Joe over at the EO has a nice review of Ramesh Ponnuru’s new book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life.
A century from now Americans will consider it absurd and ridiculous to think that the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion, much less embryo-destruction, euthanasia, and infanticide. Until that time comes, though, Ponnuru’s tightly argued, imminently persuasive book will remain essential reading for anyone concerned with the politics of bioethics.
Unfortunately, many people, particularly those unfamiliar with Ponnuru’s writings in National Review, will never see past the inflammatory title (and the Ann Coulter blurb on the cover). They will dismiss the book as the screed of yet another partisan hack, rather than an understated, carefully researched work by a brilliant young conservative intellectual.
Ramesh is generally one of the more intellectually honest pundits out there; Carter says people won't look past the title and blurb. He's right, and I think it's a shame the publishers made the book so radioactive, such that any reasonable person would assume the book is a piece of hackery.
Just out of curiousity, how can a book be "understated" when it decides that half of this nation are members of a "Party of Death."
Also, how can (Some) Republicans not be part of the "Party of Death" when they rabidly support both the death penalty, war, and torture? That's the problem; it doesn't matter how nuanced his position is because its already hypocritical in the extreme.
Here is a review of "Party of Death" from the left that was on Amazon. I'm just trying to keep perspectives balanced.
Reviewer: The Red State Baron
There can be no greater contribution to sane, civilzed discourse than to write a book labeling those who disagree with you as members of a "party of death." Bravo, Mr. Ponnuru. Not only that, but his book was edited by the great conservative scholar and plagiarist Ben Domenech, and endorsed by internment-camps advocate Michelle Malkin. What better indication could there be of the intellectual firepower and rational discourse of the modern right?
This book sticks up for the rights of: fetuses, stem cells, and people in vegetative states. It quite correctly demonstrates that saving the aforementioned lives should be the primary goal of good people everywhere. But instead, godless liberals ignore the plight of oppressed zygotes, and concentrate on irrelevant and fake "life" issues. Liberals think pro-lifers should be concerned about state-sanctioned killing by lethal injection, or the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's liberals for you, forgetting that criminals and Muslims are not human while blastocysts are.
Mr. Ponnuru rightly shows that if we do not force people to pretend that a first-term fetus is exactly the same thing as a full-grown human, this will inevitably lead to infanticide. He does so by quoting Peter Singer, a man most pro-choicers claim they have never heard of. But don't be fooled: search a pro-choicer's home (without warrants, of course) and you will find they are hiding Peter Singer articles under their godless beds.
Mr. Ponnuru's policy prescriptions are also on-target. A silly liberal might point out that countries that ban abortion tend to have very high abortion rates; that laws against abortions are never enforced against affluent women and thus mostly penalize the poor and weak. Silly liberals might also point to the success other countries have had in reducing the abortion rates with state-funded contraception and daycare, and point out that Republicans consistently block initiatives designed to reduce the abortion rates. But that's crazy liberal talk. Mr. Ponnuru knows that El Salvador should be the model for any great country's abortion laws.
Still, I cannot give this book a positive rating. While Mr. Ponnuru rightly bashes the evil activist Republican-appointed judges who gave us Roe v. Wade, he fails to fully appreciate that Roe was based in part on an earlier pernicious decision, Skinner v. Oklahoma. There, the Supreme Court ruled that the State cannot engage in forced sterilization. Now, if Roe was wrong, and the State can force a woman to have a baby against her will, then surely Skinner is wrong too, and the State can not only force a woman to have a baby, but force her never to have babies at all. Until Ponnuru fully recognizes the right of the State to decide when and where people will procreate, he might as well be a baby-killing Democrat.
I wouldn't call that a review – more like a sarcastic polemic. He never quoted the author once. I suspect that, rather than faithfully representing the arguments of the author, he spun and misrepresented them (that's why no quotes). Did the author really say that focusing on the unborn is more important than focusing on treating prisoners well? No. The reviewer says this to smear the author. Not very good.
Can you find a thinking liberal review rather than this sarcastic jerk?
how can (Some) Republicans not be part of the "Party of Death" when they rabidly support both the death penalty, war, and torture?
