American Conservatives Are More Interested In Controversy Than Sane Policy

Image via nationalreview.com

Image via nationalreview.com

Kevin Williamson is a conservative correspondent for National Review noted for, frankly, making an ass of himself. Williamson was the writer who wrote a passage in a piece he wrote that described an African-American boy (who Williamson estimated to be about 9 years old) making the “gesture of primate territorial challenge.” He’s also against voting, especially by women, and considers himself to be “attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in (women)’s sex life” by working against the Affordable Care Act; funny how he also rails against the right to an abortion, the very soul of being involved in a woman’s sex life.

His latest stroke of “genius” is that abortion is murder, despite no such connection existing, and thus anyone involved should be executed… including the woman. But not just any execution! No, he wants to trot out the archaic practice of hanging, as if they were runaway slaves. Never mind that this would violate the Eighth Amendment, a law that does exist unlike the law making abortion a capital crime; he’s got to properly terrorize those who don’t bow to his values! In this country, even the most vile criminals are entitled to lethal injection. Why hanging? Is that not how the theocracy in Iran hands out its moral judgments? Then again, it seems Mr. Williamson would be happiest in his own version of a theocracy, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

I consider myself strongly pro-choice, but I do have to give Williamson props for at least being logically consistent in his beliefs, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of the anti-choice crowd. If one makes the assertion that a fetus has the same right to life as any human being, it logically follows that the termination of that fetus should be treated under the law like every other homicide. And, under current law, this would mean that a woman who paid a doctor to perform an abortion would be participating in a “murder for hire”, which in many states is a capital offense. Punishing only doctors is a tacit admission that a fetus IS different in most respects from living, breathing human beings. But, of course, nothing would turn this country more in a pro-choice direction than deciding to punish women in this manner… which is why it will never happen, and why the pro-life rhetoric regarding personhood will never match up with reality.

Now, I know I’ve characterized him as a extremist ideologue, which he is in many ways, but his extremism also has an aspect of calculation and outrage-mongering to his writing. Here’s his typical pattern:

He’ll write a column, or publish a tweet, making some statement that is both literally true, yet also outrageous and offensive to anyone but hardcore cultural conservatives. Thus, his column mansplaining that transgendered person Lavern Cox is “not a woman” is both literally true (Cox was born with a Y chromosome, and presumably the equipment that comes with it) and offensive because he uses that truth to ridicule Cox’s gender identity. Or his column equating a black boy protesting in Ferguson with a “primate”, since it’s literally true that humans are primates, and yet pretends to ignore the centuries of racist depictions of African Americans as sub-human apes. As an added bonus, he invoked the Constitution’s Three-Fifths Compromise when he described the boy as “a three-fifths-scale Snoop Dogg”, which would mean Snoop stands 6 feet, 7 inches tall, but sure, he didn’t mean anything racist, it was just a coincidence and he didn’t check the math before publishing the article. Yeah, right.

Mr. Williamson disavows animus, but it drips from his columns, trolling readers who understand he is writing about more than literal truths. “But wait,” NRO readers demand, “Cox is NOT a woman! Humans ARE primates! Why is the truth so offensive to you leftists?” But read the comments to his articles, which are full of disdain and disgust for the subjects he describes, and you see that they get his subtext.

As an added bonus, he can later republish the repugnant tweets he receives in response to his “truths” as “liberal intolerance.” I believe he has even recycled attacks into subsequent columns about liberal intolerance. He wins all the way around: his readers love his attacks on the lefties; he outrages the lefties; he gets more fodder for his “conservative as victim of political correctness” worldview. Hey, doesn’t that sound a lot like the entire post-gubernatorial career of the Quitta from Wasilla?

Which brings us to his latest schlock. If you view abortion as murder, and if you support the death penalty for murder, you’d naturally support hanging every mother who’s had an abortion, right? What other course is there? Do you really believe he’s trying to make a reasoned point, as opposed to trolling abortion rights supporters? Wait for his reposting outraged and vile tweets from people offended by this argument, but don’t hold your breath for the reasoned policy explanation for why it’s a good idea to hang women for having abortions, or how it would play out in reality, or why only women should be hanged and not also the men who impregnate them, because I doubt it will come.

