Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Will the Real 'Party of Life' Please Stand Up?

By Bob Burnett, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2005.


Democrats need to go on the offensive and remind voters that the Republican record does not show the GOP to be 'pro-life.'
Advertisement

In the wake of the disastrous 2004 election, many pro-choice candidates were dragged down with the sinking of HMS Kerry. As a result, there have been whispers among Democratic politicians that they were going to have to change their position on abortion, in order to reach out to pro-life voters.

However, the April 21-22 Washington, D.C. gathering of EMILY's List, the political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to all levels of government, produced no fundamental shift of position. Indeed, an EMILY-funded post-election poll indicated that 55 percent of voters continued to support a women's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, and that abortion had not been a major issue in the presidential election.

What does appear to be changing is the approach that Democrats take when they talk about choice -- the values they emphasize and the words they select. It's useful to envision this "reframing" of choice as consisting of three concentric circles.

In the innermost circle lies the issue of who ultimately controls a woman's body. In the starkest terms, progressives see choice as an inalienable woman's right; conservatives view choice as a privilege dispensed by the patriarchy -- the dominance of men over a woman's health, expressed through the power of the state.

In contemporary terms, Democrats tie the issue of choice to the right of privacy -- a right most Americans believe in -- by asserting that women must be able to choose medical treatment without the interference of the state. (This is a repositioning of the language of Justice Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade, in which he defended choice not as a woman's prerogative but, "The right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his [sic] professional judgement.") Bush Republicans argue they are anti-choice because they are defending the "rights of the fetus," relying upon the biologically, and theologically, dubious argument that an embryo is a human being from the moment of conception.

The middle circle places choice in a larger social context. On Jan. 24, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton gave an important speech on abortion rights where she implored all sides of the issue to seek "common ground." Clinton opined that no one in American politics is "for" abortion. She observed that under most circumstances where there is access to contraception there is no necessity for an abortion -- the 7 percent of women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of unwanted pregnancies. Since Clinton's speech, Democrats have renewed their push for federal support for sex-education programs for teenagers, emergency contraception and family planning.

The outermost framing circle focuses on the use of the word "life." UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff noted that it makes no sense for Republicans to act as if they have exclusive use of life as their "brand." Historically, Democrats are the party of life, in the sense that they have taken seriously the task of guaranteeing the right of every American to live a life of dignity. From this moral high ground, Democrats are concerned with the quality of life at each point along the continuum of existence -- health care, education, jobs and the environment -- rather than to fixate, as the Republicans do, exclusively on the endpoints: life of the embryo/fetus and death.

Lakoff observed that rather than Republicans being the "Party of Life," it would be more accurate to describe them as the Party of Death, since they are indifferent to the life and death struggles of the average American working family. In the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, President Bush remarked, "It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life." Nevertheless, Bush is opposed to federal funding for pre- and post-natal care and ignores the reality that one in three Americans has no health care.

Further, as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw a record 152 executions, and as president he launched a preemptive attack on Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of 20,000 civilians and 1,700 military personnel. Lakoff argued that Democrats should go on the offensive by constantly reminding voters that the Republican record does not show them to be "pro-life."

A graphic example of the incongruity between Republican words and actions can be found in their tepid response to the steadily increasing violence against American women. More than 4 million women are physically assaulted each year; roughly 600,000 are raped; and 28,000 experience the horror of a criminally induced pregnancy. Republicans avoid directly addressing these issues. Their anti-choice position means that most Republican lawmakers insist that a pregnant victim of rape carry her fetus to term. (A position shared by only 16 percent of voters.)

It's clear that Republicans, by taking an extraordinarily conservative position on choice, one supported by considerably less than half of all voters, have backed themselves into an ideological corner. What remains to be seen is whether Democrats can take full advantage of this; and whether they can use the issue of choice to breathe new life into the party.

Digg!

