Political gamesmanship and the culture war

Last week, as the result of the pounding he's taken as the result of his remarks condemning Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh admitted that he may have fallen into a trap.

I rarely have reason to agree with him, but he may be right this time.

While I have no way to know for sure right now, I suspect that the recent controversy surrounding the health insurance mandate for contraception, which has a lot of "culture warriors" aflame, may very well have been instigated by the White House -- a deliberate strategy to keep the Republican Party at war with itself. (Of course it could be just dumb luck, but that seems unlikely.)

The reason is simple: The "culture war" is at bottom a losing proposition for the GOP.

Two things to consider: The folks who support "traditional morality," including anti-abortion activists and opponents of same-gender matrimony, generally aren't interested in the political process in that they see compromising -- the "art of politics" -- on their positions as tantamount to ultimate defeat. These are the people who are driving the candidacy of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who has always run on those themes and is currently second in Republican primaries and caucuses.

However, they don't seem to understand just how relatively few of them there are; indeed, candidates rarely run campaign ads on such issues, whether for or against, because voters as a rule just don't care. The now-nearly-invisible tea-party movement understood that, which is why it as a whole was silent despite its supporters' likely commitment to traditional morality.

Moreover, with the "religious right" practically defunct since 2006 and U.S. Catholic bishops regarded cynically by many Catholics because of a number of sex-abuse scandals in that church, neither group can provide the prophetic leadership needed to rally the troops. And let's not forget Pat Buchanan's "culture war" speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which many believe caused even many Republicans to vote for Bill Clinton that year. Bottom line, by taking what many consider to be hard-and-fast stances, such folks manage to make people vote against them.

Which is just what the Democratic Party wants. (Getting Limbaugh, who has inordinate power in the GOP these days, off his game and possibly off the air certainly won't hurt the cause.)

Clearly, this is a problem for whomever the Republicans finally nominate this summer. While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, now in the lead, would probably be the strongest Republican to run against Obama when it comes to political positions, many conservatives see him as "Obama-lite" and won't commit to endorsing him. But GOP honchos also probably understand that a Santorum victory might drive away even more voters because of what they might consider his extremist rhetoric.

Assuming that this represents a Clintonian set-up, the birth-control flap is certainly cynical and divisive politics. But it will probably work -- and that's the bottom line.

Here we go ...

The great conservative meltdown I was predicting for 2012 got started a little earlier than even I would have expected. Like this year.

With Republican governors in a number of states slashing budgets for basically political reasons and seriously angering much of the public in the process, it's only a matter of time before a real grass-roots movement from the political left sweeps out many of those right-wing politicians that seem hell-bent on sabotaging the governing process. A number of Republican senators in Wisconsin, which just passed that anti-union bill now tied up in court, are in danger of being recalled, and folks in states such as Ohio, Indiana and my own Pennsylvania are making similar noise.

But let's look at the big picture: You can't simply bully people on a consistent basis and expect them not to react; at some point they will say "No more!" And I think we may be there now.

Going back to Wisconsin, the bill that sharply restricted collective bargaining for unionized state employees and which caused the Democratic members of the Senate to flee the state to deny the body a quorum turned out not to be about economics at all. The majority leader admitted on the Fox News Channel a couple of weeks ago that its real intent was to sabotage union funding for an upcoming reelection campaign for President Obama. (As if that will make that much difference given Obama's fund-raising capability -- he's likely to bankrupt any candidate that would run against him.)

That fact is one reason why no clear front-runner has emerged for the GOP nomination. With Sarah Palin sinking, Mike Huckabee treading water and only long-shots Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum set to announce, it's clear to me that the conservatives who run the party really have nothing to run upon except that none of them are Obama. That's not good enough, especially since recent economic news favors him, if just slightly -- and let's keep in mind that economics rules during these days of a "jobless recovery."

But let's go back to Wisconsin, a state with a very long history of progressive politics, for a moment. The shenanigans of Gov. Scott Walker and the other Republicans have only energized the Democratic Party in that state, which is leading the recall campaign, and GOP operatives in that state are moaning that they can't get the funds to fight it. Also consider that large number of anti-Walker demonstrators that took over the capitol building in Madison left fired-up and ready to act. They apparently hope that they'll inspire people in other states to do the same, and they might be right.

But here's the issue: The Wisconsin Senate passed that bill and Walker, who by numerous reports is an evangelical Christian, signed it with no debate and no willingness to compromise or work with the opposition, and I would suggest that such an attitude is doing more to get its GOP members run out of office than its actual passing. "Well, we need to maintain 'core principles' that we can't change," they may say.

