All of that may be true, but issues like that are only one level on which these elections are fought and decided. Karl Rove has specialized in winning elections by waging battle on an entirely different level that has little to do with substantive issues and everything to do with cultural symbols and religious divisions -- a level which Democrats want to ignore and seem to be afraid of engaging. But those who want to end the one-party rule under which our country is suffocating have no choice but to engage those levels, and there is no reason at all why they should fear doing so.
One of the most reprehensible (and effective) electoral tactics which the GOP used to defeat John Kerry in 2004 -- and, unquestionably, it is a tactic which Republicans are gearing up to exploit even more aggressively for 2006 -- is the increasingly overt claim that adherence to Catholicism compels a vote for Republicans (and precludes voting for Democrats). It is difficult to overstate the potency and efficacy of that tactic. From Reason Magazine:
Hence, the Republican Party's "Catholic Strategy." Bush strategist Karl Rove identified the Catholic vote as central to his long-term plan to convert swathes of traditional Democratic voters, thereby transforming the Republicans into the majority party. Throughout the 2004 campaign, Rove maintained that, if Bush won the Catholic vote, he would be reelected. Rove was right.
Rove sought to turn out several million additional Catholic voters. Last year, Catholic turnout was 63 percent, up from 57 percent four years earlier, and constituted more than one-in-four voters nationwide, voters disproportionately distributed in key battleground states such as Ohio and Florida. Bush, a Methodist, impressively won 52 percent of the Catholic vote versus 47 percent for John Kerry, only the third Catholic to win a major party's presidential nomination. Only one Democrat since 1952 (Walter Mondale in 1984) had previously lost the Catholic vote by such a margin.
Republicans spent 2004 attacking the authenticity of John Kerry's Catholicism, insisting that good Catholics were compelled to vote for Bush and that Kerry -- to use the GOP's phrase -- was "wrong for Catholics." These religious smears reached their low point with the campaign by certain prominent Republican Catholics to deny communion to Kerry. As the above-quoted passage from Reason illustrates, this attempt to equate religious Catholicism with political Republicanism was as successful as it was despicable. As a result, it is unquestionably clear that this tactic is not going away, but will only intensify.
Last week, Kellyanne Conway, on her National Review blog, mockingly and scornfully reported on a group of 55 Congressional Democrats who -- get this! -- claim to be Catholic and claim that they believe in Catholic principles. Conway dons her most pious sneer and scoffs at the hilarious notion that Democrats could possibly claim -- of all things -- to be Catholic:
Earlier this week, a press release that crowed, "House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles" was issued in the names of 55 House Democrats. These "Catholic" "principles" from non-principal Catholics were at least as ambitious (and absurd and audacious) as those existentially mouthed by John Kerry during his run for the Presidency, see, e.g, his statement in the summer of ’04 that "Life begins at conception."
According to the solemnly religious Conway, it's so painfully obvious that any Good Catholic could only be a Republican, and that this silly little attempt by Democrats to masquerade as people with religious beliefs will never work:
Reasonable limits to unfettered access to abortion, like a ban on late-term procedures that the American Medical Association has said are not medically necessary and the interstate transport of minors to receive abortions, enjoy majorities of support among Americans. And Catholics join people of all faiths in their deep opposition to totally stripping religion form (sic) the public square, including ripping God from the Pledge of Allegiance and continuing to ban prayer in schools.
From dust this statement of principles was made, and to dust it shall return.
Attention should be paid to Conway's rantings. Conway and her husband, George, were given a National Review blog for a reason. As I've previously documented, those two were among the leading smear merchants of the 1990s who built their political notoriety by trafficking in the lowest and filthiest political tactics from the sewer. They are both well-connected to the GOP establishment and are cogs in its political machinery. Their blog is undoubtedly a harbinger of the gutter tactics that will be used this year by Rove and the GOP, who -- I hope Democrats are appreciating -- are not going to simply allow Democrats to waltz into control of the House (with the subpoena and investigative power it entails) without a vicious fight that recognizes no limits.
One of those tactics is going to be an escalation of the exploitation and inflammation of religious divisions. On his blog GOP Bloggers, Mark Noonan effusively celebrated an e-mail he received from Ken Mehlman which touts George Bush's commitment to Catholic values, and in which Mehlman quotes Jack Kelly, the Director of the RNC's Catholic Outreach program, as follows:
"Working through the RNC's Political Division we are committed to an expansive outreach program that will not just maintain but increase the support shown by Catholics in 2004. The Republican principles of a strong commitment to a culture of life and to the economic and national security of our country resonates with active Catholics. Our goal is to let Catholics know they are the key to the future success of the Republican party."
Noonan gave a hint of what is to come this year by claiming that GOP's pro-Catholic approach stands "[i]n contrast to the insult offered Catholics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee" (meaning opposition to Sam Alito's nomination), and then spat out this religiously exploitive claim, which we are going to be hearing a lot more of:
Because we aren't wanted in the Democratic Party. Oh, sure, the Democrats will take a "Catholic" who essentially denies his faith - like a Kennedy or Kerry - and comes out against core Catholic morality on issues such as abortion, but let there be a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, and the Democrats want nothing to do with him.
There you have it: Democrats hate real Catholics who believe in Catholicism rather than just pretending to believe in it. The only place for real Catholics is the Republican Party. And the media has clearly internalized this theme. To them, the notion that any Democrat could possibly claim to be Catholic is just so very hilarious and absurd. Everyone knows that all real Christians are Republicans and that any Democrat claiming to be religious -- like John Kerry, or Bill Clinton -- is just doing that because he knows that it will be politically helpful, not because he's genuinely religious. That's just obvious.
The reason why it is so nonsensical that this tactic works -- and so infuriating that Republicans are allowed to get away with this -- is because scores of Republican policies, including their most prominent ones, are plainly contrary to Catholic doctrine and have been vigorously condemned both by John Paul II and by the current Pope. Those policies could not be any more anti-Catholic.
Begin with George Bush's flagship policy -- the invasion and occupation of Iraq. From Fox News, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq:
Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a "crime against peace."
The unwavering stance has made the pope one of the most visible opponents of war in current circumstances, and a rallying point for peace groups and politicians who seize on his words counseling against war.
The Vatican -- including the prior Pope and the current one -- has emphatically condemned the Administration's policy of pre-emptive war generally as immoral and contrary to core Catholic principles:
Pope John Paul II (see p. 8-9), Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Martino (President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace), the influential and authoritative Jesuit journal in Rome, Civiltá Cattolica, and the U. S. Catholic Bishops. have all denounced the plans of President Bush to attack Iraq.
Cardinal Ratzinger has said, "A preventive war is not in the Catechism."
Civiltá Cattolica points out that an American attack on Iraq would be motivated in large part by political and economic reasons rather than military necessity and rejects the Bush argument that a preventive war should be considered a defensive action. Archbishop Martino said that "a preventive war is a war of aggression."
And Republican fare no better when it comes to pro-life issues. One of George Bush's most central political positions as Texas Governor was his fervent belief in the death penalty, and he presided over a parade of executions. And one of the current bugaboos of national Republicans is the reliance by the Supreme Court on precepts of "foreign law" -- something they did most prominently when blocking the execution of a juvenile offender on the grounds that such executions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment (as demonstrated, in small part, by the fact that such a practice is banned in most of the world).
And yet, few things are more anathema to Catholic doctrine than the state-sanctioned killing of human beings; it is one of the central principles of the Church's pro-life position:
This principle is set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church:
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, Par. 2267)
More recently Pope John Paul H in his eleventh encyclical entitled "The Gospel of Life" (March 25, 1995), toughens the church's stance on the death penalty. In this papal letter is found one of Catholicism's strongest condemnations of capital punishment. . . .
In this recent teaching, Pope John Paul II affirmed the catechism's teaching that the death penalty is acceptable under some conditions, but in the encyclical he said such conditions are very rare or even non-existent in the modern world. (Par. 56) In the encyclical, the pope listed the death penalty as one of the pro-life issues calling for church concern and action.
The only reason Republicans get away this tactic is because Democrats let them. It's as though Democrats find political appeals of this sort so distasteful and ugly that they just hope they can ignore them and they will go away. They aren't and they won't. Democrats have no choice but to engage these tactics directly and to expose their corruption -- not by whining about their unfairness or protesting them with platitudes, but by directly confronting their substance and turning them to their advantage.
The reality is that Catholicism translates politically into support for liberal views at least as much as it does for conservative views. Large majorities of Catholics support abortion rights generally, stem cell research, and oppose further tax cuts. There are also dormant and lurking religious tensions between evangelicals and Catholics which Bush opponents allow to remain hidden and unexamined, while Republicans exploit every cultural and religious division they can find. There is no virtue in continuing to win policy debates while losing elections due to a ceding of these submerged and ugly battlefields.
Republicans have all sorts of vulnerabilities on these issues. So many of their leading pundits and political figures have personal lives filled with private moral atrocities or activities which so plainly violate the religious and cultural principles they claim to embody. Their flagship policies are squarely prohibited by core Catholic principles and have been condemned as immoral and unjust by the Vatican. How can that same party parade around as the true party of Catholicism?
It would be preferable if our elections were decided exclusively on the substance of the issues. But they just aren't, and pretending otherwise ensures defeat. The Republican Party is no more the party of Catholicism than it is the party of moral piety or the restoration of honor and integrity in government. Not only does adherence to Catholicism not compel a vote for Republicans; if anything, it can be argued much more persuasively that Catholicism precludes such a vote. Democrats have to aggressively make that case, and related points, no matter how much they would prefer not to have to. If they don't, we will continue to be a country whose elections are decided by filth merchants and rank religious manipulation.
What one of the most disturbing manifestations of the GOP's tactic is the Patriot Pastors in of the Ohio Restoration Project, an organization whose goal is to bring about a Christain Republican orthodoxy. Incidentally, Kenneth Blackwell, infamous for trying to minimize the amount of Democratic voters in the 2004 election, is running for Governor with the groups backing.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are missing the most important discrepancy between Catholicism and Bush administration practices: the latter's total focus on the rich instead of the poor. Poverty has increased significantly under this administration (the first time this has happened in many years), and the poor of New Orleans and so many other places have been left to fend for themselves. "As ye do to the least among you, so you do unto me" was not said by Ted Kennedy or any of the other bugaboos of the right, but by Christ himself. I very much doubt Jesus would have a lot of use for the big money boys who run this administration, but who claim so loudly and hypocritically that they speak in his name.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteGood post.
I would only observe that Dems have a difficult time exploiting the death penalty difference because all national Dems also mouth support for the death penalty. Also, the death penalty is more of a state law issue which was fought out in the 80s and 90s and know has been resolved in most states.
As for support for military action, I have not seen a Pope yet who supported any war. In contrast, practicing American Catholics are not appreciably different than their practicing American Protestant brethren when it comes to support for military action.
Where Catholics can and have been reached by the Dems is on programs for the poor, which Catholics accept as a government function more than do Protestants.
Bush has done an interesting judo move in this regard. He has been pushing government support for religious delivery of social services, of which the Catholics are large participants. His school choice proposals also promote Catholic schools. The secular Dems have reacted predictably in their opposition to these initiatives.
Something else to keep in mind below the political level. The Evangelical Protestants have largely abandoned their history of anti-Catholicism and made common cause with practicing Catholics on a wide variety of commonly held social issues. Dem national opposition on these social issues is further driving Catholics into the GOP.
In a nutshell, America is going through another one of its religious revivals at the same time the secularist who fight religion in nearly any form in the public square have taken over the Dems. Until the Dems accept some level of religion in the public square, they are fighting an uphill battle to have people of faith join them in that public square.
I am a catholic and a liberal democrat.
ReplyDeleteI have always understood the republican "use" or "misuse" of the catholic vote.
I could never vote Republican.
When I examine the republican culture of life, I see a culture that starts wars, tortures, lies,encourages the death penalty, is arrogant,manipulative,greedy and takes from the poor to give to the rich.
I have heard it said that republicans cease to care about life as soon as it is born.
Look at the facts.
There is no plan that I know of to support all these babies after birth that will occur in S. Dakota if their abortion law is upheld
Funding cut for Medicaid, Medicare rising, a drug prescription program that is not designed to help the elderly, but drug companies.
No Child Left Behind with little or no funding.
The callous disregard for human life before and continuing after Katrina.
Many catholics align themselves with the Christian Right.
It was not very long ago thatx those same religions thought that catholics were the "devil".
If the christian right does end up in control and is able to push it's agenda of prayer in the school and in the government, what then?
The differences between catholic and christian right religious beliefs are very diffrent. Which will prevail? Will there be a "choice" then?
actually, your analyis of george and kellyanne conway's 'catholicism' leaves out an important disrinction: there are two kinds of catholics in america today. george and kellyanne - along with most of the catholics who voted for bush - are catholics of the sexually obsessed type. noisy, shrill about anyone who disagrees with them, and selective. and the democrats have actually validated them.
ReplyDeletemy 85 year old aunt is almost as progressive as dorothy day, but she has allowed herself to be persuaded that abortion is the one, the overarching and the only moral issue that counts. so she voted for ronald reagan, even tho she knew as much about the school ofthe americas and the reagan-supported death squads in central america. and she voted for george bush.
and the reason that she did it was because the democratic party was 'above' cheap religio-political trickery.
if john kerry had stood up and said 'i grew being taught to distrust the evangelical who slandered my immigrant grandparents' or he said 'the vatican's culture of life includes wars, death penalties, collective bargaining and healthcare...' we might actually be rebuilding iraq in preparation for getting out and letting those still alive get on with their lives.
As a practicing Catholic and liberal democrat, this problem drives me just crazy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the church and certain priests say things from the pulpit that support this perception. They meddle in politics and they get away with it.
It's time to tie the dissatisfaction with the church (sexual abuse, gay adoption, etc.) to the republican party. Let them take the bad with the good.
Jesus was the original liberal, and there is a history of liberal Catholic theology that is a perfectly valid interpretation of this beautiful faith. Ray Dubuque has a great site called liberalslikechrist.org. He unpacks everything in great detail, and guess what - the evidence, once again, is on our side.
The whole interpretation of the bible and the application of such is an issue. That is what is not understood!
ReplyDeleteIssues are what those talking to the masses say they are. Unfortunately, the dems seem to think there is no issue because of the separation clause. When are the dems going to wake up and accept that the constitution only has power when those talking and leading do so in a manor that give power to the constitution by associating it with the most common and familar concepts of how to live life...religion. They have to make the constitution fit with the individuals personal identity. The repubs use religion. It is the first (and arguably most dominate) concept presented to a person as to what, when, how and why of what it means to live as a "good" person.
The key, is that the repubs have choose those aspects of the bible that speak to the first person: me, myself and I. It is a very narrow aspect of the lessons of the bible. The dems do not need to denounce such talk. Just start talking about the ignored by republican lessons of them, their, they. That is what the constitution is talking.
Everytime I think about the repubs and religion I think of minister in OH God, the football one.
disclaimer: I do not rely on religion or bible to understand what I need to do to now what is need to be the best possible me.
So the central issue is that they lie more effectively than we tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Democrats do help Rove and the GOP in alienating pro-life, Catholic voters. This articel is from the National Right to Life Committee, and the lead sentence is:
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic National Convention held in Boston July 26-29 proved once again that those with a pro-life view are not welcome in the party.
And the matter of Gov. Bob Casey not being allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention is widely known, even legendary, in Catholic and pro-life circles:
Because of his desire to deliver a pro-life message, Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania was in fact banned as a speaker from the 1992 Democratic Convention.
So, quite regardless of any Rovian strategizing, there is and long has been a huge disconnect with practicing Catholics -- who form a huge swathe of the single-issue voters in the pro-life mvmt -- and the Democratic Party. Democrats simply do have an abortion problem when it comes to the highly motivated, single-issue Catholic voters. Whether such voters should also be mindful of papal pronouncements regarding war, capital punishment & etc. is a bit beside the point, because as a sociological matter and political reality, they have long been mobilized around the abortion issue. That mobilization began decades ago, when George Bush was still swilling coke and booze.
Democrats simply do have an abortion problem when it comes to the highly motivated, single-issue Catholic voters.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true, but that is a different issue. People who make abortion their primary issue are going to vote Republican no matter what - and they have been voting Republican for many years. If anything, Democrats (for better or worse) have become less absolutist on that issue. Harry Reid, just as one example, is pro-life (And, by the way, that Bob Casey story is a total ubran myth, for reasons I am certain someone will be happy to explain). But this is something different.
It's not about abortion. The trend of Catholics abandoning Democrats and supporting Republicans is a recent trend that exists separate and apart from abortion, and is caused by the claim that Catholics have a RELIGIOUS obligation to vote Republican, notwithstanding the fact that that party has a wide array of policies which plainly contradict core Catholic principles.
The thing that boggles my mind about Bush's success with religious appeals is that he's not a Christian. Hell, I doubt he could give three reasons why he's a Methodist (as opposed to a Catholic, or Hindu, much less any other form of Protestant). Bush is not a Christian; he - or Karl Rove, more likely - has just realized that "God told me to" is the best excuse in the world, and certainly in American politics, where if you claim to believe in a Christian God, most people accept and agree with you. The thing is, Bush doesn't believe in God, or Jesus, or any philosophical or religious tenets of faith; he believes in the little voice in his head that tells him to do what he already wants to do, and he thinks that's God's voice.
