I spent a troubled night, and awoke, brooding. It is nearly sixty years since I first raised
my voice against the evils of the world.
In that distant time, when I thought about it at all, which was very
rarely, I supposed that when I grew old, I would rest quietly by the campfire
or in the reading room and tell young men and women what the fight was like in
the old days. Little did I imagine that
I would sit on the ground, and tell sad tales about the death of kings.
And then, there came to me the words of Dylan Thomas:
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And so, once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…
We have been dealt two blows in as many days: the terrible Janus decision from the high
court, and the retirement of Associate Justice Kennedy, with the threat to Roe
v. Wade and a host of other foundational court decisions. These are terrible times, with fascism on the
horizon in the United States and our last defense severely undermined by the
Kennedy retirement. By the time the
Mueller investigation’s results reach their inevitable Supreme Court review,
will all hope have evaporated for a judicial affirmation of its results?
We must fight. But
what does that even mean? Herewith some thoughts,
wrenched from my fevered mind. Make of them what you will.
Coming so close together, the decision and the retirement
compel us to draw a distinction. The
assault on workers’ rights, advanced yet another step by Janus, can be no
surprise. The exploitation of workers is
not a byproduct of capitalism; it is the essential foundation and reason for
being of capitalism. Justice Kennedy’s
replacement, in addition to being a safe vote for the reversal of Roe, will
have as his or her goal the further oppression of workers and the further
enrichment of capitalists. That, after all,
is why the high court exists.
On the other hand, the inevitable attack on Roe has no
essential connection to capitalism. Its
purpose is to secure the political support of millions of useful idiots whose
religious obsessions make them malleable ground troops for the seizure of
political power by the Republican Party.
Capitalists themselves care not at all how their workers reproduce themselves,
only how they reproduce capital.
What is to be done?
The Janus decision is simply a small part of the larger fight against
capitalism, a fight in which we are outgunned but not outnumbered. As my brief post on Gini Coefficients makes
clear, and as Piketty’s important book, Capital
in the Twenty-First Century, details, capitalism is increasingly successful
in its core exploitative mission. Organize! Is still the best one word
answer we have.
The threat of the overturning of Roe is more particular and
requires a more elaborate answer. Let us
be clear. Overturning Roe will not make
abortion illegal in the United States.
It will remove the hold on those state laws making abortion
illegal. Depending on how you count, the
overturning of Roe will make abortion illegal in roughly 15 states. Since there is little hope of getting a
federal law passed legalizing abortion, that means we must use the federal
structure of American government to our advantage.
Now, for as long as I have been alive, States’ Rights has been the battle cry of segregationists,
homophobes, and other rightwing lowlifes, so some may consider it, shall we
say, ironic for those of us on the left suddenly to discover the wisdom of the
Founding Fathers. Not I. I had my say half a century ago about the philosophical
foundations of representative democracy in a little tract called In Defense of Anarchism. I experience not the slightest twinge of
embarrassment at invoking the cry of states’ rights. It is all false anyway, so far as I am
concerned.
Reflect. Roe was
decided in 1973. That means that every
single woman in the United States of childbearing age has, since the onset of
her puberty, lived in a country in which abortion is legal. The women living in the states with
anti-abortion laws will suddenly find that they are no longer protected from
the enforcement of invasive restrictions that they may hitherto have found it
convenient to profess to support. In
every one of those states, there will be countless women who can be mobilized
to vote out the Republican legislators who enacted or support those laws, and
to elect state legislators and governors who are ready to repeal their state’s
anti-abortion laws. In each state, the
issue will be entirely local. Repealing
an anti-abortion law in one state will not in any way require actions in other
states. Nor will it be necessary to
enact pro-abortion laws. Absent state
laws and the Roe decision, abortion is as legal as dental surgery.
In short, the overturning of Roe could be a mobilizing
weapon for progressive forces the likes of which we have not seen before.
Finally, what are the prospects for blocking a Trump nominee
before the November mid-terms? Not good,
I would say. Why? Well, with McCain dying of cancer, the Senate
is split 50/49. If the Democrats can
hold all of their votes – an enormously difficult task this year – then they
only need one Republican to switch, say Collins or Murkowski. Both are pro-choice. But McConnell is no fool, and Trump merely
wants a win. Which means all the
Republicans need do is to find a reliable anti-Roe judge who has had the good
sense to keep his or her mouth shut on the matter and has left no troublesome
trail of lower court decisions. Collins
and Murkowski will quiz this candidate sharply, he [in all probability] will
give the appropriate answers, and Collins and Murkowski will profess themselves
satisfied.
The one wild card is the Mueller investigation. It is rather difficult to judge the effect
on all this by, let us say, Mueller’s
naming of Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator. One can dream.
Well, I had my eyes checked this morning, so all of this has
been written with dilated pupils that make everything a blur. Who knows?
Maybe the drops blurred my mind as well my vision.
7 comments:
The drops may have affected your sight, but they didn't affect your insight. Thank you.
Your point that reversal of Roe would not outlaw abortion but merely leave it to the states is an important one. Most states allow it and, presumably would continue to do so.
There’s a certain irony in this in that one of the critics of the Roe decision, both as to its legal foundation (right to privacy) and as to the tactical decision to bring a constitutional case, was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, the National Abortion Rights League questioned her appointment by Clinton, although in the end, I believe they did not oppose her.
The right to privacy is an amorphous theory, developed by the Court in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in part because the robber barons didn’t like the tabloid press scandalizing them for their peccadillos. The Constitution has nothing to say about a right to privacy. It has to be implied from the text. Ginsburg contends that the right to an abortion is a matter of equal protection of the law, not privacy. For a woman to have equality in our society, she must be in charge of her own body, just as men are in charge of theirs.
As to tactics, which is where she parted from most pro-choice advocates, she argued that the issue was already being won state-by-state pretty much below the radar. She feared that to constitutionalize it would raise its public profile and could lead to a strong anti-abortion movement. She was right.
If he doesn't die, McCain will certainly resign in time for the governor of Arizona to appoint his replacement, making the Senate 51-49 again.
As many have probably already read, about 575 women were charged today with unlawfully protesting at the Senate's Hart building. They were committing civil disobedience to protest the separations. Among those arrested was Rep. Pramila Jayapal. Roll Call has the story here:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/photos-day-575-protesters-charged-senate-hart-building-immigration-rally
How about this poem from Yeats?
WHY should not old men be mad?
Some have known a likely lad
That had a sound fly-fisher's wrist
Turn to a drunken journalist;
A girl that knew all Dante once
Live to bear children to a dunce;
A Helen of social welfare dream,
Climb on a wagonette to scream.
Some think it a matter of course that chance
Should starve good men and bad advance,
That if their neighbours figured plain,
As though upon a lighted screen,
No single story would they find
Of an unbroken happy mind,
A finish worthy of the start.
Young men know nothing of this sort,
Observant old men know it well;
And when they know what old books tell
And that no better can be had,
Know why an old man should be mad.
For old men and rage, Frederick Seidel makes a mark.
https://www.ft.com/content/8c6d9dca-882c-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787
Apparent connection between Trump and Justice Kennedy: Kennedy's son works for Deutsche Bank and it was he who approved real-estate loans to Trump.
Post a Comment