December 13, 2005
Who Can Figure Out Where Those Progressives Stand?
By Dennis
Byrne
Before we
get too wound up in gratitude and wonderment that the sheepish
Chicago City Council has discovered democracy by actually debating
and deliberating, and then enacting, a "compromise"
smoking ban, some observations are required:
- Chicago's
democracy isn't the sort that Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams had
in mind. With aldermen experiencing the torture being applied
by powerful opposing lobbyists, it was more like the democracy
practiced in Washington and Springfield. To be kind, call it special-interest
democracy. For entertainment value, though, it was fun to watch
anxious aldermen trying to decide which lobby they could more
safely afford to anger.
- In the
end, the aldermen put their training wheels back on. Having fallen
down one too many times trying to learn how to ride, they turned,
as is their habit, to sachem Richard M. Daley for a deal that
would give everyone cover. Daley gave the nod, and magically,
the vote was 46-1.
Still, it
was a good stab at democracy. Despite widespread doubt that it
could happen, democracy actually arrived, however momentarily,
in Chicago before Baghdad. Yet, Chicago's attempt at democracy
also must be judged by the quality of the results.
No need here
to rehash the problems that make this smoking ban ridiculous:
enforcement, the unleashing of no-smoking posses, loss of business
to the suburbs, arrogance. Most non-smokers are ambulatory; they
can choose to depart smoky bars. That's what this non-smoker does.
For smoking-ban
enthusiasts, choice isn't enough. Too many people are too ignorant,
stupid or weak to watch out for themselves. "This is for
everyone's good! Personal choice must give way to the greater
good. Secondhand smoke kills people. Our mission is to protect
innocent people."
How liberal.
How progressive. That's how progressives think. For example: They
always call on government to restrict individual choices when
an abortion threatens the life of an unborn baby. Oops, bad example.
Progressives demand absolutely no restrictions on reproductive
choices. The fetus/unborn baby must die.
OK, then
how about this? Progressives believe that the law should "empower"
families by making them an integral part of the support mechanism
for any member having an abortion. Oops, another bad example.
For true-blue progressives, the family has no right to even know
about an abortion in the family. Thus, they passionately oppose
laws requiring notification of parents or husbands of an impending
abortion. Spousal or parental consent is absolutely out of the
question.
I'm sure
I can find something. Here: Progressives fight for the right of
wives to know when they are "at risk" for getting an
HIV infection from their husbands. HIV carriers don't have a right
to keep this information secret and infect whomever they choose.
Thus, progressive code requires that everyone applying for a marriage
license must have an HIV test.
Uh-oh. Can't
do that either. Illinois' brief experiment with mandatory HIV
testing when applying for a marriage license was junked because
of opposition from progressives. It had something to do with individual
privacy rights and losing marriage-license revenue to non-testing
neighboring states.
Let's see.
Here's one: Progressives are spreading the alarm that black women
are being disproportionately infected with the AIDS virus. Progressives
insist that government intervene on the women's behalf, through
mandatory tracing of infected sexual partners. What's that? Wrong
again? Progressives believe that the tracing is a violation of
privacy rights? You mean government should just stand by and let
people die? You mean conservatives, not progressives, correctly
predicted 15 years ago that black women were most threatened if
government tossed out proven public health measures to prevent
the spread of HIV?
Well then,
surely the progressive health agenda at least requires the confidential
reporting of the names of HIV-infected people to public health
officials so they can more accurately measure the extent of the
AIDS epidemic and focus resources on the greatest need. Just as
enlightened public-health policies require that other contagious
diseases, such as syphilis and tuberculosis, be reported.
Surely any
real progressive would support Illinois' recent decision to report
names, instead of unreliable "unique alphanumeric identifiers."
Uh oh. Some, but not all, HIV/AIDS advocacy groups finally agree--although
15 years after conservatives supported it.
Progressives,
of course, passionately reject any suggestion that they would
let people suffer or die from AIDS rather than let them be stigmatized
for having it. They're for a balance between individual rights
and the greater good.
Sometimes.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant. E-mail:
dennis@dennisbyrne.net
