The Dr. George Tiller Death

In the days after the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, who has performed “controversial late term abortions,” the latest Kathleen Parker editorial. And you do have to hand it to her, she has no problem calling a spade a spade.  Precisely, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue(ing themselves from boredom) as well as Alan Keyes whom in Parker’s most correct view tend to muddy up the message.  And as Parker herself declared in her republished to the Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Washington) editorial, “makes her want to write checks to Planned Parenthood.”  Yeah, that bad.  Essentially, an editorial that argues, the messenger becomes the message.

As Ms. Parker also correctly notes; the GOP continuously catering to what becomes an extremist faction also tends to drive away what she regards as the more moderating voices to tone down the strident.  However, I should offer a correction to the claims that the wackoes are “right wing.”  I know what “the right” meant during the Reagan era:  limited gvt, individual liberty, constitutional constraints on gvt, a hands off free market view, anti-Communism, pro-military might, personal responsibility, against “collective rights.”  But during the Reagan era and beyond, those whom the GOP attracted with their guns, God, the fetus and gays screed; can’t be called “the right” by any stretch of the imagination.

In the Reagan era, gvt was against the individual rights of men.  In one of Reagan’s speeches can be found these words, “Government is the problem and not the solution.”  In the 1980s, this was defined as the epitome of conservative thinking.  Fresh off active duty Military; having seen for myself the danger of totalitarian thinking (I had paid a visit to the 1K zone that existed at the time between a divided Germany); I was greatly attracted to much of what was then called conservative thinking.  Too much gvt can be a threat.  The U.S. Constitution initially drafted by its framers and ratified by the people, ultimately the same done with the Bill of Rights, those amendments that put even further constraints on the power of gvt, ought not be superceded.  A people who truly believed in self-government would presumably be more self-reliant, more self-sufficient and therefore demand less from gvt.

However, with the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd; the only way such special interests could justify their existence is if they demanded more from gvt; when they weren’t waxing hysterically their fear and hatred of it, depending on whom was in power.  Wackoes, yes; but “right wing” is a bit more problematic.

Conservative as generally defined during the Reagan era (which mantra is now mostly taken up by the Libertarian party) seemed to be legitimate enough at the time.  But “conservative” seems to have become a catch phrase for arguments adopted since that time that once would have been absolutely unthinkable during the Reagan era.

  • Limited gvt coupled with self-government:  Apparently, the limited gvt argument was only applicable to those other interest groups:  feminists, labor unions, minorities obtaining equal rights.  But when it comes to “my” agenda, I am all about demanding that gvt fulfill my expectations.
  • Personal responsibility:  Not really can I trust you to recognize right from wrong, so I am going to impose my own version of the nanny state.  Such as demanding laws that define who can marry, such as making certain abortion procedures illegal, such as attempting to ban any form of fetal research.  Even more than this, I am going to demand money from your wallet so that I can employ my religious affiliation as an act of charity (the GW era); or insist that you hand over your tax dollars so that I can have that redistribution of wealth in the form of a tax voucher for my private school.  In short, “personal responsibility” as imposed by the state.

To put it bluntly, James Madison famous for his tax protests of church deacons being able to dip into the public purse for private income (that in fact only their specific church congregations should be providing) would be rolling in his grave.  The Republican party after all complained heavily (and no doubt with an eye to political gain) about the Democrats who held that the more gvt the better, the more regulations the better, the more people who could depend on a “kindly despot” of a gvt, the better.  At the time, it was a legitimate complaint.

But since that time who is it that now wants more gvt, more regulations, more people who can be dependent upon a “kindly despot” of a gvt; at least as long as it is in the hands of Republicans, oh you got that right, the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd.

Families have managed to survive or not for a long time without specific laws defining that marriage must only exist between one man and one woman.  If they survive, it would have been because an ernest effort was made by the families themselves toward surviving intact.  In short, gvt wasn’t needed to dictate whether and how families survived.  But gvt seems to have been needed when it came to families that would not survive; thus the no-fault divorce laws.  And in reaction to that, the “God” crowd who felt that “no-fault divorce” made it far too easy for families to simply break up.  And therefore, we must set in motion all efforts that through gvt we can force people who married to stay together “for the sake of the kids,” natch.  We might fear too much regulation (that favors labor unions and consumers); but we are expected to replace it with the regulation of the individual (fully contrary to the conservative idea of individual liberty).  From imposing by way the of gvt concepts of “family” onto the general public, to opposing abortion, stem cell research, and ultimately gays obtaining the most equal of rights inclusive of marriage; the social engineering religious activist apparently does not believe in self-sufficiency, self-reliance, gvt is the problem and not the solution, not if the gvt can be used to advance his agenda instead.  What would make him different from the Democrats and the special interests who hung like barnacles on the Dems’ boat?  Not really.  Not when such an individual or such a group doesn’t actually employ a conservative attitude once defined under Reagan.  In short, I can’t be bothered with actually doing it myself.

Hard work and the satisfaction with a job well done seems to have been replaced among the guns, God, fetus and gays crowd with our rallies, our hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties, and etc. to effect not the direction of the country, but of the government.  The gvt that has been wrested away from the GOP and placed through the democratic process firmly in the hands of the hated Democrats.  Our rallies, hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties, and etc. are a rejection of the fact that the American people made a choice on 4 November 2008 that made the GOP a decided minority.  Our hostile and hystrionic attacks, our TEA parties and etc. states categorically that when the people rose up and demanded change, our partisanship was on the greatest display declaring how unacceptable it was that the democratic process could actually exist in the first place.  Especially if it could put in place a Dem president and a Dem Congress.  We no longer had the gvt we desired, and so we shall engage in shrill attacks against the one we have now.

And now for the man with the gun.  Scott Roeder it seems is a fellow with plenty of certitudes.  Described at the time as an Old Testament kind of guy.  Well, the Ten Commandments declare all right that thou shalt not murder, but murdering in the name of the “child,” seems to be quite all right in Roeder’s world.  Problem with Roeder’s thinking:  an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is this matter of personal injury.  Roeder isn’t and never was personally injured by the choice of a woman, any woman to have an abortion or to seek out Dr. Tiller for his services.  Which says what, exactly?  Precisely, that Roeder never believed in personal responsibility, individual accountability, his Christian limits (you can swing your fist as hard as you want but that it must not hit another person’s nose) when it came to a person who did not live as Roeder would have preferred he do so.  In short, Roeder happened to be of a totalitarian mindset that led him to kill an “abortion doctor.”  Isn’t that the crux of the matter?  The guns, God, fetus and gays crowd are totalitarian in nature.  Calling it “right wing” is to lend it legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve.


One Response to “The Dr. George Tiller Death”

  1. Vanity Says:

    I visit your website when I am bored and I just have to say that I like your template!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: