The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.
On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?
A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.
Run a search for the word “Liberal” in Google. Just a few entries down, underneath the Wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions, is Conservapedia.com’s ever-brilliant perspective. Yes, it’s their word now. The conservative website (self-titled “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”) defines liberalism in a nut shell, beginning with the “denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)” and including “support of obscenity and pornography”, “limits [to] conservative talk radio”, and “opposition to a strong American foreign policy.” The accompanying illustration, The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat, provides a nice summary of today’s understanding of Liberals and their silly, self-serving, and anti-American principles.
The term “Liberal” now brands Democratic politicians—it has become an insult rather than a political position. The word is thrown around with a new conservative spin, using phrases such as “the liberal media,” “tax-and-spend liberal,” and “dirty liberal hippie” to disparage ideals once considered to be Democratic. The 21st century Liberal is imprudent, radical, even silly—and to be labeled a Liberal is political suicide. But its connotation now extends far beyond the limits of its definition; indeed, popular understanding has altogether changed the meaning of the term. Today’s most powerful Democrats refuse to call themselves Liberals, instead opting for the elusive “Progressive” label. What the substantive difference is between these two ideologies is unclear, except that the former has been hijacked by the conservative wing to represent all that is wrong with the Democratic Party in general.
First of all, let’s go back to the origins of the word “Liberal”. Having its root in the word for freedom, to be liberal is to be generous, tolerant, open, and understanding. Outside of a political context, one can give liberally, have liberal amounts of, or be liberal-minded. And Liberalism as a political ideology emphasizes freedom and equality, insisting on individual rights and equal opportunity. Now, that doesn’t sound silly to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like the platform of a Progressive—or whatever it is that the Democrats are calling themselves these days. Yet Democrats have developed an aversion to the word, succumbing to the negative spin placed upon it by conservatives. Conservatives would logically demonize Liberals—after all, they are proponents of fundamentally different values and policies. Fending off the Liberal label only legitimizes the conservative smear campaign aimed at making the Democrats into something ridiculous. But why are Democrats running from the very principles that define their Party? If they are looking for conservative approval, they are certainly not going to find it by touting Progressivism in its stead.
To be sure, the Democrats are trying to cultivate a less “radical” image to appeal to a wider audience (for wider audience, read centrist voters). Liberalism no longer represents the noble ideals the Democratic Party once stood for—instead, it seems to belong in the derogatory word pool with the Commies and the Fascists. There is no conservative equivalent to this rejected term. Calling someone a conservative merely describes his or her political position, one with which you can agree or disagree. Whereas Democrats plug their ears when they hear the word ‘Liberal’, ‘Conservative’ just doesn’t have the same ring. Republicans stand their ground on conservative issues, while Democrats waver self-consciously between left and center. They are eager to please and easy to upset, and as a result have cultivated an image insecure in their own principles. The refusal to embrace the term is a concession of sorts, admitting that there is something ridiculous about the Democratic Party. Our fear of the word ‘Liberal’ gives ammunition to the conservative campaign against the very values Democrats claim to hold.
Political success does involve compromise, and alienating more moderate voters will undoubtedly prove fruitless. But it doesn’t have to, and indeed it must not, involve sacrifice. Relinquishing control of the Liberal label to the conservatives is a political defeat that extends beyond the thesaurus. The truth is, Democrats are liberals—but liberal is not synonymous with radical. We must recover ‘liberal’ from the conservative smear machine and reestablish it in terms of truly Democratic values. ‘Liberal’ is not a dirty word, and a Liberal by any other name is still a Liberal.
I was walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
On Wednesday, when the House Education Committee considers reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it will have an opportunity to abolish one of the most illogical and unjust pieces of legislation from the GOP’s 12 year reign of error. I’m referring to the Aid Elimination Provision, a 1998 addition to the HEA which makes students with drug convictions ineligible for federal aid.
This provision effectively denied reformed criminals and recovering addicts access to higher education, which was both coldhearted and irrational, since improving individuals’ economic status is the most effective way to reduce drug use and other types of crime in the long run. The Aid Elimination Provision took away financial aid for students with misdemeanor marijuana offenses, yet students with alcohol violations were unaffected. In fact, the restriction applied only to drug offenses –even rapists and murderers do not lose eligibility.
Between 1998 and 2006, over 200,000 students were denied financial aid. The provision was finally revised in 2006 to apply only to students who commit violations while receiving federal aid, but there are still a number of problems with this.
