When an apparently crazed man goes and kills the object of his political or religious obsession, what conclusions should we draw about the those who agree, at least partially, with his political views, but not his violent methods.
Should we assume that many such people are complicit? Should we accuse them of having blood on their hands? Should we suggest that their speech ought to be limited?
Should trying to empathize with why they would do such a thing subject the person broaching the topic to suggestions that he secretly is ok with the violence?
Is this an appropriate comment in such a situation: "Just a heads up to X readers of this blog. You need to get the fringe elements of your demographic to stop shooting at the rest of us. If they don't, there's gonna be hell to pay."
So what about that shooting of an Army Recruiter? Does it implicate Muslims who don't strongly enough denounce him?
I would say no. But the logic of quite a bit of the talk around Tiller's murder would suggest, 'yes'
Let me correct my earlier statement: "in most cases" should be "In cases that I have observed directly." The issue of whether "Crisis pregnancy counseling centers" must offer abortion information to women if requested has been an issue of some debate in a number of local controversies.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | June 04, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Sebastian: I don't know more than that, other than that the women I had contact with seemed very happy with it.
I'm sure that's true. You were a teenager. I don't expect a teenage boy to have fully adult awareness of how adult women are feeling; and you've always seemed to have the typical pro-life indifference to women having human feelings, in any case (your assertion in a specific discussion about late-term abortion that a suicidal woman ought to be forced through childbirth against her will, your general assertion in a number of discussions that women will in late pregnancy just up and decide to have abortions, etc).
But you have to invert half of my entire argument to make it attacking one group to defend another.
Huh. So you don't perceive any attack on Muslims in comparing adherants to a global religion to members of a political movement, in order to defend that political movement?
The purpose of your post was to defend the pro-life movement against what you saw as unjust attacks on people who only vilified George Tiller because he performed late-term abortions, or who only made general accusations about late-term abortion being baby-killing, ought not to be associated with someone who took this rhetoric literally and actually murdered the man whom this political movement had vilified.
Your attempted defense was to assert that it's perfectly reasonable to compare the set of all Muslims with the set of all pro-lifers, and yes: FWIW, I do see that as a racist kind of attack on Muslims. You're not trying to compare Christians with Muslims: you're trying to compare a political movement with a religion, as if the religion were the same kind of thing as the political movement.
And although you have had it explained to you in mindnumbing detail exactly what is wrong with this, you have continued to uphold the comparison. So yes; You are attacking Muslims with this post.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 04, 2009 at 08:37 PM
But the indignant tone of outrage that everyone didn't immediately assume that it was similar to Tiller's situation strikes me as profoundly disingenuous.
Any similarities between the two situations were not immediately apparent because there has not been a decades-long national campaign of hate and intimidation against the recruiter's office in question.
Yes, this. Also, as has been pointed out by many many people here, the possibly correct analogy is not Roeder:pro-life movement::RecruiterShooter:Islam, but maybe (and I don't know, because I'm not following the second story), Roeder:pro-life movement::RecruiterShooter:militant Islamists.
In which case, I see two major holes: the one Jeff Eaton pointed out, and the fact that militant Islamists actually have absolutely minimal access to the US political process, unlike pro-lifers. So the guy who shot up the recruitment office and killed the soldier isn't going to have any real effect, but Roeder is. Pretty sad how terrorism is more effective when you're white and Christian.
This is one of the reasons that the pro-life opposition to late term abortions is difficult to discuss in isolation. 48% of women who obtained abortions after the 16th trimester listed "Difficulty of scheduling an abortion earlier" and "Was discouraged from having an abortion" as the primary reasons they waited so long.
The more difficult it is to have an early abortion, the more women have late-term abortions.
This is also something I wish moderate pro-lifers were more willing to think about. The Hyde amendment does a lot of work towards pushing poor women into 2nd trimester abortions, by denying them funding for early abortions.
Posted by: North | June 04, 2009 at 08:39 PM
Daniel Larison has written insightfully about the pro-life movement's essential ineffectiveness in affecting political change that they desire: despite a cumulative 20 years of conservative pro-life presidential power and many years of congressional/senatorial power by nominally pro-life candidates, they have not achieved their core goal of outlawing abortion.
