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
It is unwise to elevate someone who is young. Period.
Good advice for pastors. Good advice for all leaders.
And yeah, I know. Trump. I didn’t say we always followed that good advice.
It’s like Megan Kelly all over again. *I know how to spell her name but don’t want to fight my spell checker.
That’s not necessarily true. If a person accepts the pro-choice position because they believe a foetus has no rights, they’ll think a government limited to the protection of rights is perfectly consistent with their view of abortion. Your statement’s truth depends on prior beliefs about government and abortion.
I generally concur with this, but there’should this nagging at the back of my head that insists that there can be no Right to Life without a right to being born.
Young people have their place in conservatism (because it’s a philosophy that works for everyone), but they should stay in their “lane,” so to speak.
A young person can jump in front of a camera and discuss how ObamaCare hurts her (higher insurance premiums, subsidies for middle-aged people, lack of catastrophic care, reduced full-time hiring by employers), the ways in which the efforts to make college accessible for all have distorted the employment market and driven up costs, why young people are moving to smaller cities in flyover country, the housing bubble and how it affects their decisions to buy homes, or how college campuses are hostile to Christians and conservatives. As she grows older, she can expand her repertoire.
There are a lot of things that are within the scope of the life experience of a twenty-something, and people that age can contribute meaningfully to the discussion by linking conservative theory with their actual experience. But that’s a far cry from elevating them to the Voice of Conservatism.
I don’t disagree at all.
My first comment wasn’t as clear as I would have liked: I don’t object to young conservatives learning their way and adding their voices to the debate. Fresh perspectives can often be valuable. But I do think there is a lot of value in paying your dues; see MKH, Katie Pavlich, and Guy Benson, for example. They didn’t come out of nowhere; a lot of us knew their work before they started showing up in national media.
The main problem with Tomi is that she was just given a show before she spent any time in the woodshed, putting the work in. If we’re honest, it’s not hard to figure out why that happened. Ultimately, the goal of media is eyeballs, not ideology. Tomi might be good for ratings but so are car wrecks.
According to those who think the foetus has no rights because it’s a part of the body of a person who does have rights, the foetus, once born and viable, acquires the right to life. (Whether an unborn foetus, a fertilized egg, or an animal, have(has?) a right to life depends, in part, on how you think natural rights arise. [Don’t ask me; I’m just an humble codewright.])
Constitution* says “endowed by our creator”. But this godless nation seceded that aspect of our rights a long time ago.
We have no rights except those our government chooses to recognize.
A baby has no rights except that which its mother chooses to recognize.
*whichever document, declaration, preamble, federalist papers… the only time we give a damn about the distinction is to make someone feel stupid.
This is the best, most well-reasoned essay I have ever read on why someone should think seriously about taking up the pro-life position. Frankly, I was astounded.
http://thetorchblog.net/?p=996
Full disclosure: I have been pro-life for at least 40 years. Used to picket clinics in Chicago many years ago. I have mostly stayed out of the debate because quite often both sides are entrenched and beyond persuasion. After reading this article, I no longer think that.