Academician McElvaine believes every word of what he writes. I wish I had that. But when I was formally diagnosed by Dr. Wagner as a Grandiose Narcissist, I lost McElvaine’s (and my) special gift. Discovering that you are any species of Narcissist forces you into the harsh, hard-to-see, easy-to-deny realization, that:
1. What you believe, may not actually be reality, and
2. That you can actually be wrong, and
3. That things may often not be quite as they appear,
4. That you may not have all the facts.
It’s fortunate, and comfortable, that McElvaine has not been diagnosed yet.
Prior to 2019, my ego and rhetoric would have seen me decline all four of the above vulnerabilities, but it would not actually translate into my beliefs and actions. Nor McElvaine’s.
Once we accept our diagnosis as Narcissists we strive to gain culpability, we internalize earnest development of humility, cultivate a more open, comprehensive mind, and our impervious “intellectual Superman” is killed. This will never happen to McElvaine.
While I disagree with most of how McElvaine *articulates* his position, you’d be surprised that I 100% agree with his *intent*.
I am 100% without qualification OR reservation in support of women *and* abortion, at any developmental stage, all the way up to the age of 18 years, and the reason is that the rock-solid arguments used by pro-choice advocates absolutely apply:
1. A child consumes the parent, and derails their lives.
2. The parent has the constitutional right to their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, of which the nuisance-cells (both fetuses and pubescent juveniles are both clumps of cells, right? ) deprive them, or unfairly limit.
3. The presence of a functioning brain, the capacity for thought, a heartbeat, the ability to breathe, should *continue* to remain as irrelevant to the discussion as the simple LOCATION of the offending child: Being inside or outside the vagina. Stupid differential.
It is stupid for Republicans and Democrats to make the argument fulcrum to be “where the baby is relative to the vaginal labia” that matters.
Wait a second, who said anything about Democrats versus Republicans? Isn’t abortion kind of a standalone, lightning-rod *human* issue?
Oh, no, it’s not. Actually, McElvaine turned it into a Republican vs Democrat thing. But that weak and specious connection is the reason I have so little use for McElvaine’s anti-male, anti-Republican writing.
I disagree, alot, with McElvaine’s argument, because I think there is a THIRD position. Not ‘right to life’, or ‘pro choice’. (And like McElvaine. as a grandiose Narcissist, mine is simply “The” only valid perspective and all other perspectives belong to the political party opposite mine):
I just think that the babies, which are conceived by women who can’t, shouldn’t or won’t raise them are BETTER OFF dead. A baby (any age) should not suffer a mother who is not:
It’s not even a question of whether Mom is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Nope, keep in mind that this (at first blush) seems to be a complex moral and ethical dilemma! But it can be broken down to ONE correct perspective, which, of course is mine or McElvaine’s.
And we have lots and lots of big soothing intellectual words and specious arguments to prove that.
For example, I can “McElvaine-prove” (Hey! I invented a new verb) that there are parallels between ‘battery acid in your eyes’, and having a baby:
1. Somebody else does it to you
2. It hurts like hell.
3. It can maim or even kill you.
4. Hardship can follow you for the rest of your life as a result.
5. You should have the right to choose whether it happens or not.
So, we all “know” that battery acid in your eyes *should* be illegal, and surveys show that no one approves of it. And so, I can make the argument that babies should be illegal and optional. If I am Robert McElvaine. And if that’s my agenda.
Abortion is absolutely not a complicated subject, as McElvaine easily proves. It is as “dead-simple” as whether 1800’s slavery is right or wrong. No other thoughts or facts or considerations apply.
McElvaine argues that the Supreme Court should’ve voted based on the only ACTUAL issue: To wit: Is *slavery* (also known as “humans as chattel, or personal property“) constitutional or not?
The rest of the issues, reasoning, legalities, accessibility, regulation, intent, impact, cost, psychiatry, psychological impact, nuances, could all be summarily neglected, just as McElvaine proved in his article. So it’s extremely simple!
He even showed that contemporary people objected to 1800’s slavery. Which validly proves his point that everyone *also* objects to a pro-life supreme court ruling.
Why are people so stupid? Can’t they see THROUGH the issue however; that this is all, in the end, a Republican-conspiracy being revealed?
McElvaine and I both finally and ultimately blame Trump and ALL Republicans for the issue. And the reasoning behind the placement of that ‘blame’, is actually the *most* valid point of our stance on ‘right to life’ versus ‘pro choice’.
Specifically, it’s our politics. And drastically simplifying a very complex issue, in order to weaponize it, to our political ends.
McElvaine. Anti-Republican. And if you understand his actual sub-plot “point”, (His reasoning for writing at all), his narrative and agenda, you can kind of discount what he says. Because it’s not really an argument genuinely addressing issues at hand, or even accurately-informing, but actually maneuvering the issue to a perch, for impaling Republicans on “McElvaine-smithed” swords of blame.
Someone on CNN told me that Donald Trump was anti-LGBTQRSTUV WXYZ… And Donald Trump is a red tie wearing Republican… Therefore, Republicans are offensive… Therefore, American history is fraught with problems that were all caused by Republicans… I hate men…
You can go see his substack, and there you will find lop-sided, inaccurate, specious and manipulative (therefore valueless), anti-Republican rants that state that everything from global warming to global terrorism to inflation are the result Republican male activities. Apparently in his viewpoint, there are no female Republicans.
If you’d like to save yourself, the trouble, here’s an article that addresses every issue:
“Hi, I’m Professor McElvaine. Because I’m a teacher, you know you can believe everything I say. I get a lot of information on Facebook from my liberal friends. I don’t realize that Facebook algorithms have deprived me of any *other* viewpoint because it only gives me MORE of what I “Like” and that’s only Republican-bashing. So I form my judgments based on the biased media that I am being fed by artificial intelligence on social media that is trying to keep me there, agitated and “checking back” often. Honestly, I couldn’t tell you what’s really going on. Because I’m only getting half the story from Facebook.
Anyway, here’s the issue, blah blah blah, and the one right-thought is simple, according to me. No one else knows the solution is so simple and obvious, but I figured it out. And I know that at the root of it, are Republican conspiracies.”
And there you have it.
Keep in mind McElvaine is a teacher at Millsaps college, I know I know, I hear ya: “Never heard of it”, and never run a business. Never been self-employed, never been anything but a Socialist propagandist at the teat of taxpayer dollars. It is the way of things for his type to prefer Socialism. Capitalism does not advance anyone in his line of work.
You should read someone else if you’re looking for the facts on an issue. Or even looking for a balanced prescient insight! …besides a biased op-editorial on anti-Republican issues from a fellow who is apparently also extremely anti-male. He can fit an anti-male generalization and pejorative idea into practically anything he pens.
What is the opposite of a misogynist? Answer: Robert McElvaine.
^^^I watched this^^^. I take back most of what I said above. I’m pretty sure that guy is not still in control of his full faculties. The doctor interprets everything as “the Republicans fault” even if it means grossly misinterpreting or at least misrepresenting the situation. For example, he said that in the 30s, the idea was that government-spending would end a depression by infusing the economy with money, which was supposedly wrong, yet, he turned around and said that when the US entered World War II …THAT solved the depression, without acknowledging that America turned to spending, printing money, hiring and manufacture in a very big way, WITH SPENDING, ending the depression.
Does he know history? Or does he know *agendized* history? What is the value of a history professor who teaches a history completely biased against half of a pretty decent bipartisan government?
He’s not graduating any fully educated people.