by publius
I’m still catching up on the news, but I have a few quick thoughts on the rise of Huckabee (and the fascinating conservative backlash – see Steve Benen for a roundup).
First, regardless of what you think of Huckabee’s over-the-top religiosity, it’s shrewd politics. The knock against Huckabee has been that he lacks the organization and infrastructure to mount a serious campaign. For that very reason, I predicted (and I think I was early on this) that Huckabee would do little more than steal Romney’s thunder in the early states, thus handing the nomination to Giuliani.
What I overlooked, however, is how quickly Huckabee could assemble a viable infrastructure by becoming the evangelicals’ “guy.” Politically speaking, the great thing about social conservatives is that they come to politics already organized. Long before any candidates start organizing precincts, these people belong to churches, youth groups, choirs, etc. – i.e., permanent organizations with a great deal of trust and adhesion. For instance, if a few respected people within an Iowa Baptist church get excited about Huckabee, it’s easier to get the rest of congregation on board as well. And if these people have neighbors who attend a different church – e.g., the Methodist church down the street – well, you could see how Huck Mania could spread virally within a given religious community.
Bottom line, it’s much easier to take advantage of pre-existing infrastructure than to construct it yourself. And that’s what Huckabee seems to be doing. If he can solidify this support, it could continue delivering solid pluralities so long as multiple candidates remain in the race splitting the non-evangelical vote. [On an aside, this is precisely why union support is so vital to the Democratic Party (and why some level of “pandering” to unions is justified – it ultimately advances progressive policies).
Second, the fact that Huckabee is preaching the good news (code for “the gospel” for you godless heathens out there) doesn’t explain why he’s caught fire. Brownback, after all, pitched the same message, but never got off the ground.
I think there are a couple of explanations. For one, it’s a reflection of frustration. Evangelicals distrusted the entire first tier, and pinned their hopes on Thompson. Being the savvy, fiery campaigner that he is, he instantly pissed them all off with some careless words on abortion (for a GOP primary candidate). With Brownback out, Huckabee is the last (good) man standing.
But the more interesting explanation is that evangelicals see Huckabee as a more politically viable option than say Brownback. It’s a fascinating contrast of perspectives. As I’ll explain below, some Republicans are terrified of such an openly-religious candidate being the nominee. From their perspective, he’s too Brownbacky. But from the evangelical perspective, Huckabee is a lot more viable than someone like Brownback. Huckabee gets along with the press, appears on Bill Maher, is very personable, has executive experience, and so on. In short, they’re seeing Clinton while others are seeing Brownback. In this sense, Huckabee is like the image that is simultaneously a young pretty woman or an old hag depending on your perspective.
Third, the conservative blogger backlash to Huckabee has also been fascinating. Steve Benen has a great rundown of the various explanations for the backlash. One of these explanations comes from Kevin Drum who thinks the conservative establishment (being urban gingerbread latte drinkers themselves) is just as afraid of social conservatives as liberals are:
I think this brand of yahooism puts off mainstream urban conservatives every bit as much as it does mainstream urban liberals. They’re afraid that this time, it’s not just a line of patter to keep the yokels in line.
I don’t really agree with this though, largely because it gives mainstream urban conservatives too much credit. Sure, they’re not crazy about fundamentalism, but I don’t think they’re actually scared of it. In fact, I think they’re largely indifferent to it. To the extent they actually care about these social issues in the first place, they know that Huckabee’s fundamentalism will never command legislative supermajorities. And even if it did, most of them live in places (and with incomes) that keep them and their children safe from things like birth control bans or abortion restrictions. Let the poor 14-year olds in rural Mississippi fight that battle.
No, the fear is not of fundamentalism itself. The fear is losing. On some level, they know that these positions freak out mainstream America. That’s why Bush fumbled about on Roe v. Wade during the 2004 debates and could only bring himself to speak in code (“Dred Scott”). The backlash shows that these people – like much of the GOP establishment – are ashamed of this coalition. They’re happy to make out with them behind the football bleachers on Saturday night, but ignore them in the lunchroom on Monday.
But still, the GOP needs them. And so the deal has been that “the crazies” stay below-radar in return for below-radar policies (e.g., judges, denying funding to international organizations who don’t believe in abstinence-based policies). Huckabee is a threat because he violates the terms of the unspoken deal.
Hmmmm. Smells like social class to me. The urban latte drinking conservatives undoubtedly have a condescending attitude (based on class biases) toward the blue collar folks in the megachurches in the exurbs.
But what the urban conservatives really fear about Huckabee is that he may go off the reservation and not support policies which shovel even more money to the wealthiest 1%.
That, and he’ll lose.
Not another one from Arkansas!
Yeah, some states are clearly underrepresented in providing presidents and vice presidents 😉
An interesting observation form uggabugga: Huckabee does not allow his old sermons from his time as a baptist minister to become available to the public. Anything too embarassing in them?
“They’re happy to make out with them behind the football bleachers on Saturday night, but ignore them in the lunchroom on Monday.”
The analogy I think you’re looking for is: They’re happy to fondle each other in a Minneapolis airport mens room…
I don’t really agree with this though, largely because it gives mainstream urban conservatives too much credit. Sure, they’re not crazy about fundamentalism, but I don’t think they’re actually scared of it. In fact, I think they’re largely indifferent to it.
I’m not exactly sure what a “mainstream urban conservative” is, but…
We conservatives have our whackos just as liberals have theirs. Most of the time they are background noise, so from that perspective I think you’re correct (indifference). Consider the obviously crazy homeless guy preaching on the sidewalk. You can walk by him every day without thinking too much about him. Then one day you wake up and discover he’s not only running for mayor but seems to have substantial support…
It all comes back to our screwy primary system IMO. Nationally there aren’t enough fundamentalists for him to be elected. But if enough of them are concentrated in key states he can become the candidate.
Then you’ve got Ron Paul raising $6M in a single day. That’s obviously a lot of support nationally. Who are those people?
None of this bothers me too much. Having written off Republicans for this cycle I can just enjoy the show for the most part.
We conservatives have our whackos just as liberals have theirs.
And you conservatives put your whackos into government.
I think Publius is correct that the fear is losing, and not only losing, but losing big-time.
With Huckabee as the nominee we could see major Democratic gains in both houses. I suspect that there are conservatives who are resigned to probably losing the White House, but hope to keep enough seats in Congress to block dramatic actions. These are the people terrified of a Huckabee nomination.
But what the urban conservatives really fear about Huckabee is that he may go off the reservation and not support policies which shovel even more money to the wealthiest 1%.
I think allmaya has it. It saddens me to admit it, but the business wing of the Republican coalition has become just as dogmatic as the social cons and the neocons. They won’t have anything to do with raising taxes to balance the budget and/or increase social services to the poor at the expense of big business and the wealthy.
And for that matter, the neocons distrust Huckabee, too. He’s not pro-torture and pro-endless war enough for their taste.
Jes: Not exactly an elected position. Not exactly news that this administration is brimming with unqualified lackies. And as far as putting our whackos into government, that’s a little ironic coming from a citizen of a country that has returned George Galloway to parliament for two decades. 😉
Heh. When I first clicked on Jes’ link, I read it as “William J. Bryan.” I was gonna complain that she couldn’t find any recent examples.
“and why some level of ‘pandering’ to unions is justified – it ultimately advances progressive policies”
I always had the idea it was justified because we were for improving the lot of working people, actually.
Just want to agree with what allmaya, what riles the business wing is that Huckabee talks about ALL the stuff the Bible says Jesus taught and believed.
And the money-changers up in the temples on the Potomac and on the Street are none to pleased.
You guys are starting to make this Huckabee character sound like a decent guy – almost Edwards-like (Edwardsian?).
Then you’ve got Ron Paul raising $6M in a single day. That’s obviously a lot of support nationally. Who are those people?
They are people who hate establishment politicians (as Huckabee’s supporters do), but don’t consider themselves Christianists, that’s who. Both are kindred spirits of Howard Dean’s supporters four years ago.
Eventually, Huckawannabees and Ron Paulists will have to accept whatever establishment candidate the party forces on them.
Never fear. Anybody who’ll release a serial rapist/murderer because it’ll screw a political rival could never make it as a decent guy.
And that’s not even counting the anti-science sentiment…
OCSteve: Not exactly news that this administration is brimming with unqualified lackies.
Goalpost move. Boykin may or may not be an unqualified lackey. He is an anti-Islamic outspoken whacko, and he was appointed to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
And as far as putting our whackos into government, that’s a little ironic coming from a citizen of a country that has returned George Galloway to parliament for two decades.
George Galloway is less of a whacko than any of the current Republican candidates for President. By British standards he’s mildly eccentric for an MP – but unlike your American politicians, MPs need to have a certain modicum of intelligence and political savvy just to get elected. Our worst MP would be above average in your Congress: our political system imposes more electoral pressure than yours does. (I never liked George Galloway personally, and his politics are by British standards quite a jump from mine. But it was great watching him administer a verbal trouncing to your Senate committee: they were obviously so unused to dealing with a politician who has to be able to think on his feet!)
And that’s my random bit of patriotism for the day. Our politicians can beat up yours! :-p
I’m not exactly sure what a “mainstream urban conservative” is, but…
The entire staff of NRO appears to live in New York City. Limbaugh shuttles between NYC and urban Florida. Coulter divides her time between NYC and DC. Tre/vino lives in SF. Even those Powerline guys live in urban Minnesota.
It’s all about the ressentiment for that variety of conservative. I don’t see Jonah Goldberg settling in comfortably in, say, rural Alabama.
They’re essentially the “workers of the mind” of the Republican Party, the bourgeois vanguard of the conservatariat.
Where to start ………
God, forget the popcorn. I can’t eat I’m so enthralled with the Repup comedy up on the screen.
In my local paper today, Jay Ambrose, the conservative pundit, calls Huckabee’s positions on issues “leftist”.
Why write or talk at all if words are bleached of all meaning and convey .. nothing?
Leftist?
Let me do my part to restore the language: Jay Ambrose is a jacka3s, by which I convey the original meaning: he is the braying scion of sterile mulishness, who, together with his brothers and sisters, is good for nothing but kicking down the sides of barns and carrying water for the powers that be. He is a small, domestic animal resembling the horse but with shorter ears and a longer mane; an as#s. He is a foolish, stupid, obstinate person; a blockhead, bozo, cuckoo, fathead, goofball, twat; a zany; a goose. He stars on a T.V. show named after himself featuring people performing various, dangerous, ridiculous, and self-injuring stunts and pranks, like inserting his head up the other end of himself, not to be distinquished from the braying end.
That goes for Jonah Goldberg, too.
I don’t really agree with this though, largely because it gives mainstream urban conservatives too much credit. Sure, they’re not crazy about fundamentalism, but I don’t think they’re actually scared of it. In fact, I think they’re largely indifferent to it. To the extent they actually care about these social issues in the first place, they know that Huckabee’s fundamentalism will never command legislative supermajorities. And even if it did, most of them live in places (and with incomes) that keep them and their children safe from things like birth control bans or abortion restrictions. Let the poor 14-year olds in rural Mississippi fight that battle.
This really has very little to do with it. The problem is that Huckabee sounds like John Edwards on fiscal matters, which is anathema to the main street/wall street aspect of the Republican coalition. What you’re missing is that many mainstream conservatives put a higher priority on fiscal matters (as compared to social matters) than the talking heads would have you believe. Most Republicans may feel a certain way about school prayer, but the part of the Republican coalition that cares passionately about it is very low.
For me, of course, Huckabee represents the worst of all worlds: I disagree with him on social matters and I disagree with him on economic and fiscal matters as well.
Typepad made me spell jackass the wrong way, I think, and here’s the second half of the comment.
See, Huckabee is the Alien who evolved (he can’t even believe it) into something just a little less ridiculously vicious than your average Republican candidate, much to the disappointment of the Republican Party whose only true mission in life is to cut their own taxes and kill or render useless as much of government as possible either by implanting their noxious seed throughout the body politic or dissolving government by salivating acid from their triple-snapping jaws.
Huckabbe, who should learn how to spell his own name, is the cuckoo who forgot to stop reading the Bible after he was done with the Old Testament, where smiting, punishing, angry kabob barbecuing, casting out, and joyless begetting are the chief activities.
No, somehow he got his hands on the New testament and found out what Jesus might do, which is the awful nightmare for the denizens of the Club for Growth for Me and the Kudlowian wing of the Republican Party and the Norquistian Society for Underwater Oxygen Deprivation in Bathtubs.
Huckabee is the pro-Christ Anti-Christ in the Party of the anti-Christ Anti-Christs.
He must be stopped.
Unless he wins the primaries. Then Mitt Romney will declare Mike an honorary Mormon and Rudy Ghouliani will lend Mike his honorary firehat and the keys to his pad, and John McCain will chuckle that mysterious all-knowing chuckle, and Fred Thompson will glare all jowly at liberals who criticize Mike and the Club for Cancerous Growths and the American Association of American Americanism for the Defeat of unAmerican unAmericanism and the IRS will fall into line because the tearing asunder of this weird, noxious coalition of the pious and the mean that would make Linclon throw up in his beard cannnot be allowed to occur.
Besides, none of the conservatives, who are bluffing, will vote for Hillary the kinky Christmas tree decorator or Osama Bina Crackhead.
P.S. All conservatives here at Obsidian resemble no one mentioned in this comment, which really cramps my powers of generalization.
von: What you’re missing is that many mainstream conservatives put a higher priority on fiscal matters (as compared to social matters) than the talking heads would have you believe.
That would be because the “fiscal matter” of keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer and the middle class desperately uncertain and clinging, while certainly a conservative high priority, is impossible to get most people to vote for unless you lie a lot. It’s also useful to wave distracting flags about “morality” and “terrorism”. That many people vote for politicians whose real aim is to keep most of the people who voted for them in grinding poverty and most of the rest in desperate financial uncertainty, because the politicians knew to mouth the right words about being “pro-life” or “strong on national defense”, is one of the tragic ironies of American politics.
Conservatives have a big disadvantage: they can’t afford to explain honestly what their fiscal policies are. If people understood what they intended and what the implications were for people on ordinary incomes, they wouldn’t vote for them.
Huckabee is taking advantage of all the right “morality” signals for the poor suckers who vote against their fiscal interests for conservatives – but anyone who actually cares about sensible fiscal policies would be voting for a Democrat. 😉
Typepad made me spell jackass the wrong way, I think, and here’s the second half of the comment.
See, Huckabee is the Alien who evolved (he can’t even believe it) into something just a little less ridiculously vicious than your average Republican candidate, much to the disappointment of the Republican Party whose only true mission in life is to cut their own taxes and kill or render useless as much of government as possible either by implanting their noxious seed throughout the body politic or dissolving government by salivating acid from their triple-snapping jaws.
Huckabbe, who should learn how to spell his own name, is the cuckoo who forgot to stop reading the Bible after he was done with the Old Testament, where smiting, punishing, angry kabob barbecuing, casting out, and joyless begetting are the chief activities.
No, somehow he got his hands on the New testament and found out what Jesus might do, which is the awful nightmare for the denizens of the Club for Growth for Me and the Kudlowian wing of the Republican Party and the Norquistian Society for Underwater Oxygen Deprivation in Bathtubs.
Huckabee is the pro-Christ Anti-Christ in the Party of the anti-Christ Anti-Christs.
He must be stopped.
Unless he wins the primaries. Then Mitt Romney will declare Mike an honorary Mormon and Rudy Ghouliani will lend Mike his honorary firehat and the keys to his pad, and John McCain will chuckle that mysterious all-knowing chuckle, and Fred Thompson will glare all jowly at liberals who criticize Mike and the Club for Cancerous Growths and the American Association of American Americanism for the Defeat of unAmerican unAmericanism and the IRS will fall into line because the tearing asunder of this weird, noxious coalition of the pious and the mean that would make Linclon throw up in his beard cannnot be allowed to occur.
Besides, none of the conservatives, who are bluffing, will vote for Hillary the kinky Christmas tree decorator or Osama Bina Crackhead.
P.S. No conservatives here at Obsidian resemble anyone mentioned in this comment, which really cramps my powers of generalization.
Typepad made me spell jacka3s the wrong way, I think, and here’s the second half of the comment.
See, Huckabee is the Alien who evolved (he can’t even believe it) into something just a little less ridiculously vicious than your average Republican candidate, much to the disappointment of the Republican Party whose only true mission in life is to cut their own taxes and kill or render useless as much of government as possible either by implanting their noxious seed throughout the body politic or dissolving government by salivating acid from their triple-snapping jaws.
Huckabbe, who should learn how to spell his own name, is the cuckoo who forgot to stop reading the Bible after he was done with the Old Testament, where smiting, punishing, angry kabob barbecuing, casting out, and joyless begetting are the chief activities.
