Do you have any idea what the GOP is thinking by going all-out on this war against contraception? I can't imagine what possible political benefit it could have. They might as well campaign in favor of segregated water fountains.Oddly enough, this is exactly what I was writing on over at Plum Line today, although it just got published now. So I'll send you over there for the answer. Short version: parties sometimes go ideological, suffer the consequences.
To expand a bit, I'll go back to one of the things that I've talked about less lately but I think is still functioning: that there are a lot of people making money off of being conservative who have perverse incentives. One of the reasons that parties work, and therefore that democracy works, is that normally both parties have strong incentives to try to win elections. But Rush Limbaugh probably makes more money if Republicans lose (although he doesn't get to hang out at the White House). More conservatives are going to buy books about Barack Obama in 2009 than they did about George W. Bush in 2001. So that is something to worry about within the system, along with the other reasons that parties sometimes leave the mainstream.
Posts
Santorum is the only candidate who actually opposes contraception. The others just support religious freedom for the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteThe legislation they have proposed makes it obvious it is not about the Catholic Church -- it is about allowing employers and insurers to deny coverage of any services -- under the excuse of "conscience" --and undermine health reform in general.
DeleteOne reason the Republicans are clueless about the possible political consequences of their behavior, I think, is that women have so little influence in the party. They have no idea how differently women and men perceive the issue. Men think it is about sex -- for women, young or old, sexually active or not, it is about health.
esmense - Well sure, it's about religious freedom for everyone. The broader issue of contention is whether health care should be primarily a public or a private concern.
DeleteBut they are fighting for that "broader issue" in a dishonest way (using religion as a cover) that both reveals their disrespect for women and their cluelessness about the health issues involved. It's one thing to object to government involvement in coverage for health services, and entirely another thing to be dismissive of the important reproductive health needs of half the population.
DeleteAnonymous, Republicans were against the ACA because they said it would result in a loss of freedom. Since this is a tangible example of that (at least, from their perspective), it seems entirely fair for them to jump on it. It's no more honest or dishonest than the Democratic view that the Republicans are trying to deprive women of the means to control their reproductive life... it's just a different point of view. Different strokes, right?
DeleteCouves, I happen to think you're being a bit disingenuous with regards to the religious freedom arguments. If it's really about religious freedom, where was this Republican outcry when the Ground Zero Mosque was being debated? When another mosque at Murfreesbro(?) was under assault?
DeleteNot to mention the fact that it seems to ignore the religious freedoms of the employees. I can only assume I have the religious freedom not to have the religious practices of my employers be directed at me. Were I to work for a Mormon hospital, my employer could not take a percentage of my wages out of my paycheck every week and donate it to his church as a tithe. How then does my employer have the power to dictate how my healthcare is spent? My healthcare is just as much a part of my compensation as is my salary.
(The Doctor is purely an affectation.)
Doc -- On freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque... Is your argument that Republicans are never allowed to make a libertarian argument about anything simply because they're not consistent libertarians? If so, then what are we to do about liberals who support the first amendment but not the second? Freedom is valuable enough that we should welcome any defense it gets.
DeleteOn the rest -- you always have the freedom to get another job, but the Church's only recourse is to engage in the democratic process. I'd also point out that the Church is not trying to deny anyone's right to avail themselves of birth control - all they want is to not be forced to not pay for it. That seems reasonable to me.
The bible clearly states that God has condemned women, as a result of Eve's sin, to bring forth their children "in pain." For this reason, some religious people have long objected to administering medications that alleviate pain during child birth. Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists (and probably others less well known) have all sorts of objections to the use of various life saving aspects of modern medicine, such as blood transfusions, surgeries and medications. Are we really going to allow them to deny their employees -- including men -- coverage of commonly accepted, often life-saving medical treatments? Or is "religious liberty" to be restricted just to those forms of medical treatment that obtuse politicos and their supporters think can be laughed off as being of use "only" to women and to slutty women at that?
DeleteEven more so, are we going to allow that when the religious freedom principle that applies here has already been decided by the Court (in an Oregan case involving peyote use)? The court ruled that religious liberty "is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws." And I think in our history you can find many examples in which we, as a society, have come to that conclusion. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in the Oregon case, wrote, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself..”
