Faustian Bargain for Pro-Lifers

[DC Al Fine]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

[DavidB.]

Haha, I'd absolutely never take that bargain.

[windjammer]

Nah

[Green Line]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

You love to act all serious,  And then you say stuff like this!  Come on now.

[Green Line]

I would not take this deal.  No way.

[RFayette]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

You love to act all serious,  And then you say stuff like this!  Come on now.

I take it you haven't met Averroes, have you?

[Cashew]

For one thing, it seems like the left will probably get their way on everything else anyway, we might as well get something for it.

Absolutley, the problem is though that conservatives always pick the wrong hill to die on.

[Goldwater]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

Ah, most right-wingers are not deliberately evil. Is that really much less negative than TJ's opinions of left-wingers?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

Ah, most right-wingers are not deliberately evil. Is that really much less negative than TJ's opinions of left-wingers?

He just said that left-wingers are "hiding under a pretense of benevolence", which implies not only that we are in fact malevolent, but that out malevolence is deliberate enough for us to be able to hide it. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a lot harsher.

[DC Al Fine]

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

Why are you surprised? This really isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm as hackish as it gets, but I'm at least willing to acknowledge that most right-wingers are not deliberately evil.

(the GOP is basically evil at this point, but what makes it evil isn't its ideology per se)

Ah, most right-wingers are not deliberately evil. Is that really much less negative than TJ's opinions of left-wingers?

He just said that left-wingers are "hiding under a pretense of benevolence", which implies not only that we are in fact malevolent, but that out malevolence is deliberate enough for us to be able to hide it. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a lot harsher.

You seem to be giving the left a massive benefit of the doubt while applying a strict standard to the right.

Try to see this from our perspective. What does today's pro-abortion rhetoric look like to an anti-abortion person?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You seem to be giving the left a massive benefit of the doubt while applying a strict standard to the right.

Try to see this from our perspective. What does today's pro-abortion rhetoric look like to an anti-abortion person?

If you're talking about stuff like the "comedians in cars" video, I can certainly see why you'd find it offensive (and I'm myself certainly not a fan of this type of rhetoric). But doesn't that kind of prove my point? Clearly those who made that video are not trying to "hide" anything, they're pretty explicit about the moral framework they are advocating. You might think that moral framework is abhorrent, but you can't accuse its advocates of having hidden intentions.

And, on the other end of the scale, you have plenty of people who simply care about women's well-being, and don't want them to go through severe emotional trauma, and happen to believe that a 2-week embryo is not a person.

[DC Al Fine]

You seem to be giving the left a massive benefit of the doubt while applying a strict standard to the right.

Try to see this from our perspective. What does today's pro-abortion rhetoric look like to an anti-abortion person?

If you're talking about stuff like the "comedians in cars" video, I can certainly see why you'd find it offensive (and I'm myself certainly not a fan of this type of rhetoric). But doesn't that kind of prove my point? Clearly those who made that video are not trying to "hide" anything, they're pretty explicit about the moral framework they are advocating. You might think that moral framework is abhorrent, but you can't accuse its advocates of having hidden intentions.

And, on the other end of the scale, you have plenty of people who simply care about women's well-being, and don't want them to go through severe emotional trauma, and happen to believe that a 2-week embryo is not a person.

No, I'm talking about an apparent double standard. You seem quite willing to ascribe malevolence to parts of the right on a similar basis. Large swathes of the right oppose progressive taxation, or universal healthcare because they don't believe those policies promote human flourishing, but they don't seem to get the benefit of the doubt.

Now if we're talking about the mask aspect, I would point to some of the religious liberty debates, particularly up north where social liberalism is more prominent. In particularly I'm thinking of attempts to not accredit an Evangelical law school, and to force physicians to participate in the abortion and/or euthanasia process. The rhetoric is of high ideals, but there is a certain amount of bigotry in the argument that needs to be masked because openly stating that Evangelicals shouldn't be allowed to be doctors isn't a popular argument.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Probably, but it would somewhat depend on the exact terms and conditions.  I couldn't live with myself if I didn't save countless lives when I had the opportunity to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You seem to be giving the left a massive benefit of the doubt while applying a strict standard to the right.

Try to see this from our perspective. What does today's pro-abortion rhetoric look like to an anti-abortion person?

If you're talking about stuff like the "comedians in cars" video, I can certainly see why you'd find it offensive (and I'm myself certainly not a fan of this type of rhetoric). But doesn't that kind of prove my point? Clearly those who made that video are not trying to "hide" anything, they're pretty explicit about the moral framework they are advocating. You might think that moral framework is abhorrent, but you can't accuse its advocates of having hidden intentions.

And, on the other end of the scale, you have plenty of people who simply care about women's well-being, and don't want them to go through severe emotional trauma, and happen to believe that a 2-week embryo is not a person.

