Pages

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

"The Party of Death"

John Derbyshire of the National Review, whose homophobic bigotry I cannot stand, has written a review of his NR colleague Ramesh Ponnuru's new book The Party of Death, an antichoice screed that belongs somewhere in a previous century (and I don't mean the Twentieth). It must have come as a sharp slap across the face to Ponnuru, a delightful notion on any day. Derbyshire's bigotry notwithstanding, a few excerpts deserve wider passage, under the philosophical principle that sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be your friend, if you only agree to hold your nose:
The word “polemical” needs emphasizing. Some people would say that a writer who refers to embryos as “the young,” to Mrs. Schiavo as “disabled,” or to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment as having carefully pondered its implications for abortion, is just plain dishonest.... In fact, Ponnuru has nothing to say at all about the monstrous character assassination, carried out by utterly unscrupulous RTL propagandists, of a decent man [Michael Schiavo] who coped humanely and well with a terrible life calamity. Well, not quite nothing: “It cannot be denied that pro-lifers were guilty of some excesses,” Ponnuru murmurs. Some excesses? I would say. Here the author sounds like nothing so much as a Soviet Communist Party apparatchik, circa 1960, offering a grudging admission that Stalin and his cronies might, just once or twice, have been a tad over-zealous in dealing with class enemies.
and
Yet it remains the case that our Constitution does not permit the framing of laws based on the peculiar tenets of any religion or sect, and Party of Death is obviously inspired by religious belief. The philosophical passages strictly follow the Golden Rule of religious apologetics, which is: The conclusion is known in advance, and the task of the intellectual is to erect supporting arguments. It would be an astounding thing, just from a statistical point of view, if, after conducting a rigorous open-ended inquiry from philosophical first principles, our author came to conclusions precisely congruent with the dogmas of the church in which he himself is a communicant. Yet that is the case, very nearly, with Party of Death. Remarkable! What if, after all that intellectual work, all that propositional algebra, all those elegant syllogisms, the author had come to the conclusion that abortion was not such a bad thing after all? I suppose he would have been plunged into severe psychic distress. Fortunately there was never the slightest chance of this happening.
and
For RTL is, really, just another species of Political Correctness, just another manifestation of the intellectual pathology, the hypertrophied and academical egalitarianism, the victimological scab-picking, the gaseous sentimentality. that has afflicted our civilization this past forty years. We have lost our innocence, traded it in for a passel of theorems. The RTL-ers are just another bunch of schoolmarms trying to boss us around and to diminish our liberties. Is it wrong to have concern for fetuses and for the vegetative, incapable, or incurable? Not at all. Do we need to do some hard thinking about the notion of personhood in a society with fast-advancing biological capabilities? We surely do. (And I think Party of Death contributes useful things to that discussion.) Should we let a cult of theologians, monks, scolds, grad-school debaters, logic-choppers, and schoolmarms tell us what to do with our wombs, or when we may give up the ghost, or when we should part with our loved ones? Absolutely not! Give me liberty, and give me death!
As anyone who has ever made a life-or-death decision knows, these issues are difficult enough already, and they don't need any nebshit, pipsqueak busybodies poking their noses in over their heavy shoulders every step of the way. So Derbyshire's elaborate "fuck off" is appropriate and appreciated, and here's hoping that the next time some National Review asshole comes out with a book whose title is chosen to appeal to the absolute least common denominator of this fucked-up craven country, one of his colleagues will again have the audacity to call his shit out and stomp a bit of it back in his face.

No comments:

Post a Comment