| « | The theological roots of Wahabbism |
»
|
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Political Shortsightedness Dept.
The two major political parties are sometimes spoken of as "brands," though whether for their nominal ideologies, the sort of candidates they put forward, or the loyalty shown them by their adherents is seldom clear. But the notion is bizarre for several reasons, above all others, this one: No merchant trying to popularize his "brand" would deliberately alienate the affections of those most likely to embrace it.
A good deal has been said and written about the strangeness of the John McCain for President campaign. The senator from Arizona, in an apparent attempt to ingratiate himself with persons who wouldn't vote for him if his opponent were Satan himself, keeps giving conservative Republicans reasons to stay home on November 4. His latest move, putting Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut on the "short list" for his running mate, is doubly weird, as Lieberman has said several times that he would not consider any such offer. Not only has McCain given conservatives a powerful reason to doubt his attachment to the Republican Party's nominal principles; he's also undermined general confidence in his mental soundness.
But John McCain has prized a reputation for being "a maverick." He's never been particularly enamored of conservative principles; indeed, he's the most liberal member of the GOP's senatorial caucus, and is rated more liberal than four Senate Democrats. So his own "branding" efforts, while they cross-cut his party's nominal "brand," are not inconsistent with his record in federal office.
The Democrats, however...what can even a Curmudgeon Emeritus say about a party that deliberately cuts the throats of its own future voters to antagonize two-thirds of today's electorate?
David Limbaugh provides a glimpse of the process in his column of today:
ABC reports that the group "Democrats for Life," whose title gives new meaning to "oxymoronic," decided last week not to press the Democratic Party to restore a life-tolerant "conscience clause" to its party platform....The "conscience clause," which appeared in the 1996 and 2000 platforms, at least paid lip service to tempering the platform's express support of a woman's "right to choose," stating: The "Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party."But the party ended all pretense of inclusion in 2004 by replacing the "conscience clause" with a statement that Democrats "stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine" abortion rights. And despite the obviously halfhearted efforts of Democrats for Life, the clause will also be absent from the 2008 platform....
[Reverend Jim Wallis] is the author of "God's Politics" and an outspoken proponent of the idea that Democrats should reclaim "values voters" because their policies are more in line with Christian truth, which assertion is only slightly less incoherent than the label "Democrats for Life."
In pushing for an "abortion reduction" plank in the Democratic Party platform, Wallis said: "You don't have to take a different stance about a woman's right to choose. But you begin with the need for reducing abortion dramatically."
Why reduce abortion if it is not immoral, Rev. Wallis? Well, read on because he answers that very question. "Taking abortion seriously as a moral issue would help Democrats a great deal with a constituency that is already leaning in their direction on poverty and the environment. There are literally millions of votes at stake."
Aha. So it's about votes, not about protecting the innocent unborn. As if thinking people would have concluded otherwise.
"Millions of votes at stake." In this year's election, perhaps. But what about the elections of 2028, 2030, and 2032?
The single most powerful influence on the political opinions of a young American is the sheaf of opinions held by his parents. Young people acquire their political postures from their parents far more often than from any other source. Thus, by endorsing unrestricted abortion on demand, funded by government when the unwilling mother-to-be is impecunious, the Democrats have elected to undercut their demographics to the Republicans' direct future benefit. The children most likely to be aborted will be conceived by liberal-leaning women. To be maximally blunt, those kids will not get to vote in the elections of two decades hence. As "red state" couples are already out-reproducing "blue state" couples by a third or more, this amounts to a deferred renunciation of major-party status.
The reason for this demographic auto da fe is quite clear: any suggestion that the Democratic Party might accommodate the majority sentiment against third-trimester and partial-birth abortions risks alienating the critical fringe-lunatic gender-war feminist vote. Should the hairy-leg-and-armpit brigade abandon the Democrats in this crucial hour, the party would have to bag 100% of the convicted-felon and illegal-alien voters to prevail in November. That's a tall order even for a party that explicity endorses the dismantling of penal system and the shredding of the Constitution.
In his baseball autobiography Ball Four, Jim Bouton castigates quondam New York Yankees manager Johnny Keane by saying that "he was always willing to sacrifice a season to win a game." If that isn't a perfect capsule description of the Democrats on abortion -- a subject where surveys have indicated that more than two thirds of Americans favor some restrictions -- your Curmudgeon hasn't heard one.
In this connection, Barack Obama is the perfect Democrat candidate for president; he voted against the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act even after it was reworded explicitly to disavow any abridgement of abortion rights. There's a man who knows his proper audience: pacifist Europeans, black-liberation theologists, and infanticide-minded women. Whether those cohorts will come to the polls in sufficient numbers on Novermber 4 remains to be seen.
Comments
Excellent post, C.E. The Democrat Party’s attitude toward abortion reminds me a bit of the jihadists’ attitude toward suicide bombing; both stances are evil, bloody, and stupidly self-limiting. As I think about it though, abortion actually beats suicide bombing in all three departments ... beats it to Hell in fact.
Posted by on 08/12/2008 at 07:19 PM“...he’s [McCain] also undermined general confidence in his mental soundness.”
Sadly, if the outcome of the contest were to hinge on “mental soundness” it would be a Jug ears Hussein Obama landslide. Be afraid. Be VERY AFRAID!
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 08/14/2008 at 11:54 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
