Liberal Wedge Issues, Part X

The far-right effort by the Bush Administration to define contraception as abortion is getting a lot of scrutiny. This is one of those wedge issues that I think works for liberals - it makes perfectly clear the radical right's project for a Dominionist America. Reasonable Americans see a law seeking to effectively ban birth control for low-income women as abhorrent.

Today a lot of Democrats are hitting this hard. Sens. Clinton and Murray have written the HHS Department to voice their displeasure with the proposed ruling. An excerpt:

"It is outrageous that the Bush administration is once again putting ideology over women's health. Instead of undercutting access to contraception and family planning services, the Bush Administration should put prevention first," said Senator Clinton.

"On the first day of his administration, the President reinstated the Mexico City global gag clause, a harsh, anti-family planning policy that hurt the world's poorest women and children. Now, on his way out the door it appears that he is trying to limit women's health care options here at home," Murray said. "This misguided attempt to restrict health care services and limit access to contraceptives defeats our common goal of reducing the number of abortions in this country."

And Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, who has surged ahead of Gordon Smith in recent polling, has reached out to his supporters:

Bush would deny critical HHS funding to any health care institution that refuses to abide by the new rule. This is the last thing the Bush Administration should be doing when so many Americans are struggling to afford health care.

Sign a petition to oppose George Bush's efforts to roll back a woman's right to choose and deny access to health care.

George Bush wants to allow individuals with personal and political agendas to influence the information women receive from their health care providers.

There's a reason politicians are jumping on this. It's a core value and it's an issue on which the radical right can be defined. This is about a daddy party telling you how to manage your health care and your private life. It will be rejected.

UPDATE: There's evidence for this, via Matt Yglesias, in the latest WaPo poll which shows voters preferring Barack Obama to John McCain on "Social issues, such as abortion and gay civil unions" by 56-32. The wedge issues ain't what they used to be. Terri Schiavo was the turning point.

Marriage Ruling Fallout

Yesterday's historic ruling defending marriage from double standards and discrimination, has created wide reaction across the political spectrum, most of it predictable. One reaction was fairly unpredictable, from Libertarian Presidential candidate (and former Republican) Bob Barr:

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which ournation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

I think Barr is being a little disingenuous about the intent of DOMA, but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless.

On the side of gay rights advocates, there is much celebration, and a determination to forge ahead for a tough fight in the fall. Ellen DeGeneres announced her intention to get married, provoking a long standing ovation from her audience.

On the side of the wingnuts and homophobes, heads exploded. A lot of them focused on how "unelected judges" went over the heads of the will of the people. First of all, the elected legislature, elected more recently than the 2000 marriage initiative, have passed this legislation twice, and frankly that's how democracy works. Second of all, Supreme Court judges in California are, you know, elected:

But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”

In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:

- Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.
- Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.
- Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.
- Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.

And 6 of the 7 were appointed by Republican governors.

As for the initiative fight, Peter Hecht has a scene-setter today.

California voters eight years ago overwhelmingly approved a law against gay marriage, but as they prepare to go to the polls again in the wake of Thursday's California Supreme Court decision, the outcome is less certain.

Unlike 2000, when 61 percent voted to put a gay marriage ban in state law, the "California Marriage Protection Act" would lock the ban in the constitution, negating the court's action. The measure is expected to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

Pollsters say voters' views on gay marriage are more complex than the last time they considered the question, as surveys show rising acceptance in California for same-sex unions.

"The vote itself on the constitutional amendment will be wide open," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. "It's all age-related. One generation is replacing another. And the generation that is coming in now is much more supportive of gay marriage than the one that was here eight years ago."

In a 2006 state Field Poll, voters opposed gay marriage 51 percent to 43 percent. But support was much stronger among newer voters.

Kevin Drum has crunched the numbers based on historical data between 2000 and now, and thinks it'll be very close, within 4 points. This is going to be a major battle in the fall. And I have to say, one that can skyrocket turnout on the DEMOCRATIC side. As a civil rights issue that will energize younger voters to turn out in solidarity and support, I think you could see a perfect storm that could help us downticket. It's going to take a major effort.

I Support Obama Because I Choose Not To Be Afraid

I've witnessed this latest effort at molehill politics with a fair amount of anger. It's infuriating to see John McCain, who owns eight houses, try to characterize anyone as an elitist. And really everyone who's had a voice in this controversy is an elitist by definition, either a media star or a rich politician, and frankly what's most condescending is these elites presuming to know what those "rubes" they clearly think less of will find offensive. Not that anyone's asked those with an annual pay grade below seven figures, but they would surely tell you that they could give a crap about these manufactured controversies. They're far more concerned about the decades of neglect in their own communities, and phony politicians coming to them and pretending to hear their concerns and leaving without any meaningful action put in place. They're concerned about a broken system in Washington that shuts them out and offers no accountability. They're upset over a country that no longer works.

The idea that Republicans use wedge issues to distract from them failing rural and small-town communities economically is fairly straightforward; it takes an army of spinmeisters and consultants to twist that into a demeaning commentary on those same small-town folk. But the best commentary I've heard on this issue, bar none, is from publius at Obsidian Wings. This is an issue about how so many Democrats, as typified in this case by Hillary Clinton, are afraid of their own beliefs.

More specifically, I think far too many liberals — particularly those in positions with political or journalistic influence — have deeply internalized conservative criticisms. I suppose these criticisms go back a long way (e.g., Adlai Stevenson), but they seem to have gained greater resonance in the past twenty-five years or so with the rise of Reagan and the 1994 election.