No, somehow he got his hands on the New Testament and found out what Jesus might do, which is the awful nightmare for the denizens of the Club for Growth for Me and the Kudlowian wing of the Republican Party and the Norquistian Society for Underwater Oxygen Deprivation in Bathtubs.
Huckabee is the pro-Christ Anti-Christ in the Party of the anti-Christ Anti-Christs.
He must be stopped.
Unless he wins the primaries. Then Mitt Romney will declare Mike an honorary Mormon and Rudy Ghouliani will lend Mike his honorary firehat and the keys to his pad, and John McCain will chuckle that mysterious all-knowing chuckle, and Fred Thompson will glare all jowly at liberals who criticize Mike and the Club for Cancerous Growths and the American Association of American Americanism for the Defeat of unAmerican unAmericanism and the IRS will fall into line because the tearing asunder of this weird, noxious coalition of the pious and the mean that would make Linclon throw up in his beard cannnot be allowed to occur.
Besides, none of the conservatives, who are bluffing, will vote for Hillary the kinky Christmas tree decorator or Osama Bina Crackhead.
P.S. No conservatives here at Obsidian resemble anyone mentioned in this comment, which really cramps my powers of generalization. In fact, I don’t even recognize Huckabee in this comment, who is whatever comes out his mouth the last time he spoke.
My university was co-ed, but shortly before I arrived there, the women had a curfew and had to be in their dorm by a reasonable hour (I think it was 10, though that sounds scandalously late) (It also, until 1976, refused to celebrate the 4th of July, because that was the date that Vicksburg fell) At any rate, one of my profs told me about when he was on the committee to review the cases of those coeds who had broken the rules. One very contrite couple came and explained that they were watching TV together and had both drowsed off and when they woke up, they had missed the curfew.
The committee thought this was a reasonable explanation and were feeling sympathetic, so one of them asked what they did when the realized that the woman had missed curfew. The male student said, “Well sir, we jumped up, pulled our clothes on and went straight back to the dorm”.
Huckabee believes in taxing school prayer. 😉
Huckabbe, who ought to learn how to spell his own name, is the cuckoo who forgot to stop reading the Wible after the 7ld $Testament, where smiting, punishing, angry kabob barbecuing, and joyless begetting are the chief activities.
Somehow he got his hands on the *ew Estiment and found out what Jesus might do, which is the nightmare for the denizens of the Club for Growth for Me and the Kudlowian wing of the Republican Party and the Norquistian Society for Oxygen Deprivation in Bathtubs.
Huckabee is the pro-5hrist Anti-6Ch6i6t in the party of the anti-C6r6is9t anti-$Ch?i%ts.
He must be stopped.
Unless he wins the primaries. Then Mitt Romney will make him an honorary Mormon and Rudy Ghouliani will lend him his honorary firehat and the keys to his pad, and John McCain will chuckle that mysterious all-knowing chuckle and Fred Thompson will glare from amid his jowls at those who criticize the Huck and the Club for Cancerous Growths and the “American Association of American Americanism for the Defeat of unAmerican unAmericanism Like the Death Tax Although We’re O.K. With Death” will fall into line because the tearing asunder of this weird, noxious coalition of the pious, the mean, and the cheap cannot be allowed.
The Huck’s campaign rhetoric will switch to destroying government the day after he wins the primaries.
Besides, despite their bluffing, the conservatives mentioned in the post won’t vote for Hillary the kinky Xmas tree decorator or Osama Bina Crackhead, who will both raise taxes.
I misspelled certain terms to elude filters.
Huckabee believes in taxing school prayer. 😉
Huckabbe, who ought to learn how to spell his own name, is the cuckoo who forgot to stop reading the Wible after the 7ld $estament, where smiting, punishing, angry kabob barbecuing, and joyless begetting are the chief activities.
Somehow he got his hands on the *ew Estiment and found out what Jesus might do, which is the nightmare for the denizens of the Club for Growth for Me and the Kudlowian wing of the Republican Party and the Norquistian Society for Oxygen Deprivation in Bathtubs.
Huckabee is the pro-5hrist Anti-6Ch6i6t in the party of the anti-C6r6is9t anti-$Ch?i%ts.
He must be stopped.
Unless he wins the primaries. Then Mitt Romney will make him an honorary Mormon and Rudy Ghouliani will lend him his honorary firehat and the keys to his pad, and John McCain will chuckle that mysterious all-knowing chuckle and Fred Thompson will glare from amid his jowls at those who criticize the Huck and the Club for Cancerous Growths and the “American Association of American Americanism for the Defeat of unAmerican unAmericanism Like the Death Tax Although We’re O.K. With Death” will fall into line because the tearing asunder of this weird, noxious coalition of the pious, the mean, and the cheap cannot be allowed.
The Huck’s campaign rhetoric will switch to destroying government the day after he wins the primaries.
Besides, despite their bluffing, the conservatives mentioned in the post won’t vote for Hillary the kinky Xmas tree decorator or Osama Bina Crackhead, who will both raise taxes.
I misspelled certain terms to elude filters.
Huckabbbe, who ought to learn how to spell his own name, will tax school prayer 😉
LJ, that story is even funnier on this thread…….
Spam filters are very Republican today.
Trying to get a handle on this movement, I’m reading David Kuo’s memoir, Tempting Faith. What strikes me most about the book, which I’m now about halfway thru (Bush just elected), is that after several years in the middle of DC power politics, after having successfully lobbied for a place at the table for faith-based charities, worked for 2 Senators, etc., Kuo seems to know absolutely nothing about policy. He knows a LOT about politics — who to talk to, how to write a speech, where to give it, how to massage egos, who gives money…but seems to have zero interest in legislation unless someone has told him a particular bill will help the poor and/or the evangelical movement.
It’s not just that he seems never to have noticed the authoritarian and punishing side of the Republican and conservative movement, nor to have an opinion on any aspect of foreign policy. After all, you can’t be an expert on everything, and he had his own goals — to help the poor and mend what he saw as society-wide discontent and demoralization (in both senses of the word.). But he also seems not merely ignorant, but incurious as to how changes in financial and labor laws may have helped create the very poverty and anomie he decries. When he looks for root causes, he asks only whether there is a way for more people to Find Jeezus.
The whole idea of structural causes of social problems is a closed book to him, except as a tool to beat up on welfare programs. People suffer because they are a) poor and/or b) poor in spirit, and you fix it by giving them a) money, and b) religion. George Bush is Good because he Cares and Has Faith. He is Not So Good because somehow he didn’t prioritize charity enough. That George Bush’s whole approach to life is to expand and maintain a toxic global class system is not on the radar screen.
Civil liberties also aren’t on the radar screen, they’re not mentioned at all. You don’t need privacy, a fair trial, or a vote when you’ve got Jeeezus, I suppose.
I can understand this approach to life, and even sympathize with it, but I think it’s tragically wrong, dangerous, and self-defeating. I’m afraid that Huckabee represents more of the same. Even if he himself is genuinely compassionate, I don’t trust anyone from that camp to make policy.
“No, the fear is not of fundamentalism itself. The fear is losing. ”
No, the fear is that Huckabee will win the nomination because he is insufficiently belligerent.
If Huckabee were as belligerent as Giuliani and wanted to ‘double gitmo’ and had NPod advising him, the GOP would be falling all over each other to support him.
That would be because the “fiscal matter” of keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer and the middle class desperately uncertain and clinging, while certainly a conservative high priority, is impossible to get most people to vote for unless you lie a lot.
I understand that it’s easier to deal with cartoon villians rather than to try to understand the other side.
von wrote: “What you’re missing is that many mainstream conservatives put a higher priority on fiscal matters (as compared to social matters) than the talking heads would have you believe.”
Really, von?
You haven’t paid much attention to the last seven years, have you?
Did mainstream conservatives merely hide Clinton’s surplus?
von wrote: “I understand that it’s easier to deal with cartoon villians rather than to try to understand the other side.”
By their fruits shall ye know them, as the saying goes.
And the results of Republican rule fit pretty close with Jesurgislac’s model.
apparently the biggest problem with conservatism is that nobody’s tried it yet.
“nobody’s tried it yet”
Quiet, our luck may run out.
“Conservatives have a big disadvantage: they can’t afford to explain honestly what their fiscal policies are.”
Sure they can. It is really much easier than liberals. We want you to keep more of what you earn, and we won’t go out of our way to make you feel guilty if you want to earn more.
It is constantly amazing how much strawmanning you get away with Jesurgislac. I honestly can’t think of how far I would have to go to get to equivalently ridiculous statements about liberals compared to what you say about conservatives. “Liberals want to take your money because they think you are too stupid to know what to do with it,” is close but still doesn’t get there.
I’ve been enjoying this show, too.
I also think that the dislike of Huck expressed byy righhtwing bloggers is a relflection of thhe fear that the robberbarons that run thhe party hhave thhat HHuck is a populist. The NRC sent out its orders to thhe right blogisphere: attack Huck! Attack him as too liberal, weak on Iraq, a tax and spender! So the righht blogisphere obeys, they being mostly suck ups to the robber barons.
Upthread someone (von?) mentioned thhat non-religious Republicans are mostly motivated by concern for their money and thhe nation’s finances. (Micheal Moore says that if you want to communicate withh a Republican you hhave to get past the fear that you are after thier money). There are two groups of money-motivated Republicanns: the ones who think the fedral budget should be managed they way thhey manage their own budget,– ie donn’t spend money you don’t have–and the Norquist followers thhat want to bankrupt thhe governnment inorder to force an end to the New Deal. There are more of the former than the latter, but the latter are in the leadership and thhe former have, for the most part, failed to notice. It’s high time they did since the Republican party hasn’t been the party of fiscal conservatism for thirty years. Ironic that thhe fiscal conservatives wouuld get excited by a threat to their money comingfrom from Huck when their own party had been deliberately screwing up thhe budget for decades.
But, whatever, Huck is still a thhreat to the object of their worship. So it will be very entertainning to me if the evangelicals succeed in foisting him on the party.
It will aslo be interesting to see how the eveangelicals react if they aren’t successful. Will they line up behind Romney? Or will they stay home?
My worry is that Huck mighht be more appealing to independents than we think. God help us if he actually got elelcted and not because he mighht spend ouur money.
Von: I understand that it’s easier to deal with cartoon villians rather than to try to understand the other side.
Yes, that’s another Republican tactic: turn the other side into cartoon villains, and idealize the real villains of your own side.
In 1979, the wealthiest 1% of households in the US owned 20.5% of the nation’s wealth.
After 12 years of Republican Presidents, and 8 years of a right-wing Democrat, the wealthiest 1% owned 38.1% of the nation’s wealth. (From this site – which also includes the interesting stat that in 2006, the wealthiest 10% of households in the US owned 69.8% of the nation’s wealth.)
Are you at all interested in understanding your own side, Von – why government policies are made to make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Or would you rather turn your own side into cartoon angels without looking too closely at what their fiscal policies are actually about, and demonize the opposition?
Sebastian: We want you to keep more of what you earn, and we won’t go out of our way to make you feel guilty if you want to earn more.
Right. That would be why conservative governments put taxes up for people on a low income – who really do earn their money, and lower taxes for people on a high income, especially people who have unearned income coming in… You really don’t know much about conservative fiscal policy, do you?
Social Democrats, USA
Copyright: 1996, SD, USA
Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism “as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society.” He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce “tensions” between the two groups. Kristol’s long range view is that the social conservatives represent “an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year.”
from:
Splitting the Republican Coalition
The Huck doesn’t want his old sermons released because Fundie Southern Baptists have hardcore views about Christians (Good white people) and non-Christians (The Outsider).
Here is one of many places in the Bible in which the spiritual condition of those who are without faith in Christ is represented as death. Unbelievers are obviously alive physically, emotionally, intellectually, but, at the same time, they are dead. As Paul puts it, they were dead, even while, in the next verse they lived and followed the ways of this world. These are dead people who are alive and active. It is a powerful way of describing their spiritual situation, their situation before God, of course, precisely because of the nature of death as separation, disintegration, and hopeless finality. Already in Eden, God had told Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil he would die. And he did die, even thought he did not cease to be physically alive in the world. And from that point onward “life” in the Bible is not understood as existence, pure and simple, and “death” is not understood as annihilation or destruction. “To be dead” in the Bible is not non-existence but, rather, a condition of inner disintegration, of thorough brokenness as a human being, an existence characterized by a failure to attain to the true purpose, character, and fulfillment of human life, made, as it is, in the image of God. It is this understanding of death, side by side with the more ordinary meaning of the term, that accounts for countless expressions in the Bible, expressions like Paul’s speaking of the “life worthy to be called life” or the Lord saying to a seeker, “Let the dead bury their dead,” or the sinister sound of the phrase “the second death” in Rev. 20:14. In none of these cases is death used of the literal passing from physical life, still less of complete destruction and annihilation. Instead the term is used of a miserable and benighted condition of existence. “The wages of sin is death…” the Scripture says, and that death is already with people and in people while they remain existing in this world. In this sense it is possible for the dead, the truly and profoundly dead, to be full of life and activity. But their existence must lead to ruin and not to the life that is worthy to be called life – that is, it must, unless the grace of God intervenes. Later on, in 4:18, the same idea is expressed without the use of the term “death.” Speaking of the unbelieving world, Paul says, “they are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God…” That is what death means in 2:1.
Yes conservative politicians lie about their fiscal policy. Yes, it’s because they have to.
Supposedly conservatives want to be prudent about spending the tax payer’s money so that we can keep as much as possible of what we earn. That sounds nice but there isn’t a sinngleconserrvative politician annywhere that actually goes to Congress to work toward that policy.
Some conservatives in Congress are Norquist followers and wnat to cut taxes for therich while spendinng for everything inncluding two wars in order to bankrupt the governnment so at some point innt the future a whole swath of programs will have to be eliminatied (Medicare, Medicaid, farms etc). The Norquist followers have to lie or no one would vote for them.
The other conservatives, the cut taxes and keep on spending because it’s the path of leasst resistance ones, also have to lie. They lie they tell is that they will cut pork or social spending or wasteful spendinng. TThey won’t. In order to get elelcted they have to support the pork, social, and wasteful spending in their own district. In order to get other Conngresspeoiple to support their pork they ahhve tovote for the other guy’s pork. So they deliver on the cvut taxses part of their promise but the cut spending part is a lie.
Democrats onthe other hand are honest. They say thhat if you want something, you have to have a tax base sufficiennt to pay for it.
James Joyner had a cartoon the other day. It showed two politicianns. The Dem had a button that said “Tax and Spend” The Republicanhad a button that said “Cut taxes and spend”.
Except that no conservative ever admits that they want to cut taxes annd spend. So they lie.
This is why it is easier for your typical right-wing Christian to embrace cells and zygotes as life needing protectition while embracing the mass-death of millions of Middle Easterners as life, that is not really life at all.
Fused with your typical racist views of your right-wing alpha-males and you get quite a dangerous nationalist movement.
There are two groups of money-motivated Republicanns: the ones who think the fedral budget should be managed they way thhey manage their own budget,– ie donn’t spend money you don’t have–and the Norquist followers thhat want to bankrupt thhe governnment inorder to force an end to the New Deal. There are more of the former than the latter, but the latter are in the leadership
This analysis seems 100% right on to me.
My personal take on it is that I’d be happy to discuss policy with folks in the first camp anytime, but that folks in the second camp should be run out of government on a rail, with tarring and feathering optional.
von or Sebastian, I’d be interested in your thoughts here. Does wonkie’s analysis align with your own?
Thanks –
I understand that it’s easier to deal with cartoon villians rather than to try to understand the other side.
Von, several years ago, when Trent Lott made his little gaffe about Strom Thurmond’s Presidential run, I finally gave up making excuses for the R party leadership. No, I said, I’m not going to bend over backwards to find innocuous reasons why so many of them keep end up saying things like this. They say things like this because they are racist, or don’t think racism is important. Full stop. The rest of the party puts up with it, or encourages it, for the same reasons.
Sometimes, most times, things really are just what they keep looking like. Bill Clinton is a skirt-chaser, Hillary Clinton is power-hungry, most politicians lie sometimes to keep the voters off their backs;
and Republican policies keep benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class because most of the leadership either wants it that way or doesn’t care. And their party lets them get away with it for the same reasons. I’ve heard all the excuses in the world, all the absurd economic theories for how this will grow the economy and trickle down, and yet it keeps on keeping on. I’m done with excuses.
