In a previous post I contrasted the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of their core values. I summarized the Democrats in this way:
"When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens.
Some corollaries: the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining a good economy so that citizens have jobs and income; for those citizens who are not prospering economically it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide for their needs; since a college education is seen as a ticket to greater well-being, the Federal Government will provide financing to institutions and to students (student loans); good health is essential to well-being so the Federal Government will ensure that everyone has insurance, or, provide affordable health-care, and to prevent citizens from damaging their own health, will take steps to discourage smoking and obesity; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The Democrats have had this core value for Domestic Policy since FDR's New Deal, policies to implement this value are in place (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for the Interstate Highway System), and while taxpayers may complain the same taxpayers will not give up the fruits of this core value such as Federal money for large lakes, highway bridges, guaranteed student loans, or Social Security."
I am not a Democrat, in large part, because I think this core value is dangerous to the well-being of American society. (more below)
"When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens.
Some corollaries: the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining a good economy so that citizens have jobs and income; for those citizens who are not prospering economically it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide for their needs; since a college education is seen as a ticket to greater well-being, the Federal Government will provide financing to institutions and to students (student loans); good health is essential to well-being so the Federal Government will ensure that everyone has insurance, or, provide affordable health-care, and to prevent citizens from damaging their own health, will take steps to discourage smoking and obesity; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The Democrats have had this core value for Domestic Policy since FDR's New Deal, policies to implement this value are in place (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for the Interstate Highway System), and while taxpayers may complain the same taxpayers will not give up the fruits of this core value such as Federal money for large lakes, highway bridges, guaranteed student loans, or Social Security."
I am not a Democrat, in large part, because I think this core value is dangerous to the well-being of American society. (more below)
Cross-posted on Political Grind.
Charles Krauthammer, the clinically trained psychiatrist turned conservative columnist, whimsically announced a new mental disorder back in 2003: "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Krauthammer defined the condition as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush" (read the original Post column here).
Consider this recent example of BDS:
"I am writing because we have an emergency."
"There are ten steps that are taken in order to close down a democracy or crush a pro-democratic movement, whether by capitalists, communists, or right-wing fascists. These ten steps, together, are more than the sum of their parts. Once all ten have been put in place, each magnifies the power of the others and of the whole."
"Impossible as it may seem, we are seeing each of these ten steps taking hold in the United States today."
So writes Naomi Wolf in End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which reveals that the Bush administration is using the events of 9-11 to destroy democracy in America and institute a fascist police state. Most alarming, in her view, the Bush conspirators are not patiently sowing the seeds of a future or incremental conservative coup; Wolf expects a major crackdown on dissent (like locking people up in gulags) within the year.
What of Naomi Wolf and her call to arms?
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The New York Post is on the job investigating the continuing saga of Hillary Clinton's fund-raising scandal. Apparently Hsu is just a part of a larger pattern of funny money coming from Chinese sources. It seems like 1996 all over again.
How can anyone trust a thing the Clintons do or say?
How can anyone trust a thing the Clintons do or say?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Bosque Boys friend and contributor, Tocqueville, offers up this brief but perceptive analysis of the recently concluded gubernatorial race in the Bayou State:
1. You will note that all the Democratic Party theories about race, the South, and politics were again disproven as Louisiana elected a conspicuously dark-skinned Indian as governor. He won an absolute majority in a field of ten.
2. He was a Republican who defeated a Democrat. I suggest that, even if the media and the Democrats cannot determine who was responsible for the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the electorate in Louisiana understands perfectly well that the corrupt, clownish Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the bumbling Democrat governor of Louisiana warrant the lion's share of the blame.
If the Bush administration is responsible and the governor and the mayor were merely bystanders, one would hardly expect the party of Bush to sweep a Louisiana gubernatorial election with this ease. Coupled with the near defeat of Democrat Tsongas in Massachusetts, one would think that this result in Louisiana would send shivers down the spines of the Democratic Party.
A Post Script: Did you see that Harry Reid's approval numbers in Nevada are lower than Bush's numbers? I find no commentary to this effect in the mainstream media.
1. You will note that all the Democratic Party theories about race, the South, and politics were again disproven as Louisiana elected a conspicuously dark-skinned Indian as governor. He won an absolute majority in a field of ten.
2. He was a Republican who defeated a Democrat. I suggest that, even if the media and the Democrats cannot determine who was responsible for the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the electorate in Louisiana understands perfectly well that the corrupt, clownish Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the bumbling Democrat governor of Louisiana warrant the lion's share of the blame.
If the Bush administration is responsible and the governor and the mayor were merely bystanders, one would hardly expect the party of Bush to sweep a Louisiana gubernatorial election with this ease. Coupled with the near defeat of Democrat Tsongas in Massachusetts, one would think that this result in Louisiana would send shivers down the spines of the Democratic Party.
A Post Script: Did you see that Harry Reid's approval numbers in Nevada are lower than Bush's numbers? I find no commentary to this effect in the mainstream media.