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Urban myth, Glenn? I've heard that, and reject it. It isn't true, not according to none other than Bob Casey:
ReplyDeleteOn page 191 of Casey's autobiography, Fighting for Life (1996), he writes:
"The official line from the convention publicity machine was that I was not permitted to speak because I hadn’t endorsed Clinton. But if that’s the case, why had Kathleen Brown, state treasurer of California and sister of presidential hopeful Jerry Brown, been permitted to address the convention? She hadn’t endorsed the nominee, either."1
Bob Casey knows why he was not permitted to speak. And that kind of pressure has caused previously pro-life Democrts to switch, including Richard Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore. Harry Reid is an anomaly, and the fact is, he is so sorely needed now it is not surprising that he is forgiven his pro-life sins.
Bob Casey knows why he was not permitted to speak.
ReplyDeleteNo, Bob Casey is speculating about why he didn't speak, and the speculation is idiotic. Were there any speakers at the GOP convention who didn't support George Bush? Of course not. What political party would invite speakers to speak at their convention who refuse to support the party's nominee? To act like that had nothing to do with Casey's not speaking has always struck me as mind-bogglingly stupid, to be honest.
And what proof is there that Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak because of his pro-life views? None. It's just something he made up and people have repeated ever since because there are political benefits to repeating it. But like so much other conventional political wisdom, it's false (let's hear again how Moveon.org produced TV commercials comparing Bush to Hitler and how Howard Dean is a Far Leftist).
To act like that had nothing to do with Casey's not speaking has always struck me as mind-bogglingly stupid, to be honest.
ReplyDeleteAnd what proof is there that Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak because of his pro-life views?
As Casey pointed out, another speaker was allowed who did not endorse Clinton. I think he is in a position to know what made him so unacceptable as a speaker. That kind of pressure has been brought to bear on other, previously pro-life Democratic politicians.
Pro-lifers, including Catholics, widely believe the Democratic Party is hostile to them. There are rational bases for that belief. If the Democratic Party concludes it doesn't need these Catholic voters, it need not do anything about the situation. Otherwise, it might want to consider addressing the problem.
I would suggest that if you think this is just "false" conventional wisdom, then you are contributing to the problem.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read Hypatia's post repeating the canard that Bob Casey was prevented from speaking at the '92 convention because he's pro-life - and quoting the National Right to Life Committee. Wow, they're unbiased; I can't imagine why they'd want to tell *that* story (/sarcasm). I mean, the only *more* biased source I could think of would be quoting Bob "Pity Party" Casey himself... and then she did! Bwahahahaha! That's great. Who's the *next* authority on how Democrats are intolerant of pro-life Catholics, Karl Rove?
ReplyDeleteAs a secular humanist, I get a grim chuckle out of the repeated cries from the religious right about Christian victimization in this country. Last time I checked, about 85% of the country identified itself as Christian. Throw in your Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and I find it rather hard to believe that my atheist brothers and sisters are running the Democratic party. It's all part of the "worship Jesus or you're not a real American" platform of the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats need to embrace faith as an issue. As was pointed out, Christ was the first truly socially liberal voice. The Democrats could loudly embrace every social teaching of Jesus and win big. The Republicans don't run on Christian morality anyway; they run on Biblical legalism. Too many of the rank and file Republican voters don't seem to understand the difference.
The Dems could own a big swathe of the religious vote, if they'd just embrace the issue in a better way.
As a reasonably dedicated agnostic, I personally wish I could live in a country where religion and politics were kept strictly segregated from each other. In fact, I wish I could live in a country where the extant society had, as a whole, outgrown the primitive social control mechanism through organized superstitious terror that is religion... but... well... I don't get to live on that planet for another couple of incarnations, anyway.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, I have to agree -- the way to win Catholics back to the Dems is to play up the Republican emphasis on helping the rich enrich themselves further. In fact, I read on some blog that the ranking Catholic out in Los Angeles has stated that he will instruct priests and good Catholic parishioners to disobey a new ordinance if it is passed; it will make it a crime to help illegal immigrants in any way.
Unfortunately, I can't put a lot of stock in such appeals. The Repubs get a lot of traction by selling hate and fear -- hate of non-mainstream sexuality, fear of foreigners, mainly -- and I don't think the Dems can compete on that ground. I know I don't want the Dems to try and compete on that ground; I prefer to vote for the more liberal, reasonable, and tolerant candidates, not the most closeminded ones.
And btw, a campaign to convince Catholics that they cannot morally vote for Democrats who favor abortion rights, is so, so not new. Back in the 80s there were several instances of outrage over priests preaching sermons to that effect, and demands for revocation of tax exempt status and the like. Pro-life PACs heavily leafleted Catholics leaving mass, with brochures containing pictures of fetuses and lists of the (predominantly) GOP, pro-life candidates. Indeed, whether abortion should properly be a dealbreaker in terms of dictating for whom to vote, has been the subject of a pretty big debate among Catholics for decades.
ReplyDeleteKarl Rove may be exploiting and encouraging this phenomenon, but he did not generate it.
Pro-lifers, including Catholics, widely believe the Democratic Party is hostile to them. There are rational bases for that belief.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you suggesting then that the Democratic party should ease off on its committment to women's rights, Hypatia? If so, then I have a strong objection to that. One of the core platform positions of the Democratic party is a belief in a woman's right to her own reproductive choices. Courting those who want to erode or eliminate that right alienates those voters for whom being Pro-Choice is a very important issue. It's just another iteration of the "centrist" strategy; that Democrats will win more elections if we'd just be more like the Republicans.
One thing to realize, Glenn, is that this dichotomy is being driven by converts. There are in Washington political circles many people who have converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism because they found the latter too lax.
ReplyDeleteThey claim moral superiority over American Catholics who come from families that have been Catholic for over a millennium and who are largely supporters of the reforms of Vatican II. The main attraction of Catholicism to them is being able to claim the authority of the pope when arguing with others. Of course, as you have noted, they pick and choose themselves.
There have been some good articles about this. I'll try to track them down. The media has really dropped the ball in pointing out that these are largely within-Catholicism fights. The "anti-Catholic" works of art denounced by the Catholic League are almost entirely created by Catholics.
Um, nobody really talks about why Kathleen Brown didn't endorse the ticket (jeez, you think maybe it was because her *BROTHER* was running against Clinton in the primaries?).
ReplyDeleteKathleen Brown hasn't made a big issue out whatever issue kept her from supporting the ticket since the convention, as far as I can tell. So, that's two things right off the bat that would make her situation different from Casey's.
However, I'll grant that there might be some Democratic pro-life folks who are uncomfortable in the party, and assuming that they're not *all* uneasy because they hear Karl Rove whispering, "Democrats don't like you, look at them talking about choice, that's a slap in your face!", I'll explain how Democrats should distinguish between reachable pro-life Democrats, and unreachable ones.
Pro-choice Democrats should (and *DO*, dammit) work with pro-life Democrats who can accept abortion as safe, legal, and rare, by improving sex education and access to birth control - because these things have been shown to reduce the number of abortions without increasing unwanted pregnancies, which is something pro-choice Democrats and pro-life Democrats should be able to agree on (this is the kind of common ground that Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton have staked out together); it's pro-life Republicans who don't seem to care about the number of abortions, because they're more interested in making abortion illegal than in decreasing the number of abortions.
Pro-life Democrats who aren't willing to work on these things, in my opinion, belong in the Republican party. I don't think there are that many of them - people who would rather have abortion illegal than rarer - and they're undermining our message.
Of course, if that's what they're trying to do, then we should kick them out for that already, so I suppose that's a bit circular.
And WTF is with that cannibalistic ritual anyways? Eat the body of Christ each week?
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be that if Jesus said something like that he was referring to a sex act? Could this be a mistake in translation? Seems pretty weird….
And then voting for the chimperor too? I know they can’t all blame their mental illness on ‘back door” meetings with their priest…
I respectfully disagree. Getting into the muck and mire of religious semiotics as political fodder should be left to the fanatics. Any dialectic that attempts to go beyond illustrating the hypocrisy of the right’s self-contradicting rhetoric, challenging the morality of its intrinsic vileness, i.e., the intolerant and even vicious nature of their attacks, and, as you suggest, forcing scrutiny of the tangential “life” issues such as the death penalty, poverty, and a perpetual war machine that is our economic, moral, ethical, and geopolitical raison d’être, is doomed to become rhetorical detritus that will be scooped up by the right-wingers and regurgitated as recombinant attack ads.
ReplyDeleteAll of the politics that we face, extant in the anti-democratic, pro-global corporate hegemony of the Bush/Neo-con agenda, are moral issues of extreme imperativeness that should be framed as such. Listen to the moral vacuity of Condoleeza Rice’s hyperbole regarding Iran:
She told a congressional hearing in Washington that the threat from Iran could grow exponentially.
``If you can take that and multiply it by several hundred, you can imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon and the threat they would then pose to that region,'' said Rice.
``We may face no greater challenge from a single country.''
Cheney, Rice, Bolton, and Rumsfeld are promoting Iran as the number one threat to America; we already know their fear tactics work. There is nothing logical in their arguments: Iran is not going to set fleets of ships and aircraft to attack the U.S. – they will never attack us. Even if they had a nuclear warhead, using it would be an act of suicide; a statistical implausibility. The iniquity of their march toward death should not be as difficult to prove as the deafening silence of our side seems to indicate.
These are moral issues, to be sure. If the candidates we put forward are not articulate enough to expose these truths, without using the trappings of religion as a political veneer of acceptability, then losing again and again will be inevitable.
Love the way in 2004 the smirking chimp had an "audience" with the pope and wanted to lecture him into denouncing kerry!
ReplyDeleteGratefully, the pope at the time would here none of it. Perhaps he even gave the chimpster a little lecture. I remember seeing a pic of the petulant boy pouting with the pope.
Of course, now with this nazi pope, who knows?
Goddamn, you're a great analyst! Easily one of the best on the net. Why doesn't someone in the Democratic party hire you as a strategist? And if they're not contacting you about it, why don't you contact them?
ReplyDeleteSamurai Sam writes: Courting those who want to erode or eliminate that right alienates those voters for whom being Pro-Choice is a very important issue. It's just another iteration of the "centrist" strategy; that Democrats will win more elections if we'd just be more like the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting anything other than that Glenn's belief that Catholics are suddenly -- just now -- being given to understand that they cannot morally vote for Democrats who adhere to what you correctly identify as a core Democratic political value, is so wrong. Rove may be exploiting it, but this pitch has been made for decades.
Catholic Democrats began leaving that party in droves over the abortion issue a long time ago. Debate among Catholics regarding whether abortion should be sufficient reason not to vote for a Democrat, also has been going on for at least that long.
If, like you, most Democrats do not believe there is anything they can or should do about such Catholic voters, fine. But then it hardly seems crazy for the GOP to be massaging and exploiting these voters' reason for staying in that Party.
Catholics can and do vote for chimpy in large numbers....
ReplyDeleteThat is what confessionals are for.
"Father, bless me, for I have sinned..."
Guess the penitence is kind of "weak," a few "Hail Mary's" while doing cartwheels or something.
Of course, this whole issue shows the wisdom of keeping matters of state and matters of religion compeletely separated. The founders wrote such separation into the Constitution, but of course there's no way to keep demagogues from dragging religion into politics anyway.
ReplyDeleteRemember when JFK's Catholicism was perceived to be a "problem," when it was feared that American voters would not elect a Catholic? This had to do with anti-Catholic feeling, of course, but I think it also demonstrates the degree to which people then wanted to MINIMIZE the religious affiliation of a candidate, rather than exploit it.
Of course Bush is not Christian, his own self-delusion to the contrary. Christ said that to follow Him, one must do as he did: abjure personal property and devote oneself to tending to the poor and weak.
People look to Mother Theresa as an extraordinary human being, for her long years of work among the poor of India. Extraordinary, yes, compared to many other people, but entirely ordinary--and expected--for those who would be "Christian."
It shows how few real Christians there are in the world.
(I am not one...in fact, I am an atheist. Nonetheless, one can ignore the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story and see that he was a radical proselytizer for turning away from violence and hate, and for helping the disadvantaged. If he were to appear today and espouse that which he did in the Bible, he would be denounced as a "far leftist," or even as a communist.)
Glenn said: The only place for real Catholics is the Republican Party. And the media has clearly internalized this theme.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason Republicans get away this tactic is because Democrats let them.
Glenn, it is naive to assume that the press is not entirely complicit in Rove's continuing strategy to polarize the electorate. It is equally absurd to believe that Democrats do not know on some viseral level the following fact: The media is pro-business, pro-free trade, pro-corporations. They are entirely aligned with the Republican Party and are well-served where ordinary Americans are marginalized and excluded from government. The Democratic Party consistently takes positions on issues that are pro-working class. They are skewered for those positions in the media. They will be "battered" by the media so long as Americans are caught in vacuum of information limited to the American media's take on issues.
By extention, ordinary Americans are "battered" by the media as well. The media will not/cannot blame itself or the business community for any of this country's problems. The Dubai port deal is a perfect example. This morning's editorial pages uniformly blame the American people for the actions of Congress (and especially Dems) in rejecting the ports deal this morning. Americans we are told are "isolationists", "xenophobic", "protectionists", etc. Rejection of the ports deal was a slap in the face of the global corporatists and the media they bought and paid for are mad this morning.
Chris writes: and quoting the National Right to Life Committee. Wow, they're unbiased; I can't imagine why they'd want to tell *that* story (/sarcasm). I mean, the only *more* biased source I could think of would be quoting Bob "Pity Party" Casey himself..
ReplyDeleteOf course the NRLC is biased; so is Planned Parenthood or NARAL. You rather make my point.
Many formerly Democratic Catholic voters feel their former party has contempt for their pro-life position and the organizations they work through. They completely believe what Bob Casey says regarding why he was not allowed to speak at the '92 convention, precisely because attitudes such as yours are pretty pervasive. It isn't hard to imagine what happened to Casey, as he describes it.
These Catholics watched a significant number of pro-life Democrats succumb to party pressure to abandon their pro-life positions over the years. Casey is one who wouldn't.
Now, if Democrats don't care about these formerly Democratic voters, fine. I'm not saying they/you should. Merely that it is then no surprise that the GOP hugs them, and exploits the situation -- and has been doing so for a long time.
A minor point, Christ was not the "first socially liberal voice" in the Bible-- the prophets of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible were there long before him. M.L. King quoted the prophet Amos in his famous address ("let justice roll down. . ."), and we all might do well to reread Amos as one who spoke to an oppressive regime that ab/used religion to maintain its power.
ReplyDeleteBack to the original post: I take as Glenn's core point, that Catholic (and I would say, generally Christian) values which are summarized under "culture of life" are not in any way limited to the issue of abortion, and that "liberal" positions have far more correspondences.
The Democrats must not let Republicans and above all this President claim the term "Culture of life" without at least challenging his selective reading of what it entails. It is one more instance of his utter hypocrisy.
Bush probably thinks he's a Christian, according to a Methodist minister I know - he thinks his conversion experience made him "good" and that therefore everything he does is "good." He doesn't understand that we all have elements of good and evil inside us, and that if we want to be good, we must make a conscious effort.
ReplyDeleteIt's especially hard for people with a great deal of power to behave well, as we know from the Stanford University experiment where half the volunteers were randomly assigned to be prisoners and half guards, and the guards got so sadistic so fast that the experiment had to be terminated early.
The sad bit is I think the public (aided by GOP propaganda and the 'leading lights' of the Religious Right) will automatically associate any pronouncement of 'faith' with the negative agenda of Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk. There's also the basic presumption that these characters are 'fringe' simply because the agenda they espouse makes no rational sense and addresses none of the daily pocketbook concerns the average voter has to deal with.
ReplyDeleteWorse, there are no voices of national stature on the other side speaking to issues of social or societal justice in advocacy of the poor or disadvantaged. Consequently the blow-hard and wingnuts are the only voices heard through the media.
Can this be changed? Well, short of Robertson and Falwell finally self-destructing like Swaggert or Roberts did (hopefully as publicly as possible), and Bauer and Keyes getting caught in something as filthy as their public pronouncements...
Even this may not prove enough. The media hasn't given Christian-led violence quite the same coverage as Islamist-led sort, primarly I suspect out of an instinctive shyness or worry about being smeared as 'anti-Christian' simply for reporting the facts. Plus the heyday of clinic bombings and assassinations of OB-GYNs has (hopefully) passed, so those extremists haven't given the public much to see in recent years (beyond the occasional gay beating or murder, which sadly doesn't generate nearly as attention).
Is there an answer here? I don't know. I hope so.
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeleteMany formerly Democratic Catholic voters feel their former party has contempt for their pro-life position and the organizations they work through.
There is something positive in the SD legislation and the whole new furor over the issue of abortion. This is a genie the Republican Party (the Corporatists side) would have much preferred to keep in the bottle. Once its out, well Americans will begin talking about it and once they do, the so-called "pro-lifers" will be forced into a box of the Republican Party's making. The "pro-life" position is simply unsustainable and if that sounds contemptuous, I'm sorry.
That said, in truth, Democrats shot themselves in the foot on the issue of abortion the minute they started using the asinine phrase: Pro-Choice. How utterly stupid.
