Dec 13
To John Horvat and his article that reviews a publication by The Atlantic that tells us how to avoid a another civil war. In his article, Horvat uses what was published in the Atlantic as seemingly a picture of the left. And that picture paints the left as having nothing new to say and having no contribution to make regarding the divisions in our nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Unfortunately, article that portray opposing groups as monoliths where one side is represented has being all evil or having nothing to offer appeals to the simple minded. It appeals to the passive authoritarians. And that is how active authoritarians like it whether the authoritarians are on the left, are liberals, or on the right. Simple black-white thinking where the only one side has everything teach and the world consists of us vs them is part and parcel of authoritarianism whether it is capitalist authoritarianism or socialist authoritarianism.
For heaven forbid that people look at the different capitalist and socialist ideologies and regimes in terms of shades of gray. Heaven forbid that capitalists and socialists have things to teach each other. For if that was case, then people would have to think for themselves when listening to or reading others. That is why if one can paint the other group as all wrong or evil, the audience does not have think for themselves, they just have to take the speaker's or writer's word for it.
And thus we have the above criticism of The Atlantic's publication on how to avoid a Civil War. From the perspective of what was written in the Atlantic, all of those on the left are portrayed as monoliths. And that saves the speaker or writer a lot of work and plays to the sentiments of those who just want to feel.
We should note that The Atlantic and the left is not the only side that has mentioned the possibility of a new civil war. Conservative Robert Jeffers, one of Trump's staunchest defenders and spiritual advisors, has warned the nation of a 'civil war-like fracture' should Trump be removed from office. There the division that would make up that fracture is based on religion instead of economic class or race. Would Horvat belittle the division by religion as he does the divisions that occur by economic class or race?
And while Horvat makes light of drawing attention to those divisions, we should note that The Constitution was written in response to the economic class struggle that existed during that time in the midst of a recession. And the Civil War was fought, in part, over the issue of race-based slavery that resurrected itself into becoming Jim Crow.
We should also note that for the past several decades wealth and income disparity has grown between the economic classes and the races and that as that wealth disparity continues to grow, America is becoming oligarchy (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). But even before the 21st century, American labor history is replete with violent oppression orchestrated by many, not all, wealthy business owners.
So with today's news and our history, how is it that Marx's observations can no contribution to today's issues?
We should note one other fact. As Horvat complained about the Marxist notion of the 'progress of history,' it was Martin Luther King Jr. who referred to the progress of history as a way of offering hope to both those Blacks who had been oppressed by American white supremacy and those who lived in poverty. And it was Martin Luther King Jr. proposed that we create a hybrid between what is best in capitalism and what is best in communism. For he noted that each side had something to contribute but was also deficient in its perspective.
And talking about the failures of the left, we should note that many of those failures were the result of Western, especially American, interventions that replaced disobedient democracies with brutal dictatorships that racked up quite impressive statistics in terms of murder and oppression. And even in the US, much of our nation has been built either on stealing land from America's indigenous peoples and by enslaving those who were kidnapped and stolen from another continent. That adds to the list brutal oppression seen in our interventions.
The problem with recognizing the good and bad in each side is that it puts the audience to work. It requires those in the audience to think for themselves on an issue-by-issue basis to see how each side can contribute resolving our problems. And that is why authoritarians paint each side as being either good or evil but not both. Because once the good and evil labels are adhesively applied to each side, active authoritarians have much less work to do in convincing their audiences to agree with and follow them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 14
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes part of another article that corrects a false claims of the number of women who died from undergoing an illegal abortion in 1972. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Quoted source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/13/biggest-pinocchios/
The above statistic about the number of deaths from illegal abortions doesn't paint the whole picture about the abortion issue. For example, in 1972, it was estimated that approximately 130,000 women sought an illegal abortion (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2133995?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents ). Before 1972, the number of women seeking illegal abortions was higher. In 1955 it was estimated that the number of illegal abortions ranged between 200,000 and 1.2 million (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2133995?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents ). What saved many women who underwent illegal abortions was hospital care afterwards. And what should also be included are the horrifying tools and methods used in the performance of illegal abortions back then.
So though the cited CDC statistic is correct and corrects the use of an incorrect statistic, it doesn't tell the whole story. And if we pro-lifers are to maintain any credibility and show the appropriate care and respect for women who wrestle with the abortion issue, then we must present as much of the whole picture as we can.
While one can safely say that only 39 people died from abortions in 1972, tens of thousands of women risked death by undergoing an illegal abortion in 1972. And far more did that prior to 1972. Those stats, as much as the stats cited from the CDC in the article above, must be included when correcting false claims about abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment