Arm the Unborn
Check out this news report:
“As a Louisiana state representative, David Duke supported sterilization of welfare mothers, and distributed copies of the white separatist novel The Turner Diaries from his legislative offices.
“Yet in the early stages of the 2008 Republican presidential race, some social conservatives are adopting Duke, because he’s asking for their votes.
“In his speech to CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] Friday, Duke avoided any discussion of differences with deep-dyed conservatives. He quoted Ronald Reagan, “My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy. What he meant by that is we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything. You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same and we have some that are different…. We do believe in many of the same things, I’m sure.”
“Duke’s speech seems to have made an impact, if the straw poll conducted of CPAC activists is any indicator. The first number indicates the number of “votes” a candidate gained overall, the second their votes as first choice, the last number their votes as second choice.
“Duke 34% (17%) [16%]
Romney 30% (21%) [9%]
Gingrich 30% (14%) [16%]
Brownback 24% (15%) [8%]
McCain 20% (12%) [8%]
Tancredo 9% (< 5%) [5%]
Huckabee 8% (< 5%) [6%]
Hunter 7% (< 5%) [5%]
Paul 6% (< 5%) [< 5%]
Gilmore 6% (< 5%) [< 5%]”
I imagine that the alert reader might have noticed something strange about the “news” story above, which was gently adapted from an MSNBC news story about Rudolph Giuliani’s star performance at CPAC last weekend. Of course, it would be appalling if David Duke were to win the support of mainstream conservatives, who were willing to overlook the “20 percent” of issues on which they disagree with him, in order to snag an electable candidate.
Believe me, I know how awful that would be, because I remember when it happened. I was there. It was 1991, in the governor’s race, in Louisiana. Faced with the possibility that the corrupt (since imprisoned) populist Democrat Edwin Edwards might be reelected, millions of ordinary, conservative Louisiana voters—disgusted by crime that had driven them out of cities like New Orleans, angry at abusive affirmative action—lined up behind the ex-Klan leader David Duke.
Now it might be easy for some of you Yankees to write this off as a “Southern” aberration—until you remembered that great rebirth of the Klan in the 1920s took place in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
It was unsettling. People I’d met at church, who claimed to be solid Catholics, found themselves lining up behind a politician who favored pressuring welfare mothers to undergo surgical implants of the dangerous contraceptive Norplant. They were so desperate to win, so angry at leftist political elites, and so appalled at Edwin Edwards (an unapologetic crook who makes Bill Clinton look like Aleksandr Solzshenitsyn), that they were willing to overlook the “20 percent” of issues on which they disagreed with Duke. Conversely, liberals who loathed Edwards’ corruption bought bumper stickers and slapped them on their Volvos that read: “Vote For the Crook—It’s Important.”
As the most prominent conservative columnist on campus—I was finishing my graduate degree at LSU in Baton Rouge—I’m sure I alienated many of my silent supporters when I came out in the campus paper and endorsed Edwin Edwards, the very first (and last) Democrat to win my vote. Indeed, the girl I dated briefly at the time sported a David Duke bumper sticker in her room. She wasn’t a Nazi, a Klan fan, or even a racist—just a thinly principled, visceral conservative eager to win--like all those Komsomol kids at CPAC. She was willing to overlook the “20 percent” of issues on which she differed from David Duke—however important they were.
So were millions of other decent Louisianans: While Duke lost the election, he won a solid majority of the white vote. Edwards got back the governor’s mansion, and didn’t leave until he’d pried the last piece of copper pipe out of the walls to sell for scrap. But at least the Louisiana Republican party wasn’t taken over by the Klan.
And I continued to splash around in the murky bayou that is Louisiana politics. I was, by 1995, writing my Ph.D. dissertation on the critique of Cartesian scientism implicit in the novels of Walker Percy--just the stuff for a DaVinci Code-style best seller, but the thing still wasn’t finished--and living on $800 a month scraped from writing articles about business incubators and ostrich farms for the Baton Rouge Business Report. I drove a 1980 sky-blue station wagon with no a/c, no radio, and a tailgate tied shut by twine, and subsisted on red beans and Dixie. In other words, things were good. One day, a friend of mine from the local Latin Mass told me about a gubernatorial candidate with solid views, a lot of money, and not a snowball’s chance at Shiloh of winning--a conservative Democrat who was prolife and pro-gun (he favored laws allowing concealed-carry for non-felons, just to even the playing field). His name was Mike Foster.