No one is "for" abortion, and that is the phrase Democrats must repeat over and over again ad nauseum. There are no little green monsters variously labeled: Liberals, Dems, NARAL or otherwise who promote the idea that women should make arrangements to get pregnant so that they abort their babies.
Nevertheless, what is equally stupid is the notion that abortion should be banned ala the SD model. From a purely legal perspective I invite the "pro-life" community to answer the following. If abortion is banned:
1. Is abortion then a crime?
2. If it is a crime, who will be punished for receiving/committing abortion?
3. What punishment will be meted out to those who engage in abortion?
4. If "life" begins at conception, can a fetus vote, inherit property, be entitled to welfare?
5. If "life" begins at conception, must contraceptives that do not prevent conception but do prevent pregnancy be outlawed; i.e. birth control pills?
6. If "life" begins at conception, does a fetus achieve the status of "citizen" despite the definition: "All persons born or naturalized as citizens of the United States are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
7. If "life" begins at conception, does the "life" of the fetus take precedence over the "life" its host?
The "pro-life" path is so fraught with legal anomalies as to be impossible. The model for this is Portugal. What a disaster.
What if the Democrats' insistence on being "above" this kind of cultural-religious brawling is really just a self-flattering disguise for... a deep-seated temperamental aversion to fighting itself?
ReplyDeleteAfter the last few years, I've come to believe it. In my view, Democratic politicians today tend, as a matter of temperament, to dislike fighting; and Republicans, of course, tend by nature to *love* fighting.
And in any conflict between people who love fighting and people who can't stand fighting, who's going to win?
If I'm right about this, then the only way to change Democratic political practices is to change the kind of person who tends to become a Democratic politician. New strategy alone is not nearly enough.
The only place for real Catholics is the Republican Party. And the media has clearly internalized this theme.
ReplyDeleteYou really mean "catapult the propaganda," don't you?
I respect your word choice, but think it is a real mistake to talk about these issues in a way that make it sound like "shit happens" or that one has to be a rocket scientist to contemplate what is happening.
The "catapult the propaganda" theme is from the chimperor himself -- don't know why so many are afraid to use it.
Christ was not the "first socially liberal voice" in the Bible
ReplyDeleteIsn't MARX in there too?
Of course I am sure they will find a way to rewrite it and put chimpy in there too someday...
Marx was a johhny-come-lately.
ReplyDeleteThe fourth century Bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, wrote:
You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.
You're focusing only on the Policital side of this issue - there's a very significant Religious side to this issue, too:
ReplyDeleteFundamentalism/Evangelicalism
The Catholic church, itself, has been veering to the extreme right over the last 20 years - it comes from the priests who enter the seminary just as much as it does the people who join the megachurches - people who are looking for simple black/white answers.
A lot of Catholics I know don't want to think for themselves or reason, whether you're talking about birth control, abortion, teh gay, divorce or euthenasia (yeah, there's trouble when you talk about the war and the death penalty, but that's not something that touches people in their everyday lives). The people I used to go to church with (yes, I'm an EX-Catholic) want the Church to do their thinking for them and tell them what to do.
A "Stern Daddy" approach ... remind you of any political parties you know?
So, it makes sense that the GOP is looking at the Church as ripe pickings - and have marketed themselves accordingly.
I think that this "teasing" is a good example of how internalized the idea has become that all serious Christians vote republican.
ReplyDeleteWolf Blitzer is interviewing both Novak and Begala, and is sure that Noval is a "good Catholic", but not so sure about Begala.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504090001
It is Gutter GOTV. But it works, get an issue to vote against and motivate them to the polls. It is negative from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteThat is why it is not good enough to "counter" argue. We need to get into the gutter too (unfortunately). Perhaps a version of; "the GOP grinds Catholic babies up and spikes their gin and tonics with their bones" (exaggeration for emphasis).
Let us not forget security/terrorism too! The same gutter GOTV tactics will be used here also. In fact, any gut check issue will be exploited by the GOP gutter operatives.
This 1984 speech by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin reflects the “Seamless Garment” theology emerging in the 80s as Catholics struggled with the exodus of voters going to the GOP due to the abortion issue. All the kinds of "liberal,"non-abortion Catholic doctrines Glenn identifies in his post were being parsed then, and people were grappling with how to reconcile and weight the issues.:
ReplyDeleteThis is the role our Bishops' Conference has sought to fulfill by publishing a "Statement on Political Responsibility" during each of the presidential and congressional election years in the past decade. The purpose is surely not to tell citizens how to vote, but to help shape the public debate and form personal conscience so that every citizen will vote thoughtfully and responsibly. Our "Statement on Political Responsibility" has always been, like our "Respect Life Program," a multi-issue approach to public morality. The fact that this Statement sets forth a spectrum of issues of current concern to the Church and society should not be understood as implying that all issues are qualitatively equal from a moral perspective.
Mo writes:Nevertheless, what is equally stupid is the notion that abortion should be banned ala the SD model. From a purely legal perspective I invite the "pro-life" community to answer the following.
ReplyDeleteMany of your questions are good ones -- tho not the one about fetuses having voting rights (toddlers don't vote, either, yet are legal persons). Among other things, first trimester abortion will soon be widely available via pharmaceutical means. As that becomes increasingly true, criminalizing it would be a nightmare on the order of the war on drugs.
I'm not defending the SD law or any particular abortion policy. Merely making observations about how droves of Catholics have approached the issue politically -- in tandem with the GOP -- for quite some time.
I happened to be sitting next to a pleasant woman on an airplane yesterday. She was brought up in what she described as a sheltered, small-town atmosphere, in Virginia. Her stepdaughter was friends with the least-known Bush brother in college, and she herself was evidently an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush Family, especially the parents.
ReplyDeleteWe started talking about New Orleans and she said, well, I might think this was racist, but she thought more blame should go to the people who didn't leave even though they'd been warned - and who then were so mad because they didn't have everything they needed immediately given to them. She added a (to me stunningly retrograde) explanation, about how you develop different attitudes growing up in the south - the black people are like part of the family, but when you give the maid a little something extra to help out, then you'll see her in the store buying a Gucci handbag...(really, she said that).
She watches Fox News, which her husband "believes" in. She thinks Fox may be conservative even though they say they are fair and balanced, so sometimes she watches ABC News, for "balance."
I liked her very much even though we have little common ground - she is in spite of all this clearly a kind person.
I told her I hoped it wouldn't bother her if I said I'm fed up with GW, he lies all the time. I gave her the Katrina/video/levee warning example. She hadn't heard about that. But she said that it was okay, many of her friends feel the same way. She seemed entertained and interested to meet someone liberal and friendly and full of odd notions, from a different part of the country.
She said in a conspiratorial tone that she is in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, or not. And her husband agrees with her.
Also she mentioned that she's Christian, but they don't go to church much - and she's really not so sure that she believes it all.
There were some other things she said which were just pure misinformation from watching too much Fox News. It's hard to know where to advise someone who's curious but not computer-savvy to go for another source of news - this is not a Daily Show type family! There really is no balance to Fox News - noplace you can go for honest news on television, as far as I know, although Keith Olbermann tries. But he's not for everyone, either.
In any case: Moral - don't try to stereotype people because they might not fit. And some old prejudices die very hard. And Fox News does brainwash people - it's quite sad really - nice people are going about with all kinds of fictional facts in their heads, on which they base their view of the world. But that even people who have a favorable view of Barbara Bush from meeting her years ago at a fund-raiser for her husband, are encountering doubts now about Junior in their friends, and indeed, in their own selves.
Glenn great post. I am a Catholic and a liberal. I have been a life long Democrat. But there is a perception among many Catholics that (even aside from abortion issues) the Democrats don't want them. And after reading progressive blogs for the last year or so, I can now see why they have that impression. I have never experienced such anti-Catholic vitriol as I have experienced from some progressives/democrats. I know that this is not representative of the whole party; but I can see where other Catholics would be deeply offended by it and would conversely be taken in by the "fake" friendship of the republicans. The anti-catholic prejudice of some progressives is something that needs to be faced up to and dealt with.
ReplyDeletep.s.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional Jewish view is that the soul enters the body many days after conception - about 40, more or less. Wouldn't it simplify matters if everyone believed that?
(I don't really believe it myself. I really don't know when the soul enters the body, if that is what happens, or when to describe life as starting. I do know that a 14 year old impregnated by her uncle should not be forced to continue her pregnancy against her will. How do I know? I just know. It is pretty nervy of the S.D. state legislators to say they know otherwise. What if it were their daughters?)
(I also don't know where we go when we die, if we don't just go back to dust and ashes. There's a lot I don't know. I find life very mysterious. People who think they have the answers to questions that are beyond the capacity of our minds to answer, well, good for them! It must be comforting to have all the answers.)
As this NRO article details, the Catholic move to the GOP, due to abortion, has been a problem for Democrats since the 70s (my emphasis):
ReplyDeleteDuring that first campaign Daschle also sought to co-opt social issues. In the 1970s, South Dakota and the nation were roiled by the politics of abortion. The same Caddell poll found abortion the "most potent 'single-issue' factor" in South Dakota politics. Senator McGovern, who was up for reelection in 1980 and was pro-choice, became entangled in some high-profile disputes with the Catholic church over his position. His aides wrote him memos telling him he must begin "mending fences with South Dakota Catholics." Right to Life organizations were becoming better organized in South Dakota and nationally in the mid-70s and local priests were becoming increasingly vocal on the life issue. At one point the Bishop of Sioux Falls, who was also critical of McGovern's position, had to intervene to lower the level of vitriol on both sides of the issue. McGovern pleaded with South Dakotans not to be "one-issue voters," but his abortion views seriously eroded his traditionally strong support among Catholics and he was defeated in 1980.
Daschle, who served as a staffer to South Dakota Senator James Abourezk during the 1970s, knew the abortion issue was becoming a costly burden to Democrats… To hold his Democratic base together enough to prevail in the election and avoid McGovern's impending fate, Daschle emphasized his Catholic credentials. Daschle sent a letter to voters saying "I am opposed to abortion. I do not support it. I have never supported it. It is an abhorrent practice. As a citizen and as a lifelong member of the Catholic faith I will do everything in my power to persuade others that abortion is wrong." To solidify his Catholic bona fides, Daschle enclosed a letter from eight Catholic nuns saying "We know and we tell those with whom we speak of your abhorrence for abortion — and of your commitment to life."
Really, "pro-choice" Catholic Democrats have been getting spanked by Bishops and priests, and have had trouble with a Catholic exodus out of the Democratic party, well before Karl Rove arrived on the scene and John Kerry faced his communion travails. If Rove is imprisoned tomorrow, this long-standing dynamic will continue.
I am not sure that this same religious "Rove" strategy will work anymore for the gop.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the blanket slew of problems with every issue in America being a negative for bush, which should reflect on the "rubber-stamp" gop congress, It looks as though more people than not in this country are looking for a change. Consider the new polls here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll
"Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February."
I think this is significant.
The problem as always is what can the Dems do with this with only 8 months left that they have not been able to do before?
bart wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe Evangelical Protestants have largely abandoned their history of anti-Catholicism and made common cause with practicing Catholics on a wide variety of commonly held social issues.
I suspect evangelical Protestants have largely muzzled public pronouncements of anti-Catholicism in order to bring ideologically-compatible Catholics under the GOP banner. You don't keep your allies very long if you constantly bad-mouth them.
When and if the Catholics in this coalition of convenience are ever perceived as having served their purpose, I have no doubt their evangelical partners will suddenly remember their anti-papist leanings, and then the long knives will come out. Should that day come, expect to see hard-line conservative Catholics collectively wearing the look of stunned amazement most commonly seen on Wile E. Coyote when he realizes he's just run out of cliff and is about to be reintroduced to Mr. Gravity.
Unlike anonymous above, I have found several progressive blogs to be the most forthrightly honest about the human rights abuses of the Catholic hierarchy, and the most willing to face extremely uncomfortable truths about conservative Catholic dogma with respect to women, who are largely treated as so much cattle by a predominantly homosexual priesthood. That so many Catholics choose to remain staunchly loyal to a hidebound cult of misogynists and sexual predators, who routinely team up with fundamentalist Islamic sects in world conferences for the rights of women and children, is chilling, and perhaps explains their easy susceptibility to being lured by the fanaticism of hate buried in the clever rhetorical devices employed by partisan apologists.
ReplyDeleteommzms said:
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree. Getting into the muck and mire of religious semiotics as political fodder should be left to the fanatics. Any dialectic that attempts to go beyond illustrating the hypocrisy of the right’s self-contradicting rhetoric, challenging the morality of its intrinsic vileness, i.e., the intolerant and even vicious nature of their attacks, and, as you suggest, forcing scrutiny of the tangential “life” issues such as the death penalty, poverty, and a perpetual war machine that is our economic, moral, ethical, and geopolitical raison d’être, is doomed to become rhetorical detritus that will be scooped up by the right-wingers and regurgitated as recombinant attack ads.
I suggest that people re-read this. The only way to engage this debate is by offering a morally superior position. How about: We value life. All life. We are against any condition which causes the destruction of life. We want to reduce the need for abortions. We want to eliminate the death penalty. We want to work for world peace. We want to limit our wars to necessary ones. We want to address the underlying causes of violence.
But the democratic party only has one speaker capable of delivering this. Obama, and he has been corraled.
I agree with Hypatia. The abortion issue is the most significant factor in understanding how Catholics align themselves politically.
ReplyDeleteThere is a "just war" theory in Catholic theology. There is no "just abortion-on-demand" theory.
Contrast this:
US Conference of Catholic Biships: Statement on War with Iraq
March 19, 2003: While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).
We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). We also affirm that "[p]ublic authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms" (#2311). We support those who have accepted the call to serve their country in a conscientious way in the armed services and we reiterate our long-standing support for those who pursue conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection.
with this:
Bishop cites "national impact" of denying politicians Communion
In January 2003 the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said Catholics in public life have a grave obligation to oppose legislation that contradicts fundamental moral principles such as the evil of abortion and euthanasia.
That fall the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops formed a task force to study how U.S. bishops should deal with such politicians.
The task force, headed by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, originally was not to report back to the bishops until mid-November of 2004, after the presidential election was over.
Controversy over the Kerry candidacy forced the issue, however. Partisans on one side berated bishops who would not deny Communion to Kerry or similar politicians as cowardly. Partisans on the other side accused bishops who would do so of crossing church-state lines or politicizing the Eucharist.
It became national news each weekend whether Kerry attended Mass and received Communion. Reporters across the country began pressing bishops for what they would do about giving Communion to Kerry or other Catholic politicians with similar positions.
The McCarrick task force gave an extensive interim report to the bishops in June and the bishops issued a statement warning politicians who act "consistently to support abortion on demand" that they risk "cooperating in evil and sinning against the common good."
There was no similar call to deny communion to politicians who supported the war.
Explosive article, Glenn. I have sent it on to two very close friends of mine, extremely devout Catholics one of whom is a former University Professor of Religion and the other of whom writes for a leading Catholic publication. I never discussed politics with them (as I have been apolitical until lately) but I would imagine that they would agree with every word you have written. I am anxious to see what they respond.
ReplyDeleteMy own opinion is that if religious discussion is now going to come to the forefront of the national debate in a new way, that discussion is going to have to include a discussion of Opus Dei. Most people know very little about Opus Dei other than what they read in The Da Vinci Code.
As there have been hints and rumors for some time (and I have no idea whether they are accurate or not) that close to a majority of the present members of the Supreme Court belong to Opus Dei, as well as Bork, as well as a quickly increasing number of lower court judges promoted by the Federalist Society, as well as many top and highly prominent Republicans, I think it would be more than worthwhile to start lifting the shroud of secrecy that has been draped over the real beliefs of that small but powerful group of Catholics.
I have done a little investigation myself into Opus Dei, an organization which is at least as secretive as Skull and Bones, and I have to say that nothing has ever surprised me more.
But you really have to dig deep, as you cannot just go to Amazon and expect to find anything knowledgable or revealing about the current role of Opus Dei in America.
Glenn,
ReplyDeletea few minutes to scan this post.. so not substantive comments, but..
1. KellyAnne C's ignorance is evident. She has no recognition for the "Principles" cited re Democrats etc. These pertinent to Catholic faith
2.In your remarks, I think, mention of "religious beliefs". It may be helpful to use this term in regard to non-Catholics. Point: religious connotes institutional.. not strictly christian, per the man, and this 'historical' figure along with coat-tails, so to say, is a much more democrat model then else..
3. Can't bring precise details to mind, but last year I'm fairly sure a significant Catholic swing away from the RNC occurred. Bigger than the 5 percent split difference you mentioned.. methinks this cause for vigorous rovian activity of late.. also as point to such a purpose the S/Dakota decision will have bearing.. sorry.. I should say utility for the RNC.. note also Tennessee noises on this..
keep up the good work..
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn great post. I am a Catholic and a liberal. I have been a life long Democrat. But there is a perception among many Catholics that (even aside from abortion issues) the Democrats don't want them. And after reading progressive blogs for the last year or so, I can now see why they have that impression. I have never experienced such anti-Catholic vitriol as I have experienced from some progressives/democrats. I know that this is not representative of the whole party; but I can see where other Catholics would be deeply offended by it and would conversely be taken in by the "fake" friendship of the republicans. The anti-catholic prejudice of some progressives is something that needs to be faced up to and dealt with.
