Murky morals

I thought the blogosphere would explode with articulate, or, not-so-much, indignation at Brooksie's column yesterday, but I haven't spotted any outrage out there, yet*.

It is one thing to say that this case brings out the opposing "core beliefs" of "social conservatives" and "social liberals." Although even that is not quite so cut and dried, judging by poll results and conversations I've had. Many social conservatives are siding with the husband on this one, and many liberals are conflicted.

Though very few seem very conflicted on the total inappropriateness of the actions of Congress and les Bush freres in the Schiavo case, of which Brooks says nothing. He's apparently cured of his shrill, unholy madness of a few days ago.

But when Brooks transmutes, like bread into Jesus made flesh, the words "core belief" into the loaded word, "morals," then I have to differ strongly.

Social liberals warn against vitalism, the elevation of physical existence over other values. They say it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence.

The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin. Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste.

Wait a second. It is not "up to individuals or families" to draw that line. It is ultimately up to the doctors and nurses who care for the patient. Yes, the family is consulted and, in the case of living wills, the patient's own wishes come into play (though I have heard it said that this is less often the case than we're led to believe). But it's the doctors who decide a case is hopeless, as they did in Terri Schiavo's case (I am talking about those doctors who have actually examined the helpless woman, not those who can diagnose by video).

You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices.

What begins as an appealing notion - that life and death are joined by a continuum - becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions.

You end up exactly where many liberals ended up this week, trying to shift arguments away from morality and on to process.

If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics and procedures. They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be.

Then, if social conservatives tried to push their moral claims, you'd find liberals accusing them of turning this country into a theocracy - which is an effort to cast all moral arguments beyond the realm of polite conversation.

Give me a break. I have not heard any one accuse any one else of trying to turn this country into a theocracy as an argument to let Terri Schiavo die. There are plenty of other areas to point to as examples of the theocratic movement in this country.

Once moral argument is abandoned, there are no ethical checks, no universal standards, and everything is left to the convenience and sentiments of the individual survivors.

What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

Making this a "morals" argument is disingenuous if you are unwilling to put it into the context of the overall behavior of many of those who would demand her feeding tube be reinserted:

-- Congressmen who cut Medicade and Medicare, then pass a bill in the middle of the night that "helps" only one dying person in this country, ignoring the rest.

-- Presidents who decide to "err on the side of life" after having mocked the pleas of a condemned woman.

-- Religious leaders who have whipped this into a crusade to try to bolster their own visibility, not to mention finances.

On and on.

Now, I am not condemning the morals of the Schindlers and their attempt to keep their daughter alive, though it is not a moral view that I would share after watching a loved one lay in a vegetative state for a decade and a half. I am not condemning the morals of the people keeping vigil outside her hospice (though I do condemn those who've threatened violence), but I wonder where these people are when a mentally retarded man is executed.

But Brooks is trying to condemn my morals. By bringing accusations of "thin morality" into feelings about dignity and privacy, he's trying to frame (there's that word again) "liberals" as people who are essentially pro-euthanasia.

"Morals" are rarely bright-lined, as Brooks unfairly suggests. That is why we have "laws." That's why a decades' worth of legal decisions in Florida and the Supreme Court trump whatever "morals" David Brooks likes to claim and with which he condemns his opponents. Brooks is trying to use the Schiavo case as a bludgeon to hammer us godless heathens who prefer to rely on medical tests, legal precedent, and the consistent outcomes of a heavily adjudicated case over the moral pronouncements of Randall Terry. Or a New York Times columnist.

Then, of course is the classic Brooks conclusion:

No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates.

In one short sentence he is able to deflect attention from consistent polling that indicates most people aren't really so agonized about this case, AND, remind readers that liberals are evil murderers.

His philosophical arguments may be dunderheaded, but in his portrayal as a thoughtful, fair conservative even as he sticks the knife in the backs of his political opponents, he's a genius.

*UPDATED 3/28: Guess I wasn't looking very hard.