A Pleasingly Pitiless Review
[posted by Leonard]
(In which I read NRO so you don’t have to.) As you may be aware, National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru just published a book, The Party of Death, about the the prolife movement and its opponents as he sees them. Most conservatives have touted Party warmly, and have, I think with some justice, called for reviews of it by liberals and/or the mainstream press. So far as I know, there have not been any of these. So the NRO types are trying to make something of that, basically that the left is “afraid of the arguments” in the book, or that sort of thing.
Now, I have not read the book. But as far as I can tell from reading reviews by those who have, the book does not discuss the idea that rights inhere only in brains of sufficient complexity. So it appears to me that I’d get little out of Party, since Ponnuru doesn’t seem to address what I regard as the key issue. But who knows, maybe someone will set me straight on that. I continue to read reviews of it now and again, to see if someone will give me a reason I’d want to read it.
Which brings us to John Derbyshire’s recent review of Party. The title of his review, A Frigid and Pitiless Dogma, should tell you what you need to know about it. Let’s check the lede:
Can Right to Life (hereinafter RTL) fairly be called a cult? This is a point on which I cannot make up my mind. Some of the common characteristics of culthood are missing—the Führerprinzip, for example. On the other hand, RTL has the following things in common with every cult in the world: To those inside, it appears to be a structure of perfect logical integrity, founded on unassailable philosophical principles, while to those outside… it seems to some degree nutty; to some other degree hysterical; and to some yet other degree a threat to liberty.
The Derb does find parts of the book he agrees with, as well as parts that seem genuinely valuable, such as its discussion of abortion in common law. (I’d also like to read about that.) But generally, in his understated way, he rips Ponnuru apart. Check this:
Part Two opens with a discussion of euthanasia, with several references to the Schiavo case. To Ponnuru’s credit, even he seems a little embarrassed by the freak show that surrounded Mrs. Schiavo’s last days… [but] Ponnuru has nothing to say at all about the monstrous character assassination, carried out by utterly unscrupulous RTL propagandists, of a decent man who coped humanely and well with a terrible life calamity. Well, not quite nothing: “It cannot be denied that pro-lifers were guilty of some excesses,” Ponnuru murmurs. Some excesses? I would say. Here the author sounds like nothing so much as a Soviet Communist Party apparatchik, circa 1960, offering a grudging admission that Stalin and his cronies might, just once or twice, have been a tad over-zealous in dealing with class enemies. Perhaps I should add here that after reading three [new books about the Sciavo case], I came away more convinced than ever that Michael Schiavo is a good man criminally traduced by brutal, unprincipled RTL fanatics, from whose number, on the evidence of this chapter, Ponnuru cannot with certainty be excluded.
Ouch! Or, this:
What the poll numbers suggest to me is that the moral philosophy of the people of the United States is—as is, I would guess, that of people pretty much anywhere else—basically pagan, with a couple of thin coats of vague religiosity painted over it. … Our preferred method for dealing with the unpleasant side of life, including topics like abortion and euthanasia, is to think about them as little as possible. … Perhaps this is not humanity at its most noble, but [it’s human].
A corollary, though Ponnuru seems unaware of it, is that people who are obsessively interested in these topics seem, to the rest of us, a bit creepy.
Zing!
As the Derb (a Brit by birth) says in the review:
A great British opinion journalist once described his skill set as “the vituperative arts.” This attitude, which I share, is widely held across the Pond, but is not very popular here in what Florence King calls the Republic of Nice.
Zingers aplenty, and a good review, too. Plenty of interesting ideas in the review not directly discussed in the book, for example, a discussion of the religious character of the RTL movement, and a discussion of the psychology of medical caregivers. I got more out of this one review than all of the others that have been linked off of NRO combined (and they are legion). I strongly doubt there’s many (any?) hardcore prolifers reading UO, so, the review itself is largely preaching to the choir. But how about this for a ringing declaration of liberal values:
We [”normal” non-RTLers] feel that an adult woman’s life, even a few months of it, is worth more than that of a hardly-formed fetus; and that the vigorous, usefully-employed, merrily procreating Michael Schiavo has a life, a life, more worthy of the name than had the incurably insensate relict of his spouse. Those like Ponnuru who think differently are working against the grain of human nature, against our feelings—yes, our feelings—about what life is. The life of a newly-formed embryo, or of a brain-damaged patient who has shown no trace of consciousness for fifteen years, is worth just as much as the life of a healthy adult, Ponnuru insists. Well, most of us instinctively but emphatically disagree, and no amount of argumentative ingenuity is likely to change our minds.
Sometimes I have no idea how this guy manages not to be purged at NRO. For balance, though, all you need to do is read his ideas on the war against Islam, and you’ll know why. (I.e., this.)
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 8, 2006 @ 10:56 am
I used to really dislike John Derbyshire, but these days he’s the only NRO writer I’m at all sympathetic to. He makes no effort whatsoever to conceal his racism and sexism, and in a strange way that’s just less insulting than the smarmy hypocrisy of their other writers. (I also have to admit that his sneering contempt for the creationists is entertaining.)
Comment by Grant —
June 8, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Derbyshire is a sort of relic — in these days of funky-cons and neo-cons and cruchy-cons, he’s a plain old grouchy-con. The sort of conservative that I always imagined conservatives would be: Practical, avuncular, and occasionally openly and guilelessly heartless; motivated less by some grand socially transforming ideology than by a plain old grumpy they-oughtn’t-to-do-that-dangit curmudgeonliness.