No, they don't need to do that -- not even Jesus did.

It's no surprise then that Jesus did battle most often with the Pharisees, who were sticklers for the "law" but missed that the very concept of law represents a framework of relationships. That is, take away the relational aspect of law and it just becomes a bunch of lifeless pronouncements without any context that have no power to assure the pursuit of justice. That's why religion devoid of true relationship ultimately becomes worthless -- it just doesn't work.

And that's also why, in the words of conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, "The big [conservative] defeat is coming." The political right will eventually fail to make its case that following its principles will lead to economic prosperity (and in fact have likely already done so), and simply "saying it louder" won't help matters. What it needs to do is to work across the aisle to find solutions that benefit everyone; however, its own mentality assures that it will never happen.

Mayhem in Mad City

We probably should have seen this coming.

You are probably aware of the mass demonstrations taking place in Madison, Wis. in protest of a bill proposed by Gov. Scott Walker which protesters say would cripple public-sector labor unions. Democratic legislators who opposed the bill fled the capital, reportedly for Illinois, denying a quorum because they knew they didn't have the votes to defeat it outright.

Now, Wisconsin has a long history of progressive politics, so such action in that state may not surprise. I would suggest, however, that if this action is successful you'll see more of it around the country.

I say that because of the strong showing by Joe Sestak against eventual winner Pat Toomey in the race for U.S. Senate last year here in Pennsylvania, strong considering that at one point Sestak, as progressive a political candidate as there was here, was nearly 20 points behind in polls before his campaign began focusing on right-wing financial shenanigans. And as bad as the economy is and was for most folks, the idea that a privileged few were making out like bandits just didn't go over well, especially in a state with a strong tradition of organized labor -- which the political right, and thus the Republican Party that it all but owns, has overtly tried to destroy for the last 30 years.

Anyway, Wisconsin has provisions to recall legislators, and I understand that eight Republican members are eligible immediately for recall. If just three are taken down the legislature will become majority Democratic, enough to put the kibosh on that bill and any other legislation considered "anti-worker."

I don't yet know enough about either the specifics of Walker's bill to make a judgment on that or the issues that prompted the protest. I will say this, however: The days of the political right trying to roll over its opponents for political and financial gain may very well be coming to an end. If these demonstrations spark more protests around the country, a strong possibility given what's happening in the Middle East because of improved communication, we may -- may -- see a new chapter in the history of the union movement.

Gays, the conservative movement and the Republican Party

Last week, right-wing African-American columnist Star Parker mentioned that she didn't attend the recent Conservative Political Action Conference because of the presence of a number of gay and pro-gay groups, specifically GOProud. "I learned conservatism in church," she said, and for that reason she felt that they didn't belong at the conference, let alone in the movement.

My response: Where has she been? The truth is that gays have been part of the conservative movement -- or, at the very least, have supported "conservative" principles -- as long as it has existed. And she probably even attends church with a few of them, though "in the closet."

In the mid-1990s then right-wing journalist David Brock, who wrote several stories bashing Bill Clinton in such publications as the American Spectator and the Washington Times, "came out" a few years before being kicked out of the movement but not really because he was gay. Later on, I think in 2002, conservative columnist James Pinkerton, writing in Newsday, wrote glowingly about the "Republican Unity Coalition," a conservative gay/straight alliance and the founder of which, Charles Francis, was friendly with George W. Bush and was the former lover of Mark Bingham, one of the heroes of Flight 93 -- and also a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan. (The group is now inactive.)

The reality is that many, many people that happen to be gay actually, in their hearts, support the conservative agenda of "lower taxes, strong defense and less government," their sexual orientation the only deviation. Sorry, Ms. Parker, but that doesn't make them "liberal," as you allege.

And herein lies the problem with trying to bring the "culture war" to electoral partisan politics. I mentioned earlier that Ms. Parker said that she learned conservatism in church; trouble is, however, that conservatism is an ideology independent of religious faith. That means in practice that it had to have been introduced into the church (which it was, in the late 1970s) for political purposes, which has had the result of diluting the strong message of the gospel because it ended up not calling everyone to account for sin.

And this is what it's led to. Ms. Parker and other religious persons and organizations may be offended by the presence of gays at secular conservative gatherings; however, those fighting the "homosexual agenda" have to understand that, because even secular conservative groups belong to the "world system," the GOP simply can't win elections by declaring homosexual conduct morally wrong or, depending on your perspective, "bashing gays." According to Brock's 2002 book "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," many gay Republicans voted for Bill Clinton 10 years earlier because the culture warriors, most notably Pat Buchanan, took over the Republican National Convention.

