LEFT VERSUS RIGHT: ON ABORTION AND LIBERATION

I think there's a deep connection on the positions that Left and Right take on two seemingly unrelated issues - two issues which are at the center of America's political debate: abortion and liberation.

The Left is pro-abortion and anti-liberation.
The Right is anti-abortion and pro-liberation.

ON ABORTION:

The Right is basically anti-abortion, believing that the only non-arbitrary point at which to argue individual life begins is at conception, and that because each and every life is sacred they must be treated as such - from conception. Abortion is the taking of human life and should be avoided; adoption should be promoted as the only acceptable way to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

The Left argues that a woman's control of her own body is a fundamental human right, and that ths includes control over the fetus until viability.

The Left feels that the Right only cares about the fetus, and that as soon as the baby is born "the Right doesn't give a rat's ass about that person - otherwise, they'd support a cradle-to-grave welfare state." (I have personally heard this argument a thousand and one times!) The Left believes that people should have their basic needs GUARANTEED by the state - FOR LIFE.

ON LIBERATION:

The Left argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are disaster zones where chaos and violence rule the day, and that there was more stability ands safety for Iraqis and Afghanis, and their regions - if not the world - before Bush decided that he had the duty and authority to "impose democracy" on people who probably aren't ready for it.

(BEAR WITH ME: Forget that this conclusion doesn't jibe with the facts, for a moment! Foeget that the annualized death toll during Saddam's reign of terror was GREATER than the last three years! Forget that MILLIONS of Afghani refugees have RETURNED to Afghanistan, and that women are learning to read again - and see doctors, and children are flying kites.)

The Right argues that democracy isn't ever "imposed" - rather, that what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan were tryannies - which WERE imposed - and that have mow been removed. Hence the term LIBERATION.

The Right thinks it's unfair to criticize the inefficient and messy "sausage-making" process (called self-government by consent of the governed) in nations which have JUST begun to form their democracies; IOW: democracy is a messy process not an catered event. "SURE SURE SURE," the Right admits, "things are tough now, but the people are materially better off already and they have more liberty, too. And the situation is improving. And, ultimately... IT'S UP TO THE IRAQIS AND AFGHANIS THEMSELVES (to paraphrase Franklin): "They have their democracies, now they must defend them!"

THE PARALLEL: how the literal birth of a baby, and the figurative birth of a democracy are politically related

The Left might criticize the Right's position on BOTH abortion and liberation as desiring the baby/democracy to be born, but then NOT guaranteeing a honkey-dorey life, after that. In the absence of that GUARANTEE, the Left says it's a better deal if the baby - and the democracy - HAD NEVER BEEN BORN. Iraq and Afghanistan have had rocky starts - and their futures SEEM UNCERTAIN ; to the Left, this proves these democracies should have never been born.

The Right believes that LIFE and LIBERTY are fundamental human rights derived from the Creator - AND NOT THE STATE, and that it's up to each of us - not the state - to do the best we can for ourselves. On a national scale, ONCE LIBERTY HAS BEEN SECURED, it's up to each nation to do the best that it can, too. Italy and France can do it their way; the UK and Poland can do it another way. Democracies allow the governed to decide - by majority rule. It ain't one size fits all, and some will do better than others.

The Right's positions are entirely consistent and based on First Principles: LIFE AND LIBERTY ARE SACRED; THE LIVES OF ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SACRED - INCLUDING MUSLIMS WHO HAVE NEVER YET LIVED UNDER DEMOCRACY AND FETUSES.

The Left's positions are consistent, too: they'd rather have less liberty and a strong state which guarantees cradle-to-grave welfare and "public safety" - (like the USSR and Saddam's Iraq) - than have more liberty and more personal risk.

The acceptance of hazard and risk (as a COST OF FREEDOM) is also why people on the Right are more comfortable with the idea that wars do not always go so well, but that if we perservere we will win.

The Left wants military victory guaranteed - in a short time-frame, too. And without any costs. That's why they get wobbly and defeatist as soon as the going gets tough.

BOTTOM-LINE: Just as the Left thinks it's WRONG to "IMPOSE" life on a fetus, they feels it's wrong to "IMPOSE" democacy on the tyrannized.

We on the Right thinks it's our duty to do both.

This basic difference between the Left and the Right is why the enemy is counting of the Left gaining power, and aborting the nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is no mere metaphor - nor one over-extended. Lincoln rightly said - in the Gettysburg Address - that VICTORY in the US Civil War would lead to a NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM. It did. So did victory in WW2 and the Cold War. So too will victory in WW4. It will not be a "final victory", but it will be an important victory - another pivotal victory - in the continuing saga of humanity's ever-expanding liberation.

And we gotta just keep fighting. YUP: Just keep fighting, baby! It's a good fight. THE GOOD FIGHT.

It'd be an easier fight if the Left would join our side instead of aiding and appeasing the enemy. But we'll win anyhow.

God Bless America. God Bless Our Troops.