Conventional Conservative Wisdom isn’t that wise

Adrienne over at Girl From the South wrote this about the upcoming election. 

Obama, Hillary and Edwards are pushing for expanded funding for abortion? Are they insane? Democrats are going to vote for them no matter what. Why are they pushing such a controversial issue this early in the campaign? After the Democratic party won the 2006 election by masquerading as Republicans, are they going to out-liberalize each other now?

Earlier in the post, she also wrote this –

Want to motivate conservatives to vote on Election Day so that you get a Republican in the White House?

Not to pick on Adrienne in particular, but she’s got it exactly wrong.  I’ve noticed a number of misconceptions about what it takes to win elections, weaknesses and strengths of both Republicans and Democrats, and the electoral prospects of Republicans. 

First of all, it simply is not true that the conservatives just need to motivate their base and they get elected.  This was the cover story for the Rove strategy in 2002, 2004, and 2006.  It had two effects. 

One was that it allowed Bush and congressional candidates to “talk to the right,” without isolating independents.  The idea being that all the conservative talk was just a part of the “strategy” and Bush would govern more moderately. 

Two – it provided a plausible enough reason for the success of their candidates.  The so called GOTV operation of conservatives masked the voter suppression effort that was being conducted nationwide, especially in key districts.  What history will show, and is starting to show more clearly with the investigations into the U.S. Attorney firings, is that Rove organized and directed voter suppression operations which when run in conjunction with getting out the vote, was effective in providing the winning margin in close races. 

It is also not true that many winning Democrats in 2006 ran as Republicans.  In fact, many of the more conservative Dems (for example, Harold Ford) who ran on conservative values lost.  Adrienne has fallen for one of the post-election spins put forth by Republican strategists to mask what was a resounding defeat for Bush’s agenda and the war. 

And supporting abortion rights will not hurt Democratic candidates.  The pro-choice position is the majority position in this country. 

The one thing, in my opinion, that will turn voters off more than anything is pandering.  Most voters, conservative and progressive, want moral clarity from their candidates.  They don’t like candidates who split hairs or have cute middle of the road positions on everything.  A candidate who unequivocally supports abortion rights will not be harmed by losing support from independents.  But a candidate who appears to be nervous about the issue and talks out of both sides of her mouth will be. 

From 2000 – 2005, Rove did an excellent job providing cover to conservative candidates who spoke unequivocally about their values.  They also did an excellent job forcing Democrats to vacillate in moral ambiguity between what amounted to a lot of false choices (i.e., support Bush or support the terrorists). 

The difference in 2006 for the candidates that won was that they carved out their positions with clarity and from that perch offered a compelling criticism of the Bush agenda. 

And the real ironic thing, in my opinion, is that the moral clarity of many Republicans has proved to be quite hollow.  Has there been a party in recent history more compromised by politics, sexual mores, corruption, and factionalism? 

Anti-choicers and Al Qaeda

Update – It looks like Amanda at Pandagon wrote with a slightly different angle about what the anti-choice movement is really about.  There are some pretty neat examples of what I’m talking about in her post too so check it out. 

In blog years, this is ancient.  But Elyzabethe at Yellow is the Color commented on this last week and it looks like Jill at Feministe picked it up too.  It’s about the Ohio state legislature introducing a bill to ban abortion. 

This may not be news anymore but I did want to attempt to answer Elyzbethe’s question which was: 

But still ….. don’t these people have anything better to do then introduce pointless radical legislation? Aren’t there, like, actual problems in Ohio? Would it be too much to ask that our elected officials paid attention to things that might actually be beneficial to state citizens, instead of measures designed solely to demonstrate their superior morality?

This brings up a point that I think is often underestimated or overlooked by people who support choice.  Anti-choicers see this issue as a crusade or, if you prefer, a jihad.  The most radical among them do not simply approach abortion as one of many political issues.  It is the issue. 

In their mind, the fact that abortion is legal and that women are having them is a symptom of a larger cultural and spiritual “evil.”  An abortion clinic in their neighborhood is a spiritual blight and a cancer.  It is an insult to the God that gave them that land, which in their mind is a Christian land.  It is deeply offensive to them. 

Much like Christian soldiers occupying Saudi Arabia or Iraq are offensive to groups like, say, Al Qaeda. 

The most radical anti-choicers see their movement to get rid of abortion as part of a larger movement to spiritually cleanse this nation.  They operate their movement like one would operate an insurgency.  Insurgencies follow certain patterns.  Here are a few I’ve noticed. 

1. Maintain at all costs the illusion of momentum and inevitablity. 

This is all important, actually.  Insurgencies are, by their nature, minority movements.  In the anti-choice world, even with the recent losses in the last election and specifically in South Dakota’s decision to overturn their own abortion ban, the anti-choice movement is growing.  They can now claim to have very nearly taken over the Supreme Court and to have scored a huge judicial victory when the partial birth abortion ban was upheld.

