Here’s Gerson today:
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.’s endorsement of Barack Obama last week — "I
believe in this guy like I’ve never believed in a candidate in my life"
— recalled another dramatic moment in Democratic politics. In the
summer of 1992, as Bill Clinton solidified his control over the Democratic Party,
Robert P. Casey Sr., the senator’s father, was banned from speaking to
the Democratic convention for the heresy of being pro-life.The elder Casey (now deceased) was then the governor of Pennsylvania
— one of the most prominent elected Democrats in the country. He was
an economic progressive in the Roosevelt tradition. But his Irish
Catholic conscience led him to oppose abortion. So the Clintons chose
to humiliate him. It was a sign and a warning of much mean-spirited
pettiness to come.The younger Casey, no doubt, is a sincere fan of Obama. He also must have found it satisfying to help along the cycle of political justice.
But by Casey’s father’s standard of social justice for the unborn, Obama is badly lacking.
The first part is just false (as many have demonstrated). Casey did not endorse the democratic candidates and so was not invited to speak at the podium. Later Gerson–some Christian he–goes on to distort a remark of Diane Feinstein. Gerson writes:
These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional
debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after
birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal
protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether
this included the car trip.
Nice one, Gerson. Here’s what Feinstein actually said:
I would make this statement: That this Constitution, as it
currently is — some of you want to amend it to say that life begins at
conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born — and
there is no such thing as partial-birth — the baby belongs to your family and
has all the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a
fetus is a person, which I know you would.
Gerson’s remark is clearly distorted. Dear Mr. Gerson, someone once said the truth will set you free.
The last part, "social justice for the unborn," is curious for another reason. Obama is pro-choice. As a result, he doesn’t think the unborn are the subjects of justice, as Gerson obviously does. Gerson goes on to argue:
But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on
partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama
strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the
partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis
pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
Obama doesn’t have a "welcoming attitude" (what that means baffles) toward new life because he’s pro-choice (and it turns out, by the way, that Gerson twisted Obama’s words–that’s three!). Gerson’s argument doesn’t do anything other than point out that Obama is pro-choice. But Gerson takes his having pointed this out as some kind of reason to think Obama is wrong. Maybe Obama’s view is wrong–but it’s not wrong because he holds it.
My guess is that his audience (at least the one he is trying to convince) is not one that believes in an objective moral standard, so any kind of argument like "it’s wrong because it’s wrong" won’t work. That begin said, it’s impossible to make an argument that something is wrong without a standard of what’s right and wrong. Without an objective moral standard, even bad logic is not really wrong, is it now?
Your guess is absolutely wrong, BN. Just because someone is pro-choice does not mean by any stretch that that person is a relativist or one who denies an "objective moral standard."
I never meant to imply that all pro-choice people are people that have no objective moral standard. You are right, professor, I am absolutely wrong.I remember a course I took at NEIU: "Women’s perspective and values". (overall, a nice class). When it came to the topic of abortion, the main justification for it was exactly that: moral relativism. I should not generalize, however, it is my opinion that a large majority of people that support abortion are moral relativists. So maybe, Gerson, is making the same mistake I’m making: assuming that the majority of pro-choice supporters are moral relativists. Anyway, to argue about right and wrong with a moral relativist, it’s futile.
I think it’s not the case that "a large number of people who support abortion are moral relativists" as you claim. Moral relativism is a view about the nature of moral judgments, it’s not a type of justification for a position. Besides, moral relativism comes in a variety of forms–absolute, cutural, etc. In addition, Gerson clearly didn’t have this in mind–he didn’t accuse Obama or anyone else of relativism so I don’t know where you get that idea.
I think you are missing the major point of the article. It’s the title: "Obama’s Abortion Extremism". Here is what you concluded: "Maybe Obama’s view is wrong–but it’s not wrong because he holds it. " I don’t see that anywhere in the article. I think that the point of the article is to show that Obama is nowhere close to the middle when it comes to the issue of abortion: "Obama’s record on abortion is extreme". Obama does not represent the majority of US when it comes to this issue. One of the major claims of Obama is that he is the person that will unite the country. Gerson suggests that maybe moving a little close to the middle on the issue of abortion might do him some good. Gerson wants to see the proof of what kind of change Obama wants to bring. He wants to see Obama acting consistent to what he’s talking. I think democrats don’t realize how far left is Obama on many issues. Let’s remember that the last democrat president was a moderate president not an "extremist". If they’re smart they’ll listen to Gerson’s advice.
