Ann Althouse has recently written on ha blog about attendin' a conference sponsored by da Liberty Fund about da writings of Frank S, know what I'm sayin'? Meyer n' shit. One of da topics durin' da weekend wuz da issue of State's Rights n' shit. Meya supported da idea of federalism 'n State's Rights, 'n so did apparently many of da Libertarian 'n Conservative attendees of da conference, man. Althouse wrote:
Ah be struck .., man. by how deeply 'n seriously libertarians 'n conservatives believe in they ideas, man. I'm used to da way lefties 'n liberals take themselves seriously 'n how deeply they believe n' shit. Me, Ah find true believers strange 'n -- if they has powa -- frightening.
Durin' lata posts 'n a runnin' dialog wid Jonah Goldberg tha byatch explains dat dis primarily refers to da fact dat da libertarians 'n conservatives failed to recognize they responsibility to repudiate da real world (evil) effects dat da ideology of State's Rights has had, know what I'm sayin'? In effect tha byatch be arguin' dat since those who supported slavery 'n Jim Crow used da idea of State's Rights to support they position, every time someone rises to argue fo da idea of State's Rights, they has a duty to repudiate slavery 'n Jim Crow.
Jonah Goldberg correctly rejects this, man. Tha dude correctly identifies dis as unfair to those on da Right, but fails to mad develop any arguements to support tha dude's position, man. In some comments submitted to Althouse's blog, Ah try to develop some of these missin' arguements, 'n I'm goin' to extend 'em here.
1) First of all, da idea of State's Rights be literally fundamental to our Republic, know what I'm sayin'? Our whole system of government wuz predicated on da idea dat da federal government wuz subordinate to da States, know what I'm sayin'? Dis be explicitly laid out in our Constitution, man. There wuz naw arguement prior to da Civil War dat da State's Rights position held primacy, 'n wuz seen as a moral good, know what I'm sayin'? Dat shit be only afta da Civil War dat da idea of Nationalism takes control, 'n be seen as morally superior, know what I'm sayin'? For da last 150, we has seen a struggle between these competin' ideas, wid da Right usually supportin' State's Rights or federalism, 'n da Left supportin' nationalism n' shit. (an interestin' aside: before da Civil War our nation wuz almost always referred to in da plural, da United States are, man. Afta da Civil War dat shit be almost exclusively da singular, da United States is.)
2) Our nation has been makin' compromises wid da evil of slavery since before its founding n' shit. Our Constitution wuz forced to make accomodations fo it, 'n some of da 'mo important early pieces of legislation be compromises ova da issue, man. Ah argue dat da taint on da idea of State's rights produced by da supporters of slavery (and lata segregation) be just anotha one of these accomodations our nation has been forced to make.
3) Dis "duty" to repudiate also seems to be exclusively da purview of da Right n' shit. Dat shit be clearly a strategy of da Left to force da Right to behave defensively as much as possible, man. Thus while da Right be forced to repudiate (and punishes) Sen, man. Lott fo tha dude's remarks apparently supportin' racism, da Left be allowed to continue to support Sen, man. Biden 'n Sen n' shit. Clinton afta they blatently racist remarks, know what I'm sayin'? Dat shit be simply undeniable dat naw Republican could has survived makin' da kind of racist remarks dat da two Democratic senators did, know what I'm sayin'? Republicans be forced to defend they handlin' of da Foley scandal, even though they forced Foley to resign, man. Yet few muthas in da national media brought up da case of Gerry Studds, who not only survived tha dude's much worse scandal 'n continued to serve as a Democrat in Congress, but wuz rewarded wid a sub-committee chairmanship n' shit. When a Republican president attempted to obstruct justice while in office, tha dude wuz forced to resign by Republicans n' shit. When a Democratic president attempted to obstruct justice while tha dude wuz in office, da Democratic party defended him, know what I'm sayin'? When a Conservative nominee fo da Supreme Court wuz accused of sexual harassment, tha dude wuz pilloried by da Left (specifically feminists such as NOW) n' shit. When a Republican Senator wuz accused of sexual harassment 'n sexual assault, tha dude wuz hounded out of office by da Left, man. (specifically feminists such as NOW), know what I'm sayin'? When a Democratic president wuz proven to has committed sexual harassment 'n sexual assault, tha dude wuz supported 'n defended by da Left, know what I'm sayin'? (specifically feminists such as NOW) Da outright 'n blatent hypocrisy of da Left in these cases be astounding, but yet da Left still manages to consistently force da Right to behave defensively n' shit. Althouse's position on State's Rights be just anotha example of this.
4) Otha ideas has resulted in real world effects dat be considered evil, man. Althouse herself cites da case of communism:
Imagine a left-win' conference goin' 9 hours talkin' about Karl Marx's ideas 'n disqualifyin' discussion of da evils wrought in da name of communism.
Well as Ah 'n anotha commentor point out in ha comments, dis be usually precisely what happens, man. As pointed out, da most repeated phrase eva uttered in da history of economic theory is: "true marxism has neva been tried!"
Ah myself attempted to develop an arguement concernin' abortion; 'n eugenics, know what I'm sayin'? Da Left embraces da premise dat there be a fundamental Right to has an abortion, know what I'm sayin'? Many of da early pioneers of da movement to legalize abortion believed in eugenics, 'n in usin' abortion to furtha they aims, know what I'm sayin'? Margaret Sanger, who founded da organization dat would become Planned Parenthood, explicitly advocated usin' abortion to improve humanity, man. Today, proponents of abortion make explicitly eugenic arguements to support abortion n' shit. Da most frequent 'n widely approved arguement be dat there would be millions 'mo criminals today except fo abortion n' shit. Dis arguement be set forth in da book Freakonomics, know what I'm sayin'? As Ramesh Ponnuru points out in tha dude's book Party of Death, in a papa dat eventually led to Freakonomics, dat shit be acknowledged dat da arguement be based on race:
abortion disproportionally effects Black children
crimes be committed disproportionally by Blacks
therefore crime be reduced by reducin' da Black population
Imagine someone on da Right tryin' to make dis arguement n' shit. Dat shit be explicitly racist 'n eugenic n' shit. Many on da Left also point out dat abortion reduces da numba of handicapped children born as a justification fo abortion, man. Again, dis be an explicitly eugenic arguement, know what I'm sayin'? In da real world abortion disproportionally effects da poor 'n minorities, which be exactly what muthas like Sanga intended.
So we see da idea of a right to abortion not only resultin' in real world eugenic effects, we also see da Left explicitly embracin' these effects as a justification fo abortion, know what I'm sayin'? Naw one on da Right embraced segregation as a justification fo State's rights.
So, we be eitha left to assume dat da Left sees eugenics as a positive good, or da Left ignorin' da real world effects of an idea based on a "deep belief in an idea".
5) So ma question fo Althouse is:
Does da Left has to explicitly repudiate eugenics, 'n da real world eugenic effects of abortion, wheneva they discuss, defend 'n support da idea of a right to abortion? If not, why not?
Labels: blogs, Politics, Race