My response:
Rove/Republicans excel at using conflation as an electioneering tool. The most obvious example of this in the current discourse is as follows: If you don't support Bush, you don't support the troops, if you don't support the troops, you don't support the war, if you don't support the war, you support the terrorist. This little trick pisses Democrats and those of us who as it turns out don't support Bush and didn't support this war but have a son serving with the Guard in Iraq a tad angry. Makes you want to take the opposing position to anything BushCo says they favor.
The issue of abortion has been conflated by the Republican Party for years and it goes like this: If you don't "respect" life, you are not "pro-life", if you are not "pro-life" you are not religious, if you are not religious, you are a liberal.
Both issues as conflated begin with false underlying assumptions. Again, no one is "for" abortion.
I have been amused recently listening to Republican pro-life politicians respond to questions of "OK, now that abortion is banned in South Dakota, what punishment should women receive who have abortions?"
ReplyDeleteTo a person, in everything I've thus far read, they change the topic and state that the doctors who perform abortions should be punished. They REFUSE to answer the question about criminal penalities for the women themselves.
And for good reason. If abortion is "murder", as they claim, and a woman has an abortion, then that would make her a "murderer", and she would have to be sent to jail for an extended period.
That's not a very attractive political position I would think, and is no doubt why the pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion act as if there is some outside force which should be criminalized, the doctors, the groups which pay for abortions, etc.
They view the abortion facilitators as a deus ex machina, solely responsible for each abortion, when in fact no abortion would take place without the consent of the woman.
I wish more people would focus on this. I cannot see any of these phony "Christians" arguing that each woman who has an abortion in a state where abortion is illegal should be sent to jail for 20 years. Maybe longer. After all, if a fetus is a life under the Constitution, as they claim, then the penalty for murdering a fetus should be the same as for murdering an adult.
Also:
One of the core platform positions of the Democratic party is a belief in a woman's right to her own reproductive choices
I don't even like to look at it that way. One of the core positions should be each individual has a right to his own life. Period.
Any party which does not subscribe to that central doctrine is an immoral party.
if a fetus is a life under the Constitution, as they claim, then the penalty for murdering a fetus should be the same as for murdering an adult.
ReplyDeletePunishing the woman would concede to her a certain efficacy and ability to act on her own, and the theocrats don't want to go there -- objectified, passive, dependent women is the goal -- so they have the legislation punish the MD.
well, they aren't suppose to masterbate either, right?
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure time: I am Catholic by birth and heritage, attended a Catholic grade school until my graduation from there in 1984. I am a child of Vatican II while my parents (who ultimately divorced) were both of pre-Vatican II vintage.
ReplyDeleteIn 1988 I cast my vote, doing so for the first time, for George Bush. My Catholicism had absolutely nothing to do with my decision, which was based as much in naivite as the Bush campaign's slick marketing.
I actually left the Church, philosophically and metaphorically, when I was 11. I found my parish's strict adverence to a doctrine I found neither persuasive or fulfilling something I wished to keep a distance from.
Over the years, my politics have evolved based upon my own experiences and investigations; I give no greater or lesser weight to the Vatican's stance on a given issue than I do any other interest group or organization.
Indeed, I find much of its stances hypocritical in the extreme, and the installation of the new pontiff crystalizing the Church's isolation (moral and emotional) from the world at large.
Can 'good Catholics' vote Republican? Define a 'good Catholic' first: someone who subsumes their mind and will to a remote institutional body responsible for more than its share of moral and ethical lapses to its congregation, holding contradictory positions and insisting it has some divinely annointed moral authority? Sounds a great deal like the stereotypical Republican.
Sadly, that's all it is: a stereotype, but a pervasive one. The fact one can find ample evidence to support it is simply a sour icing on the cake.
For myself, I do not speak for the Church. The Church does not speak for me.
Be nice if that could be said for the rest of Catholic congregation; unfortunately, its just as big a mob of individuals and individual motives as the rest of the American electorate (the resident contrarian positions notwithstanding).
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteFinally, someone with a public platform has addressed this issue. As a practicing Catholic and former seminarian, here is my view of the problem. There are Catholics, and then there are catholics. It's the latter group of "small c" catholics that vote Republican. They either don't know of or ignore the principle teachings of Christ: peace, charity, and care for the poor and disadvantaged. HE said absolutely nothing about abortion or homosexuality! Republican policies, as revealed by actions rather than rhetoric, are totally contrary to Christ's teachings. Did Christ favor the rich over the poor? War over peace? Lies over the truth? Arrogance over humility? So just how can one be a Christian - a true follower of Christ, let alone a Catholic, by supporting the "anti-Christ" policies of the Republican agenda?
LJM
What a long, strange trip it’s been.
ReplyDeleteIn 1960, JFK felt compelled to confront those who were worried that his Catholicism would dictate the he would act as president. He assured them that he could keep his Catholicism separate from government, “"I believe in an America … where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials…”
That view of religion in public life did not drive Catholics from the Democratic Party at that time, but that very same sentiment does today -- because the new “Karl Rove” Catholics are insisting that their religious Catholic views must be imposed directly upon the public. What JFK denounced, Rove Republicans embrace.
The Democratic Party is not forcing any Catholic to have an abortion. The Republican Party, however, wants to force that particular religious view held by Catholics upon the public. That’s a very big difference.
This isn’t about whether Catholics are welcome in the Democratic Party. They are. Anyone expressing JFK’s view of Catholicism and government would be warmly welcomed.
The real question: is there a place in the Democratic Party for someone who believes that Government should force specific religious viewpoints and teachings on the public?
In the bizzaro world we live, created and dictated by a moral leper like Karl Rove this will be the next big issue.
A little “gay-bashing” anyone? It’s now required for Republicans, or at least, Rove Republicans, who exploit hatred in the name of religion and “moral values” How perverse.
My goodness, another divisive tactic. And Catholics no less. There's a chestnut. Guess they haven't heard American Catholics don't give a hoot what the Pope or the hierarchy think or decree. And they certainly don't look to Rome for voting advice.
ReplyDeleteIt's the right wing pseudo christians who've been trying to shove their beliefs down America's throat. Beliefs so glaringly contrary to Christ's teachings the mind reels! Ah, Oppositeland!
All the Democrats have to do is keep standing up for separation of church and state. Let's unite around that instead of playing their divisive games. Religion and faith are private (like my phone calls & emails!). Democrats respect all religions. Keep it out of our government.
Let's flip this oppositeland around. You remember, when a lie wasn't truth.
Take care, Jan
ej writes: The abortion issue is the most significant factor in understanding how Catholics align themselves politically.
ReplyDeleteSo true. This is from the NRLC site again (my emphasis):
The impact of pro-life citizens soon became evident in congressional races. As early as 1974, abortion was a prominent issue in the re-election race of Sen. Bob Dole (R-Ks.). By 1978, the pro-life vote had a widely noted impact on the outcome of several U.S. Senate races, including the defeat of pro-abortion Senator Dick Clark (D-Iowa). Editorial writers lamented the influence of so-called "single-issue voters," but to no avail - -in the 1980 election, pro-abortion Senate candidates went down to defeat in numerous races, and the pro-life side picked up about 10 votes in the Senate, as the Republicans took majority control of that body. Pro-life strength also increased in the House.
I will never, ever forget the 1980 election. Reagan won, and there was a tidal wave of pro-life entry into the U.S. Senate; this was caused primarily by Catholics. The next morning, I saw NOW President Eleanor Smeal being interviewed, pale, and looking as if she had just been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
Since Roe, abortion has been massively distorting national politics. That issue changed the Catholic vote, starting in the 70s. It seems to me today’s Dems can either decide to devise strategies to win that do not depend on resecuring or neutralizing this vote, or they make some sort of accommodation on the issue. But one thing is damn certain, and that is that the problem preceded Rove and will persist long after him, if it is not somehow dealt with.
Hypatia, I don't think I'm making your point at all. I think there's a subtle difference between "biased" and "biased *and* lying" (which really translates to "biased *and* lying *and* lying to mess with their opponents' heads") Everyone's biased in some way or another, but it doesn't mean that they're lying.
ReplyDeleteBob Casey Sr. and NRLC, however, are biased and lying, because they're preaching the gospel of "Democrats hate pro-life Democrats, look at me." Do people believe them? Yes. Is that important? Yes. Does that mean we have to believe them, too? I think that might be something we agree on; I think the answer is "Fuck, no," and I think most Democrats should agree. The thing is, Casey/NRLC are doing this as a direct political attack on the Democratic party, and pro-choice politicians. If Democrats suspect people like that of not being supportive of Democrats, can you really blame them?
Successful political parties do not let their members play footsie with their enemies to screw their fellow members. Of course, there's some difference of opinion on this; that's why some people think the Democrats can't afford to lose Joe Lieberman, and some people think the Democrats can't afford to keep him.
And on a totally unrelated note, are there any right-wing sources you *won't* quote for anti-Democratic spin and stories? I'm sure you can find all kinds of articles among the right about how "pro-choice Democrats are mean to pro-life Democrats" because that is their *POINT*. They are *trying* to find fissures to exploit, and people to encourage to exploit them. Sometimes it's whispering in the ears of pro-life Democrats "Your party doesn't really like you" and if they do it enough, without a counter-message, it tends to work. I'll admit we could use more of a counter-message, but if we can't even face the political realities (Republicans are sowing seeds of discord on choice and then trying to reap electoral victories through lies that too many people naively believe), then I don't think we're going to reach any kind of effective agreement that helps us with this, and I think there's a difference between seeing what Republicans/pro-life Dems say, and taking it all at face value. I hope you agree about *that*.
Many Catholic bishops preaced sermons supporting Bush the Sunday before the election. I'm sure they were paid off with "faith-based initiative" funds. I pity any Catholics who follow the corrupt bishops in this country. I quit the Catholic church after the election in 2004.
ReplyDeleteAh... Interesting point on making a case for voting for DEMs over GOPs on the religious-Catholic issue. But you haven't answered my query yet either - on the Independent/Libertarian topic.
ReplyDeleteThough, I sent the same question to my *other* FAV (and true) Libertarian and Constitutional Scholar and Blogger(Jon Rowe) and he says "NO" to Libertarians voting for DEMs - but hasn't expounded on the *WHY* rationale just yet. He's due to post that answer later.
I'll be most interested in his answer (and YOURs when ya get round to it!!)
Because you suggest we now must convince Catholics to vote for DEMs (as well as Independents and Libertarians) - but for different reasons. Quite a tall order - but not Impossible!
brambling said:
ReplyDelete"...There's a lot I don't know. I find life very mysterious. People who think they have the answers to questions that are beyond the capacity of our minds to answer, well, good for them! It must be comforting to have all the answers..."
This is an important comment, and I share its sentiment. I think it begins to give the Democratic Party its response, as well. It's humble and honest, and is a strong argument for reinforcing the separation of Church (the unknowable) and State (the human, knowable activities for which the Party advocates).
It also calls out the "Holier Than Thou" attitudes underlying so much of the false faith prophets who profit mightily from chastising others for their allegedly unChristian behavior.
There is a very strong authoritarian impulse driving many of those most committed to an organized religion. Their religion "justifies" their superiority complexes, in a very ugly way. I think that needs to be understood.
And those (mostly men) who abuse, and seek to control, their wives, can find the Bible to be a valuable weapon in their hands. Quotes galore to use to twist and manipulate and distort the true meaning of their religion so as to dominate their spouses with the threat of Hell and Damnation for lack of obedience. Most of these men are also fiercely RACIST. The same sort of vicious and uncharitable character traits underlie their harsh, condemning judgements of 'less worthy' fellow Americans: the "welfare queens" and Gucci-buying maids, etc.
And then there's the one I've heard more than a time or two [from Catholics with PhDs, no less, who consider themselves pious, and who financially support "Citizens for Life"] about Africa, or even Katrina victims, to some extent, probably: It's just what they'd expect from those 'helpless' "black savages" [so they slanderously assert from their minority-free (and television-free) zones]. [I apologize for the venom of that phrase - its sentiment, I'm pretty sure we all realize, is still all too common in the core of too many people in this country. And it seems to stem primarily from personal insecurities and upbringing, and not from any firsthand knowledge of Africans or African-Americans.]
This is the ugly reality of America. At least the PhDs can be reached on some other levels. Obviously, racist habits of a lifetime are not going to be erased in one election cycle. But at least the Democrats can make every effort to take the easy racist-reinforcing and wife-controlling-reinforcing faith themes out of the Republican Party playbook, and then refocus the discussion to emphasize the positives we have to work with.
If the Democrats confront this head on, as Glenn recommends, by simply speaking of the Golden Rule, or of 'walking a mile in another man's shoes' - what happens? Probably the first thing that these controlling people, who like to think of themselves as decent, will realize is that this message is the same one they hear in church from their priests... I think they will feel shame, and contrition (if they are capable of it). And at the very least, start thinking outside the box of their rigid pre-determined judgements a little more.
The ones who won't hear because they don't want to hear, are unreachable anyway. Just try to envision "rationalizing" with a wife beater who has things set up just the way he wants them: catering to his every whim. He has zero incentive to change his ways. He's part of the 20-30% of the country who will be left behind with their hate.
P.S. Glenn's point that the Democrats better not be expecting to coast in to victory in November is spot on. And the answer is not to continue the "avoidance" behavior the Democrats have maintained to the detriment of the country to-date. [Their 'go along to get along' behavior of voting with the Republicans against every alleged principle of the Democratic Party, solely to avoid facing future negative television advertising about their votes.] The answer is (as Glenn says and helps to define here) to CONFRONT these issues and methods, directly, and to destroy them as useful negative campaign tactics. And, in my opinion, if the Democrats won't and don't engage in this battle with the Republicans this year, they will permanently remove the Democratic Party from any future relevancy on the national scene.
Chris: You seem to be unable to see those who disagree with you in any but demonized terms. Let me state a bit about myself. I was raised in a very conservative Catholic household, and my mother was a founding member of the NRLC affiliate in a midwestern state. Her sister was another in the state next door; my aunt, and her mother, stopped their life-time habit of voting Democrat in the 70s, for reasons of the abortion issue.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I left the Church many years ago and have been a non-theist and essentially a philosophical materialist for decades, I did spend some time in the late 70s and early 80s working with the NRLC and one of its state affiliates. I know the pro-life movement quite well, and have met and socialized with some of their legal counsel and “big wigs,” courtesy of my mother.
These people genuinely believe Bob Casey, and are not repeating “lies” on that subject. They feel utterly alienated from the Democratic Party. Whether your version of events re: Casey is true or not, they sincerely believe otherwise.
The Catholics in the pro-life movement are not, in the main, like the fundamentalists that came into it after them. The Catholics tend to be more realistic, more liberal, and less interested in, say, ranting about homosexuals. Fiscally, many are in the New Deal tradition, and would not be in the GOP, save for the abortion issue.
Now, maybe the Democratic Party neither needs nor wants this cohort of Catholics. Fine. But let’s not pretend they are all theocratic imbeciles who do not adhere to beliefs genuinely held, or that they would not exist but for Karl Rove.
The Baptist churches all over the south were preaching Bush Bush Bush.
ReplyDeleteWWJD was their "secret" byword. On election day, people were whispering 'WWJD' over the salad bar, in the elevator, on the gym floor. The Baptists had gotten the message from their preachers: Jesus was a Republican, and Bush was his right hand man.
Rove casts the fool alternately as King, Pope, Christ, and Ghengis Khan, depending on the need of the moment. This man pees in a bowl just like you, and he is killing people of ALL religions as he sees the political expediency of doing so. He is as evil a cretan as was ever given birth by woman, and to equate him with something holy is a travesty, an abomination, heresy.
Oh My! This is big. I haven't even read the story yet, but just caught this new headline on Huffington Post:
ReplyDelete"Sandra Day O'Connor Warns Of “Beginnings” Of Dictatorship..."
What could be bigger than if this woman who was so praised by both the Democrats and Republicans becomes an ally?
Can you IMAGINE the press coverage she could get?
Maybe it's starting?
How about a REAL woman for President?
Hillary VS. Condi VS. O'Conner?????
Talk about a centrist candidate who has name recognition and is widely respected!!!
I hope this is the break we have been waiting for. It always comes sooner or later, but some times it's too late to matter. I hope not now!
Glenn's post immediately made me think of just how pathetic and ineffective Democratic attempts to ward off this sort of attack have been -- and apparently still are.
ReplyDeleteMany Democrats still seem to think that some form of "identity" politicking will innoculate them from Republican attacks. Nowhere was this clearer than during the 2004 election. Does Bush hold an advantage on national security? Then we'll nominate a decorated war veteran, as if that alone would neutralize Bush's hawkish credentials. Kerry's Catholicism was also supposed to be a big part of his appeal to swing voters.
So what happened? Instead of protecting Kerry, his identity as a veteran and a Catholic became the focal point of the GOP attack, which successfully managed to portray him as a bad veteran (ie, one who possibly lied to get his medals and who stabbed his fellow veterans in the back with his antiwar activities) and as a bad Catholic (who didn't deserve Communion and whose pro-choice votes -- if not his personal beliefs -- were out-of-step with the abortion-centric view of Catholic doctrine).
