Yes, this is the kind of Democratic Party we need; but it's not the real existing one of 2012

Charlie Pierce puts his point about the Todd Akin flap in typically directly language (The Democrats' Problem with Abortion: What Happened to the Pro-Choice Movement Anyway? Esquire Politics Blog 08/21/2012)

Once everyone's done having a good chortle over the whole matter, here's what I'd like to see from the Democratic Party: a full-throated, no-hemming-or-hawing or throat-clearing, defense of a woman's right to choose. Period. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that a woman's right to privacy extends to her right to have this particular medical procedure up to a certain point in her pregnancy and, therefore, believe it or not, despite the opinion of you and Jesus, a woman still has that right, and the reasons for her decision do... not... matter and, frankly, are none of your business, or mine, or your pastor's, or Todd Akin's. It is solely between the woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her god, if she happens to have one.

No more enabling. No more wishful thinking that the whole icky business would go away so we can all talk about The Economy, or, worse, The Deficit. No more clinging to "rape, incest, and the health of the mother." No more Clintonian caveats about safe, legal, and rare. ("Safe and legal." Full stop.) No more pathetic attempts to reach "common ground," when, at least in our politics, there plainly is no common ground to be reached. (If you want to argue that there is, take it up with Planned Parenthood.) No more, "Well, I respect the beliefs of the other side" goo-goo rhetoric. Just a simple demand that the conservative opposition respect the settled law.

I'm with him on this point, too: "I would like to see the Democratic Party make a national campaign issue out of repealing the Hyde Amendment, which never made any sense in the first place, and which makes sense only if I can withhold that part of my taxes that go to pay for Antonin (Short Time) Scalia's salary." And he's also right in saying, "an assault on a woman's right to privacy over her reproductive decisions is the first step in the assault on your right to be private in any and all decisions you make. (Again, if you disagree, I suggest you take it up with Planned Parenthood.)"

The Republicans are scared enough of their base to actively pursue their favorite issues, like outlawing women erasing women's rights. The conventional wisdom we still hear is that the Republicans are suckering the Christian Right by not pursuing their issues. That certainly isn't true of the current Republican House.

Todd Akin says he's staying in the race, though other Republicans around the country are pushing him heavily to drop out. Individual politicians are typically operating on some combination of principles (or at least policy goals). Even as shameless a position-changer as Mitt Romney has a clear policy goal of reducing taxes on one-percenters like himself even more.

But aside from individual ambitions, or rather alongside them, the Republican Party is running a long game in a way that the Democratic Party is just not. Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" when he was Democratic Party Chairman was an attempt to build a better long-term strategy. But the Dems have abandoned even that.

At the moment, Akin may look bad even to other Republicans who share his position on rape. But to his base, and to the Christian Right more generally, this is the kind of thing that lets a guy like Akin become a professional martyr. If he loses his Senate race, it won't be hard for him to find some well-paying position in the wingnut welfare system. Shoot, he may even get his own FOX News show. Just as it was for Sarah Palin, running and losing for Akin now may be an excellent career path.

Ed Kilgore explains in a perceptive post, Todd Akin, Superstar Political Animal 08/21/2012, that Akin is also a true believer:

He represents a very self-conscious hard-core Christian Right segment of the GOP "base" in his state that undoubtedly feels underrepresented, undervalued, and perhaps even dissed. His candidacy is now indelibly connected with a debate over an issue—legalized abortion, and more generally, the need to rebuild America as a "Christian Nation"—about which he feels very passionately; it may very well be what made him run for office in the first place. ...

His family is reportedly running his campaign, so he didn’t have to worry about his staff quitting in disgust or fear of professional consequences. It’s too late for him to reassume his House seat. What does he have to lose, other than the opportunistic support of people who don’t know or like him and would probably have taken credit for his victory had he won without this latest incident?

And if he does win, he will enter the Senate next year not as some random wingnut dude from Missouri who was swept into office on a conservative wave in Missouri, but as Todd Akin, celebrity and Avenging Hero, who owes nothing to anyone other than his God, his family, and his loyal base.

Tags: christian right, todd akin

Todd Akin's rape theology

Sarah Posner has a report on Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin's religious background, The Theological Roots of Akin’s "Legitimate Rape" 08/20/2012.

She quotes Akin from 2011, "Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of things that have been such a blessing to our country." (Brian Tashman, Akin: "At The Heart Of Liberalism Really Is A Hatred For God" Right Wing Watch 06/24/2011)

She describes Akin's theocratic perspective this way:

Akin is proud of how his religion, and in particular, the Presbyterian Church in America, the deeply conservative Calvinist denomination founded in 1973, influences his political views. Akin has a Masters in Divinity from the denomination's flagship Covenant Theological Seminary. His campaign website notes, "Although most of his classmates went on to become pastors or missionaries, Todd took a different path. For several years he studied the founding of America and the principles which made this country great. His love of country and conviction that leaders must stand on principle led him to run for State Representative in 1988." On abortion, the PCA is absolutist: opposing abortion in all cases, with no exceptions. ...

