Pew Survey Shows Americans More Liberal on Social Issues

Back in 2004 Republicans used opposition to same sex marriage to increase turn out among conservatives. A Pew Research Center survey shows that attitudes have changed over the last eight years:

47% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, while 43% are opposed. In 2008, 39% favored and 51% opposed gay marriage, based on an average of polls conducted that year. In 2004, just 31% supported gay marriage, while nearly twice as many (60%) were opposed.

There is also majority support for keeping abortion legal:  “53% of  Americans say that abortion should be legal in all (23%) or most cases (31%); 39% say that abortion should be illegal in all (16%) or most cases (23%).”

Needless to say, it is Republicans who take the big-government position here, believing that it is the proper role of government to tell people who they can marry and to deny women control over their own bodies. The survey found that 68 percent  of Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage  and 40 percent do so strongly. One good sign is that fewer Republicans oppose it than in 2004.

The survey also looked at guns:

Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Opinion has been divided since early 2009, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. From 1993 through 2008, majorities had said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

While Republicans have tried to scare people by claiming that Democrats would take away their guns and Bibles, there are very few Democrats who are pushing for  controlling gun ownership these days, with the  2004 Democratic platform including a statement of support for the Second Amendment.

Government Take Over Of Health Care–GOP Style

Republicans have repeated the lie many times that virtually any government involvement in health care policy, regardless of how necessary, represents a “government take over of health care.” They ignore the fact that it is the authoritarian right which regularly has government extend into personal matters where it does not belong. This has included their opposition to abortion rights, support for restrictions on the availability of contraception, and intrusion in end of life decisions as in the Terri Schiavo case. Republicans in Florida are expanding this policy even further in Florida, prohibiting doctors from discussing whether there are guns in the home. NPR reports:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is expected to sign a bill that will make the state the first in the nation to prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own guns. The bill is aimed particularly at pediatricians, who routinely ask new parents if they have guns at home and if they’re stored safely.

Pediatricians say it’s about preventing accidental injuries. Gun rights advocates say the doctors have a political agenda.

As parents know, pediatricians ask a lot of questions. Dr. Louis St. Petery says it’s all part of what doctors call “anticipatory guidance” — teaching parents how to safeguard against accidental injuries. Pediatricians ask about bike helmets, seat belts and other concerns.

“If you have a pool, let’s talk about pool safety so we don’t have accidental drownings,” he says. “And if you have firearms, let’s talk about gun safety so that they’re stored properly — you know, the gun needs to be locked up, the ammunition stored separate from the gun, etc., so that children don’t have access to them.”

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask questions about guns and how they’re stored, as part of well-child visits.

But Marion Hammer, the National Rifle Association’s lobbyist in Tallahassee, says that’s not a pediatrician’s job.

“We take our children to pediatricians for medical care — not moral judgment, not privacy intrusions,” she says.

NRA lobbyists helped write a bill that largely bans health professionals from asking about guns. Hammer says she and other NRA members consider the questions an intrusion on their Second Amendment rights.

“This bill is about helping families who are complaining about being questioned about gun ownership, and the growing anti-gun political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and staffs,” Hammer says.

It’s not just questions in the examining room that lead the NRA to charge pediatricians with a political agenda. Out of concern for the high number of firearms injuries among children and adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics is also on record supporting gun control.

Why do Republicans hate children?

Quote of the Day

“Texas is reportedly going to give college students the right to carry guns on campus. So I guess that next semester, every college student in Texas is getting straight A’s.” –Conan O’Brien

Palin Repeats Usual Right Wing Lies, Claims Obama Would Ban Guns

Conservatives routinely outright lie about the positions of liberals because they stand no chance in an honest comparison between conservative and liberal beliefs. Conservatives also tend to concentrate on scare tactics with their lies, knowing this is often effective with the low-information types of people who tend to vote for conservatives. Today Sarah Palin came out with a real whopper. AP reports:

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said during a speech Friday that President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies would ban guns and ammunition if they could get away with it.

The former Alaska governor said in a speech to the National Rifle Association that political backlash is the only thing stopping Obama from gutting the Constitution’s right to bear arms. Palin said the public needs to stop Democrats in their tracks, starting with the November elections.

That’s half the argument. How much longer until she also warns that Democrats like Obama will not only take away their guns but take away their bibles?