This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons for the religious right's profound disillusionment with the Republican party and one of the reasons that extremists in the pro-life movement see illegal acts as a legitimate path. This sort of logic was explicitly discussed in Francis Schaeffer's profoundly influential book A Christian Manifesto, a book I read with profound interest when I was younger. He also co-authored a book specifically about abortion, Whatever Happened To The Human Race? with C. Everett Koop, the former US Surgeon General.
It really is ironic: the pro-life movement has a very loud voice in the American political and social world, but they have not been able to accomplish their goals directly.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | June 04, 2009 at 10:21 PM
@Jeff:
A number of other thread participants have complicated things by taking a different approach than Sebastian's, but his statements are still in the 'These two events are equivalent' category, unless I've misunderstood him.
I think this is a fair summery of the position Sebastian has adopted it the comment thread when his analogy was criticized. I think it is a wholly inaccurate summery of the analogy (and implicit criticisms packaged therein) as presented in the post. Which is to say, Sebastian appears to have walked back from the more extreme position he staked out in his post. That's good. What's not so good is that he's disingenuously trying to convince us that his come-lately position was the one he put forth originally. It's not. He crafted an unbalanced, unwieldy, ad frankly offensive analogy, and is now trying to tell us that we should believe him as to what it says rather than our lying eyes. To wit:
Look at the first paragraph. The weakness (and inappropriateness) of the analogy is very, very apparent. He throws in "or religious" at the start, but then turns around and is back to strictly political at the end. From my point of view, this is a perfectly understandable rhetorical strategy on his part; if he were consistent and argued that we should look at the two cases and only argue that the anti-abortion movement (a political movement) should make an effort to marginalize those elements advocating violent activism within it if we were likewise willing to argue that the anti-war movement (a political movement) should also make an effort to marginalize those elements advocating violent activism within it. The problem with this is that it's a call to non-action. Proponents of violent anti-war activism are few and far between, and already thoroughly marginalized both within and without the movement. As you pointed out, the same is not at all true for the anti-abortion movement. So rhetorically, his "how dare you call out the anti-abortion movement for failing to marginalize its advocates of violence" is much stronger if he chooses a comparison with something that conventional American wisdom dictates also fails to marginalize advocates of violence. I'd also add that I'm tempted* to see a rhetorical nail being added to this rhetorical club by the fact (or "fact", rather) that the liberal targets of his analogy hold criticism of Islam to be unthinkable (for reasons of political correctness rather than heterogeneity).
The problem is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the two things are simply not analogous. The American anti-abortion movement is utterly monolithic when compared, as Sebastian does, to the whole of Islam. It is appropriate to call out the anti-abortion movement in ways that it is not appropriate to call out "Muslims" because the two groupings of people have fundamentally different structures. Sebastian's analogy is ill-crafted and incapable of illuminating the matter it purports to. If we muddle definitions of group identity to the point where it holds, we end up with a banal proposition with no persuasive force... and we also lose the ability to plug the criticism Sebastian seeks to quell into the first side of the analogy.
*If this supposition earns me a Carnac penalty, I'll take it without protest.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | June 05, 2009 at 01:41 AM
I think this is a fair summery of the position Sebastian has adopted it the comment thread when his analogy was criticized. I think it is a wholly inaccurate summery of the analogy (and implicit criticisms packaged therein) as presented in the post. Which is to say, Sebastian appears to have walked back from the more extreme position he staked out in his post. That's good.
Yes, I think that's fair.
But, Sebastian will not - has not - posted an update to his OP acknowledging that the position he presented no longer represents his views.
This does not altogether surprise me. First, it's exactly what he did two years ago when the problem was he ran a pro-life story in which his case ("pensioner denied health care because of political views") was sharply undercut when he had to admit that the pensioner in question wasn't actually being denied health care, but an appointment at a specific hospital; and that the reason for the denial wasn't because of the pensioner's political views but because he'd been convicted of malicious communication with staff at that hospital. By the end of a long thread, Sebastian had acknowledged both of those things were true, which made his OP completely fale: but he never did go back to correct the erroneous position presented in the front-page post.