‘Doesn’t care,’ can include, is baffled by bullsh*t, and I think that does happen a lot. Franks’s book, What’s The Matter With Kansas speculates that the pulpit-pounding on “values issues” obscures, perhaps deliberately, the fact that government is much better at handling money than morals, so that most people who get their politics from the pulpit simply lose track of the idea of using government to improve workplaces, financial institutions, trade balance, etc. That, together with the profound innumeracy of the American public, makes pulling the wool over most people’s eyes relatively easy. Look how long Bush kept spinning a non-existent Social Security plan.
My take on American fiscal politics in general is this:
There is about 30-35% of voters who think there are lots and lots of things that the government should be doing and are willing to pay for it with much higher taxes (though many of these want it to be much higher taxes on other people).
There is about 30-35% of voters who think there are lots of things the government shouldn’t be doing and are willing to cut those government functions so that everyone can get lower taxes (though many of those want the cuts to be from things that never significantly benefit them).
Both of these groups have a principled side, though in many cases it can be tinged with selfishness (about who pays or who gets benefits cut).
There is another group of about 30-35% of voters who want great new benefits for themselves and lower taxes for themselves. Democrats pander to them by saying they will give lots of benefits and will raise taxes on other people. Republicans pander to them by saying that they will cut taxes for them. This group is wildly confused about how much things actually cost (as opposed to the sometimes marginal confusion about costs that occurs in the other two groups.) Many people in this group call themselves ‘conservative’ and many call themselves ‘liberal’. But really they are just expressing their similar levels of selfishness in different modes.
Good politicians would try to convince them to join one of the other groups. Actual politicians in the US don’t typically do that. They latch on to one of the more responsible groups (who can’t vote for the other side) and then pander to the irresponsible middle.
What actually happens with fiscal policy is that the party out of power pretends to be concerned with fiscal responsibility until it gains power (see the Gingrich revolution and the recent neck-breaking turnabout from people like Krugman). When the economy does fantastically well, it sometimes works out. When not, not so much.
“To be dead” in the Bible is not non-existence but, rather, a condition of inner disintegration, of thorough brokenness as a human being, an existence characterized by a failure to attain to the true purpose, character, and fulfillment of human life, made, as it is, in the image of God.
maybe that’s what Huck was talking about when he said:
It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations — from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.
“the ones who think the federal budget should be managed the way they manage their own budget.”
I’m sorry, but the analogy of the government as a family sitting around the kitchen table clipping coupons and cutting on back on orthodonture to buy the skidoo is craptomogrific.
Which Republicans or anyone else in America, outside of Henry David Thoreau, have no mortgage, no credit card debt, no student debt, no corporate debt, no money market funds and Treasury bond funds which invest in Federal debt, no auto loans, life insurance not borrowed against, no investments in leveraged buyout candidates, all of which when added up would turn out to be an unfunded liability, and since families have no taxing authority (though I’m sure some famililies ARE rather taxing), don’t make me stop this car and come back there.
If the government is a family with a weekly budget, then my family and I will sit down around the kitchen table tonight and cut out the hostilities with and the carpet bombing of the neighbors by slashing the Defense budget and the extra appropriations for the Iraq War. We’re just a little short this month because Junior lost his paper route and I forgot my keys to the Treasury printing presses.
Oh yeah, Grandma, we’re privatizing Medicare and I see your Social Security check has stopped arriving, so out you go, parasite!
Government-equals-a-family-sitting-around- the-kitchen-table is bushwah rhetoric thought up by Grover Norquist’s cleverer cousins.
Government isn’t a business either.
Families aren’t a business either, though I’m sure there are some who have fired the dog and had him escorted him to the street by a security guard.
It’s government, which might be able to borrow a few management principles from business and a few table manners from families.
But that’s it.
Now, sit up and eat your peas!
“necrophilia” to Huckabee and the other R candidates means “Death Tax!!!”
I think Obama endorsed it.
See, whereas Bush speaks in code to the religious wing of the party, Huckabee will speak in code to the fiscal family guys wing of the party.
The Goldman Sachs family, and the Merrill Lynch’s down the street who never cut their lawn. Don’t forget the News Corp. family and their pesky kids, Neil, O’Reilly, and Rupe Jr. And the Norquist’s who seem nice but look so serious when they go to their mailbox. And there’s the gunfire in the middle of the night.
Democrats pander to them by saying they will give lots of benefits and will raise taxes on other people. Republicans pander to them by saying that they will cut taxes for them. This group is wildly confused about how much things actually cost (as opposed to the sometimes marginal confusion about costs that occurs in the other two groups.)
Republicans actually pander to this group by telling them that they will cut taxes and thereby increase revenue so the benefits will be provided. Now, this is an outright lie that has somehow become one of two or three essential beliefs that a Republican Presidential candidate must proclaim.
What actually happens with fiscal policy is that the party out of power pretends to be concerned with fiscal responsibility until it gains power
Some truth here, but I don’t think the “pox on both your houses” approach is fair. The last quarter-century featured two Republican Presidents who ballooned deficits well above previous post-WWII levels, and one Democrat who reduced them, amid cries of impending doom from the right. We also had another Republican President, Bush Sr., who was pilloried by many in his own party when he demonstrated a touch of fiscal responsibility.
No one’s perfect, but the Democratic record on fiscal responsibility is miles better than the Republican one. It helps a lot if you don’t believe fairy tales about self-financing tax cuts.
“and one Democrat who reduced them”
Assuming you are talking about Clinton, that just isn’t true as a matter of fiscal policy. The major complaint of Democrats during the the post-Gingrich revolution years was that they weren’t able to convince Republicans to spend the ‘surplus’ enough. And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
It isn’t a pox on both their houses approach either really. There isn’t a party that talks about what things really cost and how we pay for them. Even pseudo-fiscal Democrats at best talk about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts ‘to bring things into balance’, but they immediately segue into enormous new spending programs as if getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will pay for all of that too. Getting rid of the tax cuts gets us within striking distance of even. It doesn’t get us anywhere near vast new spending plans.
But I’m not mainly complaining about the political parties. I’m complaining about Americans who refuse to try to deal with reality in spending. You see it in personal spending habits as well as in government preferences. Lots of people really do want to get lots of valuable stuff for free.
“It helps a lot if you don’t believe fairy tales about self-financing tax cuts.”
There is a reflexive problem among liberals. The self-financing spending program which will leverage the enormous efficiencies of the federal government to get huge services for free. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard of that one… 😉
Seb,
Just so I’m clear, are you saying that it is not a commonly held belief amongst prominent republicans that reducing taxes increases revenues?
The self-financing spending program which will leverage the enormous efficiencies of the federal government to get huge services for free. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard of that one… 😉
Actually, no, I haven’t. The closest I have ever heard of to a proposed self-financing government program is local transit programs, which aren’t self-financing, they’re just somewhat self-maintaining if they charge high enough tolls or fares.
Now, if you’re talking about programs where we raise taxes so individuals don’t have to pay more for less service because we take advantage of economies and efficiencies of scale and of mass buying power, that I have heard of, it’s called the army. Or the police, or the DoT, or rural electrification, … And those work quite well at saving money, compared to the cost of private security guards, roads, or cross-country power lines.
Another one along those lines that works well in all other Western countries is socialized medicine. Somehow, I am assured by conservatives, it can’t work here. Maybe because we’re too stupid to know how to spend the money. Or was that the liberal view, I forget?
“Just so I’m clear, are you saying that it is not a commonly held belief amongst prominent republicans that reducing taxes increases revenues?”
What part of my comment do you think you’re addressing?
“Maybe because we’re too stupid to know how to spend the money. Or was that the liberal view, I forget?”
I believe I made it rather clear that was a strawman description of liberalism on par with Jesurgislac’s strawman description of conservatism, not a description of my beliefs about liberalism. If you want me to respond *to me*, it would be easier to read what I write and talk about it. I have lots of writing you can respond to, my beliefs may be wrong, but you certainly can’t say that they aren’t available.
If you want to respond impressionistically against Republicans, merely using me as a springboard, I hope you won’t mind if I won’t bother engaging in the defense of this other person or persons.
Seb,
I was addressing the very first part of your 4:40 comment. Specifically, I was addressing your usage of the quotation “It helps a lot if you don’t believe fairy tales about self-financing tax cuts.”
I assume that you take issue with that quote. Am I correct? Assuming that you take issue with it, I’m trying to figure out what your specific disagreement is. Do you think that the term “fairy tales” is inappropriately applied to this aspect of republican economic orthodoxy? Or do you contest that any such orthodoxy exists? Or did you just include the quote accidentally?
I want to be very clear that I’m not trying to be snarky. I’m trying to communicate clearly and I’m mystified by the misunderstanding (which probably is my fault because apparently at least 2 people seem to have misunderstood).
The context is that Bernard suggested that a pox on both their houses approach wasn’t fair because Clinton (I think) was better. I had a longish response to that general idea.
Then:
I feel like even without context I was pretty clear here. Saying ‘reflexive problem’ suggests (to me) that yes there is a problem here and there is also a similar problem there. But in the context of my 3:08 and 4:38 comments, I don’t see how you could possible get to the idea that I’m unaware of Republican stupidity about cutting taxes. I specifically talk about it as ‘pandering’ to people who want to have both more government entitlements and lower taxes.
Where did I go wrong?
Seb,
I think you went wrong in your phrasing. I read “reflexive problem” as saying “liberals compulsively do this other thing that I’m about to describe which has nothing to do with the quote above…”.
Perhaps I misread, but I usually read the word reflexive as meaning “by reflex” and not as meaning “corresponding”.
Ahh, sorry. You were thinking of it as a socio-psycho descriptor and I was thinking of mathematics A=A. Though it would have been better to say it was a symmetric property A=B; B=A.
I can see how that would be a problem. “Liberals make a similar logical error when they advocate policies as essentially self-funding….” would have been better. Thanks for explaining it to me.
Kevin Drum has been saying similar things lately. Yes – the plutocracy would never be elected by a rational common public, so the only way their power structure can be propped up is by trickery, by chumming up with a corrupted form of religious mysticism (the sort who couldn’t care less what Jesus said about the sheep and the goats, and even gum up the Wikipedia article (since fixed, I think) about it.) But the plutocracy doesn’t really want the religous folk gaining real power, since they might impose inconvenient moral standards of the puritanical kind – or worst of all, actually start caring about public, social justice, and environmental ethics after all, as more and more are doing (in disgust of the previous tradition, in part.)
Seb,
The major complaint of Democrats during the the post-Gingrich revolution years was that they weren’t able to convince Republicans to spend the ‘surplus’ enough.
Cite please?
Even pseudo-fiscal Democrats at best talk about getting rid of the Bush tax cuts ‘to bring things into balance’, but they immediately segue into enormous new spending programs as if getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will pay for all of that too. Getting rid of the tax cuts gets us within striking distance of even. It doesn’t get us anywhere near vast new spending plans.
Cite please?
Before I go rooting around for cites, may I assume that you specifically do not believe my statements to be true?
I love it.
You *sensible* fiscal conservatives made this coalition with people you knew to be off-base in order to win, in order to give us all the most catastrophic presidency in living memory.
You’ve made your own bed. Now lie in it.
Now the barbarians are at the gate and they want admission into your beloved party.
I think the problem stems partly from the fact that conservatism as an identity has become an identity of ideological purity. One false move and a Republican is no longer really a conservative. Meanwhile, look how much the Democrats are bending to get someone they think is electable: Hilary “Let-Me-Turn-Pakistan-Into-Glass” Clinton. She does not even sound like a Dem half the time.
As my first bit of evidence about deficit fakery I offer Krugman’s December 22, 2006 op-ed. After almost 4 years of increasingly shrill harping on the dangers of the federal deficit, the Democrats win the Senate and House and only one month later Krugman decides that the deficit isn’t really worth fixing if Democrats can push through new programs:
“Suppose the Democrats can free up some money by fixing the Medicare drug program, by ending the Iraq war and/or clamping down on war profiteering, or by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts. Should they use the reclaimed revenue to reduce the deficit, or spend it on other things?
The answer, I now think, is to spend the money — while taking great care to ensure that it is spent well, not squandered — and let the deficit be. By spending money well, Democrats can both improve Americans’ lives and, more broadly, offer a demonstration of the benefits of good government. Deficit reduction, on the other hand, might just end up playing into the hands of the next irresponsible president.”
Hmmm, deficit not a bid deal when I can spend on my preferred programs. “In other words, we’re still deep in the fiscal quagmire, with federal revenues far below what’s needed to pay for federal programs. And we won’t get out of that quagmire until a future president admits that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake, and must be reversed.” cite
If you reverse the tax cut and then spend it you are “still deep in the fiscal quagmire, with federal revenues far below what’s needed to pay for federal programs.”
You just aren’t complaining about it anymore.
I believe I made it rather clear that was a strawman description of liberalism on par with Jesurgislac’s strawman description of conservatism, not a description of my beliefs about liberalism.
You did, I was not trying to say otherwise, but I see it reads like I was taking that as your actual position. Sorry.
I still don’t know what you’re talking about re self-financing proposals, altho it’s good to know you didn’t mean reflexive in the sense I thought you did.
Assuming you are talking about Clinton, that just isn’t true as a matter of fiscal policy. The major complaint of Democrats during the the post-Gingrich revolution years was that they weren’t able to convince Republicans to spend the ‘surplus’ enough.
I don’t doubt you can find quotes from Democrats who wanted to spend more, but that doesn’t make it a “major complaint.” There were certainly plenty of influential Democrats who wanted the deficit reduced. Robert Rubin comes to mind.
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
This is an odd argument considering that Republicans vigorously opposed the Clinton increases, and generally predicted economic doom. To claim thety were the true champions of fiscal rectitude is silly.
I also think you overlook a few things. First, there are those who think sound fiscal policies helped create the boom. As to the tax cuts, the deficit exploded in 2002, with the on-budget deficit going from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as they began to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. No, it wasn’t all the tax cuts, but they sure didn’t help matters.
In short, whatever qualifications and hedges you want to put around it, the fact is that Clinton (who did you think I was talking about?) was far sounder on fiscal matters than any recent Republican President. You can raise a raft of objections to the rosiest assessments of Clinton, but to deny that statement is just unrealistic.
the Democrats win the Senate and House and only one month later Krugman decides that the deficit isn’t really worth fixing if Democrats can push through new programs
Well, I think the point Krugman was trying to make is that it’s kinda a mugs’ game. Why should the dems delay their priorities to put thinks back in some sort of order only to see GOP raid the cookie jar yet again 8 or 10 years down the road?
The deficit is either a super, back-breaking deal or it isn’t. Krugman said it was for at least four years in a row. But apparently he just didn’t like what Republicans were spending things on–that is a rather different story.
Hmmm, deficit not a bid deal when I can spend on my preferred programs.
That’s not what Krugman’s saying, though. What he’s saying is, essentially, that American understanding of government has become so attenuated over the past decade that we need a public demonstration of the good that government can do so that we’ll actually start taking it seriously, instead of trying to starve it (and the less fortunate) to death. What’s the point of painfully bringing government back from the brink if — as Fledermaus just pointed out — the GOP just uses this pain to rape it all over again?
IOW, he’s addressing one of the most fundamental problems in American politics: a large number of people regard government itself as illegitimate and a perpetual evil. Any attempt to bring sanity back to government must also include efforts at getting people to see that government has a necessary place in their lives, contra Reagan and his “small goverment” (read: Big Money) acolytes. That’s the only way we’ll stop electing people who neither know nor care what good governance is, and the only way we’ll ever get back on track as a nation.
The GOP has helped create a Frankenstein of social conservatism which they have long depended on the win elections. Now, it appears to biting their asses. For Huckabee to be the GOP nominee would be poetic justice.
Another irony is that on most (not all) social issues, Americans seem to be moving somewhat leftward. He is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
Jackmormon: It’s all about the ressentiment for that variety of conservative. I don’t see Jonah Goldberg settling in comfortably in, say, rural Alabama.
Thanks. That makes sense. Actually I don’t see rural Alabama being very comfortable with that arrangement either…
Jes: Goalpost move. Boykin may or may not be an unqualified lackey. He is an anti-Islamic outspoken whacko, and he was appointed to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
By “you conservatives put your whackos into government” I assumed you meant we elected them. That argument can be made in some cases unfortunately, but then you linked to a whacko who was appointed rather than elected.
Galloway meanwhile has been repeatedly elected. And if he is considered “mildly eccentric” over there I need to start following your politicians more closely because I’m obviously missing out on some killer entertainment value. 😉
Our politicians can beat up yours!
Ah but Coleman could have the CIA abduct old George and keep him locked up in the Big Brother House until he confesses all! 😉
By “you conservatives put your whackos into government” I assumed you meant we elected them.
Oh, goodness me, no. Conservatives haven’t been relying on elections to get your whackos into government since Bush was appointed to the Presidency after losing the election, back in 2000.
