Politics: The Supreme Court Giveth...
This bellyaching by the right wing on affirmative action is an amazingly choreographed preparation for a pending Supreme Court vacancy. This case gave the right wing several items from their wishlist, as illustrated in this Neil Lewis New York Times item: 1. Another arrow in their quiver to sabotage the nomination of any suspected moderates like White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (though Gonzales is considered moderate in Texas, which is a lot like being a non-fire-breathing conservative). 2. A perceived defeat so they don't go into an anticipated Supreme Court vacancy looking like they have been having all kinds of success left and right (everyone roots for the underdog). But most of all: 3. Their very own Roe v. Wade.
The ultra-conservative groups have long used reversing Roe as their main concern for judicial nominees, especially any such nominee to the highest court. But the reality is that America doesn't really unite behind them on this message. No matter how strongly most of us feel that we're out of step with the American electorate, the fact remains that support for reproductive rights has held at about 60% for years. The last two years have seen Roe return to the headlines only because of the player in the White House. There was even a blissful time during the Clinton administration when the Roe matter seemed like it would stay where it belonged, in the bedroom, not the courtroom.
But that respite ended with the Bush election theft of 2000. Now the right wing has been escalating on Roe, but they have been met with a disappointing response. America isn't budging on choice, and the people who oppose it aren't getting any stronger. It's a secret issue for a lot of people, which is why I think the lack of movement is baffling. People will stand around and decry it if everybody at church is doing it, and they may even sign their names to stuff, but in the end, a lot of people, even in the red states, are a little concerned about endorsing an end to that choice. So Roe remains a talking point without an audience. Unlike vouchers, gay rights and a lot of other fun Bill Pryor-type issues, Roe you shout about but you don't get listened to.
Enter affirmative action. Perhaps the only thing the liberals (myself included) have done really well in the past dozen years is sell the threat to Roe. Admittedly, it is now more threatened than ever before, and the next Supreme Court justice could surely overturn the decision. But the right needs something to rally around, and they need it to be hot and newsworthy. They needed Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan case upholding affirmative action.
So now they've got their rallying cry. The American electorate has long enjoyed decrying the attacks of the dark-skinned outsider on their precious jobs. Even though almost every conservatice argument against affirmative action is bunk, millions of Americans will be more than happy to embrace the "they're stealing our jobs" mentality of the attack on affirmative action. They will talk about how everything is equal now, and that the affects of segragation are long-gone. They will make a permanent feature of our political dialogue the phrase "racial preferences" (note how many times it appears in quotes from right-wing opinion-leaders in Neil Lewis' NYTimes item), much as they did with the totally non-scientific but soon-to-be federally outlawed "Patrial-Birth Abortion." They will take the momentum of this case through a nomination and brandish what they consider a threat to white livelihoods at the Bush administration until any conservative but dangerously free-willed nominee is off the whiteboard at the White House.
And what's more, this strategy is remarkably flexible. It could very well be that Grutter is fully supplanted if the Supreme Court throws out all sodomy laws in Thursday's final round of decisions. Even if the Court only tosses the gay-only sodomy laws, Lawrence v. Texas will join Grutter v. Bollinger as the rallying cry for this summer's anticipated nomination battle. The gays and the blacks are taking over, huge throngs of white, straight Americans will cry. There will be young attractive white women who come from the heartland with young children and they will have signs that say "My baby can't go to college because of affirmative action" and "don't take away from my children's schools to finance a gay America" and those pictures will go on the news even though their stale bromides are totally unfounded.
Saddled up on the twin right-wing silver bullets of gay rights and affirmative action, every right wing nutcase from Norquist to Schlaffley and back will be moaning about how conservativism is on the ropes and the "homosexualists" and the "anti-white" activists are threatening their dying way of life. What can we do to fight this?
Education isn't enough. Americans are tired of absorbing. That much is clear. They take in a lot of crap, and if anyone tries to give them crap that requires thought, they generally don't bother with it. But they love American Idol. Hmm.
What if there was an unprecedented media blitz that didn't involve the regular ben gay-smelling, 50-something has-been actors and entertainers we've been embarrassingly trotting out for years. I'm a huge fan of Alan Alda, Mike Farrell, Ed Asner, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and all the rest. I don't know that they're all we have.
I can't believe that there isn't a fairly sizeable contingent of singers and actors, young, vibrant and educate-able who we can draft to our cause. Ruben Studdard! Join our cause. Justin and Kelly. Whoever you are, tell me that you think a diverse educational environment is a compelling government interest. [The case of the Dixie Chicks, who were transformed into free-speech heroines by the right's campaign against them, led by Bush-Corporate Crony Clear Channel Communications, should be considered an inspiration to anyone needing encouragement. The commercially unfeasible but sonically stunning new Radiohead album "Hail to the Thief" debuted at number 3 on the Billboard charts, and the Chicks' have held their strong sales and sellout concerts despite what they call "the incident." So it isn't like I'm suggesting career suicide here.]
America loves Broadway; millions who wouldn't know 42nd Street from Bay Ridge buy Broadway cast albums and gleefully learn all the words, totally unaware that the actor they are singing along with is a fully-functional gay member of society who doesn't want to change their way of life or take their jobs. He just wants to sing and maybe not be arrested for having sex in his own home. Can't our strength in the blue states help us in the red ones? Can't we fight back against the juggernaut that is sure to come Thursday or soon thereafter when this term ends and any retirement is announced?
