Re: MSM hard at work — seeking euphemism
Posted by Jon Sanders at 4:59 PMThe notion that there's a magical combination of phrases that will suddenly turn a losing issue into a winner is a hallmark of leftist relativist thinking — spun from the same cloth as "Fake But Accurate," "certain lies are good," ad nauseam.
If an idea fails to attract, leftists resort to euphemism. E.g., if the "horrors of abortion" (quoting Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) become too obvious and people stop supporting the idea of abortion as harmless, then groups like the "National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)" have to drop that "Abortion Rights" in their name and reform themselves as NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Speaking of Planned Parenthood, that euphemism came about after the eugenicist Nazis gave "Birth Control" a bad name, and Sanger and her American Birth Control League pals needed a new way to present their ideas1 to the American public.
1. Don't think eugenics in America is dead, either. The same mentality that wishes to take your money and limit your consumption and living choices "for the common good" will also, if allowed, dictate who can and cannot reproduce. Government agents usurping (or being given) power to encode into law their own preferences of what serves the "common good" is always a mistake. But as we're discussing here, they will scrounge about to find the most merciful and benevolent sounding way to get the horrific idea across. For example, Best of the Web of May 12 (via Ramesh Ponnuru) highlighted this very disturbing letter from Ron Weddington, the co-counsel on Roe v. Wade, to President-elect Bill Clinton:
I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population. ...
You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican. ...
I am not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion. You and Hillary are a perfect example. Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20? No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do. ...
Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible. ...
There have been 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery...and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left. ...
The biblical exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies. We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies.
» Return to posts for May 14, 2006
» Return to the Locker Room