This is the core tactic of Republican electoral politics, especially as honed by Rove -- turn your opponent's greatest strength against him or her. Kerry is far from the only example; McCain faced this in the 2000 South Carolina primary, and Al Gore, who is probably more of a Boy Scout than just about anyone else in national US politics, caught both barrels on the largely phony "honesty" charge.
So in a way, Kellyanne Conway is right to mock the 55 Democrats who want credit for touting their Catholic credentials, although not for the reasons she states. Affirmations of this sort are not only largely useless, they actually hang a bullseye around an exposed target for the slime machine. I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't be proud of being Catholic or that they shouldn't find ways of working it into their campaigns, but absent a sustained effort to change the terms of engagement -- to deny the Republicans battle on the field of their choice -- they're going to continue finding themselves the butt of the joke more often than not.
Hypatia said:
ReplyDelete"Whether your version of events re: Casey is true or not, they sincerely believe otherwise."
I'm an atheist. I can't see at all how this attribution of validity based simply on the depth of one's belief is any different in any way than the validity of beliefs held by the racists that supported American aparthied. And the Republicans had no trouble pandering to those admirably pious believers with the Southern strategy.
I'm also the father of a daughter, and it is detestable to me that a gang of superstitious theocrats think they know better what my daughter should do with her body than she does. It's incredibly arrogant, another example of the less they know, the less they know it. This same crew is, with some success, limiting modern medicine's ability to keep my daughter healthy, all because *they* think they have a right to thrust their so-called morality on *us*. This isn't the culture of life. It is another example of fascism.
Why a libertarian would yoke themselves to the fascist "pro-life" movement is yet another of life's mysteries.
I sound like a broken records on this issue but...when Bob Casey says he is "pro-life" what does that mean? Does it mean he is not "for" abortion OR does it mean he would "criminalize" abortion?
ReplyDeleteAnd what of the Catholic Church's strong stand against cutting off funds and other services for illegal immigrants?
ReplyDeleteMorlock: Libertarians are as divided as the rest of the nation on the issue of abortion. While a majority is pro-choice, a significant minority is not. After all, if one believes that the entity in a pregnant woman's womb is a human being vested with a right to live, then the right to control one's body ceases to be the only value at issue. Two competing libertarain values are now at war with each other.
ReplyDeleteAnd I really recoil from notions that to hold a pro-life position is to be fascist. I certainly don't think of atheist, fanatical civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff as Nazis.
I think there's an important distinction that's been overlooked in the Bob Casey discussion, and that is that the people that he pointed to as having failed to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992 did not (and presumably to the satisfaction of Clinton's handlers, would not) explicitly criticize the President's policies. From a politician's standpoint, there is a value to speaking at a National Convention that could conceivably transcend their commitment to a certain cherry-picked issue on which they disagree with the nominee. The other speakers probably made it clear that they were in it for the publicity and attention, whereas Casey (perhaps somewhat admirably) refused to sink to that level.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's easy to say that Casey's pro-life credentials were the sole determining factor in the decision to prevent him from speaking at the DNC, it's equally reasonable to assume, given Casey's open hostility to Clinton-Gore, that Clinton's people felt strongly that Casey's speech would in no uncertain terms be a condemnation of the ticket.
I don't understand why this scenario is so hard for people to accept unless they have previously internalized the "Democrats kill babies" propaganda the Republicans have foisted on the public for decades.
It would be an unmitigated disaster to risk allowing people to take potshots at a Presidential ticket at a national convention, and it would be supremely idiotic from a political standpoint. That Casey was pro-life is simply the "red meat" explanation for his exclusion, not the most comprehensive one.
I certainly don't think of atheist, fanatical civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff as Nazis.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, and the Democratic Party should have followed the advise of Nat Hentoff and embraced the cause of Terri Schaivo.
Yeah, right.
Sorry, Hypatia, but your advise to the Democratic Party on this issue is simply not credible. Many of us agree with you on some issues, but we aren’t willing to follow you (or Nat Hentoff) over a cliff on this one.
(Also, I believe the term used was “fascist” not Nazi. Godwin’s law and all of that.)
Hypathia, yours is the precise argument my "pro-life" sister-in-law makes.
ReplyDeleteif one believes that the entity in a pregnant woman's womb is a human being vested with a right to live, then the right to control one's body ceases to be the only value at issue.
Why is an unborn entity vested with the right to live?
zack writes: Oh, yes, and the Democratic Party should have followed the advise of Nat Hentoff and embraced the cause of Terri Schaivo.
ReplyDeleteYeah, right.
Sorry, Hypatia, but your advise to the Democratic Party on this issue is simply not credible. Many of us agree with you on some issues, but we aren’t willing to follow you (or Nat Hentoff) over a cliff on this one.
First, I never said I agree with Hentoff, and I most certainly did not on the Schiavo matter. But he is not a fascist. Neither is the only full-blown libertarian in Congress, pro-lifer Ron Paul.
Second, my "advice" in this thread is merely that the issue of Catholics vis-a-vis abortion be properly understood. As I've repeatedly said, the Democrats may calculate that they do not need the Catholics who stormed out of their party over the abortion issue, and they should be left to the GOP. But if that is not the Dem's calculation, then they need to understand that the Catholic defections are not some recent, Rovian plot, and that Democrats have been struggling to end the bleeding there for literally decades. Revisiting and learning of prior strategies that have not worked might be in order, rather than operating as if this is something wholly new on the political landscape that no Dem strategists has ever wrangled with before.
Did anyone catch CJ Roberts' very charming speech at the Reagan Library a day or two ago?
ReplyDeleteHe was standing next to Nancy Reagan (and we know what she thinks of BushCo---yes, we DO know) and said he was breaking his own rule of not speaking at events to make an exception for Nancy.
He said that Ronald Reagan had once told him that the role of a judge required the "lonely courage of a patriot."
Here's my hunch. I am not sure of this, but I have had this intuition ever since his hearings. I think that he is going to "break ranks" and show a hidden side of him that most are not aware of yet, especially the conservatives.
I think he chose to include that anecdote carefully, with its focus on the word "patriot."
My gut feeling is that he is a true patriot, in the highest sense of the word.
Alito is a monster, in my view, a ruthless, heartless, diabolic authoritarian who would have fit in well in a certain other time in a certain another country.
But unless it is just wishful thinking on my part, now that Roberts is on the Court, where he always wanted to be, I think he is going to show he is a patriot.
He's brilliant enough to see the issues, and it's impossible for me to believe, now that he has nothing to lose, that he will not rise to the occasion at this critical time and display "the lonely courage of a patriot."
Mo says: Hypathia, yours is the precise argument my "pro-life" sister-in-law makes.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't "my" argument. But it is one that I do not find to be self-evidently absurd or mistaken. I think the issue is a deeply difficult one, but do not ultimately think that early abortions should be criminalized.
The entity in a pregnant woman's uterus is human, alive, and is a discrete, self-contained biological unit (as opposed to being the constituent part of someone else). Why should it be manifestly wrong to believe that these properties vest in the fetus a right to live?
Breaking: Sandra Day O'Connor rips into GOP, DeLay, Cornyn, and warns of the "beginnings" of dictatorship
ReplyDeleteNPR's Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story this morning about a talk that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High Court wouldn't allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that's a shame, because -- based on Totenberg's report -- every American needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a moderate and an American icon -- Bush v. Gore notwithstanding -- all but named names in thinly veiled attacks on former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and ended with a stunning warning.
We transcribed some of the report, which you can listen to here. (UPDATE: Here's a full transcript from Raw Story.)
O'Connor told her Georgetown audience that judges can make presidents, Congress and governors "really really mad," and that if judges don't make people angry, they aren't doing their job. But she said judicial effectiveness is "premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts." While hailing the American system of rights and privileges, she noted that these don't protect the judiciary, that "people do":
Then, she took aim at former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. She didn’t name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year, when DeLay took out after the courts for its rulings on abortion, prayer, and the Terry Schiavo case. This, said O’Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress' one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written, not, said O'Connor, as the Congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O'Conner, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts.
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn’t help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn’t name him, but it was Texas Sen. John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in court and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.
Now, the kicker:
O’Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms -- recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges stripping the courts of jurisdictions and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as long as they are not retaliation for decision that political leaders disagree with
I, said O’ Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
If Georgetown or anyone else has an audiotape or videotape of the retired justice's words, we would strongly urge them to release it (with her permission). If the NPR report accurately reflects what she said, this rises to the level of President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the "military-industrial complex" -- and should be heard by all.
Second, my "advice" in this thread is merely that the issue of Catholics vis-a-vis abortion be properly understood.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Catholic defections are not some recent Rovian plot, but no one has attempted to divide the public as Rove has, and I don’t remember anyone in previous campaigns saying that you can’t be a good Christian or a good Catholic unless you vote Republican.
Yes, they appealed to “pro-life” sentiment, but they didn’t ever challenge their religious views as illegitimate as Rove has done.
Also, I believe Rove is the first to try to get Catholic leaders to withhold communion to those of certain political views. That is pure Rove, and those despicable tactics have not been done for decades.
Your advise to the Democratic Party is to “accommodate” pro-life single-issue Catholics. Well, how?
If the Democratic Party doesn’t insist that abortion be criminalized, they will not be accommodated. Case closed. End of discussion. Period.
What do you suggest the Democrats do to win over these people?
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMany catholics align themselves with the Christian Right.
It was not very long ago thatx those same religions thought that catholics were the "devil".
If the christian right does end up in control and is able to push it's agenda of prayer in the school and in the government, what then?
The differences between catholic and christian right religious beliefs are very diffrent. Which will prevail? Will there be a "choice" then?
One of the first major cases, Pierce v. Society of The Sisters, on religious freedom came from Catholic plaintiffs, who were prevented from running their own schools by laws passed in perhaps large part due to anti-Catholic prejudice in Oregon (as elsewhere). The power to establish religion is also the power to establish one religion over another. And any Catholics that know their history should know that, and be very leery of attempts by the Christian fundie RW to set up gummint support of religion; the pendulum may well swing back, and the Catholics may find themselves discarded and out in the cold once again, after the fundies have managed to hijack the country for their own theocracy.
Cheers,
New headline at HuffingtonPost (they do very good work in my opinion with their lead stories, if not the comments)
ReplyDeleteBush Admin. “Cooking The Numbers” To Award $2.1B A Year To Faith-Based Groups...
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteWell, the Democrats do help Rove and the GOP in alienating pro-life, Catholic voters. This articel is from the National Right to Life Committee, and the lead sentence is:...
Yeah, and the NRLC is going to tell the truth about the Democrats. Hypatia, I've got this beautiful orange-coloured bridge about 40 miles up the bay here, and it's for sale....
And the matter of Gov. Bob Casey not being allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention is widely known, even legendary, in Catholic and pro-life circles:...
Except it's a malicious lie by the RW. Please do check it out; not everything you hear from the NRLC and the RW Mighty Wurlitzer is in fact true.
Say, what's a good ol' libertarian like you doing listening to the NRLC anyway, Hypatia? You know, outside of abortion, these are the same scurvy crew that would like to tell you how else to run your life right down to the minutest detail....
Cheers,
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteOh my God, this is big...
Gimme a break - respectfully disagree. If she thought this "was so big," she would not have stepped down and let the chimperor continue to pack the court, not that she was actually standing up for anything either...
After all, she "swung" the vote to chimpy in 2000, proclaiming you cannot determine who wins an election by actually counting the vote.
Yeah, right; chimpy was going to be "irreparably" harmed. He just would have lost, that’s all.
Yup, time to stop is dictatorship is “earlier” instead of “later,” and she failed the American public when she had that chance. I don’t give her any credit for making this proclaimation after chimpy has approval ratings in the mid-30’s. These are the same polls that told us he would win in 2000 and 2004 by a landslide, so we know they are overstating the chimperor’s base.
O’Connor for president? Don’t be a fool – she is jumping on the bandwagon 6 years too late and only after it is safe to do so.
.
Hypatia, what I dislike and object to is the idea that I (and other pro-choice Democrats) should *not* try to identify what people's real agendas and goals are, and the impact those things have on party policy and politics. That's what bothers me about your arguments and descriptions. When people repeat or promote facts and ideas that are counterproductive, I think they should be identified as such, and discouraged from doing so. That's what I think "Casey Democrats" do; that's what I'm suspicious is the *effect* of your arguments; it sounds like it's not your intent, so that mollifies me somewhat.
ReplyDelete(also, about demonizing: I don't think it's demonizing opponents to try to explain what they're really up to. I think Democrats have been too hasty to give political opponents the benefit of the doubt - while they're demonizing us, goddamnit - and we can't even sort out what we want, what we believe, and who we are. Also, I don't want to give up the "demonizing" card in case it's called for; I think one of the things Democrats need to do is make it clearer that there are some things we will not stand for, either as matters of policy or politics, and if we won't demonize people who oppose and undermine us, then we aren't showing people that we care the same way. Yes, that's sort of twisted, but they started it ;-)
>These people genuinely believe Bob Casey, and are not repeating “lies” on that subject.
I can't prevent people from believing Bob Casey. But that does not make his statements true. They are politically expedient lies, told for pro-life and anti-Democratic purposes, and they are a toxic influence in our party. Realize that. (Have you tried to present evidence that contradicts these beliefs to your family/friends? I'd be curious to see how that goes.)
People may believe such things, but when they repeat them, they should be contradicted because they are not true. Moynihan said it best: People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are NOT entitled to their own facts.
>They feel utterly alienated from the Democratic Party. Whether your version of events re: Casey is true or not, they sincerely believe otherwise.
Yeah, and they've had no help stoking that alienation (/sarcasm). They sincerely believe something that's wrong, and should be discouraged from doing so. I'm not averse to making policy in reaction to what people *think*, but I am disgusted at the idea of sacrificing my beliefs on the altar of their lies. Why are their beliefs more important than mine? Why are their beliefs more important than the facts? Part of why this issue/subject/topic/etc. incenses me is that it feels like the subtle political manipulation that has led religious people to believe that anything that contradicts their faith cannot be promoted by a government that represents them, and that it's *our* duty to react to them and tiptoe around their feelings, because they don't have to live with the same facts we do. Basically, I'm jealous that they don't have to live in the reality-based community with us ;-)
>Now, maybe the Democratic Party neither needs nor wants this cohort of Catholics. Fine. But let’s not pretend they are all theocratic imbeciles who do not adhere to beliefs genuinely held, or that they would not exist but for Karl Rove.
I think the Democratic party should try to figure out if this cohort of Catholics is amenable to reason: by which I mean, understanding that the existence of pro-choice Democrats is not the grievous offense they've been told it is, that the manufactured offense about Casey (and whatever other examples they come up with) is religious manipulation for political gain, and that conservatives are more interested in banning abortion than reducing it, even if it means more abortion.
If they can accept those terms and avoid the temptation to screw us from within the party (like Bob Casey), then they're welcome. Otherwise, I don't think we're missing much.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteBob Casey knows why he was not permitted to speak.
Bob Casey thinks he knows why he wasn't asked to speak.
See here:
Paul Weyrich seems to have a problem telling the truth about Democrats.
ConWebWatch has previously noted Weyrich's lies about John Kerry. Now, he's perpetuating a Republican urban myth: that Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he was "pro-life."
He mentioned this in a March 15 commentary (reprinted at Accuracy in Media, NewsMax and CNSNews.com) and also in a May 3 commentary (which appeared at CNSNews.com).
The truth is that Casey was denied a speaking slot at the convention because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket [do check out this lin too], not for his anti-abortion views. Other anti-abortion speakers graced the 1992 stage, not to mention other Democratic conventions.
Unfortunately, since Weyrich is shilling for Sen. Rick Santorum in his expected 2006 re-election battle for his Pennsylvania Senate seat against Casey's son, Bob Casey Jr. -- he wrote on March 15 that Santorum "will need to hold Casey accountable for the far left ideas of Casey's party" -- expect the myth-making to continue.
Yes, indeed, we can rest 100% assured that the myth-making will continue (the Republicans seem to be under the impression that there's only nine or so commandments). Why, just today, some RW flack wrote to the S.F. Chron about Iraq and said essentially that one of the biggest lessons to be learned was that when we go into Iran we're not going to give them six months to ship all their WoMD to Syria ... or Upper Futtbuckistan ... or somewhere in the fevered imagination for those who believe that whatever Dubya does is pre se good even if it isn't....
Cheers,
Kerry may have lost some of the Catholic vote, but he didn't lose the election because of that. He lost the election because of computer fraud (hacked electronic voting machines and vote tabulating machines). Unless/until efforts are successful to outlaw these hackable machines, we are looking at continued Republican rule.
ReplyDeleteanonymous said:
ReplyDeleteAnd WTF is with that cannibalistic ritual anyways? Eat the body of Christ each week?
Did you hear that someone's coming out with a new low-cal communion wafer? The brand name? "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".... <*BA-DA-BING*>
There was a flap a while back that someone was selling "consecrated host" on E-Bay a while back; seems that it doesn't change from a wafer into the flesh of Jesus until it's "consecrated" in a ritual ceremony, but after that there's real strict rules about how you handle the holy material, and some folks thought that selling bits and pieces of Jesus on the web was totally crass.... To bad they delisted it; I was waiting for someone to buy it, isolate a few stem cells, and clone, clone, clone....
Enough blasphemy; I'm going back under my rock. ;-)
Cheers,
Christ writes:
ReplyDeleteI can't prevent people from believing Bob Casey. But that does not make his statements true. They are politically expedient lies, told for pro-life and anti-Democratic purposes, and they are a toxic influence in our party. Realize that.