They have an amazing ability to raise money and support their own candidates for public office on nearly every level.  They can also offer simultaneous abortion bills in multiple states.  The more radical a bill is, and the more attention it garners, the better.  And if one gets defeated, they can just propose another one again and again.  If one legislator is voted out of office, they have dozens to take his place. 

The effect is to put pro-choicers on the defensive, to create the illusion that there is a mass groundswell of public support of banning abortion all over the country, making it difficult to direct resources to educate and oppose their radical agenda. 

This is similar to the tactic that has become a hallmark of Al Qaeda.  Multiple suicide bombings in different areas at the same time offer the illusion of sophistication, inevitability, and power.  It engenders confusion and makes it more difficult for governments to direct resources to fight back.  Even when the bombs fail, it still serves its purpose.  Even if a suicide bomber gets caught, there are dozens to take his place. 

2. Claim moral highground, superiority, and obscure the ultimate agenda. 

The partial birth abortion ban was a great example of this tactic.  Here was a little understood procedure which was used as a medically necessary option in certain situations that was described in the most heinous terms and then attacked.  It allowed the anti-choicers to paint abortion as a sadistic, violent, and immoral procedure, which had long-term psychological consequences for mothers. 

The debate about partial birth abortion, for them, was never about what was the most medically sound option for women.  It was about horrifying the public and shaming women, doctors, politicians, and voters. 

And of course, the real agenda for the most radical anti-choicers is not getting rid of abortion and saving babies.  It’s about getting rid of dirty, nasty, unholy sexual relationships, which includes most sexual relationships and most sexual positions.  It’s not about having fun!  Sexual fun is a sign of moral sickness and depravity.  Sex is about making babies.  And we all know that the best babies are only made in the missionary position between a man and his wife-servant. 

Of course, Al Qaeda also makes a point to describe in self-serving detail the various moral crimes of Christian soldiers against Muslims and their chattel.  Ahem.  I mean “women.”  They play and replay the photos from Abu Graib, scenes of destruction after American bombing, dead bodies along the road, houses in rubble, crying women, maimed children, and the “Westernization” of Arab culture. 

Al Qaeda advertises that they simply want to “liberate” the Arab people from their corrupted and compromised governments, from the Christian soldiers who occupy their lands, and from the sinful, secular Arabs who have brought it all upon them. 

But of course, this obscures the fact that Al Qaeda ultimately wishes to introduce sharia law. 

3. Probe, observe, and always test the defenses of the enemy.  Never rest. 

And finally the reason for legislation that will probably never pass.  It lets people know they’re still out there.  It keeps the opposition on its toes.  It exposes they way the opposition operates and reacts, which may reveal a weakness or even a fault line of support.  The partial birth abortion ban came out of this tactic.  Supreme Court decisions were analyzed and picked apart, focus groups were tested, and ideas were floated around until it became clear there was an opening there. 

When the U.S. soldiers first got to Iraq and after the Taliban left the major cities in Afghanistan without a fight, there was a period of relative quiet.  Many people, including our Preznit, thought that major combat operations were over. 

But like any competent insurgency, the enemy anticipated a long war, and occassionally coordinated an attack, to let people know they were still there but also to study the U.S. military.  It made them a better, more calculated insurgency and the results have largely been on display for the last couple years in both countries. 

What this all means for pro-choicers, like me, is that we have to recognize once for all what we’re up against.  We have to fight the anti-choicers the way we should be fighting Al Qaeda (sans the military, obviously).  With educational initiatives, by responding effectively to the absurd and horrific claims of the opposition, and by exposing the truth behind its radical agenda. 

So these are my initial answers to Elyzabethe’s question.  I’m interested in other people’s thoughts. 

And let me clarify something.  When I use the word “anti-choicer,” I am not talking about everyone who is pro-life.  I am only referring to the most radical part of the pro-life movement that is fueled by the need to decide for everyone else the best way to live their lives.  They are actively trying to taking choices away from everyone else because they know best and, in their mind, God said it was okay. 

And before all you radical anti-choicers get your Jack Bauer underoos in a bunch and accuse me of comparing you to terrorists, let me clarify:  I am absolutely comparing you to Al Qaeda.  If the neo-fascist anti-democratic one-God-fits-all theocratic shoe fits…

Sex Ed – Bush style

NARAL pointed out that a government web-site designed to help parents teach their teens about sex says that “Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before.” 

It looks like the government has taken down the web-page but Think Progress has the visual. 

Atrios replies that Bush makes him sad and more likely to drink and use drugs.  “Can we outlaw him now?”