Who Can Really Say?

Before the Iraq War, those opposing the war often spoke of letting the weapons inspectors "do their job". Before the Gulf War, those opposed wanted "more negotiations". During the Vietnam War, John Lennon wrote "Give Peace a Chance".

In the abstract, each notion is a good one. Why go to war when negotiations can resolve the crisis? Why go to war when weapons inspectors are still on the ground? Why not Give Peace A Chance? But none of these notions or slogans provide any guidance as to when enough is enough. To some, so long as Saddam allowed inspectors to "inspect", there was no reason for war, regardless of the quality of information the inspectors might be expected to obtain. Negotiations, famously, can be quite open-ended, but when have they gone on long enough? There is no answer. And while peace is surely better than war (again, in the abstract), it will not necessarily save you from war.

All of this is a way of introducing the latest slogan proffered by the Left Right -- "Err on the side of life". It's got just as much oomph as Give Peace a Chance, and just as little guidance as to when that chance is up. I'm all in favor of being cautious when it comes to the sort of decisions involved at the heart of the Terrry Schiavo matter. But at what point can one safely say there's no error in deciding to suspend treatment? After a court hearing? After the appeal? The appeal of the appeal? The slogan doesn't answer that and I suspect I know why.

The slogan doesn't answer the question because it isn't designed to do so. It's designed to prevent the question from ever having to be answered, just as giving the inspectors more time, or the negotiators more time, or peace a chance isn't designed to answer the question, "when is it time for war?" And in that sense, I find the notion that is so simply proffered in the Schiavo matter -- that we can do no wrong by erring on the side of life -- to be as useless as the others. I point this out only for the obvious reason that it's ironic to have conservative GOPers parroting what is essentially an argument that they reject in other contexts.

I've long believed that the GOP talks a better game than their Democrat opponents, but I've believed even longer that the talk of both parties is cheapest when politics is on the line. And politics is ALWAYS on the line. In this case, the cats and dogs aren't just living together. The cats ARE the dogs, and vice versa.

[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam].