Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Lots to say about Terry Schiavo, but I'll restrict myself to a few comments.
First off, I'm pissed off that I have to write about this at all. While the Schiavo case is a tragedy, it is ultimately a private tragedy, and it is being exploited by Conservatives in a shameful manner.
It should come as no surprise that the Republican intervention in this case is inconsistent with traditional Republican values. The Republicans are very concerned about the sanctity of marriage, but they show no deference to the marriage of Terry and Michael Schiavo. Republicans believe that peeople should take greater responsibilities for the risks and dangers inherent in life. People should save for their own retirement, have private savings to pay for their medical care, and so forth. But evidently, deciding that you don't want to live in a persistent vegatative state is a decision that deserves no deference, and requires a 13-year battle to affirm.
Why is this inconsistency unsurprising? Becuase we've learned that the Republicans are not about the consistent support of a particular system, method or institution. Rather, they cling to an ideology.
In the Schiavo case, Republicans have attempted to undermine the evidentiary finding that Terry had expressed a wish to die by slinging mud at Michael Schiavo. In a sense, what they are saying is that although in most cases, a husband would be a reliable source of testimony as to his wife's wishes, but Michael Schiavo is untrustworthy because of the particulars of the case - the financial windfall he will receive upon Terry's death, the fact that he took up with another woman only a few months after his wife became a vegetable, and so forth. But if people make poor decisions, isn't it the Republican policy that they pay for their own mistakes? If you run into financial difficulty, Republicans have ensured (with the help of some craven Democrats) that you will not be able to emerge from under the weight of your crushing credit card debt. If Terry Schiavo made a poor decision in marrying Michael, why does she suddenly deserve special government intervention?
What Conservatives are essentially saying is that only good marriages deserve protection and deference. Unfortunately, good marriages are only those which conform to Biblical standards. Michael Schiavo is an adulterer, and thus, his marriage deserves no deference, and never you mind that he only took up with another woman after his wife was rendered a vegetable. The only way it could be worse for him is if he was in a gay marriage! Conservative are not just legislating morality, they are mobilizing the forces of the executive to enforce it, and putting the judiciary under siege in an attempt to coerce judges into ruling based on Evangelical morality. This is very unwise.
I'm heartened that Americans everywhere, by huge margins, have rejected this Republican meddling.
0 comments
First off, I'm pissed off that I have to write about this at all. While the Schiavo case is a tragedy, it is ultimately a private tragedy, and it is being exploited by Conservatives in a shameful manner.
It should come as no surprise that the Republican intervention in this case is inconsistent with traditional Republican values. The Republicans are very concerned about the sanctity of marriage, but they show no deference to the marriage of Terry and Michael Schiavo. Republicans believe that peeople should take greater responsibilities for the risks and dangers inherent in life. People should save for their own retirement, have private savings to pay for their medical care, and so forth. But evidently, deciding that you don't want to live in a persistent vegatative state is a decision that deserves no deference, and requires a 13-year battle to affirm.
Why is this inconsistency unsurprising? Becuase we've learned that the Republicans are not about the consistent support of a particular system, method or institution. Rather, they cling to an ideology.
In the Schiavo case, Republicans have attempted to undermine the evidentiary finding that Terry had expressed a wish to die by slinging mud at Michael Schiavo. In a sense, what they are saying is that although in most cases, a husband would be a reliable source of testimony as to his wife's wishes, but Michael Schiavo is untrustworthy because of the particulars of the case - the financial windfall he will receive upon Terry's death, the fact that he took up with another woman only a few months after his wife became a vegetable, and so forth. But if people make poor decisions, isn't it the Republican policy that they pay for their own mistakes? If you run into financial difficulty, Republicans have ensured (with the help of some craven Democrats) that you will not be able to emerge from under the weight of your crushing credit card debt. If Terry Schiavo made a poor decision in marrying Michael, why does she suddenly deserve special government intervention?
What Conservatives are essentially saying is that only good marriages deserve protection and deference. Unfortunately, good marriages are only those which conform to Biblical standards. Michael Schiavo is an adulterer, and thus, his marriage deserves no deference, and never you mind that he only took up with another woman after his wife was rendered a vegetable. The only way it could be worse for him is if he was in a gay marriage! Conservative are not just legislating morality, they are mobilizing the forces of the executive to enforce it, and putting the judiciary under siege in an attempt to coerce judges into ruling based on Evangelical morality. This is very unwise.
I'm heartened that Americans everywhere, by huge margins, have rejected this Republican meddling.
