Life is sacred. And we should never deviate from this belief – not even if the radical right agrees with us on this one value.
The life of the poor is sacred, just as the right of the rich is sacred. All life is sacred. There is no life that is worthless. The worth in life, all life, is absolute and sacred.
There can be no move towards making life disposable by corporate medical systems, by uncaring and hateful rightwing governments, and by any and all systems of healing and caring. The job of medical care is to sustain life. Any move towards expediency, any move towards shifting this role from life to death, is a move in the wrong direction.
Life is sacred and we should protect human life.
That said, each person has the absolute right to choose both life – and death. It is your right to live. It is your right to die. And if you choose to die, it is best that your death be the least painful and the most dignified possible.
The right of both – life and death – belong to the individual. Not to the state, not to medical professionals. And the decision to die belongs to the person making the decision. It is not right, in any way, for society to be moving people along in this decision to save money on medical programs, or to remove the disabled from society – or for any other reason. The sole reason to support and assist one’s choice to die is to respect each person’s right to choose in such matters.
I believe that the absolute and undeniable value of all life should be the bedrock principle on issues of death and dying. From this principle should stem safeguards, systems, ethical standards and means of resolving conflicts between the value of life and the value of respecting the right to death. But the correct order is to derive all from the first and foremost value: that of life.
Additionally, I believe that this principle should extend to a consistent expression of the value of life throughout society. There should be no death penalty. Hunger, disease and death from poverty should be overcome. War ended. Poverty ended. Loving care should be provided for all – in all stages of life. Humane systems of care, of pain management, and of death and dying should be central to our entire society. Life is sacred. And we should never deviate from this belief – not even if the radical right agrees with us on this one value.
Beautifully written – and how appropriate on a day like today.
Thanks.
for writing this. If it has ever been said better than that, I missed it.
Thanks.
And highly recommended. Thank you Tom.
thanks.
Black or white, yellow or brown, rich or poor, gay or straight, man or woman. The radical right could learn alot from your diary. So could some on the left, in terms of what we should be insisting on and fighting for.
You said it beautifully.
thanks.
As usual I’ll be critical.
Why do you say “I agree with Bush”? Do you think Bush really believes the same as you do about the value of life after he starts a criminal war (three criminal wars actually) that has killed a quarter million people? After he mocked that woman on death row for asking for clemency? When you know the right loves the death penalty? Hates the idea of universal health care?
Perhaps your title was intended to be provocative by sarcasm.
No doubt you would say that pointing out Bush and the right are pro-death is negative campaigning and you’re against it. As you know I dispute that negative campaigning isn’t both moral and pragmatic. If they tell lies we need to call them on it. Calling themselves pro-life is a lie.
Calling out the Republicans’ lies is a natural way to talk about our principles while showing they have no principles. For example with Shiavo there’s the obvious question about universal health care, aid for starving children in the third world, conditions of war in Iraq where the rate of hunger has doubled and so on.
Our response to them claiming to be pro-life should be “You are not pro-life, we are pro-life…. (issues, examples)”.
This means (1) their well established “pro-life” brand is compromised (2) the corporate media might actually have to report on issues and facts instead of a slogan if there’s the same slogan used by both sides (3) it will irritate the piss out of them which will make them try to prove we are wrong — which is a poor strategy for them (they can’t argue issues well, they do better with slogans and grandstanding).
Don’t you think though, that being pro-life means being anti-soldier? If you are pro-life you have to be against those who are paid to take life.
I say that I agree with Bush because Americans who also agree with him might be receptive to the message I’ve constructed, because it robs Bush of a distinction, and because those who don’t agree with him shouldn’t care that I am making use of this rhetorical device.
Bush says he is for life. I take him at face value – and make that something that we don’t disagree on. Then I shift the issue to one of the right to choose when and how to die. Bush and I disagree on this – and my position is more in line with the values of most Americans. I am now on friendly turf.
Had I said Bush is a liar – he doesn’t really support life, then I couldn’t have said (clearly) the point I wanted to say: The issue is not about life (we agree on that) – but about right to die as well.
Additionally, the charges against Bush are all there. They are implied – which allows the reader to reach their own conclusions. This will better deflect cognitive dissonance.
Why not say: You are not pro-life, we are pro-life — because the better way to say it is – We are pro-life and this is what it means; and to ALSO say that Bush is not pro-life. You say both – but usually not in the same utterance. Putting them together puts the statements in the wrong (almost conflicting) context.
Don’t you think though, that being pro-life means being anti-soldier? If you are pro-life you have to be against those who are paid to take life. Well, there you go. That sounds like a winning frame. Here is how I tackle that. One, I don’t make the statement you’ve made – ever. Second, what I say is that (1) there is moral value of peace (2) all persons have the right to not be forced to fight in illegal and immoral war (3) that choice is a personal, complex moral choice that each soldier must make and (4) while the choice rests with each soldier, the blame rests on those in power — the soldiers are victims of war when they are used as pawns by the rich, greedy and powerful.
The reluctance of Democrats to call Bush a liar is one of the things that I would include in that frustration which you refer to elsewhere and ask, “Why don’t they call him on his lies?”
But here you are doing it so I can ask you why. Certainly, as with a lot of your ideas you justify this on the basis of an appeal to pragmatism over truth. I am concerned because I think truth is very pragmatic. I have seen people tip toe around Bush’s lies for years and Bush knows perfectly how to play their reluctance to call him on his hypocrisy and insincerity. Do you acknowledge these defects and say that trying to con Bush supporters into thinking you are on their side for two seconds (which I understand to be the reason for the pretense, “I say that I agree with Bush because Americans who also agree with him might be receptive to the message”) is so important that you are willing to sacrifice them?
IMO backing up Bush’s lies is far far too much to give up. This is what 40-odd Democrat congressmen did recently in voting with the Republicans. What did it get them? Bush used them as cover when things went badly for him. he did the same with the war by pointing to Democrats agreeing with him. He would do the same with your words. You allow him to state that “even Tom Kertes says I’m pro-life. Would he lie?”
Well yes, as it turns out he would.
You also sacrifice the title to hopefully make gains later on. I think the title words are the most important for recal and for framing. If you start out by handing Bush a moral victory by calling him pro-life then you have a lot of catching up to do. I think you may never make it up.
Here’s another point: do you think for one second that Bush would return the favour? The Republicans would not. They would call you a murderer even if they knew it was a lie —- as Tom DeLay said in so many words of Michael Shiavo recently on national TV. Now these guys lie of course but they do know about how to win and we should tell the truth to immitate their tactics instead of lying to refuse to.
“the charges against Bush are all there. They are implied”
I don’t think it works that way. I think you have to say what you really want to say and say it a lot. You can’t say the opposite and hope people will pick up on a subtle dissonance. The best way to call Bush a liar is to call Bush a liar and then repeat. Look at what they did to Al Gore. Once again their tactics but we would be telling the truth not making stuff up.
I’m drawing these analogies to Republican attacks because you value pragmatism but as I say the truth is a moral value all by itself.
“the better way to say it is – We are pro-life and this is what it means”
That is not what the Republicans would do. I don’t think it works because people don’t hear the “what it means” bit. Republicans repeat empty solgans and grandstand without principle. We should utter slogans too but slogans full of truth and meaning – but slogans nevertheless – in fact their slogans since they are truly ours.
Could you address what I said where I said that holding the same slogan and contradicting the Republicans would force the media to cover the “what it means” better?
At some point we will no doubt reach the point where we simply disagree on what is practical but I would like to know why you seem to disagree with Republican practise — since they seem very good at this. They are kicking the Dems ass without even any meat behind the smoke and mirrors.
Agreed BUT what does it mean to say that? What does it imply about the current state of politics in the US that you can’t make a perfectly obvious moral statement like saying that people who kill people for money are bad? What it means to me is that Republicans are drawing on a very successful frame they have laid which makes it hard for lefties to support a pro-life principle without constantly hitting this. Ignoring this will not make it go away. ADDING to it will only make things worse. How can this frame (the heroic soldier) be attacked and eliminated? You seem to feel that it should either be avoided (run away!) or that lefties should compromise their principles so as to pretend to agree that soldiers are heroes.
Again to refer to Republican tactics when they attack someone they attack their strengths and not their weaknesses. At any rate there is more to be said here than “It’s not pragmatic to attack the soldiers – even if what you say is true”
Bush is a liar. Here are are a few of different contexts in which I have said that — all for middle and conservative audiences. I am not against saying “Bush is a liar” — I just didn’t say it in this diary because I felt that the context for making that point was wrong. In the case of Terri – this is not time for making what may seem like unrelated points. That’s my point.
Here are the examples:
http://draftfreedom.org/happiness.html
The American experiment continues, with the rights and freedoms promised by our founders continually being expanded to include all Americans. Throughout our history there has been a constant struggle to realize the dream of America. When slavery was ended, when women were allowed to vote, when Jim Crow was defeated – America moved closer to its promise.
The founders knew that a few corrupt people could overtake the republic and use the power of government to harm citizens. It is the duty of each American to stand guard for our rights and freedoms. That’s why we must ask if government is overextending its powers, in violation of our basic rights and freedoms.
This becomes a more pressing question in times of war. Does the government have the power to force its youngest citizens to fight in an illegal war and occupation? While most agree that the country should have the power to protect itself from foreign enemies, few extend this power to that of conquest. That’s why it matters that Iraq never invaded (nor intended to invade) America.
And that’s why it matters that the government lied about its reasons for war. Because if this war is not a true war of defense, then the government has no authority to force its citizens to fight in the war.
http://americansagainstthedraft.com
Non-defensive wars are morally wrong. People should not be killed for a war of aggression by another country. It is morally wrong for the administration to call on our soldiers to fight a war of aggression. Iraq was not a direct threat to the United States. No matter how terrible things were before the invasion, America did not have the legal or moral right to invade Iraq. America does not now have the right to occupy Iraq.
By invading and occupying Iraq illegally, George Bush has forced our soldiers to make a tough decision. Each soldier must ask him or herself: Is this war moral? Is my participation in this war moral? more
And that’s why it matters that George Bush is lying about the reasons for invading and occuying Iraq.
George Bush used our fear of terrorism to wage a war of agression against a country that had nothing to do with September 11th.
It is morally wrong and dangerous to invade countries and to conduct wars of agression. It is even more wrong to compell citizens to fight such wars.
No American – not drafted, not enlisted – should be forced to fight an immoral and illegal war.
We discuss pragmatic ways of phrasing and framing things – your sincerity and opinions of Bush are not in doubt. In fact you are very outspoken on this sort of thing which is one reason I like reading your stuff (and I only heard of this place through your dKos profile).
I guess I come over a bit harsh sometimes 🙂
and you analysis is always very carefully considered. I enjoy engaging with you a great deal.
Most of my diaries are here now – and I thinkk you may be more at home here than at dKos — consider stopping by.
TK
… Shakespeare’s construct in this speech is indeed timeless …
and so it is not the right vehicle for us to make points about Bush and his lies. That’s my point.
I am not against saying: “Bush is a liar. Bush’s values are immoral. Bush tricks Americans with his lies.”
I think that these messages are essential. But it is not essential that they be attached to all issues – and it is often best to not use the radical right’s message vehicles to make our points.
My concern is that we are playing into their hands. The right has been building on this issue for a long time. They are constructing a narrative – and the best way to deal with that is to make sure that the narrative is not that liberals don’t care about the values being exploited by the right.
Yes – calling Bush a liar is a good way to get that point across. And it would be very good to have done it more when he was up for election. It would be very good to be doing it in the context of an impeachment campaign. But doing it in the context of this issue is not effective.
There are times when it is best to imply, times when it is best to be explicit. Times when it matters what frame you are working in, and times when it doesn’t.