The administration has provided a way for the Church to avoid payment. Republicans don't want that. They want employers to have the right to deny any kind of coverage to anyone for any reason. And, out of sexism? disrespect? general cluelessness? they have chosen to dishonestly make their play to do so using an issue they think affects "only" women and, perhaps, in Santorum's word, "libertines." Politically it is a huge miscalculation that damages both their credibility as a political party and the genuine cause of religious liberty.
esmense - Cluelessness goes both ways... Republicans can only hope that Democrats frame the issue as you have.
DeleteInterestingly enough, I don't think they can make a libertarian argument because they are only for liberty in certain instances. How then can they argue for freedom only for a select few and hope to have any kind of legitimacy. Furthermore, your "they can get a job anywhere" argument is total bunk. By your reasoning, we should eliminate sexual discrimination laws. Under that argument, I could insist that any female employee would have to sleep with me or be fired. They could always get another job. You don't actually believe that and if you do, I would level a harsher charge than disingenuous.
DeleteDoc, I view health care as a perk, to be weighed against other incentives when deciding where to work. That really has nothing to do with discrimination laws, at least to my way of thinking.
DeleteOn the Republicans' libertarianism, or lack thereof, I can only repeat what I said before... we should welcome ANY support for freedom! Obama's anti-torture and anti-homosexual discrimination policies are great, even if he fell short on the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
This one has had me agape as I've watched it unfold. The photo of Thursday's lineup of preachers at the hearing was kind of shocking. It looks to me like some in the party thought they could score a few cheap points on Obama, but instead opened a can of worms they don't yet seem to comprehend. It strikes me that this could turn off enough women to throw the election, both for Congress and President, to the party that's not arguing against the availability of women's contraception.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong, or is it as awful as it looks?
I agree the entertainment wing of GOP is in control of the party now. There is more money to be made in losses. As for the elected officials, considering the action happens in the Senate instead of the House, I'd think this is more for show to rally the base. The additional bonus is distracting the base from noticing they "cave" in payroll tax cut and UI. They might keep this up for as long as there are bad news for them (more compromises, prolonged embarrassing primary season, improving economy...). However, I doubt they can continue into general election, especially if Romney becomes the nominee.
ReplyDeleteBut Rush Limbaugh probably makes more money if Republicans lose
ReplyDeleteUp until about the last week or so, I strongly agreed with this idea, but now I think it might be overcooked a bit. In certain respects it might be better to have an outparty President, but I think the fundamental purpose of partisan media is to provide the audience with a sympathetic narrative. A great illustration of this, lately back in the news, is the Terri Schiavo case.
Everyone has a strong opinion on the situation; to a large extent your opinion is contingent on how you see her husband. Some see him as a guardian exercising her competent wishes; others see him as a cruel opportunist looking to get rid of his vegetable wife so he could marry a healthy one. Additionally, there's the question of agency, and how competently a healthy person can speak to their interests if suddenly thrust into Terri Schiavo's unfortunate position.
If you have faith in the system of advance directives (especially including those made by individuals in an entirely foreign state from the one in question), then you probably don't have much issue with Michael Schiavo; however unsavory, he was simply executing his wife's competent wishes...for these and other similar reasons, you're probably a liberal.
By contrast, if you're skeptical that a healthy Terri Schiavo could accurately represent her interests in a foreign state, without ever having experienced it; further if you see Michael Schiavo not as dutiful guardian but cruel opportunist, and additionally you feel that her family's caretaking makes keeping her alive relatively harmless...you're a skeptic, and you're probably a conservative.
These are rough outlines, surely not everyone fits. However, wherever you fall on the Schiavo issue, there's a really good chance you think the people on the other side of the fence are idiots (or worse!). So when it comes time to consume media that discusses the story, you likely don't want to hear about it from the point-of-view of whichever idiot you perceive to be on the other side of the fence.
This reality, I think, is what drives the partisan media, which is perhaps more obvious on the right because the mainstream media tends to bend leftward. Its also probably where a guy like Rush Limbaugh gets most of his dough, and business is pretty much always going to be good for that guy.