I simply do not believe that. Having spent a good chunk of my adult life either in the pro-life movment, or listening to family members who continued to be, I know, for a total fact, that well before the '92 Dem convention "everybody" in RTL was talking about the shit Bob Casey took from his party over his abortion position. Really, I don't think you are in any position to know it is false to say that Casey was blacklisted for his pro-life views at the convention (perhaps also for other reasons), or whether he really believes that he was even if he is mistaken.
If you don't like a GOP that depicts all Dems as the party of "killing babies," well, you might wish to reconsider your ill-informed, stereotypical thinking about pro-lifers and Bob Casey. Casey is a *Democrat,* and has no motive to destroy his own party by telling lies that just happen to implicate a position he takes that most in his party find unacceptable. I believe Casey, because I know that in the 80s and 90s the Democratic Party applied very strong pressure to pro-life dissidents, many of whom caved. Casey would not, and it was well known -- before the '92 convention -- that many in his party were extremely unhappy with him as a result.
Now, maybe a Dem Party that is nearly monolithic on the abortion issue is a good thing, and maybe it doesn't need to and should not concern itself with defecting Catholics. But that is a separate issue from whether dissenting Democrats have actually been treated like bastard children and pressured to abandon their "wrong" position, and whether Catholic pro-lifers are not justified in believing the Dem Party is hostile to them.
Brambling:
ReplyDeletep.s.
The traditional Jewish view is that the soul enters the body many days after conception - about 40, more or less. Wouldn't it simplify matters if everyone believed that?
The traditional Catholic view was similar; that "ensoulment" didn't happen until "quickening" (that is to say, when foetal movement could be detected -- which FWIW was a bit later a couple centuries ago). The prohibition of abortion is actually a pretty recent thing historically.
Cheers,
Arne L, here is Nat Hentoff on Bob Casey, on the occasion of his death:
ReplyDeleteBut, by the early '90s, the Democrats, seeking the votes of upper-middle-class Republican women, were de-emphasizing economic protection and stressing cultural libertarianism. And, just to make sure everyone got the message, Democratic strategists invited Kathy Taylor, a pro-choice Pennsylvania Republican who had helped defeat Casey's progressive tax reforms, to the New York convention. She appeared onstage pledging the National Abortion Rights Action League's allegiance to the Clinton-Gore team. Then DNC officials sent Taylor, with a camera crew in tow, to find Casey in "Outer Mongolia," as he put it, to further humiliate him. Tipped off, he declined the national exposure. Shortly before Casey left the convention, Al Gore called him to apologize for any embarrassment. The governor told me dryly that he doubted Gore was speaking from the heart.
Do read the whole thing.
Why should it be manifestly wrong to believe that these properties vest in the fetus a right to live?
ReplyDeleteNothing at all, as long as you also recognize that the right to make the determination as to the rights of an unborn child vest exclusively with the mother of that child. The fetus may be biologically distinct but it's still intrinsically joined to the mother. That's a bond of responsibility that no state, religious institution or voting majority should be allowed to legislate.
Mo said...
ReplyDeleteThe issue of abortion has been conflated by the Republican Party for years and it goes like this: If you don't "respect" life, you are not "pro-life", if you are not "pro-life" you are not religious, if you are not religious, you are a liberal.
This issue goes far beyond abortion...
The Dem position for the past quarter century has called for a complete elimination of religious expression in the public square under the thin reed of a phrase in one of Jefferson's letters about separation of church and state.
"Progressive" blogs including this thread are filled with snide shots at religious believers who aren't in the "reality community."
When religious people try to speak or act out their faith in public, they are ridiculed and sued.
Television and media regularly portray religious people as ignorant or half crazy.
Mr. Rove doesn't need to spin anything to get practicing Catholics to join their Protestant brethren to leave the Democrat Party. After the Dems posted their "no believers wanted sign" at their window, all the GOP needed to do was post "Believers welcome" and leave the light on as our tent door...
Again, no one is "for" abortion.
Uh huh...
Hearing a Dem say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but support a woman's right to choose" is no different than hearing a Dem from the South before the Civil War say "I don't own slaves, but I support the property rights of those who do."
If you defend the right to abortion than you are pro abortion. There is no mushy middle ground. The child is either alive or killed. If you believe that abortion is killing and stop people from acting to stop it, you are complicit in the killing.
You are Pro Abortion - Period.
Hypatia said:
ReplyDelete"And I really recoil from notions that to hold a pro-life position is to be fascist. I certainly don't think of atheist, fanatical civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff as Nazis."
It's not fascist at all to hold pro-life views and live by them. I think people should pretty much live the way that best satisfies their conscience. It becomes fascist, however, when you feel your ideology must be inflicted forcibly upon others.
You have enough command of logic that you undoubtedly have seen how illogical this "principle" is of a fetus as equivalent in human rights to an adult woman. Or superior, as the good legislature of South Dakota has decreed.
When a faction advances its illogical ideology and forces its constraints down the throats of people who are thinking consistently, that is fascist, no matter how well meaning and earnest and pious they are.
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteThat's not a very attractive political position I would think, and is no doubt why the pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion act as if there is some outside force which should be criminalized, the doctors, the groups which pay for abortions, etc.
They view the abortion facilitators as a deus ex machina, solely responsible for each abortion, when in fact no abortion would take place without the consent of the woman.
Ummm, you forget. That would be giving females the privilege of agency. But it's not a woman's place to make a decision, nor is she constitutionally capable of such. She's supposed to obey her husband ... or lacking that, her parents. You know, if you ceded her the responsibility for her choice, you've conceded that she can make a choice. Who knows where that would lead....
HTH.
:-)
Cheers,
Samurai Sam said...
ReplyDelete... the right to make the determination as to the rights of an unborn child vest exclusively with the mother of that child. The fetus may be biologically distinct but it's still intrinsically joined to the mother. That's a bond of responsibility that no state, religious institution or voting majority should be allowed to legislate.
I'm a Democrat and a woman. In my opinion, a woman ought to know before "the quickening" whether or not she wants to continue her pregnancy. After that, abortion should not be allowed except in cases where continued pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother. The government should have care facilities for women who fail to terminate pregnancy before a certain number of weeks. The so-called "partial birth abortion" is a dreadful practice, should never have been allowed in the first place and has been rightfully banned. I think the unconditional support of all forms of abortion is a mistake. The Republicans criticize Democrats for being wishy washy, but nothing is black and white and the Democrats should find a way to be proud of seeing the shades of grey.
7:46 PM
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteWhether your version of events re: Casey is true or not, they sincerely believe otherwise.
So you concede it may not be true. What takes me back a bit is that you seem to find it interesting -- nay, impressive -- that your NRLC friends and those that supposedly deserted the Dems. over abortion happen to believe this urban myth. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. Round up the usual suspects....
Cheers,
OK, Bart, I'm not going to let that one pass. I'm not going to entirely dismiss your premise, but I can't help but notice that you insisted on pointing out that "Dems" from the South before the Civil War would have made a similar argument regarding slavery. The obvious implication being the fatuously disingenuous notion that Democrats were in favor of slavery and Republicans were opposed to it, as if that had any bearing on the parties' alignment today. You're clearly trying to slip in a little reference reminding people that Democrats are for bad things (in history and at present) and Republicans are likewise for "good" things.
ReplyDeleteIn point of fact, the people of the South who supported slavery to the bitter end, and their progeny who insisted on perpetuating its legacy through repression, Jim Crow, lynching, et al, eventually dissociated from the Democratic party, became Dixiecrats, and later found their homes in the welcoming arms of the Republican Party following the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The parties' ideological makeup have undergone a virtual inversion since the Civil War; it was the progressive, or "liberal" spirit that broke slavery and extended civil rights to blacks, not the "conservative" one. By definition, conservatives want to maintain the status quo in almost all circumstances. There was little that could conceivably be more liberal than freeing the slaves at the time of the Civil War, and the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" have no basis in comparison from then and now.
I'm sorry, but I just couldn't let that one pass. I think I've just heard one too many right-wingers proudly boast that theirs is the "party of Lincoln" even though the spirit of Lincoln is about as far from the modern Republican Party as you can get.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteTwo competing libertarain values are now at war with each other.
Yeah, that's why libertarianism is such a pile'o'.....
You know, I'd really like for all the hard-core libertarians -- uniform in philosophy to the core (so there's nothing to argue about, right?) -- to go build themselves that floating island and set up their libertarian utopia. That would be a project that would fascinate sociologists, political scientists, historians, and -- surprisingly enough -- quite early on, even archeologists and marine salvage experts. ;-)
Cheers,
Now my sister describes herself as “pro-life” and told me that, after having two children, she could never have an abortion – even if she was raped. She just couldn’t do it. She believes it would be morally wrong. And she’s against it.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to being a school teacher, she also teaches Sunday School at her church.
But here’s where she doesn’t fit Rove’s stereotype: she votes Democratic.
Now, although she claims to be “pro-life” that isn’t good enough for the Ann Coulters and Karl Roves of the world who want to characterize her as a blood-thirsty baby-murdering immoral heathen who celebrates the death of every unborn child.
See, it’s not good enough for her to believe that abortion is immoral and wrong to be “pro-life” – in Rove’s world, to be pro-life you must insist that everyone else conform to your views and that all laws conform to your views, otherwise you are a baby murderer.
My sister doesn’t believe that she has a right to force her beliefs on others. And that belief is what makes her a despicable murderer and a contemptible human being (according to Rove/Coulter Republicans, anyway).
For them, by voting Democratic, you murder babies, period. By punching the ballot Democratic, you are ipso facto guilty of murdering a baby.
By this logic, or at least this rhetoric, voting for the Democratic Party should be a crime, shouldn’t it? And the Democratic Party should be declared illegal, right?
After all, there’s no difference between taking a shotgun a blowing someone’s head off, and voting “Democratic” in election. Murder is murder is murder.
And Rove is Rove. And so it goes. And so it is.
And Glenn is absolutely right – it’s time they were called on this nonsense.
samurai sam writes: Nothing at all, as long as you also recognize that the right to make the determination as to the rights of an unborn child vest exclusively with the mother of that child. The fetus may be biologically distinct but it's still intrinsically joined to the mother. That's a bond of responsibility that no state, religious institution or voting majority should be allowed to legislate.
ReplyDeleteThat is your mere assertion, and no one has a "right" unless there exists a corresponding duty of all to respect it. The idea that up until the moment of birth a fetus may lawfully be killed because s/he resides inside of his/her mother is simply not one that is shared by most reasonable people. Setting a time before birth at which legal -- protected -- personhood attaches is all ad hoc, as much for you as for anyone else, unless you advocate no restrictions on abortion until there is a live birth.
Arne L. writes: So you concede it may not be true. What takes me back a bit is that you seem to find it interesting -- nay, impressive -- that your NRLC friends and those that supposedly deserted the Dems. over abortion happen to believe this urban myth.
ReplyDeleteI concede no such thing. I believe it is true. Bob Casey says it is, he was long unhappy with party pressure regarding his pro-life views, and I don't think when the very person at the center of a report swears it is true that we are dealing with a mere "urban myth."
And Arne. About libertarians supposedly being utopians. Um, no.
Libertarians are horrified by utopianism, and quite insistent that all such schemes almost invariably lead to dystopia. They (we) advocate that leaving people alone is almost always the best policy, save for preventing and sanctioning the initiation of force, direct harm and fraud by others. Reasonable peple can argue about what consituttes force, direct harm and fraud, but a good faith effort, and a desire not to see these concepts expanded to consume the rule, is the sine qua non of libertarianism. And libertarians, like many others, disagree among themselves as to whether the fetus is an "other" capable of being directly harmed.
Oh, and someone better tell liberal Democrat -- and Catholic -- Mark Shields that he is peddling an urban myth:
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON (CNN) -- In what is still seen as a gratuitous snub of the approximately two out of five Democratic voters who, according to independent surveys, consider themselves to be "pro-life" on the abortion issue, Pennsylvania's pro-life Gov. Robert P. Casey was denied the chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention.
In Casey's place, the Clinton high command running that Democratic convention invited to speak on national TV a Pennsylvania pro-choice woman who was an obscure state representative and a Republican.
Hypatia: Well, this is a great setup for an argument, my facts against your beliefs. That way I guess we can both win.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I don't think pro-lifers are theocratic imbeciles, but they're awfully eager to vote for such people. I will say that I think a bunch of powerful conservative politicians (some of whom I hope aren't reading about this from the NSA, haha) *are* theocratic imbeciles, but dangerously powerful and slick ones. More than I can name here, but they are out there, and the people you defend as *not* being theocratic imbeciles sure do like voting for them. I suppose that says something about the relative attractiveness of *our* candidates.
Maybe Bob Casey took a lot of shit from Democrats over being pro-life, but he's given it back in spades. You don't find it the slightest bit duplicitous of him to compare his own intransigence in spurning the Clinton-Gore ticket to that of someone who was a SIBLING of a Clinton PRIMARY OPPONENT? Like I said, Casey can believe whatever makes him feel better, but it does not make him right.
Did Democrats lean on Casey? I don't know, I wasn't there. I wouldn't be surprised. But Gore and Gephardt both moved right, and showed that it's possible to be a Democrat who's pro-life personally, without thinking that it's the position of the government to ban abortion. Is that bad? I don't know. Is it bad for the party? I don't know.
*MY* "ill-informed, stereotypical thinking about pro-lifers" comes from over a decade of watching them talk about wanting to make abortion *illegal* instead of reducing the numbers (and at least *I* base my beliefs and ideas on *facts* instead of *beliefs* about what people mean and say, without assuming that they might have the teensiest bit of manipulative or ulterior motives). If you look at the policy proposals, pro-choice Democrats are willing to compromise quite a bit, because they want fewer abortions. The only catch is - and this is the poison pill to the pro-life movement, I think it's indisputable, but that might not stop you - abortion would have to stay somewhat legal, sex education would have to become more widespread, birth control would have to become more acceptable. The fact that conservatives and pro-lifers spurn these proposals because they would prefer to have abortion illegal, regardless of the number of abortions, is a testament to the power of their beliefs: better for abortion to be common and illegal, than rare but legal. That is their argument. You can believe otherwise; you seem to believe a lot of things that are not supported by independent facts outside of the circle of things pro-life conservatives tell you. But I'm pretty goddamn sure that's what's going on, and I think we should base our Democratic politics and policy around such things, instead of good faith of our political opponents.
As long as pro-life Democrats want to take over the party and make us retreat on abortion because they care more about what people BELIEVE than what would actually decrease abortion, pro-choice Democrats will work to prevent them from sabotaging what a majority of the party - and a majority of the country - believes.
Yesterday, Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker at the annual AIPAC convention. Despite an approval rating of just 18%, he received a rousing standing-ovation from 100% of those in attendance.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that 100% of the AIPAC true believers are so enamored with Mr. Cheney, while the vast majority of American's despise what he has done?
The question answers itself.
That was from a poster named "plunger" at Huffington Post.
I certainly hope that along with a close look into the different Christian religious groups which support Bush, we will also be looking into who supplies the big dollars to the GOP to enable the war machine to operate.
If we are not going to discuss AIPEC and its Zionest leaders and their relationship with the powerful rogue element in this government which wants to annihilate every country with whom Israel has a dispute, and make a lot of money in the process for the military/industrial corporatists, we're not going to discuss the full story.
BTW, someone should contact Mike Goodwin of the New York Daily News, a Democratic newspaper.
When Lou Dobbs brought up the NSA spying issue today, he was derailed by Goodwin, who said it was a "dead issue" now because sufficient oversight had been put in place that solves the problems.
Doesn't this guy ever read a blog?
Every super rich pro-Israel business person I personally know switched party allegiance in 2000 and 2004 and voted for Bush. These are people who never had cast a Republican vote in their lives.
But they keep inviting me to big dollar fundraisers for Lieberman now. They are single issue voters. They care nothing about party allegiance or social issues. They care about Israel and keeping the war machine going.
Hypatia, just because you can find someone who's peddling the same bullshit (Mark Shields) as you are about Casey, DOES. NOT. MAKE. IT. TRUE.
ReplyDeleteWrite whatever the hell you want in return, but I'm out of here.
PS. I notice the "swift boating" of Sandra Day O'Conner has already begun on multiple sites.
ReplyDeleteHypatia: Setting a time before birth at which legal -- protected -- personhood attaches is all ad hoc, as much for you as for anyone else,...
ReplyDeleteExcept that we do know when life ends. That is the Shrivo issue. The abortion issue is the Shrivo issue. Because we know what defines none living, we know what defines living.
They are the same moment. They both have transitions between the need and no need of outside support.
However, to consider life starting at the point of coming together of the 2 halves of the DNA is inconsistent with the consideration of when life ends. It means one has produced two points in time for the same defined event to exist; life.
Really, folks, just google; Catholics are natural Democrats, but have been unhappy about how they are treated when they are pro-life. Pro-life Dems who feel there has been a hostility problem are legion, and they "buy" the Casey "urban myth." One (among oh-so-many) Catholic venues puts it this way:
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say (Democrat MI State Rep. Bart] Stupak doesn’t get along well with his Democratic colleagues—he’s thinking about running someday for a junior party leadership post. It’s just that he remembers their past scorn for his pro-life views, especially during his first term in 1993 and 1994. "They’d say, ‘You hate women,’ ‘You’re a Neanderthal,’ ‘Why don’t you join the Republican Party?’"