It's becoming clear at least to me that the anti-gay forces in the conservative movement, let alone the Republican Party, are very much a minority. They thus have two choices: Shut up or leave -- because the gays just aren't going away.

Still 'partisan'

With the increasing irrelevance of the "religious right" nationally, I had been hoping that evangelical Christians would begin to leave behind political ideology and focus on Kingdom business.

At least here in Pittsburgh, apparently some folks didn't get that memo.

Last week, I walked into a Family Bookstore and saw, up-front, a high number of copies for sale of former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's new book "Going Rogue."

Last month, one of the local independent mega-churches hosted an appearance by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, perhaps on a speaking tour. While the former Arkansas governor was formerly a pastor, I seriously doubt that his appearance was spiritual in nature -- the pastor of that church subscribed to the Fox News Channel's phony "war on Christmas" five years ago.

Now, this has nothing to do with my personal views on them, who may be positioning themselves to run for president in 2012 on the Republican ticket -- I have always seen Palin as bad for this country, while Huckabee by contrast seems reasonable. My concern is that, again, we evangelicals are perceived as stooges for the GOP and the secular conservative movement that basically runs the party today -- and then have the nerve to complain about that.

Consider this: If you were a homosexual, walked into a church and heard nothing but condemnation of gays, you wouldn't return. Similarly, if you were a registered Democrat and heard about these, you too would feel uncomfortable because they give the impression that following Jesus meant subscribing to a specific ideological agenda and that, really, you had to switch to be true to Him.

The pastor of another local mega-church noted over the summer that the political breakdown of the suburb where it's located was 53 percent Democratic and 47 percent Republican and that the Church was called to reach all of those people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But when churches and other institutions give the impression that you have to choose sides, especially since the Democratic Party does get some things right, they cause the kind of friction we've seen especially since the 1990s. The Sojourners community in Washington, D.C. sells a bumper sticker, which I have on my car, with the following message: "God is NOT a Republican -- or a Democrat."

And if I needed any more proof ... the racist legacy of the modern conservative movement

About a decade ago during my last dating relationship, my girlfriend's brainy middle son brought home from church some literature from the "Conservative Chronicle" that he said came from "some think tank." I looked it up on the internet, and when I learned who the editor was, a Southern reactionary named Samuel Francis, I decided I wanted nothing to do with it because it came across as borderline racist. (Needless to say, I refused to attend the church as well, and that would eventually doom the relationship.)

Well, it turns out that there was nothing "borderline" about that publication.

Today I learned that the "think tank" that produced it was the Council of Conservative Citizens, a name not as innocuous as it sounds -- it was formerly known as the White Citizens Council, a staunchly segregationist organization that opposed the civil-rights movement in the 1960s. In effect, it operated as a kinder, gentler Ku Klux Klan minus the sheets and secrecy and apparently hasn't changed its views in all that time. Furthermore, it had at least two right-wing now-former Republican politicians -- Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi -- speak at gatherings. (Yes, the same Trent Lott who insinuated that he was hankering for segregation in feting the late Sen. Strom Thurmond during his centennial in 2002.)

I find it interesting that the political right likes to call attention to the historic racism of the Democratic Party and, in its arrogance, have openly wondered why African-Americans don't vote Republican. They conveniently overlook the fact that the Southern racists that gave the national Democratic Party that reputation began migrating to the GOP beginning in the 1960s -- of politicians of that era, only the late North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms was never elected as a Democrat -- and completely sold out to the GOP on a national level during the Reagan years. (Recall that even Ronald Reagan himself ran racist campaigns to appeal to them.)

Basically, the political right ought to stop denying its ties to racist groups, present as well as past. I don't think it's any coincidence that race has become less a factor as the political right has fallen from power, because back in that day the right used it has a divide-and-conquer tactic to achieve and maintain power. But instead of marginalizing its opponents, it ended up marginalizing itself. There's a reason Jesus said, "You reap what you sow."

The Specter conumdrum

The political world was rocked today with the news that Arlen Specter, U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania, had decided to switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party, possibly giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof margin. Most people probably believe that he did so to save his political hide because he had virtually no chance of being re-elected as a Republican or even an independent.

That may be true, but here's the real reason: His power base has shifted.