Bob Burnett is a writer and activist in Berkeley, Calif.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The [Republican] Party of Death
Posted by: msvt on May 4, 2005 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It mystifies me that the Republicans can get away with portraying themselves as the "party of life." While I disagreed with many of the positions espoused by Pope John Paul, he at least was consistently pro-life: against abortion, against povery, against capital punishment, and against war. Until Republicans stand up, protest the ongoing killing that is the result of their war in Iraq, and end it, they will never be truly pro-life. Just pro-hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats are weak
Posted by: danopacki on May 4, 2005 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It blows me away that there was so much ammunition to use against W during both campaigns and the Dummycrats didn't use it. For example, W's interview with Tucker "Dickhead" Carlson when he mimicked and sneered at a women on Texas death row who had pleaded for her life before being put to death. She was a converted born-again and repented her sins yet Bush killed her anyway. Comapssion? Or how about Cheney and W calling Adam Klimer (sp) a major league asshole after saying they were going to change the tone of discourse in DC?
The Democrats just can't seem to grasp the truth and use it aginst the Republicans. The problem is not that the Republicans do what comes natural, it's that the Democrats have no solid convictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democrats are weak Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Democrats are weak Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Democrats are weak Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Democrats are weak Posted by: danopacki
Barbara
Posted by: Barbara on May 4, 2005 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey,...don't look to the political parties to manage this one. How about keeping things simple. eg:
1. All babies born out of rape be looked after by the State until adopted. The State will pay for the medical expenses, of the mother and the mother is paid an icome , until the child is born,
2. If the pregnancy is not as a result of rape, then fathers will pay for half of the above expenses, until the baby is born and then looked after by the state until adopted. If they don't pay, it is a legal offence. ( that should decrease the rate of unwanted babies somewhat ) Incase no-one has noticed, it takes two to make a baby.
I'd actually work with a christian body ( pressure them ) to handle all of the above and manage it all . That should keep them busy and have them put their money and compassion where there mouth is & shut them up for awhile. " suffer little children ..."
Then,....I'd have a non political party keeping an eye on them to ensure that they are doing the right thing by these babies, eg: compassion, charity, love, forgiveness,...( all that stuff that they preach about,..) and make sure that they do a damn good job !!
Seeing that they have the power, you might as well take advantage of it and make sure that they follow through on what they teach.
Probelm solved. !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How idiotic, Barbara Posted by: vox noir
» Barbara, Posted by: vox noir
Gotta love this man
Posted by: ebabs on May 4, 2005 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of weeks ago Al Sharpton visited the Indiana Univ. Bloomington campus and said something I'll always remember (paraphrase): The Republicans are pro-life until the fetus turns into a baby, then they don't want to take care of that baby anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gotta love this man Posted by: YoungbloodG
» RE: Gotta love this man Posted by: gonzoskismet
Chappie
Posted by: Chappie on May 4, 2005 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonderful article! I agree completely. I'm 81, had 3 illegal abortions in the late 50s after 3 children. Women didn't then have much choice about sex (and it has probably not changed much), and this was before "The Pill" which was awful back then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Underestimating Death
Posted by: rkewen on May 4, 2005 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Further, as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw a record 152 executions, and as president he launched a preemptive attack on Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of 20,000 civilians and 1,700 military personnel."

I can understand why media like Fox would prefer to underestimate or totally ignore so-called collateral damage in Iraq - but I am really getting tired of seeing non-neocon outlets like Alternet go along with this sweeping under the rug of civilian casualties of Bush's ill-conceived Irag adventure. I've been hearing and seeing this 20,000 figure applied to Iraqi civilian deaths for months and months now and just don't buy it. I would be more inclined to believe civilian casualties reached the 20,000 mark before the famous victory appeareance of chimp-boy the fly-boy on the aircraft carrier.

I also believe that non-fatal U.S casualties are consistently understated and the true numbers hidden by hiding the wounded in Germany and elsewhere and sneaking the ones who do come home into the country on flights under cover of darkness.

