Have you ever heard of Linda Greenhouse? Most likely, the answer is no. Greenhouse was a reporter on the Supreme Court for the New York Times until she was "offered early retirement" as a way of firing her gracefully. Greenhouse's history, however, is not important for the moment. Instead, I want to use her as a great example of how the liberal media perverts the arguments we have in this country.
In the last week, cases regarding whether or not the owners of corporations can assert a right to religious freedom have made their way to the Supreme Court. The specific cases all involve whether or not the Obamacare regulations can require companies to provide abortions as part of their health insurance if the owner opposes abortion for religious reasons. In a general sense, the issue comes down to the extent of the Constitutional protection for freedom of religion; in other words, what are the limits on the powers of the federal government to infringe on religious practices. This is an issue which has been part of the American debate since the ratification of the Constitution. The First Amendment was passed, in part, to codify the limits on the federal government on this score. Again and again during the last two centuries, this issue has been brought before the Supreme Court in one guise or another. The issue is a serious and important one for the nature and health of our republic.
So what does this issue have to do with a hack like Linda Greenhouse? Well, although the Times fired her, the let her write an opinion column on this issue. Greenhouse presents the cases as a new front in the so called culture wars. Then Greenhouse casts the dispute as part of a "war on modernity". In Greenhouse's dictionary, religious freedom is just a "goal line stand" against the forces of modernity. On one side are the antediluvian prigs who fight progress in all forms and on the other side there are the heroic warriors for the future of mankind.
I do not know if Greenhouse actually believes the nonsense that she is peddling in this article. It really does not matter though. What is important is the attempt to avoid the actual argument and to replace it with personal attacks on issues irrelevant to the actual dispute. It is the common tactic used by liberals to pervert arguments in their favor. Think about it. The issue of abortion is one for which many reasoned approaches are possible. At the extremes, abortion is banned or it is legal until the child is born. In between, there are countless places where the line can be drawn. Liberals, however, do not want to debate these lines. Instead, any restriction on abortion becomes a "war on women". Obviously, no one is waging war on women. Millions of the strongest anti-abortion voices are those of women. They are not waging war on themselves. Nevertheless, by framing the dispute as one in which women are victims and targets and abortion proponents are evil folks waging war on those poor women, the debate is perverted. Another example is the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration. The problem of more than ten million people who are in the USA in violation of the law is not a simple one to resolve. Views range from deportation of all of them to instant legalization of the group. Sadly, however, the leftist groups pervert the argument by announcing that those who do not accept their solution are "anti-immigrant". That's totally wrong. Indeed, it is hard to find many people outside of labor unions who are truly anti-immigrant (and even among unions, the sentiment is clearly a minority one.) Nevertheless, the left tries here to paint the debate as one of good versus evil.
It is not beneficial to American society to have important policy debates perverted in this manner. It is even worse when the people spouting these perversions start to actually believe them. Many on the left come to believe that their opponents really are the forces of evil. There will always be people on both sides of major debates who ascribe evil intentions to their adversaries; that is not what I am talking about. The problem right now is that there are leaders on the left who, after hearing years of these perverted arguments, have come to believe their opponents are evil. When the IRS is directed to attack conservative groups and individuals, it is because those in charge accept the idea that the conservatives are evil and must be stopped. If president Obama lies to America about the effect of Obamacare, he does so in order to beat the conservatives who oppose that law. Obama is prepared to lie in the fight of "good" versus "evil". Would he lie if he were just debating the best recipe for healthcare?
We all need to remember that we are Americans and that we should have the shared goal of doing what is best for all Americans. We also have to remember that every American has the right to his or her own view, and that we need to respect that view. Respect for the views of our countrymen does not mean that those views must prevail, but we cannot vilify people and we ought not pervert the argument. We should strive for a rational and HONEST debate.
In the last week, cases regarding whether or not the owners of corporations can assert a right to religious freedom have made their way to the Supreme Court. The specific cases all involve whether or not the Obamacare regulations can require companies to provide abortions as part of their health insurance if the owner opposes abortion for religious reasons. In a general sense, the issue comes down to the extent of the Constitutional protection for freedom of religion; in other words, what are the limits on the powers of the federal government to infringe on religious practices. This is an issue which has been part of the American debate since the ratification of the Constitution. The First Amendment was passed, in part, to codify the limits on the federal government on this score. Again and again during the last two centuries, this issue has been brought before the Supreme Court in one guise or another. The issue is a serious and important one for the nature and health of our republic.
So what does this issue have to do with a hack like Linda Greenhouse? Well, although the Times fired her, the let her write an opinion column on this issue. Greenhouse presents the cases as a new front in the so called culture wars. Then Greenhouse casts the dispute as part of a "war on modernity". In Greenhouse's dictionary, religious freedom is just a "goal line stand" against the forces of modernity. On one side are the antediluvian prigs who fight progress in all forms and on the other side there are the heroic warriors for the future of mankind.
I do not know if Greenhouse actually believes the nonsense that she is peddling in this article. It really does not matter though. What is important is the attempt to avoid the actual argument and to replace it with personal attacks on issues irrelevant to the actual dispute. It is the common tactic used by liberals to pervert arguments in their favor. Think about it. The issue of abortion is one for which many reasoned approaches are possible. At the extremes, abortion is banned or it is legal until the child is born. In between, there are countless places where the line can be drawn. Liberals, however, do not want to debate these lines. Instead, any restriction on abortion becomes a "war on women". Obviously, no one is waging war on women. Millions of the strongest anti-abortion voices are those of women. They are not waging war on themselves. Nevertheless, by framing the dispute as one in which women are victims and targets and abortion proponents are evil folks waging war on those poor women, the debate is perverted. Another example is the issue of how to deal with illegal immigration. The problem of more than ten million people who are in the USA in violation of the law is not a simple one to resolve. Views range from deportation of all of them to instant legalization of the group. Sadly, however, the leftist groups pervert the argument by announcing that those who do not accept their solution are "anti-immigrant". That's totally wrong. Indeed, it is hard to find many people outside of labor unions who are truly anti-immigrant (and even among unions, the sentiment is clearly a minority one.) Nevertheless, the left tries here to paint the debate as one of good versus evil.
It is not beneficial to American society to have important policy debates perverted in this manner. It is even worse when the people spouting these perversions start to actually believe them. Many on the left come to believe that their opponents really are the forces of evil. There will always be people on both sides of major debates who ascribe evil intentions to their adversaries; that is not what I am talking about. The problem right now is that there are leaders on the left who, after hearing years of these perverted arguments, have come to believe their opponents are evil. When the IRS is directed to attack conservative groups and individuals, it is because those in charge accept the idea that the conservatives are evil and must be stopped. If president Obama lies to America about the effect of Obamacare, he does so in order to beat the conservatives who oppose that law. Obama is prepared to lie in the fight of "good" versus "evil". Would he lie if he were just debating the best recipe for healthcare?
We all need to remember that we are Americans and that we should have the shared goal of doing what is best for all Americans. We also have to remember that every American has the right to his or her own view, and that we need to respect that view. Respect for the views of our countrymen does not mean that those views must prevail, but we cannot vilify people and we ought not pervert the argument. We should strive for a rational and HONEST debate.
1 comment:
"Today is Thanksgiving. That means that instead of analysis, argument or complaint, today at Connecticut Comments is just for giving thanks. So here goes"
I didn't think you would make it through the day, but I was surprised that it took less than an hour.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Post a Comment