“In your TNR post on Larry Summer’s most recent public skewering for speaking a likely truth, you wrote that ‘Summers is putting his finger on one of liberalism’s great contemporary problems: how to reconcile the moral equality of human beings and the political equality of citizens with increasingly accurate scientific discoveries of aspects of human life that reflect our innate, biological inequality.’ Lincoln addressed this directly in his Springfield address of June 26, 1857 when he said:
In some respects she [a black woman] certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.
and
I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
Lincoln was addressing the widespread (and probably false) belief that variance in intelligence has a racial component, but the same reasoning can apply to the many other (probably true) biological differences we are discovering exist among human beings. That is, a Liberal would assert that, despite the obvious biological variation that exists among human beings, they share an essential equality that entitles them to equality in certain rights. This is, of course, exactly the idea you articulated in your TNR essay, but I thought you might enjoy finding its parent in Lincoln, if you weren’t already aware of it. I also think it’s interesting that Lincoln picked a black woman for his comparison, deliberately choosing the individual that the white men in his audience (the ones who could vote) would be least likely to see as their equal and least able to empathize with.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.
DOBSON VERSUS SPONGE-BOB: Why pile on? Here’s the best take. What’s interesting to me is that what Dobson is objecting to is not gay sex or gay relationships or gay identity, or any legislative or judicial proposal. What he objects to is tolerance of gay people, or teacjhing children that gay people deserve respect. That’s SpongeBob’s crime! Revealing, no? Now, recall that this man is the most powerful social conservative in Bush’s Republican party.
The Dish 