Obsidian Wings

Lessons from Juno - Why Roe Could Help the Pro-Life Movement

by publius

I just watched Juno and heartily recommend it to one and all. Ross Douthat has also seen it, and waxes abortionistic:

And while Juno may not be moved by thoughts of her embryo's "hallowed rights," exactly, she certainly seems to be moved by the unremitting grossness of the abortion clinic . . . and more importantly, by the declaration, from a pro-life Asian classmate keeping a lonely vigil outside the clinic, that her child-to-be "already has fingernails." (Careful viewers will note that while Juno sits in the clinic, filling out paperwork, the camera zooms in on the fingernails of the other people in the waiting room.) . . .

None of this means that movie is a brief for overturning Roe v. Wade; far from it. But like Knocked Up, it's decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion.

I agree – and it’s a powerful brief too. But I think Douthat has the wrong audience in mind. He thinks the audience who most needs to digest Juno’s complex themes is the pro-choice camp. Perhaps, but I think Juno has more to say to the pro-life camp. Specifically, it illustrates why the pro-life movement would enjoy far more success if it made its peace with Roe v. Wade. (To avoid spoilers, I’ll focus on the argument rather than the plot of the film, which you should go see right now).

The fundamental problem is that the Roe debate is only tangentially related to abortion. Instead, it’s about penalties. More precisely, it’s about whether (and what) penalties are appropriate for having an abortion. For this reason, the linguistic labels of the various camps – pro-life and pro-choice – don’t reflect the essence of the political debate very accurately. One can, for instance, oppose abortion personally, while simultaneously opposing efforts to ban or criminalize it. The Roe debate then, stripped to its essence, is about allocation of power. Does the individual get the final say? Or does the state?

My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue. One reason is that some people simply don’t think it’s a tough question – they disagree with the premise that the embryo is “life” in a morally or legally relevant sense.

But I suspect most Roe supporters privately concede that abortion is a tough question (that camp includes me). The reason, though, that they hesitate to acknowledge it is because – within the current penalty-focused Roe debate – acknowledging moral complexity gives political ammunition to a political movement that seeks to ban and criminalize abortion. The potential penalties are so abhorrent that they are unwilling to give ground.

This latter camp, however, would be far more receptive to pro-life arguments if the debate shifted away from allocation of decision-making power to the merits of individual abortion itself. In other words, if progressives were convinced that individuals would retain the freedom to make such complex and personal decisions themselves, they would be more open to the arguments of the “lonely vigil.” Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for keeping Roe (on reliance/stare decisis grounds, not because I think it was originally correct). And I’m certainly not saying that abortion is a universally bad act. It’s not. It’s an individual decision that turns on an infinite number of varying circumstances – and one that should be respected.

But that said, it’s a tough issue. As a new parent, it’s difficult to articulate the depths of affection that I’ve felt over the past two years. For the lack of a non-trite word, parenthood is a beautiful thing. And given the number of parents longing for a child, I wish that more people would opt for adoption, so that others can experience what I have. But that said, I recognize that this option is not possible or desirable for many others – and I completely respect that. I also recognize that my situation is considerably different from, say, a poor 15-year old who lacks family support.

But getting back to the point, the pro-life movement would be more effective – i.e., it would persuade those inclined to be hostile to it – by turning from the political arena and instead focusing on individuals. The challenge should be not to bully people through draconian laws, but to persuade people on an individual level – just like the “lonely vigil” did. Yes, the risk is that abortion would still be legal. But by persuading (rather than coercing) individuals, pro-lifers would increase the size of their “camp,” and make in-roads into a part of the public that (to be honest) loathes them for their coercive efforts.

And let’s face it. The political efforts have achieved very little. Seven Republican justices couldn’t end Roe, and all signs point Democratic in 2008 (especially if Romney or Huckabee get the nod). More importantly, the political efforts to seek a ban have tainted the social conservative movement in the eyes of many progressives, and mainstream America more generally. People just don’t support abortion bans. In fact, the very idea of them frightens people. That’s why Bush wouldn’t say openly what he thinks about Roe v. Wade, while John Kerry would. (Same deal for rabid anti-homosexuality – among progressives, the latter is one of those “deal-breaker” issues that ensures that they will never support, or even listen to, the social conservatives agenda).

People like their freedom. Rather than fearing it and attempting to eliminate it, maybe the pro-life camp should try embracing it for a change.

The Military, in the Library, With the Rope

by publius

I’m far … far … from an expert on Pakistan. But, color me skeptical of the initial attempts to blame the Taliban or (according to Pakistan) al Qaeda-affiliated militants. It may all be proven true, but it sure smells like military elements played a role too. Admittedly, I’m conjecturing, but hear me out. (On these questions, I’ve found Cernig’s observations – and skepticism – to be very astute).