The Higher Education Act, part of Johnson’s Great Society agenda, was passed in 1965 in part to expand access to college by offering loans and scholarships to poor students. However, the Aid Elimination Provision primarily punishes lower and middle-income students who cannot afford college without financial aid. Furthermore, it disproportionately affects minority students because of the discriminatory way that drug laws are enforced in this country.
The presumption behind this provision is that students who are using drugs while receiving aid are wasting taxpayers’ money. Yet the law only punishes successful students since they already need to get good grades to continue receiving aid. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office found no evidence that this penalty even helps to reduce drug use. It is simply counterproductive to kick successful, poor students out of college for drug use, increasing the likelihood that they will become a burden on the criminal justice system rather than productive, tax-paying citizens.
The Aid Elimination Provision is just another example of how the personal moral judgments of members of Congress have created an unjust and ineffective criminal justice system. Once again, the need to look ‘tough on crime’ makes for good politics and bad policy.
I walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
Amid all the hoopla about Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani last week, another endorsement got lost in the mix that may signify an even more important development.
Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a former presidential candidate who is very respected among religious conservatives, decided to endorse John McCain for president. His logic: “I am endorsing the best pro-life candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.”
McCain’s candidacy has been thought to be dead in the water for quite a while now. The conservative base rose up in arms when McCain included a path to earned legalization in his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. Furthermore, his unwavering support for the war in Iraq alienated his natural constituency of independents and Republican moderates.
But after all the long months of campaigns, debates, and mud-slinging, Brownback’s endorsement shows that this race could very well end up turning out the way most political observers predicted over a year ago. At that time, the three leading Republican contenders were Giuliani, McCain, and Mitt Romney. Giuliani is pro-choice and Romney was pro-choice pretty much right up until the start of his presidential campaign (in addition to being a Mormon), so many believed that the Christian right would eventually find McCain to be the only acceptable option and ensure his nomination.
No other candidate has acquired a lock on the support of religious conservatives. Fred Thompson seemed to be the perfect fit for the Christian right based on his solidly conservative voting record, but he has run an extremely lackluster campaign so far. Mike Huckabee has been gaining support among the grassroots of the religious right, but evangelical leaders have been reluctant to back his candidacy, probably because they fear he has no chance at winning the nomination due to his still-limited name recognition and poor fundraising.
This means that Christian conservatives might still end up backing McCain as the lesser of two (well, actually three) evils. Brownback’s endorsement is the first step in this process, and it means that the old and weathered warrior is certainly not down for the count.
I don't mind people who support Hillary Clinton. I may make some noise about it sometimes, but I can understand why they do. Senator Clinton is a very smart woman, who understands the minute details of public policy better than also anyone. She is a good speaker and can be very charming in person. She is experienced in both domestic and foreign policy, and has been through enough campaigns to know how to win.
But nominating Senator Clinton is a very dangerous message to send to our country.
Our politics has devolved. Instead of nuanced, eloquent, and substantive debate about very complicated matters of public policy, ethics, culture, and law, we reward politicians who can produce the quickest, funniest, and least threatening one-liner.
Instead of respecting and encouraging a dialogue between those with differing opinions, we belittle the other side's ideas, claiming them to be the product of evil, hatred, and greed.
Instead of getting public policy passed as legislation and enacting important programs and policies, we engage in a protracted game of one-upmanship where the goal is winning elections every year. It seems that many in our politics today hope to win a long-awaited Battle Royale which one day, in the distant future, when the other party is extinct, will produce the agenda we seek.
Instead of bringing new people into the process, and inspiring our citizens to break out of their cynicism and work for a politics of producing a better world, we play to the lowest-common-denominator, producing bland proposals that aim to slightly influence a small set of middle-aged, middle income white men in the suburbs of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
This old politics has to come to an end.
But Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, can't do it.
In fact, her advisors are the problem. Take a look at what her top two advisors, Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, thought of the massive turnout of young people that Senator Obama brought to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last night.
An estimated 9,000 people showed up here at Veterans Memorial Auditorium Saturday night and the Obama campaign claimed that 3,000 of them were Obama supporters.
“The JJ is a place to deliver a message,” Tommy Vietor, Obama’s Iowa spokesman told me, “but it is also a place to show organizing muscle. It shows you can get people to show up at the same place at the same time.”
At least two of Hillary Clinton’s upper-echelon advisers, Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, were decidedly unimpressed .
“Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”
Penn added, "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."
