aware of that "other" procedure.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||