THE CULTURE WAR
The ultimate diversionary tactic?
Joshua Holland has written a thoughtful, provocative piece on the Bush agenda behind Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. He makes several interesting arguments: (1) It isn't in the GOP's interest to actually overturn Roe v. Wade; (2) Besides, abortion is already severely restricted in most parts of the country; (3) Regardless, this whole abortion debate distracts from the corporate interests that are certain to flourish if Miers is approved; and (4) The left should be (more?) concerned with how Miers might rule on other issues such as separation of powers, consumer rights, and the environment.
In other words, Bush is playing everyone for a sucka-ass sucka.
(By the way, his piece was written before today's predictable revelation that Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortions. But I don't think this news would change Holland's analysis.)
I certainly plead guilty to caring the most about Miers's stance on whether a woman has a right to continue her pregnancy. Holland is right to point out that the abortion debate distracts from our discussion of other important issues. No doubt, I am concerned with how any Bush appointee would rule on issues like civil rights (e.g., affirmative action, imigrant rights, equal protection for gays and lesbians), civil liberties (e.g., Patriot Act II, consumer privacy), criminal procedure, employment/labor issues, and broader concerns of federalism and consumer rights.
But I don't regret focusing on abortion. I disagree with his claim that the GOP would not actually overturn Roe v. Wade. If the Republicans eliminated a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, they would earn the lifelong loyalty of social conservatives and create a momentum, as well as an omnipotent-feeling minority, that would try to snuff out everything from gay rights to scientific research. This extremism may cost the GOP some moderate votes, but it won't cost them elections ... until the Democrats actually propose a clear platform upon which to stand.
Here's an excerpt of Holland's article:
Imagine nominating a sycophantic nobody just when your poll numbers have given the mainstream media a by-your-leave to turn on the heat for your cronyism and machine politics. Imagine nominating a sycophantic nobody with a record thin and ambiguous enough to piss off suspicious activists of all stripes.
And imagine being smug in your knowledge that you'll get away with it. Bush's fellow Republicans will grumble -- the National Review will editorialize about how little regard you've shown towards those high-quality conservatives they've been cultivating at the Federalist Society and George Will might kvetch in the Washington Post, but at the end of the day they will buckle under and follow their Fearless Leader.
Harriet Miers -- and probably John Roberts, too -- will make suckers out of all of us by respecting the precedent (superprecedent!) of Roe v. Wade. Meaning the joke will be on ... everyone!
That's because the dirty secret is that the last thing the Republican leadership wants to do is overturn Roe. It would mark the beginning of the end for them and they know it.
Where would the GOP be without the specter of godless, baby-killing liberals keeping its base awake at night? Gone would be the their most potent organizing issue, the source of their passion advantage. Gone too would be the apathy of those on the left and center-left -- poof! It would be the end of their suburban "security moms." Young women would begin to realize that maybe, just maybe, thinking of oneself as a feminist isn't the worst thing in the world.
...
What's more, social conservatives are doing a bang-up job of restricting reproductive rights with Roe in place, toiling away under the radar. According to the National Abortion Rights Action League, 714 anti-abortion measures were considered by state legislatures in 2004, almost a third more than in 2003. Eighty-seven percent of American counties have no abortion providers. Why stir up a debate when you're doing just fine restricting choice on the QT?
If I'm correct, the religious right will find themselves, yet again, having been played for suckers. Again they get plenty of wagging gums from their favorite Republican politicians, especially around election time, but as usual that doesn't mean anyone's going to spend real political capital on their issues once the votes are cast.
... (read the rest here)
<< Home