RFK Jr. and Charles Eisenstein Don't Know Sh*t about Abortion Rights and Should Therefore Shut the F*ck Up About It
Do I sound angry, contemptuous, and disdainful? Good. Then I am communicating my feelings effectively.
NOTE: The first part of this post deals with “the Ruthlessness Gap”—which is a term I coined 15 years ago to *name* the Republican Party’s increasing extremism over the past three decades.
In the second part I address Bobby Kennedy Jr., Charles Eisenstein, and the need for them to stop misleading voters about the most sensitive and difficult decisions women and pregnant people will ever face.
The text from which I’d like to preach this Sunday morning are two tweets (above) sent today by Norman J. Ornstein, the well-known author, scholar, and student of politics, elections, and Congress for more than four decades. More on those tweets later. First, let’s talk about the contemporary state of ‘the Party of Lincoln.’
Norm Ornstein is co-author of a pivotal and significant book which sounded an Early Warning Alarm about the fall towards fascism and the turn towards tyranny of the current Republican Party.
“two of the brightest, best informed and most scholarly students of our politics.”1
Twelve years ago, when Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann published their 2012 book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism—they were making a case that no one was making, really, that I know of, and yet would explain-in-advance the nascent TRUMP ERA better than anything else.
As Dante (1265-1321) once wrote of an obscure prophetic vision whose meaning only later becomes plain to all:
“The true interpretation… was not perceived by anyone then, but now it is very clear to even the least sophisticated.”
—Dante Alighieri [Vita Nuova, III]
After the electorally-defeated-but-still-Commader-in-Chief-of-the-Nuclear-Arsenal Republican president, Donald Fucking Trump, mounted a multi-month assault on the core principle of U.S. democracy and governance, and attempted to overturn the 2020 election; toss out everyone’s votes and the process of free elections; refuse—for the first time in our history—the peaceful transfer-of-power; and install himself as American Dictator; I could be forgiven for hoping the validity of Ornstein and Mann’s warning would be OBVIOUS to EVERYONE.
Alas, we all know that’s too optimistic. (Caused in large part by the Right-Wing-dominated toxic sludge we call our “information environment,” which I might address in an upcoming post.)
But unlike the many purveyors of our current Extinction-Event-level of both-sides-ism and false equivalence, in their book, Ornstein and Mann did not obfuscate the overwhelming origin of the crisis.
They place accountability squarely where it belongs: with the ever-accelerating Right-Wing Radicalism of the modern REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Quoting a description of the book’s thesis,
“While both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost.”
And here is what Nobel-Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote:
“Asymmetric Polarization,” aka “the Ruthlessness Gap”
When I stated above that, with their 2012 thesis, Mann and Ornstein were “making a case that no one was making,” well… that’s not quite true—and readers of this Substack deserve the full story.
There was one other courageous, lonely voice railing against a slate-grey sea of apathy and indifference:
Mine; lol.
… I jest… but seriously, for the record, it was around this same time—in fact, three years prior, even—about 15 years ago, that I—also a 40-year student of U.S. politics, having been weaned on Watergate and Walter Cronkite—started speaking up on the exact same dynamics about which Ornstein and Mann would soon be shooting up signal flares.
The #RepublicanParty, folks
About halfway through the two terms of the Obama presidency, with the cacophonous jeers and chants of “Tea Party Patriots” bursting in air, I entered a phase of deep meditation and reflection on the state of our politics, and the ripple of disturbance I was sensing in The Force.
A cascade of images and memories flooded my consciousness. Long-buried scenes surfaced, such as the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, in which Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia ushered in a new era of GOP ruthlessness, obstruction, disinformation, and rhetorical villainization and demonization of Democrats.
Next my mind seized on Election 2000, particularly the Republican Party ‘campaign op’ known as “the Brooks Brothers Riot”—in which a bussed-in mob of Republican-Party apparatchiks, in suits, posing as ‘regular concerned citizens,’ pounded on the plate-glass offices of election workers actively counting votes at the Miami-Dade County, Florida, Board of Elections. Soon enough, acceding to this blatant intimidation and threats of illegal and unconstitutional Republican-Party-Mob-Violence, the election officials stopped the vote count, shut the office, and fled.
This was HUGELY CONSEQUENTIAL for the post-election battle that was unfolding in the courts, and the later composition of the Supreme Court, and as a proto-fascist inflection point towards where we are now.
As another Republican-Party operative, Justice Antonin Scalia, knew all too well, it was imperative to stop the vote counting. And fast. If George W. Bush’s tenuous 537-vote lead in the Florida vote count were to be eclipsed, even by one vote, it becomes MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH HARDER for the Supreme Court to steal #Election2000 for the Republican Party, as they did in the unprecedented and unconstitutional Bush v. Gore ruling.