Mark Penn would be a top advisor to a President Hillary Clinton. If this is the tone and opinion of one of our country's potential top White House staffers, I think we are safer without nominating Senator Clinton.
We must break out of the cycle of cynicism and the stranglehold that the chattering classes of pundits, consultants, and pollsters have on our political discourse. Mark Penn is a continuation of the past. We should not let him extend into the future by voting for his benefactor.
In the state of Iowa, a scandal is brewing. No, it doesn't have anything to do with a stained dress or fabricated intelligence but with something far, far more urgent. Or, to be more specific, a lack thereof.
Yesterday, NPR Morning Edition aired a story in which a waitress, Anita Esterday, at a diner called Maid-Rite stated that "nobody got left a tip that day" -- and none other than Hillary Clinton and her staff had stopped by earlier for a meal. Naturally, when this little bit of news hit the internet, the campaign rushed to control the damage lest their candidate be seen as, well, less than sympathetic to the working class. Meanwhile, the Fact Hub over at the Clinton campaign refuted the claim, while a spokesman for the campaign e-mailed the folks over at NPR: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand." NPR has since revised its story, but there are still questions circulating about where the tip ended up.
Perhaps the most poignant comment made thus far comes from Ms. Esterday herself: "You people are really nuts. There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now -- there's better things in this world to be thinking about."
Michael Mukasey was confirmed as the 81st attorney general late tonight, but by a very narrow margin. The Senate voted 53-40 to confirm Bush’s nomination, only six of which were votes made by Democrats. This is the closet vote of its kind in over 50 years. When President Bush first nominated Mukasey, his victory looked promising, and many Democrats viewed the retired federal judge as a “consensus nominee”—and the best they could hope for during the tail end of the Bush Administration. However, Mukasey is now unpopular among Democrats for his weak position on the constitutionality of waterboarding. In his October 18th testimony, Mukasey would only go so far as to condemn the use of torture for interrogation purposes, but at one point refused to define waterboarding as torture. This unpopular stance was widely criticized, and the attorney general’s success seemed doubtful.
The six Democrats who voted to confirm Mukasey as the next attorney general ultimately viewed their decision as a practical matter. Though critiquing his views on the state-sanctioned use of a torture technique, Senators such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) considered him to be the best—and safest—compromise, especially in Alberto Gonzales’ wake. Politics aside, Democrats and Republicans alike hope that Mukasey can clean up the justice system of late. However, dissenters fear that Mukasey’s position on torture already indicates a path towards a dangerous alliance between the Justice Department and Bush’s top aides, who espouse controversial anti-terrorism techniques.
All four of the Senate Democrats running for President—Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd—announced their opposition to nominee, but were not present when the vote took place. Their presence would not have been enough to avoid the nomination altogether, but a 49-44 vote is an even closer call. That another disappointing nominee has secured a position of power—despite his overwhelming lack of support from the Senate Majority—stands out as another example of Congress embracing a defeatist attitude: Attorney General Mukasey may not be the right guy, but he’s the best we can do.
Today, Rudy Giulinai just might have secured himself the republican nomination for president. How you ask? By managing to gain the endorsement of arguably one of the most famous—and outspoken—televangelists of them all, Pat Robertson.
That’s right, Mr. feminism is a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians,” Mr. homosexuality will lead to hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks and “possibly a meteor” has publicly given his blessing to Rudy Giuliani, and it actually means something to his campaign.
In a press conference held Wednesday at the National Press Club in Washington, Robertson said, “It is my pleasure to announce my support for America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans”—oh Pat, just how much of your ass did Rudy kiss (and how much money did he donate to The 700 Club) to get you behind him? Although Robertson is staunchly against abortions, he has even stated that they were the reason for the 9/11 attacks (together with the gays, feminists, pagans and those atheistic hippies at the ACLU), and Rudy has remained cautiously pro-choice thus far in his campaign, Pat was somehow able to overlook Giuliani’s baby-killing ways and find it in his heart to support him in his campaign.
It is believed that Robertson’s support will drastically improve Giuliani’s standing among evangelicals, and could in effect solidify his position as the republican presidential nominee in 2008. Rudy has been struggling with the Christian-conservative base because of his slightly more liberal stances on social issues like abortion, but with Robertson’s endorsement, much of this hesitation is likely to evaporate.
And yet, I can’t help but wonder just how Rudy was able to finagle Pat Robertson onto his team. Was it his stance on the war on terror? Was it a “donation” to one of Robertson’s organizations? Or maybe, Pat was just a fan of this.