This is not a situation where Akin sat in the pews of the church of a controversial pastor, or once attended a conference or seminar where controversial views were discussed. Akin has a Masters in Divinity from the PCA’s seminary, and proudly claims he took a political rather than a pastoral path after seminary. His denomination has not only opposed abortion in all cases, including rape, but has suggested that the number of pregnancies by rape is overstated, and even questioned the veracity of rape claims. And Akin, who in a few months could be a United States Senator, wants his religion to dictate our laws. [my emphasis]

This why Democrats and progressives find ourselves more and more having to deal directly with the religion of candidates. Because very often their religion is directing their public policy choices. So asking a Presbyterian candidate for Senate how he stands on major public policy positions of his church is a legitimate question. And with characters like Akin, necessary to understand the nature of their politics.

Their followers take their religious claims seriously. So should everyone else.

Tags: christian right, todd akin

Todd Akin and rape: Obama's cautious politics are showing again

President Obama's has been surprisingly aggressive the last few weeks against the Romney campaign. But the last few days we've also seen some discouraging signs of his cautious politics, which are still confounding in someone who certainly showed personal boldness in becoming the first African-American President.

But personal boldness in Obama has always been melded with his relentlessly centrist approach to politics. The National Review Online quoted Romney on Monday as saying this about Todd Akins ugly comment about how rape supposedly rarely produces a pregnancy (Robert Costa, Romney: Akin's Comment 'Inexcusable' 08/20/2012): "Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong. Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive. I have an entirely different view. What he said is entirely without merit and he should correct it." (my emphasis)

Several hours later, Obama had the following to say (Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps 08/20/2012):

Q[uestion:] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for being here. You’re no doubt aware of the comments that the Missouri Senate candidate, Republican Todd Akin, made on rape and abortion. I wondered if you think those views represent the views of the Republican Party in general. They've been denounced by your own rival and other Republicans. Are they an outlier or are they representative?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me, first of all, say the views expressed were offensive. Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me.

So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.

And so, although these particular comments have led Governor Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions -- or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape -- I think those are broader issues, and that is a significant difference in approach between me and the other party.

But I don’t think that they would agree with the Senator from Missouri in terms of his statement, which was way out there.

Q[uestion:] Should he drop out of the race?

THE PRESIDENT: He was nominated by the Republicans in Missouri. I'll let them sort that out. [my emphasis]

Now, in terms of the "horse-race", Obama did take good advantage of the opportunity. But Mitt Romney's statement was a more clear repudiation of Todd Akin's statement. And I don't think Taylor Marsh is parsing words too closely when she says the following:

That Pres. Obama joined [the anti-abortion Republicans'] language yesterday by invoking it in his press conference wasn’t picked up by any outlet or new media site anywhere. To remind, after saying "rape is rape," he said: "... or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape, I think those are broader issues ..." It was likely said to find common ground and since Republicans are so extreme no one is going to pick gnat crap out of pepper. In fact, to my knowledge, I was the only one to even question its outrageous utterance. Readers around here didn’t even find it very shocking, because compared to what Republicans are intending for women at least Pres. Obama has put the largest expansion of power in U.S. history in women’s hands by making contraception free, as well as a host of other reproductive health care options. The forgotten detail is he also chose politics over science on Plan B. These are inconvenient facts that are ignored when looking at Romney-Ryan in the White House. But it’s part of why women continue on this tread mill of individual freedoms.

Until a strong Republican pro women’s freedom and self-determination coalition develops inside that party our country will remain unable to solve the larger issues facing us.

Until Democrats refuse to compromise and coddle their own religious conservatives on matters of women’s fundamental rights of freedoms we’ll keep talking about this subject election after election. [bolding and italics in original]

Marsh's complaint is justified. Even though it's a horse-race plus for Obama, both he and Romney treated Akin's comment, which expressed the ugly viewpoint of the anti-abortion House Republicans on rape that Paul Ryan shares, as a gaffe that was "offensive." But Obama didn't use the opportunity to highlight the kind of examples that Marsh lists of what his Administration has actually contributed to "women for their health care decisions". He didn't tie it to the House measure that would have redefined rape in order to restrict access to abortion for rape victims, which Ryan supported. He didn't highlight anything about the crackpot radicalism and medical misinformation being promoted by the anti-abortion movement. The word "abortion" didn't even appear in his statement. Nor did he make it a point about women's rights, but rather about the bad manners of "a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women".

(Update 04/10/2013: Taylor Marsh's quote is from Top Story: What’s the Matter with Todd Akin? 08/21/2012 and she amended it to modify her comments about Obama that is at the first of the section quoted here.)

Classic Obama minimalism, in other words. Even in the transcript, his careful choosing of words is evident, and more so in the video. As Marsh points out, his garbled reference to the House Republicans attempt to redefine rape ("qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape") steps on his "rape is rape" comment. And, rather than try to hang that albatross on the Republicans' necks, he basically gives the Republicans a waiver by saying, "But I don’t think that they would agree with the Senator from Missouri in terms of his statement, which was way out there." He pepper-sprays his own message within a couple of sentences, in other words.