Actually, that is a good question. I suppose you could list the death penalty and war on the side of "death", but republicans see these as issues of justice. Is there an unjust war? Yes. Is there unjust use of the death penalty? Of course.
However, we can't make the liberal mistake of being so humanistic that we avert justice because we won't execute killers.
But the real difference between the parties is that liberals are killing innocents (the unborn and the infirm) while conservatives are killing and mishandling the guilty (innocent Iraqi's aside – but these casualties are more often than not because the muslims use their women and children as human shields. The muslims themselves have killed many more innocents in Iraq than the Americans, and the americans attempt to only kill the aggressors, which is hard to do in war). But I'm sure some will disagree.
So, here's the "death" issues and how the parties stand:
Liberals:
– Abortion
– Death w/ Dignity (I happen to agree with this one)
– Euthanasia – a close cousin of death w/ dignity – we do have a slipperly slope here.
Embryo Destruction – OK, as I've written, I think conservatives are mistaken on this one.
Conservatives
– War (I think that war is sometimes necessary and just)
– Torture of prisoners (not good – I doubt conservatives really support this, but many have turned a blind eye in the current administration)
– Death Penalty (I agree with the use of this, esp. now that we have DNA – but is a 99% accuracy rate good enough?)
– Gun Ownership (this is a tough one – I think we should have some weapons, but the push for things like semi-auto weapons seems idiotic to me.)
I think my issue is that both parties take vociferous stands on issues of death. So for Ponnuru to act as if Republicans are reveling in life – while at the same time endorsin the death penalty, waging a war in which there are sure to be civilian casualties (I also happen to think that war is necessary and just by the way, but I hate this planned ignoring of the horrors of war by some), and refusing to let dying people die if THEY WANT TO – is both unnecessary and polaring to the conversation. Republicans and Democrats both make death an issue, just in different ways. Pretending otherwise is bad for debate.
I forgot to mention President Clinton's intervention in the genocide in Serbia/Croatia as just. Although the Republicans opposed him, he was able to end the crisis with air power.
Obviously, there is no rehabilitation involved. Its value as a deterrent is suspect. It's the old adage; two wrongs don't make a right.
I see two assumptions here which I disagree with. First, you seem to assume that the only purpose for imprisonment is rehab. But again, rehab is NOT justice. Justice demands payment, and if possible, restitution. Sure, we want rehab. But to only focus on that is the type of humanistic approach that averts justice that I was talking about.
Second, you call the death penalty unjust, or a "wrong." But not all killing is wrong. Again, in murder cases, I would argue that justice demands it. And justice makes families feel better – sure, some may temporarily revel in it as retribution, but society benefits from justice, and so do the victims.
As for the deterrent argument, justice most certainly is a deterrent – it may not work 100% of the time, but it is foolish to think that if we fail to execute justice that it will not produce more crime. Mercy has it's place in the justic system, but not as the rule, otherwise, we pervert justice.
I agree with euthanasia in special cases.
You just better be damn well sure that you define those cases clearly – for example, remember the young comatose girl whom the court demanded be taken off the feeding tube? A few days before the order was executed, she awoke from her coma.
Seeker believes that the moment of conception, and the resultant cell formation, does not constitute a person until about 6 weeks.
Close – I believe that 6 weeks is the upper limit, and that we should aim legislation at that marker. However, in reality, it may begin much earlier, but we may not be able to get any kind of legislative agreement on such.
I agree with your assessments of the various conflicts we have been involved in. I wish, however, that we were a little more vocal about the current Sudan conflict, which is awful.
Never mind I’ll repost :)
I see two assumptions here which I disagree with. First, you seem to assume that the only purpose for imprisonment is rehab.
No, the purpose of imprisonment is to remove criminals from society. Rehab is to remove criminals from society as well, make them productive citizens (if possible). You make a very bad assumption to think prison is for rehab only.
But not all killing is wrong.
You already know this has been my view all along in war, self defense etc… but not as a punishment.
Again, in murder cases, I would argue that justice demands it. And justice makes families feel better – sure, some may temporarily revel in it as retribution, but society benefits from justice, and so do the victims.
