Feedburner
Vox Blogoli on Jonathon Rauch
Hugh Hewitt is running the first href="http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1313">Vox Blogoli of 2005.
The topic is a paragraph from an article by Jonathon Rauch published in "http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200501/rauch">The Atlantic(subscription required).
"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero's welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."
This strikes me as a bit of a strange passage, as he begins his statement, Rauch assumes that the terrorists that used to bomb abortion clinics were religious conservatives operating outside the political system (and the law) as insurgents and provocateurs. He continues with stating it is better to "write anti-abortion planks" rather than "bomb abortion clinics
Granted, it is better to write pro-life planks than to blow things up. I think we all can agree with that.
However, even his choice of words belies an intolerant left-leaning bias, by referring to "anti-abortion" planks, instead of the more moderate, and accepted phrase, "pro-life." I wonder how he would react if the Democratic plank on abortion were referred to as "anti-life" or "pro-death?" After all, the issue of abortion is about the termination of a human life.
Rauch writes as if religious conservatives are, or were, insurgents and provocateurs. From the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, we find that the noun form of insurgent means:
1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
The terrorists that at one time plagued abortion clinics can hardly be considered insurgents as they were not rebelling against civil authority. Rauch seems to believe that all such terrorists, by virtue of the acts they have committed (blowing up abortion clinics), must therefore be religious conservatives and Republicans, since the Republican Party has taken a pro-life stand. Can he back this assertion up?
Based on what I know, and contrary to the assertion Rauch made in his opening statement, the religious conservative movement is not one that would advocate the use of violence to achieve its goals. Yes, they are pro-life, however is that enough to brand them as extremists? If so, wouldn't it be fair to label pro-abortionists as extremists?
Also from the dictionary, provocateur, which refers to agent provocateur:
one employed to associate with suspected persons and by pretending sympathy with their aims to incite them to some incriminating action
Here again, I am unaware of any incidents where someone who is identifiably on the religious right has provoked any terrorist outrages such as the bombing of clinics.
This is akin to holding all those on the left in the Democratic Party accountable for acts of terrorism committed in the name of "animal rights"; or the riots against the World Trade Organization of a few years ago; or tree-spiking in order to prevent forests from being harvested for lumber.
There are always those in society who would rather use violence to achieve their goals, whether it is social change, or just trying to be heard, than to work within an established system. The U.S. of A. is not a country where it is necessary to "fight, literally, to be heard", but a country where ideas can be freely exchanged between those with a willingness to participate in open debate. Those who stoop to terrorist acts do so because they are unwilling to debate on the issues they claim to care about.
Rauch concludes that it is better to have fierce activists run the political dialogue, ignoring those who are more moderate in their thinking. I disagree. Such activists tend to push people who are moderate away from the party that they associate with, and look for a party that is more in line with their own viewpoint of where our country should go, leaving the extremists in control of an ineffective party no longer capable of winning elections or pushing forward its agenda. It is also the fiercest of activists that push for "no compromise" on the issues at hand, and then blame the other side for not yielding to their whims.
Rauch's statement is clearly a reckless attempt to demonize religious conservatives by associating them with extremist fringe groups that have committed acts of violence. One would have hoped that The Atlantic would have thought better than to publish such an article as this.
postscript - On my drive home, after writing the above, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt discuss the paragraph with Jonathon Rauch. Rauch, defending the piece, claimed that it was being taken out of context, and did not mean to imply that religious conservatives blew up abortion clinics. Hewitt sighed the phrasing used in the paragraph was a mistake, as in Rauch should have known better to use language that could be construed as inflamatory as well as being ambiguous. I have to give credit to Rauch for coming on the air with Hewitt to discuss what he wrote, and hope that he has learned a valuable lesson on the ways in which media and the way we communicate has changed.
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
View blog reactions