I think a more appropriate way of dealing with Saddam Hussein would have been to have Bush pere and sons meet with Saddam Hussein and sons at some OK corral type venue, using bare hands or weapons of their agreed choice and leave everyone else out of it. I guess Big Bad Dick Cheney could have been allowed to fight on the the side of the Bushes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Underestimating Death Posted by: gonzoskismet
» RE: Underestimating Death Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Underestimating Death Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Underestimating Death Posted by: mendomama
Party of Life?
Posted by: cotton on May 4, 2005 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth. Once you're born, you're on your own and their work is done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Party of Life? Posted by: Lathor
Sidra
Posted by: Sidra on May 4, 2005 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen! I am so tired of social conservatives trying to claim they have the moral high ground -- in my personal experience, the most moral, spiritual, compassionate, loving and caring people I know are progressives! After 'intelluctually scratching' the social conservatives I've talked to, I have found that most of them 'bleed' bigotry in its many forms including racism, sexism, homophobia, extreme intolerance for those who have different religious or spiritual beliefs, no compassion for the poor, etc. And for all their loud belligerent talk about having the moral high-ground, NOT ONE of the many social conservatives (all of them 'good christians' you know) I talked to about the Cambridge/John Hopkins study published in the Lancet Medical Journal last fall, which conservatively found that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (est. 40,000 of them children) died as a direct result of the immoral US invasion of Iraq --- not one expressed not even a drop of compassion, concern, sorrow or sadness for the death of even the children of Iraq, who were in essence murdered by the Bush Admin's oil & war profiting machine! The Iraqi children are GOD'S children too, as are we all -- and God will not be mocked, not even by so-called people of faith (yeah right, most of the social conservatives I know go to church because its their social club, not because they have a spiritual heart). If they were really and truly spiritual people, all these good christian social conservatives would care about ALL God's children!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sidra Posted by: klasvegas
Patriarchy breeds homosexuality
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on May 4, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is responisible for the start of our patriarchy society? Well, the Catholic church of course! After the christians finished murdering everyone that did not agree with them they began to pratice homosexuality in back rooms with little boys. What better way to get men to come to church? Tell them homosexuality is a sin after they sodimized the little boys while telling them God is a man, Jesus is a man and men have a penis which are clean campared to filthy womens vaginas. What is a little boy to do? He is expected to listen to these church men and not question them. Ok. Once the boy grows up wanting to have sex with other men, as he was taught, then he has to lie his way through life, because good christians are not gay. As mothers, are we suppose to allow this to continue? Where is the outrage? We tip toe around religion like it is untouchable, while our children are going insane! Our president holds hands with these perverts, kissing men in dresses who are afraid of women, while he continues to pretend he isn't gay himself. Find the irony in macho people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Party of WHAT
Posted by: kermit_the_bear on May 4, 2005 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems need to take charge of and define some of these terms. The repugnantcans also had the whole "Family Values" thing for a bit. Whose family? Not mine. That was just another way of saying this is what a family should value (same as always the repugnants dictating to everyone about what they should do and be).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocrisy is alive and well in Bushland
Posted by: RosieRivetor on May 4, 2005 5:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What amazes me most is that these hateful people, those that will let children starve in the street, hide behind God. I understand why the catholic church is against a woman's right to birth contol and to choose, more children in poor catholic familes means more catholics. It's just an easy recruiting method.

What baffeles me is why none of these so called Christians who hiding behind Jesus seem to recognize that in his time, Jesus was progressive. He touched the untouchable, healed the sick, helped the poor and one of his closest friends (some say his wife) was a prostitute. For these beliefs, Jesus was killed by the government. The saviour that these Christians follow is what in their own present world, they hate and fear. The government that killed Jesus is strikingly similar to the Nazi's in Washington. They want to destroy anyone that doesn't believe their rhetoric and speaks out against their rape, pillige and plundering of our resources. Bush is blindly followed by the uneducated masses that are too afraid to take responsibility for their own lives, in Jesus times these people would have been the ones building the cross and sharpening the nails.

