Thursday, July 04, 2013

Compromise at the Extremes

A lot has been made about the Texas congresswoman who fillibustered the abortion law that would require abortion to be illegal after 20 weeks (with numerous loopholes in place). The logic of the law was two-fold; one, to insure the same safe guidelines put in place in Pennsylvania, following the gruesome discovery of Kermitt Gosnell's abortion mill, and #2, to act as a compromise between those who are completely pro-choice and those to the other extreme.

However, because of how Roe v. Wade is written, there is no incentive for the left to ever accept any compromise on abortion. The fact is that most Americans agree that it should be legal. However, those who feel that way believe overwhelming of it's legality before 20 weeks. But once the fetus passes to 20-week plateau, the popularity of the law diminishes. At 25 weeks, on 16% of Americans believe abortion should be used (not including questions regarding the health of the mother.

Imagine how strong the left's case would be if they agreed to compromise? But instead of trying to bridge the enormous schism between the two extremes, the left refuses to grant an inch - even at the expense of credibility and threats of violence (towards Pro-Lifers).

To be honest, the right is almost always as guilty. However, the biggest difference is, as Charles Krauthammer explains, "Republicans think of liberals as naive and misguided in their policies. While liberals consider the right to be inherently evil." The irony, at least according to the always brilliant Thomas Sowell, is that the left has a far more difficult time accepting evil as a choice of life.

So the question is, what can we do about it? Sadly, our government at the moment is stoking the flames of division and extremes. As long as our President continues to fan the flames of discontent, no compromise will be feasible. Sad, but true.

This is also playing out internationally. On one hand, Egypt did elect Mohammed Morsi President in a free election. But truthfully, how really "free" was it? Numerous reports of viable threats made against Christians and secularists who came out against Morsi were greatly reported. Even today, a Coptic Church was burned to the ground because they support the opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood. A year ago, against sincere opposition here in America, Obama backed the coup which led to Mubarak's demise, even though he had been a friend and an ally. Obama considered the Morsi election legitimate because it was a seemingly free decision by the Egyptian people. However, there were two problems here. For one thing, Islamist threats against the Christians and secularists were not only warned, but systematically carried out of the course of the year. Secondly, Morsi barely won the election, yet began to govern as if he had an enormous mandate to turn Egypt into the latest caliphate.

Clearly, the Egyptian people do not wish to be the next Iran. Industry and tourism is a sense of tremendous pride for everyday Egyptians. Their hatred for Israel was tempered when they found a lot of financial incentives to remain on at least cool terms with her neighbor. But more importantly, the women of Egypt refuse to be herded as second class citizens, the way they are in every other predominately Islamic country.

Much to Obama's disappointment, the Egyptians will not soon forget it was Obama who took the lead in deposing Mubarak and supporting Morsi - an idealogical opposite of America, but not of the American President. This week's happenings in Cairo have transpired in spite of Obama and shows the true weakness of the US President. His legacy should be of one who was constantly on the wrong side of events in order to placate to his own weak foreign policy. The main stream media will praise him and claim Egypt is erupting because of Obama's Cairo speech 5 years ago. But he used that excuse for last year's revolution. It doesn't work both ways. Only a weak man uses the same excuse.

No comments: