Weird School Logic

Adam's Web ^ | 02/12/03 | Adam Graham

[Keyes2000mt]

Weird School Logic

I subscribe to the New York Times online (shocking, I know) and I found an op-ed by Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin on the issue of abortion. Balkin shows why parents would be ill-advised to send their children to Yale. In the course of his article, Balkin shows a total lack of understanding of how America works and what the Constitution means while also giving us a peak inside the mind of Social Liberalism.

Balkin first greatly over simplifies the GOP coalition declaring that it is a coalition made up of "religious and social conservatives who are strongly opposed to abortion, and economic conservatives, libertarians and suburbanites who may be quite moderate on abortion rights or even strongly pro-choice." Of course the fact is that there is some serious crossover. Except for Chris Smith of New Jersey, I can't think of any social conservative Republican in congress who is not an economic conservative. One good example of this cross-over is former Representatives Tom Coburn (R-Ok) who was both a strong pro-life advocate and also a strong opponent of government over-spending. Whether one is an economic or social conservative has more to do about what you care about more not whether you agree with the other part of the coalition's views.

Second, the whole premise of the article is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and this matter is returned to the states the GOP had better watch out because the voting public will rise up in droves to vote against the party that supports banning abortion. As Balkin points out later in the piece, that Roe v. Wade has forced parties to organize around economic issues. If abortion becomes the issue, and we are to believe that economic conservatives and libertarians will gladly give up their pursuit of Social Security reform, abolition of the income tax, and less government in order to preserve the right to abortion, wouldn't the same thing happen in Democratic constituencies where many have pro-life leanings such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Union members? According to Professor Balking, apparently not, he (and the liberal media) believe that all of the dissention on the issue of abortion exists on the Republican side of the aisle. Polls have consistently showed a fifth to a third of Democrats adhering to the pro-life viewpoint. Balkin believes that what's going to serve the best interest of the GOP is to deny Social Conservatives their agenda and preserve the big tent rather than risk a party split over the overturn of Roe v. Wade. However, this is ill-advised as many religious conservatives are already becoming disenchanted with the political process. We had to wait 37 days for the results of the Florida vote in part because several million less Evangelicals showed up at the polls to vote for Bush than Bush's team had projected.

Remember that Blacks were a solid Republican vote until FDR. The GOP did nothing for Blacks after the Civil War and after more than sixty years, the whole "liberating the slaves" thing wasn't enough to hold the vote of Blacks whose honest thought had to be, "What have you done for us lately?" What if the Republicans had passed Civil Rights legislation during the time when they held the Presidency and both houses of Congress in the 1920s? American political history may have been entirely different.

Since when has purposely not giving your constituency what it wants been smart politics? If you disagree with what they want, then opposing it may be principled politics, but it's not smart politics which is what Balkin is trying to sell the GOP on.

Balkin also warns that the GOP is going to have to defend the idea of putting "women and their doctors" in jail. Balkin is only half right and barely that. Whatever laws are passed against abortion, as was the case before Roe v. Wade, none will punish the woman for obtaining the abortion. The reasons for this are both moral and political. The woman in most cases is not a medical professional but the doctor has been fully informed as to what he's doing. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was considered medical malpractice. It was an abuse of the trust and knowledge that a doctor had been given. Over time, a growing profile of psychological evidence and studies tell us that in many cases having an abortion wreaks so much havoc on a woman that the consequences of abortion are punishments in and of themselves.

Are abortion doctors particularly popular? No. How many people know abortionists personally? How many invite them over to dinner? How many would want to get to know them if they had the chance? Probably about the same number who'd like to get to know pornographers, strip club owners, and other unsavory people whose businesses we may tolerate or even defend but whom we wish to have nothing to do with personally.

Balkin then presents his convoluted logic as to why the decision which removed abortion from the democratic process is actually good for Democracy,

"It has also been good for the country as a whole and for the democratic process. People often accuse the Supreme Court of ignoring majority will by striking down laws passed by democratically elected legislatures. They forget that by narrowing what legislatures can fight over in especially divisive areas like religion and abortion, courts actually help working majorities form.

"By taking certain issues off the table in religious-based controversies, the courts enable political parties to organize around bread-and-butter issues like the economy and national defense. As a result, political parties are able to attract broad constituencies instead of narrow sectarian allegiances…

"To some, Roe v. Wade symbolizes the Supreme Court's failure to bring consensus to a divided country. But in areas like religion or abortion, that is precisely the wrong expectation. Roe is not supposed to eliminate controversy. Rather, it functions as a lightning rod, drawing political heat away from the democratic process and onto the Supreme Court itself."

This shows the height of liberal arrogance. First, as Carolyn Gargaro has documented there are many people who hold no Christian beliefs who also oppose the issue of abortion, so to case it as merely a religious issue is insulting. One of the left's most hated pro-life advocates Robert Bork has no religious affiliation whatsoever. Bernard Nathanson spent nineteen years as a pro-life Atheist before recently converting to Roman Catholicism.

In addition, where in the constitution is the Supreme Court assigned the role of choosing which issues the American people will base their political discourse on? For a similar reason as Balkin writes, in 1857 the Taney Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision and that attempt to define the American political debate went well. It was quickly followed by John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry and then the Civil War.

So far, America has been lucky that the reaction to the Supreme Court's activism has not been nearly as pronounced nor as violent as it was back in the 1850s. The Court's job is to interpret the law, not decide what is germane for the American people to discuss and vote upon for our own political good. Balkin advocates nothing less than judicial tyranny and has the gall to suggest that it's good for democracy.

Of course, one has to question Balkin's motives as well. I'd like to know who was the last Republican that this liberal college professor voted for. One has to wonder why so many Republicans have taken heed to advice given by New York Times editorial writers who advise us on strategy in spring and summer before supporting our opponents in the fall. It'd be like Grant taking advice from Lee's top generals on how he ought to attack the confederacy. If Balkin is not writing this article out of concern that the GOP might lose its vaunted big tent than why is he writing this article?

Lets be honest if American support of abortion where as broad and deep as Balkin and others tell us it is, Roe v. Wade would be a non-issue. The Congress of the United States would have improved and the state legislatures would have passed a "Woman's Right to Choose" amendment to the constitution that would move abortion rights beyond a mere Supreme Court decision to the nearly untouchable status of full constitutional enshrinement. The reason this hasn't happened and NARAL has to shrilly warn us that the right to choose is in serious danger is because Americans aren't nearly as supportive as abortion advocates want us to think. The very reason for Roe v. Wade is that there was no way they would ever get what they wanted through democratic processes.

While Balkin advises not to dare assail that hill lest our force is destroyed and divided, he's afraid of what will happen in a post-Roe world. A world where the American people will decide the issue of abortion and in many states they'd decide to ban it and in almost all of them they'd restrict it to the first trimester and regulate it like a normal medical procedure with informed consent laws. It is not the mass defection of non-religious conservatives from the GOP that Balkin fears but Democracy itself.

[John O]

bttt