Although Pennsylvania has a reputation as a "swing state," in fact its voting habits tend to be quite static, with Philly and Pittsburgh (and Pittsburgh's inner-ring suburbs) staunchly Democratic/liberal and much of the rest of the state heavily Republican/conservative; that being the case, whoever won southeastern Pennsylvania, the only true swing region, would win a tight statewide race. Specter, a former district attorney in Philadelphia, was and still is very, very popular in that part of the state; however, the suburbs around that city, generally Republican when he was first elected 30 years ago, nevertheless always leaned ideologically more liberal and began during the Clinton years to trend Democratic.

Specter had to notice this. Since that region of the state has seen an marked increase in Democratic registration and because of the state's closed primary system, many of his former supporters simply could not vote for him in next year's primary election unless he switched. And with former GOP congressman Pat Toomey and former gubernatorial candidate Peg Luksik, both staunch conservatives popular with that wing of the party, already seeking the Republican nomination, Specter's GOP goose was certainly cooked.

Curiously, however, that represents a major-league problem for the Republicans, national as well as state. Because the electorate has seen an upswing in Democratic registration -- due largely to disgust with unyielding conservative ideology -- Republican candidates face serious obstacles in winning elections anywhere outside the South. Trouble is, the party is generally oblivious to the reality that a lot of people hate what they stand for.

Which, to be truthful, is establishing the conservatives, who dominate the GOP, as a permanent semi-aristocracy in it only for the power but not the responsibility of running the government properly.

But there's also a bit of hypocrisy in Republicans' chastising of Specter for switching parties -- after all, more than a few Democrats, most notably in the South, became Republicans primarily because of Ronald Reagan (or perhaps more accurately, his supporters in their respective electorates).

Bottom line, as things stand now Arlen Specter is the odds-on favorite to retain his seat because if the two Republicans now in the race refuse to moderate their rhetoric -- and I have no reason to believe they will -- the winner will be clobbered next November. Besides, Specter has plenty of cash on hand to fund a campaign, certainly enough to dwarf the war chest of any Democrat who might consider running against him. The Republican Party would do well to understand that politics is the art of compromise; if they don't they'll continue to be on the outside looking in. Specter switched parties because he understood that.

The Republican Party's 'Reagan problem'

You are probably aware that the Republican National Committee has selected Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, as its new chairman, the first African-American to hold that post. Arguably, part of his job description will be to attract fellow blacks to the party.

If that's their goal, they're wasting their time -- because the GOP's problem is that it got to where it was by alienating black voters. Specifically, its heart and soul, even though he is now dead, is keeping blacks out because, thanks to its notorious "Southern strategy," the right-wing policies it supported and he championed have done nothing but turn blacks against it.

"He," of course, is the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who is still revered in the Republican Party and the conservative movement but absolutely hated in the African-American community. Bet you didn't know that last fact. That's the problem, because conservatives don't even talk to black activists and leaders -- they simply want to neutralize, denigrate or destroy them.

And Reagan, as much as any political figure, was responsible for that polarization. Consider these facts:

-- Reagan ignored the civil-rights movement and, upon the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and while governor of California, was quoted in a Boston Globe editorial as calling the movement “a great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break,” never mind that King broke the law only reluctantly when all other options were exhausted.

-- During his 1976 campaign for president, Reagan constantly referred to "welfare queens driving Cadillacs," his audience knowing full well whom he was referring to -- blacks.

-- Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Neshoba County, Miss., where three civil-rights workers were found murdered 16 years previously, and announced that he favored "states rights" -- indicating to white racists, "I'm on your side."

-- During that same campaign, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia endorsed Reagan, saying that "the Republican campaign could have been written by a Klansman."

-- When in office, Reagan cut government programs for college grants and job training -- cuts that disproportionately hurt African Americans. (We often forget that demonstrations in major cities resulted.) As a result, the poverty rate actually went up.

-- Reagan, through his attorney general William French Smith, tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act because it "discriminated against the South." (Never mind that's where the problems were.)

-- Reagan appointed Clarence Thomas to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- ostensibly to weaken it by changing the rules to favor the employer over the employee.

-- Reagan, using the excuse of the Cold War, consistently opposed sanctions on South Africa's apartheid regime and substituted an ineffective policy of "constructive engagement."

-- Even as he signed the legislation establishing King's birthday as a national holiday, Reagan replied to his political ally Jesse Helms, who voted against it on the grounds that King was a Communist, “We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?”, referring to FBI files supposedly "proving" his Communist activity -- indicating that he believed that nonsense.