But this isn't just a matter of style. Obama has shown, especially in the health care debate, that he is willing to easily concede to the Blue Dogs when it comes to restricting abortion rights. His statement quoted above gives female voters a quotable quote, "rape is rape". But it says nothing about his commitment to abortion rights. He's leaving an opening for more "bipartisan" compromises on women's right to abortion.

It reminded me a lot of his response to the mass gun shooting in which Congresswoman Gaby Giffords was almost assassinated. That gave Obama a great opportunity to highlight some popular measure to promote some specific proposal to limit gun violence, or to highlight the way irresponsible, lying rightwingers are creating a climate of hatred and violence. He did neither. Instead, he offered up general pablum about civility, and established the bad precedent of the President treating mass gun murder murder events as occasions to play Pastor-in-Chief and invite the country to join in a sentimental moment of national unity in mourning.

Obama wants to be the great conciliator, the man who achieves postpartisan harmony with a Republican Party that is in a continuing process of radicalization. His response to Todd Akin's rape comment shows him very much in his Postpartisan Conciliator mode. It appears that Obama will try to use just enough partisanship to get re-elected and no more. He's not interested in building a mandate for Democratic policies.

Tags: 2012 election, abortion, barack obama, todd akin, women's rights

Todd Akin and the Republican cycle of fanaticism

My Twitter feed has had a lot of people making Twitter-length snarky comments about the absurd statement by Todd Akin, Missouri Republican Congressman and Republican candidate for US Senate, that pregnancies due to rape are "really rare" because, "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." (Legitimate rape' comment by GOP's Todd Akin shakes up Missouri Senate race by Linda Feldmann Christian Science Monitor 08/20/2012)

But I'm inclined to agree with Ilyse Hogue (The Danger of Laughing at Todd Akin The Nation 08/20/2012) who suggests that snarky humor isn't the best way to respond to his statement:

The short-term consequences of such an incendiary remark are predictable: Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill will trumpet the remark to her own political advantage, donations will spike to her campaign and the party committees will offer the remark as one more proof point of the GOP’s war on women. But the impact of Akin’s effort to redefine the terms of this debate reaches beyond this one race. In the multidimensional chess that shapes public opinion, the game is less about individual elections and more about a sustained effort to mainstream radical ideas. In the case of denying women control over their lives, there’s evidence that the bad guys may be winning the long-game.

She uses this as an example of how crackpot extremist ideas get mainstreamed.

And it's part of a larger Republican push, stemming from the fanaticism of the anti-abortion movement, to at least partially de-criminalize rape. (See Nick Baumann's The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape Mother Jones 01/28/2011) Is de-criminalizing rape too harsh a description for what they are tying to do? I don't think so, even though it's emerging as part of efforts to ban abortion, including pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Because it's also what could be called a desublimation or making explicit the hostility to women's rights and, often enough, outright hatred of women that are at the core of the real existing anti-abortion movement.

It's theoretically possible to be anti-abortion and not embrace the notion that "abortion is murdering a human being" that is so common among anti-abortion activists. But in practice, the only ones expressing opposition to abortion without framing it that way are pro-choice elected officials! The lazy Democratic standard position on abortion is for a candidate to say that they are personally opposed to it but favor pro-choice laws. For elected officials, the pro-choice position has really been a moderate anti-abortion position. Hillary Clinton in campaigning for President in 2008 stated her pro-choice position as being that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. This official Democratic response to Akin's pro-rape comment, reported in the Linda Feldmann piece cited above, is telling:

"Now, Akin's choice of words isn't the real issue here," Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote in an e-mail to supporters overnight. "The real issue is a Republican Party – led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan – whose policies on women and their health are dangerously wrong."

Yes, Akin's choice of words and the anti-abortion politics behind them should be real issues. Framing this as a gaffe and trying to basically change the subject to a vague question of "policies on women and their health" is all-too-typical of today's Democratic Party.

As on so many other issues, the Democrats have been willing to cede the framing of the abortion issue to the anti-abortion Republicans. The problem is that it didn't cement a pro-choice consensus and make the issue go away. Because the anti-abortion movement since the 1970s has been in a cycle of fanaticism that is getting progressively more radical. Individuals may burn out and drop out, but the anti-abortion movement is more potent and more radical than ever.

The anti-abortion movement was a major source of the "Patriot Militia" movement of the 1990s. Randall Terry, once head of Operation Rescue, was a big player in starting up the Militia movement. So was Ron "Papa Doc" Paul, who is also hardline anti-abortion, two of numerous reasons why I've never found much to admire in Papa Doc, even when I happened to agree with him on some particular foreign policy issue. (And even then my reason for taking the position tends to be very different from his.)

And unless the anti-abortion movement can find a different way to frame their cause than the current "abortion is murdering a human being" version, they will continue to promote the worst kind of fanaticism and violence.

Akin's comment is a warning that the anti-abortion movement's hostility to women's rights is a large package, not one restricted to abortion.

The Ultraviolet group has an online petition calling on Akin to resign from Congress.

Tags: todd akin, women's rights