~~Tocqueville
James Watson, Nobel prize-winning geneticist ("the father of DNA"), is under fire for racist remarks he made to London's Sunday Times Magazine.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours–-whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours–-whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
18/10: The Making of an Entitlement
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Congressional Budget Office--May 2007:
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A salient and concise explanation of the current economic dilemma:
"[T]he fundamental question is, what do we do to help homeowners? I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders, but I do think we ought to put policy in place that helps people stay in their home. And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it will extend the reach of the FHA, and enable more people to refinance their homes.
"Part of the issue in the housing market has been, as a result of asset bundling, it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance. In other words, in the old days, you go into your local savings and loan, and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties, to say, can't you help me restructure? Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note, in many cases.
"The securitization of mortgages actually provides a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates an issue here in America, and that is, how do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought, and how do you help people refinance to stay in their home? And so that's what Secretary Paulson, Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance."
Well stated. Clear, informed, and correct. Who said it?
A Harvard MBA. President Bush offered this exegesis in answer to a question posed by a reporter at his White House press conference on Wednesday.
Not bad. Not likely to make it onto Letterman, but it is nice when the President reminds us that he is not an ignoramus. But, of course, tomorrow is another day.
"[T]he fundamental question is, what do we do to help homeowners? I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders, but I do think we ought to put policy in place that helps people stay in their home. And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it will extend the reach of the FHA, and enable more people to refinance their homes.
"Part of the issue in the housing market has been, as a result of asset bundling, it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance. In other words, in the old days, you go into your local savings and loan, and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties, to say, can't you help me restructure? Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note, in many cases.
"The securitization of mortgages actually provides a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates an issue here in America, and that is, how do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought, and how do you help people refinance to stay in their home? And so that's what Secretary Paulson, Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance."
Well stated. Clear, informed, and correct. Who said it?
A Harvard MBA. President Bush offered this exegesis in answer to a question posed by a reporter at his White House press conference on Wednesday.
Not bad. Not likely to make it onto Letterman, but it is nice when the President reminds us that he is not an ignoramus. But, of course, tomorrow is another day.
16/10: C-SPAN Alert: Must-See TV
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This morning on C-SPAN3 (quoting their blurb):
FROM THE HOUSE
"Jena Six" & Hate Crimes
"Donald Washington, U.S. Atty. for the Western District of Louisiana, testifies at a House Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the "Jena Six." The Cmte. is investigating why the Justice Dept. did not pursue hate crime prosecutions following the noose incident at Jena High School. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) chairs the hearing."
End quote.
You may watch live online here (9:30 Eastern).
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and his posse will take on a Bush-appointed African American U.S. Attorney. In general, U.S. attorneys are incredibly talented, amazingly logical and articulate, and absolutely persuasive advocates.
Over the past few months, myriad politicians and pundits (many of whom will be on display today) have accused the Bush administration of passing over the best and the brightest for politically subservient hacks to fill these vital positions. We will only ascertain that truth of that accusation over time and our analysis will be the product of events that transpire in hundreds of venues across the nation.
Having said that, ironically, by inference, today's showdown will most likely offer a unique and telling window into the inside of the current DOJ and the Bush White House personnel record.
FROM THE HOUSE
"Jena Six" & Hate Crimes
"Donald Washington, U.S. Atty. for the Western District of Louisiana, testifies at a House Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the "Jena Six." The Cmte. is investigating why the Justice Dept. did not pursue hate crime prosecutions following the noose incident at Jena High School. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) chairs the hearing."
End quote.
You may watch live online here (9:30 Eastern).
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and his posse will take on a Bush-appointed African American U.S. Attorney. In general, U.S. attorneys are incredibly talented, amazingly logical and articulate, and absolutely persuasive advocates.
Over the past few months, myriad politicians and pundits (many of whom will be on display today) have accused the Bush administration of passing over the best and the brightest for politically subservient hacks to fill these vital positions. We will only ascertain that truth of that accusation over time and our analysis will be the product of events that transpire in hundreds of venues across the nation.
Having said that, ironically, by inference, today's showdown will most likely offer a unique and telling window into the inside of the current DOJ and the Bush White House personnel record.
15/10: Considering Abortion
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I just finished teaching an 8-week introductory course in American Federal Government on the campus of Ft. Sill for a nearby university. The majority of the students were active-duty Army taking the class over their lunch hour, with some from the regular campus population who liked the time. I did the same class in the summer. The students spent the last week of each class presenting Issue Papers and debating. Each student had chosen a topic of current policy interest and researched it. In their papers, 1 page max, each student presented a question concerning Federal Government policy, and gave his/her answer, a defense of the answer, and an action plan to work toward implementing that answer. The papers were then presented in class and debated.
In both classes several student chose something related to abortion. Though my sample is too small to have poly-sci validity, I offer some observations. Here is where it gets interesting for the politics of pro-choice versus pro-life:
1. Nearly all my students were pro-choice. Given that my classes probably were toward the more conservative end of the late-teens and twenty-something spectrum, the pro-choice movement may be making progress.
