My Very First Post

Yet another blog? What can be said that hasn't already been said a million times elsewhere in the vastness of the blogosphere? Like the song says: what the world needs now is another blogger like you need a hole in the head, right?

All I can say at the moment is that our official "Mission Statement" will be posted shortly. In the mean time, I have an itch to scratch, which pretty much gets at what I mean to get at generally, for I well and truly think many others in fact are not saying what needs to be said, and some worse than others, which is why the existence of this blog may just be warranted.

Case in Point:

I really liked Josh Marshall's post earlier today, which picks up on the unbelievable reaction in the Muslim world to the publication of some unfortunate cartoons in a Danish newspaper, but . . .

First, we interrupt our regularly scheduled possibly gratuitous sophistry with an explanatory note about Josh: in my view he is probably the most astute political observer around. More important, Josh is not just a blogger; he is in the best sense a chronicler. He identifies the larger themes often at play that most other bloggers and so-called pundits simply do not see. No doubt this is the reason a link to Josh is considered by left-to-moderate bloggers as the final word in political analysis. He is, in short, my favorite blogger and this is my mash note to him.

But Josh isn't perfect.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

In the post to which I refer Josh teases out an interesting, broader narrative from the Danish cartoon flap. After setting the stage by describing the obvious conflict between theocratic impulses and classical liberalism in the world at large, Josh hones in on a similar conflict that has also been developing for some time in God's country, my country of origin, the U.S. of A. This of course really fits in with a broader narrative: a theocrat is a theocrat is a theocrat, and theocrats over there aren't much different from those over here.

To prove that the U.S. is not immune from this disturbing global trend Josh cites the strident militaristic tendencies recently arisen in the U.S. under a Bush administration that demands unquestioning obedience from a frightened populace and a cowed media. He ends with the following:

"It's not the US or the West versus Islam. At least it's not that simple. In any case, the government in this country is too close to illiberalism, militarism and theocracy for that to work as a model. But it is there -- liberalism and authoritarianism, modernity and theocracy."

I couldn't agree more. It is something I've been thinking about for some time. My only quibble is not about Josh's diagnosis but rather the symptom he identifies (militarism) in making the diagnosis.

I think a more obvious symptom is abortion.

Personally, I really can't get too excited about abortion as a moral issue. What is more interesting to me is the very fact that it is a moral issue, perhaps one of the moral issues of our time. Prayer in schools, stone tablets in court houses, sacrificing plastic action figures on stone alters in basements -- they might raise similar issues in terms of how the American government deals with them as a matter of law and as a matter of public policy. Abortion just happens to be the big one that seems to get the most people -- at least in America -- all riled up.

How do essentially secular systems of government deal with issues that are difficult to reduce to secular terms? This is a source of some if not much of the conflicts and tensions of our time. This is what interests me.

So, what is it about abortion? Evidently, according to Supreme Court's reasoning in Roe vs. Wade, there is some magic date at which abortion passes from being legally permissible to becoming impermissible. Whether that date is the commencement of the second or third trimester or somewhere in between hardly matters (at least for purposes of this post). What is interesting is the mere fact the Supreme Court made this determination in the first place. This is (or should be) at the crux of Josh's point about liberalism vs. illiberalism.

The thing about Roe vs. Wade that really chaffs the religious right is the fact the Supreme Court resolved the issue with reference to science, and not to moral values. The constitutional issue -- whether there is a right of privacy -- only has masked the real issue, which was whether the Supreme Court should have respected the moral (really theocratic) impulses of a certain segment of society over the putative interests of others. That the Supreme Court waded into this morass -- instead of leaving the dirty work to state legislatures -- is mainly useful as a rhetorical trump card. In reality, if one follows the logic of the religious right (i.e., all abortion is murder), it doesn't matter whether elected state legislatures or unelected liberals in black robes protect a woman's right to choose.

Who can say with scientific certainty when life begins? Anyone who does, whether on the left or right, is asserting an opinion or a belief. He or she is professing his or her faith and nothing more. With Roe vs. Wade, the Court effectively threw up its hands by saying the only constitutionally appropriate way they could resolve the question was with reference to viability. It is this approach American theocrats cannot accept because Roe vs. Wade was in essence an attempt to resolve a morally charged issue while still respecting the establishment clause.

For this reason, Roe vs. Wade is much bigger than "abortion". It is a marker: over-turning Roe would be huge for the religious right because it would signal a triumph over the forces of liberalism that in their opinion of weakened the moral fiber of America. The religious right would see overturning Roe much as German generals saw breaching enemy lines in a blitzkrieg.

From a secular perspective, in a nation professing the primacy of the rule of law, this is nothing more than thuggery. However, from a theocratic perspective, it is little more than aligning the nation with divine will; and theocrats only wonder what could be wrong with that. The bottom line is this -- and this dovetails with Josh's point about militarism: to the religious right in America, the rule of law, the constitution, etc., are not important. A certain Attorney-General said recently such niceties have been rendered "quaint" and "obsolete"; relics of a bygone era.

This is the reality of the public policy battle under way in America. Much is at stake.