By Scott Tibbs, June 23, 2014
In a Typically haughty editorial, New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow bemoans the allegedly increasing partisanship and the allegedly increasing intensity of that partisanship. Then he writes the following:
There are some moral issues on which there can be no ambiguity. For instance, people cannot be treated differently because of the way they were born, developed or identify; women must have access to the full range of reproductive options; and something must be done about the continued carnage of gun violence in this country.
So we need to be flexible and see the other side's point, but we can have no dissent on Blow's pet issues. Right.
Of course, whether the American political system really is worse than it has been in the past is up for debate. Politics has always been a blood sport, and it has always been brutal. Students of history might remember "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!" This was meant to accuse a candidate for President of fathering an illegitimate child - and this was in the 1800's. People today would be truly shocked if the things that were said 200 years ago were said today. But, with a few exceptions, our politics is a blood sport rhetorically. We do not have the real violence and brutality we see in other nations.
But back to what Blow said, on only one of his pet issues: Does he really expect people to agree on the alleged moral imperative to protect the right to abortion? After abortion has been one of the most hot-button issues in this nation for over four decades, the idea that a New York Times columnist would declare the right to have an abortion as an area where no compromise is possible while bemoaning partisanship and ideological rigidity is patently absurd.
Like Blow, I do not believe compromise is possible on abortion. When it comes to allowing human beings to be murdered, and protecting that right under federal law, there can be no compromise if we are serious about protecting basic human rights. It is fine for Blow to believe in the "moral" imperative in protecting the "right" to have an abortion - but he should at least be honest and consistent in what he is saying. You simply cannot bemoan partisanship and ideological rigidity and then demand that your position on the most polarizing issue of the last three generations is sacrosanct. It is absurd hypocrisy.