Gotta Have Faith

Last week, we saw how same-sex marriage opponents found themselves played by George W. Bush. After evangelicals mounted their direct-mail campaigns, mobilized the troops, and made at least some of the difference in November, Bush had decided to punt on the issue of fighting to amend the Constitution of the United States to placate these mouth-breathers, perhaps the first sensible thing he's done yet.

And once again, scarcely a week later, values voters find themselves played like a pawnshop Strat. Bush Hails Progress Toward 'Culture of Life'.

Speaking by telephone as the protesters gathered in the biting cold for their annual antiabortion march from the Ellipse to the Supreme Court, Bush said that although outlawing abortion remains a distant goal, it is one that seems to be moving slowly into view. "The America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed . . . in life and protected in law, may still be some ways away," Bush said. "But even from the far side of the river . . . we can see its glimmerings."

Funny -- when "liberals" use this sort of flowery prose, conservatives fall all over themselves to decry it as the worst brand of "Hillary-speak", the rhapsodizing of the traitorously disappointed for "the America that can be". Don't like the America that is, Chief? Well, love it or leave it!

Although banning abortion is a top priority of the Christian conservatives who make up the core of his electoral base, Bush chose to make his remarks by telephone from the presidential retreat at Camp David rather than address the protesters in person, and he spoke only indirectly about the goal of outlawing abortion. Similarly, in his inaugural address last week, the president did not use the word "abortion," though he made what many abortion foes regarded as a reference to the issue by saying "even the unwanted have worth."

Huh. The base ought to be asking themselves why this fucking guy's on vacation again already, and from what. It sure seems awful con-veeen-ient, the timing of this little three-day weekend. Didn't you just have a full week of partyin', Harvard?

I should be clear -- I am actually relatively conservative on this issue. I basically default pro-choice on utilitarian grounds; I figure that for any decent person, it's an impossibly hard choice to make, and for those who don't agonize over it, why the hell would you want them to be parents?

Still, I do understand where the pro-life crowd is coming from, though I don't understand their priorities, nor do I get why they don't fight this hard against any of the myriad conditions that plague many of the already-born.

But I digress. The point is that, here again, the evangelical Christian right has not gotten the respect they feel they're due. For now, anyway. All eyes are on Rehnquist's imminent replacement, but it's actually the next SC justice you have to worry about. Rehnquist's a known quantity; short of a corrupt moron in the Scalia/Thomas mold, replacing one conservative with another is basically a wash. Now, if Stevens or O'Connor are next to retire, as seems likely, that's where the fight will be.

Me, I wish the Fourth Amendment were as fashionable a fight as Roe v. Wade. It's been rendered practically moot at this point. But as for R. v. W., it seems most likely that it will be eroded by some sort of "states' rights" tactic. This is ironic, not only because the red states have the highest abortion rates, but because it also points out how hypocritical the states' rights crowd is, since you'll never see them arguing for things that many states have already voted into law by referendum, such as medicinal marijuana or right-to-die initiatives (and yes, gay marriage). Nope, they're for states' rights as long as it's something they agree with in the first place.

Anyway, in the meantime, the Christian right activist groups are 0-for-2 in the last couple of weeks. Oh, they might like to think that the preznit's phone call was at least a draw, but come on. You got party domination across the board, you got a self-professed evangelical ally in the White House who has proclaimed his "mandate", and best of all, God's on your side. So why does his support have to -- literally -- be phoned in? Could it be that he knows the truth about his rapidly dwindling political capital, and this makes it clear he's not going to waste a precious political dime on these guys?

If I were running, say, an opposition party, a party that has had some issues and problems with public displays of religiosity, I'd want to exploit these two recent episodes a bit. I think that a crack may start to develop. These people are not swing voters, but they are getting sick of being played, and someone might convince the Dobsons and Falwells, since they are by nature hubristic, that, oh I don't know, maybe a third-party run is viable.

Of course, that would require a proper opposition party.