Last Friday I participated in the March for Life in Washington DC. This post captures a variety of thoughts and reactions I’ve had since.
The Silent Majority
In some places, the only way that the people can express their views is when they do it in large numbers. This is typical in third world countries, of course, but the realities that drive that dynamic have revealed themselves more recently in Hong Kong, too. Very simply, there is a certain safety in numbers. Governments may very well want to slaughter the opposition, but with the world watching, they have to tread lightly. Unless, of course you can turn off the Internet, as they did recently in Iran, before slaughtering hundreds of protestors.
In America, there is not the same fear. Our policies are enacted via representatives we elect at the ballot box. In the main, we do not fear for our lives when we cast our ballots. Unfortunately, our elected representatives routinely fail to represent the values of those who elect them. Few issues illustrate this as vividly as in the matter of abortion, where un-elected judges intervened in a ham-fisted manner to subvert the will of the people and politicians have failed to rectify the situation.
The March for Life, then, serves as a substantial warning to all who care about the integrity of our republic that there are vast numbers of people who are strongly motivated and demand action. Moreover, this is an annual event, and not limited to Washington DC. If you add up all who march throughout the country the number easily tops a million, and even these are just the tip of the iceberg.
While there does seem to be a sense within the pro-life movement that a corner has been turned, many seem to also grasp that its ‘now or never.’ After years of promises and pledges, if the will of the people be denied again and again, it is hard to believe it will end well. Given that there is no other group of people as large as the pro-lifers who are motivated, year in and year out, to advocate for any other issue, it seems to me that people badly miscalculate if they continue to betray their constituents.
Lord save us all if Americans decide the day has come when the ballot box is no longer trustworthy. It is clear that the American Left has already come to this conclusion. If the American Right comes to this conclusion as well…
Just How Big Of A Majority?
As usual, the media failed to cover the March with anything more than a yawn. The “Women’s March,” which had a tiny fraction of the March for Life turnout, got more attention. I saw estimates as low as 100,000 for the MfL which struck me as absurd. I was present at the 40th anniversary which had a record turnout of 650,000 and I feel like I have some sense of what 100,000 people ‘feels’ like. This was much, much more.
How important is it? Not too much to me, but it must be pretty important to the media, etc. I suppose in just the same way I marginalized the Women’s March for its tiny turnout (10,000 I think I heard), they want to think that if there is “only” 100,000 the pro-life cause isn’t worth respecting. I would remind the reader that there were marches across the country, not just in DC. You cannot continue to ignore this without risking breaking democracy itself. That’s a heads up to Republican politicians, by the way.
Was it just a Trump Rally?
One of the more obscene things I heard out of the media was that Trump’s decision to be the first president to appear in person at the March for Life basically turned the March into a ‘Trump Rally.’ There were even insinuations that the turnout that there was was due to Trump’s presence. Sometimes, the stupidity of people just amazes me.
Trump didn’t reveal his intentions until a couple of days before the March. We are supposed to believe that in that short of notice, people from across the country, with a mere day or two to work in, managed to get flights, hotel rooms, etc, etc. Who can believe this nonsense? The perpetually unthinking, apparently, lap it up.
We booked our flight and hotel rooms months ago. And even then, there were already many hotels nearly sold out. I thought we got in pretty early, but many places only had a few rooms left. We were left getting a hotel that was quite a distance from the March as it was. If I had to do it again, I would start booking things even earlier.
How do people believe such things?
But I will admit that even I was surprised at how little Trump support was reflected in the March. Don’t get me wrong, it is clear that Trump was very well received. And for good reason: Trump is not lying when he asserts that he has done more for the Pro-Life movement than any previous president. Nonetheless, all the hat and shirt hawkers with their Trump shirts, etc, seemed to have as many for sale at the end as they did before. Here are some pictures of the event. Here is one in particular which I offer to illustrate. It is actually hard to find people wearing pro-Trump stuff. It seemed to me that people were pretty well “on message.”
(Play “Spot the MAGA Hat.”)
Pro-Lifers are Hitler?
Speaking of stupidity.
