Uneven, Awful, Mystifying, Terrible
John Leo has an excellent retrospective covering a lot of the reservations many of us on the right have about the Schiavo case.
The behavior of conservatives: Uneven and sometimes awful, with lots of vituperation and extreme charges. (Jeb Bush does not remind me of Pontius Pilate; I don't think it's fair to circulate rumors that Michael Schiavo was a wife-beater.) Worse were the revolutionary suggestions that the courts be ignored or defied, perhaps by sending in the National Guard to reconnect the tube. This is "by any means necessary" rhetoric of the radical left, this time let loose by angry conservatives. Where does this rhetoric lead?
I can't say this reaction astounded me; the right has its loonies, just as certainly as does the left.
The behavior of liberals: Mystifying. While conservative opinion was severely splintered, liberal opinion seemed monolithic: Let her die. Liberals usually rally to the side of vulnerable people, but not in this case. Democrats talked abstractly about procedures and rules, a reversal of familiar roles. I do not understand why liberal friends defined the issue almost solely in terms of government intruding into family matters. Liberals are famously willing to enter family affairs to defend individual rights, opposing parental-consent laws, for example. Why not here? Nonintervention is morally suspect when there is strong reason to wonder whether the decision-maker in the family has the helpless person's best interests at heart.
The left's cry of "individual" and "State's" rights was so deeply hypocritical on so many levels. They oppose individual choice in education, campaign finance, property rights and taxation, piddle on individual supremacy on parental notification and gun control, and deny the tenth-amendment rights of the states on matters like prayer in schools, abortion, and many more issues.
A few liberals broke ranks--10 members of the black caucus, for instance, plus Sen. Tom Harkin and Ralph Nader, who called the case "court-imposed homicide." But such voices were rare.
Outside Congress, where half of the House Democrats voted with the overwhelming majority of the GOP? Yes.
My suspicion is that liberal opinion was guided by smoldering resentment toward President Bush and the rising contempt for religion in general and conservative Christians in particular. We seem headed for much more conflict between religious and secular Americans.
This is both dead-on and extremely chilling.
As we saw in the comment section of this blog, to so much of the left "The court said so" is a substitute for "this is ethically, morally right".
The behavior of the news media: Terrible. "Pro-life" columnist Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice called it "the worst case of liberal media bias I've seen yet." Many stories and headlines were politically loaded. Small example of large disdain: On air, a CBS correspondent called the Florida rallies a "religious roadshow," a term unlikely to have been applied to Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights demonstrations or any other rallies meeting CBS's approval. More important, it was hard to find news that Michael Schiavo had provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife since 1994 and even blocked the use of antibiotics when Terri developed a urinary infection. And the big national newspapers claimed as a fact that Michael Schiavo's long-delayed recollection of Terri's wish to die, supported only by hearsay from Michael's brother and a sister-in-law, met the standard for "clear and convincing evidence" of consent.
As I pointed out on the NARN show and in this blog, that standard was perhaps, apparently, met to the satisfaction of a judge, according to Florida law, after a proceeding where Michael Schiavo was able to outspend and out-lawyer the Schindlers. That means while Michael Schiavo may have been able to meet the standards of Florida law, that law might need to be changed.
It did nothing of the sort, particularly with two of Terri's friends testifying the opposite. The media covered the intervention by Congress as narrowly political and unwarranted. They largely fudged the debates over whether Terri Schiavo was indeed in a persistent vegetative state and whether tube-feeding meant that Schiavo was on life support. In the Nancy Cruzan case, the Supreme Court said that tube-feeding is life support, but some ethicists and disability leaders strongly dispute that position.
And a final quote of interest, one that I've been almost literally screaming to see included in the conversation:
it means the country has yet to make up its mind on the issue of personhood and whether it is moral and just to remove tube-supplied food and water from people with grave cognitive disabilities. The following candid exchange occurred on Court TV last month in a conversation between author Wesley Smith and bioethicist Bill Allen. Smith: "Bill, do you think Terri is a person?" Allen: "No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." Fetuses, babies, and Alzheimer's patients are only minimally aware and might not fit this definition of personhood, and so would have no claim on our protections.
Babies are, indeed, not "viable" without massive support; they are indeed not "viable" until they can go out and get a job.
I took some flak after Ms. Schiavo's death for saying "inconvenient people nationwide are watching their backs". And yet if the law would seem to be insufficient to protect the truly inconvenient, what exactly is it that the left and the media (pardon the redundancy) think is keeping us off that slippery slope that will lead us to the sort of institutionally-mandated euthanasia that the right is justly worried about?
Posted by Mitch at
April 4, 2005 07:49 AM
| TrackBack
Except that the liberal focus was not on procedure and rules, it was on individual freedom. Terri's freedom to choose for herself what medical care she wished to receive. Liberals don't celebrate her death or defend the system for the system's own sake. We celebrate the triumph of individual freedom and the system that protects that freedom against Tom DeLay or Jeb Bush having any role in making decisions for you.
Meanwhile, with regards to Mitch's criticism last week of the existing law and procedure applied in this case, you can read the following if you wish to further understand what exactly Florida law is and how it was applied in this case:
What is existing Florida law regarding the burden of proof and methods of determining what a patient’s wishes are? See:
http://snipurl.com/dt76
How were Terri’s wishes determined in this case under that existing law? See:
http://snipurl.com/dt73
Yes, it's long and complicated. Read it if you wish. Or don't.
That's individual freedom.
Posted by: Slash at April 4, 2005 01:18 PM/jc
I loved that piece by John Leo and agreed with the whole thing.
Mitch - so many conservatives out there, though, ARE shocked that there are loonies on "their" side. Like - I can't remember where I read it, but at some point during the Schiavo thing, Reynolds linked to some article called "Don't Imitate the Left".
That cracked me up. As though "the Left" invented this kind of divisive shrill nonsense. Huh?
As someone who is way more liberal than conservative, I can tell you that the right has ALWAYS had its loony-tune contingency - but conservatives seem to just be waking up to it now.
It's about time, I say!
I thought the conservatives behaved WORSE than the liberals did during the Schiavo thing, but that's neither here nor there. That's why I think Leo's piece was great. This is not a proud moment for anybody.
Posted by: red at April 4, 2005 02:30 PMDid you happen to see a report (was linked to by James Lileks) on the "Anarchist Book Fair" (or something like that) last week? Churchill was a speaker at it...Anyway, go get an eyeload of what "looney toonism" truly is. The left has the market wrapped up and then some. Violence & threats aren't looney-they're a wrong-headed reaction to the crap the left comes up with.
Posted by: Colleen at April 4, 2005 04:05 PMHonestly, this is not just the territory of the Left. Conservatives only see it so because they DISAGREE with what the Left says. Hell, I disagree with much of what the Left says, but to pretend that conservatives do not have their loud obnoxious lunatic NUTSO fringe, is folly. Colleen, I am aware of the anarchist book fair, I am aware of the craziness of the "left". I don't need a reminder.
But I'm tellin' ya, as a person who teeters in the middle on some issues, no: The Left does not have loony-tunes "wrapped up". The conservatives are just as nuts.
Conservatives will never see it this way, though, because the atmosphere right now is just to protect one's own "side".
Which is why I found it so amusing during this whole Schiavo thing when conservatives seemed truly upset that they were "imitating the Left". Ha! From my point of view, they're right in the thick of that insane asylum with the left, and there's no imitation going on whatsoever. They've got blinders on to their own craziness.
Posted by: red at April 4, 2005 04:27 PMRed and Colleen: Go to your rooms!
Seriously, though - I don't know that I've ever claimed the left had a monopoly on looniness. I know we (Cap'n Ed, King Banaian, Brian Ward, John Hinderaker and I) called the looniness on the right in almost as many words on our show on 3/26.
However, while I'm not "protecting my own side" as such, I think it's fair to say that the mainstream media DOES harp on the looniness of the right a lot more diligently than that on the left. Look at the relative tones involved in describing the protesters at the hospice on the one hand - described with barely-concealed contempt - and the coverage of the demonstrators at the usually portrayed as plucky populists no matter HOW corrosive and bileful their message, usually (as far as I saw) shown approvingly as opposed to the hospice demonstrators.
So I may well cover the lunacy of the left more than that of the right, it's probably true; it's a lot less crowded a field.
Posted by: mitch at April 4, 2005 04:40 PMI think the mainstream media harps on the looniness of the right because it is insane, and loud, and WACKO. In the same way that Fox News harps on the looniness of the left.
I don't know. Like I said, I'm basically a liberal who believes in small government spending (is there such a thing??) - so watching the conservatives angst over their own behavior in the last couple of weeks has been kind of amusing to me.
I'm not saying you're protecting your own side, Mitch - that was more of a general comment about what I sense "out there" right now. And that "don't imitate the Left" warning was ridiculous.
And sorry for snapping at Colleen. It is the assumption that I just haven't read the correct articles that I balk at.
Posted by: red at April 4, 2005 04:48 PMSlash what you linked to supports what I have stated all along, that what Judge Greer calls clear and convincing evidence amounts to the memories of a couple many-years-old conversations. Many reasonable people do not put such faith in the ability of human beings to recall such convesations adequately to meet the "clear and convincing" threshold. I would never convict someone of a crime based upon such evidence, even if the criminal threshold were lowered from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "clear and convincing", absent a good deal of supporting circumstantial or physical evidence. The expert testimony cited in your links is simply laughable on an emprical basis; what is "consistent" of people of Terry Schivao age at the time of those conversations really doesn't tell us much about Ms. Schivao in particular, other than it would not have been statistically unusual for her to say what was testified to, which really doesn't mean much of anything. Clear and convincing? Well, that's just Judge Greer's opinion, and Judge Greer has rather more confidence in human memory than is warranted by much empirical study. It would be perfectly reasonable for a state legislature to no longer grant judges such leeway in declaring this sort of evidence "clear and convincing".
Posted by: Will Allen at April 4, 2005 09:58 PM“That cracked me up. As though "the Left" invented this kind of divisive shrill nonsense. Huh?”
Invented, no. Condoned and rewarded it, absolutely.
If you want to say that both sides have their respective wacko fringe, that’s not exactly an earth-shattering revelation to anyone. However there is a clear difference between the two in that the Right has pretty much marginalized its fringe whereas the Left has openly embraced theirs. The Teri Shiavo is actually an example of this in that the more prominent proponents of legal intervention (e.g. Hugh Hewitt) also decried any attempt to take the law into their own hands. In contrast, Democrats seem unable to protest international trade, genetically modified foods, or the liberation of some 50 million people in the Middle East without trashing the city. Other examples that come to mind.
David Duke tries to run for Congress as a Republican and is told by then Majority Leader Dick Army that should he win the primary and general election (he lost both), he won’t be allowed to caucus with the GOP. In contrast, Al Sharpton runs for the Senate and President of his party and even though he loses, becomes a king maker in New York that Democratic Senate and Presidential candidates alike have to court because he can deliver the votes.
Trent Lott makes an intemperate remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party and loses his position as Senate Majority Leader. Christopher Dodd makes a similar comment at former Klansman Robert Byrd’s birthday party and not only does Dodd suffer no consequences, Byrd becomes the new hero of the Senate Democrats and Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer with MoveOn.Org are launching a campaign for his reelection.
Michael Moore being embraced by then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, DNC Chair Terry McCaulife, and invited to sit next to former President Carter at their last convention.
Howard “interesting theory” Dean selected as the new DNC chair to promote an “I hate Republicans” ticket.
Posted by: Thorley Winston at April 4, 2005 11:18 PM“That cracked me up. As though "the Left" invented this kind of divisive shrill nonsense. Huh?”
Invented, no. Condoned and rewarded it, absolutely.
If you want to say that both sides have their respective wacko fringe, that’s not exactly an earth-shattering revelation to anyone. However there is a clear difference between the two in that the Right has pretty much marginalized its fringe whereas the Left has openly embraced theirs. The Teri Shiavo is actually an example of this in that the more prominent proponents of legal intervention (e.g. Hugh Hewitt) also decried any attempt to take the law into their own hands. In contrast, Democrats seem unable to protest international trade, genetically modified foods, or the liberation of some 50 million people in the Middle East without trashing the city. Other examples that come to mind.
David Duke tries to run for Congress as a Republican and is told by then Majority Leader Dick Army that should he win the primary and general election (he lost both), he won’t be allowed to caucus with the GOP. In contrast, Al Sharpton runs for the Senate and President of his party and even though he loses, becomes a king maker in New York that Democratic Senate and Presidential candidates alike have to court because he can deliver the votes.
Trent Lott makes an intemperate remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party and loses his position as Senate Majority Leader. Christopher Dodd makes a similar comment at former Klansman Robert Byrd’s birthday party and not only does Dodd suffer no consequences, Byrd becomes the new hero of the Senate Democrats and Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer with MoveOn.Org are launching a campaign for his reelection.
Michael Moore being embraced by then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, DNC Chair Terry McCaulife, and invited to sit next to former President Carter at their last convention.
Howard “interesting theory” Dean selected as the new DNC chair to promote an “I hate Republicans” ticket.
Posted by: Thorley Winston at April 4, 2005 11:22 PM“That cracked me up. As though "the Left" invented this kind of divisive shrill nonsense. Huh?”
Invented, no. Condoned and rewarded it, absolutely.
If you want to say that both sides have their respective wacko fringe, that’s not exactly an earth-shattering revelation to anyone. However there is a clear difference between the two in that the Right has pretty much marginalized its fringe whereas the Left has openly embraced theirs. The Teri Shiavo is actually an example of this in that the more prominent proponents of legal intervention (e.g. Hugh Hewitt) also decried any attempt to take the law into their own hands. In contrast, Democrats seem unable to protest international trade, genetically modified foods, or the liberation of some 50 million people in the Middle East without trashing the city. Other examples that come to mind.
David Duke tries to run for Congress as a Republican and is told by then Majority Leader Dick Army that should he win the primary and general election (he lost both), he won’t be allowed to caucus with the GOP. In contrast, Al Sharpton runs for the Senate and President of his party and even though he loses, becomes a king maker in New York that Democratic Senate and Presidential candidates alike have to court because he can deliver the votes.
Trent Lott makes an intemperate remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party and loses his position as Senate Majority Leader. Christopher Dodd makes a similar comment at former Klansman Robert Byrd’s birthday party and not only does Dodd suffer no consequences, Byrd becomes the new hero of the Senate Democrats and Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer with MoveOn.Org are launching a campaign for his reelection.
Michael Moore being embraced by then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, DNC Chair Terry McCaulife, and invited to sit next to former President Carter at their last convention.
Howard “interesting theory” Dean selected as the new DNC chair to promote an “I hate Republicans” ticket.
Posted by: TW at April 4, 2005 11:26 PMWell...but...if you can point out to me examples of right-wing "loonieness" to compare with aging hippies (a sad sight regardless) with scrotal inflation, I'll say well, ya got me there. Please...examples of loonieness on the right. Bad behavior, overzealousness, misguidedness, just plain mean and rotten do not qualify as looney.
Posted by: Colleen at April 5, 2005 10:14 PMCooking Recipes - Lots of great recipes to get you cooking great meals http://www.cookingrecipewebsites.com
Posted by: Cooking Recipes at November 26, 2005 09:58 PMNext week is not a big week in terms of the number of companies reporting,favors-gifts.com but it is a big week in terms of influential companies reporting,apshomeinspection.com said John Butters, senior research analyst at earnings tracker Thomson Financial Pendant http://new-weight-loss.com/site/525251/page/682002
Posted by: Pendant at January 31, 2006 12:59 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent furniture site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: furniture at July 16, 2006 03:35 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent fusker site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: fusker at July 16, 2006 03:40 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent genealogy site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: genealogy at July 16, 2006 04:20 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent hallmark site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: hallmark at July 16, 2006 08:24 AM