22 Mar '05 - + 21 - 10 Where are the Conservatives?
The Terri Schiavo has exploded into public consciousness in the last
few days, as her parents' state appeals were exhausted and Federal
Government stepped into the controversy. The debate is
essentially a question of whether "life" is more important than law,
and whether the government should intervene to save a life. So,
where are the Conservatives arguing against this intervention?
If the comments of certain visitors to WatchBlog are to be believed, liberals have a bloodlust to kill Terri Schiavo:
- I
just saw a picture of a woman getting arrested for trying to give Terri
Schiavo a sip of water. The left must be so proud. - Peter
- Why
is it the only time the liberials worry about the vaule of human life
is when a murderer is about to be executed? - Ron Brown
- When the right tries to protect someone’s rights, the left will try anything to sabotage it. - TheTraveler
- The left has a fit when someone tries to starve an animal to death. Are thier lives more important than Terri's? - TheTraveler
This
attitude is extraordinary to me because this issue isn't being driven
by a Democratic Party trying to kill someone. This issue is the
result of a family disagreement that one part of the family took to
court for years, and later took to Congress when the court said the law
wasn't on their side. On this large scale, the Religious Right
wing of the Republican party has taken the issue and made great show of
trying to "save Terri," whatever Terri and her husband may have
wanted.
So where are the
Classical Conservatives,
arguing that the Federal government has no right to interfere with the
decisions of a state court on state law? Where are the Classical
Conservatives, arguing that the Federal government has no right to
interfere in a family decision? Where are the Conservatives
saying that the law must be upheld and agreements between husband and
wife honored?
I have talked to a close Conservative friend who is
appalled at the governmental interference: "The thing that really
pisses me off about the case is how the Republicans are being so
F*****G Democratic." In his opinion, "using government to
interfere with individual lives is supposed to be a leftist
idea." Of course, I don't agree, but I do wonder why his voice is
seemingly alone.
Has the Religious Right so completely taken over the
Republican Party that distaste with government interference is no
longer in the party? That now the Democratic Party will have to
take on the ideas of protecting the people from the government?
Have I just missed the Conservative voices against this
interference? Is the Republican Party no longer Classically
Conservative?
two comments, already:
The Columbia Journalism Review has an interesting point about Texas (
http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001390...). It seems that when Bush was governor, he signed into law a viewpoint directly in opposition to his current stance. You see, we have to protect life
at any cost ... unless your insurance won’t cover it.
Rich Unger - 23 March '05 - 13:39
I’m sure that if she dies, we’ll hear lots more moaning and groaning about those d**n activist judges. There they go, doing their job, not letting people abuse the law. Who do they think they are?
Rob - 23 March '05 - 17:20