In reflecting on these, and many other, events, such as the rise of Mitch McConnell, with his unprecedented, publicly stated commitment to obstruct the Obama administration from Day One; the daily hate and vitriol of Rush Limbaugh and his clone army; the ascension of the propaganda portal “Fox News” as the most popular cable network; and, later, the rightful Supreme Court appointment to replace Justice Scalia that would—in unprecedented manner—be stolen from President Obama; I began to feel that we desperately needed something to help us SEE, SAY, and STOP what was happening.
Namely, we needed a name.
To Name is to Claim, to Frame, and Make Plain
Here’s a ridiculous example; but roll with me for a second.
Imagine if—for decades—scholars, historians, and others, had discussed and debated the swirl of events in France from 1787-1799—the storming of the Bastille; the dethroning of Louis XIV; the execution of Louis and Marie-Antoinette; the National Convention; the Reign of Terror; all of it—but had never given the period a specific, consistent name.
And then one day, somebody piped up and said, “hey! I think we should call that whole cluster of events… ‘The French Revolution.’”
A name, or term, not only *describes* a dynamic, phenomenon, or event; it help us *perceive* it in the first place.
And I was growing concerned that far too many people were failing to perceive this emerging cultural / political tide of Republican Ruthlessness that, left unanswered, could have catastrophic impact on our imperfect and fragile democracy, such as it is.
SO I COINED THE TERM, “THE RUTHLESSNESS GAP”
I started posting publicly, (again, this was fifteen years ago), identifying the #RuthlessnessGap and increasing #RepublicanRuthlessness, as the Most Significant New2 Dynamic in U.S. politics.
A few people have picked up on and used my term, “the Ruthlessness Gap,” over the years, including some political commentators I admire. But, for the most part, it has not caught on.
Yet, even if the language has languished, the analysis has not. Each year more people are catching up and seeing what I was saying 15 years ago. (Have I mentioned that I offer consulting services for groups and organizations? … seriously, though.)
I am now constantly retweeting critiques of Ruthless Republicans and feckless Democrats without needing to add anything beyond, “Yep! That’s the #RuthlessnessGap, folks.”
Significantly, Ornstein and others have broad and influential platforms—whereas my platform largely consists of tweeting into the void and ranting to the back of the Corn Flakes box during my “Power Brunch.”
Nonetheless, as astute readers have gleaned, by praising the significance, insight, and prescience of the analysis of Ornstein and Mann, I am, as a corollary, praising my own analysis. And since there are, as Dante noted, few things more contemptible than self-praise, let us rush on to critique of others; lol.
“Praising myself, a thing exceedingly blameworthy in the one who does it.”
—Dante Alighieri [Vita Nuova, XXVIII]
RFK Jr. and Charles Eisenstein are Talking About Abortion Rights.
Here’s Why They Shouldn’t.
In his recent essay, “More Naivete, Please,” in the midst of a trite anecdote not even worth recounting, about the semi-conversion of an anti-abortion protester befriended outside a clinic by someone with an alternate view, Eisenstein writes of
“The edge cases of gruesome late-term elective abortions that arouse so much fury.”
Because Charles is a dilettante who does not know much about the sensitive and emotional topic of abortion, he probably thinks his language is straightforward and neutral.
It is not.
First off, the adjective “gruesome” is weighted, fraught, and unnecessary.
Are abortions later in pregnancy “gruesome”? Undoubtedly. But can you think of any surgical procedure involving cutting into the body that could not be described as “gruesome”?
But the Major Issue is Eisenstein’s Misleading Use of the Inflammatory Term, “Elective”
Charles’s glib, uninformed use of the word “elective” makes it seem as if these women are contemplating adding a huckleberry scone to their latte order—instead of agonizing over one of the Most Difficult and Heart-Wrenching Decisions any of us could ever face.
This is typical of Eisenstein’s oeuvre. In the very moment he thinks he is showing how considerate he is of all viewpoints, he is actually revealing his ignorance of large swathes of the topic at hand, as well as his lack of empathy with those most affected.
And his starry-eyed, fawning followers never seem to notice.
(Full transparency: it is these, perhaps persuadable, followers of Charles, and interested others—rather than Charles himself—who I imagine as the audience for these posts.)
“Elective,” regarding abortion, is a usage straight from the patriarchy-pilled brains of Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Operation Rescue founder, Randall Terry.
It is incredibly telling that THIS is one of the only times, as far as I know, that Charles has mentioned abortion or abortion rights.