So one Sunday after we left the Tridentine liturgy in the ghetto, the off-key Gregorian chant still ringing in our ears, we drove out to Franklin, La., in the middle of the sugar fields, to attend a campaign barbecue for this dark horse candidate. As I scarfed down as much pulled-pork as they would give me--I’d almost forgotten the taste of meat--I got talking to Roy Fletcher, the raucous, foul-mouthed, brilliant political consultant Foster had hired. (Fletcher roomed in college with James Carville, but hadn’t quite picked up his blueblood polish.) As I swilled some sweet tea, I shared with Fletcher my idea for the Foster campaign. “Well, you ought to switch parties. We don’t have any decent Republicans to choose from. But the main thing you need to do is to make the most of this prolife, pro-gun stance. You ought to make up a bumper sticker with a picture of a fetus pointing a .45 at an abortionist holding a scalpel. It needs to read: ‘Arm the Unborn.’”
Fletcher roared like a bear (this meant, I learned later, he was laughing) and as we rode home from Franklin, he passed us on I-10 at about 110 mph, leaned out the window, and screamed: “Arrrrrrrrrrrrrm the Unborn, Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- wwwwwwdaaaaaaaa- mmmmmmit!” The next day, I was hired as press secretary. Foster switched parties--Fletcher had already been thinking about that, I don’t get credit--and after a savagely clever media campaign conducted by Fletcher against various ”moderate Republicans,” won the election. They never used my bumper sticker, though.
One good side effect of this election was that Foster got the conservative vote instead of David Duke. In fact, this race ended Duke’s political career. Foster had high approval ratings even among black Democrats, and helped put the state’s finances into order. I was proud that I’d played a tiny part in that, and delighted that Foster did a fine job as governor--and after four years of Edwin Edwards, the state needed it. I also helped arrange Foster’s cross-endorsement of Pat Buchanan in the Louisiana primary. Louisiana was one of the only states to back Buchanan—we knocked Phil Gramm out of the race--and I was elected as one of Pat’s alternate delegates at the 1996 Republican National Convention.
If the Duke phenomenon in 1991 creeped me out, today I am every bit as disturbed today to see “mainstream” conservatives line up behind a candidate, Rudolph Giuliani, whose “20 percent” includes support for gay “marriage,” the final nail in the coffin of the sacrament (no-fault divorce did most of that job, of course—and Rudy has taken full advantage of that one, enabling his many public adulteries). Genius political strategists like Jonah Goldberg—who sagely advised conservatives in 2003 to abandon the “losing” issue of opposing gay unions, in favor of “winning” issues like the Iraq War—now scrawl mash notes to Rudy the drag queen, and try to solidify his position as front runner. He is, you see, “solid” on fighting “terrorism” by guarding the border. Not the U.S. border, of course—he wants to leave that wide open. But Rudy’s eager to station our soldiers to defend the border dividing Iraq from Syria.
What else is in that poisonous 20%? Amnesty for illegal aliens. Whatever the weasel words he’s using now, Giuliani has consistently supported amnesty and welfare benefits for illegals. Indeed, as mayor of New York, Giuliani made the city a virtual “sanctuary” for those who’ve snuck into our country, forbidding NYC police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. As one of the members of 9/11 Families for A Secure America (composed of family members of Sept. 11 victims) pointed out to me over dinner, if Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, had been arrested in NYC on September 10 for overstaying his visa, Rudolph Giuliani would have let him go. “He would have released the man who murdered my son,” one of the grieving dads told me, blinking back tears of rage.
And then there’s abortion. Once an ostensibly pro-life Catholic, Giuliani decided to shed such high-minded baggage to win election in New York City, and he hasn’t looked back since. Now Giuliani is the leader of the faction in the Republican party which supports abortion on demand. (Like most philanderers, he finds it a handy fallback.) This issue, the most profound moral scandal since the slave trade, trumps everything else in the minds of millions of voters—as it does in mine. By comparison with abortion, with the conscious, voluntary murder of over a million children a year, every other issue is essentially a fart in a bath tub. Indeed, more innocent Americans die every day through abortion than died on September 11, 2001—or in the Iraq War which followed.
I know this, and so do the Christians of every denomination who left the Democratic party over the Life issue in the 1970s. The so-called “Reagan Democrats,” like my parents—who voted consistently against their economic interests, against the advice of their labor union newsletters and a lifetime of sympathy with big-city, socially conservative Democrats like Mayor Daley and Robert Casey—remember why they switched parties. They know why their pastors and bishops rent buses for the March for Life, and conduct voter drives before election day. They remember when the Republican party was almost solidly pro-abortion, when Nelson Rockefeller pulled strings behind the scenes. Some of us even know that it was the 1972 Rockefeller Commission report on “overpopulation” which convinced Harry Blackmun to switch his position on abortion—and go on to write the infamous decision in Roe v. Wade.
