Sep 08 2008
There Can Be Only One
I recently read, via Isaac’s shared items, a post about the “myth of multitasking” and it started some thinking. The main thrust of the post is that we say we multitask, but really we’re just really quickly switching back from one thing to another, never really getting anything done
And I thought about that in terms of political incrementalism. Right now most people who are politically active are concerned about a broad base of issues. And there are many important issues out there: school choice, gun rights, abortion, the war, taxes ….
In the 1986 Action/Fantasy film Highlander, a group of “super-beings” has a lone calling of killing one another until there is only one left. “There can be only one!” is the cry as each one is killed, and only by cutting off the opponent’s head. And there can be only one–in that there can be only one thing that is most important.
Only one.
And I agree with Joshua that the choice isn’t even close, when it come to public policy #1: it’s abortion. Everything else is second by a country mile.
I also agree with Seth, that the battleground is not only, or even primarily, the political realm. And I will have more to say about that later on, but right now it’s major political season. The conventions just ended, and the national election is heating up. It’s less than two months away now.
And while “single issue voters” get dissed in the public eye sometimes, you can call me that. Though not really. I have lots of issues, just one that is a dealbreaker. You can’t want to kill babies. None. Not some, not most, not any. Not ones that come from the sin of the father, and not ones that belong to poor people. Nada. And if you’ve ever either helped support the killing of babies or you haven’t supported the end of the killing of babies you’re out. No vote from me. Doesn’t matter who all is on the ticket–I’ll write in “none of the above” if I have to.
There can be only one.
Some may accuse me of not being incremental in my thinking. I am very incremental in my thinking about the public sphere. Incremental in the sense that I think we take one thing at a time. Most of the people who might argue with my version of incrementalism should consider this: If you were a Russian at the time of Staln’s purges and were allowed to vote, would there be any issue to compare to saving the lives of those Stalin threatened daily? If you were living in Georgia, in the antebellum South, would there be any more important issue than the lack of equal treatment under the law to (watch the anachronism here) african-americans? If you were alive in Hitler’s German would there by any issue that even compared to the ongoing slaughter of the Jews?
Likewise there’s no better issue to start with than extending the rights of life and liberty to whom they divinely belong: every human being from conception to death. And if those rights are being denied by legalized murder, it is up to those who say they agree to act NOW and save those lives, by whatever legal means necessary until this scourge of legalized murder is driven from our land.
One S, two A’s.
whoops! Sorry about that. It’s fixed now. I pseld it rite in the linke thoug.
I disagree, but only in strategy. I think that the only way we’ll achieve a reversal of abortion ‘rights’ is incrementally. A partial-birth abortion ban would be a great step. Note that Obama is opposed to such a measure.
A reversal of Roe v. Wade would throw the question back to the States, which is where I believe this should be decided, politically. Imagine how fast the legislature in a state like Utah would move to ban abortions, and how many others would follow (not Illinois, I know, but it’s a step).