2. Interestingly, all the students who supported the availability of legal abortion thought there should be limits: they wanted new laws against late-term abortions and limits to the number of abortions one woman could have. Nobody argued for an absolute right to abort a baby. The pro-choice movement may be causing itself a problem by arguing for the absolute right to abortion without restrictions.
3. In one debate, some of the men argued that fathers should have a legal say in the decision to abort. The women in the class reacted emotionally against such an idea--a woman's body was her own to make decisions about. I think the pro-life movement would do well to make sure that the front-line in the fight against abortion is made up of women: men who picket abortion clinics probably are viewed by pro-choice women as just more men who want to control women.
In both classes several student chose something related to abortion. Though my sample is too small to have poly-sci validity, I offer some observations. Here is where it gets interesting for the politics of pro-choice versus pro-life:
1. Nearly all my students were pro-choice. Given that my classes probably were toward the more conservative end of the late-teens and twenty-something spectrum, the pro-choice movement may be making progress.
2. Interestingly, all the students who supported the availability of legal abortion thought there should be limits: they wanted new laws against late-term abortions and limits to the number of abortions one woman could have. Nobody argued for an absolute right to abort a baby. The pro-choice movement may be causing itself a problem by arguing for the absolute right to abortion without restrictions.
3. In one debate, some of the men argued that fathers should have a legal say in the decision to abort. The women in the class reacted emotionally against such an idea--a woman's body was her own to make decisions about. I think the pro-life movement would do well to make sure that the front-line in the fight against abortion is made up of women: men who picket abortion clinics probably are viewed by pro-choice women as just more men who want to control women.
14/10: Mitt Romney's Mormon Problem
The other morning I heard a radio talk-show host opine that for Romney to break out of the low poll numbers, he would need to address the fact of his Mormonism head-on. The host said that Romney should give the nation a short-course in Mormonism. Perhaps he meant that conservative unease with the thought of a Mormon president was due to fear of the unknown.
But fear of the unknown is not the problem. Southern evangelicals are in a battle for converts with Mormon missionaries, the nearly ubiquitous pairs of neatly dressed young men and women who can be seen walking or bicycling through suburbs everywhere. In the South especially, Mormons present themselves very much as the church of God and country, patriotism and traditional morality. Local Southern Baptists feel the Mormon missionaries are stealing their best lines. In Sunday School classes and from pulpits conservative church-goers are warned against "the cults;" that list includes Mormonism.
For Romney to address his Mormonism explicitly in a high-profile way carries a great political risk. So long as conservative Christians don't think about his religion, Romney could seem an attractive candidate. But if he were to address his religion in an attention-getting fashion, tens-of-thousands of evangelicals will get the heebie-jeebies. They have been primed to react this way.
And, there is another reason for Romney not to give the address the radio host called for. Trying to explain Mormonism, even in a short course, will involve the now-you-see-them, now-you-don't Golden Plates, the belief that "God" is Adam-become-the-god-for-this-world, that any male Mormon potentially can become a god with his own world, that there are a potentially infinite number of gods, that women reach a place in paradise based on the achievements of their man, etc. The buzz generated by a Romney Mormonism speech will bring up not just polygamy, but also holy underwear, the former ban on black priests, and the "history" of North America that contradicts everything anthropology and archealogy teaches. He would risk alienating many beyond the evangelical base whose reaction might be, "that's just plain weird."
I don't think Romney has a snowball's chance to capture the 08 Republican nomination.
But fear of the unknown is not the problem. Southern evangelicals are in a battle for converts with Mormon missionaries, the nearly ubiquitous pairs of neatly dressed young men and women who can be seen walking or bicycling through suburbs everywhere. In the South especially, Mormons present themselves very much as the church of God and country, patriotism and traditional morality. Local Southern Baptists feel the Mormon missionaries are stealing their best lines. In Sunday School classes and from pulpits conservative church-goers are warned against "the cults;" that list includes Mormonism.
For Romney to address his Mormonism explicitly in a high-profile way carries a great political risk. So long as conservative Christians don't think about his religion, Romney could seem an attractive candidate. But if he were to address his religion in an attention-getting fashion, tens-of-thousands of evangelicals will get the heebie-jeebies. They have been primed to react this way.
And, there is another reason for Romney not to give the address the radio host called for. Trying to explain Mormonism, even in a short course, will involve the now-you-see-them, now-you-don't Golden Plates, the belief that "God" is Adam-become-the-god-for-this-world, that any male Mormon potentially can become a god with his own world, that there are a potentially infinite number of gods, that women reach a place in paradise based on the achievements of their man, etc. The buzz generated by a Romney Mormonism speech will bring up not just polygamy, but also holy underwear, the former ban on black priests, and the "history" of North America that contradicts everything anthropology and archealogy teaches. He would risk alienating many beyond the evangelical base whose reaction might be, "that's just plain weird."
I don't think Romney has a snowball's chance to capture the 08 Republican nomination.