In a recent interview, Gloria Steinem implied that pro-lifers are totalitarians perhaps even on the scale of Hitler. Well, this is what we are up against, isn’t it? In its own way, this is just another distillation of the Left’s decision to treat all dissenters as Fascists, Bigots, Racists, etc. And what can you do to a Fascist? Anything you want. (The counter-protestors at the end of the March had signs making this argument and calling those who walked by ‘fascists.’)
From the article [emphasis added]:
“The definition of patriarchy is controlling reproduction, made way worse by racism, because then you really have to control reproduction to keep races separate, or caste, in India. This is the first step, whether it’s Brazil or India or Hitler’s Germany,” Steinem said. “The fist thing that Hitler did was to padlock the family planning clinics and declare abortion a crime against the state. I don’t think we have yet understood that it is the first step in every authoritarian structure.”
Seriously. Surely there must be a point where we simply declare such people stupid and then pay no further attention to them? And yet, such sentiments are common. What is the matter with people? How can you know so little about the real world? I guess I could say to them, “Read a book.” But would reading actually help? Could they understand what they read? Recent events illustrate well that they completely lack the capacity to assess facts and evidence and engage in rational, reasonable, logical arguments.
This post was meant to be some reactions, but this continual characterization of dissenters from leftist ideology as fascists, etc, would take a whole post. Luckily for you, if you have an interest in the facts and REALITY, this blog is chock full of such posts addressing such things. You must understand, that these characterizations are not limited merely to pro-lifers and this particular issue, but to ALL dissenters, on EVERY issue. You can thank the left’s mindless absorption of intersectionalism for this phenomena.
Still, some facts would be in order.
First of all, Steinem conflates ‘patriarchy’ with ‘authoritarianism’ which is most unfortunate, because it wouldn’t take the earnest researcher very long to discover that “controlling reproduction” is not by any means the “first step” in EVERY “authoritarian structure.” Her words.
The phrase “first step” to me seems to evoke the title of Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, which ironically has come into vogue among liberals with the Trump election. If “controlling reproduction” is the “first step” I would think someone as capable as Arendt would have included it in her discussion of the “origins” of totalitarianism. Wouldn’t the reader agree? “First step” is a near-synonym to “origins”? And yet Arendt makes no such argument. (Unlike liberals who quote mine the book, I actually read it. So I know.)
Samantha Power is as left as it comes, but there is nothing in her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, which comes close to supporting Steinem’s assertion. Unless ‘controlling reproduction’ means murdering people in general, with the ‘happy’ side effect that they cannot then reproduce, there is no sense at all that EVERY authoritarian structure STARTS with controlling reproduction. But even if you wish to maintain that, the conflation of ‘patriarchy’ with ‘authoritarianism’ raises its head and bites bitterly, as it so happens… I know this will be a shock… wait for it…. wait for it…. but many of the people murdered in authoritarian regimes were… wait for it… wait for it…
Damn that patriarchy and its egalitarian genocidal tendencies!
Clearly, ‘controlling reproduction’ has been a component in many “authoritarian structures.” However, a “component” is not the same as “the first step” and even more importantly, ‘patriarchy’ had almost ZERO to do with any of the totalitarian attempts to “control reproduction.”
So basically, Steinem is just making things up.
Which is par for the course these days from adherents to a political persuasion which has proudly distanced itself from the reality, evidence, logic, reason, and yes, “Science!”
Ironically, there is a kernel of truth in Steinem’s remarks…
The Handmaiden’s Tale
It’s crazy. You’re sitting there talking with a person who appears to be intelligent and well informed and then BLAMO! stupidity comes flying out of his mouth. I assume I’m not the only pro-lifer who has had to endure asinine comparisons to the book series turned Netflix series? Now, I admit that I have not watched or read this material, but having observed the accusation slung against abortion foes I took the liberty of reading up on it. It is the craziest thing–if there is any relationship to the premise of the story to real life events, it is in MUSLIM communities. Crazy that its always the Christians painted with this brush, though, right?
Well, we know why, don’t we? People who say such things are cowards. They know they can say whatever they want about Christians and all will be will, but if they say the same thing about Muslims they risk, literally, their heads.
