Schwartz: Two Ironies of Liberalism

by Andrew Scwhartz

The liberal crowd sounded like conservatives the other day in Richmond. They vehemently opposed new regulations state bureaucrats had imposed, decrying the “heavy hand of government,” and arguing that these burdensome regulations would kill jobs and the availability of consumer services.

No, they weren’t opposing new regulations in the shipping industry, the tobacco industry, or the hog industry. The new rules they opposed were in the health care field, specifically for abortion clinics.

The Virginia Board of Health approved new rules recently that would require abortion clinics to maintain the same standards of cleanliness and safety as ambulatory surgery clinics. (I was actually quite surprised that they weren’t already required to do so.) But of course, the liberals wouldn’t have anything resembling an interference in the abortion industry. NARAL Pro Choice Virginia was on-site to show their opposition to the proposed regulations, and became teary-eyed when they were passed.

The first irony of this liberal opposition is that these regulations seem to be following the policies of the head liberal in charge, who in a presidential capacity, declared that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Certainly, increasing standards of cleanliness and safety would make the abortions safer (for the doctor and the mother — the danger posed to the child would remain fatal); as far as I can tell, these standards do not make the practice illegal; and certainly an increase in regulation will make these premature fatalities much more rare. Is this not progress? Or does progress only apply when population growth is inhibited rather than stimulated?

The second irony is that had this been any other industry, liberals would have praised the government interference. Implementing standards of cleanliness and safety in an automobile factory? Fine. Standards for chicken farmers? No problem. Price controls for oil? Please! Mandatory health insurance coverage? A moral obligation!

But once the “heavy hand of government” — as Democratic Delegate Charniele Herring called it — dared to implement standards that would promote the preservation of existence, they became libertarians. For the liberal, rules that protect the “little man” from unfair advantages and manipulation are desirable, while rules that protect the “little child” from unfair advantages and manslaughter are not. An equal outcome in property is the goal; an equal outcome in life and liberty is the obstacle. The same party that argues for clean restrooms opposes clean operating tables. The same party that argues for humane execution chambers argues for inhumane execution chambers.

One wonders if they actually listen to themselves sometimes…

BONUS IRONY:
Had Roe v. Wade never been decided as it was, the future of Social Security — the liberal golden calf — our population pyramid may very well have been able to support the next generation.
*****
Andrew Schwartz is a United State Marine, and has a B.A. in History from Old Dominion University, where, despite his conservative arguments in liberal academia, he graduated Summa Cum Laude. His focus as a historian is on Colonial and Revolutionary American political and intellectual history. He has written on politics and history for various blogs for about five years.

Contribute for Conservatism!

About the author

Guest Post