I have been re-reading sections of The Great Divide by Studs Terkel. One of the segments comes from Juli Loesch. Juli is anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. It struck me that there are so many who come down on different sides of this issue, that are "pro life" meaning anti-abortion advocates and who also strongly favor the death penalty. There is probably an equal percentage of those who advocate for "the woman's right to choose" and are against the death penalty.
Neither side of this debate seems to see a contradiction on these positions. I haven't thought through all of the ethical implications, but is not a life a life? And should not one's position be consistent?
In a similar manner, I see a disconnect between those of the Christian Right who support the Republican Party because they are on the "right side" of emotional issues such as gay marriage and abortion, and yet they never question the ethical implications of anything else that is done by these "ethical" people, the suppression of rights in the support of political power, the use of government to coerce economic decisions, such as the question of GMO seeds that was posted recently. For some of the anti-abortion activists is may be that they are willing to excuse the theif if the theif stands with them againt the killer. I would guess that most of the others have not the inclination to educate themselves. Still, should not the demand for ethical conduct the the Christian Right says they support be applied equally?
Harpers has recently published a road map for Christian Coaliation dominance of the Republican Party. It is all premised on gaining control of the local party committees. At the same time, I find Christopher Ketcham's analysis of the power goals of the Republican party to be a warning. (About 2/3 of the way through this discussion of machine politics in Brooklyn).
Ketcham makes reference to the K Street Project through which only those right thinking anti-tax policy wonks have a chance to be lobbysts.
Again, why does the Christian Right no rail against this wholsesale selling of America. I would say "fleecing" of America by a news channel already owns that.
Posted by Wes at February 4, 2005 10:51 AM