Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There Is Right. And There Is Wrong
Tomi Lahren — who jumped on the scene with one well-timed rant at One America News Network, then transitioned to a show on The Blaze where her almost always angry, screaming style generates millions of views per video — seemed almost calm when, appearing on “The View,” she made the startling suggestion that because she believes in limited government she is also pro-choice. The video:
The fall out: The Blaze suspended her. Her boss, Glenn Beck, showed her the underside of a bus on Twitter. Her detractors said, “Told you so!” Her supporters went supernova in vulgarity-laden screeds on Facebook. (What? Was that only my page?)
No matter how hard Lahren and her supporters try, it is impossible to connect limited government to acceptance of the pro-choice position (which is, to say, pro-abortion.)
On Facebook, I was lectured on how this is possible:
- Jonathan — “Just a few short months into victory and the cries of ‘goose step or get out of the tent’ begin … She champions some of our ideals. And good at it too. Who cares if she doesn’t lock step on one issue? You shouldn’t be afraid of others hearing her words.”
- Doug — “Let’s not become like the fascist left wingers and demand that all conservatives walk lock step. I’m a fiscal conservative but more liberal socially. I don’t expect everyone to follow me lock step.”
- Chuck — “I still like her as a conservative. That’s the great thing about our side. I don’t think you have to agree with 100% of a conservative checklist to be one … Yes RtL and abortion is a big one and high on the list. She just needs some more educating on the subject.”
On Twitter, Lahren lectured everyone on the idea of “truth”:
I speak my truth. If you don’t like it, tough. I will always be honest and stand in my truth.
— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) March 18, 2017
Connecting these statements of unknowledge? Not just the idea that believing in limited government means supporting the pro-choice position. Not even the idea that right and wrong are subjective. But, rather, the very notion that right and wrong even exist!
No one needs all conservatives to be in “lockstep.” No one is saying you have to agree on all subjects. But we have to agree on the basic concept that there is right, and there is wrong.
Limited government has nothing to do with accepting abortion. To say otherwise is wrong.
There is no such thing as “my truth.” There is only “the truth.” To say otherwise is wrong.
What happened to acknowledging that there is right and wrong in the world? To having and holding to a standard? What happened to eschewing the idea of moral relativism? No gray. No moment of “agreeing to disagree” or whatever other axiom exists to allow people to not confront reality.
There is right, and there is wrong. Lahren was/is wrong; Not a bad person. Not an evil person. Just wrong. And so are her defenders, so desperate to prove their individual desires true that they are unwilling to acknowledge reality.
Cross-posted at WIBC.com.
Published in General
I think Tomi’s millenialness was coming out in that tweet. She needs a bit more life experience I think. I was conservative at her age but I still had A LOT to learn as well, and she probably doesn’t have fully formed arguments about a bunch of things.
What I hope, comes out of this is that instead of getting defensive to think about her positions a bit more to see why it isn’t about “her truth” but about “the truth”.
She’s young, she’ll land on her feet.
To think this article could literally describe another, even more controversial, character to a T.
Not going to defend either Milo or Tomi, but it seems to me that reagan battalion is just a bitter anti-trumper looking to get even with scalps. More power to him, but he should probably start going after leftists instead of being a one man salt machine.
Amen.
I have many dear family and friends whom are pro-abortion. While I maintain my love for them, I detest the cancer that is their pro-abortion position. Someone reduced this very neatly for me some time back. The argument is whether the fetus is worthy of the same protections as those of us outside the womb. Science says a fetus is a unique human life. 140+ years ago, we fought a bloody war over the definition of what life constitutes equal protection.
To make my point, substitute “slavery” over “abortion” in any pro-abortion sentiment. For example:
When I hear our young friend caterwaul about “my body,” I’m reminded about slave owners declaring their sovereignty over “their property.” Notice how “body” and “property” miss the essential entity that is central to the debate? The individual at risk?
ps: I wonder how many intellectual defenders Steve Buscemi would get if he were to make a like gaffe?
There is no reasonable, informed way to believe that abortion can ever be acceptable. The only logical disagreements are over how best to deter this evil.
Its not about being right. Its about winning.
Us pro-lifers shake hands with the libertarian brigade all the time. I don’t trust them, I think they’re unreliable, and have said so many times -because when the day comes the Left decides to deal with me, the libertarians are going to have the option of standing aside and justifying to themselves that really, this is about small government and I was threatening to get my authoritarian on. Going against that option in the face of a major attack requires fortitude that I don’t know I would have, were I offered the choice. But at least for the moment, we have the same enemies. And when the day comes, folks like Tom Meyer and David Harsanyi have said that they’ll hang with me -and I appreciate their promise. It isn’t that she’s prochoice.
I know only three things about Tomi Lahren: that not long ago she claimed to be a pro-lifer, that she has reversed herself in a most public and treacherous way for the pro-lifers who shook her hand, and that her reasons for doing so are incoherent.
That makes her worse than unreliable. She didn’t just stand aside to save her own skin. She sold out her erstwhile friends for a friendly interview on The View. Traitors are the worst of sinners precisely because they make impossible the trust needed to form civilization. The SoCon-Libertarian alliance is vital, and such an obvious and pointless betrayal endangers it.
Nice try. Nobody’s biting.
Saying that you are a limited government conservative and to be consistent that you have to be pro-choice is intellectually lazy. Almost like saying that you think women who have abortions should be punished since you are pro-life.
You can be pro-choice or pro-life and be for limited government, but you sure don’t say that those of us who are pro-life are hypocrites for being for limited government.
She can make a lot of money going the Hannity route and being a fire breather, but if she wants to be taken seriously by the conservative movement, she might want to get beyond her dislike of reading and invest some time in Burke, Sowell, and Hayek. It might just keep her from getting suspended in the future.
Is there a problem with stating the philosophy of the President of the United States?
It is impossible? To connect the concepts of legal abortion and limited government? I don’t think so. You may say that Lahren and her supporters have not made a good case for justifying the former on the basis of the latter, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to do so – just because you say so.
Um, no. At least, the three quotations you include have nothing to do justifying legal abortion on the basis of limited government. Rather, the quotations argue that conservatives don’t have to agree on every subject.
Not exactly a lecture. I agree that “my truth” is a dangerous phrase and concept. So let’s slap her on the wrist for that one. Imagine that instead she had written, “I speak my opinion. If you don’t like it, tough. I will always be honest and stand by my opinion.” What’s wrong with that?
I think you’re missing the bigger story. She was employed for expressing her opinion. She did so. And her employer suspended her for expressing a “wrong” opinion. That may be within his rights, per her contract, but it is odd.
To be continued…
Its not impossible. Essentially Lahren was stating that her rule, at least as it appeared in that View discussion, for judging government policy was whether it increased government intervention or not (she viewed outlawing abortion has intervening). Assuming Lahren was being candid in her beliefs then it would appear that she misunderstands the motivation behind conservatism and even libertarianism desiring limited government.
But I don’t expect intellectual strength from Lahren so I am not surprised. After all she tweeted that she held a gamut of views, I doubt that all those pass her rule and thus I doubt she has thought that much about it.
I think you meant to write, “the very notion that right and wrong don’t even exist.”
No. To say otherwise is expressing one’s opinion (which should be accompanied by a cogent argument supporting the same). You have not offered an argument for your opposing view.
Agreed.
There are certainly valid questions about how, if Roe and its spawn* were overturned, pro-lifers would go about legislating the end or severe restriction of abortion. Would it be a punishment solely for the provider, or would the potential mother face sanctions? Are there penalties for those who would coerce a woman into having an abortion? What would those sanctions look like? Would we need to bring about radical reform to the adoption and foster care systems?
But to pretend that the pro-life position necessitates an unconstitutional, abusive central government is ridiculous. To violate Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment and throw literally** tens of millions of fellow conservative voters under the bus is repulsive.
If she were to stand with us when small government overlaps with pro-life (e.g., fighting the HHS mandate and advocating for defunding Planned Parenthood), we wouldn’t be this angry. The problem isn’t that she is personally pro-life but politically pro-choice; it’s that she embraces the most vile of leftist accusations against us. I don’t play nice with people who stab me in the back.
*”Progeny” is just the wrong word to describe Casey and all the others.
**Not “literally throw,” which did not happen.
Perhaps. But there is such a thing as “my opinion,” and there is not such a thing as “the opinion.” Matters of morality and ethics are not verifiable facts which can be proclaimed to be “true” or “false.” That is why they are protected by the First Amendment. If you make a false statement of a factual matter, you can be sued for defamation. But you cannot be sued for holding a particular opinion, no matter how strongly someone else disagrees with your opinion.
I should also mention that, if you think about it a bit, you will likely recognize that (unless you are preaching only to those who are already true believers), simply proclaiming that your opinion is the “truth” (THE Truth, dammit, with a capital T!) is a very unpersuasive way to make your point.
I presume that at this point, you are talking about abortion itself, rather than the concept of justifying legal abortion on the basis of limited government.
You can’t refute an idea by simply saying it’s wrong. You’re engaging in a logical fallacy. I’m not an expert on fallacies, but I believe it is the “moralistic fallacy“. Your version – based solely on this post – may be summarized as, “Because abortion ought to be illegal, it is wrong”.
If you argued that abortion is murder, and therefore it ought to be illegal, that would be a respectable argument. Perhaps you have argued that here or elsewhere – I don’t know.
But if someone made the counter-argument that, for example, abortion is not infanticide if it is done soon after conception, you couldn’t refute that argument simply by saying it’s wrong. You would have to argue why life in fact begins at conception.
Moral absolutism and declaring a debatable concept to be wrong is not a convincing way to argue.
If only we had some sort of podcast where such a person could be shown for how wrong they are. A place where they could be Tracked and Targetted, possibly while in a hammock.
Now that would be a real hot tobasco sauce
Like, ya know, whatever.
Good for her for making something of herself. She has time to mature in her views.
