Tomi Lahren
visited
The View
on Friday, March 17, and commented on what, she believed, was the hypocrisy of being for limited government but believing that the government
should be telling women what they can do with their bodies. And the conservative establishment lost their minds, backlashing to the point
that her TV show
"Tomi"
has been suspended from the air for at least one week. Glenn Beck then went on his radio show to
address Lahren's constitutional stance,
while refusing to comment on her long term future at the network.
Beck's stance, of course, is derived from the preamble of the Constitution, in the phrase
Beck implies that his issue is with Lahren not being able to intellectually back up her statement, but that is a bit specious. Lahren has been a walking microphone of obtuse commentary all along, but THIS was the catalyst that sent The Blaze over the edge and suspended her? The cognitive dissonance never bothered Beck before. Is that because it fell in line with how he saw things? He says no. But the one time she tries to make a point that departs from the line, she's a pariah. It's understandable if Beck's argument is met with doubt.
Back on The View, the hosts reacted to the backlash of Lahren by revisiting her Friday statements on Monday's show, and discussing women's rights briefly. Sunny Hosten, the woman sitting next to Whoopi Goldberg, makes a misapplication here, and no one notices it. She thinks that the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (she says "property") in the Constitution applies easily to protecting zygotes from abortion. First of all, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" statement isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. That alone changes the context of the statement. Second, even if it was in the Constitution, the intention of such a statement would never have applied the way she was applying it, unless you are trying to really interpret the heck out of it, in which case we start heading back to Glenn Beck's broad interpretation of the preamble. The founders were rarely vague in their intentions. And people who claim to be "originalists" take the Constitution at face value - misguided to the intention of it's structure and form as that may be - and so could never "interpret" a statement to mean anything more than it does. So this type of interpretation flies in the face of how they themselves claim to see the Constitution - as a static document, unyielding in the literal topography to which they are dedicated. Of course, the phrase is not in the Constitution, so Hostin's argument is lost to misapplied context.
Conservatives have never reconciled how/why the limited government tack doesn't apply when it comes to the bedroom:
• Who you have sex with
• What kind of sex you have
• Sex for recreation vs. procreation
Or when it comes to women:
• Their right to prevent pregnancy with contraception
• Their right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency Plan B
• Their right to terminate a pregnancy
• Their right to NOT have the government try to pull manipulative maneuvers to circumvent laws to push their beliefs onto them
And that's why it's difficult to take these pols and pundits seriously. Any commentary that strays from their line - even if it's correct - is unacceptable to them. Liberals do the same thing sometimes, this one just happens to be the conservatives. But the foolishness in general is comical. And it requires so little of people to simply fall in line, that politicians count on it to push their agendas. In that sense, Trump has made it harder for politicians to push their agendas the way they want to, because Trump himself draws so much attention from the populous in it's ire, that legislators are having a difficult time staying under the radar. Just ask Paul Ryan how he's actually feeling these days...
Beck's stance, of course, is derived from the preamble of the Constitution, in the phrase
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."His interpretation of the phrase is understandable, but it sidesteps the context in which it's written. He states it as if future generations are prioritized over the current generation's right to privacy, and not have the government inside their bedrooms and doctors' examination rooms. It's a strong implication which, if extrapolated out, could justify our government creating a law forcing people to procreate as a condition of acquiring a marriage license - you know, to ensure posterity. Sounds crazy, right? But broad, generalized and context-free arguments are where crazy enters the realm of plausibility. And we currently have just the Congressional makeup for crazy to become law - remember, this is the same Republican party that decided Betsy DeVos was wholly qualified to run the Department of Education, and that Rick Perry - who didn't even know what the Department of Engery does - was a wholly qualified candidate for Secretary. This Republican party is why people were so worried about a guy like Trump winning the White House to begin with - not that forced procreation would ever become a likely reality. Just that a platform for such things would no longer be out of the realm of possibility with people who think their religious beliefs should be the law, yet decry Muslims because terrorists are bringing their Sharia law to our shores to take over our government.
Beck implies that his issue is with Lahren not being able to intellectually back up her statement, but that is a bit specious. Lahren has been a walking microphone of obtuse commentary all along, but THIS was the catalyst that sent The Blaze over the edge and suspended her? The cognitive dissonance never bothered Beck before. Is that because it fell in line with how he saw things? He says no. But the one time she tries to make a point that departs from the line, she's a pariah. It's understandable if Beck's argument is met with doubt.
|
|
Back on The View, the hosts reacted to the backlash of Lahren by revisiting her Friday statements on Monday's show, and discussing women's rights briefly. Sunny Hosten, the woman sitting next to Whoopi Goldberg, makes a misapplication here, and no one notices it. She thinks that the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (she says "property") in the Constitution applies easily to protecting zygotes from abortion. First of all, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" statement isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. That alone changes the context of the statement. Second, even if it was in the Constitution, the intention of such a statement would never have applied the way she was applying it, unless you are trying to really interpret the heck out of it, in which case we start heading back to Glenn Beck's broad interpretation of the preamble. The founders were rarely vague in their intentions. And people who claim to be "originalists" take the Constitution at face value - misguided to the intention of it's structure and form as that may be - and so could never "interpret" a statement to mean anything more than it does. So this type of interpretation flies in the face of how they themselves claim to see the Constitution - as a static document, unyielding in the literal topography to which they are dedicated. Of course, the phrase is not in the Constitution, so Hostin's argument is lost to misapplied context.
Conservatives have never reconciled how/why the limited government tack doesn't apply when it comes to the bedroom:
• Who you have sex with
• What kind of sex you have
• Sex for recreation vs. procreation
Or when it comes to women:
• Their right to prevent pregnancy with contraception
• Their right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency Plan B
• Their right to terminate a pregnancy
• Their right to NOT have the government try to pull manipulative maneuvers to circumvent laws to push their beliefs onto them
And that's why it's difficult to take these pols and pundits seriously. Any commentary that strays from their line - even if it's correct - is unacceptable to them. Liberals do the same thing sometimes, this one just happens to be the conservatives. But the foolishness in general is comical. And it requires so little of people to simply fall in line, that politicians count on it to push their agendas. In that sense, Trump has made it harder for politicians to push their agendas the way they want to, because Trump himself draws so much attention from the populous in it's ire, that legislators are having a difficult time staying under the radar. Just ask Paul Ryan how he's actually feeling these days...
No comments:
Post a Comment