Wall Street Opinion Journal | Peter Berkowitz | May 29, 2007
The American right is a cauldron of debate; the left isn’t.
The left prides itself on, and frequently boasts of, its superior appreciation of the complexity and depth of moral and political life. But political debate in America today tells a different story.
On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.
One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives–for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.
To be sure, some standard-order issues remain easy for both sides. Democrats instinctively want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, establish government supervised universal healthcare, and impose greater regulation on trade. Just as instinctively Republicans wish to extend the Bush tax cuts, find market mechanisms to broaden health care coverage and reduce limitations on trade.
But on non-standard issues–involving dramatic changes in national security and foreign affairs, the power of medicine and technology to intervene at the early stages of life, and the social meaning of marriage and family, the partisans show a clear difference: the left is more and more of one mind while divisions on the right deepen.
. . . more
#47 Jim Holman
I disagree that the Schiavo incident is relevant to the thread. If I remember correctly, the issues did not line up neatly in conservative vs. liberal terms. Very liberal persons such as Tom Harkin and Nat Hentoff, as well as disablility rights activists (usually of liberal bent) made common cause with the pro-life movement. Conversely, many conservatives were very uncomfortable with the whole thing.
Your claim that you are part of the “reality based community” is not reasoned argument – it is self-congratulation. I would recommend books by Thomas Sowell as a corrective.
Tom C writes: “If I remember correctly, the issues did not line up neatly in conservative vs. liberal terms.”
You mention two liberals that were on the other side of the Schiavo issue, but I think they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Certainly the right wing portrayed this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. Note, for example, this piece from the online FrontPage magazine:
How are we to explain liberal’s and leftists’ support for disconnecting Terri Schiavo from her feeding tube and making her die a slow death, while she is guarded by police officers who prevent anyone from even putting a drop of water to her lips? And how are we to explain the liberals’ belief that conservatives, who want to prevent this horror from occurring, are religious dictators intruding into a purely private matter?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17570
The article goes on to explore “liberal thinking” on the issue. There were literally thousands or tens of thousands of similar articles floating around the internet.
I think some non-religious and paleo conservatives had problems about the time that the state of Florida and the Federal Government got involved in the case. They didn’t favor the eventual outcome, but they were concerned about government intervention in a family situation, and interference with the courts and legal process.
As others have noted, the conservative Schiavo narrative was basically an anti-abortion narrative, with Terri Schiavo as the innocent fetus, Michael Schiavo as the evil abortionist-for-convenience, and the Schindlers as the loving, adoptive parents being blocked by an indifferent legal system. So it was the standard good vs. evil, culture of life vs. culture of death, conservative vs. liberal narrative.
Tom C: “Your claim that you are part of the ‘reality based community’ is not reasoned argument – it is self-congratulation.”
Yes, and I do congratulate myself on being a member of that community — in other words, that I make an attempt to familiarize myself with the actual facts of a situation.
I don’t know what it is about the Schiavo case that makes it virtually impossible for so many conservatives to grasp the most basic facts of the case. I’m not talking about agreeing with the outcome, or anything like that. I’m talking about having some idea of who testified, some notion of how the legal process worked, and so on. It’s almost like the standard false narrative is so compelling that actual facts cannot penetrate it. I don’t know how else to explain it.
Jim, if life, and the judiciary, were as black and white as you want to see it (“…most basic facts of the case…”), then how do explain the turmoil over the Schiavo case? –except of course that those against the killing were stupid.
But that won’t work. Here’s one dissent written in 2005: Starving for a Fair Diagnosis
But putting the post-mortem (no pun intended) aside for the moment, how can anyone see the starvation of a person as a cause for celebration?
Right. Euthanasia comes out of the devaluation of human life that seems to afflict all but the most honest liberals (Nat Henthoff for example). Here’s the worry: if liberals cannot even bring themselves to condemn partial birth abortion (all Democratic presidential candidates support it), what happens to those with lesser disabilities than Terri Schiavo? We’d be foolish to think that the PBA and Schiavo apologists will possess either the moral clarity or moral resolve to do what is right. On the left, disability activists seem to be the only ones apart from the honest liberals who understand this. See: Not Dead Yet.