No, I'm talking about an apparent double standard. You seem quite willing to ascribe malevolence to parts of the right on a similar basis. Large swathes of the right oppose progressive taxation, or universal healthcare because they don't believe those policies promote human flourishing, but they don't seem to get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "benefit of the doubt" and "double standard". Of course I'm going to think that conservative economic policies are immoral and progressive policies aren't. That's why I'm a progressive in the first place! Now, please let me know when I have said that everybody who supports the former set of policies is evil? Because it's not what I said, in this thread or anywhere else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look, I'm obviously not familiar with what goes on at the local level in the Northeast, but what you are describing is obviously wrong and I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest that I'd be inclined to condoning it. Obviously this still doesn't compare to the GOP, whose main electoral strategy these days is to prevent political opponents from voting.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, there's absolutely bigotry against Evangelicals in large segments of society in the Northeast. I've also heard completely unironic arguments for designating all pro-life organizations as terrorist groups regardless of their rhetoric or tactics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wasn't denying it. Edited to clarify.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh dear it looks like I started a mess!

Third, it is often better to have your opponents as open enemies everyone knows cannot be trusted than the hiding under the pretense of benevolence.

Is this how you see the modern left? Really?

This was overstated on my part. There was a particular context I was thinking about when I wrote it and I do not mean for it to include all of the modern left.

I wrote that post a couple days after the Wikileaks release that showed Democratic Party operatives started fake Catholic groups for the purpose of undermining the Church. I meant that it is probably better to have an opponent who is openly hostile than one who pretends to be friendly (see Catholic Alliance for the Common Good for example) but isn't really. This is what I was thinking of when I wrote "hiding under the pretense of benevolence", which is the most aggressive part of that post.

In addition, I would say that my original third point (the one in question) should be extended to cover  groups who mean well but are actually leading us slowly down a path to social liberalism while pretending to be impartial or apolitical. I have a tendency to resent orchestrated slow changes and often view them as manipulative.

In general there are certainly aspects of the American left who do earnestly want what they see as the common good: some of the Bernie people, some of the environmentalists, immigration groups, unions, etc. for whom the issue they are active about trumps all others. And yes, also some in groups I am at near total odds with such as Planned Parenthood or LGBT rights groups are also that way. There are of course people who mean well and who don't all over the political spectrum (and in 2016 those who don't are really outdoing themselves).

I do think that the American left has poisoned the well over the last 10 years far beyond the normal level from political discourse. One can come up with a zillion social situations where the left has stopped using arguments and instead resorted to smugness and slander (see much of Comedy Central for the last decade). That's related but not quite what I meant.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, yeah, no one denies that there is a good deal of manipulation going on in Hillary's (and every modern presidential candidates's) campaign. The goal of candidates is to win elections, and to do so they often play around with the opinions of people and groups (including religious groups) in somewhat dishonest ways. That said, I think that, even in the example you mentioned, I don't think that the Catholic activists who are running these organizations are themselves being dishonest. Presumably, they are sincerely attached to the Church but also sincerely believe that its position on certain moral issues is misguided. It might be heretical (although if the Church actually enforced its insistence on not questioning doctrine, it wouldn't have many adherents left!) but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel true to them. I think accusations of duplicity should only be thrown against people and groups that deliberately misrepresent their goals or concerns (such as, again, Republican lawmakers pretending to be very worried about voter fraud as an excuse to pass disenfranchising voting laws).

The accusation of bringing down political discourse with smugness and slander is fair, but as someone who at least implicitly identifies with the "right" you can't just say that while turning a blind eye on the constant shameless lies and hatefulness that go on on "your" side of the debate.

[TJ in Oregon]

Well, yeah, no one denies that there is a good deal of manipulation going on in Hillary's (and every modern presidential candidates's) campaign. The goal of candidates is to win elections, and to do so they often play around with the opinions of people and groups (including religious groups) in somewhat dishonest ways. That said, I think that, even in the example you mentioned, I don't think that the Catholic activists who are running these organizations are themselves being dishonest. Presumably, they are sincerely attached to the Church but also sincerely believe that its position on certain moral issues is misguided. It might be heretical (although if the Church actually enforced its insistence on not questioning doctrine, it wouldn't have many adherents left!) but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel true to them. I think accusations of duplicity should only be thrown against people and groups that deliberately misrepresent their goals or concerns (such as, again, Republican lawmakers pretending to be very worried about voter fraud as an excuse to pass disenfranchising voting laws).

The accusation of bringing down political discourse with smugness and slander is fair, but as someone who at least implicitly identifies with the "right" you can't just say that while turning a blind eye on the constant shameless lies and hatefulness that go on on "your" side of the debate.

The particular example I gave from the Wikileaks (which is linked to the Hillary campaign, but going on long before the current cycle; if anything the person involved has closer connections to Obama than Hillary) is not an instance of the usual sort of dissident groups like "Catholics for Choice" etc. that are quite honest about what they're trying to do. In this case, the Democratic activists started organizations that pretended to be Catholic but with the secret intention of undermining the Church. This is different than the usual sort of activism. It is truly insane to have a political party doing this. I mean, this is the stuff of wacky conspiracy theories. It's the sort of thing Soviet Russia would do.