But there is NEVER a time to be reactive. And that is what this Terri issue represents of the Left. Reactivity. (and for some, opportunism — which I have no problem with, but only when we are using opportunities that we constructed ourselves)
Additionally, if all we say is that Bush is a liar, and we say this in the context of values debates constructed by the right – when will we talk about our positive vision and our values? In the context of a values debate (like the Terri issue) it is best to talk values, and to talk about your values – not those of the other side. When attacking, attack — but attack when the value is over peace, or world rule of law, etc. Where is that debate? Who on the Left is pushing that debate? That is the debate we need to be having – and we need to start having it on our terms.
Are you saying you generally think it would be a good idea to directly attack Bush but not in this particular case? And why this case? This seems like the very best case to attack them on. Over in Freeperville they are already attacking Bush for his dishonesty and lack of sincerity. It’s a gift. Or do you mean that you wouldn’t have figured it would turn out this way ahead of time?
Looking at all the facts which came up to prove their hypocrisy – Bush signing that Texan law, DeLay pulling the plug on his own own dad, and the fact that Shiavo’s dad killed his mom as well as the comment made by their lawyer about it bing a “cruel hoax” — the issue is a minefield for them. They get away with it only because no one calls their bluff IMO.
I don’t understand why it’s bad to be reactive – especially when you are the opposition and when the other side control the media to such an extent. In a sense you have to be reactive because they set the agenda. It’s either react or capitulate.
When do we talk about values? When do we need to? There’s nothing to explain. Peace is pretty self-explanatory. Justice is pretty self-explanantory. You never see a Repunblican try to explain the principles – in their case by necessity of course, but it’s clearly effective.
Sure we should do it but is it a priority?
There will never be an honest debate – that’s a fantasy. Certainly there was never a debate over Shiavo. It will never pay them to honestly debate and so there will never be a debate. We can’t force them into that although as I said above if we take their slogans we might just irritate them so much they fall into the trap of a real debate, and the media might push it as a means to get back to the he-said / she-said if they can’t say “they are pro-life and they are pro-choice”.
Pro-life and freedom to choose.
My governor (Arkansas, term-limited) is a Southern Baptist minister. He said, “There’s a larger issue in play and that is the whole issue of the definition of life,” said Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican. “The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don’t think we can have 50 different definitions of life.”
To me, the beginning and end of life are mysteries. As far as I know, neither science nor the Bible defines them. These people want to take that upon themselves! To me that’s terrifying. They could make laws based on their definitions, and there would be no right to die (or abortion).
No one I know wants to have their life defined by politicians.
The question of defining life is an endless one. But of respecting life, and of respecting each person’s choices in life and death are not. The right likes endless debates – since they can keep their base spinning with them.
Who said we didn’t think all life is sacred? The lunatic liars on light wing ladio?
Are their accusations really worthy of being addressed?
I don’t think this diary is in the least bit defensive. It is an assertion of my core values.
The repugs won by indoctrinating the folks out there that they and the election were all about values. Somehow that tricked people to believe their opponents, the democrats, challenging Bush was also challenging the values professed by Bush.
So now it’s play-catch-up-time: Sure, we Democrats have values too!
But. And this is how the game is played. “Values” are now so 2004. You’re catching up to late and the folks have moved on. And the repugs know it. Now they’re playing with some new catch-phrase which you’ll eventually start playing catch-up to too.
What I’m saying is you’re being to reactive. People sense this and dismiss it. They so love being mesmerized by something new and the repugs opportunisticly provide it for them.
Rather than catching up to every opportunistic play by the rethugs you have to be genuine.
Start by turning mute to rethug spin, develop your own framework and put it to the public step by step. Don’t be distracted by rethug spin. Work over their heads. Eventually people will start to listen and choose what is sane.
The Republicans have used “pro-life” for a long time. I’m not sure why you see it as just the latest gimmick (it is a gimmick but a longstanding one).
I asked Tom why “reactive” was bad. I don’t understand it.
You suggest that Dems playing the “pro-life” card would be seen as disengenous. Perhaps at first. But since we genuinely are pro-life and they are not we can swing that without much difficulty. Just stick with it.
Nothing I can add, I totally agree with you. Thank you.
the radical right agrees with the principle, the practice utterly eludes them.
your diary inspired me to write one – ‘right to life, right to choose’ –
i put it at dkos as i’m so new here, and want to fathom my surroundings a bit.