Dangerous extremist or page-view-hungry shock merchant? The jury is still out, but either way Kevin Williamson is a perfect example of how modern conservatism is less interested in making useful arguments and more focused on just whipping up the general frenzy.


Jason Francis

Jason Francis is a red-state liberal, residing in the heart of Dixie where he gets to watch the train wreck of conservative politics up close and personal on a regular basis. He's lived in affluence and poverty, in both urban and rural settings, attended both public and private schools, and has visited most of the US at one point or another.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Steve Brains

    This just Ted Cruz with a second anus. Ted Nugent with roid rage. Nothing wil drive you insane deeper han having two anusesand hemhoroids

    • BB-Mystic

      “Gooberturd.” Heh. I’ll have to remember that.

      If you’re talking about the person I believe you are, he was deleted from at least one of the previous threads. Good riddance.

      • Steve Brains

        I have been deleted too, because I get pissed enough I go on a Dennis Miller rant that goes all Denis LEARY at the end.

        Thanks though.

      • Steve Brains

        Did they edit out My rant? Damn!! i wanted to copy that and send 535 copies to Congress.

        Mr President would just get this one.

        “Dearest Mr President. I just WISH you were less educated and had at least ONE testicle. Even if it were just a mouse nut… you would have SAVED America whole lot of pain and disgust from and with you If you had ever actually stood up to the REDS and shoved the bll back in their face at the net.
        YOU ALWAYS let them take the cheapest shots and it shows huge insecurities on your part.

        Has Michelle requested Cialis Sir?

  • Jim Bean

    ” abortion is murder, despite no such connection existing.”

    When someone murders a pregnant woman and the thingy inside dies, the perpetrator gets charged with the murder of two human beings.
    The connection has always existed. Yes, there has been enthusiastic efforts to eliminate the connection in some of the instances, some of the time, but its always been there.

    • Steve Brains

      Depending upon the age of the FETUS. BEanerBoy, you REALLY shouldn’t speak unless an educated person hands you a script and goes over it with you better than they did with THOM TILLIS in the NC Senate debate.

      And actuallyKNOWING THE LAW, would be a HUGE BONUS for your puppet Master to have.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am afraid its you that doesn’t know the law you brainless twit.

        18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children

        (d)As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

        Source Cornell law

      • Steve Brains

        That’s interesting. THAT RIGHT THERE NULLIFIES ROE V WADE!!!!!

        NOW, IF IT WERE THE WHOLE CODE (which I seriously suspect it IS NOT) then closing abortion clinics would’t even need a signature from ANY Governor, not a nanosecond of Legislative time ANYWHERE in the US.

        THIS is the whole, CODE 1841, not just the last line:

        18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children

        Current through Pub. L. 113-163. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

        US Code

        Notes

        prev | next(a)

        (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

        (2)

        (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

        (B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

        (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

        (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

        (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

        (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

        (b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

        (1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261,2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

        (2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

        (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

        (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

        (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

        (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

        (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

        (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually it doesn’t but what it does do is help define when life begins(under US code) and also leaves us with a contradiction.

      • Steve Brains

        NO it doesn’t. Not to the satisfaction of ANY Redpublican court.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your opinion and not necessarily fact.

      • Steve Brains

        AHHA! (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
        (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

        (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

        (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

        (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb..

        There we go! I knew the other 99% of the LAW and the TRUTH was omitted by ChuckyWhanker. bit I stand corrected, I thought that was a State by State code. I remember a case in the 90’s in NYC about it NOT being murder if the fetus was destroyed by con artists BEFORE The END of the 24th Week. Huge debate and interesting analysis in the Stanford Law Review.

      • Charles Vincent

        not really the rest of what your showing had nothing to do with my point and is irrelevant.

      • Steve Brains

        But it IS the whole law andPROVES that you use soundbite honesty in your gibberish. Every once in a while you accidently get a nut and are correct. And getting a nut kinda shows what kind of rodent you are.

        Pteromyini Sciuridae

      • Charles Vincent

        The rest of that law is irrelevant it doesn’t matter one way or the other with my point which is under us law the fetus is considered a life at any stage of development. quite the contradiction if you ask me.

    • Moses

      No, the connection has not. The Bible says you owe money for the fetus, not that you’ve committed murder. Plus, your claim MAY be true in some places, but it is by no means universal or widely accepted.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s a US law ignorant ass.

        18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children