This bellyaching by the right wing on affirmative action is an amazingly choreographed preparation for a pending Supreme Court vacancy. This case gave the right wing several items from their wishlist, as illustrated in this Neil Lewis New York Times item: 1. Another arrow in their quiver to sabotage the nomination of any suspected moderates like White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (though Gonzales is considered moderate in Texas, which is a lot like being a non-fire-breathing conservative). 2. A perceived defeat so they don't go into an anticipated Supreme Court vacancy looking like they have been having all kinds of success left and right (everyone roots for the underdog). But most of all: 3. Their very own Roe v. Wade.
The ultra-conservative groups have long used reversing Roe as their main concern for judicial nominees, especially any such nominee to the highest court. But the reality is that America doesn't really unite behind them on this message. No matter how strongly most of us feel that we're out of step with the American electorate, the fact remains that support for reproductive rights has held at about 60% for years. The last two years have seen Roe return to the headlines only because of the player in the White House. There was even a blissful time during the Clinton administration when the Roe matter seemed like it would stay where it belonged, in the bedroom, not the courtroom.
But that respite ended with the Bush election theft of 2000. Now the right wing has been escalating on Roe, but they have been met with a disappointing response. America isn't budging on choice, and the people who oppose it aren't getting any stronger. It's a secret issue for a lot of people, which is why I think the lack of movement is baffling. People will stand around and decry it if everybody at church is doing it, and they may even sign their names to stuff, but in the end, a lot of people, even in the red states, are a little concerned about endorsing an end to that choice. So Roe remains a talking point without an audience. Unlike vouchers, gay rights and a lot of other fun Bill Pryor-type issues, Roe you shout about but you don't get listened to.
Enter affirmative action. Perhaps the only thing the liberals (myself included) have done really well in the past dozen years is sell the threat to Roe. Admittedly, it is now more threatened than ever before, and the next Supreme Court justice could surely overturn the decision. But the right needs something to rally around, and they need it to be hot and newsworthy. They needed Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan case upholding affirmative action.
So now they've got their rallying cry. The American electorate has long enjoyed decrying the attacks of the dark-skinned outsider on their precious jobs. Even though almost every conservatice argument against affirmative action is bunk, millions of Americans will be more than happy to embrace the "they're stealing our jobs" mentality of the attack on affirmative action. They will talk about how everything is equal now, and that the affects of segragation are long-gone. They will make a permanent feature of our political dialogue the phrase "racial preferences" (note how many times it appears in quotes from right-wing opinion-leaders in Neil Lewis' NYTimes item), much as they did with the totally non-scientific but soon-to-be federally outlawed "Patrial-Birth Abortion." They will take the momentum of this case through a nomination and brandish what they consider a threat to white livelihoods at the Bush administration until any conservative but dangerously free-willed nominee is off the whiteboard at the White House.
And what's more, this strategy is remarkably flexible. It could very well be that Grutter is fully supplanted if the Supreme Court throws out all sodomy laws in Thursday's final round of decisions. Even if the Court only tosses the gay-only sodomy laws, Lawrence v. Texas will join Grutter v. Bollinger as the rallying cry for this summer's anticipated nomination battle. The gays and the blacks are taking over, huge throngs of white, straight Americans will cry. There will be young attractive white women who come from the heartland with young children and they will have signs that say "My baby can't go to college because of affirmative action" and "don't take away from my children's schools to finance a gay America" and those pictures will go on the news even though their stale bromides are totally unfounded.
Saddled up on the twin right-wing silver bullets of gay rights and affirmative action, every right wing nutcase from Norquist to Schlaffley and back will be moaning about how conservativism is on the ropes and the "homosexualists" and the "anti-white" activists are threatening their dying way of life. What can we do to fight this?
Education isn't enough. Americans are tired of absorbing. That much is clear. They take in a lot of crap, and if anyone tries to give them crap that requires thought, they generally don't bother with it. But they love American Idol. Hmm.
What if there was an unprecedented media blitz that didn't involve the regular ben gay-smelling, 50-something has-been actors and entertainers we've been embarrassingly trotting out for years. I'm a huge fan of Alan Alda, Mike Farrell, Ed Asner, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and all the rest. I don't know that they're all we have.
I can't believe that there isn't a fairly sizeable contingent of singers and actors, young, vibrant and educate-able who we can draft to our cause. Ruben Studdard! Join our cause. Justin and Kelly. Whoever you are, tell me that you think a diverse educational environment is a compelling government interest. [The case of the Dixie Chicks, who were transformed into free-speech heroines by the right's campaign against them, led by Bush-Corporate Crony Clear Channel Communications, should be considered an inspiration to anyone needing encouragement. The commercially unfeasible but sonically stunning new Radiohead album "Hail to the Thief" debuted at number 3 on the Billboard charts, and the Chicks' have held their strong sales and sellout concerts despite what they call "the incident." So it isn't like I'm suggesting career suicide here.]
America loves Broadway; millions who wouldn't know 42nd Street from Bay Ridge buy Broadway cast albums and gleefully learn all the words, totally unaware that the actor they are singing along with is a fully-functional gay member of society who doesn't want to change their way of life or take their jobs. He just wants to sing and maybe not be arrested for having sex in his own home. Can't our strength in the blue states help us in the red ones? Can't we fight back against the juggernaut that is sure to come Thursday or soon thereafter when this term ends and any retirement is announced?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home