Technical question here, which occurred to me as I read the post on Plum Line: When political scientists say that that being perceived as ideologically extreme can cost a presidential candidate 3 percentage points, do they mean that it can increase the spread between the two candidates by 3 points, or that it can flip 3 percent of the voters from one candidate to the other, i.e. increase the spread by 6 points?
ReplyDeleteGood question! Were I running a model, I would likely use one of the parties' vote shares as my DV, and report effects as that. So, in that model, a "3 point effect" would mean that, all else being equal, changing this variable would be associated with a 3 point change in the vote share for the party at hand. That would translate into a change in the spread of 6 points (if our DV is share of the two-party vote) or thereabouts (if our DV is share of the total vote).
DeleteHowever, that's just how *I* would run the model. The spread is also a perfectly good measure to use, and then the 3 point effect would be there. Long story short: either is possible, but my best guess having seen a number of models is vote share, not spread, as the DV. But, I'm not familiar with models that have included extremism outside of Silver's, so I can't say whose models JB is referring to.
Thanks, Matt. Hopefully JB will clarify that -- seems like it could be an important distinction.
DeleteTaking Jeff's question one step further, wondering if anyone looked at whether the impact of ideological 'extremism' differs depending on whether it is in the direction of the other party. For example, a Goldwater or a McGovern was a more traditionally conceived extremist away from the opposition; a guy like McCain was arguably an extremist (vs. his base) in the direction of the opposition.
DeleteSimply as a thought experiment, it seems possible that the "tail end" extremist causes about 6% of her more moderate constituents to stay home; thus losing 3 points in total to the other side. A "centrist" extremist might lose 6% of those who otherwise would have chosen him - not to staying home, but to the other candidate - by failing to develop a compelling ideological contrast for himself. Thus the "centrist" extremist could cost himself 6 points (3 lost to the other team), where the "extremist" extremist only loses 3 (3 lost to voters simply staying home).
I've no idea whether this model is remotely valid, but its interesting to the extent that McCain would be an iconic example of a candidate who in so many respects failed the ideological test of his party. Did that cost him 3 points that fled to the other side?
The vote in 2008 was a fairly convincing 53/46 spread for Obama. Give McCain back a failed ideological 3%, and suddenly you're talking about an extremely close election...
One other factor that I haven't seen mentioned: The intellectual wing of the conservative movement has a large presence of conservative Catholics. For them presumably this is a matter of principle - not just 'religious freedom,' but whatever makes the church hierarchy so hot on this issue to begin with.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Rush they are not concerned with ratings. But in their version of the long view they are perhaps willing to boot an election to further their cause. Good luck with that, I suspect, but they have put anti-contraception on the overall conservative agenda.
I agree with CSH that Rush's ratings will stay the same if Obama wins or loses. If you imagine that the "entertainment wing of the Republican party", as Anon put it, is in control, it's kind of like having the newspaper carriers dictate what's in the paper. Disseminating the message is a different skill set, compared to identifying a strategy for governing. The pursuit of power itself cannot be your mission. And yet here they are.
ReplyDeleteJon, your piece overlooks one thing: The Goldwater/McGovern examples involve ideologically extreme candidates, whereas Romney was the very moderate governor of a blue state. Yes, he's adopted extreme positions in this race, including the birth-control thing, and that will probably hurt him in the general election. But will it really lose him the 3% you mentioned? I think we're in uncharted territory here, where we have a candidate with a moderate background embracing extreme positions. (McCain 2008 had an element of that, but now it's more so, since Gov. Romney was to the left of where Sen. McCain ever was, and the current GOP is to the right of where it was in '08.) It's unclear what effect this will have on voters, because the extremism he's adopted now may be partly blunted, if not neutralized, by his past reputation. It also isn't clear what he's going to do once he gets a chance to pivot to the general election.
ReplyDeleteI'd say the GOP "entertainment wing" is much bigger than Limbaugh. He might do well no matter what. But what about all the want-to-bes? Just look the 2012 Field. How many of them are actually running for president? And how many of them are it in for PR run to sell books and future speaking/commentator/fundraising gigs? What is the cost to Romney with such rivals? And yet, no elected official dare to disagree with their rhetoric.
ReplyDelete