He can’t be bothered to learn or convey even one of the thousands of stories of the many, many teens (and even pre-teens), women, and pregnant people who desperately seek and are overwhelmingly relieved to access abortion services every year.
No.
He zeroes in on something inflammatory that almost never happens.
In fairness, he acknowledges these as “edge cases,” but then why give them more inordinate, inflammatory rhetorical space, while ignoring 99% of the abortion rights issue in the real world and in real people’s lives?
And why use misleading language that mirrors and reinforces Right-Wing, Extremist, Patriarchal, Theocratic fear-mongering and misogyny?
As stated in an article from the independent news source KFF, “Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era,” abortions “occurring at or after 21 weeks… are rare.”
These procedures are so uncommon, they represent only 1% of U.S. abortions.
KFF write that the “reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.”
Eisenstein overlooks the realities and circumstances of NINTEY-NINE PERCENT of all abortions in the U.S., in order to spin pat, feel-good rhetoric mentioning an inflammatory 1% of cases.
Another term for that is MISLEADING.
In this, he echoes his liege, Bobby Jr.
Every time I read RFK Jr.’s words above, I get hot under the collar. My considered, most-centered, most-spiritual opinion is fuk this guy. (And tho, my language here is tongue-in-cheek, I’m actually serious. If you think prophetic anger and compassionate indignation can’t be “spiritual,” well, ‘do you have a minute to hear about our Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazareth?’; lol. You might need a refresher on the Prophetic Tradition.)
AS YOU CAN SEE…
from the Bobby Kennedy Jr. quote in the tweet above… he is doing much the same as Eisenstein when Charles selectively emphasizes “edge cases” that comprise only 1% of all cases, and when Charles employs the pejorative and misleading word, “ELECTIVE.”
Bobby Kennedy is doing EXACTLY what Norman Ornstein is criticizing in his tweets from this Sunday morning.
I already responded to Kennedy Jr.’s misogynist and misleading statement in May, at the time of this interview, so I don’t feel like repeating. You can read my post here, and / or the following screenshots cover most of it.
ABOVE — My post on RFK Jr.’s harmful, misleading, and inflammatory rhetoric on abortion and abortion rights (May 2024)
So let me wrap this up with one final point on this topic…
In his essay of one month ago, “Shades of Many Colors,” Charles Eisenstein, sending missives from within his cozy, well-insulated cocoon of privilege, states authoritatively, glibly, that Donald Trump
“isn’t going to try to ban abortion.”
Eisenstein’s unearned confidence is mysterious, given that
NO ONE KNOWS WHETHER TRUMP, IF ELECTED, WILL SIGN A NATIONAL ABORTION BAN.
I mean, Donald Fucking Trump doesn’t even know whether, if elected, he will sign a National Abortion Ban. Which is why TRUMP REFUSES TO SAY if he will veto such a bill or sign it into law. Elect him and find out, I guess?
And yet—with women’s lives and fundamental freedoms on the line—contrarian visionary Charles Eisenstein is pleased to assure us that Trump “isn’t going to try to ban abortion.”
For good measure, Charles adds cheerfully that Trump also will not “round up gay people.”
You may remember I’ve stated that a primary problem with almost all of Eisenstein’s work is its seemingly incurable GLIBNESS.
It’s like… I don’t know, man.
I just feel like, … if the topic I was discussing was one as sensitive and important as whether or not an aspiring American Dictator (and pathological liar), if imbued with presidential power, will proceed to
ROUND.
UP.
GAY.
PEOPLE.
… I would definitely want to be SURE I was correct, and had solid foundations for my sureness. Otherwise, I’d be strongly inclined to shutdafukup about it.
But not Charles.
And not Bobby.
And that’s the kind of reckless nonsense up with which I will not put.
So, in case you were wondering why I—a certified sweetheart—have been going no-holds-barred-on-this-bullshit—that’s why.
Because sometimes (not always; but sometimes) we are obliged to make real and tough choices about what, and who, we stand for—and what we are willing to stand up to and speak out against.
THE NEXT 30 DAYS ARE ONE OF THOSE TIMES. FOR ALL OF US.
And I care much more about the lives and fundamental freedoms of women and pregnant people in the Post-Dobbs Era than I do about the feelings of arrogant, privileged, dilettantes and dudebros like Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Charles Eisenstein.
Robert G. Kaiser, managing / associate editor, The Washington Post. Book review, April 30, 2012.
The most significant Old Dynamic in U.S. politics is the ongoing domination of society, government, and the political process by the rich and powerful, at the expense of the poor and working class.