By Dave Andrusko
You’re going to have to trust me on this one. I am not going into the specifics of either of the two examples I’m about to comment on for the simple reason if I did, we’d spend all our time chasing down rabbit trails and this post would be four times as long.
#1. Is a story that ran this week asking why the Pro-Life Movement doesn’t concern itself with “x”? The query was not even marginally sincere, as you could tell after, say, a nanosecond. The author’s intent was to leave the impression that her argument was so unassailable, so air-tight that pro-lifers would (or at least should) be left sputtering.
In one sense, and one sense alone, she is sort of correct. Her reasoning is so sophomoric, tendentious, and question-begging that you are left, if not sputtering, close to speechless.
Why do I bother even to mention it? Because her article is representative, admittedly in a not particularly sophisticated way, of the meme (usually pro-abortion but not always) that if you don’t agree with them about “x”—or, in this case, supposedly do not concern yourself with “x”—you’re not “really pro-life.”
The goal is either to discredit pro-lifers in general or to announce that someone has discovered voilà that single-issue pro-life groups are passé. Never mind all that this insistence not to be dragged into other issues has accomplished against pro-abortion forces that have access to money by the billions and the unwavering support of virtually the entirety of the cultural/media establishment. They know better.
#2. This second example deals with an individual whose approach to combating the ever-more suffocating atmosphere of political correctness is beginning to win a massive audience. This, not surprisingly, means he is attacked with unbridled ferocity.
However a question has arisen in a number of forums the gist of which is shouldn’t reporters at least read what it is he has written before they interview him? Wouldn’t that help avoid caricaturing what he says to the point of utter absurdity?
Why/how does this apply to us, beyond the related consideration that entire governments around the world are busy trying to compel pro-lifers to speak a pro-abortion message and/or put their consciences in a deep freeze?
No one would say that no reporter has ever done his/her homework before interviewing pro-lifers. Clearly that is not true.
But it equally true that reporters could not come up with the off-kilter, wildly unrepresentative portrait of pro-lifers that is a staple of media coverage if they at least made the attempt to come to the interview with biases on hold and having read our material with something less than unrelenting hostility.
I remember right after Mr. Trump surprised the entire media and political establishments by winning the presidency that some prestigious media outlets said, in effect, whoa, how could we have been that wrong? They promised to do better.
When they went out into the hinterland, some, of course, treated the “Trump voter” as an anthropologist would a hitherto undiscovered tribe in the middle of the South Pacific. But others at least tried.
No doubt some of those who went out to “fly over country” were sincere. But others, like those who insist they will judge who are the “real pro-lifers,” had/have a different agenda. Which is?
To divide. In this instance, divide President Trump from the coalition (which included many, many prolifers) that elected him President.
Please remember (a) that we have a pro-life President and pro-life leadership of both houses of Congress and many state legislative bodies because the Pro-Life Movement has, is, and will remain single issue; and (b) that President Trump is fulfilling every promise he made to our Movement.
Please be aware when people tell you otherwise.