Missing the Point (again)
I meant to comment on this over the weekend, but I'll briefly mention it now. Any credit I gave David Brooks as a journalist has now been formally revoked after he penned yet another subtle argument for conservative superiority on Saturday. In assessing the Schiavo case, Brooks neatly and erroneously divides conservatives and liberals, citing that "The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force". By citing the flaws and advantages of each worldview Brooks places himself above such judgements (the so-called "fair and balanced" approach) but what do you suppose the gut-level reaction to these two stereotypes would be with most Americans? Do you side with the cold, rational liberal or the compassionate, moral conservative?
I don't want to discuss this matter in any more detail. See my last post for that. The important point regarding the Brooks article is that he once again misses the point: this case is about the rule of law and federalism, not a political contest between liberals and conservatives. This time, fortunately, our legal system stood up to the minority view of extremists. But will it always be able to withstand a potential tyranny of the majority?