Letters to the Editor
bystander
Published Letters: 1348
-
ordering priorities/preferences
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I loathe grocery shopping. When I want a jar of pickles I hate being confronted with 25 types of pickles. And, as I go through the list of things I want to buy, I am repeatedly confronted with more choices than I care to make. So, I simplify the process by narrowing the range of the choice. Pick an attribute; brand, price, size/amount, whatever. Select on that attribute. Economic theory, in it's simplest form, makes the assumption (recall the quip about assume a can opener) that people's preferences can be represented by non-intersecting curves. Not in my life, unfortunately. Ask me to explain my grocery selection, and it is quickly revealed that I am more rationalizing than rational.
So it can be with political choices. Except they're a lot more complex and final/deterministic. It's much easier to select on a single closely held attribute. It's called single trait selection in animal husbandry, equally complex, and it leads to all manner of problems to the point where breeders can make a species non-viable. And, I think folks can simplify the complexities of political choice by focusing on single position any candidate might adopt. And, it's really easy to select against a single position that hits you square between the eyes. I ask myself, would I trade my position on a pregnancy I'd be forced to endure (and, that is how I'd see it - a 9 month hijacking of my body, with the attendant medical unknowns) for a million Iraqi lives? It would be wildly ego-dystonic for me to answer, yes. As much as I would abhor the thought of going back to back street abortions... but... wait... Is that really the choice?
Since the days of back street abortions we've witnessed pharmaceutical advances in birth control methods. A destigmatization of unmarried motherhood. Women's advances in education and employment opportunities. And, a whole array of other psycho-social-economic-cultural shifts that make today's landscape different than when Roe-Wade was argued. And, if it devolves to the states, would all states make the same choice? And, if mobility to exercise a choice were a barrier, can I not imagine a process (underground railroad?) that might develop in response to those constraints on choice? I could continue to spool this out, but I think I've made my point.
Where does a President's influence really lie? Fairly recently, some Freakanomics writer in the NY Times blogged the theme that it really doesn't matter who the President is. Wow. Given our collective experience with GWBush, I thought it was an off-the-freakin'-wall assertion. But, was it? Did not our collective experience of the past 7 years require Bush, Cheney, Addington, etc, and House and Senate members to get where we are now? Yes, the President can very much influence Supreme Court appointments. And, Bush did precisely what I thought he'd do, which is part of the reason I voted for Gore and then Kerry. (Please, Justice Souter, do NOT retire any time soon as you have threatened to do. Please!)
Would I trade my right to an abortion (if I pick that single position attribute) for a loss of habeas corpus and other assaults on the Constitution, and a war in Iran? I sincerely hope I'm woman enough, have skirt enough, to make the trade. My feelings begin to shift when you deny me access to sex education, any form of birth control and, in addition, force me to sit through daily religious indoctrination sessions, and shoot immigrants crossing our border with Mexico on sight. Toss in Paul's simply AMAZING ideas about money and my head begins to spin. But, that wasn't Glenn's point. Ron Paul provides me with a profound array of reasons not to want him as President. Some things he would have a lot of influence over, others he'd have only a little influence, and some not at all. I need to keep that straight in my head.
I dislike that Glenn has selected an issue for his objective instruction which strikes hard at only ~50% of the population. Personally, I would have preferred Glenn choose an issue that settles more or less equally on both sexes [Strong words for Glenn on this point were redacted]. However, given abortion is the one Glenn selected, it's the one I went with. Also, when it comes to abortion, I can speak only for myself. I view this issue as so intensely personal, and so intensely private, the *only* way I could face the trade I've described is with my one lonely vote.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't "select" this issue. [...] Maybe all Democratic Senators are indifferent to the rights of women. Are they?
You're right. You didn't select this issue. My bad. And, no I don't think all Democratic Senators are indifferent to the rights of women. Especially, since some of them are women.