| Submit your comments on this article |
| --Tech & Moderator Notes |
| The Power of (contra)ception |
| 2012-03-11 |
| A Rantburg Opinion by Steve White American politics and the upcoming presidential election have been roiled the last several weeks about the economy. No, no, not the economy after all, but whether we'll bomb Iran to prevent them from having the Bomb™. No, no, not the Bomb™ after all, but whether our society should provide free contraception to all who desire it. What? That question being short for, "what the hell?" You will pardon me, I hope, for being a little late to the party. Giants such as Mark Steyn and James Lileks have gone before me, and I doubt that I shall add any humor to the equation. I also shall not use naughty words to describe women who wish that all should have free contraception on demand, as I still live in fear of my eighty-one year old father who would shame me, then deck me and wash my mouth out with soap for uttering such words. But I do want to pass on an observation that has not been discussed prominently elsewhere. Some have said that one reason we are discussing contraception is because the Democratic party leaders are so worried about election 2012 that they must refocus the average American voter onto a wedge social issue instead of the bread and butter issues of the economy. If you haven't yet noticed, President Obama inherited a troubled, struggling economy mired in a recession, and has managed to make it worse. It wasn't easy, but he's done a bang-up job of it. His stimulus bill was to cut unemployment but unemployment is up and the working force is down. The spending, the corruption behind the spending, and the lack of results from all the spending combine to make this election one of hand-waving for the Donks. They'll talk about almost anything else -- oh look, over here, shiny! -- because they understand that the truest path for the Republicans this November is to keep in mind the hoary rule once uttered by James Carville: it's the economy, stupid. That is a partially true but not completely explanation, because the contraception issue is one that seems to have been put forward with a great deal of care, starting with a debate question from George 'Sparky' Stephanopoulos several months back. All this for a lousy election? So yes, the contraception issue, of course, isn't about contraception at all. It's not about preventing conception. But it is also about something more basic than just one election. It is about power and the march to power. It is about the need to remove or at least compromise those who prevent success in the coming revolution. In any left revolution, be it progressive, bolshevik, socialist, fascist, national socialist, maoist, or bolivarian, it is necessary as part of the march to power to knock down organized religion. The Catholic Church competes for the hearts and minds of people and does so effectively, as do the evangelical (not the squishy mainline) Protestant churches and the synagogues and temples of other religions. But more than many, the Catholic Church is organized and can use its hierarchy to generate an effective message of opposition. It stands in the way. So at some point the revolution has to take on the Church or lose. Socialists today understand the power the Church had in Poland in the 1970s, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Venezuela today. The current revolution will not make the mistake of allowing the Church to survive long-term. If the revolution is strong enough to take out the Church directly, it does so. But if not, it has to take on the Church in ways that compromise the Church's moral authority and organization. It's rather Alinsky-like, eh? Hence contraception today. This is no mistake on the part of the revolutionary left employed within the Obama administration. They understand that contraception is a popular issue, far more so than abortion, and that most people either favor widespread availability or are libertarian enough to say that it isn't their personal business what others do. Many Catholics use contraceptives despite Church teaching. Combine it with the health-care issue and it's a two-fer, since it now shows the 'popularity' of ObamaCare. So the contraception issue is the wedge used to loosen the grip of the Church. By forcing the Church to back down it shows the Church to be impotent and unable to defend its moral authority. That pays off when the revolution takes its next step to knock the Church back further: as one example, the use of ObamaCare to force Catholic hospitals into performing abortions. Think that isn't coming? Think again: give them time, and they will find a way to bully the Catholic charities into toeing their line. If the Church pushes back? How can it? Yes, it can publish and talk, but the compliant mainstream news media will dilute that voice, if not silence it altogether, and push back with opinion pieces and editorials. That is already being done. The Church can preach from the pulpit, but that's a limited voice in these days of low Sunday attendance. It can work levers of power, but government officials, even at the local level, are not as amenable and accessible as they used to be to Church power. The Church could take action. But the laws are murky, court actions take forever, and there are legal risks to the Church. What if a federal court says that yes, the government does indeed have the right to order the Church to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees? Then the Church is really in the public relations and legal soup. What action is left? Civil disobedience, of course, but that pits one master against another, the progressive, Alinsky left. Imagine the Church saying (for example) fine, force us to violate our principles and in response we'll shut down our secular operations. How long would it take Obama, Holder, and Sebelius to push back -- for example, to obtain a court order to seize a closed Catholic hospital? All in the name of the public, of course, for the 'good of the people'. This will, they think, rally the people to them instead of to the Church. That's the power that is needed to go forward. That is the power that will cow the critics other than Rush Limbaugh, and they have other plans for him. That this is being done in an election year is important to rally the hard Left base to Obama, of course. But it is more importantly being done as part of a longer-term strategy to harass and eventually neuter the Church and send a clear message to other foes. It is a sign that Obama and the progressives in his administration are increasingly confident that they will win, have a second term to finish their transformation -- their left, progressive revolution -- of America, and so they want to make progress where they can and when it can be done. This is no mistake, no misguided policy, and no one went off the reservation. It is deliberate, careful, and far-reaching. It is about power. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 I hadn't thought about it that way, Dr. Steve. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2012-03-11 20:40 |
| #2 BLUF: "It is all about power." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-03-11 08:21 |
| #1 And I AM not comfortable at all with it. Thanks White. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-03-11 00:13 |