First of all, if I missed the point of the article, it wouldn’t be the first time. I see your point about the article as a whole, but that wasn’t the point I was making. You’re right to point out that Gerson makes the "extreme" accusation (which is, by the way, false–that’s four demonstrable falsehoods in Gerson’s piece). But he also chastises Obama for the wrongness of his position–not only its being outside of the "mainstream." Finally, I think plenty of people know exactly what Obama stands for and like it. Gerson’s advice, as it is premised on four demonstrable falsehoods, ought to be ignored.
Good points!
I would hardly call Obama an extreme leftist. If we’re working within an American political conception of politics, an extreme leftist (within the limited confines of the Democratic Party) would favor some form of universal state health care, extensive business regulation, social liberalism and minority rights, and diplomacy and cooperation in international affairs. Obama perhaps falls under two of these categories, and it is unclear to what what extent. An extreme leftist (again, within the confines of the Democratic party), would be someone like Kucinich or Gravel, or the late Paul Wellestone. Obama is about as middle of the road a Democrat as we have, but since the politics in this country have taken a serious move to the right in recent decades, Obama merely appears to be a raging liberal.
Jem, which 2 categories you think he falls under?
I would say Obama falls under the last two to some degree. He is not in favor of corporate regulation, though he is not necessarily in the business of deregulation, and he has not put forward a comprehensive national health policy, though he claims to want to reform the health insurance industry in some sort of moderate compromise between the government and HMO’s. His national healthcare plan still requires one to "pay in" even though everyone already "pays in" via medicare taxes and the like. He is fairly socially liberal, though he has not campaigned for the right for gay marriage. His foreign policy is practical and purportedly respects the rights of other nations, but Obama has been hawkish with respect to Iran and Pakistan. Thus, when I say he falls under two of the four categories, I mean the last two, but with some qualifications. An extreme leftist would favor much stronger regulation of the economy and corporate power, a national healthcare plan that is covered by existing revenues (to the expense of the defense budget), the right for gays to marry, and not just civil unions, and a much more cooperative and worker’s rights interested foreign business policy, with little to no threats of force beyond the purview of the United Nations.
Do you think he is an extremist leftist when it comes to the issue of abortion?
Not really. As far as public opinion is concerned, Obama’s opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortions is in the minority (its around 60-40). But Clinton vetoed the bill twice while in office, someone claimed to be a moderate democrat (though I would call Clinton more of a centrist). From what I understand, the reasons for opposing this ban are on social or practical grounds relating to the common and unfortunate issues surrounding teen pregnancy and the propensity for teen girls to hide or deny that they are pregnant. In addition, this type of bill legislates on the meaning of life with respect to an infant, in effect defining life in such a way that it can serve as constitutional grounds for further legislation against abortion. Pro-life organizations have become very creative in trying to ban abortion altogether, via parental consent forms, bans on certain types of methods or procedures, etc. This ban is seen as another step that will give pro-life activists the legal means to make further attacks on the right to an abortion.
That 60-40 it’s a stretch, and you know it. And the idea that there is any question as when human life begins is ridiculous. The pro-choice movement rests more on the argument of "non-person" than that of "non-life". Anyway, let’s not open this can of worms. In my opinion, Obama’s record on abortion and his statements speak louder than anything else. He is an extremist when it comes to the issue of abortion.
BN–
"Extremist" is a silly term you should avoid–for the reasons mentioned. By all accounts Obama’s position seems consonant with a majority of Americans. This does not make him correct, it just makes him not an extremist in any meaningful sense of extremist.
Beyond that, saying "the idea that there is any question as when human life begins is ridiculous" is ridiculous. That’s one of the things people are arguing about here. It’s not the only thing, of course. The fact that "personhood" is a notion in that debate ought to indicate to you that there are many more questions that you seem willing to allow.
"Extremist" might be a poor choice on my part. However, your statement: "Obama’s position seems consonant with a majority of Americans" is just wrong. You can’t be consonant with a majority when less than half of Americans agree with you. Is this article then another lie? (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569732/):"When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed
a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an
induced-labor abortion and was born alive.In a 2001 Illinois
Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who
survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights
under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument
that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a "person" and
thus could not be aborted. When the Illinois Senate bill was
amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to
protect Roe v. Wade–and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to
pass–Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois
Senate committee he chaired."
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569732/"When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed
a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an
induced-labor abortion and was born alive.In a 2001 Illinois
Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who
survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights
under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument
that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a "person" and
thus could not be aborted. When the Illinois Senate bill was
amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to
protect Roe v. Wade–and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to
pass–Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois
Senate committee he chaired." I thought that majority in general refers to more that 50% …. so your statement is just a lie:"By all accounts Obama’s position seems consonant with a majority of Americans."