"The only people I fear are those who never have doubts." -Billy Joel
Our local paper re-printed this column in the New York Daily News. In a recent GOP debate, Rudy Giuiliani gave some rather ambiguous answers to questions about abortion.
The piece criticized him for not offering a clear position. The writer implied that the former New York mayor would've been better off stating a clear position on question, even at the risk of pissing off the hard core anti-abortionists. Because the only thing worse than being seen as controversial is being seen as that most dreaded of political adjectives: a waffler.
I have no love lost for Rudy. While his stances on social issues are far less extreme than most Republican candidates, I abhor his shameful populist fearmongering on so-called national security.
But I beg to differ with this piece. Giuliani DID express what is far and away the most controversial position on abortion that anyone in this country can have: uncertainty.
The Americans who yell most about the topic believe that either abortion is part of a woman's inalienable right to control her body or that abortion (though not war, oddly enough) constitutes mass murder. There is a misperception that every American is either adamantly anti-abortion or adamantly in favor of abortion rights.
In reality, many Americans share Rudy's uncertainty. Many of us oppose abortion as a practice but uncomfortable with the prospect of making it illegal. And yes, that includes myself.
I don't consider people who oppose abortion to be evil fascists. I don't consider people who get abortions to be murderous scum. It may not be politically correct to not see everything in black and white, but life is complicated.
Many people believe that a fetus is something less than a full-fledged human being, but something more than a mere scab that can be picked off and thrown on the ground. Many of us can't put our finger on exactly why thing abortion is generally wrong, but that criminalizing it would be also wrong. Maybe it's a fear that it would make mothers resent their unwanted children. Maybe it's a fear that this would even further increase the number of single parent families. Maybe it's just a fear of absolutes.
We've seen over the last 6 years of Bush where the fanaticism of absolute certainty has gotten us. Maybe simplistic answers to complex topics is a trend we should be getting away from. Maybe a little sober reflection isn't the end of the world. Maybe words 'maybe' and 'sometimes' and 'I'm not sure' shouldn't be treated as a dirty words anymore.
4 comments:
"I abhor his shameful populist fearmongering on so-called national security."
Brian,
Would you care to elaborate on this?
Jim,
I've heard a number of comments from him that make me cringe. I will do a little research and come up with some examples.
Jim,
I was reading a transcript of last night's GOP candidates' debate and here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Asking why people may have been motivated to attack America is, in Rudy's mind, tantamount to accusing the victims of "inviting the attack." All as a way to engage in populist pandering to the crowd (notice the applause at the most shameless lines).
Regards,
Brian
***
[Moderator] MR. WENDELL GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. RON PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
[Giuliani jumps in]
MR. RUDY GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us? [END]
Hi Jim,
Another example is explored here:
http://mofyc.blogspot.com/2007/05/whos-nutcase.html
Post a Comment