This is a public policy public service announcement. It is not about judicial views regarding Roe v. Wade (that is here). The purpose of this post is to expose and push aside something which should not be a priority in public policy disputes in our nation, considering the other more major issues we face--and to realize how the elite corporate media reflects corporate elite opinion, and diverts us from arguing over matters of far more substance. So here we go...
Ugh. These elite Beltway type marriages....So cute, people say. For me, I find them indicative of elite intellectual corruption in our society and why the corporate media is such a poisonous, diverting well of misplaced priorities and misinformation. Sort of like Mary Matalin and James Carville, who laugh at those who they obviously secretly call "rubes," who they divert with culture war issues, all the way to their joint banking account. This time, it is Richard Brookhiser and his so-called liberal spouse. And the thing they have a problem with is the dispute over legalizing or criminalizing the act of abortion.
Brookshier, who I find personally least offensive among many right wing "intellectuals," needs the following questions put to him on his abortion issue stance:
'So, Rich, why, in a world filled with so much human suffering, and suffering of sentient, walking around or caged animals we consume, do you have such a top-level priority for the protection of a fetus?"
When he is done dancing with that one, and denying it is a "top level priority," then a follow up: "Isn't abortion a top-level priority for you because you think the fetus has veto power over the rights of the woman, in which the fetus is growing, once that fetus hits zygote or just beyond?"
Whether he answers "No" or "Yes," it doesn't matter, as we then we ask: "You're the type of guy who thinks regulating a business is oppressive. But here, when we are dealing with something inside someone's--a woman's--body, you are all for big, intrusive government? Right? So, it's a top-level priority for you, right?"
At this point, he immediately tells us it is a human life, and so no different than murder laws. So, we ask:
"Why, though, interfere with a woman's right to decide what to do with her body when we consider how oppressive these laws become for women when actually enforced? Come on, Rich, you know how these laws played out in places like Romania? In Ireland? In late 19th Century and up through mid-20th Century America? My understanding of your business libertarian positions is we should balance cause and effect in enacting public policies, and avoid people feeling oppressed even by laws with good intentions...."
"In other words, Rich, do you think 'The Handmaid's Tale' is simply so much propaganda or is it based upon at least some historical evidence of societal oppression of women?"
At some point, he will fall into the trap that says, "Well, the woman should have thought about the consequences before she got pregnant."
This is a trap for him for two reasons: It assumes no coercion or rape, so his comment can't deal with those circumstances. But even if the sex was consensual, he would now be speaking more in a language of Pregnancy as a Punishment, not anything really about "pro-life."
And then, the easy hit: "So, you're good with the death penalty, drones, war, giving police deference when they are shooting people, etc.. You claim to be a believer in Western Monotheism, Thou Shalt Not Kill...but, in your own, real world, there are all sorts of exceptions not written into the Divine admonishment, meaning, for you, 'It's complicated.' So why does your concern for a fetus merit a general description of your political position as "pro-life?"
And finally, the rhetorical jab: "So you think abortion is so important it merits you having a general description of yourself as 'pro-life,' which means it is, for you, a public policy priority of the first order?"
Let Old Richie deal with these questions for awhile, and see how he then deals with his buddies at National Review....If he is still pushing his fetus cult/misplaced priorities position, well, his wife may finally realize her husband's priorities on public policy involve the suppression of the rights of women. And she may realize, too, when she looks in the mirror, the reason the two of them find time to argue, poorly, it seems, about abortion as a matter of public policy, and somehow think this dispute means they have "drastically different" political views, is neither have noticed neither give a damn about the plight of workers or the poor, don't care about the military-industrial complex or the effects of the American Empire at home and around the world, and are positively blasé about the effects of anthropomorphic climate change.
Brookshier's marriage is merely the Clinton liberal v. the right wing religious zealot, perfect for corporate media fodder. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you your 21st Century American Elite.
And we wonder why Americans are, as workers and the poor, falling further and further behind the wealthy and corporate power existing in our nation...
