In the Village Voice Nat Hentoff now defends Terri Schiavo and calls the legal charade in Florida for what it is. Noting that Terri swallows her own saliva and might be able to take orally administered fluids, he seconds Wesley Smith's realization "that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."
This is Nat Hentoff we're talking about. Ralph Nader stands with him. As does Jesse Jackson. And Mary Johnson. And Harriet McBryde Johnson. And a host of other disability rights activists who championed this case long before most people had ever heard Terri Schiavo's name. (Not to mention other liberal stalwarts such as Mickey Kaus and Marshall Wittmann.)
Still, those who want Terri dead--people like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds--dishonestly insist that the debate is between sensible, law-abiding people on one side and "theocons," the "religious right," and "Christianists" on the other. (This last term has been donated to the discussion by Rik Hertzberg, who agrees wholeheartedly with Reynolds and Sullivan.)
Eager to reinforce his point, Sullivan (who promised weeks ago to stop blogging) recently posted an email purporting to be from a someone who has one of these Christer-zealots in the family. Describing this nutty sibling, Sullivan's emailer writes, "My sister-in-law is a devout Catholic, a Republican, and she watches Pat Robertson's 700 Club almost religiously." Get it? All the cues are there. "Devout" Catholic. "Republican." "Pat Robertson." "700 Club." Just one question: How many Catholics do you know who watch the 700 Club? Me neither.
Reynolds, in his continuing, if understated, campaign for Terri Schiavo's death, has tried to distract attention from the facts of the case by pointing to the involvement of self-promoter/hack Randall Terry. "If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats," Reynolds says, "don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen." Thanks for the tip. And how, exactly, is one to supposed to shut Randall Terry up?
Sighing at the burden of it all, Reynolds now tells us that "this is one of those episodes that seems to bring out the worst in people. That's why I didn't really want to weigh in to begin with--I knew that I was unlikely to persuade anyone, because very few people seem to care about the facts, or about arguments."
How droll. Like Sullivan and Hertzberg and the rest of the crew eager to get Terri Schiavo in the ground, it is Reynolds who assiduously avoided the facts at every turn--choosing instead to condemn the poor woman by association because of (some of) the people who have rallied to her cause. As Hugh Hewitt observes, this is demagoguery, pure and simple.
4 hours ago
10 comments:
Was the basic morality of the abolitionist cause diluted in any way because of the violent acts of John Brown in Kansas and Virginia? Was slavery made any less of a moral blight because of the superheated rhetoric of William Garrison?
SEB
I remember Sullivan first using the term "Christianist" almost 2 years ago in reference to Eric Rudolph (who had just been apprehended).
Which goes to show Sullivan's devolution--from identifying a suspected multiple murderer as (correctly) a dangerous "Christianist" extremist to identifying 30% of the population as such.
So I guess Andrew Sullivan is guilty by association with idiots like Peter Singer who believe Schiavo and autistic children should not only be allowed to die, but should be put to death. If I'm a theocon because Randall Terry and I agree on this one issue, then Sullivan and Instapundit are loony leftists who believe humans should be allowed to have sex with animals. Guilt by association, it goes both ways.
Interesting that you should mention that :):
I don't share Peter Singer's enthusiasm for bestiality, but since I'm happy to eat animals it's hard for me to consider people having sex with them to be, you know, more exploitative.
But anyway that's all besides the point. Reynold's position is that if you let people speak for your movement, if you don't denounce them then you're tarred by the association. That was his position when he was denouncing liberals for marching with the stalinist International ANSWER and that's his same position now.
Bravo,
I think this post is right up there with JunkYardBlog's "Memo" to Libertarians.
I guess since Glenn apparently places so much trust in Dr. "Death" Cranford, he supports the idea of offing people with Alzheimers.
Oh, sorry - I forgot that talking about offing people with Alzaheimers is hyperbole. Someone should tell Cranford.
Gee, Rich Lowry denounced Randall Terry too...it's even linked to in the Instapundit post Last himself links to...but I guess Last doesn't have the balls to go after the National Review.
I guarantee that some homeless man in America will die tonight; is that an argument for mandated government housing for all tomorrow?
The hard and fast fact is this: America is America because of indifference. Because a majority of Americans are like Glenn Reynolds and are willing to admit that the Schiavo fight is out of their hands. Because if that were not true, then there would be bloodshed, constant bloodshed. Garrison Keillor may be a buffoon these days, but he was right when he said that the American revolution succeeded because 1/3 were for it, 1/3 were against it, and 1/3 didn't care. There's something to be said for people who refuse to become fanatics.
Or, let's all wish for the days when Christians whose beliefs overlapped at least by 70% were killing and slaughtering each other. That was cool...because at least you knew where a man stood...right?
It's one thing to override the states on an issue such as the oppression of a whole race of people...it's a little more difficult to understand doing it with only one life on the line...one life, of which a multiple thereof is regularly snuffed due to car bombs in Iraq...casualities that we accept on principle, because we know that these bombs will eventually produce the opposite effect of their intent.
There's something to be said for those who now wonder why Republicans and social conservatives will attempt to move heaven and earth to save one human life in order to defend the sancitity of a universal principle, while the pragmatic concerns of literally millions go unaddressed because their lives don't conform to a single principle, except to be alive. But now that life is the ultimate goal, is it not logical to think in terms of preventive care for all?
But go on, Jonathan, judge. For ye shall never be judged.
AP
Interesting to see that the Republican rallying cry of "sanctity of marriage" is easily tossed out the window...And please don't ever bring up the term "state's rights" again, ok?
Plenty of hypocrites on the Left and the Right on this one.
hmmm.... don't know if I've ever heard a conservative claim that the sanctity of marriage came before the sanctity of life. furthermore, one can be for state's rights and still believe Terri Schiavo is being denied her federally protected due process. then again, I wouldn't expect a liberal to know anything about the constitution, as they believe it's simply a blank page that can be reinterpreted to condone whatever ideology they are preaching at any given time. Let me put it this way: were Terri Schiavo actually Terrance Schiavo and Michael was his partner suing to gain guardianship so he could keep Terrance alive, the left would stop at nothing to keep Terrance alive.
The only difference in the situations would be that the right would probably be fighting along side them, with the exception of a few nutjobs like Alan Keyes and Randall Terry.
Oh, Instapundit has a fairly reasonable position regarding Schiavo. However, since he refuses to distance himself from the nutjobs who believe that fucking pigs is perfectly ok and giving chimps and dolphins voting rights, then he is a loon nutcase leftist. I'm simply appling the exact same logic he applies to those who did not wish to see Terri Schiavo killed. He wants to call me, a barely practicing Jew, a theocon, then he's a communist. I'm the consistant one, Instapigfucker is not.
Oh, Instapundit has a fairly reasonable position regarding Schiavo. However, since he refuses to distance himself from the nutjobs who believe that fucking pigs is perfectly ok and giving chimps and dolphins voting rights, then he is a loon nutcase leftist. I'm simply appling the exact same logic he applies to those who did not wish to see Terri Schiavo killed. He wants to call me, a barely practicing Jew, a theocon, then he's a communist. I'm the consistant one, Instapigfucker is not.
Post a Comment