You didn’t address justice=revenge in death penalty verdicts… so you agree? I can easily replace the word justice with revenge in the above sentence. There is no social benefit to revenge, sorry.
Justice most certainly is a deterrent
The death penalty (revenge) as deterrent is suspect. I can pull murder rate stats if you want to see that this issue certainly is debatable. Tell me why life imprisonment is not justice?
So, you agree with stem cell research and the wars? Wow Seeker you are not the total neo-con I thought you were if this is true. That was my mistake. It seems you are to the left of Aaron and GW Bush on some issues. It just makes me wonder why you are so zealous about defending ID when it’s such a weak position and you had such an anemic response to the Judge Jones ruling. Separation of Church and State is my favorite issue and ID to me is just an underhanded attempt to insert religion into public schools.
Seeker,
1. A good argument could be made that spending your days in a 12/12 room for the rest of your life is punishment enough.
2. Since you don't actually believe that the law should be "take a life, forfeit your own" I wonder if you could explain how we differentiate between those who should be killed and those who shouldn't.
3. Its hardly humble to call those who believe in evolution "brainwashed." In fact, its much more likely that it is Christian who are brainwashed, what with the belief in a book written and translated and rewritten and retranslated by man, alleging a God who cannot be proven to exist.
But you don’t think that prison, in part, is supposed to punish wrongdoers? Only rehab and removing from the population?
You make a good point here Seeker. Yes prison is also to punish. Torture can also be used to punish and sometimes it would be justified yes?
I am not worried that they have a supernatural assumption for a starting point – evolution has it’s own unprovable first assumptions (abiogenisis, etc.)
Don’t you see Seeker? Evolution is irrelevant in this, assume it’s wrong for now. Here’s the point. A “supernatural assumption” means it is religion by definition, by nature. Putting a religious theory in schools violates Separation of church and State. You said you are a strong proponent of this separation yet supporting ID in public schools is a contradiction in your beliefs.
and as I said, deterrent or not, I believe it to be just. It is just and right to be angry at such crimes as rape and murder and the desire to see punishment meeted out is not necessarily revenge – to not do so is a miscarriage of justice, and further victimizes the victims.
Yes, I agree the anger is from the heart but that does not necessarily mean destroying a life makes sense. The question is, is the death penalty ethical? Life without parole; how does that further victimize the victims? Remember your argument about the “right to comfort?” I am writing this and my brother just told me that one of his good close friends was killed by a roadside bomb. He is really distraught. Some of my friends have died there too. I know you don’t care since it’s not someone close to you. The death sentence not only punishes the criminal but it also punishes everyone that person is associated with. That is not justice, rather injustice. Seeker, I am sick and tired of death and we don’t need anymore of it especially in our justice system.
A good argument could be made that spending your days in a 12/12 room for the rest of your life is punishment enough.
I think a better argument can be made for execution. Life for life, rather than letting the perp live while his victim doesn't have that chance.
Since you don't actually believe that the law should be "take a life, forfeit your own" I wonder if you could explain how we differentiate between those who should be killed and those who shouldn't.
I absolutely do believe that, in the context of murder, as opposed to the administration of justice or a just war. As much as you might like to make those two cases as one, they are clearly differentiated. State-run execution v. vigilante. Not that the state is always right (e.g. Hitler), but that individual murder, except in cases of self defense, etc. are always wrong.
Its hardly humble to call those who believe in evolution "brainwashed."
Well, you should konw that IMHO is a humorous expression – if you did know that, then you were just wasting our time.
Torture can also be used to punish and sometimes it would be justified yes?
I'm not sure that torture is a humane punishment – though it might be for someone who tortured. But this is why we have the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." A merciful death is better than a cruel one. But certainly, things like caning, hard labor, and castration might not be outside the realm of cruel and unusual, depending on where we set the limits and what the crimes are.
A "supernatural assumption" means it is religion by definition, by nature.
Well, that's your materialist world view, shutting out all spiritual truth in order to prevent superstition. I suppose that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" is also religious?
