The liberal branch of the Democratic Party has of late seemingly followed the path of its Stalinist roots-take two steps forward, one step back. Although the narrow passage of the House version of the current medical reform bill is seen as a big victory, it came at a huge cost for the liberal Democrats. Thanks in large measure to the input of the Catholic Church, federal funding of abortions under the new plan would be off the table.
Step back and chew on that for a minute, then digest it fully, because it is more comprehensive than it sounds at first glance. Not only can a patient not use the government option to invest in abortion coverage, but-and here's where it really gets sticky, and seems ripe for a court challenge-they also can not use any tax credits they might receive in order to purchase abortion coverage, not even from a private plan. If I understand it right, if they purchase abortion coverage, they lose their tax credit. Period, end of story, no ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions, in other words, for rape, incest, or life and/or health of the mother.
That is remarkable. It is a sure sign that the current Howard Dean strategy of attracting conservative candidates in order to make the Democratic Party more competitive in red states, while it has met with more success than any might have imagined, seems to have had unforeseen consequences.
Here's the part where it really gets complicated. No one is surprised in the least that conservative Democrats would use their clout in such ways as to limit if not outright end abortion on demand, but no one saw this coming. They should have, but they didn't. I should have too, but I didn't see it coming either.
In this case, the Catholic Church has sided with the more conservative, Blue-Dog Democratic constituency and it's congressional coalition. Talk about strange bedfellows. The Catholic Church voters within the Democratic Party, after all, make up one of its more liberal, progressive wings.
They are adamantly for peace, for environmental protections, for minimum wage, for all kinds of liberal social programs, they are steadfastly against the death penalty-and, if all that is not enough, they are even for a liberalized immigration policy, for God's sake. If it weren't for their positions in staunch opposition to abortion and euthanasia, you would fully expect to see them raising their voices in support of a single-payer universal health care system. Wait, come to think of it, I think they did that, though as luck would have it, even the clout of the Catholic Church has its limits. There is no denying, however, that it is considerable.
Remember when Joseph Stalin sneeringly asked how many divisions the Pope has? What foolish old Joe never realized was-he did not have a chance in hell of being elected Pope, whereas the Pope-well, he doesn't exactly need a battalion, does he?
Does this mean abortion is on the way out? No, of course not. There can never be too many conservative judges in a country as divided as ours. And I mean that quite literally. There can just never be enough, let alone too many. There are far too many moderate judges to swing either way, and when it comes to the abortion issue, they tend to swing left, be it ever so slightly. It just doesn't look good for such a prospect for now. But the times-well, they are a changing.
The way the wind is blowing lately harbors a lot of sentiment in the direction of a constitutional amendment, whereas the growing strength of the Blue Dog coalition, and the ever-growing clout of the Catholic Church in both mainstream political parties, makes that scenario sound not quite so far-fetched.
It's gotten to the point where even an influential member of the Kennedy clan-none other than Representative Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted-is openly criticized by the Church for his support of abortion rights. It has gotten so bad between he and the Bishop of Rhode Island, the Bishop canceled a scheduled meeting between himself and the Rhode Island Congressman, ostensibly arranged to try to work things out between the two of them.
Now, I sure didn't see that one coming. Is this by any chance a portent of things to come? Could this be a harbinger of the glad tidings of a coming split within the Democratic caucus? Could this in time lead to yet another Democratic Party exodus to the ranks of Republicans? Or could the Democratic Party itself possibly be in the process of undergoing a change in social philosophy, if in no other area than in the contentious area of abortion rights? Could that actually lead to a migration of liberal voters to some other political entity, such as the Greens?
Probably no, on all fronts. It bears repeating that abortion rights gets the short end of the stick for no other reason than the influence of the Catholic Church, which, again, tends to be very liberal on most other social, political, and economic policies. They might carry the day on a major piece of legislation such as this one, where it is pertinent, but this is unlikely to amount to much in the way of a major ideological shift within the Democratic Party beyond this issue. In fact, it has not amounted to such a shift now. It is nothing more than a single-issue defection, but it is a defection which threatened to torpedo a much desired and agonized over body of work-such as it is.