Differing Views of Freedom on The Left and Right

Liberals have one thing in common with tea baggers and other people on the right. We all talk about supporting liberty. What differs is what we mean by freedom. While liberals fight to restrict infringements upon liberty by the government many on the right are unable to distinguish between legitimate functions of government and infringements upon civil liberties. Conor Friedersdorf points out some examples, discussing with a case in which the Bush administration allegedly covered up the 2006 murders of three Guantanamo Bay detainees:

Beyond the fact that laws were broken and lives extinguished, the Gitmo Three may provide additional proof that the United States perpetrated extreme abuses of power in recent memory—a painful fact that we must acknowledge if we’re to prevent its recurrence.

And yet conservatives are so far content to ignore the story.

If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.

Do you think that I exaggerate?

Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.

Many (but fortunately not all) conservatives overlook such abuses, along with other infringements upon civil liberties which they see as part of the “war on terror.” They ignore such abuses while they distort measures to reform abuses by the insurance industry and provide private health insurance to those who cannot now obtain it as a government take over of health care. They speak of imaginary conspiracies to take away their guns and bibles while ignoring the infringements upon civil liberties which are actually occurring.

When Megan McArdle discussed this case she even felt it necessary to respond to the inevitable complaints of a “liberal sellout” which she anticipated from her conservative readers:

My conservative readers are no doubt winding up to tell me I’m a liberal sellout.  But I don’t think it’s particularly bleeding heart to think that we shouldn’t have to fake suicides to cover up for abusing prisoners.  In fact, I think that’s the stance of a hard core believer in law and order.

Large Marjority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade

Last week I noted how I, among with several other liberal bloggers I linked to, were skeptical of polls which seemed to show the country backsliding in support for abortion rights. While people might have qualms about abortion and possibly even like terms such as pro-life, we doubted that they would either support overturning Roe v. Wade or support returning to the days of shirt hanger abortions. We now have an answer as to attitudes on Roe v. Wade from a CNN poll:

The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?

30% Yes, overturn
68% No, not overturn

If they are going to be taken seriously again as a national party, Republicans need to recognize that the debate over abortion has been lost. Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue both morally and politically. While voters do have some qualms about abortion, most do recognize that regardless of their personal feelings this is a matter which can only be made by the woman involved, not by the state. For the Republicans to give greater weight to the rights of a first trimester fetus over the mother shows an ignorance of both biology and ethics.

A woman’s body belongs to herself, not to the state. Taking the opposing viewpoint on this is becoming as antiquated as previous Republican opposition to civil rights legislation. Such as they have generally moderated their past views on race, Republicans need to modernize their world view and give up their opposition to abortion rights, as well as their support for many other restrictions on reproductive rights.

Republicans have already lost on the abortion issue. I suspect that within the next decade, if not sooner, we will be saying the same about their opposition to marriage equality. Sometimes it is necessary for a political party to give up on issues where they have lost in order to pursue their agenda in more important areas, as the Democrats have done on gun control. Rather than clinging to ideas of the past, Republicans would be far better off to abandon their opposition to same-sex marriage along with their opposition to abortion rights.

Some Republicans Question Club For Growth

Yesterday I noted how some conservative writers are breaking from  Republican orthodoxy on economics. Hard line Republican economic views and ideological purity are often enforced by the Club For Growth, which often targets Republicans who vary from the party line. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Club for Growth Wears on Some Republicans.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party underscores the clout of Club For Growth, a conservative group that targets Republicans it brands insufficiently committed to low taxes and small government.

The move also has inflamed a debate within the party: Are the group’s tactics good or bad for Republicans?

Mr. Specter fingered Club For Growth as the key factor behind his decision, saying he would have lost the Republican primary to a Club-backed rival. His decision has prompted some Republicans to turn on the organization, saying it backs those who are so conservative that they then lose to Democrats.

“If their goal is to increase the Democrats’ numbers in Congress, they’re doing a very good job,” said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio), a moderate who won his seat in 1994. “Do they want a permanent minority of 140 people as pure as Caesar’s wife, or a Republican majority that can get them 70% of the issues that are important to them?” (Republicans hold 178 of the 435 House seats and 40 of 100 Senate seats.)

Some Republicans defended the organization but the article did return to further criticism:

Other Republicans say the Democrats have the right idea with their approach toward the past two elections of fielding candidates even though they deviated from some elements of party orthodoxy such as abortion rights and gun control.

“I’m not looking to be a member of a club,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) told reporters the day of Mr. Specter’s defection. “The difference between being a club and a national party is being able to play outside your traditional areas.”