However, if you strip out the religious element, it really is the case that there have been massive attempts to “control reproduction.” And it was carried out and implemented by… wait for it… liberal progressives!
Not exclusively, mind you, but who can not be taken aback when you learn that actual Nazis rubbed shoulders with American advocates for “controlling reproduction” in the 1930’s? For example, Margaret Sanger, who I should mention was a woman and not a man (so… all authoritarian structures begin with matriarchy? I can’t keep up) hobnobbed with Ernst Rudin, a very pleasant fellow indeed.
Rudin’s views were featured in Sanger’s April 1933 edition of her magazine, Birth Control Review. Perhaps they connected at the Third International Eugenics Congress in 1932, where it appears both were in attendance?
The many connections between the American progressives and the German Nazis are largely unknown to the public, and certainly not to American progressives, who measure their ideology not by facts, history, and evidence, but rather by ‘good intentions.’
If anyone wants to see a real life ‘patriarchy’/’authoritarian structure’ take a gander at the history of the Pioneer Fund–an organization that I assure you was not populated by pro-lifers.
Is it reasonable to mash up the “women’s rights” folks of the 1930s who aligned with many Nazi beliefs (though not all, although there wasn’t any great distancing between them until after WW2) with moderns like Steinem? Hey, I’m just saying that if you’re going to play the Nazi card and make assertions about history, one should make sure that in fact it is not YOU who are historically linked with them. And/or authoritarians in general. Yes, the Nazis ‘controlled reproduction.” But also, feminists at the time not only did not view this as ‘patriarchy’ but thought the Nazis were on to something!
Sanger has a book literally called Women and the New Race. LOL
Moreover, after the War, the eugenicists tended to be increasingly male… but, generally atheist secular humanist types, too. That is to say, if ever there was a group wishing to enact a ‘patriarchal Handmaiden’ type world, it ain’t Christians! In truth, there is no ‘patriarchy’ in America whatsoever, unless you count small communities like the Amish. Its just a bludgeon in the hands of modern liberals, but in my hands, its an exposition of the truth, because I know the real facts of history.
That isn’t the only kernel of truth that rebounds upon Steinem is related to this statement: ” is controlling reproduction, made way worse by racism”
Let all black Americans take note of the fact that Planned Parenthood–the organization that Sanger started–is located primarily in areas where blacks live. On top of that, literally the very first great campaign that Planned Parenthood began was called “The Negro Project,” which Sanger herself understood would be open to grave criticism, as revealed in her remarks to Clarence Gamble (in 1939):
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
“Controlling reproduction, made way worse by racism,” indeed.
I combined the Steinem thing with the Handmaiden’s thing because both reveal a stunning ignorance of the real history of things turned on their heads in such a way as to ascribe to pro-lifers (and conservatives in general) viewpoints, policies and actions which are deemed reprehensible–but are ACTUALLY THE PRO-CHOICERS’ views! One only needs to wind the clock back just a little ways and we find that historically speaking, it is never the pro-lifer and almost always the secularist atheist liberal progressive humanist who espoused them. But somehow the pro-lifer must defend himself from the charge!
Which brings me to the point: we are arriving, if we haven’t arrived already, at a point where those who are aligned against us are beyond the reach of reason altogether. This does not bode well for the born or the unborn. Just wait until Trump wins re-election and appoints a Supreme Court Justice who is willing to admit that Roe vs Wade was ghastly decided. And heaven help us all on the day that Roe vs Wade is overturned.
I assume that we will see far more than 650,000 marching in the streets on that day, but unlike the pro-life community which left the streets of DC nice and tidy, I think the results will be more reminiscent of Ferguson.
But time will tell.
It may not ever happen, actually. I remain skeptical that the Republicans and even a conservative SCOTUS will be willing to risk that wrath. There appears to be only one politician really willing to put his neck on the line, literally and politically, for the pro-life cause, and that person is Donald Trump.
We will find out shortly if I’m wrong. I hope I am.
This image is not from an episode of the Handmaiden’s Tale. It is from the December 1932 edition of Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control Review”, just a few months after the 3rd International Eugenics Congress.