Link for today

Susan B. Anthony’s Hit List—on how the formerly nonpartisan Susan B. Anthony List has become a partisan, anti-woman racket intent on keeping the culture wars alive.

“I feel very strongly that we need to have this conversation between the pro-choice camp and the pro-life camp, because I see a lot of overlap for those of us who care about the issue. [] But I do not think that a lot of people want the issue to end. They want it to continue on, and I think that’s on both sides of the aisle.”

– Former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper

In Memoriam

George Tiller (2009), Barnett Slepian (1998), Robert Sanderson (security) (1998), Shannon Lowney (staff) (1994), Leanne Nichols (staff) (1994), John Britton (1994), James Barrett (escort) (1994), David Gunn (1993), George Patterson (1993).

All victims of terrorism. I’m shocked and angry.

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:”If your enemy is hungry, feed him;if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

-Romans 12.19-21

The end of the culture wars?

Andrew Sullivan links to Damon Linker, who doesn’t think the “culture war” is going to end:

I’m all for trying to undercut the political salience of culture-war issues. And I think symbolic gestures like these* can be a very effective way to achieve this goal. But we need to be clear that keeping the religious right out of political power (by stealing the votes of its more moderate members) is not the same thing as ending the culture war. Indeed, the core of the religious right might very well respond to political impotence by becoming even more radical and more committed to its causes.

As I see it, he’s missing the point, even while underscoring it. What Obama signifies is not the removal of the religious right, but its irrelevance. If Obama can indeed keep “the religious right out of political power (by stealing the votes of its more moderate members)”, then Tony Perkins and James Dobson simply don’t matter anymore, however much they splutter.

It strikes me that this is relevant on a number of polarizing axes. If Obama is successful at gaining popular support for common-ground, bipartisan, results-driven (as opposed to agenda-driven) actions for the common good, then not only will he “steal votes” from those in power within the religious right, but he will also undermine the domination of authoritarians of all stripes – whether Rush Limbaugh or Osama bin Laden. (No, I’m not equating the two.)

This is the same phenomena that we saw a couple days ago with Obama’s first public interview on al-Arabiya:

Q: How concerned are you and — because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and
Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know — a chorus –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they’ve been using against me before I even took office –

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: — what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There’s no actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

Obama is gaining well-deserved popular respect and support, despite the disapproval and grandstanding of the Authoritarians.

* He’s referring to Obama postponing his revocation of the “global gag rule” on abortion until the day after the Roe v. Wade anniversary.

Elevating the dialogue on abortion

How can we elevate the discussion on abortion – that is, how can we face policies and politics in a manner that overcomes the traditional divide between liberal and conservative – in a way that benefits both sides? I think that we need to refuse to fall in with the rhetoric and propaganda of either side (and admit that both sides employ rhetoric and propaganda).

Slogans, rhetoric and name-calling will not get us there, nor will demonizing those with different opinions. If we truly give an honest look at the debate, we will find that neither side is anti-choice or anti-life.

In her letter to the editor (11 Feb 2005), responding to an earlier article, Beverly Marcus makes the assertion that “pro-choice activists have worked diligently over the last 30 years to ensure that abortions remain safe, legal and rare in the United States.” This is not a fair assessment. As seen in the slogan of Refuse and Resist, “Abortion on demand and without apology,” some of the extremists on the pro-choice side have been advocating abortion’s legality at the expense of all else.

Abortion providers are one of the least-regulated medical facilities in the U.S. The laws in place for inspection and regulation are not even enforced in many cases because of the politically charged nature of the issue.

Kudos to those in the pro-choice camp who have been taking steps to bridge this divide between us that is largely polemical. Thank you to Nancy Keenan of NARAL, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton for beginning to reach out to the pro-life side. I pray that all Americans will begin to work together to create a safe, nurturing environment for all children, a culture in which abortion, this “failure of our system” (Hillary Rodham Clinton) is no longer seen as a necessity.