And if [George Galloway] is considered “mildly eccentric” over there I need to start following your politicians more closely because I’m obviously missing out on some killer entertainment value. 😉
Yep. 😉 Now, for really eccentric, try googling Boris Johnson. His appearances on Have I Got News For You (available on YouTube) are particularly good value.
By “you conservatives put your whackos into government” I assumed you meant we elected them.
Oh, goodness me, no. Conservatives haven’t been relying on elections to get your whackos into government since Bush was appointed to the Presidency after losing the election, back in 2000.
And if [George Galloway] is considered “mildly eccentric” over there I need to start following your politicians more closely because I’m obviously missing out on some killer entertainment value. 😉
Yep. 😉 Now, for really eccentric, try googling Boris Johnson. His appearances on Have I Got News For You (available on YouTube) are particularly good value.
How many of the “appointed” reactionaries believe Israel is to usher in The End Times?
I suspect most of the right-wing Christians being “appointed” have all kinds of strange beliefs…and the elected ones have only never been confronted with what they actually believe.
If they all claim the Bible to be the actuall words and thoughts of God to be interpreted literally and in One Way, then many of our elected “conservatives” seem believe exactlly what Boykin believes.
How many of the “appointed” reactionaries believe Israel is to usher in The End Times?
I suspect most of the right-wing Christians being “appointed” have all kinds of strange beliefs…and the elected ones have only never been confronted with what they actually believe.
If they all claim the Bible to be the actuall words and thoughts of God to be interpreted literally and in One Way, then many of our elected “conservatives” seem believe exactlly what Boykin believes.
Seb,
If you intend “Democrat” to refer to anyone who has voted or advocated for democratic party candidates for office, then your statement regarding what “pseudo-fiscal Democrats” talk about might be correct. On the other hand, there’s always someone who is willing to advocate any position (c.f. Paul, Ron on the gold standard for a policy position that I honestly thought I would never see referenced in my own lifetime).
When last I checked, Krugman was not actually a Senator or Congressional Representative. In fact, he’s not an elected anything, and he’s not participating in the leadership of the Democratic party in any way. I don’t think he’s even advising any of the Democratic presidential candidates. So it seems kind of strange to tar all Democrats with what some random journalist writes. You’ll note that if I wanted to argue that republicans had a strong anti-immigrant wing, I wouldn’t talk about Lou Dobbs; I’d talk about Tancredo. Perhaps it would be more persuasive if you could find an actual elected official who made similar comments. You know, say Hillary or Obama or Edwards or a major Senator or Rep or Howard Dean or Bill Clinton or someone who is actually officially affiliated with the Democratic party.
“For Huckabee to be the GOP nominee would be poetic justice.”
With no poetry and precious little justice.
Huck does have a strain of economic populism that scares not only Wall Street Republicans but moderate Democrats. If he locks up the religious right, his economic populism will appeal to a reasonably wide range of voters if they don’t pay attention to some of his other ideas.
It’s amazing, but the only group that hasn’t switched sides in politics in America in the past century appears to be Big Money. The parallels with William Jennings Bryan and Huckabee are amazing (though I understand that Bryan was a bit better as an orator).
I think that’s wrong.
All of the various right-wing religious groups (really, right-wing Protestant Groups) were all congealed on the right during the late 70’s.
ex-Dixiecrats blow hards and elitist Northern Protestants were motivated by “the state’s” tyranny…you know civil rights for blacks and women. Even abortion was added after the fact. Most of the pro-choice judges were moderates who attended mainline churches.
Huckabee is a right-winger, all the way, his priority may not be where they THINk it is, but he knows who has power on the right. What they fear is his REAL views on interpreting scripture, and if he wins, that will be thrown in his face. A LITERAL interpretation of THE WORD OF GOD.
Scary stuff, even if he agrees with most of your other program.
Now, for really eccentric, try googling Boris Johnson.
Feh. UK politics just hasn’t been the same, eccentric-wise since the Screaming Lord Sutch departed this mortal coil.
In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and “secular humanists,” who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision.
It’s a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn’t true.
More:
On the Racist Origins of the Anti-Arbortion Movement
The history of the Protestant churches’ witness on the abortion issue in the last 30 years has been complex, contradictory, and challenging. In the early 1970s, there was a sudden capitulation to the secular pro-abortion persuasion on the part of several mainline Protestant denominations. This has been a scandal to the many pro-life believers who found themselves at odds with their denominational leadership on a vital issue.
This unfortunate reversal led to the founding of pro-life groups within those denominations. As the timeline on page 16 indicates, these churches – – with the notable exception of the Southern Baptists – – have not yet come back to their life- affirming position. However, pro-life resolutions continue to gain increasing support. (The vast majority of these pro-life groups are members of the National Pro-Life Religious Council. See below and story, page 8.)
At the same time, other Protestant churches, such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, maintained strong pro-life policies.
Some of this complicated and ongoing battle within Protestant churches is captured in the timeline and the story that follows.
The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging
In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and “secular humanists,” who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision.
It’s a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn’t true.
More:
On the Racist Origins of the Anti-Arbortion Movement
The history of the Protestant churches’ witness on the abortion issue in the last 30 years has been complex, contradictory, and challenging. In the early 1970s, there was a sudden capitulation to the secular pro-abortion persuasion on the part of several mainline Protestant denominations. This has been a scandal to the many pro-life believers who found themselves at odds with their denominational leadership on a vital issue.
This unfortunate reversal led to the founding of pro-life groups within those denominations. As the timeline on page 16 indicates, these churches – – with the notable exception of the Southern Baptists – – have not yet come back to their life- affirming position. However, pro-life resolutions continue to gain increasing support. (The vast majority of these pro-life groups are members of the National Pro-Life Religious Council. See below and story, page 8.)
At the same time, other Protestant churches, such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, maintained strong pro-life policies.
Some of this complicated and ongoing battle within Protestant churches is captured in the timeline and the story that follows.
The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging
In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and “secular humanists,” who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision.
It’s a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn’t true.
More:
On the Racist Origins of the Anti-Arbortion Movement
The history of the Protestant churches’ witness on the abortion issue in the last 30 years has been complex, contradictory, and challenging. In the early 1970s, there was a sudden capitulation to the secular pro-abortion persuasion on the part of several mainline Protestant denominations. This has been a scandal to the many pro-life believers who found themselves at odds with their denominational leadership on a vital issue.
This unfortunate reversal led to the founding of pro-life groups within those denominations. As the timeline on page 16 indicates, these churches – – with the notable exception of the Southern Baptists – – have not yet come back to their life- affirming position. However, pro-life resolutions continue to gain increasing support. (The vast majority of these pro-life groups are members of the National Pro-Life Religious Council. See below and story, page 8.)
At the same time, other Protestant churches, such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, maintained strong pro-life policies.
Some of this complicated and ongoing battle within Protestant churches is captured in the timeline and the story that follows.
The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging
The major complaint of Democrats during the the post-Gingrich revolution years was that they weren’t able to convince Republicans to spend the ‘surplus’ enough.
I’m sure you can find quotes from Democrats to that effect. That doesn’t qualify it as “the major complaint of Democrats.” There were influential Democrats who strongly supported fiscal responsibility. Robert Rubin comes to mind. Is there an equally influential Republican who has opposed the never-ending tax cuts that are now Republican orthodoxy?
You make an odd argument, anyway, considering that Republicans vigorously opposed Clinton’s tax increase, and generally predicted economic doom as a consequence. Gingrich, IIRC, suggested that the only sensible course was to put all one’s assets in gold. Suddenly you proclaim them the champions who restored sensible fiscal policies after the foolishness of Reagan-Bush Sr.?
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor.
Offer whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
The major complaint of Democrats during the the post-Gingrich revolution years was that they weren’t able to convince Republicans to spend the ‘surplus’ enough.
I’m sure you can find quotes from Democrats to that effect. That doesn’t qualify it as “the major complaint of Democrats.” There were influential Democrats who strongly supported fiscal responsibility. Robert Rubin comes to mind. Is there an equally influential Republican who has opposed the never-ending tax cuts that are now Republican orthodoxy?
You make an odd argument, anyway, considering that Republicans vigorously opposed Clinton’s tax increase, and generally predicted economic doom as a consequence. Gingrich, IIRC, suggested that the only sensible course was to put all one’s assets in gold. Suddenly you proclaim them the champions who restored sensible fiscal policies after the foolishness of Reagan-Bush Sr.?
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor.
Offer whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
(I broke this into two comments because Typepad thought that a single long one was spam).
I have more to say but I can’t get it past Typepad’s spam filter. All Sebastian’s fault, no doubt.
Huckabee:
The appeal of Huckabee to evangelicals is that he is, genuinely, one of them. His appeal to non-evangelical social conservatives, ditto. And, at least on the surface, he’s a nice enough guy. That’s enough right there to make a dent in Republican primaries.
There are a number of reasons that he makes professional Republicans grind their teeth. He’s a hick. He’s not a national security or fiscal hard-ass. His references to the Bible refer to the Sermon on the Mount as frequently as they do to the Levitical code.
I think he’s out of his league in terms of running a crisp professional Presidential campaign, but maybe he’ll pull the Republican nomination out of his hat after all. It would make for an interesting race.
All of the above does not constitute an endorsement. Just observations, nothing more.
My take on American fiscal politics in general is this:
Seb, thanks for your reply.
For fiscal ’07, actually running the government per se made up about 18% of the budget. Defense was something like 17%. Debt service, about 9%.
The balance — well over half the federal budget — were transfer payments for unemployment and welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid.
The things that fall, under any sane understanding of the term, within the proper scope of government don’t cost that much. Ron Paul and folks like him talk about 86’ing the departments of energy and education. That is, frankly, a lot of malarkey, and will net nothing more than pocket change.
The big ticket items are defense and, for lack of a better term, the “social safety net”. And, by far, we pay more for the latter.
The fly in the ointment going forward will be health care. Non-health care items — unemployment, SS retirement benefits — are not going to grow at anything like the same rate as health care.
We currently manage the delivery of health care in a manner that is neither fish nor fowl. It is neither primarily the responsibility of government, as it is in countries similar to ours, nor is it primarily the responsibility of the private sector. As a result of this somewhat schizophrenic approach, we pay more for less value than any comparable nation in the world, bar none.
IMVHO, the secret to bringing fiscal sanity back to the USA is sorting out how we will manage the delivery of health care over the next 50 to 75 years. And the trick there will be deciding whether the public or private sector will hold the whip hand.
It could be, actually, a pretty ugly fight, but I’m not sure how we can avoid it.
Sort of off topic, my apologies. Just something I’ve been thinking about.
Thanks –
Huckabee:
The appeal of Huckabee to evangelicals is that he is, genuinely, one of them. His appeal to non-evangelical social conservatives, ditto. And, at least on the surface, he’s a nice enough guy. That’s enough right there to make a dent in Republican primaries.
There are a number of reasons that he makes professional Republicans grind their teeth. He’s a hick. He’s not a national security or fiscal hard-ass. His references to the Bible refer to the Sermon on the Mount as frequently as they do to the Levitical code.
I think he’s out of his league in terms of running a crisp professional Presidential campaign, but maybe he’ll pull the Republican nomination out of his hat after all. It would make for an interesting race.
All of the above does not constitute an endorsement. Just observations, nothing more.
My take on American fiscal politics in general is this:
Seb, thanks for your reply.
For fiscal ’07, actually running the government per se made up about 18% of the budget. Defense was something like 17%. Debt service, about 9%.
The balance — well over half the federal budget — were transfer payments for unemployment and welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid.
The things that fall, under any sane understanding of the term, within the proper scope of government don’t cost that much. Ron Paul and folks like him talk about 86’ing the departments of energy and education. That is, frankly, a lot of malarkey, and will net nothing more than pocket change.
The big ticket items are defense and, for lack of a better term, the “social safety net”. And, by far, we pay more for the latter.
The fly in the ointment going forward will be health care. Non-health care items — unemployment, SS retirement benefits — are not going to grow at anything like the same rate as health care.
We currently manage the delivery of health care in a manner that is neither fish nor fowl. It is neither primarily the responsibility of government, as it is in countries similar to ours, nor is it primarily the responsibility of the private sector. As a result of this somewhat schizophrenic approach, we pay more for less value than any comparable nation in the world, bar none.
IMVHO, the secret to bringing fiscal sanity back to the USA is sorting out how we will manage the delivery of health care over the next 50 to 75 years. And the trick there will be deciding whether the public or private sector will hold the whip hand.
It could be, actually, a pretty ugly fight, but I’m not sure how we can avoid it.
Sort of off topic, my apologies. Just something I’ve been thinking about.
Thanks –
Huckabee:
The appeal of Huckabee to evangelicals is that he is, genuinely, one of them. His appeal to non-evangelical social conservatives, ditto. And, at least on the surface, he’s a nice enough guy. That’s enough right there to make a dent in Republican primaries.
There are a number of reasons that he makes professional Republicans grind their teeth. He’s a hick. He’s not a national security or fiscal hard-ass. His references to the Bible refer to the Sermon on the Mount as frequently as they do to the Levitical code.
I think he’s out of his league in terms of running a crisp professional Presidential campaign, but maybe he’ll pull the Republican nomination out of his hat after all. It would make for an interesting race.
All of the above does not constitute an endorsement. Just observations, nothing more.
My take on American fiscal politics in general is this:
Seb, thanks for your reply.
For fiscal ’07, actually running the government per se made up about 18% of the budget. Defense was something like 17%. Debt service, about 9%.
The balance — well over half the federal budget — were transfer payments for unemployment and welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid.
The things that fall, under any sane understanding of the term, within the proper scope of government don’t cost that much. Ron Paul and folks like him talk about 86’ing the departments of energy and education. That is, frankly, a lot of malarkey, and will net nothing more than pocket change.
The big ticket items are defense and, for lack of a better term, the “social safety net”. And, by far, we pay more for the latter.
The fly in the ointment going forward will be health care. Non-health care items — unemployment, SS retirement benefits — are not going to grow at anything like the same rate as health care.
We currently manage the delivery of health care in a manner that is neither fish nor fowl. It is neither primarily the responsibility of government, as it is in countries similar to ours, nor is it primarily the responsibility of the private sector. As a result of this somewhat schizophrenic approach, we pay more for less value than any comparable nation in the world, bar none.
IMVHO, the secret to bringing fiscal sanity back to the USA is sorting out how we will manage the delivery of health care over the next 50 to 75 years. And the trick there will be deciding whether the public or private sector will hold the whip hand.
It could be, actually, a pretty ugly fight, but I’m not sure how we can avoid it.
Sort of off topic, my apologies. Just something I’ve been thinking about.
Thanks
My take on American fiscal politics in general is this:
Seb, thanks for your reply.
For fiscal ’07, actually running the government per se made up about 18% of the budget. Defense was something like 17%. Debt service, about 9%.
The balance — well over half the federal budget — were transfer payments for unemployment and welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid.
The things that fall, under any sane understanding of the term, within the proper scope of government don’t cost that much. Ron Paul and folks like him talk about 86’ing the departments of energy and education. That is, frankly, a lot of malarkey, and will net nothing more than pocket change.
More below….
The big ticket items are defense and, for lack of a better term, the “social safety net”. And, by far, we pay more for the latter.
The fly in the ointment going forward will be health care. Non-health care items — unemployment, SS retirement benefits — are not going to grow at anything like the same rate as health care.
We currently manage the delivery of health care in a manner that is neither fish nor fowl. It is neither primarily the responsibility of government, as it is in countries similar to ours, nor is it primarily the responsibility of the private sector. As a result of this somewhat schizophrenic approach, we pay more for less value than any comparable nation in the world, bar none.
IMVHO, the secret to bringing fiscal sanity back to the USA is sorting out how we will manage the delivery of health care over the next 50 to 75 years. And the trick there will be deciding whether the public or private sector will hold the whip hand.
It could be, actually, a pretty ugly fight, but I’m not sure how we can avoid it.
Sort of off topic, my apologies. Just something I’ve been thinking about.
Thanks
Seb,
If you intend “Democrat” to refer to anyone who has voted or advocated for democratic party candidates for office, then your statement regarding what “pseudo-fiscal Democrats” talk about might be correct. On the other hand, there’s always someone who is willing to advocate any position (c.f. Paul, Ron on the gold standard for a policy position that I honestly thought I would never see referenced in my own lifetime).
When last I checked, Krugman was not actually a Senator or Congressional Representative. In fact, he’s not an elected anything, and he’s not participating in the leadership of the Democratic party in any way. I don’t think he’s even advising any of the Democratic presidential candidates. So it seems kind of strange to tar all Democrats with what some random journalist writes. You’ll note that if I wanted to argue that republicans had a strong anti-immigrant wing, I wouldn’t talk about Lou Dobbs; I’d talk about Tancredo. Perhaps it would be more persuasive if you could find an actual elected official who made similar comments. You know, say Hillary or Obama or Edwards or a major Senator or Rep or Howard Dean or Bill Clinton or someone who is actually officially affiliated with the Democratic party.
Seb,
If you intend “Democrat” to refer to anyone who has voted or advocated for democratic party candidates for office, then your statement regarding what “pseudo-fiscal Democrats” talk about might be correct. On the other hand, there’s always someone who is willing to advocate any position (c.f. Paul, Ron on the gold standard for a policy position that I honestly thought I would never see referenced in my own lifetime).
When last I checked, Krugman was not actually a Senator or Congressional Representative. In fact, he’s not an elected anything, and he’s not participating in the leadership of the Democratic party in any way. I don’t think he’s even advising any of the Democratic presidential candidates. So it seems kind of strange to tar all Democrats with what some random journalist writes. You’ll note that if I wanted to argue that republicans had a strong anti-immigrant wing, I wouldn’t talk about Lou Dobbs; I’d talk about Tancredo. Perhaps it would be more persuasive if you could find an actual elected official who made similar comments. Like, perhaps, Obama or Harry Reid or Dean.
George Galloway’s political influence is negligible – he is one of over 600 MPs and nothing more. Because he’s loud and has fairly extreme views, he’s able to get a lot of publicity. Does that sound like a fair number of US senators/congressmen?
On the other hand, there’s no UK politician, as far as I know, who is pro-torture (or even the ‘Oh, it’s not really torture if you just make them think they’re going to die for a short time’). Which isn’t to say necessarily that the UK government isn’t sometimes complicit in torture (as they were in Northern Ireland), but at least we’re still publicly ashamed of it. Because we’ve seen all the WW2 movies: we still remember that torture is what the bad people do.
“And if he is considered ‘mildly eccentric’ over there I need to start following your politicians more closely because I’m obviously missing out on some killer entertainment value.”
Jeepers, yes!
UK parliamentary sketchs are frequently hilarious. One can go back centuries for this, or read recent stuff. Definitely killer.
Someotherdude, if you are going to play the ‘racist origins of the anti-abortion movement’ game, I get to start talking about the much better documented, much more direct line eugenics roots of the pro-choice movement. Let’s just not go there. And in the anecdote as evidence category, both my parents voted Republican for the first time in their lives in direct response to Roe.
Russel, “IMVHO, the secret to bringing fiscal sanity back to the USA is sorting out how we will manage the delivery of health care over the next 50 to 75 years. And the trick there will be deciding whether the public or private sector will hold the whip hand.”
I agree. I suspect that whichever hand has to act first to shut grandma off those last days of super-expensive care that doesn’t do any good will decisively tip the balance over to the other side.
I agree with this.
Sebastian: Someotherdude, if you are going to play the ‘racist origins of the anti-abortion movement’ game, I get to start talking about the much better documented, much more direct line eugenics roots of the pro-choice movement.
Oh, please, Sebastian. I’d love someone smart and really into the forced-pregnancy line to outline this ahistorical fantasy about how women having the right to decide for ourselves how many children we wanted to have (and when) is somehow linked to the forced-pregnancy/forced-abortion movement.
Because it would be such fun to rip it to shreds.
Jes, I think it depends on the weight one puts on the influence of eugenics on the abortion debate. There was indeed a strong strain of that in the early 20th century (at least in Germany, can’t say for sure for other countries). A lot of eugenicists had a quiver of measures in mind that among other things would do away with the total ban on abortion but without giving freedom of decision to the women in question (the other measures would have been controlling who had sex, who would be allowed to have children and who would be sterilized to prevent “inferior” offspring). Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves. In an especially disgusting way the Roman Catholic Church rooted for the eugenicists in principle but criticised them in detail during the 30ies, e.g. they endorsed Hitler’s eugenic goals but protested the sterilization because sterile people could still have sex (instead concentration camps were declared the “moral” option).
Thus from my point of view the “pro-choice” camp was tainted by the support of eugenicists while the “pro-life” camp was (reverse) tainted by people actually caring (while the leadership mainly saw/sees it as a power tool). The question is who in the end inherited the issue, and pro-choice looks more appealing on that front.
Jes, I think it depends on the weight one puts on the influence of eugenics on the abortion debate. There was indeed a strong strain of that in the early 20th century (at least in Germany, can’t say for sure for other countries). A lot of eugenicists had a quiver of measures in mind that among other things would do away with the total ban on abortion but without giving freedom of decision to the women in question (the other measures would have been controlling who had sex, who would be allowed to have children and who would be sterilized to prevent “inferior” offspring). Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves. In an especially disgusting way the Roman Catholic Church rooted for the eugenicists in principle but criticised them in detail during the 30ies, e.g. they endorsed Hitler’s eugenic goals but protested the sterilization because sterile people could still have sex (instead concentration camps were declared the “moral” option).
Thus from my point of view the “pro-choice” camp was tainted by the support of eugenicists while the “pro-life” camp was (reverse) tainted by people actually caring (while the leadership mainly saw/sees it as a power tool). The question is who in the end inherited the issue, and pro-choice looks more appealing on that front.
Jes, I think it depends on the weight one puts on the influence of eugenics on the abortion debate. There was indeed a strong strain of that in the early 20th century (at least in Germany, can’t say for sure for other countries). A lot of eugenicists had a quiver of measures in mind that among other things would do away with the total ban on abortion but without giving freedom of decision to the women in question (the other measures would have been controlling who had s@x, who would be allowed to have children and who would be sterilized to prevent “inferior” offspring). Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves. In an especially disgusting way the Roman Catholic Church rooted for the eugenicists in principle but criticised them in detail during the 30ies, e.g. they endorsed Hitler’s eugenic goals but protested the sterilization because sterile people could still have sex (instead concentration camps were declared the “moral” option).
Thus from my point of view the “pro-choice” camp was tainted by the support of eugenicists while the “pro-life” camp was (reverse) tainted by people actually caring (while the leadership mainly saw/sees it as a power tool). The question is who in the end inherited the issue, and pro-choice looks more appealing on that front.
Jes, I think it depends on the weight one puts on the influence of eugenics on the abortion debate. There was indeed a strong strain of that in the early 20th century (at least in Germany, can’t say for sure for other countries). A lot of eugenicists had a quiver of measures in mind that among other things would do away with the total ban on abortion but without giving freedom of decision to the women in question (the other measures would have been controlling who had s@x, who would be allowed to have children and who would be sterilized to prevent “inferior” offspring). Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves. In an especially disgusting way the Roman Catholic Church rooted for the eugenicists in principle but criticised them in detail during the 30ies, e.g. they endorsed Hitler’s eugenic goals but protested the sterilization because sterile people could still have sex (instead concentration camps were declared the “moral” option).
I am conidered a spammer by typepad too now
OK, here’s the second part
Thus from my point of view the “pro-choice” camp was tainted by the support of eugenicists while the “pro-life” camp was (reverse) tainted by people actually caring (while the leadership mainly saw/sees it as a power tool). The question is who in the end inherited the issue, and pro-choice looks more appealing on that front.
Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves.
Having read contemporary writers in the 1900s-1920s on eugenics (which is, I suspect, more than Sebastian has done) I’m aware of something I doubt Sebastian could be.
“Pro-life” is, in the early 21st century, commonly used to mean “I don’t like abortion”. As a political movement, it’s all about forced pregnancy, with strong links to punishing women for having sex: no pro-life organisation actively supports using contraception to prevent pregnancy, nor works for pro-motherhood programs such as mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care, etc. But, in common parlance, someone who says they’re pro-life is usually doing no more than identify themselves as against abortion: if closely questioned, they will usually admit that they think it ought to be up to the pregnant woman herself to decide whether or not to terminate, and that neither she nor the doctor ought to be punished for doing so: in other words, though the pro-life political movement has succeeded in making people feel they ought to say they’re pro-life, most people are pro-choice. (After all, you have to be stupid, hypocritical, or a monster to really believe that it’s moral or ethical to force a human being through nine months of hard labor and permanent change to her body, with risk of permanent damage to her health and risk of death.)
Similarly, in the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was popular as an idea in exactly the same way as “pro-life” is popular now. People had been given a positive idea of it, a pro-life idea of it, quite literally, and never thought about the human suffering entailed in enforcing eugenical ideas. Many feminist campaigners for a woman’s right to decide if she would have children, when, and how many, used the language of eugenics at that time to justify a woman’s right to choose: because, at that time, eugenics was far more respectable than feminism.
But, without exception, governments that have enforced eugenics have done so using the kind of government control that the pro-life political movement supports: denying women the right to decide for ourselves.
Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves.
Having read contemporary writers in the 1900s-1920s on eugenics (which is, I suspect, more than Sebastian has done) I’m aware of something I doubt Sebastian could be.
“Pro-life” is, in the early 21st century, commonly used to mean “I don’t like abortion”. As a political movement, it’s all about forced pregnancy, with strong links to punishing women for having sex: no pro-life organisation actively supports using contraception to prevent pregnancy, nor works for pro-motherhood programs such as mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care, etc. But, in common parlance, someone who says they’re pro-life is usually doing no more than identify themselves as against abortion: if closely questioned, they will usually admit that they think it ought to be up to the pregnant woman herself to decide whether or not to terminate, and that neither she nor the doctor ought to be punished for doing so: in other words, though the pro-life political movement has succeeded in making people feel they ought to say they’re pro-life, most people are pro-choice. (After all, you have to be stupid, hypocritical, or a monster to really believe that it’s moral or ethical to force a human being through nine months of hard labor and permanent change to her body, with risk of permanent damage to her health and risk of death.)
Similarly, in the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was popular as an idea in exactly the same way as “pro-life” is popular now. People had been given a positive idea of it, a pro-life idea of it, quite literally, and never thought about the human suffering entailed in enforcing eugenical ideas. Many feminist campaigners for a woman’s right to decide if she would have children, when, and how many, used the language of eugenics at that time to justify a woman’s right to choose: because, at that time, eugenics was far more respectable than feminism.
But, without exception, governments that have enforced eugenics have done so using the kind of government control that the pro-life political movement supports: denying women the right to decide for ourselves.
Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves.
Having read contemporary writers in the 1900s-1920s on e u g e n i c s (which is, I suspect, more than Sebastian has done) I’m aware of something I doubt Sebastian could be.
“Pro-life” is, in the early 21st century, commonly used to mean “I don’t like abortion”. As a political movement, it’s all about forced pregnancy, with strong links to punishing women for having sex: no pro-life organisation actively supports using contraception to prevent pregnancy, nor works for pro-motherhood programs such as mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care, etc. But, in common parlance, someone who says they’re pro-life is usually doing no more than identify themselves as against abortion: if closely questioned, they will usually admit that they think it ought to be up to the pregnant woman herself to decide whether or not to terminate, and that neither she nor the doctor ought to be punished for doing so: in other words, though the pro-life political movement has succeeded in making people feel they ought to say they’re pro-life, most people are pro-choice. (After all, you have to be stupid, hypocritical, or a monster to really believe that it’s moral or ethical to force a human being through nine months of hard labor and permanent change to her body, with risk of permanent damage to her health and risk of death.)
Similarly, in the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was popular as an idea in exactly the same way as “pro-life” is popular now. People had been given a positive idea of it, a pro-life idea of it, quite literally, and never thought about the human suffering entailed in enforcing eugenical ideas. Many feminist campaigners for a woman’s right to decide if she would have children, when, and how many, used the language of eugenics at that time to justify a woman’s right to choose: because, at that time, eugenics was far more respectable than feminism.
But, without exception, governments that have enforced eugenics have done so using the kind of government control that the pro-life political movement supports: denying women the right to decide for ourselves.
Damn. I can’t post this. let’s try it piecemeal.
Thus they don’t fit either into the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” camp, at least not the way those camps portray themselves.
Having read contemporary writers in the 1900s-1920s on e u g e n i c s (which is, I suspect, more than Sebastian has done) I’m aware of something I doubt Sebastian could be.
“Pro-life” is, in the early 21st century, commonly used to mean “I don’t like abortion”. As a political movement, it’s all about forced pregnancy, with strong links to punishing women for having sex: no pro-life organisation actively supports using contraception to prevent pregnancy, nor works for pro-motherhood programs such as mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care, etc. But, in common parlance, someone who says they’re pro-life is usually doing no more than identify themselves as against abortion: if closely questioned, they will usually admit that they think it ought to be up to the pregnant woman herself to decide whether or not to terminate, and that neither she nor the doctor ought to be punished for doing so: in other words, though the pro-life political movement has succeeded in making people feel they ought to say they’re pro-life, most people are pro-choice. (After all, you have to be stupid, hypocritical, or a monster to really believe that it’s moral or ethical to force a human being through nine months of hard labor and permanent change to her body, with risk of permanent damage to her health and risk of death.)
Similarly, in the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was popular as an idea in exactly the same way as “pro-life” is popular now. People had been given a positive idea of it, a pro-life idea of it, quite literally, and never thought about the human suffering entailed in enforcing eugenical ideas. Many feminist campaigners for a woman’s right to decide if she would have children, when, and how many, used the language of eugenics at that time to justify a woman’s right to choose: because, at that time, eugenics was far more respectable than feminism.
But, without exception, governments that have enforced eugenics have done so using the kind of government control that the pro-life political movement supports: denying women the right to decide for ourselves.
Okay, that’s pretty stupid, but what else do we expect from Six Apart than “pretty stupid”? Typepad’s new antispam filter seems to react to long comments.
We must all become more terse. Eschew needless words.
The rest of my 10:08PM yesterday, that all have been anxiously awaiting:
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor, as was the complete unwillingness to be realistic about the costs of the war.
State whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
To deny that is simply unrealistic.
The rest of my 10:08PM yesterday, that all have been anxiously awaiting:
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor, as was the complete unwillingness to be realistic about the costs of the war.
State whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
To deny that is simply unrealistic.
The rest of my 10:08PM yesterday, that all have been anxiously awaiting:
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor, as was the complete unwillingness to be realistic about the costs of the war.
State whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
To deny that is simply unrealistic.
The Eugenics movement, in the US, was second only to Germany during the early part of the 20th Century.
Aryan supremacy was not only a part of German society, the UK and the United States embraced white supremacy from all sides of the political spectrum. Another reason why mass death was so easy to embrace when dealing with outsiders.
White tribalism embraced racist science and racist religion to justify the death and destruction of other cultures.
The fetus was only important relative to which race was breeding it.
Sebastian,
All snark aside, how did your parents know to blame Roe on Democrats?
Nixon and Earl Warren were Republicans.
The lawyers fighting the case were Southern Baptists. Most of the women who were pro-choice seemed to have been mainline Protestants and Eisenhower Republicans.
My grandma is a fetus.
“All snark aside, how did your parents know to blame Roe on Democrats?”
It was high profile Democrats and Democratic-linked organizations which supported it and Republicans which didn’t when the decision came down. I don’t understand why that is confusing.
Planned Parenthood is THE big player on the ground across the nation in abortion clinics. Its founder wanted fewer black people to reproduce and wanted to use abortion and selective birth control for that purpose.
That is the kind of connection that is only going to convince people who already agree with you. But there you are.
The “On the Racist Origins of the Anti-Arbortion Movement” article is quite frankly silly. First, Weyrich is confusing his movement with the evangelical movement as a whole. Campus Crusade for Christ for example was an enormous group with anti-abortion political pull in the 1960s–which would be both before Roe and before the 1972 Green v. Connally case which he says is the *real* reason for evangelical organization.
At best he can argue that HE was involved in a group that was fighting Green and that less than one year later that group was folded in to an enormously larger group which fought Roe.
His claim has exactly the same intellectual rigor of people who claim that the ‘real origin’ of the anti-Iraq-war movement was the Communist group ANSWER. At best ANSWER used some of its pre-existing organization in the service of a movement that didn’t have much to do with them.
Sebastian: Thank you for spelling “Democratic”
correctly in your first sentence. My grandmother is not a fetus. %)
Margaret Sanger was a dope. Racist, anti-Catholic, whatever the poison.
Some oddities and ironies of how things turned out, which are what fascinates me about, well, everything.
Sanger’s aims backfired.
It seems well-educated, white women and men have the most access to birth control and abortion, whether or not the latter is legal or not (I’m anti-abortion and pro-choice, all within limits, which I don’t expect anyone to pay attention to, especially if abortion is illegal).
I don’t think that’s the population she had in mind.
Planned Parenthood further stipulated, according to an article on a site called Black Genocide.org that the “strains” of the population that should be eliminated included “the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South”.
Apparently, they weren’t wiped out, or at least there were still enough of them to turn out for Ronald Reagan’s kickoff whistle stop in the 1980 Presidential campaign.