The first question to ask in whodunits like these is “who benefits?” To me, of all the potential “suspects,” the military establishment had the most – by far – to fear from a Bhutto government. To take a step back, politically-tinged violence often stems from scarcity of resources. One corollary is that attempts to alter the status quo – i.e., to reallocate resources – is often met with violence by the entrenched interests. For instance, flares of racial violence in the South corresponded with attempts to block (1950s-60s) or re-entrench (1890-1910) white supremacy and the economic relations underlying it. Urban riots in the 60s can also be understood from this materialist perspective.

In Pakistan, the military establishment is the biggest beneficiary of the status quo. It’s not so much its political power, but its economic power that really stands out. Left unchecked by democratic accountability, the military has become a bloated, corrupt kleptocracy with a stranglehold on the nation’s economic wealth. In short, the military has been living high on the hog under Musharraf and – understandably – wants to keep the good times rolling.

Bhutto posed a significant threat to this status quo. To put it lightly, she’s no friend of the military. There’s a lot of bad blood between them – both literally and figuratively. Remember that the military deposed and hung her father. From a more institutional perspective, her father’s party – the PPP – is the long-time nemesis of the military elite. If Bhutto returned to power, you can bet the military slush fund would have been reined in – not so much because Bhutto is a great liberal enemy of corruption (she’s not), but for self-interested political reasons.

Indeed, Bhutto herself seemed to fear rogue military factions far more than religious extremists. A Guardian columnist writes:

Bhutto herself, talking to me two weeks ago, spoke of the hardcore of senior military officers, spies, retired generals and others who she believed ran a shadow state in Pakistan with strong Islamic militant sympathies and who wanted to destroy her. She constantly made such claims that were often exaggerated, but they did contain a kernel of truth.

And she named names. Remember that, prior to her return, she sent Musharraf a letter essentially identifying individuals (including old ISI members) who she claimed threatened her life. Remember too that she was killed in a military-friendly town, and that it was a sophisticated coordinated attack that included Sharif (the other opposition candidate) too.

The other obvious candidate is some sort of Islamic extremist group, including Taliban affiliates or al Qaeda. Even if such an individual did pull the trigger, the million dollar question is whether this person acted without the help of the military or the intelligence services. The short answer is that I don’t know, but I suspect they did, largely because I’m following the “look at who benefits” maxim. (aka "follow the money").

While I agree with the Guardian’s Jason Burke that the extremists could care less if she gets killed, it’s unclear that it provides them much strategic benefit. My understanding (please correct me if I’m mistaken) is that a Bhutto government wouldn’t be dramatically different than Musharraf’s in terms of the will and ability to fully crack down on militants. (I suppose the key question is whether Bhutto’s anti-terrorism slogans were actually political swipes at the military and Musharraf).

That said, as Burke notes, al Qaeda could certainly use a PR boost right now. It’s not surprising that they would try to take credit for the assassination. But still, it seems the magnitude of the benefits pale in comparison to the magnitude of the losses for the entrenched military establishment.

Given that I’m merely making informed guesses, the larger lesson is that it’s important to resist the quick and easy temptation to blame everything on Islamic extremists. It’s not that I feel bad for them. It’s that I don’t want the understandable contempt for them to distort factual reality.

And let’s face it – blaming this assassination on al Qaeda benefits essentially every party involved. First, it benefits al Qaeda by making look them relevant. Second, it benefits Musharraf because it (1) gives him a scapegoat; and (2) tends to vindicate (in the political arena) his emergency measures, which he defends by citing terrorism. Third, it benefits Bush because it makes al Qaeda look relevant and dangerous (don’t ask me to defend the logic – thems the cards, take it up with Russert). Fourth, it benefits the military establishment by focusing the blame on outsiders and marginal elements, rather than upon the ruling class.

If, however, the military turns out to be the guilty party, then things could get really nasty, really fast. It’s not so much the rage at the assassination itself that would suck the country into chaos. It’s that the assassination takes place in the context of the much larger, structural fault lines dividing the country. Specifically, it would be an attempt of the increasingly-hated military/economic elite to entrench themselves from democratic accountability. It’s the difference between dropping a bomb in the middle of ocean and dropping it along a tectonic fault line. The latter gives rises to massive earthquakes. (A similar example is that the Rodney King riots happened because of pre-existing economic and cultural fault lines).

Anyway, I haven’t seen the most recent news yet. But whoever the assassin turns out to be, I hope that we resist taking Musharraf’s government’s word at face value (and our own, for that matter). In the meantime, keep reading Cernig over at Newshoggers.

Good Lord

by publius

Bhutto assassinated. More to come.

The Great Jonah Dilemma

by publius

On the one hand, I'd like to read the book because I don't want to miss out on all the fun. (In all seriousness, I think books like these are juvenile, and call out for ridicule. Indeed, humiliation is probably the most effective way to prevent embarrassments like this from being written in the future).