How can the deliberate starvation of a disabled woman be seen as a social good? I don’t see it.
Tom C: I love demolishing right-wing myths so that you for giving me the opportunity to do so again. The fact that Al Gore’s detractors are so desperate to grasp at any straw to attack him with that they don’t even bother to check the credibility of their sources, makes discrediting them, and you, even more gratifying.
In accusing Al Gore of wildly exagerating the rise in ocean levels resulting from global warming, you misrepresented what Al Gore actually said, and like others, presented it out of context.
In making the accusation Gore’s critics ..
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150012?offset=20&show=1
So let’s note. Gore is using the word “if”, and not “when”, and offers “no particular time frame”. The 23 inches cited by the IPCC describes what could happen by 2100, but said that the situation could continue to worsen dramatically afterward. Also, because the IPCC is prohineted by their charter from engaging in specualtion, their forecast was estimated using a conservative set of criteria.
Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate Change, New York Times, February 2, 2007
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, if life, and the judiciary, were as black and white as you want to see it (”…most basic facts of the case…”), then how do explain the turmoil over the Schiavo case? –except of course that those against the killing were stupid.”
No, I don’t think that anybody was stupid. I think there were two related problems. First, there was an entire “urban legend” that grew up around the Schiavo case — the evil husband killing his wife in order to get rich off the insurance money, aided and abetted by an indifferent legal system. Second, many people were not in possession of the basic facts of the case. They were horrified by Michael’s relationship with another woman, but didn’t know that the Schindlers themselves had told Michael to get on with his life and date other women. (“It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.” – Guardian ad Litem report, 2003)
People were horrified by Michael’s lack of concern with her treatment, but were unaware of the substantial efforts that were made in behalf of a recovery. The 2003 guardian ad litem’s report notes that
Well, the list just goes on and on. A fellow could write a book about the difference between perception and reality in this case.
Fr. Hans: “Here’s one dissent written in 2005.”
Great, let’s talk about that. Perhaps the main point of the article is that Terri Schiavo didn’t have MRI or PET scans. Dr. Chris Rangel, an internist who runs the RangleMD web site discusses why such scans were unnecessary:
Terri Schiavo’s cerebral cortex had liquified. It was gone. So there was simply nothing for an MRI or PET scan to scan.
The article also states that “She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs.” But this is clearly contradicted by the GAL’s report: “It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.” The guardian, Jay Wolfson, spent time with Terri, in addition to reviewing the entire medical and legal record.
The article states that “The most obvious possible explanation for what would otherwise be inexplicable behavior is that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer don’t want to admit any information that would upset the diagnosis they already have.” But the author is operating from an incomplete set of facts, as Dr. Rangel’s explanation demonstrates, and the GAL’s report contradicts the assertion about bed sores.
Concerning whether Terri was in a PVS, that issue was addressed in court not once, but twice. The first time the Schindlers presented all the evidence they wanted to present. The appeals court even granted a separate evidentiary hearing specifically for determining that issue. Again, the evidence of PVS was clear and convincing, and the autopsy results were completely consistent with that diagnosis.
Fr. Hans: “How can the deliberate starvation of a disabled woman be seen as a social good? I don’t see it.”
Well, I wouldn’t use the phrase “social good” in that context any more than I would say that turning the respirator off on a brain-dead person was a social good.
I would ask you to consider two possibilities:
1) Terri Schiavo was in fact in a PVS, and thus had no conscious thought or awareness and no hope of recovery; and
2) she really would not have wanted to be maintained in that condition.
In other words, I’m asking you to consider the possibility that lifelong Republican and conservative Christian Judge Greer got it right. Because if he did, then the outcome in the Schiavo case, though sad, was correct, yes?
#54 Dean Scourtes –
I see that you went straight to that font of scientific wisdom: mediamatters.org.
You will notice in my post (#35) that I acknowledged that Gore did not technically say anything incorrect. This leaves him, when called to task, an outlet of the kind of tortured parsing that his defenders must engage in, and which you just provided a wonderful example of.
