Bud, get ready to duck, because this has to do with abortion, at least tangentially. In fact, I’ve got another couple of post ideas that do the same. You might want to sit these out, since it bugs you when the topic comes up.
Anyway, yesterday James Clyburn sent me this personal note, with my name on it and everything — so I’m taking it personally (a little, anyway):
Brad –
45 years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of their most powerful decisions in Roe v Wade, codifying a woman’s right to access a legal abortion in the United States.
You’d think that would have settled the matter — but extremists have been trying to strip women of this basic reproductive right ever since….
So basically, since I’m opposed to this absolute right that allows highly interested individuals to make decisions about whether other individuals live or die unilaterally, without due process, much less appeal, I’m an extremist. Instead of, you know, a believer in the rule of law who wants the unborn to have the same shot at survival that a murderer gets. (And yeah, I’m opposed to capital punishment, too. That’s part of what “pro-life” means.)
But never mind me, and never mind abortion. This is not about me. It’s not even about Jim Clyburn. It’s about the fact that this is the way people in both parties in Washington speak about people who disagree with them.
Lord knows the Republicans do it. And this is one of the ways that Democrats do it. They appeal to their hyperpartisan bases by using language that delegitimizes people who disagree.
I try not to do this (I may fail, but I try). You know why? Because I have lots of friends — earnest, thoughtful people — who disagree with me on this issue. For the most part, I avoid talking with them about this. But when we do discuss it, I try to be respectful.
And you know what? I’ll bet that in a one-on-one conversation with a constituent, Jim Clyburn would try to do the same.
But not in press releases and other political speech. You know why? Because these days, Democrats and Republicans only speak to their own sides. And those other people are personae non gratae, and not worthy of consideration…
Related Posts
Brad, not only are you an extremist you’re a partisan (on this issue) by the dictionary definition of the word:
par·ti·san
noun
1.
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
Actually, Bud, more than half the country believes abortion should only be legal under a few circumstances, or not at all.
Which is more people than believe it’s an unlimited right.
Which means that by definition, those who want at least some restrictions are not extremists. Hence my objection to the word, and to the polarized thinking that leads to it….
Oh, and as I’ve explained here before, on this blog I pretty much always use “partisan” in the most conventional sense, referring to adherence to a political PARTY. Note the common root.
Under your broader definition, everyone is a partisan because everyone has an opinion. Which renders the word redundant….
Oh, and as I’ve explained here before, on this blog I pretty much always use “partisan” in the most conventional sense, referring to adherence to a political PARTY.
Mr. word man that is just nonsense. You can’t just decide how a word is used in contradiction to the dictionary definition. Clyburn is right in that you are definitely an extremist on this IF you think abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest. The vast majority of Americans favor legal abortion under those circumstances.
One, my interpretation of the word is not nonsense, as you can tell by considering its root, and also when you see that this is the way most people use the word.
Two, Clyburn is not talking about people who think abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest. He’s talking about anyone who would in any way modify Roe. He’s calling anyone who does not accept the absolute right it grants an “extremist.”
So Brad, by your own logic…owning a gun, and especially carrying it concealed in public, should be strictly limited, if not totally forbidden. Gun owners who carry in public are de-facto after-birth abortion providers, circumventing all due process of other taxpayers in the public spaces of America. The 9th Circuit has a lengthy and well researched opinion that basically states that concealed carry is wholly unconstitutional (according to the American Constitution). You should read it. My point is that according to your own argument against abortion, to be consistent, you should also be totally opposed to concealed carry and for incredibly strict gun regulations. If you are not, please explain your position…
“The 9th Circuit has a lengthy and well researched opinion that basically states that concealed carry is wholly unconstitutional (according to the American Constitution).”
LOL. That’s not what the opinion says.
I don’t have a strong feeling about it either way. If it were possible to simply wave a wand and have it done, I’d make about 300 million guns disappear, cease to exist. Because whatever our laws, it’s the existence of so many guns in our society that pose a threat — eventually, they WILL end up in the wrong hands.
But I can’t do that.
I’m curious about two things:
1. Why you thought I’d be bothered by such strict gun-control measures. Do you think “Oh, he’s anti-abortion, so that means he’s of the right, so he’s pro-gun?” If so, you haven’t been reading my work for long. I utterly reject the whole left-right paradigm.
2. I don’t see how your analogy works. There is a 2nd Amendment that prevents us from taking commonsense measures that other countries have taken to reduce the number of gun in circulation. There is nothing about abortion in the Constitution. All we have is a “penumbra” magically discovered by the court granting a “right to privacy” (Griswold v. Connecticut), which was extended by Roe to grant a right to abortion.
I have a problem with the 2nd Amendment: It’s badly written — or at least badly punctuated — so its meaning isn’t as clear as it should be. But it’s still a LOT more solid than the supposed right to privacy, which others see in the Constitution but I do not.
I say these things not to stir the abortion argument back up or to make any point about guns. I’m just saying that in terms of being addressed in the Constitution, they’re very different.