The establishmentarian extremism of a would-be GOP frontrunner
By Michael J.W. Stickings
John McCain may be running a different sort of campaign looking ahead to 2008 than he did back in the lead-up to the 2000 election, with establishmentarian gravitas replacing anti-establishmentarian rebelliousness, not least because of Iraq, but his efforts to present himself as a partisan worthy of the nomination as opposed to a maverick running against the party line, and particularly his efforts to ingratiate himself with the social conservative base that dominates the primaries and that he will need to have on his side if he hopes to win the nomination, seem to have turned him into an extremist, or at least into a panderer to extremists.
He came out against same-sex marriage before last November's midterms, and then against abortion thereafter, and now he has repeated his opposition to Roe v. Wade and his desire to have it overturned: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," he said yesterday in South Carolina, a key early primary state. And just to show he's serious, he pandered to the base on judicial nominations, too, saying he would, as president, appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench," that is, parsing the fundamentalist lingo, activist, ideological conservative judges who do not respect established law and who wish to mold America according to their own fundamentalist, and largely un-American, vision.
Such is the McCain of 2007.
He's learned his lessons. Republicans don't like mavericks. And Republican primary voters don't like their candidates anywhere near the "middle". He's intent on winning, it seems, and to that end he'll do and say whatever it takes. At least in campaign speech, his shift to the extreme right on the issues that matter most to the base is quite apparent.
John McCain may be running a different sort of campaign looking ahead to 2008 than he did back in the lead-up to the 2000 election, with establishmentarian gravitas replacing anti-establishmentarian rebelliousness, not least because of Iraq, but his efforts to present himself as a partisan worthy of the nomination as opposed to a maverick running against the party line, and particularly his efforts to ingratiate himself with the social conservative base that dominates the primaries and that he will need to have on his side if he hopes to win the nomination, seem to have turned him into an extremist, or at least into a panderer to extremists.
He came out against same-sex marriage before last November's midterms, and then against abortion thereafter, and now he has repeated his opposition to Roe v. Wade and his desire to have it overturned: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," he said yesterday in South Carolina, a key early primary state. And just to show he's serious, he pandered to the base on judicial nominations, too, saying he would, as president, appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench," that is, parsing the fundamentalist lingo, activist, ideological conservative judges who do not respect established law and who wish to mold America according to their own fundamentalist, and largely un-American, vision.
Such is the McCain of 2007.
He's learned his lessons. Republicans don't like mavericks. And Republican primary voters don't like their candidates anywhere near the "middle". He's intent on winning, it seems, and to that end he'll do and say whatever it takes. At least in campaign speech, his shift to the extreme right on the issues that matter most to the base is quite apparent.
Labels: abortion, conservatives, John McCain, Republicans
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
6:58 AM
5 Comments:
I don't understand why this is a big deal. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. All it would do is to put the issue to the States so that the State legislatures could decide. This is as it should be.
Regardless of your POLICY position on abortion, there are alot of legal scholars who think that Roe v. Wade was a very poorly decided constitutional question.
Also, most of the Western countries have had the abortion issue decided by their legislatures (pariliments) and not by judicial edict.
By
Anonymous, at 6:59 AM
"I don't understand why this is a big deal. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. All it would do is to put the issue to the States so that the State legislatures could decide. This is as it should be."
Perhaps from a scholarly point of view, I would agree with you. However, some states, such as Virginia or Texas, would undoubtedly make absolutely no exceptions for abortion. This would take us right back to the days where women had to go to dirty back rooms and alleys to get this done, sometimes harming them permanently, or having them die from infection.
I'm sure this is not what you are advocating, but in real life, this is what would happen. I'm not willing to go in that direction, basically because I no longer believe in the "goodness" or "fairness" of people (putting the rights of an unpopular minority, gays, up to a popular vote). If people aren't directly effected by this issue, just like gay marriage, they will vote against it in a second without thinking it through. Without Roe, abortion will be treated just exactly like the gay marriage issue (I can see the religious right gathering the signatures to put it on the ballot). Only later, when they are faced with the statistics of all the botched abortions, say 20 years later, will they revisit what they've put into law - MAYBE.
By
Anonymous, at 10:43 AM
The two-party system strikes again. To make it anywhere close to the general election in today's elections, the candidates have to appeal to the far edges of their party. McCain is one example of this; a better example is Mitt Romney
By
Simmons, at 11:03 AM
I tend to agree with Bill. Although I appreciate the federalist argument against Roe, which would mean having abortion law decided on a state-by-state basis, the ramifications of overturning what has been settled law for over three decades would be immense. This isn't tax law, after all. It may make little difference whether the sales tax is x in one state and y in another. And it may not matter much that individuals prefer to live in Florida and corporations prefer to base themselves in Delaware owing to those two states' tax laws. It would make a huge difference, however, if abortion were (mostly) legal in one state and (mostly) illegal in another. Those with money would be able to have abortions -- if not in their own state, they would travel elsewhere. But the poor would be stuck. And the fact is, abortion wouldn't go away just becasue of laws banning it. The rich would travel to other states, the poor would seek out illegal, and dangerous, abortions in their home states.
But I also tend to support Roe for another, broader reason. However reluctant my position, I do think that abortion should, with some limitations, be available to women. I agree with Bill Clinton that it should be rare, and to that end I support policies to encourage sex education and birth control, but it should also remain legal. Would a world without abortion be better than a world with abortion? Sure. But we don't live in a world without abortion, or even in a world where that is possible.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:41 PM
And just to show he's serious, he pandered to the base on judicial nominations, too, saying he would, as president, appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench," that is, parsing the fundamentalist lingo, activist, ideological conservative judges who do not respect established law and who wish to mold America according to their own fundamentalist, and largely un-American, vision.
I agree with the author's opinion about Roe vs.Wade and abortion. However, he has twisted McCain's desire for conservative judges who are NOT activists into those who ARE. This is not right.
What is American? Certainly our Constitution is. Interpreting that document according to the intent of it's authors seems honest to me. Twisting the words and meaning into something else seems quite dishonest. I would hope that honesty and fairness, reasonableness and justice would be considered American values.
I do share his concern about fundamentalists and radicals - of every type. They have tunnel vision and are driven by doctrine, not human needs and human nature. They are dangerous... And we must all deal with them as best we can.
By
Unknown, at 7:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home