Intersectionality: The radical theory of relating the unrelated.

According to Anna March, writing in Salon, Bernie Sanders is no longer a “progressive.” Here is part of her argument, which is mostly a defense of “intersectionality”, an ultra-lib theory of……well, read it, see if you can figure it out.

“Economic populism and what are commonly erroneously and dismissively referred to as ‘social issues’ — such as reproductive rights, immigration reform and civil rights for people of color, those who have disabilities, people of all faiths, LGBT people and women — are indivisible. Sanders routinely demonstrates his own lack of progressive values by dividing them.

“There is no economic populism without abortion rights and civil rights. No one can have economic justice if he or she doesn’t have fundamental rights. Yet Sanders has made it plain that abortion rights are negotiable and brushes off ‘identity politics.’ He consistently argues that his values — and his alone — should define what it is to be progressive. (Which can’t help but remind one of Donald Trump’s unilateral defining of terms.)

“Further, Sanders routinely divides matters of race and gender and class — which, again, cannot be untwined — by discussing the ‘pain’ and needs of working-class voters….. Being pro-choice is not an optional part of being a progressive. Full stop. There is no justice for women, there is no economic justice for women, without the right to control their reproductive lives. The right to have an abortion is not a ‘social issue.’ It is an issue of fundamental rights; it is a matter of economic rights. One is not a progressive if not pro-choice. One hundred percent pro-choice is the only pro-choice position. One hundred percent pro-choice is the only pro-choice position. That is, abortions should be safe, legal, accessible, funded and available on demand — for all.”

The reason I put that last sentence in bold is because her entire screed comes down to a defense of the idea that every woman should be able to abort her baby for any reason whenever she wants with taxpayers paying for it. Given that is the primary revenue stream of planned parenthood, the name of which I consider the primary euphemism of our age (the “final solution” for the not yet born), she could be on their payroll or their board. What I am most incredulous about is that otherwise intelligent people could accept such statements as true. Let’s dissect some of these tortured propositions:

1. Since abortion is not a noun but an act, and since the fetus will become a human being if not destroyed, what she is saying is the right to kill her baby in the womb is a precursor to economic justice–whatever that is. If that were true, wouldn’t every woman (she didn’t say they had to be unmarried) with children be impoverished?

2. The right for any woman to kill her child is “a fundamental right”? Rights come from where? The Declaration of Independence states that rights come from the Creator. The Constitution of the United States assumes that source of rights and establishes the system for their protection. The preamble says “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” That hardly presumes that killing our posterity is a fundamental right.

3. “Race, gender and class cannot be untwined”? That presupposes that they are even related to begin with. By whom? Obviously, by her philosophical cohorts. But race and gender are determined by God, or if you don’t believe in the Creator, then they are accidental and random, but in no sense are they related to class.

Then again, I am out of step with the philosophy that insists that such human characteristics are related by oppression and victimhood. Simply put, she makes no sense but her constituency will believe it uncritically. Sigh.