There is a view among conservatives that the Democrats do all these sorts of machinations while the Republicans sit idly watching and Trump is the first one to try and fight back. There are many things about Trump that are different than the usual Republican, but certainly one of them is that he's the first one in recent memory to fight as dirty as the left. Any high profile person who publicly questions him can expect a torrent of hate directed at them. It's a reminder of how, at least in many circles, in a normal years a high profile person who speaks out against, say gay marriage, will have an avalanche of hate spam directed at them. It's mostly a he-said-she-said sort of argument, but I do have a hard time imagining Mitt Romney's campaign doing the sorts of things Hillary has done. Perhaps I am deluded.

For the point you raised, yes, there are Republicans who use voter ID laws as a political tool to allege fraud and build mistrust of the system, often through race baiting. There are also Democrats who do similar things when voting is concerned. I certainly understand why both sides have the talking points they do on it, but frankly, (and this is a policy argument) there's no reason why we can't come up with a voter ID system that doesn't disenfranchise people by now. I agree there are elements of the right who need to be excised (Trump, Breitbart, Fox News, etc.). I do not support, read, or watch such outlets and would encourage others to do the same.

I would also add that there is something particularly manipulative about left that comes from left wing ideologies because they tend to be consequentialist and advocating for change. It's easy to see why such a combination lends itself to disingenuous advocacy.

[DC Al Fine]

You seem to be giving the left a massive benefit of the doubt while applying a strict standard to the right.

Try to see this from our perspective. What does today's pro-abortion rhetoric look like to an anti-abortion person?

If you're talking about stuff like the "comedians in cars" video, I can certainly see why you'd find it offensive (and I'm myself certainly not a fan of this type of rhetoric). But doesn't that kind of prove my point? Clearly those who made that video are not trying to "hide" anything, they're pretty explicit about the moral framework they are advocating. You might think that moral framework is abhorrent, but you can't accuse its advocates of having hidden intentions.

And, on the other end of the scale, you have plenty of people who simply care about women's well-being, and don't want them to go through severe emotional trauma, and happen to believe that a 2-week embryo is not a person.

No, I'm talking about an apparent double standard. You seem quite willing to ascribe malevolence to parts of the right on a similar basis. Large swathes of the right oppose progressive taxation, or universal healthcare because they don't believe those policies promote human flourishing, but they don't seem to get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "benefit of the doubt" and "double standard". Of course I'm going to think that conservative economic policies are immoral and progressive policies aren't. That's why I'm a progressive in the first place! Now, please let me know when I have said that everybody who supports the former set of policies is evil? Because it's not what I said, in this thread or anywhere else.

You're overstating my argument. All I am saying is that you seem to be more willing to ascribe malevolence to economic rightists. i.e. If a given socialist and a given rightist state their economics, you are more likely to ascribe the rightist with choosing their politics out of self-interest or disliking another group than the left winger.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look, I'm obviously not familiar with what goes on at the local level in the Northeast, but what you are describing is obviously wrong and I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest that I'd be inclined to condoning it. Obviously this still doesn't compare to the GOP, whose main electoral strategy these days is to prevent political opponents from voting.

TJ's come back to defend his argument so I'll just leave it at this: I'm not accusing you personally of malevolence but enough of the left acts this way that we socons have reason to be pessimistic.

[DC Al Fine]

Yeah, there's absolutely bigotry against Evangelicals in large segments of society in the Northeast. I've also heard completely unironic arguments for designating all pro-life organizations as terrorist groups regardless of their rhetoric or tactics.

Wtf? What circles are you running in to get that sort of comment? The worst I've gotten is some bigoted remarks from people who don't know my religion and a 'but you're so smart', when I told someone I'm an Evangelical.

While I'm sure anti-Evangelical bigotry is at least semi-common in my neck of the woods, I've mostly seen it in Hollywood/Comedy Central types.

As an aside, have you ever seen Orange is the New Black? If they portrayed Jews like they do Evangelicals, the Jew's name would be Shylock and he'd be extorting sex from Aryan women or something

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, there's absolutely bigotry against Evangelicals in large segments of society in the Northeast. I've also heard completely unironic arguments for designating all pro-life organizations as terrorist groups regardless of their rhetoric or tactics.

Wtf? What circles are you running in to get that sort of comment? The worst I've gotten is some bigoted remarks from people who don't know my religion and a 'but you're so smart', when I told someone I'm an Evangelical.

In these people's defense they looked a hell of a lot like freshmen. This was overheard in the BU student union a few weeks ago. I mentioned it to one of the only schoolmates of mine who I know is pro-life--herself a twenty-year-old undergrad--and she just rolled her eyes in a deeply twenty-year-old undergrad way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've seen quite a bit of Orange is the New Black and that's one of several reasons why I stopped watching, yeah (along with, oddly enough, similarly albeit probably unintentionally hatchet-job portrayals of bisexual women and butch lesbians).

[I’m not Stu]

No. I am pro-choice, but think abortion should be illegal after 20 weeks; with exceptions for rape, incest, and health reasons.

[Cruzcrew]

It depends on how far reaching the compromise is in terms of ceding ground to liberals. Economic issues I'd be willing to cede but not every single other issue like foreign and social policy.