On the other hand, I don't want it to reward him by donating $30 to the cause. What to do, what to do.

On other matters, it seems the structure of the, um, argument goes something like this:

1 - Fascism is really really bad.

2 - Pretty much every thing that any liberal does can be -- through tortured twists of logic and/or dishonesty -- analogized to some aspect of fascist regimes.

3 - Therefore, liberals are fascists.

It's a powerful argument. But what really stands out here is the detail and care.

Pretty Bird Woman House

by G'Kar

I hate to ask for money, but I am willing to make an exception for particularly good causes. And I think that Pretty Bird Woman House, a women's shelter on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, qualifies. Some fine example of humanity burned down the shelter, and they need some $70,000 to buy a new place to house the women they protect. They're within $14,000 at this writing, but if anyone here could spare just a few dollars to help them along, that would be wonderful. Sexual violence is a horrifying constant for the women of the Standing Rock reservation, and places like the Pretty Bird Woman House are vitally and sadly important for them. It's an expensive time of year, but anything you can spare would help.

You can donate by visiting their blog or the Chipin page. Or use the widget below. Thank you.

Hat tip: Bitch, PhD.

The Politics of Force

by G'Kar

Will the next president get the U.S. out of Iraq? The signs aren't encouraging.

Bartlett's Offensive Argument

by publius

I’ve been torn on whether – and how – to respond to Bruce Bartlett’s op-ed, which previews his book on racism and the Democratic Party. Some of his sentences are so blatantly disingenuous that it’s clear he’s fishing for outrage. (See, e.g., “[I]f a single mention of states' rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards . . .”). What’s maddening is that he – Coulter-esquely – wants me to be outraged so that he can sell more books.

Maybe I’m playing the fool, but his argument requires a response because it’s outrageous and deeply, callously offensive. Smiling at those words, eh Brucey? It’s actually offensive on two levels – one obvious way and one way that is less obvious but more insidious.

First, to the extent that Bartlett is attempting to make a logical argument (personally, I don’t think logic is the goal) Yglesias pretty much rips the argument to shreds here and here. As Bartlett surely knows, the American political parties – while keeping the same labels – have shifted dramatically over the past 200 years. As every seventh-grade American history student knows, the white supremacist coalition (largely but by no means exclusively Southern) voted Democratic until the civil rights era when it moved to the GOP with helpful nudges from Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

It would be great of course if Bartlett were sincerely concerned about America’s historical racial legacy. But he’s not. That’s not the point of his book. The point is to win modern political points for the GOP and smear the Democrats. If he can get the question aired, he largely wins. (Chris Matthews: Tonight’s panel will discuss if the Democrats are racist. Joining us are …”

The first level of outrage here is that he’s smearing the modern Democratic Party for the actions of the same racist white supremacists that the party institutionally repudiated in the civil rights era (at great political cost). During this same time period, Bartlett’s own party – whose rank-and-file are largely non-racist – institutionally adopted this grotesque bloc of Bull Connor voters. Since then, at the institutional level, the GOP has intentionally fanned racial flames through opposition and/or indifference to civil rights legislation, through inflammatory code words, and through turning a blind eye to institutional actions by the GOP in southern states (e.g., Georgia Confederate flag controversy).

Admittedly, the Democratic Party is guilty of taking the black vote for granted. And they are also guilty of not pushing as hard as they could for fear of white backlash. But that said, they’ve been the only ones who have even been trying for the past 40 years. The Democrats are the ones fighting for the programs and laws that disproportionately help poor and urban African-Americans. The Democrats are the ones fighting against race-based voter disenfranchisement efforts (e.g., “voter ID”). The Democrats the ones fighting against judges who are hostile to civil rights achievements.

The parties’ record on race over the past 40 years illustrates all too clearly just how dishonest Bartlett is being. That’s bad, but it’s not the worst part. The more outrageous part of Bartlett’s argument is not the dishonesty, but the callous indifference to historical discrimination. He treats the whole thing like a chess pawn in a silly DC talk show game.

Does Intent Matter?

by G'Kar

Does the intent of those who create a law effect the constitutionality of that law? As always, below the fold to minimize the disruption of the front page.

Merry Christmas

by publius

Ho Ho Ho. If you're dying to send any of us a Christmas present (preferably an iPhone), just shoot us an email and we'll send you an address.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Winner - Worst Op-Ed of 2007

by publius

More on this to come post-Christmas, but Bruce Bartlett's op-ed (and book) is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Looks like Yglesias has it covered, but this argument is just stunningly disingenuous. Textbook "School of Rove" -- dishonestly accuse your political opponent of one's own serious flaws. Ugh, to sit back and benefit from a legacy of racism and then... ugh, never mind, it's Christmas. More to come.