If Stupak’s comments about the party’s hard stance against pro-lifers sound familiar, it’s because they are.
Ten years ago, at the Democratic convention in New York City, Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania !asked to address the delegates—and was denied. The official explanation was that Casey had failed to back the nominee, Bill Clinton. Yet that hadn’t kept fellow Clinton-snubber Kathleen Brown from speaking. The real reason Casey was denied was more cynical: At a party platform hearing in Cleveland in May 1992, he had urged Democrats to drop their commitment to abortion rights. He was a Hubert Humphrey who failed.
Since then, the party’s treatment of pro-lifers has eased somewhat, prompted by the disastrous midterm elections in 1994, in which Democrats lost control of both chambers of Congress. In 1996, the party allowed language to be inserted in its platform that "recognized" differences on abortion; in 1998, it recruited pro-life candidates to fit conservative districts in the House; and at the 2000 convention,! Democrats even allowed Casey’s sons to speak, albeit off-camera. Plus, within Congress itself, pro-choice and pro-life Democrats are said to get along fine.
I think a more complete question is "Can good Christians vote Republican?" How can self-proclaimed Christians support this administration when it lied us into war? How is invading Iraq Christian? Apart from the more than 3000 dead US soldiers, countless innocent Iraqi civilians have died. How is this okay, but abortion is not okay? Remember that the UN weapons inspectors were peacefully searching for the WsMD that were never found in spite of the war and that, in fact, turned out to be a fabricated justification for invasion. If the current administration is so "Christian", why did it choose war instead of peace? Why didn't it let the UN inspectors finish their job?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, being Republican didn't used to mean deficit spending, bigger government, corruption, trampling the US Constitution, fiscal irresponsibility, stealing elections, unprovoked war, etc., so maybe the question should be "Can good Christians vote for people who pretend to be Republicans?"
ReplyDeleteHypatia:
ReplyDelete... and I don't think when the very person at the center of a report swears it is true that we are dealing with a mere "urban myth."
You misspelled "the very person who wasn't asked to speak at the convention". HTH. But just to clarify: He can talk with authority about what he thinks. But he's less of an authority on what other people were thinking. And in this particular case, he's hardly a dispassionate outsider (which is also true, nicht wahr?, about the NRLC...).
And Arne. About libertarians supposedly being utopians. Um, no.
Of course thy are. Their utopia is hardly Sir Thomas More's, though, which is kind of my point: "Utopia" is in the eyes of the beholder. But nonetheless, some of the more strident libertarians have talked of setting up their own "nation" under their own "rules" ... but I understand they can't even agree on where it should be or who should start building it ... much less the "rules" that they'll have. ;-)
(I'm tweaking you, if you haven't noticed...)
Libertarians are horrified by utopianism, and quite insistent that all such schemes almost invariably lead to dystopia. They (we) advocate that leaving people alone is almost always the best policy, save for preventing and sanctioning the initiation of force, direct harm and fraud by others. Reasonable peple can argue about what consituttes force, direct harm and fraud, ....
Noooooo. Say it ain't so, Joe.
... but a good faith effort, and a desire not to see these concepts expanded to consume the rule, is the sine qua non of libertarianism. And libertarians, like many others, disagree among themselves as to whether the fetus is an "other" capable of being directly harmed.
Ummm, they're free to disagree on pretty much anything they want to disagree on ... except ... maybe ... the form of gummint they'll have ... at least in the abstract ... and if they do, well ... they'll have to disagree ... and if it comes to blows ... welll, mebbe someone with some "governmental" inclinations could step in and referee ... unless they don't want the gummint to do that ... in which case maybe they'll both come to blows with that "gummint" ... or maybe they'll just ignore it and kill each other, if they're each getting in each other's way......
Cheers,
Glenn - I live in Utah where this type of thing has been going on since the 1980's. Republican activists seized upon the meme that you can't be a good Mormon and vote Democrat, mainly based upon the national Democratic Party's platform that supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, should she want one. We live in a one-party state because of their effectiveness at ingraining this message into the local Mormon culture. I wanted to move out of Utah to escape the one-party rule and groupthink, and guess what! The whole country has gone that way. Think of all the moving expenses I saved...
ReplyDeleteA great post, as always, Glenn. Thanks for shining another light in the darkness.
ReplyDeleteAn inordinate number of people I know and am related to are Catholic, and without exception they are all Dems. Why? Because the Democratic Party has traditionally done the best to support the middle-class, help those below the poverty line, encourage diplomacy with foreign powers with whom we disagree (you know, the kind where a bunch of folks in suits eat fancy meals and talk to one another, not the 18-year old Marine Corps guy with chocolate bars and desert camo winning "hearts and minds" one little Iraqi at a time), and to protect the individual rather than corporations. People vote for things from a moral not an intellectual viewpoint. Prosperity breeds contempt and I think a lot of folks the Dems counted on (African Americans and other people of color, women) feel secure in their civil rights and don't realize how seminal issues like the right to choose are -- which is not literally a pro-abortion stance, regardless of how GOP supporters would like deconstruct it.
Good Catholics, and Protestants and everybody else realize that YOUR own right to choose allows you to NOT have an abortion. I think it gets trickier with minors because, as Americans, our fundamental belief in individual freedom trips over our culturally held beliefs that children need to be protected from harm and can't formulate responsible decisions. As progressives we must force the conservative-driven abortion debate into a discussion of their plans for a comprehensive conception to death system for taking care of unplanned/unwanted children. They will continue to recruit folks who allow this single issue to cloud their good judgment, and when we expose this giant flaw in their one-trick pony those swing voters will come back to their senses. We don't live in a perfect world and until we do, we have to be pragmatic and diplomatic.
Ironically there's a critical shortage of folks to foster, adopt and mentor children in this country which ISN'T being addressed by these so-called "pro-lifers". Heck, they haven't even come up with a way to make deadbeat dads pay their dang child support or participate in
their offsprings' lives. I'm planning to adopt, and plan to foster children until I'm able to do so, I challenge any one who calls themselves a "pro-lifer" to get their butt in gear and make it happen, save a kid from foster-hell. Until you do that you're just talking yap, and I've got no time for yap....
And oh, Hypatia, you did click the link I gave you, didn't you?
ReplyDeleteYou know, this one that says (since some folks seem to be too lazy to go click through links):
In an April 19 USA Today op-ed, Ross K. Baker spread the false -- but often-repeated -- claim that former Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was prohibited from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he opposed abortion rights. In fact, Casey was denied an opportunity to speak at the convention because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore presidential ticket. Furthermore, other Democrats who oppose abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then.
Baker, who is a Rutgers University political science professor and a member of USA Today's board of contributors, stated:
"Democratic me-tooism can be seen in the efforts by some Democrats to seek out pro-life candidates such as Bob Casey Jr., son of the late governor of Pennsylvania, who was snubbed at the 1992 Democratic convention for his pro-life views."
As Media Matters for America has pointed out on numerous occasions (here, here, here, here, and here) Casey was denied speaking time in 1992 over his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, not his anti-abortion views. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.
Kind of shoots that theory to s*** , doesn't it, eh?
You want to argue, let's argue with the facts. And the above are facts.
Simple repetition of the same old allegations, even by multiple sources, doesn't make your case any stronger. I'd have thought you'd have taken a peek at the links I gave you; sorry if I misjudged you.
Cheers,
questionmark confirms my points, and his/her whole comment bears repeating:It's my understanding that Casey was going to give a condemnatory speech at the convention upholding his antiabortion viewpoint. He may or may not have been willing to grudgingly accept Clinton as the candidate, but that was what the thrust of his speech was going to be. Given that, it was perfectly reasonable that he not be given a speaking spot at the convention.
ReplyDeleteIt's simply not legitimate to demand a podium at the national nominating convention to say what was already said and overruled in the party platform meetings behind closed doors. These conventions do not exist to allow people who disagree with the party platform an opportunity to bitterly air their disagreements with the rest of the party on the issues.
People who are strongly committed antiabortionists frankly are always going to be suspect, second-class members of the Democratic Party, because they disagree with a platform plank that 80% of the party supports wholeheartedly. This is a major issue that cuts right to the social libertarian heart of the Democratic Party. So sure, if you're willing to settle for positions that you like on other issues and gain no ground on the abortion issue you are welcome. Otherwise you are not welcome.
That's all there is to say about it. If you demand restrictions on abortion, or a podium on which to call the rest of the party baby-killers, there's the door.
Yes, Casey was planning to advocate a "big tent" in which pro-life Dems were legitimate members of the Party, and for that reason he was denied the opportunity to speak.Your view that this is not to be permitted, prevailed. You make Karl Rove unnecessary as to the abortion issue and Catholic Dems.
Pro-life Dems who feel there has been a hostility problem are still legion, and they "buy" the Casey "urban myth." One (among oh-so-many) Catholic venue puts it this way:
This is not to say (Democrat MI State Rep. Bart] Stupak doesn’t get along well with his Democratic colleagues—he’s thinking about running someday for a junior party leadership post. It’s just that he remembers their past scorn for his pro-life views, especially during his first term in 1993 and 1994. "They’d say, ‘You hate women,’ ‘You’re a Neanderthal,’ ‘Why don’t you join the Republican Party?’"
If Stupak’s comments about the party’s hard stance against pro-lifers sound familiar, it’s because they are.
Ten years ago, at the Democratic convention in New York City, Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania asked to address the delegates—and was denied. The official explanation was that Casey had failed to back the nominee, Bill Clinton. Yet that hadn’t kept fellow Clinton-snubber Kathleen Brown from speaking. The real reason Casey was denied was more cynical: At a party platform hearing in Cleveland in May 1992, he had urged Democrats to drop their commitment to abortion rights. He was a Hubert Humphrey who failed.
Since then, the party’s treatment of pro-lifers has eased somewhat, prompted by the disastrous midterm elections in 1994, in which Democrats lost control of both chambers of Congress. In 1996, the party allowed language to be inserted in its platform that "recognized" differences on abortion; in 1998, it recruited pro-life candidates to fit conservative districts in the House; and at the 2000 convention,! Democrats even allowed Casey’s sons to speak, albeit off-camera. Plus, within Congress itself, pro-choice and pro-life Democrats are said to get along fine.
Arne writes: Kind of shoots that theory to s*** , doesn't it, eh?
ReplyDeleteYou want to argue, let's argue with the facts. And the above are facts.
Simple repetition of the same old allegations, even by multiple sources, doesn't make your case any stronger. I'd have thought you'd have taken a peek at the links I gave you; sorry if I misjudged you
I read it. If you haven't noticed, I am the only person in this 130+ comment thread arguing the position contrary to yours, and I can't deal with every point made. Casey was planning to speak about abortion, and that could not be allowed. Other anti-abortion Dems were meekly willing to abide by party discipline -- kinda like Snowe and Hagel just did on the NSA investigation -- and so their speaking was not a problem.
And with that, I am done in this thread. I need to be wrting something else for other purposes, and so am finished.
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteCasey was planning to speak about abortion, and that could not be allowed.
Even assuming for purposes of argument that this had something to do with it, that wasn't the claim being made, was it?
To refresh you (on at least the NLRC claim):
"The Democratic National Convention held in Boston July 26-29 proved once again that those with a pro-life view are not welcome in the party."
You know, if he was planning on making a speech of the virtues of orange versus green M&Ms, they might have also looked askance at his speaking, but you couldn't infer from that a deep passionate hatred for orage M&Ms and/or their proponents, could you?
Conventions, as you well know, are not "free speech" forums up for the grabbing, and the message(s) is/are carefully constrained, if not closely controlled. They get to project the message they put out, and the candidate in fact has a lot of say in that message (and what messages they leave out). Yes, the Democratic party has a pro-choice party plank. Yes, the majority of the Democratic party is pro-choice. But to claim, as NRLC says, that "those with a pro-life view are not welcome in the party" is a lie. And it is in fact this lie that you've been pushing here, in claming that all kinds of "pro-lifers" are being driven out. Granted, they may get frustrated or disgusted and quit the party, having failed to bring the party around to their particular belief, but that's no stain on the party's tolerance, is it?
But then again, we have rather different accounts of why Casey wasn't allowed to speak, so once again proof by repeated assertion is hardly evidence.
But bottom line, no one drummed (or even "forced") Casey out of the party, and to remind you once again, that was the subject, wasn't it?
Cheers,
Arne L. writes: Even assuming for purposes of argument that this [Casey's desire to speak about abortion] had something to do with it, that wasn't the claim being made, was it?
ReplyDeleteIn my second (maybe third) comment in this thread I quoted:
Because of his desire to deliver a pro-life message, Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania was in fact banned as a speaker from the 1992 Democratic Convention.
But now I am proven a liar. I said I was done here, but have a hard time refraining when my facts are challenged.
Bart said: The Dem position for the past quarter century has called for a complete elimination of religious expression in the public square under the thin reed of a phrase in one of Jefferson's letters about separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteVictims? You know every night when my family sits down to dinner when to pray a prayer to remember those less fortunate them we. Is that a part of your ritual?
This concept of "supporting the individual and not the corporations" is amazing, and at the heart of what is wrong with most Democratic thinking.
ReplyDeleteCorporations and their shareholders are groups of individuals.
The enemy of the "individual" is government, and none other.
The type of heinous, immoral "corporatist" entities which we all dislike so intensely are nothing more than particular groups of individuals who are given unfair advantages, special tax advantages not available to others, and are enabled by a variety of unfair special dispensations from government. They are hardly "capitalist." Anything but. They don't grow out of a free marketplace. They grow because their are watered and tended, and protected by government.
I am enjoying Hypatia's writings on this thread, although I don't agree with every word she writes.
She defines her concept of "libertarian" and as she defines it, I too subscribe to that theory of government.
Arne, you mix up anarchists with libertarians. Each movement has its sub-divisions. Anarcho-libertarians have nothing to do with the libertarianism Hypatia supports.
Finally, I am not a religious person and am always a champion of the individual.
However, I can see no rational reason for anyone to support a woman's right to have an abortion in the later months.
It doesn't take eight months to figure out you were raped, or a victim of incest, or unable to support a child.
Asking people to make responsible decisions is not an irrational position.
Having a child is serious business, and requires a selfless and long term obligation to take care of that child under all conditions, including adverse circumstances. If a woman cannot commit to that, she should abort early.
If certain females don't know that husbands may leave, jobs may be lost, circumstances may change, someone should tell them that quickly. If one decides to continue a pregnancy, one should be prepared for any of those things, or others, to happen.
I have no idea whether fetuses have "souls" or should be considered "persons." I do know, without a doubt, that whatever people believe about that issue, a blob of protoplasm should never have the same "rights" under law as an actual person. It's obscene and anti-life to even suggest that.
Not to mention the insanity of the position that a morning after pill, or various forms of contraception, should ever be opposed.
But the stupider elements of the Democratic Party, not a small group, want to sell rational people the concept that a woman should be able to decide in her ninth month that if she changes her mind for whatever whimsical reason, other than her life being at risk or certain other extreme, rare occurances, she should be supported in her decision to abort.
Whatever a person's beliefs, an eight or nine month fetus comes close to being a person, and a society might indeed decide to discourage such abortions and still be taking a moral, rational position.
I see no difference, really, in aborting a nine month fetus and in killing it ten mintutes after it is born. What's the difference?
Democrats who believe that a woman should have the right, unless her life is at risk or something drastic happens, like being diagnosed with a fatal disease, to abort a baby in the ninth month, but do not also agree she should be able to kill that baby in the hours after birth for any reason she chooses, are hypocrites.
Did I hear someone say the Republicans are opposed to abortion and this is why they will sew up the Catholic vote? The Brian Ross piece on 20/20 about CNMI showed they are in fact in favor of forced abortions. Ross interviewed Eric Gregoire, a Catholic human rights worker who said, "With eleven thousand Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby in my entire four years in Saipan."
ReplyDeleteAnother interview with a former sweatshop worker made the claim that when she told her employer she was pregnant her boss told her to get an abortion. When she refused she was fired, which can be pretty serious when you owe your slave merchants 5 or 6 grand on the easy bleed 'em payment plan.
And what does this have to do with Republicans? Saluting the hosts of the forced abortion sweatshops, Tom Delay said, on tape:
"You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we're trying to do in America and in leading the world in the free market system."
True, Catholics are opposed to abortion, and it stands to reason they would be even more opposed to forced abortion. And this also points out the blatant hypocrisy under which Republicans operate.
This just addresses the "single issue" voters on abortion. It forces a quandary between a pro-choice candidate and one who claims to be pro-life just to get the vote, but in fact, could not care less. But the distinction should be made in the name of full disclosure. I wonder what the birth rate is in CNMI anyway?
few things are more anathema to Catholic doctrine than the state-sanctioned killing of human beings
ReplyDeleteGlenn --- you know nothing about Catholicism. Few things are more anathema to the Catholic Church than the death penalty? How ignorant.
Yes, the current Catholic teaching is that the death penalty is not necessary in advanced countries, but as Cardinal Dulles explains here, "The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty."
Abortion, by contrast, has long been condemned by the Church as an absolute evil, not to be excused in any circumstances except the life of the mother.