We know that if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination—even if he goes on to lose, as almost any Republican who supports the Iraq War is doomed to do—this will mean the end of the prolife dominance over the party. The power in party circles will shift back to the dusty old Rockefeller wing, the elitists who sniff disdainfully at us “rednecks” for voting on the social issues, who have wet dreams about sterilizing the poor. This faction, shoved aside by the advent of Ronald Reagan, and the millions of Catholics and Evangelicals he led for the first time in history into the Republican party, will take power once again. It will be as if Ronald Reagan had never existed.
Think that’s impossible? It’s what happened to the Democrats—who as recently as 1973 were largely prolife. It was not a massive shift of opinion among Democratic voters that turned the party of Al Smith into the party of Gloria Steinem; it was women like Bella Abzug, ideologues who worked behind the scenes and used internal maneuvers to quash every prolife candidacy, to starve prolifers of funds, and rig primaries to close avenues of advancement to prolife Democrats. Indeed, by 1992, a prolife governor of a major electoral state, Pennsylvania, was not even permitted to speak at the Democratic Convention.
The same thing could happen to the Republican Party. Even now, the Bush machine uses internal power in this way to keep out candidates who want to build a border fence, or enforce employer sanctions on those who employ illegals. If a pro-abortion candidate wins the nomination—not to mention, God forbid, the White House—he will use the levers of party power to marginalize and quash social conservatives at every turn. And then we will have no political representation in America. We’ll be relegated to backing third-party candidates, or begging for pitiful crumbs like “parental notification” and a ban on partial birth abortion—rife with exceptions, of course, for things like a woman’s mental health.
We will be left in the wilderness, like supporters of Prohibition, black separatists, neo-Confederates, and those who still believe that Dwight Eisenhower was part of the Worldwide Communist Conspiracy. That is where the socially liberal Republican elites think we belong.
Such an outcome is far more dangerous to the prolife and the conservative cause than the election of Barak Obama or Hilary Clinton. Those Democrats just want to beat us in an election. Men like Rudolph Giuliani want to destroy us. The Democrats of this world are merely our opponents. The Giulianis are our enemies.
I’m not sure if arming second-trimester fetuses is the best plan for beating them, but I’m game to give it a try.
John Zmirak is author of The Bad Catholic’s Guide to Good Living
Comments
Zmirak is absolutely right that the election (God forbid) of Rudolph Giuliani would be an absolute disaster for pro-lifers. It would also be a scandal for American Catholicism. The press would glorify him as the very model of a dissenting Catholic. The problem is that Rudy just might be successful as president on matters such as economics and foreign policy. Any success that a Giuliani administration attained would give an added aura of legitimacy to “dissent.” One hopes that the Supreme Pontiff would have the courage of a Hildebrand and refuse to meet this twice divorced, thrice married drag queen.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I did not know that John Zmirak was involved in Foster’s campaign, but a buddy of mine was also involved it it. He is now sadly deceased. His name was Jim Bohan. By any chance did you know him?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John Zmirak writes : “It will be as if Ronald Reagan had never existed”
Not quite.
The republican party has never been a pro-life party. The elites have always kept the controls in hand while whispering sweet nothings into pro-lifers ears. Ronald Reagan (who as governor was pro-abortion), was told by his kitchen cabinet to do nothing but give lip service to pro-lifers, which is what he did.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t know why anyone in the world would be concerned about pro-life “forces” losing control over the direction of the Republican Party. Zmirak is convinced that either the Republicans or the White House have done something meaningful on life questions as it is? Perhaps he’d want to consult one of those embryonic stem cells lines on which Bush authorized federally funded research a few years back.
Pro-life enthusiasts would be wise to toss over the entire aggregation of the so-called “leadership” of the last several decades - the Dobsons, Falwells, Neuhauses and National Right to Lifes - and start over again somehow. These folks have made lots of money and experienced lots of comfort exploiting pro-life outrage over the years only to go along with with a corrupt ideology when access was in jeopardy. There are exactly two instutions to trust on life questions: The USCCB and the Vatican, period. Time to take the ideology out of a lived faith I’d say.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Marriage was destroyed by Griswold v. Connecticut as much or more than the no-fault divorces. Marriage is now intentionally both sterile and temporary. Making it just intentionally sterile (or conversely, only for the pleasure of the partners) but durable is not argument against homogamy.