One last point: I mentioned that her suspension was odd, and I’d like to expand on that.
Brian Williams was suspended and, ultimately, demoted because his untruths had eroded the trust that is necessary between an NBC anchor and the audience. (Presumably, no such trust is necessary between an MSNBC anchor and the audience.)
That made sense. Lahren’s suspension does not.
It would make sense to suspend her if she had, for example, used a vulgarity on the air. What is the takeaway from her suspension for expressing a mainstream opinion shared by millions of Americans? That she may not ever again express this particular opinion? That she must have Glenn Beck or his representative pre-approve every opinion she plans to express on the air? That she must not express any controversial opinions when appearing on other networks?
Presumably, she has gotten more clarity from her management. But, again, to me as an outsider it looks odd. If views on The Blaze have to conform with Glenn Beck’s, then why isn’t he the sole on-air talent on the network? Alternatively, he could simply have “opinion readers”, like news readers, intone his opinions.
From what I heard, ( I don’t watch Tomi’s program, so take that into account) but that on her show on the Blaze Tomi would advocate the Pro-life position. Then she goes on the view and advocates a Pro-choice position. The only change was the venue. There may have been things behind the scenes as well going on and perhaps Glenn Beck used this as an opportunity to do something he already wanted to do. But he does have people who disagree with him on his channel so I don’t think it’s about purity and more about inconsistancy.
I always thought the idea that we can “agree to disagree” is at the very core of our political culture, especially on the right.
She’s just a young person trying to figure these issues out. Abortion was the issue that brought me into conservatism and it is still my biggest issue. However, I know many libertarian types that believe as she does and I’ve heard their rationalizations for these beliefs. Yes they are shallow in their reasoning. Yes, their assumptions are un-scientific and morally dubious. They are also logically constructed and believed with sincerity. Almost all of these libertarians eventually figure it out and become pro-life.
She deserved to get the boot. Calling pro-lifer’s hypocrites was just stupid on her part. Yet again, she is just a millennial who is trying to learn how to think and communicate with some degree of intelligence. This is what happens when you put someone on camera for the reasons that she was.
Totes.
She’s cute, but overrated.
Point #1: Do we know for a fact that the interview on The View is the reason Tomi was suspended from The Blaze? Maybe that is what happened but the couple of articles I read about it assumed that was the reason and didn’t quote Lahren or The Blaze as giving a reason. If the interview has been verified as the reason – fine, but I am reluctant to assume that other people’s assumptions are correct.
Point #2: I don’t know if this describes Lahren’s position or not, but someone might be pro-life and want the federal government to stay out of abortion restrictions. There are several laws I would like to see changed at my state level but don’t want federal legislation on it because it’s not legitimately within the scope of federal authority as described by the U.S. Constitution. If that is the case for Tomi Lahren, I can understand why she would say she finds it hypocritical to frequently denounce the federal government issuing laws that should be in the states’ hands, except for when she likes with the laws.
If a left-winger deviates from the PC viewpoint one little bit, they are set upon as if the devil himself existed in his heart. We on the right should not emulate the left and throw Tomi away just because she deviates from a position, even though is is a very important one. I believe after rational discussion over a period of time, she’ll come around.
I used to support abortion (even though I was conservative) because I bought into the “my body, my decision” aspect. However, I got seriously thinking about the issue and ultimately changed my position when I saw a political cartoon. I don’t know who drew it, but it looked like this (paraphrasing):
Two panels – the left panel showed a bearded thug with tattoos and body piercings. It’s caption read: 2 murders, three rapes, 6 armed robberies, drug use – does not deserve to die, has a right to life. The right panel showed a baby in womb, and it’s caption read: unborn, totally innocent – has no right to life.
Made me think, so let’s keep Tomi on board and give her time. Punishment for wrong thinking is the devil’s tool of the left . . .
Not only is it possible, the connection is quite easily made if you start from the premise that a fetus is not a person. And, like it or not, a large swath of the country starts from that premise. If a fetus is not a person, and the Constitution is otherwise silent on the issue, it becomes an issue for the states and the people.
Abortion is all about the “personhood” argument. Win that and you win the war. Everything else is just sparring.
Me too. Of course, I was never that mixed up on abortion… but certainly about a lot of things. Also, getting thrust into the punditry at such a young age is dangerous. In that world, you don’t think critically, and you don’t really have to defend what you believe. You simply assert, and then write tweets like the one she wrote when people disagree with you. I am very glad that I wasn’t in any position to be making serious political arguments 15 years ago.
p.s. I’m amazed that anyone watches the view. I didn’t even know it was still around.
It’s rarely a good idea to elevate someone young and attractive because they seem to be on your side, politically. Especially someone who is aspiring to be a media presence. Based on what little I’ve seen of this young lady, I never got the impression that any of her purported beliefs were arrived at after much thinking. She appears to me to be younger, prettier, Bill O’Reilly – most populist than conservative, ultimately annoying.
Whatever. This is Trump’s show now and I’ve disassociated from the conservative label.