It’s worth noting that right winger Erick Erickson, morally conflicted by his fellows’ recent political activities, aka the January 6 Insurrection, has found it necessary to take to the immoral equivalency argument:
Roe v. Wade is nothing more than a modern retelling of Dred Scot. The abortion movement will scream and complain at the comparison, but not only do they know it is true, but abortion, like slavery, is predatory in black communities across America as rich white people fund the killing of black children.
We should not forget nor should we deny that the arguments of slavery and abortion are only a few words removed from each other. The moral case for abortion is the moral case for slavery.
Remember that.
Yep, abortion is equated to slavery.
I skimmed his arguments, but I wasn’t all that interested and they seemed strained. The fascination, for me, lies in the fact that he felt he had to present this moral condemnation of the left at all. That, no matter what foul political leanings and calculations and corruption and irrationality and, yes, murders his fellow travelers have committed, he can drag the left down to the current level of moral depravity of much of the right through this strained argument.
And, especially, this line is telling: The abortion movement will scream and complain at the comparison, but not only do they know it is true … and so he accuses the pro-choice left of conscious racism, a charge lodged most credibly against the right in view of the many racist symbols observed at the Insurrection, not to mention various other hints from President Trump himself. He cannot deny the charge against the right, but if he can make the charge against the left stick…
And the last sentence, Remember that, serves two purposes. First, that this is a weapon to use in arguments between left and right, as a fine way to outrage the left; and, second, that this is a weapon to use in arguments within the right. That is, those who are thinking that the right has become too shabby, too corrupt to honorably associate with can be faced with accusations that the other side is equally racist and commits abortion/murders. So why leave? It’s an argument of nihilism.
It’s a fascinating exercise in immoral equivalency, isn’t it? Erickson discovers that corruption is rampant, even epidemic, on his side, and, while he creditably rages against it in other posts, he still seeks to paint the left with yet fouler paint, all in order to keep a befouled and hopelessly corrupt right ascendant.
If you buy his anti-abortion arguments, maybe it works. Keep ghastly anti-Americanism and allegiance to irrationality in place, and watch the whole country collapse in ruins, eventually. All while denials echo in our ears that it’s going on. Trumpism and gaslighting are fast becoming synonyms.
If you don’t buy his anti-abortion arguments, or you refuse the separate evil of being a single-issue voter, then there’s a good chance you go independent, or even begin to explore the ideological arguments of the centrist left with a newly open mind.
And Erickson, because he’s trapped in his assertion that abortion isn’t just bad policy or even reprehensible, but a mortal sin, is left to beseech his fellows not to be corrupt, while providing them with an overwhelming excuse to be corrupt, to destroy the American state, to let the forces of chaos and evil destroy another victim, all in the name of anti-abortion and irrationality.
That’s a tough position. It’s the sort of thing that might make you rethink your assumptions.
