The Nasty Face of Conservatism
After the flaming I've had on Ricochet recently with regards to homosexuality and drugs legalization, I've learned my lesson and now plan to stick resolutely to uncontroversial subjects.
So: abortion.
Here's a story in the UK press that my wife (who like me would consider herself a conservative) and I both found pretty shocking.
To obtain a termination under the Republican plan, women in Virginia would first be made to have an ultrasound, which would allow them to see their foetus and to hear its heartbeat.
During the first three months of pregnancy – when 80 per cent of abortions occur – such an ultrasound must be carried out by vaginal probe. The plan is furiously opposed by women's rights groups and Democrats.
It is due to be signed this week by the state's governor, Bob McDonnell, who is a high-profile ally of Mitt Romney, and is frequently tipped as a potential Republican vice-presidential candidate.
Opponents have grouped it with comparable rules elsewhere in the US, along with new measures to restrict contraception, to claim that the Republicans have launched a "war on women's health".
Virginia Democrats who oppose the ultrasound bill said that it would force women to undergo an invasive procedure that was akin to "state-sponsored rape."
Now I don't know how fair a representation this is of the facts on the ground. But I can tell you that even if it contains a scintilla of truth, it's an approach that most of us on this side of the Atlantic - including I'm guessing maybe 80 to 90 per cent of conservatives - would find wantonly vindictive and unpleasant. Some of you, I know will dismiss us as bien-pensant Euro weenies who have long since lost the moral plot. But speaking as one of the reddest-meat, most pro-gun, most anti-big-government, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-American conservative you are ever likely to meet, I'd just like those of you who support these kind of measures to pause and consider how it makes you look from the outside.
The reason I'm a conservative and proud to be a conservative is because I believe that ours is the philosophy that truly values human beings and works with human nature. The reason I despise liberals - well, not so much liberals, as their political philosophy - is that I see in almost everything they believe a deep intolerance masquerading as virtue, a determination to impose their Weltanschauung on EVERYONE, an urge to bully and control because, darn it, they KNOW they are right.
I referred to another example of this in my most enjoyable podcast with Paul Rahe the other day. The one where I cited the truly disgusting Anti-Saloon League chief enforcer Wayne Wheeler who just knew that alcohol was so wrong he considered it perfectly acceptable to persuade the US government to poison the nation's supply of industrial alcohol which (as everyone knew) was being used to make moonshine. This "Formula No. 5" - a mixture of methanol, pyridine bases and benzene, resulted in 10,000 deaths.
Wheeler joked about this: "If a man wishes to violate the Constitution of the United States he should be free to commit suicide in his own way."
I worry about this strain in US Conservatism, a) because I think it confirms all liberals worst prejudices and b) because it makes it that much less electorally attractive to the nation as a whole.
Discuss.
- Comment (234)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James, why are you and your wife wigging out? As stated above, that probe has to go "up there" to perform the abortion. What the law is stating is that the mother now gets to see a picture of her child before she snuffs it out. If she didn't want to be probed, she wouldn't be getting an abortion in the first place. Where's the rape?
AUMom, if the pregnancy is early on, the only way to get a good look at the baby is with a vaginal probe instead over the belly. I think the baby is big enough around 8 weeks to be seen via the belly probe. Prior to the that, you can only see the baby via the vaginal probe.
So, James, it looks like that probing you dread will only be used on mommies who want to kill their babies before about 8 weeks of pregnancy.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:36pmApr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The emphasized portion of your comment explains the differences we have on this issue.
I find abortion to be not merely unpleasant but abhorrent.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I just discovered the book: Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites... and Other Lies You've Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths from the Secular and Christian Media. I don't have it in my hands yet, but it looks interesting.
Here is the summary from Amazon:
This bears directly on the title of your post, and on the false idea that social issues and Santorum will somehow automatically be rejected by the vast majority of Americans. The leftward social trend is not set in concrete: we are finally turning the culture around on the issue of abortion, for example.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:35pmMay '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Except that we can't get that accomplished-- yet. Incrementalism works, and it's not hypocrisy to go for 10% when you want 100%.
If the goal is to put abortion to "death" to use your terminology, "micro-managing it to death" seems better than an all-or-nothing approach. Not only that, if you disagree that abortion should be put to "death," this still leaves you free choice.
We are in a cultural tug of war. The closer we are to zero abortions, the better. But you don't get there in one fell swoop. Showing people the images of the babies they are destroying is part of turning public opinion, a big part of the cultural battle.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:42pmNov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
To quote a worthy, Tonto, trusty side man to the Lone Ranger, "Why are you saying 'we', Kimosabe?" If "we" could prohibit abortion, "we" would.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:42pmOct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I love you James, but the sentence above is exactly how I feel about you on social issues -- minus the Euro part, of course.
I do consider how my positions make me look from the outside -- but since I obviously consider myself in the right on this issue, I naturally conclude that people "on the outside" who disagree with me are tragically wrong. Should they consider how they look from the outside too?
Bigger point: The people of Virginia have the right to pass laws they think appropriate to protect their God-given right to life -- and to accept the trade-offs in personal liberty that come with that decision. People in other states have the right to make other choices, and we have the right to choose to leave states that offend our values if we can't convince our neighbors to adopt our view.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:41pmMay '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
So that means that you are firmly in the President's camp where a pregnancy is "punishment?"
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Find no fault with your stance whatsoever. Being a father, I clearly understand the issue first hand. As a sidebar, was not that long ago, a birth was not confirmed until the Doc held up the newborn and administered a swat to welcomed it into the world. Too bad the Doctors welcoming message did not come with a warning.
One of the best ways to muck up politics in solving problems is to bring abortion into it. So there, I said it...
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:48pmSep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Is the situation that a woman schedules and prepares to abort her baby, but then ,right before the dirty deed is done, gets to see a pic and could grant the fetus a stay of execution, or once more has to affirm, after seeing the photo, that she ideed wants to continue with the procedure? It sounds both ineffective and barbaric. Perhaps it will prevent a second abortion...
Sep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James,
I have seen both the nasty face of conservatism here, and the nasty face of moderate Republicans here. There are some, however who are just right.
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Here's an email I've just had from a Ricochet friend. Just in case he doesn't post it himself - I need all the support I can get here - here's what it says:
Just read your piece on the ultra-sound issue. I am assuming that it is the “forced” nature of this proposed legislation that is bothering you.
For what it is worth, my wife and I agree with you that this is over the top and serves to fuel anti-conservative sentiments.
As you mentioned, forcing people to do things through legislation is what liberals specialize in!!
Maybe the conservative approach to this would be to “suggest” an ultrasound through a public relations campaign by the government.
Also, the Democrats are a little over the top when they assert that this is “state sanctioned rape”
This story parallels what is going on with Rick Santorum these days. In the debate of two nights ago he said that even though he holds socially conservative views, he has no intention of instituting a government program to force his views down people’s throats through legislation unlike the liberal-left democrats who do this routinely
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
In other words, let ourselves be defined by others' opinions.
Some issues are so important that "looking good" to others is at best a secondary consideration. Abolitionists, I'm sure, were viewed as radical crazy troublemakers upsetting the status quo, and their stridency probably even appeared to threaten certain races that others wished would focus only the current issue du jour. But their persistence paid off.
A bit closer to home: William Wilberforce was nearly laughed out of parliament when he first took up the cause of the slaves. I'm glad he did pause to consider how he looked-- and decided to go full speed ahead in spite of it.
By the way, he was a radical Evangelical.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:54pmMay '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I think the principle at work here is that of Informed Consent.
In general, we profess to like anyone making a medical decision to have a very good idea of what's at stake. But I gather that the pro-choice crowd, not to mention "most of (you on your) side of the Atlantic," are of the ignorance-is-bliss school when it comes to abortion?
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
@wilbur forge Thanks good buddy. You're officially my wing man.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Mr. Delingpole,
Am I supposed to be aware of how I look to the outside through glass or a fun house mirror? You are describing the sensationalist hyperventilating agitprop that is the view through the fun house mirror.
Since most people in america are pro-life, a law that says we should let the young lady see the person she is about to kill would probably be viewed fairly favorably. When you look at it through the fun house mirror you see evil male rapists raping a young girl with a broom handle.
I would like to repeat that this law changes nearly nothing about hte medical procedure except that the young lady will be given an opprotunity to look at her baby before making her choice.
How would you view this law if it were presented as it actually is: "This law requires doctors to make the video and audio of the ultrasound performed as part of the abortion procedure available prior to the actual termination of the fetus."
I am completely with you on the drug legalization thing.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:09pmDec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Full knowledge and consent are the hallmarks of a free decision.
Don't we have enough evidence that Planned Parenthood has an aggressive abortion agenda? Their preference is to abort the child.
There is a lack of full disclosure of the alternatives.
The risks, mental and medical, are rarely disclosed.
Counselors dismiss the moral concerns of the mother, abusing their emotional state to get them to commit to abortion.
Real criminal rape is covered up (google Lila Rose)
Clinic workers help victims lie about their under-age status.
And we are to be put on trial for requiring a serious medical examination before undergoing a serious procedure?
Strange, James, strange.
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
First, the issue is a moot point. After Gov. McDonnell backtracked because of Saturday Night Live, six Republican senators voted against the measure. Thus, the bill failed.
Second, the vaginal ultrasound is required by Planned Parenthood's own guidelines. The "rape" is already perpetrated. I can see an argument that forcing the patient to see the images is wrong, although I don't agree, but the argument that the law would "violate"the woman is ridiculous.
Third, my wife has some medical issues that have required these vaginal ultrasounds on numerous occasions. She's for the law. She doesn't view the ultrasounds as rape.
If folks can see past the left's parodies to the facts, the issue becomes much clearer. Of course, if you prefer to get your news from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Weekend Update, that's your choice, Mr. Delingpole.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Ottoman Umpire: I think the principle at work here is that of Informed Consent.
In general, we profess to like anyone making a medical decision to have a very good idea of what's at stake. But I gather that the pro-choice crowd, not to mention "most of (you on your) side of the Atlantic," are of the ignorance-is-bliss school when it comes to abortion? · 10 minutes ago
Yes, yes, yes.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Rex Mottram: Full knowledge and consent are the hallmarks of a free decision.
Don't we have enough evidence that Planned Parenthood has an aggressive abortion agenda? Their preference is to abort the child.
There is a lack of full disclosure of the alternatives.
The risks, mental and medical, are rarely disclosed.
Counselors dismiss the moral concerns of the mother, abusing their emotional state to get them to commit to abortion.
Real criminal rape is covered up (google Lila Rose)
Clinic workers help victims lie about their under-age status.
And we are to be put on trial for requiring a serious medical examination before undergoing a serious procedure?
Strange, James, strange.
As I said before, and as you so eloquently demonstrate, the nastiness is almost exclusively on the pro-abortion side.
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
No middle ground on this one. Just none. I'm very moved by the Richocheters who have responded eloquently, but firmly, to Mr. Delingpole. And proud.