George Orwell’s axiom that insincerity is the enemy of clear language probably explains the disconnection between political language and reality today. When President Clinton said in his Inaugural Address that government is not the problem and government is not the solution but the people are the solution, he may actually have thought his unintelligible utterance expressed something profound. Certainly his sentiment, although a perfect intellectual vacuum, may also have been a perfect overture for the second term of a president who may be remembered, with difficulty, as (in words once applied to a British politician) ““having risen without a trace.''
Last week, on the 24th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, Vice President Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed a rally of people pleased by the decision that has resulted in a society in which 24 percent of the pregnancies that do not end in miscarriages are ended by abortions. Gore opposes banning even the form of infanticide known as partial-birth abortion. Ms. Clinton also favors partial-birth abortions and wanted abortions to be a covered procedure under her health-care plan. She and Gore said they want abortions to be ““rare’’ but that anti-abortion extremism is making it hard to have temperate discourse about abortion. Well, now, let us see if we can sniff out some extremism.
In a partial-birth abortion, the (if pro-abortion people will forgive the expression) baby is maneuvered by the abortionist so that it enters the birth canal feet first and is almost entirely delivered, with only a few inches of the skull still in the (here comes another presumably problematic word) mother. Then the abortionist makes a hole in the rear of the exposed portion of the baby’s skull, inserts a vacuum hose and sucks out the baby’s brains. Last Sept. 26, during the Senate debate on whether to override Clinton’s veto of the ban on such abortions, there occurred the following exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), who favored the override, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), who opposed it:
Santorum: ““The senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make … My question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby’s head would slip out–that the baby was completely delivered–would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?''
Feingold: “”… the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.''
Santorum: ““That doesn’t answer the question. Let’s assume … the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?''
Feingold: “”… That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives the advice from the doctor.''
There was also this exchange with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.):
Santorum: ““If the baby was delivered accidentally–the head slipped out–would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?''
Lautenberg: ““I am not making the decision. If that is …''
Santorum: ““But that’s what we are doing here, Senator; we are making decisions.''
Lautenberg: ““You are making decisions that say a doctor doesn’t have …''
Santorum: ““So two inches make the difference as to whether you’ll answer that question?''
Lautenberg: ““No, what makes the difference is someone who has the knowledge and intelligence and experience making the decision …''
That is clear enough: neither Feingold nor Lautenberg would say ““no’’ to treating the killing of a newborn baby as a mere ““choice.’’ The point of contention has become, as abortion opponents have long warned that it would, not whether legally protectable life begins at conception but whether legally protectable life begins at birth. So, who are the extremists?
There will be more accusations of extremism when Congress comes to grips with the problem of assuring for several generations the solvency of the Social Security system. Not that extreme measures are necessary. Eliminating the exaggeration of inflation by the current computation of the consumer price index would be a large step. So would gentle increases in the retirement age. (Since 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed, the fraction of the population surviving to 65 has risen from 60 percent to 80 percent, and the fraction surviving to 85 has risen from 10 percent to 30 percent. If in 1935 the retirement age had been indexed to life expectancy, the retirement age today would be about 72 and Social Security would not need to be fixed.)
However, words have consequences, and the careless bandying of ““extremism’’ can produce paralysis. In the rhetorical mode of the moment, a cut of 1.73 percent from the Medicare budget ($3.3 billion a year) constitutes extremism, and a refusal to say ““no’’ to infanticide does not. And the chances of rational discourse, and hence of sensible governance, are diminishing to the vanishing point.