But on Abortion, you are absolutely right, but I don’t know how to get Catholics to wake up. There is the abortion-neutral peacenik faction that only show up in front of military bases or “defense” contractors to protest but never abortion clinics, then there’s the right wing who complain about Grand Theft Auto while telling everyone how honorable the army and marines are and otherwise praising the neo-cons.
A sword could cut through both, but in the other direction. If you like peace (like you won’t endorse violence to end the abortion holocaust), then you should like it in Iraq and Iran - we should exhaust diplomacy with them like we have done with Castro. If you like war, then open your phone book under A, and stop by the gas station, find an old glass bottle, and reduce the killing center to ashes - then we can discuss the annoyance 10,000 miles away.
But a final and sad CPAC note, Ron Paul is everything they want. Principled, small-government, pro-life, interested in protecting America. Or perhaps not. They might want an emperor and empire, not a libertarian and republic, though a lot of the empire rhetoric sounds like the stuff shouted at football games where our team must win - at any cost (so we see doping when they get caught).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
how about arming those who are born into the world a chance to live a life free from slavery? welfare moms are byproduct of slavery… if more folks worked towards ending the inequalities that are being encouraged at present, their would be less of an need to get up on a high horse over abortion.. presently this issue of abortion is an effective way to manipulate the relgious vote and it works quite well for the most part, until the voter recognizes they have been used.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John Zmirak on Taki’s page? That’s good news, I always liked his blog and it’s nice to know that he’s here with Raimondo and Taki. This site is already one of my favorites.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
tz writes : “There is the abortion-neutral peacenik faction that only show up in front of military bases or “defense” contractors to protest but never abortion clinics”
I worked in pro-life on the hill DC in the early 80s and was the only non pacifist I knew among the pro-lifers, other than a few protestants, but almost everyone was Catholic. Ban the bomb, not the baby was a common bumper sticker.
The concept of abortion rescues was developed and promoted by those same peacniks . John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, pacifist and former executive director of Human Life International had done over a hundred rescues by 1984 and had also jumped the fences at the local military base with other pioneer abortion rescuers to smash the jets with hammers.
I’ve heard that it was John Cavanaugh O’Keefe and Julie Loesch. another peacenik, who taught Randall Terry about abortion rescues.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In the long term, its probably a good thing if moral degenerates like Rudolph Guliani are permitted to alienate the social conservative base of the Republican Party. Not only will that prevent the GOP from winning next year (the only way the Iraq War will ever end, apparently), but there are too many millions of social conservatives for them to exist without a party in perpetuity. Some sort of bona fide conservative party is likely to emerge and displace one or both of the major political parties in various regions of the country. The Republican Party is never going to give us what we want; what could possibly be more clear by this late stage? Let the Rockefeller Republicans (all 27 of them; perhaps they could start their own partisan country club?) have the formal party apparatus. Its long past due we built ourselves a new instrument of political expression. Who would want to be associated with a party that nominates people like Bush and Cheney, anyway?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I appreciate and agree with a lot of this article, but I think we should be careful about using the term
“social conservative”, because it lends itself so easily to being hijacked by vulgar populists/nationalists who confuse “conservativism” and “traditional values” with their own petty grievances against perceived “elites”, including the residue of true conservatives among those “elites.” Much, or perhaps most of what are popularly called “traditional values” in America today - perhaps especially a fetishistic faith in a “free market” which no longer exists except as a hyper-abstraction, and a relatively new species of American nationalism - are very recent concoctions which are either alien or opposed to the values of America’s founders. As for Rockefeller, I’m no great fan of his, but I think the Republican Party was more authentically conservative when it was represented by the likes of Rockefeller, than it has become after being hijacked by the populist-nationalists of the Reagan era, and then by their mutant offspring the neocon revolutionaries of the Bush era. All I am saying is that the term “socially conservative” is essentially contestable and very vulnerable to exploitation in very dishonest ways - so, let’s be careful about how we use such terms, in these times when we need to make special efforts to reclaim and to restore the meaning of words.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
J. Ball,
Point well taken. The term, “social conservative”, in current usage inspires more the thought of a God and Country, more a purely cultural, Evangelical vision of the phenomenon you cite than anything else. And it is in fact driven largely by popular perceptions. It seems to me that properly understood cultural conservatism is more an effect than a cause, more derived than conjured-up. It is the consequence of a lived faith and therefore never reducible to an ideology or a kind of activism. I feel as I do about citizenship and act as I do as a citizen because I am before everything a Catholic, that always and nothing less. I now resist the thought of myself as a social conservative. It presupposes a anachronistic vision of the division of nature and grace that simply does not exist. And here, of course, we find the vulnerability of neo-con, ReichsChurch Christianity.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Amen. The current Giuliani boom is appalling.
And for all you commenters who think that we can best advance the
pro-life cause politically by abandoning politics, I’ve got two
words for you:
Hyde Amendment
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’ve always viewed the term “social conservative” as a term of art employed by the media in order to avoid having to say “paleo-conservative.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Lowell,
You got that right. And it’s very percpicacious of you to suggest that popularly perceived “social conservatsim” is a kindred spirit of the ReichsChurch of National Socialism, as the modifier, “social” does after all lend itself naturally to socialism - and this is NOT just semantics. St Francis of Assisi was a Christian par excellence, and would best be called a reactionary, but although he called Charity his mistress, his lived faith was not “social” at all, precisely because charity transcends the evils of society.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
By the way, I just want to mention to the editors that one of the distinctive - and to me, attractive - qualities of this forum, it that it has already set a tone as a place where politics and culture can be discussed from an unembaressedly Christian perspective (among others), but without any of the loudmothed conflation of Christianity with Nationalism which typifies the neocons. “Anticatholicism is the antisemitism of the intellectuals”; but we have neither of those vices here, NOR the vices of the neocons who corrupt the relations between religion and politics in their own ways. But then our host Taki is a man who (like some others among us here) unabashedly appreciates a drink and a beautiful woman, and that’s the kind of host Christ appreciated best. I always say, never trust anyone who has no petty vices, because then the BIGGER vices have probably taken possession of him. Hitler had no petty vices, but Churchill enjoyed a few drinks and cigars and, when necessary, a good and preferably courteous fight.
For all the above reasons, I hope and expect this forum will continue to drive the morally cowardly neocon prigs out of their dessicated, abstract, truly vicious and antichristian minds.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Adam Greenwood,
You say:
“And for all you commenters who think that we can best advance the
pro-life cause politically by abandoning politics, I’ve got two
words for you:
Hyde Amendment”
The suggestion, Adam, is that one best begins benefiting the pro-life cause politically by ending its utter trivialization by and casting into the nether regions the great bulk of its present leadership, the Weirichs, Neuhauses, Dobsons, Colsons, Falwells and National Right To Lifes. Most importantly it requires a vision of Creation uncontaminated by the outmoded pure naturalism of a J. Courtney Murray, a pathology which has become the veritable trademark of the Novaks and Weigels, one that is more closely akin to that of Hans urs von Balthasar and his American interpreter, David Schindler. I’m afraid we’ll have to judge the value of Hyde Amendment or any other, similar impermanentcies by this latter standard.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
J. Ball,
As much as one finds the ReichsChurch in its present iteration in the popular, football stadium comodification of Christianity by biblicist, parentalist Evangelicals, one finds it on EWTN or in the seemingly harmless Catholic blogoshere of the Ratzinger Fan Clubs, the Jimmy Akins, the Amy Welborns, even the Caelum et Terras of Maclin Horton. Its present odour, a certain willingness to entertain and thereby promote an intellectualized and thoroughly reprehensible apologetic for Bush Regime torture. Here we see attained, even surpassed, a certain tolerable limit of how one might choose one’s partners in dialogue. You’ll understand, of course, a reluctance to engage someone with the outlook of a Lavrenti Beria or a Heinrich Himmler.
And you are quite right to point to the distinguishing priggishness. Its endemic in such environments.
Best regards.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! yygtquagdw
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Collisions with mercury adult court system release ultra violet photons, which in turn excites the phosphor coating in the lamp. The resulting relaxation of the phosphor adult court system releases photons in the visible spectrum, thus providing light with the required frequency components to illuminate the display.” The inventors were issued U.S. Patent No....
adult court system
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The story goes, Nadene was standing on the front porch of the house when she was 13 years old and saw a whole string of cars coming down the road,” Dopps said. Malone has lied, and lied and lied. .I wonder where they’re sitting. Totals 19 7 16 51. The 14 year old athlete got off to a slow start on Saturday, finishing third to Quebec native Lucas Brunelle and Maine’s Seth Taylor (Team Arctic/Wallingford Racing). “It’s not for everyone here. Deiniol Jones won the line out 35 yards out and…
d ila television
Click to flag this comment as abusive
streetfighter xxx
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.