Critics of the group say there are several elections in which the Club defeated or weakened a Republican candidate. Republican Reps. Joe Schwarz of Michigan and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland lost primary bids in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Both districts are now represented by Democrats.

“It brings a smile to our face when we see the Club For Growth going in, because in some instances it improves the prospects for our candidates,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who spearheads the Democrats’ House campaigns.

There was more defense for the organization with the article concluding with LaTourette repeating his criticism:

But Mr. LaTourette, the Ohio representative, said an overemphasis on ideological purity could make the GOP a permanent minority. “If the Democrats said everyone had to look like a Democrat from Massachusetts, they would not be the majority party,” he said.

Ultimately it comes down to whether they want ideological purity or a party which can win national elections. You cannot do both in a two party system.

The Failure of The Republican Party And How They Might Recover

Writing obituaries for the Republican Party, or predicting how they might recover, has become a very popular topic. As Bob Barr told CNN, “The Republican Party is in very deep trouble right now.” Bruce Bartlett has written about The Dismal Failure Of The GOP for Forbes.

Bartlett took a historical view of the two major political parties, showing how their relative power has varied over the years. After looking at eras which have little relevance to our current political situation, Bartlett discussed how the Republicans became the majority party after the Democrats became “a more purely liberal party no longer restrained by a conservative Southern wing.” What the Republicans failed to recognize is that you can either have a majority party or a party which consistently supports a single ideology. You cannot have both. Bartlett wrote:

After winning control of Congress and the White House in 2000, Republicans were as full of themselves as Democrats had been after achieving the same goal in 1976 and 1992. Cooperation with the other party was viewed as a sell-out by partisans of the party in control. The dominant element of each party–liberals in 1977 and 1993, and conservatives in 2001–moved quickly to implement long-cherished measures that had been blocked by a lack of unified control of the executive and legislative branches.

As the Republicans moved to the extreme right and purged those who did not follow the party line, the Democrats built the big tent:

At this point, Democrats finally accepted that applying ideological litmus tests was self-defeating. If some moderate or conservative wanted to run in a district that would only elect a moderate or conservative, then it was stupid to insist that they endorse every liberal item in the Democratic agenda. Moderates and conservatives were permitted to dissent from the party line on issues such as gun control if that was what it took to win.

This “big tent” approach was highly successful and greatly helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006. What probably hurt congressional Republicans the most, however, was their down-the-line support for every action by George W. Bush, no matter how ill-conceived, poorly implemented or at odds with the party’s basic philosophy, such as when he insisted on a massive expansion of Medicare in 2003.

As a consequence, the Republican brand was destroyed. The party is now widely viewed as corrupt, incompetent, ideologically rigid and out of step with the American mainstream. It should be engaging in self-examination, developing an agenda that addresses the real problems faced by Americans and reaching out to the millions of voters who have left the GOP in recent years. Instead, Republicans are pushing out the last of the party’s moderates as if that will somehow make them more popular with the very moderates whose votes are essential if they are to regain power.

I think Republicans desperately need a group that will do for them what the DLC did for the Democrats. Unfortunately, I see no such organization or any resources available for those that might start one. Those with such resources are either turned off by Republican pandering to its right wing and have left the party or they agree with it. Either way, no one in the Republican Party seems to have any interest in victory, and they prefer to wear defeat as some kind of badge of honor.

Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.

I have often argued that the Republicans must either change their views or go the way of the Whigs. While there is no guarantee of this happening, I also tend to think that at some point we will have a restoration of a two party system, either by the Republicans coming to their senses and recovering or by a new party developing from splits in the Democratic majority.

There are a number of potential ways to see the Republicans coming back into power. Hopefully this will be from them coming to their senses and moving back from the extreme far right. There are also other possibilities.

The Democrats might commit political suicide by following the path of the Republicans should they move to the far left and act to oust those who fail to show ideological purity. At present this is contrary to the direction the Democrats have been moving in, but there are some who do show such tendencies. As I noted a few days ago, it is also possible that Democratic successes could also lead to people no longer having the same reasons to vote Democratic in order to achieve plans offered by the Democrats such as increased access to health care once this is accomplished.

Conditions in the country and the world will play a part in the fortunes of the two political parties. Democratic prospects will be far better if the economy improves over the next few years. Often unpredictable events have a tremendous influence over politics. When George Bush was (questionably) elected in 2000 we could not have predicted that the Republicans would benefit from a terrorist attack in 2001, despite the fact that they mishandled it so badly. When Bush was reelected in 2004 we also could not have predicted that his poor response to Katrina would so quickly demonstrate the incompetence of the Republicans even to many former Republican voters.