When Gore juxtaposes the sea level rise scenario with no specified time frame and in the next breath says “we only have 10 years to act” and “we are going to see in our lifetime devastation beyond anything we’ve seen before” he is purposefully conflating all three pieces of information. The casual listener – probably about 99% of all listeners – is left with the impression that seal levels will rise 20 feet within the next several decades. It is dishonest.
I see you have learned from the master, since you say
when in fact the information you were provided was
In other words “sustained for millenia” became “afterward” in your telling.
I assume there there no handy links from progressive web sites to help defend Gore against the financial conflict of interest charge?
As I said Tom, you’re grasping at straws. Gore isn’t in elected office making official decisions and policy; he is a private citizen and author collecting royalties on a book he wrote that turned out to be a popular best-seller.
Any suggestion that Gore collecting royalties on his own book is a conflict of interest is nothing more than trumped-up nonsense. It reveals how misguided, selective and disproportionate your sense of outrage is, that while you struggle to make a mountain out of that molehill you completely ignore another Vice-President with much greater conflict of interest problems.
Dick Cheney, considered the most powerful and influential Vice President in American history has been collecting deferred compensation from Halliburton, one of the nations largest government contractors, while his office has played an active role in shaping policy for the Iraq occupation. Part of that policy involved the awarding of lucrative no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
Cheney may still have Halliburton ties: Congressional report finds Vice President still has financial interest in his old company. CNN Money, September 25, 2003
Jim, sorry but like I wrote above, I just don’t have the time or inclination to reargue the Schiavo case. I followed it closely, very closely in fact, as it unfolded and I don’t put the same faith in the Greer court as you do. I really can’t say anymore than that at this point. Too much other stuff going on.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, sorry but like I wrote above, I just don’t have the time or inclination to reargue the Schiavo case. I followed it closely, very closely in fact, as it unfolded and I don’t put the same faith in the Greer court as you do.”
I understand. This kind of discussion does require a lot of time.
In order to clarify my position, I will close by saying that I don’t have “faith” in Judge Greer, but don’t see any significant cause for doubt either. It is extremely easy to second-guess and criticize a decision, and to put a negative spin on every detail. But we weren’t the ones sitting in the courtroom every day listening to evidence and observing the witnesses. I have served on juries several times, one time when the jury found a fellow innocent of distribution of cocaine, because the state’s case was not at all compelling and there was more than reasonable doubt. Some day there may be a right wing blog denouncing me: “Rabid liberal Jim Holman conspired with eleven other liberals to turn loose a notorious drug dealer with prior arrests for the same crime.”
Prior to the Schiavo case Greer was a little-known probate and guardianship judge. During the Schiavo case Judge Greer received a large volume of hate mail. He had to travel with armed deputies because of death threats. People called for his impeachment and filed complaints against him with the state. He was basically asked to leave his church. His courthouse was picketed. He was continually denounced from coast to coast and torn apart in thousands or even tens of thousands of right wing blogs and web sites. So it is not clear to me what “benefit” would have accrued to him by failing to affirm the Schidler side of the case.
When I read his opinions I do not get the sense that I’m reading the work of someone who is indifferent or inattentive. I do not get the sense that I’m reading the work of someone whose main purpose in life was to “kill Terri Schiavo.” I do not get the sense that he is second cousin to Hitler or Dr. Mengele.
His opinions were never overturned on appeal, and the guardian ad litem appointed by Jeb Bush concurred with his opinions and findings. While I do not have faith in Greer, I have confidence that upon hearing all the evidence, he made the right decisions. And I would say that had his decisions gone the other way.
Fair enough.
#57 Dean Scourtes –
Long ago in this thread you defended Gore against charges of being unethical. I then gave you two additional examples of what I consider to be Gore’s unethical behavior:
1) Misleading the public about the dangers of global warming. No matter how you, Al, or mediamatters.org twist, turn or circumlocute, Gore clearly tried to leave the impression with viewers of his movie that a twenty ft. rise in seal level, along with the problems that would accompany it, was imminent. To not preface his remarks with the crucial information that this could be expected to happen over several millenia is dishonest. Plain and simple.
BTW, do you really think these climate scientists know what Greenland will look like in, say 3,000 years?