Where a matter of verifiable fact was concerned, Sebastian would not update his OP, but left it presenting a false pro-lifer claim.
Where a matter of belief (the Muslim religion and the pro-life political movement are not the same kind of thing and it is offensive to Muslims to compare them as if they were) is being presented, in order to defend the pro-life movement, I am even more sure that Sebastian will leave his front-page post as is.
People read front-page posts more than they read discussion threads. Walking back from his original position in the discussion thread, but leaving the front-page post intact, is a pro-life campaign tactic.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 05, 2009 at 03:25 AM
What conclusions should we draw?
That you'll say anything to avoid admitting that you support a terrorist group?
Posted by: Johnny Pez | June 05, 2009 at 04:24 AM
I would say no. But the logic of quite a bit of the talk around Tiller's murder would suggest, 'yes'
Oh, absolutely. Almost all of this 'logic' is (as is demonstrated in this thread) coming from right-wing attempts to muddy the waters in an attempt to get themselves or their allies off the hook for terrorism. Which leads to:
What Conclusions Should We Draw?
That Sebastian will not make a formal retraction when called on his repeating of mendacious right wing talking points, instead preferring to leave the FPP in all its deceptive glory.
Posted by: Francis D | June 05, 2009 at 06:45 AM
"by nominally pro-life candidates"
Yeah, that "nominally" is pretty much what's got the pro-lifers going batty, or giving up on politics. If every politician they helped elect who claimed to be pro-life actually had proven to be so once in office, they'd have long since won.
They've had it proven to them that, even laying aside the original judicial dictate, this is a subject where politics isn't going to be permitted to work.
There are increasingly many such subjects, and it's a real problem for democracy in America.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | June 05, 2009 at 07:00 AM
"this is a subject where politics isn't going to be permitted to work."
Personally, I would say that Roe and the subsequent SCOTUS findings, as well as the various state laws currently in place, are actually a pretty accurate reflection of how the US population thinks and feels about abortion.
There are lots of people who are unhappy with the status quo, for various reasons and in various directions. In fact, I'd say the number of folks who think the current situation is just right is most likely vanishingly small.
But what we have now is probably as good a compromise, and a splitting of the various differences, as any political process is likely to produce.
So, I'd say that in this case politics has worked pretty well. It might not be pretty, but it sort of hangs together.
People in this country are different enough from each other that that is about as good as it's going to get.
Read'em and weep. Or, perhaps, read'em and be happy we're able to get that far.
My two cents.
Posted by: russell | June 05, 2009 at 09:02 AM
If every politician they helped elect who claimed to be pro-life actually had proven to be so once in office, they'd have long since won.
i doubt that.
if the GOP was to ever get really really serious about outlawing abortion, you'd probably find an equal but opposite reaction from (many of) the Dems.
Posted by: cleek | June 05, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Brett, it's important to note, I think, that the 'nominal' pro-life designator comes because the explicitly desired goal of the pro-life movement (the outlawing of all abortion) is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, even Republicans.
The idea that abortion should be legal under some or all circumstances is supported by roughly 80% of the population. Outlawing it entirely, the goal of the pro-life movement, would be a real problem for democracy.
Their cause is complicated by the fact that compromise -- the stuff politics is made of -- is only acceptable as a short-term tactical wedge. There are no recognizable voices in the national pro-life movement saying, "We would like X, but Y is acceptable." That's also one of the reasons that most pro-life concerns about third trimester abortions are difficult to accept as good faith arguments.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | June 05, 2009 at 09:49 AM
It would help if we stopped using the propaganda term "pro-life" because the anti-abortionists aren't pro-life. For the most part they aren't even all that anti-abortion since most of them think it should be a choice under some circunmstances. So the designation "pro-life" serves no useful purpose in the discussion except to give some people a false sense of moral superiority.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly why there are few, if any voices from the anti-choice side articulating compromise positions: a movement that is centered upon the egotism of individuals who like to think of themselves are part of a morally superior crusade aren't going to be interested in compromise. Or thinking. Or debating. Just posturing.
Posted by: wonkie | June 05, 2009 at 10:00 AM
It would help if we stopped using the propaganda term "pro-life" because the anti-abortionists aren't pro-life.
