Silly arguments

A number of commentators (see e.g. this) are making the claim that the Schiavo case legislation by Congress in the last couple days will have all kinds of lasting repercussions. Supposedly, it ends forever any GOP effort to cut the size of government. It ends forever any argument in support of federalism or states rights. It gives the Democrats a precedent to use against Republicans in the future.

Silly, silly and sillier.

First, people are always too ready to assign momentous consequences to matters which are simply momentary. This is one such case. Second, Democrats have never needed any excuse for supporting any governmental action they want. They don't need this to push what they want in the future.

As for the argument that future GOP efforts to cut government or devolve authority to the states are somehow foreclosed now, how? Because Democrats will call us hypocrites? Oh my! Can I bear the shame and the pain? These are politicians we are talking about. When has fear of being labeled inconsistent ever mattered before?

Besides, this is no different from any other matter involving competing values or principles. Life is precious. Federalism is a desirable goal. In this case, they clashed. Which should be upheld in the present case? Federalism has been damn near trampled to death by liberals for 75 years. Republican forebearance on grounds of states rights wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

But a woman was being killed for specious reasons and the Republicans felt the need to do whatever they could. They stood for the principle of life. If that conflicts with the principle of federalism such that federalism is harmed one more time (I think that makes the total somewhere around 4,765,892 times, but I lost count), I think the choice was the right one.