Progressives are Pro-Life in every step of the word. We are against the death penality, for social programs that support children, the elderly, the disabled and the down and out, for education, for healthcare, for the environment, for equal rights for all American and yes, the right for a woman to choose. The concept is quite simple, either all American's have a right to decided what to do with their bodies or they don't. Pregnancy is a state that no man will ever personally face. They will never know what it does to your body, your soul and you spirit. That being said, they have no right to make a decision as to whether or not a woman can withstand that event. I do not know one person in my life that is Pro Abortion, it is not a decision that anyone wants to make. But Pro Choice just means that we as a societ believe it is up to the individual to make that choice. I am pro-Choice and as a mother, I am prolife. My daughter is the most important person in my life. This progressive fight is not for me, it's for her. For her right to have the live she wants. I decided to get pregnant, I choose to continue the pregancy and I chose to give birth. That, as a pro-choice advocate and progressive American is what I choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mar
Posted by: Mar on May 4, 2005 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What baffeles me is why none of these so called Christians who hiding behind Jesus seem to recognize that in his time, Jesus was progressive. He touched the untouchable, healed the sick, helped the poor and one of his closest friends (some say his wife) was a prostitute." ...RosieRivetor


What baffles me is how anybody can still believe Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Research this for yourself in the bible (AKA A History of Evil Women) and you will see how the church patriarchs consciously and systematically distorted the story of Mary Magdalene to confuse her with a prostitute in the minds of illiterate catholics of centuries past. Then ask yourself why they would go to such trouble to smear this woman's reputation.

There is no excuse for this lie to persist when most people can now read this weirdass book for themselves. (No offense to prostitutes intended as I believe prostitution should be decriminalized [not legalized] for the prostitute and only pimps and johns should be prosecuted.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mar Posted by: mendomama
» RE: Mar Posted by: Mar
» RE: Mar Posted by: mendomama
Bob Burnett article
Posted by: Tanouche on May 5, 2005 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree with much of what he says as well as other readers- The Right counters- rephrases (also Lakoff's) points in a way that is easier and more appealing to the average american. As has been much quoted recently, T.Jefferson said something to the effect that "Those who believe that you (one) can be ignorant and free, believe in something that is not true and never will be."
1. DEMOCRATS: Right to Privacy- Womans decision- men want to control-
REPUBLICANS: ITS ABOUT The Sanctityof LIFE , RESPECT FOR LIFE- GOD-RELIGION ETC- No one- Doctor or Individual has a right that is paramount to the aforementioned ideals- so it's not the Republican men/woman who want to dictate to you- theyjust want you to live THE RIGHT WAY (PUN INTENDED)
2. DEMOS: We are the caring society- we take care of people- REPUBLICANS: RESPONSIBILLITY-FREEDOM- CONTROL OF OUR OUR LIVES- WE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS AND ITS DISSING THE AMERICAN PERSON TO HAVE THE GOVT. DECIDE FOR YOU OR EVEN HELP YOU. How many times have you heard Bush et al say that the Demos disrespect americans by implying that they can't play the "market" and win?
Of course the Rep. position is horsefeathers- and everythings they say and do is designed to help the high rollers and.......the little people whose poverty and ignorance and consumerisms BENEFIT THE REPUBLICANS.
Trust me I'm mad at the democrats too- but I don't care what people say in the polls- the Republicans will keep winning using the above lines until people are starving in the streets. Tanouche

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

aida
Posted by: aida1200 on May 5, 2005 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suspect that many would-be givers feel reluctant to put the gift on a reciprocal basis simply because they would feel selfish by expecting to get something out of the recipient. Isn't it better, more "Christian," to give without expecting anything in return? Of course on can always put the gift in a "pay it forward" context: "You can do the same for someone else some day." There's also the "Please do me the favor of accepting this" approach. Finally, as an English professor, I sometimes had my composition students read "I Never Learned Hate" (an excerpt from Dick Gregory's autobiography), Steinbeck's "Junius Maltby," and Ernest Gaines's "The Sky Is Gray" and contrast the attitudes toward giving in them. I recommend all three!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]