I agree their name for themselves is deeply ironic. But it is their name for themselves. So we can say "the pro-life murderer of Doctor George Tiller"; "the pro-life terrorists who firebomb health clinics": it's ironic that this is the name they chose for themselves, these violent and angry people who want to control women's bodies and don't care who dies, but I am willing to name them by the name they call themselves.
What I am less willing to tolerate is for people who are pro-choice, who in fact believe that women should be able to decide whether to have the baby or terminate the pregnancy, to call themselves "pro-life". It's a political movement with an active terrorist wing, which works to ban access to safe legal abortion and contraception for women across the world. If you don't agree with it as a movement, don't call yourself by its name.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 05, 2009 at 10:15 AM
It really is ironic: the pro-life movement has a very loud voice in the American political and social world, but they have not been able to accomplish their goals directly.
I don't mean that the pro-life movement has been effective in passing laws to achieve their stated goals, though they have . They haven't been able to pass more restrictive laws for exactly the reason Brett mentions: a lot of Republican politicians are willing to say they're pro-life precisely because they're in no danger of being forced to vote on a wholesale abortion ban. There's basically no public support for such a ban, and if it became a realistic possibility I bet we'd see a lot fewer politicians describing themselves as categorically opposed to abortion. It's a freebie signaling device right now.
However. Abortion is less available in the US than it should be. 87% of US counties lack an abortion provider. The extra-legal harassment - the terrorism - has been the most effective aspect of the pro-life movement, and has had the greatest effect on women's access to abortion. That's what I mean when I say - partly tongue in cheek - that terrorism is more effective if you're white and Christian.
(I also DO NOT understand why it is that pro-lifers are in general so unwilling to see that they're asking a woman not just to stand back and let someone live, but to donate her own body to be its life support for 9 months at considerable risk to her health and life. It seems like a kind of willful blindness to me to continue to call abortion murder as if, without the woman's active, intense, and continuous intervention, the fetus would have any chance of survival. But that's a side argument.)
Posted by: North | June 05, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Roeder had more contact with O.R. than just a few comments on the forums.
Posted by: cleek | June 05, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Yeah, that "nominally" is pretty much what's got the pro-lifers going batty, or giving up on politics. If every politician they helped elect who claimed to be pro-life actually had proven to be so once in office, they'd have long since won.
Yes. It's strange that the Pro-Life movement seems utterly unable to field its own candidates who can actually win elections. Instead they just get pandered to and ignored - largely because they are only a small part of America, and any politician with the skill to reach high office knows this (or his handlers do).
This isn't a failure of democracy. It's a failure of the intelligence of the Pro-Life movement and a lack of political understanding.
They've had it proven to them that, even laying aside the original judicial dictate, this is a subject where politics isn't going to be permitted to work.
You guys are not willing to compromise with the 80% of the population that supports legal abortions when medically necessary. In a winner-takes-all system that's going to make giving what you want utterly impossible for any politician who wants to not face a huge backlash. So politicians have two choices: ignore you as actually doing what you want would be political suicide, or throw you a few bones once in a while to prevent you from voting for the other guys.
The problem is not pro-lifers giving up on politics. It's that the vast majority of pro-lifers never understood that politics was the art of the compromise in the first place.
And yes, you are being used. You are being used because until you learn to compromise anything else is letting a small group of screaming maniacs override the will of the majority of the population. So you can be either ignored or used.
There are increasingly many such subjects, and it's a real problem for democracy in America.
It is a real problem for democracy in America that there's a significant and rabid proportion of people who are not prepared to compromise or accept when they have lost this round. And not accept when this round is unwinnable without a whole lot more work.
Posted by: Francis D | June 05, 2009 at 12:23 PM
By way of Rachel Maddow (Friday): Anti-abortion organisation demonstrate on Saturday (also the day of Mr.Tiller's funeral, although that is a coincidence) in front of abortion clinics etc. with the slogan "The Pill Kills" to 'inform' women that by using contraceptives they are committing murder.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 07, 2009 at 03:07 AM
The next person who tries to explain that this wasn't terrorism will have a very difficult task ahead of them.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | June 08, 2009 at 09:25 AM