You can see the difference if you read Evangelium Vitae, for example. Among other things, it says:
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".
As for the death penalty, it says:
"[T]he nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."
No absolute bar, in other words, and certainly nothing cautioning legislators that it is never legitimate to vote to legalize abortion.
Or take the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," available here. That document does not mention the death penalty. But it certainly mentions abortion:
"When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo."
Finally, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says:
"It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.
"To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."
Sorry to interrupt with a few facts about Catholic doctrine here.
great post Glenn, but you left out the biggest tenet of all - caring for the poor. the GOP cannot touch the Democratic party on this, and can instead only hope that Catholics forget about the central tenet of our religion.
ReplyDeleteThe 1992 Casey matter is a very dead issue. The live one is that abortion on demand matters ALOT to almost all Catholics. Most do not want women or doctors in jail, but they do want a lot fewer abortions, something that Clinton talked about but did nothing about. Just talk won't do it now.
ReplyDeleteOther issues matter, but it is easy for it to overwhelm others, since it does deal directly with life. Other issues, no matter how important, can be dismissed as mere politics. This is unfair, but it does happen, quite often.
Catholics are quite clearly not very welcome in the democratic party. It is so easy to find posts on DailyKos and other similar sites that speak about Christian people of faith in ways that would draw immediate criticism if directed at Muslims or Hindus.
Even in this discussion, mention is made of pedophile priests, as if Catholics aren't aware or even more pissed off about this than non-Catholics. We manage to discuss education without mentioning the many teacher/student sex crimes, many of which are covered up. Known any such teachers? I have. Are they in jail? Nope.
My mother, whose father ran for Congress as a Democrat, has voted either republican or third party on national elections, since she can't bring herself to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
We should find a way to get her back. She wants to come back. She hates what Bush is doing to America. It is too late for many of her friends. They have gone over and will never come back. Young Catholics are even more conservative, as are the younger priests. This will get worse before it gets better and name calling doesn't help.
One must also realize that Mark Noonan at Blogs4Bush is an intellectual coward who's so purpose is to keep Republicans in power, resulting in spinning every Bush failure as a success as he deletes any comments from his blog that counteract his arguments.
ReplyDeleteHe's not taken seriously by anyone of intellectual worth.
Many Catholics who are portrayed as pro-abortion are actually anti-abortion but pro-choice; somehow the dems have to articulate the difference so that voters can understand the difference.
ReplyDeleteBrian Boru
I'm a Catholic intellectual and a "yellow dog" Democrat. I just want to say that cowardly "anonymous's" statement at 1 a.m. is false from start to finish. He claims to state the "facts." He is ignorant and uneducated and worthy of total scorn.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a persuasive rebuttal. Guess all those Church documents are wrong, then. After all, an anonymous, self-proclaimed "intellectual" says so! How could such a trustworthy source be wrong?
I'd just like to say that some of the vitrol being directed at Hypatia simply for advancing a different point of view on what is frankly a side issue anyway is not becoming of this blog, and is certainly not consistent with the higher-minded debate I've seen here over the last few months.
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of this is just using Hypatia as a target because of pent-up frustration over the repeated disgraceful actions of the Senate regarding the NSA scandal, but let's try to direct our energies where it's more deserved.
Anonymous at 2:50,
ReplyDeleteWhile what you cite may be technically accurate, it does more to illustrate how the Catholic Church opposes abortion (which is granted by everyone in this thread) than it demonstrates that the Catholic Church is somehow indifferent to capital punishment.
If you closely read that line you cited, they make it abundantly clear that the standard for acceptable capital punishment is so high as to never be a practical option in the United States, because we do have the ability and the power to incarcerate killers for the rest of their lives (even if solitary confinement if authorities fear the harm of other inmates.) The Catholic Church does not say that "the death penalty is acceptable if there is any possibility whatsoever, no matter how remote, that the subject might kill again," which is more in line with the current policy in this country.
And even if the above weren't true, none of what you say makes Glenn's statement incorrect, because if you'll read it carefully, he said that "few things are more anathema...than the death penalty." You cited the Church's (perhaps stronger) condemnation of a single issue, abortion, as proof that his claim is correct. But then you're left with a whopping one thing that is more anathema to the Church, which certainly qualifies under the term "few." Even if you added other issues, "few" would still be accurate. Glenn did not say, "Abortion is not nearly as important to the Catholic Church as capital punishment," which is the statement your argument actually addressed. But, as Republicans have so frequently demonstrated, strawmen arguments are much more convenient and easy to make than actual ones.
I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools for almost all my life except for 2 years of college and 2 years in grad school. I attended a Catholic Seminary 15 years ago to get a masters degree in theology because something was bothering me about American Christianity and I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. I felt that it was so hateful and intolerant. I wasn't brought up that way. The nuns didn't teach us to hate everyone. There was something wrong. I wanted to know exactly what was the Catholic position in modern times.
ReplyDeleteI learned that there are liberal catholics and conservative catholics. There are a couple of positions. I learned that Pope John Paul was not that enthused about the liberal theological scholars. My seminary was left of center and social justice was the theme throughout my studies. It resonated with me.
Sure, we learned about the abortion issue, stem cell, IVF, etc in moral theology classes and I learned to understand where that moral theology came from. I respected their position although in many cases, I was able to come up with alternate positions and my arguments were well received to my surprise. No one told me I was going to hell.
Catholic theology is amazingly well thought out and scholarly. If they weren't so screwed up when it comes to women and the blood cult of Jesus they'd have my faith. Well maybe. The theological and metaphysical part anyway--
There is so much more to being a christian and a decent human being than where you stand on the abortion issue. The abortion issue is a tool used by the GOP to lead christians astray. Christians are proving themselves to be amazingly dumb.
Is the world going to be a better place if no one ever has another abortion or if men don't have sex with each other? Hardly. We'd still be at war perpetually.
Taking care of corporations and our wealthiest is more anathema to christianity than any other issue.
By embracing each other and embracing socially liberal policies in American politics then I might entertain the idea that this is a country who trusts in God. Meanwhile, the Democrats are idiots.
The above post -- the first one to quote actual Catholic teachings -- was from me.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if the above weren't true, none of what you say makes Glenn's statement incorrect, because if you'll read it carefully, he said that "few things are more anathema...than the death penalty." You cited the Church's (perhaps stronger) condemnation of a single issue, abortion, as proof that his claim is correct.
There's no "perhaps" about it. The Church has always condemned abortion unequivocally. The Church has never condemned the death penalty unequivocally, and up until the past century, the Church (and many of its most noted theologians) defended and even used the death penalty. (Need I bring up the Inquisition.)
But then you're left with a whopping one thing that is more anathema to the Church, which certainly qualifies under the term "few."
Talk about strawman arguments. Did I say that abortion was the only thing that is more anathema to the Church than the death penalty? Of course not. And anyone who is remotely familiar with Catholic teachings could name quite a few sins that have been condemned in more unequivocal terms than any official teaching on the death penalty: Abortion, euthanasia, suicide (assisted or not), embryonic research, gay marriage, adultery, fornication, divorce, witchcraft, atheism, blasphemy, hatred, arrogance, incest, rape, lying, cheating, and even birth control.
Look up "mortal sins" if you want to learn about some things that are anathema to the Church.
I was wrong: There was a single commenter upthread (EJ) who also quoted from actual Church documents. It's a helpful thing to do, really, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches. I highly recommend the practice of reading original documents, rather than trusting ignorant non-Catholics to give an accurate representation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, all of the discussion upthread about Robert Casey's non-invitation to speak at the Dem convention in 1992 is very odd:
1. Lots and lots of people seem to regard Casey's story as outrageous. How dare anyone suggest that the Democratic Party is less than welcoming to pro-lifers! But then they turn right around and argue that the Democratic Party should NOT be friendly to pro-lifers, who are antagonistic to the Democrats' mission of protecting women's rights, etc., etc.
Well, which is it? If you WANT the Democratic Party to frown on pro-lifers, why are you so offended that anyone says the Democratic Party frowns on pro-lifers?
2. Lots and lots of people keep insisting that the REAL reason Casey wasn't invited to speak was because he didn't support the Clinton ticket. Well, who says? The only people who have any legitimate claim to knowledge here are: The people who ran the convention, and Casey himself. The people who ran the convention say one thing -- and it just happens to be a very convenient story for them. Casey says another thing -- and there's nothing that he had to gain by lying.
No one has come up with any good reason to trust the convention planners' story over Casey's version of the events. Apparently, for most people, when there's a "he said, they said" controversy, the side that says that they want to hear is automatically telling the truth.
Can someone please enlighten me...
ReplyDeleteHow is it that so many of the religious right support an illegal aggressive and unnecessary war and the death penalty while believing that cells in a test tube should be protected at all cost?
Is it denial? Is it ignorance?
Or, is it them just trying to grasp at something so that they can then tell themselves (and everyone else it seems) that they must indeed be "Christians"?
One thing I do know, regardless of what he may try to tell the world, GW Bush is NOT a Christian!!
http://hypocrisyandlies.blogspot.com/
Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteArne L. writes: Even assuming for purposes of argument that this [Casey's desire to speak about abortion] had something to do with it, that wasn't the claim being made, was it?
In my second (maybe third) comment in this thread I quoted:
"Because of his desire to deliver a pro-life message, Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania was in fact banned as a speaker from the 1992 Democratic Convention."
Which is someone's disputed assertion (see my links on this, which Hypatia doesn't bother to address). Nonetheless, the "claim being made" was in the first quote (which I repeated) from the NRLC. Which you snipped. But which the presence of plenty of "pro-life" people in the Democratic party, and even speaking at the '92 convention, has shown to be not true.
But now I am proven a liar. I said I was done here, ...
No, I didn't call you a liar, Hypatia. I disputed the quote from the NRLC, and the repeated echoings of this claim throughout the Mighty Wurlitzer and even the MSM (as documented in my links). I provided some facts sufficient to show the disputed quote false (and also to rebut your assertion that the Dems drove "pro-life" people out rather than the other way around). If you choose to continue to make these claims without some kind of a rebuttal to the facts as presented, I think we can start saying you're being less than honest, but you stll have time to make amends. OK?
... but have a hard time refraining when my facts are challenged.
Ummm, what "facts"?
Cheers,
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteArne, you mix up anarchists with libertarians. Each movement has its sub-divisions.
Ummm, no, I don't. But, as I was hinting, I suspect that behaviouralists might have a hard time distinguinshing the two should any serious attempt be made by hard-core libertarians at putting together a "libertarian" nation..... ;-)
Cheers,
Norsewoods:
ReplyDeleteOnly in the last part of your response to ME did you actually address what Glenn said. Of course YOU didn't say that the abortion is the only thing that is more anathema to the Catholic Church than the death penalty. The problem is that Glenn didn't either, and HIS was the post to which you were purportedly responding.
Again, you made a compelling argument that the Catholic Church vehemently opposes abortion. The problem is that nobody here, including Glenn, ever said otherwise, so your argument was worthless in that vein.
On top of that, most of the issues you listed, such as "rape, lying, cheating, fornication, witchcraft," etc. are not really comparable to abortion or the death penalty insofar that they are either issues that have already been definitively dealt with either by outlawing them or are not contested issues of public policy due to the impossibility of enforcement and/or the unconstitutionality of a potential ban (such as witchcraft, for instance.)
It should go without saying that the Catholic Church opposes most things, but abortion and the death penalty are the only issues which have really been contentious to any significant degree for the past century in this country.
And you're cherry-picking a pretty convenient Republican interpretation of the Church's statements on capital punishment if you think that those statements represent an affirmation of the institution of the death penalty in THIS country. I won't repeat what I said in the last post, so if you care to dispute it, please read it again.
Apparently, for most people, when there's a "he said, they said" controversy, the side that says that they want to hear is automatically telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis may be true, but don't act as if you are somehow immune to this failing. Your characterization of the incident is proof positive of this.
First you say that the people who ran the convention had a "convenient" account for why Casey didn't speak without mentioning that regardless of its convience or lack thereof, it is perfectly reasonable, and then you say that Casey had nothing to gain from lying.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe Casey wanted to create some political trouble where none existed because they refused to stroke his ego and let him chastize the Clinton-Gore ticket on national television. Ever heard of political retribution? Casey was going to make the Democrats pay a price for muzzling him, and he did. It also raised his "pro-life" credentials and got him more press than he probably would have gotten if had actually spoken.
I'm not saying that the Democrats wouldn't have something to gain by lying, because that wouldn't be intellectually honest of me. But Casey certainly did as well, because politics is a game of publicity, and he certainly got plenty of it (the fact that we're talking about this almost 14 years after the fact is proof enough of that.
It should go without saying that the Catholic Church opposes most things, but abortion and the death penalty are the only issues which have really been contentious to any significant degree for the past century in this country.
ReplyDeleteThis is untrue. Didn't you notice that I listed euthanasia, stem cell research, assisted suicide, stem cell research, and gay marriage? You must have been living in a cave if you think there is no political debate over those issues.
Even if Glenn had said, "Out of disputed political issues, few are more anathema to the Catholic Church than the death penalty," it would barely be within the realm of good faith. The fact is, of all the disputed political issues on which the Catholic Church takes a political position at all, the death penalty and war are precisely the two issues where the Church has qualified and limited its condemnations. Glenn simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
Maybe Casey wanted to create some political trouble where none existed because they refused to stroke his ego and let him chastize the Clinton-Gore ticket on national television. Ever heard of political retribution? Casey was going to make the Democrats pay a price for muzzling him, and he did. It also raised his "pro-life" credentials and got him more press than he probably would have gotten if had actually spoken.
Fair enough. Maybe Casey had reason to lie. Now as between Casey lying, and Carville and Begala lying, I know whom I would be more inclined to trust.
Anyway, the point is that at best, you could say that the Casey incident is a "he said, they said" issue. Yet the entire anti-Hypatia side of the debate has been acting as if: Hypatia is lying, Casey is lying, it's all an urban legend or a canard, Casey's account was definitively disproven (never mind how), etc.
This is complete BS. Just as much as if Hypatia said definitively that all the anti-Casey people are lying. There are clearly two sides to the Casey story, and no one is "lying" simply because they disagree with James Carville's side.
And you're cherry-picking a pretty convenient Republican interpretation of the Church's statements on capital punishment if you think that those statements represent an affirmation of the institution of the death penalty in THIS country.
Strawman. I didn't say that the Church affirms the death penalty in this country. It doesn't. But at the same time, it doesn't treat participation in the death penalty as a mortal sin. Whereas participation in abortion is grounds for AUTOMATIC excommunication under canon law. Talk about anathema: The Catholic Church doesn't excommunicate people automatically for much of anything. But it does for abortion.
Yeah, Norsewoods, I probably made a mistake in assuming that you believed the Catholic Church has no problem with the U.S. capital punishment system. I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteI agree that ultimately the Casey incident is a "he-said, she said" scenario, but I strongly disagree that Casey's version is any more plausible. It is at least equally likely that a Democratic presidential nominee would refuse a speaking spot to anyone who wouldn't endorse him. The fact that he allowed a couple of others who wouldn't to speak probably had more to do with their general demeanor toward the ticket rather than any specific viewpoint.
Frankly, I don't really care either way. If he were prevented from speaking because he intended to use the speech as a pulpit to advocate a national ban on abortion, I don't think that's at all appropriate at a convention for a candidate who has a much more practical approach of attempting to make abortions "safe, legal, and rare." The pro-life position seems to want to make it "unsafe, illegal, and not as rare as we think," which is a grossly irresponsible position and no party with any common sense should subscribe to it. That's all my opinion of course, but that's why I don't particularly care if his story IS true.
Hypatia, you're full of bullshit. I come from the same Catholic (convert that mary r described so accurately) Right-to-Life background you did (out there with my little sign protesting clinics at age 3), and more - I know people who were campaign managers for Keyes and Buchanan - for whom I both voted because I believed the Pro-life bullshit back then, and still believed in the authority of the Church as late as 2000 that I didn't vote, because I believed that I couldn't in conscience vote "pro-abortion" which is what I was told a Democratic vote would be.
ReplyDeleteHomophobia is RAMPANT in the prolife Catholic circles - ever hear of Fr. Paul Marx and HLI? Ever read the Register? The Wanderer? New Oxford Review? The constant hammering on "the Gay Agenda" and trying to link it to abortion helped, in fact (along with the antifeminism), to drive me away from being a mindless prolife-voting Conservative, to a critical-thinking liberal Catholic/agnostic/"Taoist Early Christian"
And yes, lies. Or rather, reciting what the pro-life authorities tell us, without any concern for verification. Remember that bullshit about how the French were grinding up unborn babies to make cosmetics? That canard came from one - ONE! - allegation in a right-wing French tabloid, but I believed it for 15 years before I went and tracked down the truth of the matter. Because it's recited as gospel by the prolife movement publications. Just like the claim that using condoms leads to more abortions, or that the pill is an abortifacient, or that NFP works better than any other birth control--
Utter disregard for whether or not something is the truth is, imo, no different philosophically from a lie. The person who does so is only telling the truth by accident, if they happen to do so. And taking statements on faith - mindless recitation of what one's chosen authorities tell you - does not get one out of responsibility. It just adds "stupidity" to the crime of mendacity.
What a silly question! When the only real alternative party has abortion on demand as a plank in their platform, how could we vote any other way?
ReplyDelete