Posts
The Family Research Council ("FRC") proclaims itself to be one of the preeminent "pro-family" political advocacy groups operating inside the Beltway. Tis' a noble cause, after all - who would dare to be "anti-family", particularly in this time of double-digit unemployment, stagnant wages, and widespread economic malaise? A quick visit to FRC's homepage (www.frc.org) gives a cursory glimpse into the soul of this multimillion dollar behemoth conservative organization: no fewer than four mentions of homosexuality and three of the looming prospect of government-funded abortions in the healthcare bill.
After all, I'm sure that most middle-class American families would agree: when it's crunch time at the kitchen table, few threats - not gas prices, rising insurance premiums, stagnant wages, not even the specter of long-term structural unemployment - rise more imminently and more ominously in the background than the dual evil of gay rights and reproductive freedom. Both truly pose grave dangers to America's hard-working families.
Ahem. Pardon me, but I think that I just exhausted my sarcasm quota for the next twenty-five years.
Those of us who came of age after the Presidency of Ronald Reagan cannot remember an America without far-right Christian groups such as FRC, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition. Like an opportunistic fungus eating away at the decaying remains of an ever-smaller, ever-Whiter, and ever-more-evil Republican Party, these hate groups have proliferated and now wield an uncanny amount of influence over the American political environment - particularly considering the numerically diminutive nature of "born-again" Christian conservatives as a percentage of the overall population. To be sure, these groups have largely failed in their policy aims - gays have more rights than ever, and abortion is still perfectly legal - but one cannot deny the deleterious impact that they have had on our society. All this, even though the "Moral Majority" remains nothing more than a clever marketing moniker; very, very rarely have these folks had a clear electoral majority behind their full suite of regressive policy goals.
How, then, have these groups lingered and grown even more powerful over time? Much of their success, I have always maintained, has flowed from their equally clever and misleading ability to stake out and maintain a position as a "pro-family" movement - even though their policy aims have absolutely nothing to do with concrete family issues and bear an uncanny resemblance to goals that would be labeled "dangerously theocratic" in most other Western nations.
It was a brilliant move on their part in the late 1970's. Attacking the steady stream of advances in minority rights of that decade head-on as an assault on "traditional social mores" of White supremacy and oppression of women would have been fraught with the danger of being (appropriately and accurately) labeled as reactionary and bigoted. But to link a woman's right to choose and a gay man's right to live an equal life with an attack on the family - aha! The opposition becomes anti-family - and consequently, very pernicious-sounding. The right-wing bigots of that epoch, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson chief among them, had found a winning strategy, and they have subsequently milked it for all that it is worth, and then some.
The left-wing counterstrike against this movement has been remarkably (if not predictably) inefficacious, and I likewise believe that much of our failure has stemmed from a fundamental inability to sever the connection between these right-wing hate groups and the "family" element. Considering that most people with a functioning brain would find the connection between gay rights and an "anti-family" agenda to be severely lacking, I find this failure of liberals hard to explain. Could this be because the American left has, itself, failed to produce and market a coherent "pro-family" agenda? Such an agenda, we might think, would center around a list of such things as:
Their "pro-family" agenda promises opppression of gays, a denial of the right to abortion even in cases of rape, and the dumbing down of science to 18th Century (i.e., pre-evolution) levels. Ours promises healthcare, job security, a living wage, and an integrated, comprehensive approach to climate change.
Even God himself couldn't win that debate for the forces on the far-right.
After all, I'm sure that most middle-class American families would agree: when it's crunch time at the kitchen table, few threats - not gas prices, rising insurance premiums, stagnant wages, not even the specter of long-term structural unemployment - rise more imminently and more ominously in the background than the dual evil of gay rights and reproductive freedom. Both truly pose grave dangers to America's hard-working families.
Ahem. Pardon me, but I think that I just exhausted my sarcasm quota for the next twenty-five years.
Those of us who came of age after the Presidency of Ronald Reagan cannot remember an America without far-right Christian groups such as FRC, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition. Like an opportunistic fungus eating away at the decaying remains of an ever-smaller, ever-Whiter, and ever-more-evil Republican Party, these hate groups have proliferated and now wield an uncanny amount of influence over the American political environment - particularly considering the numerically diminutive nature of "born-again" Christian conservatives as a percentage of the overall population. To be sure, these groups have largely failed in their policy aims - gays have more rights than ever, and abortion is still perfectly legal - but one cannot deny the deleterious impact that they have had on our society. All this, even though the "Moral Majority" remains nothing more than a clever marketing moniker; very, very rarely have these folks had a clear electoral majority behind their full suite of regressive policy goals.
How, then, have these groups lingered and grown even more powerful over time? Much of their success, I have always maintained, has flowed from their equally clever and misleading ability to stake out and maintain a position as a "pro-family" movement - even though their policy aims have absolutely nothing to do with concrete family issues and bear an uncanny resemblance to goals that would be labeled "dangerously theocratic" in most other Western nations.
It was a brilliant move on their part in the late 1970's. Attacking the steady stream of advances in minority rights of that decade head-on as an assault on "traditional social mores" of White supremacy and oppression of women would have been fraught with the danger of being (appropriately and accurately) labeled as reactionary and bigoted. But to link a woman's right to choose and a gay man's right to live an equal life with an attack on the family - aha! The opposition becomes anti-family - and consequently, very pernicious-sounding. The right-wing bigots of that epoch, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson chief among them, had found a winning strategy, and they have subsequently milked it for all that it is worth, and then some.
The left-wing counterstrike against this movement has been remarkably (if not predictably) inefficacious, and I likewise believe that much of our failure has stemmed from a fundamental inability to sever the connection between these right-wing hate groups and the "family" element. Considering that most people with a functioning brain would find the connection between gay rights and an "anti-family" agenda to be severely lacking, I find this failure of liberals hard to explain. Could this be because the American left has, itself, failed to produce and market a coherent "pro-family" agenda? Such an agenda, we might think, would center around a list of such things as:
- Comprehensive, publicly financed healthcare
- A strong set of policy initiatives aimed at curbing global warming, to protect this planet for future generations
- Strengthening of public schools, including anti-bullying programs
- Either a living wage or a minimum wage that is automatically indexed to inflation and cost-of-living increases
- Unconditional support for Medicare and Social Security, so that today's parents are not also burdened with providing for their own parents during senescence
- A strong system of state-mandated support for pregnant and working mothers, including publicly-financed daycare centers
Their "pro-family" agenda promises opppression of gays, a denial of the right to abortion even in cases of rape, and the dumbing down of science to 18th Century (i.e., pre-evolution) levels. Ours promises healthcare, job security, a living wage, and an integrated, comprehensive approach to climate change.
Even God himself couldn't win that debate for the forces on the far-right.
1 comment:
And yet, gay men are the only people not having (or being involved in) abortions. ;)
Sometimes old straight white dudes drive me crazy. I sometimes think that if they could just spend a few days in a Planned Parenthood clinic, or in a homeless shelter dedicated to LGBT individuals, or shadowing a lawyer specializing in DPs, they'd change their minds. But then I realize that's crazy.
Post a Comment