As a result, far too many liberals — particularly circa 2002-03 — had internalized the view that they were snobby, that they were elitist, that they were too anti-religion, or that they were insufficiently patriotic in the eyes of the American public. It’s not so much that they actually were any of these things (at least in any great number). It’s that they feared (deeply feared) being perceived in this way by the American public. To borrow from Dylan, a lot of issues came and went, but the Great Dirty Hippie never escaped their mind [...]

Turning back to Obama, this same dynamic explains the intense reaction to his words. Among liberals, there’s this ever-present fear that Obama — record-setting, charismatic Obama — is always teetering on the edge of collapse. To you, I say “chill out.” He’s a tough, resilient candidate as he’s shown again and again. But among always-nervous guilty liberals, Obama’s inartful wording portends not merely a bad press cycle or two, but electoral collapse because it fulfills the elitist stereotypes they live in mortal terror of.

Clinton Democrats think, in short, that conservatives are right. They think that they actually are snobbish and elitist and they're desperate not to have anyone find out. They think that conservatives can simply snap their fingers and create some kind of magic piece of advertising to convince the public that the narratives they've used for the past 30 years on Democrats are substantially correct. The GOP would have painted Obama as an effete intellectual egghead - and Clinton too - no matter what he says or does.

This critique operates in a complete vacuum and is wedded to the politics of the past. They fail to take into account the fact that 81% of Americans feel that the country is on the wrong track, that 4 in 5 think the health care system is broken, that 65-70% think the Iraq war is a mistake and want our troops to come home. They think that none of that matters, that Republican wedge-issue politics are always successful, that we have to cloak our true beliefs and act like Republican-lites in order to win. Hillary Clinton has as much as said this. She thinks Obama can't win because of perception and not reality.

I choose not to be afraid. First of all, it's the constant fear, the defensive crouch, that invites all of these political attacks to begin with. As publius notes:

And the reason that weapon often works is because it’s abundantly clear that liberals are affected by it. In short, conservatives can smell the fear. And so when liberal candidates (or anyone) obsequiously beg for forgiveness for, say, enjoying steamed milk and espresso, it simply reinforces the efficacy of this line of attack. For this reason, the more one tries to avoid looking too liberal, the more one will -- ironically enough -- be subject to the attacks. The fear invites future attacks.

The historical moment simply doesn't match the need for this constant fear. Democrats have been playing everywhere and winning for the past three years, actually, winning in so-called Red America and so-called Blue America. People are pretty much dying for a President who doesn't authorize torture out of the White House, doesn't start unnecessary pre-emptive wars, doesn't leave the whole country in an economic ditch. People all over the country are smart enough to get this, and Republican fearmongering and character attacks will fall on deaf ears. The reason there's such an uproar right now is that nexus between Clinton and McCain making the same arguments, loud enough for nobody to ignore.

But it's all based on fear. Clinton Democrats think that this is a conservative country and we have to patronizingly cowtow to conservative interests and issues in order to win. Obama Democrats know that this is a progressive country and have faith in all Americans that they are ready for change. I'm proud to be a Democrat and I'm not going to act afraid or deceive anyone about it. Unconventional times do not call for conventional thinking.

This is about the past versus the future in the Democratic Party. The spinners and media elites who want to intentionally miss the point are welcome to think otherwise. But this is about whether we can hold our head up high and trust the public or hold our heads low and try to deceive them. The progressive movement in recent years has always been about breaking these narratives to which skittish Democrats thoughtlessly cling. The Obama campaign is poised to do the same.

Republicans - The Most Condescending Elitists The Country Has Ever Known

I basically agree with TBogg's take on this Obama "bitterness" nonsense, this is the selective outrage of a bunch of self-appointed elites who have decided for the rest of the country that they in fact look down upon what should upset them:

Shorter Everyone Who Is Appalled By Obama's Comments About "Bitter" America:

"I'm here to defend and speak for the stupid fucking rubes who are too fucking stupid to know that they've been insulted by Barrack Obama. Hillary/McCain rulz!"

I mean please. Is there anyone in this country who doesn't believe in the existence of wedge issues? Because that's basically what Obama was describing.

And you don't have to take my word for it. How about Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay deputy Michael Scanlon?

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

The Republican Party has nothing but contempt for their voters, and in the modern age, they always have. They've been targeting "the wackos" openly for many years now. If Obama did anything wrong is was not to read this memo aloud as proof of what he was expressing. Presidents should resist the opportunity to play pundit, but Obama was asked a pundit-like question in a private setting, and he responded with a basic truth.

I'm not a politician, so maybe I can express it a bit more freely. Republicans think you're stupid. They treat you like suckers and distract you with wedge issues that have no material effect on your lives while they bleed you dry economically and engage in endless war and torture in your name. They have no experience with or even interest in the everyday lives of Americans. They get their dander up and scream "class warfare" any time they're challenged on any of this because they don't want anybody peeking behind the curtain and discovering the shadow war on the middle class.

But the truth is that most folks have already figured it out. We have a President hated by almost everybody and a general sense that the country has gone off the rails. We're not idiots and we're going to place the blame squarely where it belongs, media hypemeisters and GOP spinmeisters be damned.

What's most newsworthy about that Scanlon quote, by the way, is that it came out in a hearing investigated by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which was then chaired by... John McCain. It should also interest you that McCain limited the scope of his investigation and failed to investigate any members of Congress implicated in the scandal, and indeed never got to the bottom of things. He thinks you're stupid, too.