Oddly, one of the motivations for eliminating welfare and aid to dependent mothers, mostly poor black and white women, was that they were incentivized to have more babies than they otherwise would.
Everyone has a method for limiting what, and who, bugs them.
Another oddity is that if you visit the Planned Parenthood website and click on the word “diversity”, we see a commitment to hiring people all races, creeds, and colors, which seems terribly politically correct, considering that might imply something other than a meritocracy to a conservative, because, god knows, we wouldn’t want to promote an unqualified fetus, and conversely to the liberal, pro-choice observer and wag, if you haven’t been aborted, you might get a job there.
History burns the rope at both ends and it’s hard to tell who lit which end.
Planned Parenthood is THE big player on the ground across the nation in abortion clinics.
Indeed. Planned Parenthood also does more to prevent abortions than all the pro-life organizations in the US put together: Planned Parenthood provides contraception.
Its founder wanted fewer black people to reproduce and wanted to use abortion and selective birth control for that purpose.
A nasty lie spread by the pro-life movement to besmirch Margaret Sanger.
Sebastian will ignore this, but in The Case for Birth Control (1923), Margaret Sanger wrote:
*As abortion was in the 1920s.
Planned Parenthood is THE big player on the ground across the nation in abortion clinics.
Indeed. Planned Parenthood also does more to prevent abortions than all the pro-life organizations in the US put together: Planned Parenthood provides contraception.
Sebastian bloviated: Its founder wanted fewer black people to reproduce and wanted to use abortion and selective birth control for that purpose.
A nasty lie spread by the pro-life movement to besmirch Margaret Sanger in an attempt to discredit the provision of birth control.
Sebastian will ignore this, but in The Case for Birth Control (1923), Margaret Sanger wrote:
*As abortion was in the 1920s.
The nasty lie spread by the pro-life movement to besmirch Margaret Sanger in an attempt to discredit the provision of birth control is widespread; it took me a little while to find this factsheet which outlines how the anti-contraception movement attacks Margaret Sanger with lies, while Martin Luther King praised her for her work.
But, when you look at the attacks on Margaret Sanger when she was setting up the birth control clinics and projects, and who attacked her, and then look at who is attacking her now: while the lies may change, it is clear that the same pattern is there from 1916 to 2007: there are right-wing Christians in the US who loathe the idea that a sexually-active woman can decide for herself how many children to have, and when.
Sebastian: Thank you for spelling “Democratic”
correctly in your first sentence. My grandmother is not a fetus. %)
Margaret Sanger was a dope. Racist, anti-Catholic, whatever the poison.
Some oddities and ironies of how things turned out, which are what fascinates me about, well, everything.
Sanger’s aims backfired.
It seems well-educated, white women and men have the most access to birth control and abortion, whether or not the latter is legal or not (I’m anti-abortion and pro-choice, all within limits, which I don’t expect anyone to pay attention to, especially if abortion is illegal).
I don’t think that’s the population she had in mind.
The rest of my 10:08PM yesterday, that all have been anxiously awaiting:
And the fact that the surplus was a phenomenon of the health of the economy rather than government tax and spending policy is underlined by the fact that it was gone before Bush got his tax and spend policies in place.
You overlook a few things. There are those who argue that the boom was helped by sane fiscal policies. As to the size of the deficit, the on-budget deficit exploded from .3% of GDP in 2001 to 3.1% in 2002, as the tax cuts started to kick in. It went to 5% in 2003 and 5.9% in 2004. The only previous post-WWII deficits greater than 5% came in 1946,1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1992. The largest Vietnam era deficit was 3.2%, in 1968. Now, you will claim the problem wasn’t all due to tax cuts. No, but they were undeniably a big factor, as was the complete unwillingness to be realistic about the costs of the war.
State whatever hedges and objections and qualifications you like to Clinton’s fiscal record. The plain fact is that he had a vastly better record on these matters than any recent Republican President.
To deny that is simply unrealistic.
Typepad!
Planned Parenthood further stipulated, according to an article on a black evangelical site called BalckGenocide.org. that the “strains” of the population that should be eliminated included “the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites”.
Apparently, they weren’t wiped out. or at least there were still enough of them to turn out for Ronald Reagan’s kickoff stop in the 1980 Presidential campaign.
Oddly, one of the motivations for eliminated welfare and aid to dependent mothers, mostly poor black and white women, was that they were incentivized to have more babies thatn they otherwise would.
Everyone has their chosen method for limiting what, and who, bugs them, or maybe they don’t.
Another oddity is that if you visit the Planned Parethood website and click on the word “diversity”, we see a commitment to hiring people of all races, creeds, and colors, which seems terribly politically correct, considering that might imply something other than a meritocarcy to a conservative, because, god knows, should he or she not be busy watching the NFL, we wouldn’t want to promote an unqualified fetus.
Conversely, to the liberal, pro-choice observer and wag, it might appear that if you haven’t been aborted, you might get a job there.
History burns the rope at both ends and its hard to tell who lit which end.
Sorry for the typos — I was impatient the second time around because of Typepad’s busy Christmas season.
Sorry for the typos — Typepad gives me the yips.
Sorry for the typos
Your ‘factsheet’ isn’t very impressive and it doesn’t deal with things like her proposed “Parliament of Population”
Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
She was a full-throated eugenics advocate. Full stop.
Does this prove that Planned Parenthood is *really* about eugenics? No. But it is at least as logically rigorous as the argument that pro-life movement is *really* about racial segregation.
(To be clear, I think both arguments are pretty much useless. I repeat the truth about Sanger and eugenics only to highlight the ridiculousness of this style of attack in the hope that showing it applied to figures and causes you like reveals how silly the methodology is.)
Your ‘factsheet’ isn’t very impressive and it doesn’t deal with things like her proposed “Parliament of Population”
Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
She was a full-throated eugenics advocate. Full stop.
Does this prove that Planned Parenthood is *really* about eugenics? No. But it is at least as logically rigorous as the argument that pro-life movement is *really* about racial segregation.
(To be clear, I think both arguments are pretty much useless. I repeat the truth about Sanger and eugenics only to highlight the ridiculousness of this style of attack in the hope that showing it applied to figures and causes you like reveals how silly the methodology is.)
Sorry for the typos
What, like this is the first time Thullen got something wrong?
I suspect most whites, during MARGARET SANGER’s time would have agreed with her. Where are the white right-wing Christian organizations, during her time? What was their critique of white Aryan supremacist science?
I’m pretty familiar with what annoys right-wing Protestants and divorce, porn and civil rights were first on the docket, across the board, during most of the century. Abortion was treated like rock-n-roll music.
That is, abortion, in the late 60’s and early 70’s has as much of a priority, for white right-wing Protestants as worldly music. Civil Rights, Divorce, Pre-Marital Sex, the ERA, seemed to be bigger priorities. However, those issues kill the Public Relations.
I thought, during the early years of Campus Crusade, 1951-1981; they were primarily apolitical, because of Christ’s immanent return, and all that?
I thought, during the early years of Campus Crusade, 1951-1981; they were primarily apolitical, because of Christ’s immanent return, and all that?
I thought, during the early years of Campus Crusade, 1951-1981; they were primarily apolitical, because of Christ’s immanent return, and all that?
At what point, did the Campus Crusade stop being apolitical and started to become an activist organization.
Many radios have essentially racist innards. I blame it on the Nobel Prize.
(ya know, every time I try to give up commenting, I fail. Any 12-Step Programs out there?)
Since once again we have a comment thread that turns to abortion, once again I’ll ask the following question of those who are anti-abortion:
What does your world look like when you’ve achieved your goals?
More specfically: Are abortions illegalized by county, state or at the federal level? Are women actively prosecuted for having them and for assisting others in having them? Med schools banned from teaching the applicable procedures? If I donate to Planned Parenthood from my California home, do I face a conspiracy prosecution in Alabama when PP sets up Freedom Buses to take poor women from anti-abortion states to pro-choice states? What impact will legislative changes in the definition of life have on IVF programs?
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘apolitical’ and ‘activist’. It was always an activist organization, just not a political activist organization. It is akin to how unions used to function–primarily focused on their interactions with their members but with noticeable political overtones in many areas.
Planned Parenthood is great! If you don’t have health insurance, you can get your birth control pills there for $20/month rather than $45.
Well, if Huckabee gets elected, I guess we can kiss US science and technology goodbye….
Exit USA, Enter China. Ah what the heck, they’re bailing out all our banks anyway.
I ask, have the Republicans gone totally mad? Or has the link between indulging the anti-intellectual branch of their party and the strength of the US science and technology base (with corresponding effects on our economy) just totally slipped them by?
Well, Sebastian, there is a huge difference between a Union (an organization whose whole purpose for being is its relationship to the whole political economy) and the Campus Crusades (an organization whose sole purpose is to save souls from eternal damnation and prepare the world for Christ’s return, thus committed to an apolitical relationship with the state).
Your ‘factsheet’ isn’t very impressive and it doesn’t deal with things like her proposed “Parliament of Population”
Sebastian, since you’re arguing that the political views of Margaret Sanger (who died in 1966) mean that Planned Parenthood is a racist organisation, I take it that you would agree that the Republican party is a fortiori a racist organisation, since Trent Lott is still alive, well, an active member and representative, and his claim in 2002 that if Strom Thurmond, segregationist, had won the Presidency “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either” is being actively defended by Gordon Smith, Orrin Hatch, and Arlen Specter.
I thought you were always arguing that despite the racist comments and actions of many Republicans, the Republican Party was not itself a racist organization? Is there any consistency in this, or is this just your loathing of the idea that women should get to choose – especially low-income black women, which Sanger supported from the very beginning – and your love for the Republican party, in all its racist-praising glory?
Your ‘factsheet’ isn’t very impressive and it doesn’t deal with things like her proposed “Parliament of Population”
Sebastian, since you’re arguing that the political views of Margaret Sanger (who died in 1966) mean that Planned Parenthood is a racist organisation, I take it that you would agree that the Republican party is a fortiori a racist organisation, since Trent Lott is still alive, well, an active member and representative, and his claim in 2002 that if Strom Thurmond, segregationist, had won the Presidency “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either” is being actively defended by several Republican Senators today.
Strom burned the rope at both ends, too, and pretty much ruined everyone’e rope. That doesn’t count ropes with nooses, which he kept in reserve.
Oddly, Strom was probably against birth control, too, though it would have saved him some embarrassment.
grumpy realist:
“Have the Republicans gone totally mad?”
No.
But, like Castro and Saddam releasing all of their prisoners to cause havoc, today’s Republican Party has released all of the crazy people from the funny farm so they could become candidates and/or vote against libruls.
But, as DaveC. pointed out, I could be wrong a second time.
Jes, I don’t think Sebastian is arguing that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization (anymore than I’m arguing that radios are racist). I think his whole point is that Planned Parenthood isn’t racist, but that one could make a case that it is by way of a flawed argument – one flawed in the same way he thinks similar arguments that the pro-life movement is racist are flawed. You can argue the relative flawedness of those arguments, but that’s not the same thing.
White Right-Wing Protestants would have had quite the view concerning race, biology, reproduction, and such, during the Golden Age of eugenics.
Someotherdude, “Well, Sebastian, there is a huge difference between a Union (an organization whose whole purpose for being is its relationship to the whole political economy)…”
Your parenthetical is wrong for the unions which have their roots in fraternal orders–which is lots of them (I was going to say ‘most’ but I am going to avoid getting drawn into a statistical analysis of exactly what counts as a union).
“Sebastian, since you’re arguing that the political views of Margaret Sanger (who died in 1966) mean that Planned Parenthood is a racist organisation…”
I’m not in fact arguing that, so everything that comes after this quoted section has nothing to do with a discussion with me.
I’m saying that assertions that *the gnostic* meaning of the pro-life movement is *really* grounded in racism are just as silly as saying that *the gnostic* origin of the pro-choice movement is *really* all about eugenics. Both are actually awful arguments grounded almost entirely in conspiracy theory logic and guilt by association. My third example was the idea that *the real* origin of anti-Iraq-war activism was in communism (as shown through the importance of ANSWER in organizing).
All three examples are ridiculous in my estimation. But in terms of level of silliness, I think that the pro-life one is the most ridiculous. But at that point we are just arguing about levels of stupidity–and why would we do that?
Someotherdude, “Well, Sebastian, there is a huge difference between a Union (an organization whose whole purpose for being is its relationship to the whole political economy)…”
Your parenthetical is wrong for the unions which have their roots in fraternal orders–which is lots of them (I was going to say ‘most’ but I am going to avoid getting drawn into a statistical analysis of exactly what counts as a union).
Someotherdude, “Well, Sebastian, there is a huge difference between a Union (an organization whose whole purpose for being is its relationship to the whole political economy)…”
Your parenthetical is wrong for the unions which have their roots in fraternal orders–which is lots of them (I was going to say ‘most’ but I am going to avoid getting drawn into a statistical analysis of exactly what counts as a union).
“Sebastian, since you’re arguing that the political views of Margaret Sanger (who died in 1966) mean that Planned Parenthood is a racist organisation…”
I’m not in fact arguing that, so everything that comes after this quoted section has nothing to do with a discussion with me.
I’m saying that assertions that *the gnostic* meaning of the pro-life movement is *really* grounded in racism are just as silly as saying that *the gnostic* origin of the pro-choice movement is *really* all about eugenics. Both are actually awful arguments grounded almost entirely in conspiracy theory logic and guilt by association. My third example was the idea that *the real* origin of anti-Iraq-war activism was in communism (as shown through the importance of ANSWER in organizing).
All three examples are ridiculous in my estimation. But in terms of level of silliness, I think that the pro-life one is the most ridiculous. But at that point we are just arguing about levels of stupidity–and why would we do that?
hairshirthedonist, the problem with Sebastian’s argument then is that he has to look back to the 1920s and cherry-pick the words of a woman now over 40 years dead to claim that Planned Parenthood is racist.
Whereas anyone wanting to find racism and racists in the Republican Party and the pro-life movement today, just has to look around.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I thought you were saying that being pro-life is *grounded* or has its *origin* in racism. If you are merely saying that racists can be found in the group, I’ll quickly agree.
(But here is a little secret, racists can be found very easily in the Democratic party, come to California, I’ll introduce you to them). Does the pro-life movement have more than your average share of racists? I seriously doubt it.
No, I would say the “pro-life” movement is grounded and has its origins in misogyny: but when you look at the politics of people active in the forced-pregnancy movement, you tend to find that misogyny, racism, homophobia, and class-hatred are all deeply entangled. Racists who opposed equal civil rights for black Americans tend now to actively oppose equal civil rights for GLBT Americans, tend to vote for forced-pregnancy policies, tend to be against free healthcare.
I’m saying that racists have found that abortion and depriving gays their humanity sells better than divorce, civil rights for blacks and pre-marital sex.
Taxes and “The State” has been the glue that keeps the racists congealed on the Right.
“I’m saying that racists have found that abortion and depriving gays their humanity sells better than divorce, civil rights for blacks and pre-marital sex.”
Yes. You are saying that *the real* thing about being pro-life is about racism.
I’m saying that is crap.
I think you are in denial. What? You say you aren’t? See! You are clearly in denial.
Your charge is unanswerable. So I won’t bother answering it.
I suspect that whichever hand has to act first to shut grandma off those last days of super-expensive care that doesn’t do any good will decisively tip the balance over to the other side.
Considering that there’s an entire industry devoted to doing not just this but to denying care to anyone sick enough to actually cost them some money, I guess our national health care program is just around the corner, huh?
“You are saying that *the real* thing about being pro-life is about racism”
Seb, although some people may think that, I don’t think that SOD is saying that.
The logical fallacy is
1. Racists are pro-life. (SOD’s statement).
2. Seb is pro-life.
3. Therfore Seb is a racist.
That is not a logical conclusion, but that is the one you are making.
SOD’s statement is more than “Racists are pro-life”. He says that the the pro-life movement is racist (or grounded in racism).
Racists are pro-life is a silly statement anyway. It would deny all the good Democratic racists their due.
Francis:
No one has addressed your challenge, which is a good one.
I would tax abortions with the Ronald Reagan idea that if you want less of something, tax it.
Unfortunately, the same folks in power positions who are against abortion signed Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge, so …
Natch, I would open birth control kiosks in every fair-sized shopping mall, post office, video parlour, and school across the country.
Yes, abstinence could be presented as an alternative, even for hypocrites.
I would have the Federal Government offer lifetime IRAs and taxpayer funded medical insurance to the fetuses of mothers who are contemplating abortion. I would also offer education credits and scholarships to mothers who decide against abortion. The same for the fathers who might be identified, who would also be offered government jobs, if they needed them, at whatever level of government deemed appropriate, unless I could cajole private employers to take them on.
