A Rose by Any Other Name

Short post tonight from the road - I'm in the middle of my quarterly gauntlet of client reports and visits, so while my head has been swimming with material, the rest of me has been treading water.

I don't know why so many on the left seem threatened by perfectly accurate, descriptive and inoffensive labels - yet these same people love applying labels to those with whom they disagree, no matter how offensive they may be.

My pet (peeve?) example is the use of the term "progressive" in lieu of the term "liberal."

These same people have no qualms about calling those on the right "conservative," an equally descriptive and accurate term.  In fact, they decided a number of years ago that "conservative" wasn't sufficiently damning, so they coined the term "neo-con" (the veiled reference to neo-Nazis is not lost; remember that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is the practice of invoking Hitler's name in an attempt to win an argument that one realizes is about to be lost).  In any event, I was a conservative long before any progre- er, liberal dreamed up the term "neo-con," so I'd say there's nothing "neo" about me.

But back to "progressive."  The name implies that the individuals that claim it as their descriptor are not liberal.  But they are.  Further, it implies that anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do isn't progressive.  The insinuation is that they're somehow against progress.

Well, count me as a progressive, because I definitely want to see progress.  Progress in reducing our bloated national debt.  Progress in making our corporate tax code more competitive, and our individual tax code less complex.  Progress in ensuring our security, cyber and otherwise.  Progress in protecting the rights of all, including those who are alive (and thus have the right to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness), even if they haven't yet breathed outside their mothers' wombs.

So let's stop already with the use of the label "progressive" as some sort of badge of superiority, when in fact the wearers of the label are simply liberal, and no better (or worse) than their counterparts who are conservative.  In fact, I'd prefer that we reach a point where we don't feel the need to use labels at all.  Dr. Suess predicted all of this in his famous story of the Sneetches.

While we're on the subject of labels, though, let's debunk the whole pro-choice, pro-life nonsense.

The so-called pro-choice group argues that they support a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body.  Now, they typically aren't talking about the vitally important choice not to become pregnant if the woman doesn't want to give birth to a baby, whether she plans to raise it or let someone else do the job.  What they're talking about is abortion.

Well, here's the deal - there's a saying about rights: Your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose.  In other words, when the exercise of your rights infringes on the rights of another, you no longer may exercise that right.

So when a woman exercises her "right to choose" by choosing to abort a life, she is infringing on the unborn child's unalienable right to life.  We can argue the science all we want, but the indisputable fact is that legal abortion applies, in many states, to unborn children that could clearly live outside the womb.  Ask the mother of any preemie.  Or ask the mothers and fathers who have suffered the pain of an early miscarriage, knowing with certainty that the child was alive at some point after conception, and desperately wanting to hold, love and raise that child.  Or ask the mother who, after a positive home pregnancy test, immediately stops drinking alcohol and coffee, and begins pre-natal care, clearly recognizing that there is a life inside her in need of nurturing.

Also, the "pro-choice" crowd generally isn't in favor of my right to choose to legally own a handgun, or to choose not to pay any more in taxes than I absolutely have to under the code.

So they're not really "pro-choice," not even as it relates to whether a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy.  (I won't delve into other nuances of the abortion debate here, such as the false narrative that if abortion were illegal, women would be "forced" to subject themselves to dangerous back-alley abortions.)

Simply put, these people are pro-legal abortion.  Now, I'm not implying that they like the idea of abortion, or want to see more abortions; I'm simply stating the fact that they support abortion being legal.  Thus, they are "pro-" legal abortion.

Likewise, many in the "pro-life" crowd are in favor of capital punishment and being able to shoot and kill a criminal in self-defense.  They may try to draw "quality of life" distinctions, but that's a slippery slope.  What about the falsely accused, or the unborn child who grows up to be a mass murderer?

Thus, a more appropriate moniker would be "anti-abortion."  After all, it's not the sanctity of life under all circumstances that they support (usually), it's that they oppose legal abortion.  Thus, they are "anti-" abortion.

The reason too many people - especially on the left, in my experience - feel a need to shift from the more accurate labels is that they perceive those labels cast them in an undesirable light.  They're looking for a kinder, gentler way to say they're liberal, or they're pro-legal abortion.  But, to paraphrase the Bard, a rose by any other name carries the same scent.