I suspect that the NRO keeps him around for basically that reason — he’s a living relic of what we all once imagined conservatives were. Like a telegraph among iPods, he gets a message through, however haltingly, and forces people to unplug and grudgingly listen for a moment.
I may disagree with his arguments often to near the bring of seething fury, but he’s always a treat to read.
Comment by Doctor Memory —
June 8, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
Much like late-stage Christopher Hitchens, the Derb’s occasional moments of lucidity mostly serve to throw his seriously batshit crazy baseline personality into sharp relief.
Comment by Jaybird —
June 8, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
On Redstate, I actually got into one hell of an argument over this book.
From everything that I’ve read about it, it seems more a book intended to reassure the base than a book intended to convert the heathen. I came out and said so.
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/1/124012/2153
Read all about it there. I’m Birdmojo, the first commenter.
Comment by bbartlog —
June 8, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Batshit crazy? Dunno about you, but Amanda Marcotte comes across to me crazier than Derbyshire there… his review is a little rambling, but the response gins up a legion of straw men (and contradicts itself, sometimes in adjacent paragraphs) all while maintaining an outrage strangely out of place in a response to a book review. The irony of course is that they both love the book, but in this case it seems that slight differences in interpretation have led to a venomous contempt.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
June 8, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
I wanted to pick briefly at one point in Derbyshire’s review, that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would leave the matter open to the states. I used to be somewhat sympathetic to that, and remain fond of federalism. But obviously under the Republican Party as it’s now constituted, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be followed by federal decree immediately, with no room at all for state debate. Everything in the recent history of federalism points to this. (The other thing that changed my mind is the explanations by P.Z. Myers and others of what hardships state-level bans create, but that’s a separate point.)
Comment by Leonard —
June 8, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Bruce, I’m curious why you think that. Sure, I think a repeal of Roe would see some additional Federal level legislation. But certainly not a full ban, or anything like it. I don’t think the Federal courts would want to get much involved. So it would remain a legislative fight and possible a state-level judicial one.
It would also totally energize the Democratic party as a prochoice party. It is that now, of course, minus the energy.
Comment by V. Von Doom, Ph.D. —
June 8, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
There’s an argument that I’ve seen on the internets that gets to the heart of the RTL discussion.
There’s a fire at the fertility clinic, and you, a volunteer fireman (Jim will love this for obscure - superhero reasons) rush in. You see a five year old girl in one corner, about to be overcome by smoke. There is in another corner a freezer, conatining five fertilized eggs, awaiting implantation.
You can only save one - the girl or the Petri dishes. Which one do you chose?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 8, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Doctor Memory: wow, that link to Berube’s page really reminded me why ”fisking” is such a dead end as a narrative form. It leads you to lose your interpretive charity, and that makes you sound angry and stupid. One of the most dangerous intellectuals in America ought to be able to do better than that.
Jaybird: thanks for the link. I really like your focus on how such a law would be enforced, because it really clarifies matters for me. I feel wiser thanks to you.
Comment by Eve Tushnet —
June 8, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
Ramesh’s book does address both ”brains of sufficient complexity” (though only briefly) and the fire-at-the-clinic hypothetical. FWIW. It is a quick read and well worth your time.
And you might be surprised at Jim’s readership….
ELT
Comment by Steve —
June 8, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
One of the most dangerous intellectuals in America ought to be able to do better than that.
That response to Derbyshire wasn’t by Berube but by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 8, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Whoops! Thanks for the correction.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
June 8, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
Leonard: I base my view on the Cheney administration’s push to federalize everything, from education to marijuana use. ”We will not abandon the unborn children of New York and California simply because the people of those states are too lost in narcissistic evil to protect them themselves.” The American Children’s Defense Act would simply extend murder statutes to fetuses and embryos, and contain some weird language that ends up doing bizarre collateral damage.
State-level Republicans would love it because it frees them of responsibility for local debates. National-level Republicans can use it as part of the ongoing culture war against everything left of themselves.
Comment by Doug M. —
June 9, 2006 @ 1:03 am
We’re talking about the Republican Party that passed the Terri Schiavo Law, no? And the Federal Marriage Amendment?
I have to say, it’s not hard to imagine them drafting and passing a Defense of Children Act. Quickly.
Doug M.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
June 9, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Bruce’s 13 is exactly what would happen. The modern Republican Party is actively hostile to federalism; like any ruling party, it wants to impose itself on as much of the country as possible. If they won’t let you smoke a joint to ease the pain of scoliosis and endometriosis in a state that’s made that practice legal, you can be damn sure they won’t let you murder your innocent newborn blastocyst. When the inevitable court challenge comes, the states will lose, like they did in Raich; whatever nominal federalists still exist on the high court routinely chuck their integrity out the window when the culture war beckons.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
June 10, 2006 @ 11:32 am
I think that Republicans would, indeed, pursue a national prohibition. After milking this issue for votes since Roe v. Wade was ruled on the basis of ”sanctity of life” can they permit California, New York (which legislatively permitted abortion before Roe v. Wade), Maryland, or wherever to treat fetal life as un-sanctified? Because they hold states’ prerogatives as higher? Look, they’ve not let states’ prerogatives stop them when it comes to easing the worries of the pharmaceutical companies and other business patrons. And they’ve made a serious effort to crack down on state-permitted recreational drugs and the Oregon euthanasia law.