Absolutist? Absolutely
In his column today in the NYTimes, David Brooks correctly relates abortion to the current fight in the Senate over judicial nominations and Democrats' filibusters.
Brooks is a conservative, and a keen social observer. But, the Times wasn't about to let a real strong conservative have such a plum editorial slot. Brooks tends to be more middle of the road as conservatives go, especially since he started doing his column in the Times.
Brooks correctly points out that...
"When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.
Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.
Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists."
This is what bothers me about those who dismiss conservative positions in a can-we-all-get-along attitude of oh, it's all the same, both sides have fanatics, can't we all just meet in the mushy middle somewhere.
Notice Brooks says religious conservatives are upset over the courts unilaterally imposing their will at the expense of the legislative process. Brooks correctly points out that liberals love this sort of thing, but it comes at a price, that price being the Red-Blue electoral map. Liberals don't realize how out of touch they are with a large chunk of the country.
The rest of the column is about how the fight over judicial nominations is held hostage to these "hardliners" on both sides. But I think it is totally wrong to equate these two positions. I think conservatives are dead right to fight judicial activism. Liberals love it because they get to impose their agenda without having to fight legislative battles they would lose. These two positions are not equal. One side is in the wrong, and it is not the conservative side.
Brooks is a conservative, and a keen social observer. But, the Times wasn't about to let a real strong conservative have such a plum editorial slot. Brooks tends to be more middle of the road as conservatives go, especially since he started doing his column in the Times.
Brooks correctly points out that...
"When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.
Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.
Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists."
This is what bothers me about those who dismiss conservative positions in a can-we-all-get-along attitude of oh, it's all the same, both sides have fanatics, can't we all just meet in the mushy middle somewhere.
Notice Brooks says religious conservatives are upset over the courts unilaterally imposing their will at the expense of the legislative process. Brooks correctly points out that liberals love this sort of thing, but it comes at a price, that price being the Red-Blue electoral map. Liberals don't realize how out of touch they are with a large chunk of the country.
The rest of the column is about how the fight over judicial nominations is held hostage to these "hardliners" on both sides. But I think it is totally wrong to equate these two positions. I think conservatives are dead right to fight judicial activism. Liberals love it because they get to impose their agenda without having to fight legislative battles they would lose. These two positions are not equal. One side is in the wrong, and it is not the conservative side.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home