I guess not all Democrats are taken with the idea of butchering baby Democrats, even if those babies parents are, in great measure, from the more liberal wing of the party. For now, those that look upon abortion rights as a sacred humanitarian duty to uphold, and upon Roe v Wade as the closest thing to sacred writ they could ever imagine, don't seem quite to know how to deal with the unseemly dilemna. The Catholic Church, the oldest predominantly liberal (of late) organization in the world, has in effect committed what they must look upon as a heresy of the worse magnitude. And they have done so, hand in hand with a coalition of politicians who are the closest thing the Democratic Party could possibly produce that could hope to pass for conservative.
The moral of this story-whether you are a liberal Democrat, or a Blue Dog Democrat, you are, politically and culturally speaking, just one more suicidal ass.
14 comments:
Patrick, have you actually been to a Catholic mass recently? It's like sitting in a nursing home.
I haven't been in quite some time. I always think about going to Midnight Mass and sometimes Easter Mass, but I never do it. I don't think they even have mass at the Catholic Church here any more.
I think a lot of it has to do with the area. I would be very surprised to hear it had gotten that bad for them in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.
The Catholics used to have a big presence in rural parts of Kentucky, with an organization called the Christian Appalachian Project, which was founded by Father Ralph Beiting. They used to do a lot of good work, but now even they are not nearly as big a factor and influence as they used to be, though they are still around.
It's funny because I live in a really Catholic town and what that means is that all the old people go to mass and the young girls all have babies before they're 20. Otherwise though I really don't get the feeling that the Church is growing in any real way. It might be in other places. But, when I talk to people my age, I know a lot more ex-Catholics than devout ones.
A lot of ex-Catholics are like my father. I once asked him why he never goes anymore, and he said, "I like the idea of ministering to the sick and the poor. But I don't give a shit about gay marriage or abortion and here that's all the Catholics ever want to talk about." He does live in Maine. But I sort of think the cultural issues are going to be the hill the Church has chosen to die on, frankly.
I forgot about gay marriage, where they also take a conservative position. Also, they used to be staunch anti-communists in the days of the USSR. Otherwise, they are actually pretty liberal, when it comes to things like welfare, medical reform, environmental issues, labor, immigration, a whole host of things really.
You're probably right though, they have become more and more political and it is going to hurt them, and one reason for this is precisely because they are not viewed as consistent. I guess you can add to the conservative side of the ledger that they are not exactly the most pro-feminist bunch in the world.
I kind of feel their pain. Sometimes I think that my blog doesn't grow because I am not seen as conservative enough, though I'm more conservative than liberal by far. Just not conservative enough to be taken seriously by the folks that run the major blogs. So I keep trudging on with my pitiful little seventy to eighty readers a day average after four and a half years of blogging.
Bear in mind though that the more urbane and sophisticated people get, the more moderate become their views on social issues. The church is hurting in those areas and regions, but they are still strong and growing in parts of Africa, Central and South America, and Asia.
Pagan
Do not forget about the Malady of Liberation theology. It is a Marxist
attempt to corrupt a Church.
That's true too, Beak. I guess that's more prevalent in third world countries, where socialist elements are trying to make inroads in the population. Churches and Priests can have a big influence. You would think the Pope would speak out against it, but on the other hand, the Church probably doesn't want to make too many waves. Of course, this isn't just a Catholic problem.
I'm guessing that where Liberation theology has creeped in with the Catholics, they themselves haven't made a lot of waves over matters the Church has made it clear it feels very strongly about-abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, etc. They probably concentrate on those issues that lend themselves more to promoting class warfare, issues where they and the Church are more aligned to begin with.
Otherwise, it could lead to a big split in the church, which would bode no good for either faction.
