Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Ugly But True

Banned/Allowed

The link above leads to a mailer from the Republican National Committee. Designed to appeal to socially conservative voters, it pictures the Bible under the word "Banned" and shows a picture of a man proposing to another man under the word "Allowed." A bit inflammatory, no? Last I checked, most liberals oppose the banning of any book--even the Bible.

The text on the reverse contains the following language:
Our traditional values are under assault by Liberal politicians and their hand-picked activist judges. They are using the courts to get around the Constitution to impose their radical agenda. The liberal agenda includes:
  • Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent.
  • Removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • Overturning the ban on the hideous procedure known as Partial Birth
    Abortion.
  • Allowing same-sex marriages.

A lot of that is overwrought or untrue: no one's trying to get around the Constitution, for example; we simply interpret its notions of freedom and equality to apply to everyone. But you've got to give this flier some points for honesty, even as you realize it's a despicable distraction from the issues that really impact voters in West Virginia and Arkansas, where it's being mailed: the four points mentioned are all things that actual liberals actually support. I'm not entirely clear about partial-birth abortion, but they've nailed me loud and clear on the others. "Under God?" Gone if I'm in charge. Teenagers needing parental consent? Doesn't make sense. Gay marriage? Item number one on the agenda in a Nelson Administration.

Andrew Sullivan calls this ad "hate-mongering," and he's partly right. It goes overboard in making its claims to scare people. Surprise! Fear is the modus operandi of the GOP. But while it's arguably irrelevant to most voters in Arkansas whether I can marry or not, whereas it's of capital importance to me--and while, therefore, their interests would be better served if they'd vote based on some other factor, like the fact that the President is sending their kids off to die in an unjust war or the fact that the same President is letting the economy go sour and changing the tax structure to make life even harder for them--it remains up to them how to decide how they vote, and up to the GOP to decide how--and how dirtily--to campaign.

The real shame in all of this is that no one will say, in a loud voice, how utterly silly this all is. Howard Dean was shouted down when he made his remarks earlier this year about Southern voters, but he was on to something. People whose economic interests lie with the Democrats need to be told, firmly, and yet in the gentlest way possible, that they're fools if they vote based on the stuff in fliers like this. A tough task? Undeniably. But also undeniably worth the potential payoff: Breaking up the solid South, turning back the tide of reactionaries, and putting government back in the hands of ordinary people rather than a plutocracy. A politician with the courage to undertake this endeavor, one with the right charms, could not only be President--he or she could be the most beloved leader in generations.

No comments: