By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Funny that we are still fighting over Governor Casey —
Robert Casey Sr. of Pennsylvania — and his role at the 1992 Democratic National
Convention.
Casey was a moderate, anti-abortion Democrat, something
that already was a dying breed back in those days. He wanted to address the
convention, and he was denied the opportunity to do so — something that was
unusual for the governor of a big state. It was understood by practically
everybody at the time — by people on both sides of the abortion debate — that
this was an exercise in enforcement on the part of the convention, which was
co-chaired that year by one of the most progressive governors in the country,
Ann Richards of Texas, whose daughter would go on to enjoy a lucrative career
in the abortion industry. The Democrats were in no mood to hear from a pro-lifer,
especially if he intended to actually speak about the question of abortion.
This was the uncontroversial view of the case in 1992.
But since then, there has been a concerted effort by
certain parties on the left to rewrite that history. The Democrats like to
think of themselves as open, big-hearted people who welcome debate and
disagreement, except when they think you
should be put in jail for having the wrong views about an issue. And so the
facts that everybody understood in 1992 have been recast as a totalitarian “big
lie” foisted upon (the tiny slice of) the American public (that pays attention
to that sort of thing) by those who wish to smear the Left. Kevin Drum, a lefty
in good standing, revisited the public record in 2005 and concluded that “Casey
was denied a speaking slot because he wanted to give a pro-life speech,
not simply because Casey himself was pro-life.” That seems to me a reasonable
interpretation of the record. Drum adds: “I don’t think there’s any evidence at
all that simply being pro-life prevents you from speaking at Democratic
conventions, either in 1992 or any other year.” That is no longer quite his
view: “There’s no question the Democratic Party is less tolerant of pro-lifers
now than it was in 2005,” he says.
Dan Lipinski surely agrees with him. The moderate,
anti-abortion Democrat from Chicago has just been turned out by his party, with
a left-wing primary challenger backed by abortion money sending him into
retirement. In the early 2000s, Democrats for Life had more than 40 members of
Congress among its members. Lipinski is, in practice, the last of them, though
Democrats have been known to define “for life” with elasticity sufficient to
accommodate Senator
Bobby Casey Jr. and his 100 percent NARAL rating. Senator Bernie Sanders
has declared that the pro-abortion position is “essential” to being a Democrat.
Senator Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both supported
Lipinski’s opponent.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson, who made a very good living
as the conscience of the Democratic Party, was
devoutly pro-life until the political winds shifted. He used to speak of
being “born out of wedlock and against the advice that my mother received from
her doctor.” Even Hillary Rodham Clinton until the day before yesterday acknowledged
that an abortion is morally different from an appendectomy, repeating her
husband’s famous formulation holding that abortion should be “safe, legal, and
rare.” The Reverend Jackson had a change of heart. As the Washington Post
put it, he concluded that “moral positions shouldn’t be imposed on public
policy.” I wonder why he thinks it is that fraud is illegal, or why we have a
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was nothing if not a moral measure.
Democrats are a funny bunch when it comes to their
hopscotch libertarianism: Putting an unborn child to death? Sure — all about
choice. Install a wheelchair ramp with a 5.1-degree slope instead of a
4.8-degree slope? They will literally make a federal case out of it. For the
Democrats, deciding what sex you are is a choose-your-own-adventure story, but use
the wrong pronoun and it’s a hate crime. (It isn’t only the
United Kingdom’s health-care system they envy.) Marijuana, yes; vaping, no.
Etc. One begins to suspect that they are not taking this individual-autonomy
thing all that seriously.
Abortion is a manifestation of the superstitious American
character. As a scientific matter, there is no question about what happens in
an abortion: A living individual human organism is put to death at an early
stage of development. No amount of metaphysical hand-waving about “personhood”
is going to change that. And that is why they must have uniformity and moral
homogeneity: Not only is there no room for Dan Lipinski, but Americans at large
must be coerced into participating in abortion by paying for it out of public funds.
Alcoholics always secretly (or not so secretly) hate the one guy at the party
who doesn’t drink, because they feel rebuked by him. It is safer when everybody
is participating, and there is no judgment when we all have blood on our hands.
Governor Casey could not be permitted to speak because the Democrats could not
permit themselves to hear.
Every cult has its rituals and its sacred things, and
Eros, too, is a jealous god.
You didn’t think this was about politics, did you?
No comments:
Post a Comment