The last Pope did speak out about it. He wrote a pretty long statement that liberation theology amounts to apostasy. And Ratzinger has written a bunch of essays criticizing liberation theology. So the Church does not endorse those ideas, outside of Latin America. But they do have an emphasis on poverty. They're not liberal or conservative; they're Catholic.
As for your readership, I wouldn't worry about it. The majority of blogs have small readership. Besides, the problem with the die hard conservative blogs and the die hard liberal blogs is that once you've read one, you've read all of them. They all post the same news items and make the same observations over and over. It's fucking boring. At least you post about a bunch of pagan things that I've never heard of and rock music and television shows and stuff. The point is to inform and entertain. Don't worry if this isn't Redstate dot com or whatever.
Pagan
This may sound funny, but you really have to think about the irony. Commies like Renegade Kidney talk about third worldism. Yet the fiasco of the Marxist clowns in the Anglican Church shows exactly how Eurocentric Marxists are. The fact that the opponents of their infiltration and
attempts to subvert the Church are real Africans. The only African Rowan Williams can count on is the noted Marxist Antisemite Desmond Tofu.
Marxism is a malady that seeks to infect, corrupt and subvert institutions. The interesting thing
is that as Marxists ruin the Catholic Church more traditional Protestant Churches are gaining members. These Churches need to get the Marxists out if they wish to survive.
Rufus-
Thanks, I appreciate the support. Also, thanks for setting me straight about the Pope's statement regarding liberation theology.
I should point out that those big sites like Red State, etc., have a big advantage, in that they are most generally team efforts, made up of bloggers who can pull their resources and invest time and in some cases even money in order to research articles. As such, there are many instances where they can dig up stories you might not otherwise have ever heard of.
For an example, I would be very surprised if most of them were not aware of the Pope's statement against liberation theology.
Well, anyway, it's just a matter of time and resources. I do see where you're coming from though, when it comes to the issue of the standard editorial stance on major issues. It is perhaps their major failing that, when you've read one you've read them all when it comes to their particular stands. On the other hand, they've got a large enough base of followers they don't have to worry about it. People will read their blogs, and if they can they will comment on them in the hopes people will visit their own blogs. I do that myself. I guess we all do to a point.
I will be posting something pagan related here in a while, maybe today, or in a day or two. It's more of a controversial social issue that's reared it's head lately. I just hope I don't come across as preachy, particularly as it is something I don't particularly feel comfortable blogging about to begin with, but I think some people might benefit from an even-handed approach. Knowing me, I'll probably end up offending more people than not.
Beak-
Interestingly enough, I don't think I've ever seen Ren express a view on Liberation Theology. I think your other socialist foe, the one you call the "Marijuana Marxist", is opposed to it, or any religion (at least Christian) but I'm not sure.
It is not just a problem within Catholicism or Christianity. It has made inroads in the pagan community as well, although generally these people (such as Starhawk) don't identify themselves as communists or socialists, though I'm sure some do.
Well, you are probably not familiar with Starhawk so I'll just say that she is a major pagan author and Wiccan who is associated with groups such as World Can't Wait and, I think, Code Pink, and she has even gone so far as to join these groups in their protests against the Israeli responses in the Palestinian territories. I think she even acted once as a human shield.
I like to tell people she is so fat she could probably single-handedly prevent the Israelis from bulldozing a large building just by standing in front of it by herself.
There are others like her, and unfortunately, while I don't say they make up the majority of the Wiccan/Pagan community (though the majority is most definitely left-of-center to liberal) I am positive they make up a larger percent of the pagan population than you would find in other groups within the general populace.
I think you would probably find a few of these types in Reformed Judaism as well, and maybe some other branches, though I'm not quite as familiar with that.
People of all religions should be aware of them, their presence, their tactics, and their overall goals. An old saying that is applicable here is "sunlight is the best disinfectant".
By the way, if you insist on feuding with Renegade Eye, I think phrases such as "Cafeteria Commissar" and "Lunchroom Lenin" are funnier and, when you stop to think about it, gets your point across better than things like "Renegade Spleen", which just sounds mean and ornery.
Pagan
It hardly surprises me that Commies are trying to subvert Paganism. This
is what Restroom Revolutionaries do.That is why they need to be kicked out. Let them form their own groups instead of ruining other groups.
The Commies in the Anglican Church are fighting a demographic tide. As Africans get more numerous Commies vanish.
In regards to blogging, it might be my own taste, but I enjoy reading people who are wrestling with issues and who I can't really tell how they'll come down. It's more interesting. The problem I have with some blogs- maybe an example would be the posts on the Huffington Post- is that they're so doctrinaire I don't really see any point in following their thoughts. I know what they think already.
In terms of this blog, it's generally more interesting to me when your feelings are mixed about some topic. When you do the "Democrats suck" posts, I generally skim over them because I already know you don't like the Democratic Party.
I guess you're right that the blogs with fixed ideologies tend to have a large core of die hard readers. It's probably a blessing and a curse though. I've seen a few blogs in which the regular readers lose their shit whenever the blogger disagrees with the party line on some issue. After a while, I'd imagine writing for those blogs is a bit like being a horse in a stall.
Beak-
To be honest with you, Paganism-or probably to be more precise, Wicca-has to a large degree always had subversive elements to start out with. Remember, this is a movement that started out in the heyday of the sixties flower power movement, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that's when it really took root and began to flourish here in the US.
Ask a Wiccan who they look up to as "elders", and you are probably going to get what amounts to a who's who of moldy-oldie sixties hippy types waving at you from the great beyond through a haze of marijuana and patchouli fumes.
Some of them are still around, and still active. Not that they are all necessarily communists, socialists, or anarchists, but we have more than our share of them, not just playing the role of entryists, but as actual founding members.
I should be clear, though, that Paganism is not one big umbrella movement that is homogenous and cohesive. There are many different types and elements. What we call the Reconstructionists tend to be more conservative. The eclectic types tend to be more liberal, and as such, they tend to have more socialists, anarchists, and Greens.
Of course, as most pagans tend to put a heavy emphasis on women's and gay rights, and most especially on environmental issues, that is a natural attraction and breeding ground for leftist ideology.
The irony is,I have more in common, or at least as much, with the eclectic types as I do with the Recons, when it comes to Pagan matters-such as ritual observances, the deities and their meaning, spiritual matters, magic, etc.
Yet, I am more conservative than they are politically, and more and more socially conservative as well, it seems. They actually make me feel like I'm the subversive sometimes.
Rufus-
Strangely enough, I used to be what what was once known as a "Yellow Dog" Democrat. That is a person who is registered Democrat, whose overall political philosophy is adequately summed up by the phrase "I would vote for a yellow dog before I would vote for a Republican".
I guess since I've seen so much of their crap in a new light, it makes me more antagonistic towards them than maybe is reasonable. It doesn't help that I spent years biting my tongue over things just to keep down divisions. It's like an erupting volcano.
I try to keep myself from going to the opposite extreme. I am well aware that the Republicans have more than their share of faults and follies, and I try to point that out whenever the need arises. I won't go down that bandwagon road again.
I don't actually think of myself as a Republican, or frankly, even as a conservative, insofar as how that is generally defined.
I like to think of myself as a Federalist. Just let the federal government do those things it was empowered to do by the constitution, and not one iota more. Let the states run their own affairs otherwise, and in the meantime, in both situations, do what works, or what the situation calls for. Whether that happens to be "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant.
I think a good example of what you are meaning by blog readers turning on blog owners that don't toe the party line is best exemplified by the current disaffection over Little Green Footballs. I think the owner offended the sensibilities of a lot of people by appearing to be jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon. I don't think he did, I think he just moderated his position regarding the issue. Also, he is vociferously against the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools.
There may be a few other things, but for the most part, so far as I know, he's as conservative as he's ever been. He is one of the founders of Pajamas Media.
Post a Comment