Time could work to the benefit of the Republicans. An increasing number of Democratic House and Senate seats are now from areas which have been Republican until recently, making them harder to defend. Historically the party out of office does better in off year elections. Americans tend to both have a short memory and a tendency to grow tired of the party in power. At present this might not help the Republicans as they continue to remind people of why they were voted out as they claim they lost because they were not conservative enough.

Republicans might also return to power based upon their rhetorical ability and tendency to distort the truth. As people forget the disasters of past Republican rule, Voodoo economics might again look attractive. While Republicans policies don’t work in the real world, it sure does sound attractive to be able to cut taxes and simultaneously bring in more revenue. While Republican scare tactics about what Democrats will do are repeatedly contradicted by reality, there’s also a sucker born every minute. There are still many who believe that Democrats want to take away their guns and Bibles, with some conservative claims, such as those spread by Glenn Beck, becoming even more paranoid

The best chance for the Republicans would be, as Bartlett says, to “come to their senses.” At present Bartlett is right that this appears difficult. The general trend of history has been towards freedom and reason while the Republicans try to fight these trends. A party which has many members which support creationism over evolution and modern biology, fights stem cell research on religious grounds, and denies the scientific consensus on climate change will not be taken seriously by most educated and intelligent people in the 21st century.

In order to survive in the modern world, the Republicans must acknowledge both that abortion rights is a settled issue and that the state has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Republicans must realize the government should not intervene in other personal decisions, ranging from contraception to end of life decisions (as in the Terri Schiavo case). Republicans must realize that although they were able to capitalize on homophobia in 2004 with votes to prevent gay marriage, the attitude of the country is rapidly changing on gay marriage and other social issues.

Republicans must realize understand the significance of the decision of the founding fathers to create a secular government characterized by separation of church and state, as opposed to promoting a revisionist history which denies this and falsely claiming that the United States was established as a Christian nation.

Some Republicans would claim that saying Republicans should abandon these views is to say they should not be Republicans as they consider these views to be essential components of conservatism. In actuality there is no contradiction between rejecting the extremism of the religious right and conservatism. Doing this would be a return to the philosophy of Barry Goldwater, which many contemporary conservatives falsely claim to be following.

Electromagnetic Pulses and Smart Guns

At its worst the blogosphere leads to increased polarization between left and right with a tendency for each side to be pulled more to the extremes. At its best it has the potential to provide exposure to other ideas and present potential problems with one’s views which might be considered, along with sometimes going beyond the basic political disputes of the day. Eugene Volokh presents an example of the latter.

I’ve been intrigued by the idea of smart guns as a means of satisfying both the left and right on gun control. If the technology could actually be worked out, smart guns would allow only the owner of a gun to use them, potentially solving many of the objections to gun ownership commonly heard from opponents of guns ownership.

While this is certainly not a matter which is as urgent to today’s issues as many other topics under discussion in the blogoshere today, it is often interesting to hear such ideas on topics which might be more pertinent in the future. Volokh comes up with a potential problem with smart guns which I had never considered. He speculates that an electromagnetic pulse used in a terrorist attack might make smart guns inoperative. Such a terrorist attack would be precisely the time when individual ownership of guns might be most justifiable for personal self-defense.

This problem is potentially solvable such as by having smart guns revert to normal guns when the components which identify the user is inoperable, but this is a question which might be considered in any discussion of mandating the use of smart guns. Incidentally, getting back to the idea of using the blogosphere to transcend left/right divisions rather than amplifying them, I must also say that the rebuttal written by Matthew Yglesias to an earlier post on this topic is nonsensical and I agree with Volokh’s responses.

Fact Check Says NRA Has Distorted Obama’s Position “Beyond Recognition”

Factcheck.org has debunked dishonest attacks on Obama from the National Rifle Association. From their summary:

A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment” is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” and “will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.”

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama’s stated position as “rhetoric” and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret “plan.” Said an NRA spokesman: “We believe our facts.”

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn’t make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama’s record to come up with a bogus “plan.”

The article gives further information to debunk the attacks on Obama and provides this quote regarding his position from as stated June 26:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

They also quote statement from Obama from September 5 in which he tells gun owners that he does not intend to take away their guns:

The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, here’s another thing you’ve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.

Related Post: Obama Defends Gun Rights With Restrictions