No doubt, Americans being Americans looking out for the main chance, this would incentivize fraud and all kinds of bad things, but if it results in fewer abortions, the tradeoffs might be worth it.
I would offer to videotape any officer of the law arresting a woman or a doctor involved in an abortion, just to see how that works out and then view it later to see if the fetus gets hurt in the resulting melee.
I would have the Federal government nationalize the estates (you think the Death Tax is bad?) of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and all political operatives and elected representatives from either party who oppose abortion and designate the money for abortion prevention, birth control, rape prevention, and motherhood and fatherhood training.
I would then pass a law or six which would prevent the aforementiuoned from sheltering their estates from confiscation for these purposes in any way, shape, or form.
If they are anti-choice, then they ought to love my program, because it looks like they wouldn’t have any choice but to comply.
I would tax church property at the local level and channel the monies into abortion prevention or stopping the war in Iraq, whichever measure would let more fetuses come to term, though I think we could do both if we are as moral as the founding fetuses assumed we would turn out to be.
In the event that some mothers circumvented all of my proposed incentives and disincentives and sought refuge and choice in non-hygenic and dangerous underground ways, I would have the remains of both the mothers and the fetuses delivered to Bob Jones University, where they would be stored until the End Times, at which time they would be resurrected to ask the important question: Was septicemia and hemorraging really necessary?
I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex. Killing cells and zygotes, in the “objective reality that is THE WORD of GOD” does not compare to the wars right-wing Christians have embraced. They practice a “selective literalism” which seems to line up with the political calculations of the time.
Civil rights scared white right-wing Protestants more than abortion. The state stepping in and preventing white right-wing Protestants from practicing their cultural racism really pissed them off, so the traditional role of “apolitical” activism was dropped during the early 80’s.
The reasons Literalist/Fundamentalist of Color have always had a hard time allying themselves with White Literalists/Fundamentalists is just these tensions. All the talk of abortion and gays are fine and dandy for spiritual renewal, however involving The State in these matters while ignoring so many other issues kinda tells folks that white right-wing Protestants have kept to their devotion of traditional white right-wing Protestant issues.
Darkies shouldn’t get my money!
I don’t know from Seb, seems like a nice guy, but I thin Jerry Falwell is a nice guy, I just think he should stay away from politics.
I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex. Killing cells and zygotes, in the “objective reality that is THE WORD of GOD” does not compare to the wars right-wing Christians have embraced. They practice a “selective literalism” which seems to line up with the political calculations of the time.
Civil rights scared white right-wing Protestants more than abortion. The state stepping in and preventing white right-wing Protestants from practicing their cultural racism really pissed them off, so the traditional role of “apolitical” activism was dropped during the early 80’s.
The reasons Literalist/Fundamentalist of Color have always had a hard time allying themselves with White Literalists/Fundamentalists is just these tensions. All the talk of abortion and gays are fine and dandy for spiritual renewal, however involving The State in these matters while ignoring so many other issues kinda tells folks that white right-wing Protestants have kept to their devotion of traditional white right-wing Protestant issues.
Darkies shouldn’t get my money!
I don’t know from Seb, seems like a nice guy, but I thin Jerry Falwell is a nice guy, I just think he should stay away from politics.
Yes. You are saying that *the real* thing about being pro-life is about racism.
No, I don’t think he’s saying that. He’s saying that the racists have found that abortion and depriving gays their humanity sells better than divorce, civil rights for blacks and pre-marital sex.
I can well believe that there are pro-lifers who are strictly into the pro-life movement for the misogyny, and believe in reducing all women equally to the status of incubators regardless of their race.
FRANCIS:
Typepad permitting, I will serially address your challenge regarding abortion, which is a good one.
I would tax abortions at all levels of government with the ronald reagan idea that if you want less of something, tax it.
Whoops, all of the folks in power positions who are against abortion, as I am in a pro-choice sort of way, signed Grover Norquist’s no-tax pledge ……….
Natch, I would open taxpayer-funded birth control and family planning kiosks in every fair-sized mall, post office, video parlor, school, and college dormitory across the country.
Yes, abstinence could be presented as an alternative, even for hypocrites.
Let’s see if Typepad can handle that much so far.
I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex. Killing cells and zygotes, in the “objective reality that is THE WORD of GOD” does not compare to the wars right-wing Christians have embraced. They practice a “selective literalism” which seems to line up with the political calculations of the time.
Civil rights scared white right-wing Protestants more than abortion. The state stepping in and preventing white right-wing Protestants from practicing their cultural racism really pissed them off, so the traditional role of “apolitical” activism was dropped during the early 80’s.
The reasons Literalist/Fundamentalist of Color have always had a hard time allying themselves with White Literalists/Fundamentalists is just these tensions. All the talk of abortion and gays are fine and dandy for spiritual renewal, however involving The State in these matters while ignoring so many other issues kinda tells folks that white right-wing Protestants have kept to their devotion of traditional white right-wing Protestant issues.
Darkies shouldn’t get my money!
I don’t know from Seb, seems like a nice guy, but I thin Jerry Falwell is a nice guy, I just think he should stay away from politics.
I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex. The sanctions in scripture, concerning abortion and homosexuality are tiny if non-existent compared to divorce and so many other issues. -Killing cells and zygotes, in the “objective reality that is THE WORD of GOD” does not compare to the wars right-wing Christians have embraced. They practice a “selective literalism” which seems to line up with the political calculations of the time.
Civil rights scared white right-wing Protestants more than abortion. And the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) scared them even more. The state stepping in and preventing white right-wing Protestants from practicing their cultural racism and sexism really pissed them off, so the traditional role of “apolitical” activism was dropped during the early 80’s.
The reasons Literalist/Fundamentalist of Color have always had a hard time allying themselves with White Literalists/Fundamentalists is just these tensions. All the talk of abortion and gays are fine and dandy for spiritual renewal, however involving The State in these matters while ignoring so many other issues kinda tells folks that white right-wing Protestants have kept to their devotion of traditional white right-wing Protestant issues.
Darkies shouldn’t get my money!
I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex. The sanctions in scripture, concerning abortion and homosexuality are tiny if non-existent compared to divorce and so many other issues. -Killing cells and zygotes, in the “objective reality that is THE WORD of GOD” does not compare to the wars right-wing Christians have embraced. They practice a “selective literalism” which seems to line up with the political calculations of the time.
when you look at the politics of people active in the forced-pregnancy movement, you tend to find that misogyny, racism, homophobia, and class-hatred are all deeply entangled.
Isn’t this the same thing as arguing that “the Nazis thought exercise was healthy,” so anyone who thinks exercise is healthy has Nazi sympathies?
Civil rights scared white right-wing Protestants more than abortion. And the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) scared them even more. The state stepping in and preventing white right-wing Protestants from practicing their cultural racism and sexism really pissed them off, so the traditional role of “apolitical” activism was dropped during the early 80’s.
The reasons Literalist/Fundamentalist of Color have always had a hard time allying themselves with White Literalists/Fundamentalists is just these tensions. All the talk of abortion and gays are fine and dandy for spiritual renewal, however involving The State in these matters while ignoring so many other issues kinda tells folks that white right-wing Protestants have kept to their devotion of traditional white right-wing Protestant issues.
Darkies shouldn’t get my money!
I would have the Federal government offer fully funded seed IRAs and 401Ks and taxpayer funded medical insurance to the fetuses of mothers who are contemplating abortions. I would offer education credits and scholarships to mothers who decide against abortion. Cold hard cash, probably Grover Norquist’s, if the former wasn’t convincing. The same for the fathers who might be identified, who would also be offered government jobs, if they needed them, at whatever level of government deemed appropriate, unless I could cajole private employers to take them on.
No doubt, Americans being Americans looking out for the main chance, this would incentivize all kinds of unforeseen consequences, but if the foreseen consequence is fewer abortions, let’s do it.
For upper-middle class and wealthier folks, who should know better, I would offer to forego their tax burden for the year of the fetus’ birth in exchange for the fetus being adopted by a qualified family. I would then collect twice the tax burden the next year if they couldn’t control themselves from then on.
Since Americans hate taxes more than they hate abortions, I figure this would work.
I would offer to videotape any officer of the law arresting a woman or doctor involved in an abortion, just to see how that works and to learn if the fetus is injured in the resulting melee.
I would have the Federal government offer fully funded seed IRAs and 401Ks and taxpayer funded medical insurance to the fetuses of mothers who are contemplating abortions. I would offer education credits and scholarships to mothers who decide against abortion. Cold hard cash, probably Grover Norquist’s, if the former wasn’t convincing. The same for the fathers who might be identified, who would also be offered government jobs, if they needed them, at whatever level of government deemed appropriate, unless I could cajole private employers to take them on.
No doubt, Americans being Americans looking out for the main chance, this would incentivize all kinds of unforeseen consequences, but if the foreseen consequence is fewer abortions, let’s do it.
For upper-middle class and wealthier folks, who should know better, I would offer to forego their tax burden for the year of the fetus’ birth in exchange for the fetus being adopted by a qualified family. I would then collect twice the tax burden the next year if they couldn’t control themselves from then on.
Since Americans hate taxes more than they hate abortions, I figure this would work.
I would offer to videotape (not being up-to-date on the latest technology) any officer of the law arresting a woman or a doctor involved in an abortion, just to see if the fetus is injured in the resulting melee.
I would direct the Federal Government nationalize the estates (you think the Death Tax is bad news) of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and all political operatives and elected representatives from either party who oppse abortion and designate the money for abortion prevention, birth control, rape prevention, stupidity prevention, and motherhood and fatherhood training.
Every time a T.V. preacher said the word “abortion” on the tube, a bell would go off in every den in Arkansas and South Carolina, and Utah to alert people to the fact that yet another Rolls Royce has been confiscated by the Federal government and sold to pay for strained carrots.
I would pass a law or six preventing the aforementioned from moving their monies offshore, probably to Carribean islands where their Rolls Royces might back over three-year-old fetuses scavenging in the streets.
I would offer to videotape (not being up-to-date on the latest technology) any officer of the law arresting a woman or a doctor involved in an abortion, just to see if the fetus is injured in the resulting melee.
I would direct the Federal Government nationalize the estates (you think the Death Tax is bad news) of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and all political operatives and elected representatives from either party who oppse abortion and designate the money for abortion prevention, birth control, rape prevention, stupidity prevention, and motherhood and fatherhood training.
Every time a T.V. preacher said the word “abortion” on the tube, a bell would go off in every den in Arkansas and South Carolina, and Utah to alert people to the fact that yet another Rolls Royce has been confiscated by the Federal government and sold to pay for strained carrots.
If they are anti-choice, then they ought to love my program, because it offers no choice but compliance.
I would tax church property and titheing at the local level and channel the monies into abortion prevention or stopping the war in Iraq, whichever would allow more fetuses come to term, though I think we could do both if we are a moral as the founding fetuses believed we would turn out to be.
Those mahogany pews would need to wait.
In the event that some mothers and fathers circumvented my proposed incentives and disincentives and sought refuge and choice in non-hygenic and dangerous venues, I would have the remains of the mothers and fetuses delivered to Bob Jones University, where they could be stored until the End Times, at which time they would be ressurected to ask the question: Was hemmoraging and septicemia really necessary because we made a mistake?
Exactly. And Jes, I realize you want to find 5,000 ways to not call it the pro-life movement. But come on.
“I believe the morality of abortion, if you are a literalist/fundamentalist, does not compare to divorce and pre-marital sex.”
Are you in that group? That fits the conclusion you want if you get to wave away the humanity of the fetus I suppose. And furthermore you’re mixing up all possible modes of evangelical dislike of abortion together as if it were all the Catholic every-sperm-is-precious variety.
And what about the Catholics? Were they *secretly* worried about the viability of anti-Catholic Bob Jones University? Because that one of the strong conclusions your theory about the *real* pro-life movement ought to lead to.
Roe v. Wade encouraged an evangelical-Catholic political alliance that almost certainly wouldn’t have occurred without it. Are you seriously arguing that was *really* about racism?
Do any of the liberals on this site want to jump in here? This kind of smear would gets jumped all over on when it goes the other way.
Yes, the right-wing Protestants and their “Papist” comrades are concerned about Christian solidarity, the precious souls of cells and the culture of life. This from warmongers? Their priorities reflect typical Western right-wing theories concerning authority and state power. That alliance is not a new phenomena, it’s not good for minorities and leftists, when white right-wing Protestants and white right-wing Roman Catholics find a common cause to involve the power of the State.
You could scream “saving babies” all you want, but your typical white right-wing Protestant (those who hold most power in this nation, by the way) seems to value life as much as a sociopath. Death Squads are soooo life affirming. This war was embraced by a majority of the base of the Republican Party, white right-wing Protestants. The defense of lynching as part of white culture was another God blessed objective law to be obeyed. Culture of Life my butt. Life is relative to the fears of a powerful tribe in the U.S. of the most powerful tribe on earth.
It’s a typical right-wing movement drunk off of God and Nation.
Yes, the right-wing Protestants and their “Papist” comrades are concerned about Christian solidarity, the precious souls of cells and the culture of life. This from warmongers? Their priorities reflect typical Western right-wing theories concerning authority and state power. That alliance is not a new phenomena, it’s not good for minorities and leftists, when white right-wing Protestants and white right-wing Roman Catholics find a common cause to involve the power of the State.
You could scream “saving babies” all you want, but your typical white right-wing Protestant (those who hold most power in this nation, by the way) seems to value life as much as a sociopath. Death Squads are soooo life affirming. This war was embraced by a majority of the base of the Republican Party, white right-wing Protestants. The defense of lynching as part of white culture was another God blessed objective law to be obeyed. Culture of Life my butt. Life is relative to the fears of a powerful tribe in the U.S.
It’s a typical right-wing movement drunk off of God and Nation.
You could scream “saving babies” all you want, but your typical white right-wing Protestant (those who hold most power in this nation, by the way) seems to value life as much as a sociopath. Death Squads are soooo life affirming. This war was embraced by a majority of the base of the Republican Party, white right-wing Protestants. The defense of lynching as part of white culture was another God blessed objective law to be obeyed. Culture of Life my butt. Life is relative to the fears of a powerful tribe in the U.S. It’s a typical right-wing movement drunk off of God and Nation.
You could scream “saving babies” all you want, but your typical white right-wing Protestant (those who hold most power in this nation, by the way) seems to value life as much as a sociopath. Death Squads are soooo life affirming. This war was embraced by a majority of the base of the Republican Party, white right-wing Protestants. The defenders of the sanctity of life. Life is relative to the fears of a powerful tribe in the U.S. It’s a typical right-wing movement drunk off of God and Nation.
Someotherdude, you seem unable to keep track of which group you’re attacking. Evangelicals aren’t the same as Catholics who aren’t the same as Death Squad members.
Bernard; Isn’t this the same thing as arguing that “the Nazis thought exercise was healthy,” so anyone who thinks exercise is healthy has Nazi sympathies?
No, Bernard. Don’t be silly.
And Jes, I realize you want to find 5,000 ways to not call it the pro-life movement. But come on.
Come on, Sebastian. Either you are very stupid, or a complete hypocrite, or you know perfectly well that “saving babies” by forcibly preventing a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy means forced pregnancy. That’s what the “pro-life” movement is all about: trying to return to the evil days when a woman could legally be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. The pro-life movement is not literally pro-life, since it campaigns for higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality (the known and predictable effects of making abortion illegal) while never campaigning to prevent abortions. The pro-life movement is, however, quite literally for forced pregnancy. And unless you are quite innocent of basic human biology, you know it.
Come on, Sebastian. Either you are very stupid, or a complete hypocrite, or you know perfectly well that “saving babies” by forcibly preventing a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy means forced pregnancy. That’s what the “pro-life” movement is all about: trying to return to the evil days when a woman could legally be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. The pro-life movement is not literally pro-life, since it campaigns for higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality (the known and predictable effects of making abortion illegal) while never campaigning to prevent abortions. The pro-life movement is, however, quite literally for forced pregnancy. And unless you are quite innocent of basic human biology, you know it.
Come on, Sebastian. Either you are very stupid, or a complete hypocrite, or you know perfectly well that “saving babies” by forcibly preventing a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy means forced pregnancy. That’s what the “pro-life” movement is all about: trying to return to the evil days when a woman could legally be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. -contd-
-contd- The pro-life movement is not literally pro-life, since it campaigns for higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality (the known and predictable effects of making abortion illegal) while never campaigning to prevent abortions. The pro-life movement is, however, quite literally for forced pregnancy. And unless you are quite innocent of basic human biology, you know it.
