Dowd's Certainty, Noonan's Humility

As one might expect, Maureen Dowd and Peggy Noonan have two very different takes on the Terry Schiavo situation. Noonan's article is entitled "In Love with Death", Dowd's, "DeLay, Deny, and Demagouge." And it is not only their viewpoints that differ, so do their rhetorical strategies. Noonan's essay begins these two propositions:

God made the world or he didn't. God made you or he didn't.

and from them infers the following:

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

This, she goes on to assert, is what most people supporting Terri Schiavo's right to live believe. Then, Ms Noonan, does something that most people with strong opinions on a matter do not do- she confesses her ignorance about the motivations of the people who disagree with her conclusions. Note, she doesn't mock or belittle them or their ideas, she just admits that she does not "understand" where they are coming from. This she does through the use of two figures of speech- Epibole, the repetition of the same phrase at irregular intervals, and Erotesis or Rhetorical Questions. See for yourself how they read when lifted from the text and placed in order of their appearance. First the Epibole:

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people.

I do not understand their certainty.

I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the stop-abortion-please people.

I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.

And now the Erotesis,

[I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people.] What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers?

If they care so much about her pain, why are they unconcerned at the suffering caused her by the denial of food and water? And why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo's death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive?

Why are they so committed to this woman's death?

What does Terri Schiavo's life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them? Why does this prospect so unnerve them?

How do the pro-death forces "know" there is no possibility of progress, healing, miracles?

Why are ...women in America who decry spousal abuse... not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this?

Who wouldn't feel extreme sadness at being extremely disabled?

Dowd, also begins by invoking God, and by (kind of) asserting the existence of God, but in a rather different manner:

Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy.

She also follows up with a rhetorical question:

Are the Republicans so obsessed with maintaining control over all branches of government, and are the Democrats so emasculated about not having any power, that they are willing to turn the nation into a wholly owned subsidiary of the church?

And here the die is cast, the rest of the article consists of a series of arguments and examples to support her thesis that this is about power and politics, not morality. So, whereas Noonan confesses her lack of understanding, and does so humbly, Dowd is plauged by no doubts. For her it is clear that:

• the Bush administration is pandering to "religious fundamentalists who want to dictate how the government should be run"
• our democracy is deteriorating
• "morality" is being used here to lead people by the nose
• the Republican party is becoming a theocracy
• the beleagured Tom DeLay is using the situation to save his political career while presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush and Bill Frist are using to jumpstart theirs
  
• "The president and his ideological partners don't believe in separation of powers. They just believe in their own power."

And there you have it: personal, political power. Triple Alliteration in P's to match the triple Alliteration in D's in the title of her article: DeLay, Deny, and Demagouge. A fourth P, principle, is conspicuously absent from her political calculus. Instead, the important "P" is privacy. Interesingly, she alliterates for emphasis:

The more dogma-driven activists, self-perpetuating pols and ratings-crazed broadcast media prattle about "faith," the less we honor the credo that a person's relationship with God should remain a private matter.

So in the end we see two of our nation's most intelligent and articulate journalists expressing different views on God, on morality, and on the role that each should play in the politics of life and death. Both are rightly concerned for what this issue says about our society and may do to our constitution. Both speak for millions. Both, I am sure, value human life. Only one, however, concedes that their are limits to her knowledge and understanding of those with whom she disagrees. Only one relegates faith to a position inferior to privacy and credo. Only one speaks humbly and, in doing so, speaks to my soul. And for me that's key. If I didn't knew where I stood on this matter before reading these two op-eds, I'd sure know now.

****

Update: John Podhoretz of the NY Post used the word "soul" in his analysis of the Schiavo affair.

We usually call that essence the "soul." Our souls define us: They make us who we are in the deepest sense. And they transcend us as well: They are our connection to the divine, to all in the universe that is unseen and unknowable but is still there.

Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle has several questions- and answers- too:

Do I have problems with Congress passing a law for one person? Do I believe it is possible that Michael Schiavo, who did go to great lengths early on trying to help his wife, still has the best interests of Terri in mind? Do I want the government to stay out of end-of-life decisions that families are forced to make at a painful, raw time in their lives? Was I appalled when I heard Bob Schindler say on TV that he told his daughter, who is starving, he would "take her out for a little ride, get her some breakfast?" Yes, yes, yes and of course.