Amazingly, Reagan won 14 percent of the black vote in 1980s. (He wouldn't get that today, for sure.)

Anyway, an op-ed published upon his death in the New Pittsburgh Courier was titled "Reagan made racism respectable." I don't think Reagan was himself a racist -- you have to care to be a racist and Reagan didn't -- but I have no doubt that he, more than anyone, caused the GOP to maintain racist strategies to remain in power.

However, that has come back to bite them. In late 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, while attending a 100th birthday party for fellow Sen. Strom Thurmond, said that had Thurmond, who had run for president in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat," won, "we wouldn't have had all these problems" -- an oblique reference to desegregation. That remark cost him his leadership post (but only temporarily and only when other conservatives went ballistic first).

Don't think, however, this is merely about racist attitudes. As I mentioned, conservatives, thanks in large part to Reagan, have pursued policies that turned blacks against them, a situation they don't intend to face. They made a big stink about Sen. Robert Byrd's inadvertent use of the "N-word" and his former Klan membership, ignoring that he has changed his views in that time -- even voting for the King holiday -- and apologized immediately for that slur. (Byrd, of course, is a Democrat and was thus labeled a hypocritical "liberal.")

And even in the few times when the Republican Party ran black candidates they didn't get much support, from blacks or anyone else. Steele himself was badly beaten while running in 2006 for the U.S. Senate, as did Ken Blackwell in Ohio and former Steelers receiver Lynn Swann here in Pennsylvania when they sought to become governors. The GOP electorate's general disdain for blacks has come to a point where some black Republicans -- most notably commentator Armstrong Williams and former Tulsa congressman J.C. Watts -- said during last year's campaign they were considering voting for Barack Obama for president.

Bottom line, the Republican Party, if it's serious about attracting black voters, will need to repudiate much of its platform. But to do that it will also need to repudiate Reagan as well -- and I don't see that happening.

Abortion and the culture war -- why they didn't mix

With not just Barack Obama's rise to the presidency but also Democrats gaining seats in both houses of Congress as the result of the last general election, the anti-abortion movement today has some serious issues -- to say the least. I can only imagine the weeping that took place when those election results were posted, and (since I myself am "pro-life") I confess to being somewhat sympathetic.

I say somewhat advisedly, because it's the movement's own fault for tying its fortunes to the Republican Party in the first place.

Anti-abortion activism really got started in the late 1970s when Moral Majority and similar groups were founded in the wake of the 1960s-born culture war and the then-ascending modern conservatism that was taking hold in the GOP. However, it was in the process sheared off from other issues surrounding the "sanctity of human life" -- things like poverty and racial justice, which don't really raise funds -- and became just one more interest group clamoring for a megaphone and the power it hoped would result.

Moreover, the conservative movement always took a faux-libertarianism to an extreme, leading to a general incompetence in governing, which originally wasn't a problem because the strategy was simple -- let the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that obliterated abortion laws in virtually every state and move from there. But as years went on without any significant action frustration set in, with many "pro-life" activists questioning the party's commitment and spawning such radical groups as Operation Rescue. (That was more a function of the political process than anything else.)

Eventually, anti-abortion sympathizers were reduced to symbolic victories. The "partial-birth" abortion bill that President Bill Clinton vetoed (because it didn't contain an exception for the life or health of the mother) always was designed to generate more outrage -- such abortions were already illegal in most states, and the bill that President George W. Bush signed criminalized only about 2,500 abortions annually, a pittance compared to the over 1 million we see today.

But, as I said, conservatives were pretty indifferent to, and thus incompetent in, governing. The ill-advised and badly-prosecuted war in Iraq was the first salvo; the botched response to Hurricane Katrina added fuel to the fire; and, especially, the Jack Abramoff-fueled lobbying scandal that entrapped a number of congressional Republicans who had used their positions for the sake of power and perks, finally woke the populace enough to vote out GOP politicians -- probably most of them anti-abortion. (The situation became so serious in 2006 that Focus on the Family's James Dobson convened a number of ultimately unsuccessful "Stand for the Family" rallies in battleground states.) As a result, the anti-abortion movement today is basically on the outside looking in.

What's obvious to me in light of political reality is that the "pro-life" movement needs a new strategy. It needs to 1) Get back to focusing on the sanctity of all life; 2) Become more ideology-free and non-partisan; and 3) Insist that the politicians it supports actually know how to run a government. That may take more time that folks want to take, but anything should be more effective than the old ways.