-contd- The pro-life movement is not literally pro-life, since it campaigns for higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality (the known and predictable effects of making abortion illegal) while never campaigning to prevent abortions. -contd-
Oy. Okay. I give up. Six Apart have outdone themselves with this new comment filter. Independently of other discussion, Sebastian, thank you for opening the support ticket.
Do any of the liberals on this site want to jump in here? This kind of smear would gets jumped all over on when it goes the other way
No, cause the contortions that the argument has gone thru makes it impossible to follow. To try and take sides is sort of like figuring out which side of a möbius strip you are on.
I support liberal japonicus’ statement of 05:31 am.
—
There seems to be indeed a correlation between rabid “pro-life” activism and the other negative traits named above, i.e. compared to a random sample of people a person holding one of those positions is more likely to hold the others too (while nazis sympathizers have become lazy these days and not that into sports anymore 😉 )
I have long since sworn to never wade into an online debate on the topic of abortion. So, I won’t.
I will simply take this moment to nominate John Thullen as philosopher king of the US.
Thanks –
Briefly, I don’t think all pro-life people are racists, nor are they all women haters, nor do they all fall into one or the other camp.
There are many who have a strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong, period, end statement, go no further.
And yes, there are liberals who are racists, sexists, ageists, etc.
I have yet, in 60 years, to meet any person who does not have some form of prejudice.
Otherwise, I agree with lj.
john: There are many who have a strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong, period, end statement, go no further.
Indeed. But the pro-life movement is composed who believe in forced pregnancy – in imposing their strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong not on their own choices, but on everyone’s choices.
“their strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong”
And of course anyone who actually had a “strong moral conviction” that abortion is wrong would be working to prevent abortions – which is the one thing that the pro-life movement does not do.
During the 80s, these men and their organizations were active in raising money for Death Squads in Latin America and Africa, as well as “protecting the unborn.” Not complicated.
I soon found myself in a conference room with a couple of dozen people, including Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition; Carl F. H. Henry, an evangelical theologian; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Edward G. Dobson, pastor of an evangelical church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and formerly one of Jerry Falwell’s acolytes at Moral Majority. Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, head of what is now called the Free Congress Foundation, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, was also there.
The saving the “unborn” sure can cover all kinds of deadly activity.
It would be interesting to know where these defenders of the “sanctity of life” stood, when lynching was considered a Southern cultural tradition. They were all against Civil Rights, considered it a communist plot.
And of all these movements, only Christian Reconstructionist (Fundamentalist Presbyterians) has told us what they want to do after Roe is over turned. Kill the doctor and mother who executed the abortion.
Jesurgislac, is right, what is the “Pro-Life” movement’s stance on this? Forced Pregnancies? I suspect most of them have not thought it out, because they have no intention of seeing it happen. The whole “protecting the un-born” is a front for some other very unpopular beliefs. It may seem like a “conspiracy theory.” So be it. Since its inception, (no pun intended) what have they accomplished? The movement has accomplished right-wing solidarity for all other types of right-wing projects. Protecting the un-born is the least of their priorities. Only in so far as it effects poor women (white or of color) in the South.
During the 80s, these men and their organizations were active in raising money for Death Squads in Latin America and Africa, as well as “protecting the unborn.”
You seem uninterested in sticking to any particular definition of “these men” during your argument. As such I’m unable to engage with you because I never have any idea who you are talking about.
But it is not a fact that pro-life evangelicals are the same as pro-life Catholics are the same as Republicans are the same as racists are the same as death squad supporters.
Jes said: you know perfectly well that “saving babies” by forcibly preventing a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy means forced pregnancy. That’s what the “pro-life” movement is all about: trying to return to the evil days when a woman could legally be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
When an abortion is wanted or needed, the pregnancy is a fact – and most weren’t forced. If the pregnancy is rather advanced, the fetus/baby needs to leave the womb *somehow*. I looked up our discussion at TiO and there you stated: “But, given that early deliveries at 32 weeks and after tend to have 90%+ healthy survival rates, I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery.”
I replied that the chances are better than that, so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that’s 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation (with bigger heads and if those are not collapsed you earlier stated that that would be a very bad thing).
I do still think that allmost everybody agrees that it would be best of there were less abortions. So preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the main goal for all groups and most (religious) pro-life groups have a very bad track record. Wether she wants sex and wants to protect herself against pregnancies and diseases should be up to the woman and being well-informed and having access to contraception are basic necessities. If you do not promote those, “protecting babies” seems to be less important than taking the right to decide away from women.
The Religious Right, (the white right-wing evangelical fundamentalist, whatever) as we know it today, received its first taste of influence within the Republican Party with the Death Squads in the Third World. Evangelicals (stopped calling themselves Fundamentalists and Right-Wingers) were an incredible amount of help raising money and organizing pressure to promote the rise of right-wing authoritarian groups in the Third World. You know the Party of Life wanted to purify life in poor nations. Most of these organizations and fundamentalist strains within Protestantism were always “apolitical” and their mission was saving souls for Christ to prepare the world for the Second Coming. That was not enough, because no matter how many souls were being saved, the world was sending to many people to Hell, so political power became a priority.
Jimmy Carter was not the proper Southern Gentleman. He didn’t protect the religious racists and they realized the only way they were going to protect their “culture” was to get politically involved, on the Right. This was all during the late 70s and during the early 80’s they started to wage a war on the Godless Communists, in poor nations, and do battle with Modernity at home.
Marbel: When an abortion is wanted or needed, the pregnancy is a fact – and most weren’t forced.
But at the point when you are told “No, if you decide to terminate we will prosecute you and your doctor” your pregnancy becomes a forced pregnancy, not your choice. As you’re perfectly aware, since you’ve conceded on TIO that you believe at least you and your friends should get to choose, not be forced.
That’s Dutch, our ‘typical pro lifer’
/sarcasm
To be perfectly pedantic, it’s a forced gestation, but why split hairs, since nobody’s listening to anybody?
As you’re perfectly aware, since you’ve conceded on TIO that you believe at least you and your friends should get to choose, not be forced.
I used to think it was due to my English skills, but I’ve come around to seeing it as a lack of proper reading skills on your part that makes you simplify my statements into something much more sensational but much less recognizable.
I actually was more interested in your answer on the question in the third paragraph (“so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that’s 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation”).
If you really want to split hairs: it is a forced continuation of a gestation – or a pregnancy, since those two are kind of inseperable.
See, I listen to you 😉
my questions stand. If Roe falls, what would life in the US look like for pregnant women and those who would support her right to have an abortion?
Marbel: I actually was more interested in your answer on the question in the third paragraph (“so I wondered wether you felt the decision should be based upon the 90% survival (I think that’s 27 weeks or so) or at the 32 weeks gestation”).
My answer is that the pregnant woman gets to decide (or someone she has given the right to made medical decisions on her behalf, if she’s not able to). She’s the one affected, she’s the one with all the information available to her, and if anyone else decides, they are forcing her, which is always wrong. What’s your answer?
Marbel: I used to think it was due to my English skills, but I’ve come around to seeing it as a lack of proper reading skills on your part that makes you simplify my statements into something much more sensational but much less recognizable.
I’m sorry, Marbel: were you saying that you think that women should be forced through pregnancy against their will when they want to terminate? If so, I misread entirely your comment on TIO where you wrote that you thought your friend who decided to terminate her pregnancy had a right to make that decision.
What’s your answer?
That your “the pregnant woman gets to decide” clashes with “I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery”. My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?
I misread entirely your comment on TIO where you wrote that you thought your friend who decided to terminate her pregnancy had a right to make that decision.
You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term. For future reference: I also repeatedly said that I thought the rules should be much more lenient in the US than in the Netherlands because our facilities and options are much better.
You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term.
Ah, I forgot that you think women lose the ability to make rational choices and have to be forced by outside authorities in late pregnancy.
That your “the pregnant woman gets to decide” clashes with “I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery”.
I thought your question was about termination during the 27-32 week period?
My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?
From 32 weeks. That’s what I said, and – oddly enough – that’s what I meant. (In practice, in the UK at least, this would mean from 28 weeks as doctors always figure that the start date of a pregnancy could be wrong by up to 4 weeks.) There are good reasons for legislators only legislating on independently-ascertainable and indisputable facts, which I will happily go into in more detail if you like.
For future reference: I also repeatedly said that I thought the rules should be much more lenient in the US than in the Netherlands because our facilities and options are much better.
For future reference: I think that the US ought to improve its facilities and options to the standards of the Netherlands. (I think my own country ought to, as well.)
Me: “You seem to have missed the part where that always has to be in the second term whilst our discussion was about the third term.”
Jes: Ah, I forgot that you think women lose the ability to make rational choices and have to be forced by outside authorities in late pregnancy.
I guess you’re not really open for anecdotes about how, in that stage of the pregnancy, I was glad if I could decide what to eat for dinner that day? But no, it is not about the womans ability to make rational choices, it is about the stage where the intrests of the child-to-be should be a serious consideration. Previously the intrests of the mother were leading, but in third term the child is imho more a person than an appendage and is thus entitled to some protection as a seperate entity.
Me: “That your “the pregnant woman gets to decide” clashes with “I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery”.”
Jes: I thought your question was about termination during the 27-32 week period?
Me: My question was that, if you have no problem with legislation that says that a woman as from a certain period of gestation must choose for early delivery instead of abortion, should that be as from 32 weeks or as from 90% survival chance?
Jes: From 32 weeks. That’s what I said, and – oddly enough – that’s what I meant.
You say what you mean but do you also mean what you say? I often have to check…
You said given that early deliveries at 32 weeks and after tend to have 90%+ healthy survival rates, I see no problem with legislation that says that after 32 weeks, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy must have an early delivery., which implies that you decided upon the 32 weeks because you thought it had a 90% healthy survival rate. However, the 90% healthy survival rate occurs as from an earlier stage so if you felt that the healthy survival changes of the fetus/baby were the main deciding factor you might have changed the term.
Jes: (In practice, in the UK at least, this would mean from 28 weeks as doctors always figure that the start date of a pregnancy could be wrong by up to 4 weeks.)
So if I understand you correctly you think it is ok to have legislation that prevents a women from having an abortion after *in practise* 28 weeks, as long as she could decide to end the pregnancy by giving birth to the fetus/baby?
Marbel: But no, it is not about the womans ability to make rational choices, it is about the stage where the intrests of the child-to-be should be a serious consideration.
Regardless, Marbel: there is a woman concerned, even if you yourself are trying to pretend she’s not there any more. At what point in your pregnanc(ies) did you consider that you no longer had the right to make decisions for yourself, but ought to hand that right over to the local legislature to decide for you?
which implies that you decided upon the 32 weeks because you thought it had a 90% healthy survival rate.
No, Marbel. I say 32 weeks because the BMA and all other medical authorities agree that if a premature baby is delivered at 32 weeks, there are no negative long-term effects. Earlier than that, and you can’t count on there being none.
So if I understand you correctly you think it is ok to have legislation that prevents a women from having an abortion after *in practise* 28 weeks, as long as she could decide to end the pregnancy by giving birth to the fetus/baby?
If you understood me correctly, you’d understand that I think the woman gets to decide. Her body, her decision. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
The argument is persistently made – by you, in this comment I am responding to – that after a certain point in pregnancy, a woman ought to lose the right to decide for herself, and someone else gets to make decisions for her. (You’ve never said who ought to be able to force a woman after a certain stage of pregnancy, though as I recall, I’ve asked you several times.)
It’s claimed this argument is based on controlling the woman on behalf of the fetus she’s carrying, because she can’t be allowed to make decisions for herself/the fetus she’s gestating. (Why, you’ve never explained. What is this deep mistrust and disrespect you have for pregnant woman based on?)
But that argument is based on a faulty understanding of fetal development (as well as deep disrespect and contempt for pregnant women). If a woman can’t be allowed to terminate by abortion because the fetus could survive, then logically enough, this restriction can only apply at the point where medical authorities agree that early delivery will not cause long-term damage to the infant: which is 32 weeks. Before that time, it would need to be down to the woman to decide: will she risk early delivery, abort, continue the pregnancy? Her body, her decision.
nazis sympathizers have become lazy these days
Well, that’s good news. If we must have Nazis better that they be lazy than industrious.
dutchmarbel, how did you ever live with having such contempt for yourself during your own pregnancy? I mean, since Jes says that you have contempt for pregnant women, it follows logically, and she’s always right about what other people think. So I’m just, you know, curious how you handled it.
Phil, I don’t claim that Marbel felt this kind of contempt for herself. Women who identify as pro-life are as likely to exercise their right to choose as women who don’t: it’s other women that pro-life women think ought not to be allowed to make decisions for herself in pregnancy.
At what point in your pregnanc(ies) did you consider that you no longer had the right to make decisions for yourself, but ought to hand that right over to the local legislature to decide for you?
You ask the wrong question. At no point in my pregnancies did I consider that I no longer had the right to make decisions or to participate in them. But there came a point where it was not just about me and my body, but also about the baby growing in it. So the question is at which point did the growing cells become a person instead of an appendage. And I can’t really point to a specific point, it feels like a gliding scale.
It wasn’t when I first saw my eldest son, who at that time was an 8-cell embryo. Though I am still convinced that he was the embryo that was smart enough to have a packed lunch (one of the embryo’s had an attached sugar cell) I don’t feel I lost a baby when the second embryo didn’t take. At that time it was just potential. Ditto for the first echo in which I saw the beating heart. I followed the development with all the ultrasound/inuterine pictures I could find and I realized it was no more than a little blurb.
At 11 weeks I had an ultrasound that showed limbs, and they were actually moving. I knew the riscs of losing the pregnancies had diminished greatly if I saw a beating heart and I was very focussed on that. When it actually waved it’s little arms and legs at us from the ultrasound machine I was quite shocked. Yet, seeing the pictures and knowing the size still made me see it as potential more than as a baby.
With the first child I didn’t feel it move till 23 weeks. As from that time it made it’s presence well known though. It kicked my stomach and my blatter, and always when I would try to rest. That’s when you realize that there is a rythme, that it falls asleep when you are active, rocked by your movement. But when the rocking stops, it often wakes up and becomes active.
That might very well be the stage where it became it’s own person for me. Though parts of my body sometimes seems to have a life of their own they don’t really have a sleeping pattern of their own. As from about week 24 we would have a ritual where I or the father of the child would put a warm hand against the belly and the baby would response by moving towards the hand and curling up against it. If you than move the hand to another spot, the baby will follow – a game we could play for hours.
By that time we knew it was a boy, we knew what we would call him and we allready prepared him for live outside. We sung songs, we read stories (I might still know dr Seuss’ “baby oh baby” by heart, it was sent to me by someone from the american infertility mailinglists and we read it to bits) and we even painted it’s little face on my belly to give it a stern talking too about not hurting mummy too much.
28 Weeks was a milestone, because you know babies have a really good chance as from then. They can be born earlier and still not have a problem, but I was totally fixed on the 28 weeks. Around that time I could sit in the sofa or in the bath and gaze upon my belly; it would ripple like a surfers paradise and it became a sport to try to name the appendages we would see sticking out. Was it a foot or a fist? Was that the butt or the head?
If you discuss abortions and just compare growing babies with appendages, if you focus so hard on the woman that you forget that there is a child growing inside here, I always assume that it is because you only see it on the outside and the baby/fetus is not *real* for you. But for me it is a very real thing. I’ve had three children growing inside of me and they were there, present, well before they were born.
I agree with you that the Religious Right tries to take away the sexual independency of women and that one should protest against that. I agree that a woman should have the right to decide about her own body and that having a child has at least initially much more impact on HER than on anybody else. I know better than you how hard childbirth can be and what bad effects it can have on your body. So no, I don’t want to force every pregnant women into giving birth.
In the earlier stage of pregnancy I have absolutely no problem with abortions. Being pregnant and giving birth is hard, and it should only happen to people who want it. But there comes a point where the fetus has grown so much, where has become a viable person, and where that child-to-be enters the equation.
In a perfect world all mothers would want what’s best for their children. But unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. People don’t always act in the best intrest of their children, of their babies. Once they are born we feel that we, as a society, should care about them and protect them if need be. For me, at the end of a pregnancy, there is allready a baby present. And thus should we, as a society, take acount of it’s intrests and protects it if that is necessary.
That does not mean that we don’t take acount of the womens intrests, it just means that we should weigh those against each other. That is why I feel that we, in the Netherlands, with all our options and facilities, should be more strict than the USA should be, since the restricted options and possibilities here put women at such a disadvantage.
If it is so hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies (half of the pregnancies in the US are unwanted, I was so shocked to learn that), if it is so hard to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy in the earlier stages, there should be more room to terminate the pregnancy in a later stage.
When you come across someone posting under the name “dutchmarbel” who claims to be “pro-life,” you let us all know, m’kay?