2) Using his prestige and presence in the media to whip up hysteria about global warming, while assuming chairmanship of a venture capital firm that stands to make big profits if his message is heeded.
I asked that second question quite clearly three times. When you finally responded you said
In other words, you dodged the question by responding to an accusation that I clearly did not make.
To put a big cherry on top of all this disingenuousness, you changed the subject to Cheney and quoted from a CNN article that seemed to suggest that Cheney was benefitting from former ties to Halliburton. But I actually read the article, and here is what you did not quote
Maybe you get a kick out of behaving like this, Mr. Scourtes, but there are probably a few discerning readers out there who might re-evaluate their political commitments as a result.
Tom – I feel sorry for you because you are desperately clinging to a fantasy world in order to sustain your failed and disredited ideology.
There is so much evidence of climate change, from melting permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, to disappearing glaciers in the Alps, on Mt. Kilmajaro and at Glaicer National Park, to the crumbling ice shelves of Greenland and Antartica, that you may as well try and deny that the Sun rises in the East, or the world is round, as deny that there is such a thing as global warming.
Your attempts to malign and slander Vice President Gore are the products of your seeking refuge from reality in a fantasy world, as well. During his long years in public service Al Gore was never tainted with even a hint of public or private scandal. He served this nation honorably, playing a pivotal role in increasing federal funding for the internet, raising awareness of environmental issues, supporting President George HW Bush during the Gulf War and, as Vice President, helping to downsize the federal workforce. Although Mr. Gore also had an influential father, he volunteered to serve in Viet Nam rather than seek deferment or a spot in the National Guard. He married his college sweetheart and has been a faithful husband and exemplary father.
That is what scares you. A majority of Americans now believe and openly state that it is a national tragedy of historic proportions that Al Gore had the Presidency stolen from him by a partisan Supreme Court, after winning the popular vote. The American people can not help but reflect on the huge numbers of disasterous mistakes, blunders, failures, and unethical and immoral decisions that would not have occured if Mr. Gore had been in the White House.
The surplus would not have been squandered on a tax cut for the rich.
The nation would not have been a trillion dollars in debt to the Bank of China.
The warnings of an impending terrorist attack on US soil during the summer of 2001 would not have been ignored.
The United States would not have launched an illegal, immoral and unprovoked war baed on deliberately manufactured lies. 2,500 American servicemen would not be dead, and at least 20,000 maimed and gravely wounded.
The $500 billion dollars spent in Iraq would have been spent at home creating jobs, improving infrastructure, and expanding education and health care.
The President of the United States would not have repudiated the Geneva Conventions and embraced torture. The President would not have trampled on the constitution by ignoring the FISA act or adding “signing statements” to acts of Congress indicating his intention to ignore laws that he doesn’t agree with.
The United States would have continued to enjoy the respect and admiration of the world, rather than its hostility and contempt.
Federal agencies like FEMA would not have been staffed by cronies and political hacks and become ineffective, incompetent and corrupt. US Attorneys would not have been fired for prosecuting corrupt polticians from more the President’s party.
A President Gore, not beholden to the oil and coal industry, would not have allowed our nation to remain dangerous dependency on foreign oi, but would have initiated efforts to make our nation more energy independent.
The nation would have been much better off with a President Gore, and every time you realize that Tom, you also realize the great damage that you inflicted on your fellow Americans and the world by voting for a blatantly unqualified, incompetent, corrupt liar, just so you could thumb your nose at “the liberals’.
#62 Mr. Scourtes –
In addition to not responding in a substantive way to my charges against Gore, you selectively pulled quotes from the CNN article to make it look like Cheney was involved in some sort of shady financial dealings. A fair reading of the article largely exonerates him. Did you or did you not purposefully mislead the readership of this blog by your selective quoting of this article?
Tom C – You are the one misleading here by suggesting that I am parsing the facts. The information in the article amply supports the assertion that Cheney is guilty of a financial conflict of interest, and that he received a personal gain as result of policies he helped promote.
1) Cheney has played an unusually strong role in shaping and influencing Iraq policy, including pushing for a far greater role for private contractors than seen n any previous major American military operation.
