ViRedd
New Member
The Reactionary Utopian
August 16, 2007
LITMUS TEST ALERT
by Joe Sobran
If American politics doesn't always make much sense,
it's largely because of two broad classes of people:
(1) fools, and (2) knaves. This simple dichotomy roughly
corresponds to the two-party system, though there is
plenty of overlap.
Every now and then (and now is one of those nows),
the Republican Party is warned, by the solemn voice of
the NEW YORK TIMES editorial board, that it risks losing
the votes of "moderates" if it persists in applying
"litmus tests." Basically, this means that Democrats
won't vote for the Republicans unless they act like
Democrats.
Just the other day, the TIMES chided Steve Forbes,
who is clearly preparing to seek the Republican
presidential nomination in 2000, for endorsing "litmus
tests." It seems that --
"Whoa," the Naive Reader will interject at this
point. "Just what do you mean by 'litmus tests'? And
what's so bad about them?"
Why, I thought everyone knew that! A litmus test is
bad because ... because ... well, I'm not sure, exactly.
Something to do with "choice," I think. You know,
"tolerance" versus "dogma."
Actually, "litmus test" is one of those phrases that
clog and confuse our political conversation because they
seem to stand for general principles, when in fact
they're applied only to one specific topic. In this case,
abortion. The Republicans are arguing about whether to
withhold party funds from candidates who don't oppose
"partial-birth" abortions -- the late-term kind that
might, without being too graphic here, make a butcher
faint.
Opposition to such abortions may thus become a
"litmus test" for party support. The phrase first gained
currency during Ronald Reagan's first term, when liberals
charged that Reagan was making abortion a "litmus test"
for Supreme Court appointments, and --
"Wait a minute," the Naive Reader may cut in. "You
still haven't explained what's wrong with that. After
all, don't political parties usually take firm stands on
certain issues? Wouldn't the national Democratic Party
withhold its support from candidates who favored racial
segregation or child labor?"
Well, Naive Reader, you may be naive, but you're
logical. In politics, it often comes to the same thing.
Of course you're absolutely right. Both parties have
litmus tests, or they wouldn't stand for anything. But
the opprobrious phrase "litmus test" is applied only to
abortion to imply that opponents of abortion are uniquely
"intolerant." (Somehow the tolerance of those who favor
abortion never seems to be in doubt, even when they won't
permit anti-abortion speakers at national conventions.)
Terms like "choice," "big tent," and "extremism" are
applied in the same lopsided way. Only opponents of
abortion are "extremists." There's no such thing as a
pro-abortion "extremist." In fact, nobody admits to being
pro-abortion. They're always "pro-choice."
So we have a weird political spectrum in which
"moderation" lies not at the midpoint, but at the left
end. One extreme is "extremist," while the opposite
extreme is "moderate." The knaves have decreed it, and
the fools agree with them.
"But that doesn't make any sense!" the Naive Reader
will protest.
Right again, Naive Reader. But political language is
usually loaded this way. It's designed to manipulate
emotions, not to inspire reflection. And it provokes
automatic reactions, like an electric cattle prod.
Even lots of people who have qualms about abortion,
especially the late-term kind, don't want to be called
"extremist" or "intolerant." They don't stop to think
about the implications of these words, and it never
occurs to them to demand that such terms be applied
consistently.
That's why the notoriously liberal media never refer
to "pro-abortion extremists." They don't even want the
concept to enter people's heads.
Otherwise, they might find the term applicable to
the Communist Chinese government, which forces women to
have abortions against their will, even in the last month
of pregnancy. If that isn't "pro-abortion extremism,"
nothing is. If you really believe abortion should be a
matter of an individual woman's "choice," you should be
horrified by the gruesome forced-abortion policy.
But when was the last time you heard an advocate of
"choice" condemn the Chinese policy? Unfortunately,
American politics doesn't have litmus tests for
hypocrisy.
