RSS Feed MenuAmerican public opinion in almost every way we can measure bunches up toward the moderate middle. Yet increasingly the tone of politics seems to invite and reward extremism. FrumForum examines whether it has to be so. We have asked a range of individuals who identify themselves as centrists (or are so identified by others) some questions about their politics.
* * *
1) Would it be possible or desirable to create a broad consensus on the basics of public policy, either domestic or international?
I must say a resounding yes on both aspects – it is both possible and desirable to create a broad consensus on the basics of public policy.
2) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally agree take positions that trouble you?
On domestic issues it is the social ones and for international matters it is protectionism.
3) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally disagree take positions that you welcome?
On domestic matters, that would be balancing budgets. For the international piece, I would say the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s approach to foreign aid.
4) Which issues are so important to you that you cannot envision compromising on them?
A woman’s basic right to choose and the need to engage with the rest of the world.
5) Conversely have your political adversaries ever made arguments so compelling that they made you reconsider or revise long-held positions?
Medical marijuana is one issue where I can see both sides of the debate, and that is one issue where I have not yet made up my mind.
6) How can civility be brought back to political discourse?
The public has to send the message that policy is more important than politics by supporting officials and candidates who argue from the center and are willing to reach compromises to promote good public policy.
Click here to read other contributions to this symposium.
sinz54 // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm
4) Which issues are so important to you that you cannot envision compromising on them?
A woman’s basic right to choose
Well, that takes care of that. GAME OVER.
If even Christie Todd Whitman takes an extreme position on the hottest-button issue of abortion, then David Frum’s quest for the “vital center” appears hopeless.
Give it up, David.
You’ve been defeated by this abortion garbage.
Unless, of course, you’re prepared to face the abortion issue squarely on FrumForum. Here, I’ll start you off:
Do YOU believe that personhood begins at conception? If not, then when does it begin?
balconesfault // Feb 10, 2010 at 11:43 am
Do YOU believe that personhood begins at conception?
That’s not the only question.
Do you believe that individuals have a right to decide what happens to their body? For example, should the government be able to decide that the nation’s best interests are served if you have your tonsils removed? Would you be ok with manditory flu vaccinations? Can government mandate you volunteer 5 hours of your time each week to a specifically designated workforce? What if government decided that any of these were necessary in order for it to save lives?
Forcing a woman to carry to term a fetus she doesn’t want is the government commandeering her womb. If government can commandeer a woman’s womb … what else will it have the right to dictate to us?
Cforchange // Feb 10, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“If even Christie Todd Whitman takes an extreme position on the hottest-button issue of abortion”.
That is ridiculous – wow! Balcone is 100% correct, the silent majority doesn’t want the government making these decisions – not at the begining nor not at the end of life. Further the only thing extreme about CTW is her intelligence and her ability to competantly govern. Remember – she succeded, she didn’t quit!
Why not ask when does personhood end, should you be required to live endlessly attached to a ventilator. Don’t you remember we’ve been down this path before???
No Sinz, I believe GAME OVER occurred when these issues became center focus for the Republican party. We are just fortunate that a bright and capable person like CTW has continued to identify with a party that has sidelined her career because the social issues have taken higher priority than sucessful governing.
sinz54 // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:49 am
balconesfault: Do you believe that individuals have a right to decide what happens to their body?
Your question is subordinate to my question.
Because if personhood begins at conception, then that embryo or fetus inside the pregnant woman is NOT “her body,” it’s another person’s body.
Certainly just a few hours before she goes into labor, even N.O.W. would acknowledge that there’s a baby inside that woman–and a baby is not part of her body.
sinz54 // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:52 am
CforChange:
Any doctor will tell you that biologically, there is no detectable difference between a baby a few hours before it is born and a baby a few hours after it is born. Late-term abortion is infanticide beyond question. And society has a vested interest in banning infanticide. We don’t leave it up to moms to decide whether they want to murder their infants (cf. “shaken baby syndrome”).
balconesfault // Feb 11, 2010 at 11:30 am
Because if personhood begins at conception, then that embryo or fetus inside the pregnant woman is NOT “her body,” it’s another person’s body.
OK … how about this. Do you have a right to determine if someone stays in your home?
What if it’s a freezing night. What if sending them out the door will be guaranteed death – most of us would say that someone has a moral responsibility to give shelter until the person can safely leave. But should you have a legal responsibility? Would you convict someone in a court of law for not giving shelter to a homeless person in a freezing storm?
It is, after all, another person’s body.
Personally, I believe that the state has a right to regulate abortion at the point when the state is ready to take full responsibility for the cost of the pregnancy. If that’s at some point when the fetus is clearly viable, and the state wants to pay for an induced pregnancy and then take possession of the baby that is born, fine. If that is at some point in time prior to viability, and the state wants to commandeer the woman’s body to carry the fetus to term, isn’t this a property rights issue? Shouldn’t the government be required to at least pay some sum of money to the woman to use her body for the protection of “another person’s body”, if it is going to force her to provide shelter for it?
Cforchange // Feb 11, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Sinz all responsiblities aside, isn’t it rather arrogant of you to feel you can step in the middle of a private family medical situation. Throughout history, humans have sought methods to minimize pain and suffering. Sometimes the heroic path is to end the pain as quickly as possible. I know the new GOP regularly second guesses science . But don’t you think that this is something that an individual consulting with a licensed physician needs to determine on their own and in private.
Further – where will the meddling end – birth control is becoming a dirty phrase. Once again, what about the end of life meddling. Aren’t you medically ill? I gladly give you the right to care for yourself as you choose. Why do you feel the power to intervene in the sadness of others. If you think that women would casually choose to late term abort – you really don’t know women.
As I write Sarah floats mid air to the right here. I must remind you that she describes her own experience as a choice – so not all choices result in termination. The fact that Sarah was free to make a choice but now wants to limit that freedom to others is just one of many reasons why 2012 for her is comical.
For those who make claims that babies deemed not medically viable deserve life – how do they know the extent of suffering? What if there is a defect that prohibits communication of suffering. How do you really know that your solution isn’t one that will cause you to face demons for your own hand in creating a hell for another personhood? Just because you think you’re correct doesn’t make it so.
Clearly the best solution is leaving the decision to the person who will be most affected by their choice. Leave the choice to them and their personal god. The sooner the GOP get’s away from this to deal with the life living in man made hell on earth – the better we will all be.
You see for the issues of ECONOMY our party of late has discounted effective leadership like CWT only because of her smart firm stand on reproductive choice. Folks and you as you represent yourself here are certainly the one issue Republican voter – as every proven business smart candidate like CWT has been overlooked or turned away. Look at the results! The ECONOMY sucks and Indpendents are the growing constituency.
Compassionate conservatism is the biggest hypocrisy of this new millenia. These 2 words can’t fit together without failure. Fiscal conservatives are desparately needed to rise up and lead – this camp will not force you to spend incredible sums to maintain life for the sake of doing so. It simply is not fiscally conservative.