2) Only part of Cheney’s compensation, the deferred salary compensation was donated to charity during those in 2001 and 2002. Cheney continued to hold large numbers of shares in Halliburton which increased in value due to dividends, capital gains and a stock split.
3) Halliburton’s historical stock price displays a dramatically increase since the onset of the Iraq war. In January 2002 the Halliburton stock closed at $13.75 a share for the month. In January 2003, as the war approached it closed at $18.76 a share. In January 2004 with the ocupation swinging into full gear it closed at $30.15. In January 2005, it closed at $41.13. In January 2006 it closed at $79.62 In July 2006 the stock split, and by January 2007 the stock closed at $29.54.
Here is the five-year chart for the price of Halliburton stock which shows that over that time the price rose by over 400%, dramatically outperforming the Dow Jones Insustrial Average. Just to refresh our memories the article mentioned that Dick Cheney had stock options for 433,000 shares before the stock split.
The appreciation of Halliburton’s stock price made Dick Cheney a wealthy man, and while he gave much of that income to charity, he also retained a lot of those earnings as well. Two years ago, MSNBC reported:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/
Of course, we also have to consider the future benefits accruing to Cheney after he leaves office. His advocacy on behalf on Halliburton and other contractors are likely to be be rewarded with consulting fees, honoraria and positions of Boards of Directors provided by those same companies.
#64 Mr. Scourtes –
I will acknowledge a sudden improvement in your methods. You didn’t call me or anyone else nasty names; you presented information that was largely relevant; and, you included in your block quote some information that was favorable to Cheney.
Let’s think about the whole picture for a minute. Cheney’s advocacy of the war has, from the very start been linked to his ties to Halliburton. So, it makes sense that he would try to dispel that conflict of interest. He did it by donating the proceeds of his stock sales and income to charity – apparently $6.87 out $8.8 million.
It is a strange conflict of interest to lead your country into an “illegal, immoral war” so you can…give a bunch of money to charity.
There is a problem of scale here as well. You said that his sales of post-war stock made him a rich man. That is not quite right – he was already a very rich man. Did he engage in all that trickery to get another couple of million? Maybe. Greed can become addictive.
I have my suspicions about Cheney. I never liked him and still don’t. Maybe he did push the war, in part, to enrich friends and associates. I am open to the possibility.
But we were not talking about Cheney, were we? I asked you questions about Gore which you have never answered.
Incidently, I don’t think it is money that drives Gore – he has always been very rich as well. Gore has, since the age of about 19 or so, “wanted to be the President”. I think he is driven by narcissism and self-aggrandizement.
In truth, I’d rather have a corrupt politician driven by greed than by ego.
#Too many to Count – Dean Scourtes
I want to thank you for how you have enlightened me on this thread, Mr. Scourtes. Your latest post, of course, was instrumental in helping me see how nefarious Republicans start unecessary wars so they can make huge amounts of money that they then give to charity. I had not put the whole thing together like that until now. Kind of a Military-Industrial-SalvationArmy Complex.
I was also enlightened by your posts #19 and 20. In 19 you said:
While in 20 you said:
Until now I just had not grasped the mendacity of industry – how they are both leading the battle against recalcitrant conservative global warming deniers while secretly funding “henchmen” to deny global warming. It is hard to keep conspiracy theories in order and you are proving to be a great resource.
Then in #22 you informed us that
Which is really insightful, bercause most of us headed-for-the-dustbin consevatives thought that the climate never changed. We thought there was a big thermostat somewhere that had setpoints for rainfall, tempearture, wind, etc.
I also liked how you refuted the 5 eminent and pioneering scientists mentioned in this thread who render even harsher judgements on Al Gore than I do. In #9, you whipped them in debate by saying that your nine year old daughter was smarter than them.
Interesting that you never responded to the comment in #15 by Missourian regarding how many people have died due to an enviro-fundamentalist policy toward DDT. I first learned of this years ago when I worked as an environmental engineer on hazardous waste remediation. I read the literature for myself and was appalled at how hoodwinked I and nearly everyone else had been. It was then I first learned to not fall for enviro-hysteria and underwent the “mugged by reality” process that left me where I am today.
That is, until you came along to explain it all.