[This column was originally published by Universal Press
Syndicate January 13, 1998.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 16, 2007
LITMUS TEST ALERT
by Joe Sobran
If American politics doesn't always make much sense,
it's largely because of two broad classes of people:
(1) fools, and (2) knaves. This simple dichotomy roughly
corresponds to the two-party system, though there is
plenty of overlap.
Every now and then (and now is one of those nows),
the Republican Party is warned, by the solemn voice of
the NEW YORK TIMES editorial board, that it risks losing
the votes of "moderates" if it persists in applying
"litmus tests." Basically, this means that Democrats
won't vote for the Republicans unless they act like
Democrats.
Just the other day, the TIMES chided Steve Forbes,
who is clearly preparing to seek the Republican
presidential nomination in 2000, for endorsing "litmus
tests." It seems that --
"Whoa," the Naive Reader will interject at this
point. "Just what do you mean by 'litmus tests'? And
what's so bad about them?"
Why, I thought everyone knew that! A litmus test is
bad because ... because ... well, I'm not sure, exactly.
Something to do with "choice," I think. You know,
"tolerance" versus "dogma."
Actually, "litmus test" is one of those phrases that
clog and confuse our political conversation because they
seem to stand for general principles, when in fact
they're applied only to one specific topic. In this case,
abortion. The Republicans are arguing about whether to
withhold party funds from candidates who don't oppose
"partial-birth" abortions -- the late-term kind that
might, without being too graphic here, make a butcher
faint.
Opposition to such abortions may thus become a
"litmus test" for party support. The phrase first gained
currency during Ronald Reagan's first term, when liberals
charged that Reagan was making abortion a "litmus test"
for Supreme Court appointments, and --
"Wait a minute," the Naive Reader may cut in. "You
still haven't explained what's wrong with that. After
all, don't political parties usually take firm stands on
certain issues? Wouldn't the national Democratic Party
withhold its support from candidates who favored racial
segregation or child labor?"
Well, Naive Reader, you may be naive, but you're
logical. In politics, it often comes to the same thing.
Of course you're absolutely right. Both parties have
litmus tests, or they wouldn't stand for anything. But
the opprobrious phrase "litmus test" is applied only to
abortion to imply that opponents of abortion are uniquely
"intolerant." (Somehow the tolerance of those who favor
abortion never seems to be in doubt, even when they won't
permit anti-abortion speakers at national conventions.)
Terms like "choice," "big tent," and "extremism" are
applied in the same lopsided way. Only opponents of
abortion are "extremists." There's no such thing as a
pro-abortion "extremist." In fact, nobody admits to being
pro-abortion. They're always "pro-choice."
So we have a weird political spectrum in which
"moderation" lies not at the midpoint, but at the left
end. One extreme is "extremist," while the opposite
extreme is "moderate." The knaves have decreed it, and
the fools agree with them.
"But that doesn't make any sense!" the Naive Reader
will protest.
Right again, Naive Reader. But political language is
usually loaded this way. It's designed to manipulate
emotions, not to inspire reflection. And it provokes
automatic reactions, like an electric cattle prod.
Even lots of people who have qualms about abortion,
especially the late-term kind, don't want to be called
"extremist" or "intolerant." They don't stop to think
about the implications of these words, and it never
occurs to them to demand that such terms be applied
consistently.
That's why the notoriously liberal media never refer
to "pro-abortion extremists." They don't even want the
concept to enter people's heads.
Otherwise, they might find the term applicable to
the Communist Chinese government, which forces women to
have abortions against their will, even in the last month
of pregnancy. If that isn't "pro-abortion extremism,"
nothing is. If you really believe abortion should be a
matter of an individual woman's "choice," you should be
horrified by the gruesome forced-abortion policy.
But when was the last time you heard an advocate of
"choice" condemn the Chinese policy? Unfortunately,
American politics doesn't have litmus tests for
hypocrisy.
[This column was originally published by Universal Press
Syndicate January 13, 1998.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