Look, what I am saying is that we can be candid about our primary assumptions, which are generally NOT provable, be they what they may. But all that comes after them is science. Call it "the theory of rapid appearance" (a.k.a. ID ;), I don't care. The point is, evolution is poorly supported by the data. At LEAST, we need to be able to teach that data. Heck, if you don't want an alternative taught, fine, but not allowing dissent is hegemony.
Putting a religious theory in schools violates Separation of church and State.
Well, we have two problems here. One is your idea of separation, which I have discussed elsewhere. The other is our secular education system, which is failing in many ways, not least of which is its lack of integration with morals, values, and spiritual truths, not to mention the great christian ideas and ideals that helped form the history of the west.
The question is, is the death penalty ethical? Life without parole; how does that further victimize the victims? … The death sentence not only punishes the criminal but it also punishes everyone that person is associated with.
No, you are blaming the justice system for doing what is right. The perp forfeited his life when he murdered someone. He is the one who hurt his family when he broke the law, and he is the one who brought the consequences down upon himself. If he does not have to pay, we are insulting justice, and the victims. I do not think that life in prison is a just enough sentence for rapist/murderers, esp. repeat offenders.
I understand why people disagree on the death penalty – heck, even xians disagree on it, and I am willing to let others disagree without calling their position unchristian because this is not a central xian doctrine. But I still find the death penalty just.
The point is, evolution is poorly supported by the data.
What data supports ID at all?
A merciful death is better than a cruel one.
Execution is cruel right? As such, it falls under "cruel and unusual." The cruel part is what appeals to you though. Otherwise it wouldn't be sufficient punishment/justice.
Heck, if you don't want an alternative taught, fine, but not allowing dissent is hegemony.
Agree. I like dissent. I don't like religion (church) in public schools (state). Teach Christianity and creationism in church where it belongs. The Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and Agnostics around the world will thank you for not thrusting evangelical Protestant creation theory upon them in schools. Please, lets not pretend ID is widely supported anywhere outside the Discovery Institute. ID has a cult following at best and the United States would look like a country of idiots teaching ID while the rest of the world teaches evolution. Frankly, it would be an embarrassment.
The other is our secular education system, which is failing in many ways, not least of which is its lack of integration with morals, values, and spiritual truths, not to mention the great Christian ideas and ideals that helped form the history of the west.
Secular countries in Europe, Asia, and North America have outpaced the largely Christian United States in…
Human Development Index
Gender Equality
Life expectancy
Quality of Life
Gay Rights
Obesity
Asylum Seeker Acceptance Rates
Adults at High Literacy Level
Environment
Open Access to Research
Aid to Developing Countries
You make it seem as if secular countries are in a horrid state of affairs when in fact, the opposite is true. Western Civilization owes far more to Greece (Pagans) than Christianity. Thank Leonidas for Western Civilization not Jesus. Without him there would be no such thing as Democracy.
But I still find the death penalty just.
You should amend this to say, "In the United States." Is it justice in Muslim countries? Would you argue against the death penalty in Muslim countries because you think their justice system sucks? I don't discriminate, I am against it everywhere.
So in other words, the wife who executes her husband for hitting her gets to live, whereas the husband who executes her life dies? Do you genuinely support capital punishment in every single case of murder, outside of these self-defense cases?
Doesn't that seem awfully blood thirsty to you? And because we are routinely setting "killers" free from Death Row, don't you think it might be necessary to stop all of these executions until we can create a system that is 100 percent accurate? What troubles me is your desire to revenge kill now, now, NOW! You seem so bloodthirsty.
So in other words, the wife who executes her husband for hitting her gets to live, whereas the husband who executes her life dies? Do you genuinely support capital punishment in every single case of murder, outside of these self-defense cases?
There are certainly unjust applications of the death penalty. That doesn't make the death penalty unjust, only the misuse of it.
I have no desire for revenge, only for justice. Nothing bloodthirsty about it. But if you've never been a victim or cared for one, maybe you have less of an interest in justice. There is a place for mercy, but if you make mercy the rule, then you never had justice in the first place.
A good question is, how do you determine a just punishment? And how do you integrate that with restitution, penitence, and mercy?