Monsterboy's "One Ring" Fallacy of Political Expedience

[Note: There may be typos below. I will fix another time. Leave me alone about it; it is really, really late and I need to sleep.]

You have probably heard of Frodo and friends. Even if you haven’t read the book or seen the movie. Or both. (Yes I have. Yes I’m a geek. What’s it to you?) But just for the theoretical troglodyte who does not:

The bad guy has been steadily taking over the world for hundreds of years. He has armies and magic and superhuman lieutenants and whatnot. Frodo and friends go through a whole lot of crap to get this magic ring (the “One Ring”) into the heart of the bad-guy’s lair, to destroy it. When they do, they effectively destroy him. And what happens?

They win! No, he does not have a second-in-command who takes his place. No, his armies do not continue to fight effectively under their generals. No, the newly freed lands do not balkanize and start trying to become the new empire. It’s all pretty much over and hunky-dory. All they had to do was destroy the ring.

Wouldn’t it be great if the real world were like that? Well, to an impressive number of people, it is. Why? Largely, I think, because it would be great if the real world were like that.

If we can only…

…catch Saddam Hussein, the fight for Iraq will be over!
…find Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror will be won!
…overturn Roe v. Wade, there will be no more abortions!

Okay. You may be reading the last three lines and thinking “Yep, another damn pinko crapmeister.” Well, crapmeister I may be, but that’s as far as it goes. My profile lists me, accurately, as “nonconformist”. Which is a polite way of saying I think pretty much everyone is a crapmeister awaiting his/her moment on the throne.

However, this particular fallacy does seem to be more prevalent on the right. This is due to the nature of conservatism, which, as traditionally defined, is basically the idea that everything is fundamentally okay, if only it weren’t for certain specific elements fouling things up. The left, on the other hand, seems to thrive on the idea that it’s the fringe element, sticking it to the mainstream machine, which is why it does better at protests and so forth. Don’t worry, dittoheads, they’ll get their turn.

Back to what I was saying.

Saddam: To quote our fearless leader, “We got ‘im.” He’s dead. Practical change for us? Anyone?

Osama bin Laden: No it won’t. While explosives and toxins exist, it will not. C’mon.

Roe v. Wade: Overturn it and you will do the worst thing possible for the pro-life movement. (I say this as a pro-lifer.) How can this be? Without Roe v. Wade, the right falls back to the individual states. Every blue state from the last election map will have legal abortions. Someone in a red state may have to drive an hour or so to get one, that’s about it. AND the pro-choice movement will be roused as never before. It will become a crusade. Within 4 years of overturning R v. W, in the current environment, you will see an amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a legal abortion for anyone. There will be free buses for residents of red states. You won’t need parental approval. You won’t need citizenship. You may not even need to be female. And if an amendment is passed, it is OVER. The Supreme Court will no longer have ANY SAY in the matter, no matter how it is stacked.

Notice I said, “in the current environment.” You want to end abortions, you have to convince people not to have them. Which can be done. But it’s a lot harder, and cannot be done by legislation, by picketing, or by shooting doctors. I will not even bother to comment on whether ANY of those tings are morally right or wrong, because it does not matter. They are something that should be considered worse: they are ineffective. They have been ineffective for 30 years, and they will continue to be so.

Again, I am pro-life. I am extremely frustrated at all of those who have wasted time, money and energy on ineffective totalitarian methods.

Oh. That’s the other reason for the popularity of this fallacy: it’s easier. Remember the old vaudeville joke?

Q: What are you looking for?
A: I dropped my [insert object here].
Q: I’ll help you! Where were you when you lost it?
A: In my basement.
Q: Well then what are you doing looking out here?
A: It’s lighter out here!

It’s easier to work at just one thing, even if it is completely ineffective, than to attend to the many pickayune details necessary to enact solution. Easier to protest an abortion clinic than to work to ensure mothers do not feel forced (by circumstances, family or boyfriends/husbands) to get an abortion they often don’t want. Easier to legislate than to convince people of what you believe.

This is where the left sometimes catches this bug, by the way. If we only… pass Nationalized Healthcare! …tax the rich! …ban guns! (Again, no comment on what, if any, of these things I agree with.)

Like I said, this is political, but not partisan. People who want to achieve traditionally conservative goals (and I recommend anyone who wants to achieve a goal traditionally associated with any particular political group seriously reassess his or her goals and motives), look to how you can reasonably do it, not for the magic bullet. People on the left: same thing.

You'll still all be yammering outside my window, but maybe you can at least make sense.