I never understood how wealth would trickle down from the rich, who hired the best accountants and tax attorneys in the nation to prevent their money from doing just that—trickling down.
I never understood how semi-automatic handguns reduced gun violence in a nation riddled with violence.
I never understood why "big government" or "socialized medicine" was such a scary thing, when socialized education, socialized policing and socialized fire protection are considered basic American rights.
I still haven't figured out how gay marriage negatively affected my own marriage, how it would make my wife and me more likely to get a divorce.
In spite of these confusions, I considered my a Republican because of one issue: Abortion.
I am a pro-lifer and there's nothing anyone can say to dissuade me from that viewpoint. I don't think of it as a fetus. I think of it as a child, an unborn baby. I don't think Roe v. Wade should give us the right to choose abortion anymore than I believe the Dred Scott decision gives us the right to choose slavery, as Stephen Douglas argued in 1859 and 1860. I do believe that when societies—present and past—want to rid themselves of or exploit its most inconvenient members (Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, unborn and unintended babies), the first step that society will take is to dehumanize that person. In the Civil War, they weren't people, they were barbarians. During the Indian Removal Act, they were savages. During the Holocaust, they were Jesus-killers, child-sacrificers and other things.
I look at Kosovo, Ruwanda, Darfur and I see all the reinforcement my own hypothesis requires.
But then I got to thinking: Ronald Reagan changed cultural politics forever by injecting social issues into his campaigns, chiefly among them abortion. And yet, after eight years of his control and a general Republican control of Congress, abortion was still legal and still rampant.
H.W. Bush was next. And four years later, abortion was still legal and rampant.
Clinton had eight years to push the Pro-Choice agenda on of America's most vulnerable citizens and yet, abortion rates remained stagnant during his two administrations.
Then came W. he's had eight years, most of those with a conservative court and a conservative congress. And Roe v. Wade is still a part of our constitution.
And now John McCain wants his turn. And to dissuade a person like me from voting for someone who's going to give health care to our most vulnerable, give tax relief and stimulate our economy within the middle class, he hires on Sarah Palin, a person who has practiced what I've been preaching in her own life, but when it comes to legislation, she has repeatedly said she respects the views of others when it comes to abortion and resisted efforts as Alaska's governor to legislate on abortion.
So it's nice that these two agree with me on this one issue. But we've had presidents for 20 of the last 28 years who have agreed with me on the issue but have done very little about it.
And then there's Barack Obama. This is a guy who is pro-choice, staunchly so. And that should terrify me. But it doesn't. It doesn't because he has outmaneuvered me. His question isn't: How do we keep abortion legal or how do we make it illegal? His question is: How do we reduce the number of abortions? He's got two answers for that: By encouraging vulnerable women to carry their babies to term. And, secondly, by preventing the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
That's a platitude I can agree with. And that's a strategy I think Abraham Lincoln would agree with. When he was considering the abolition of slavery prior to 1863, and the Civil War, Lincoln's strategy was to slowly constrict the usefulness of slaves, thereby aiding its eventual demise as an institution and a labor tool. The social repercussions, he believed, would swing so wildly to the other side, the result might just be worse for southern Blacks than slavery itself.
In the short term, he was right, as the Jim Crow laws proved.
In the same way, I don't believe we should be making criminals out of our most vulnerable women for resorting to a practice that has been legal for three decades. Remember Prohibition?
This, in my opinion, is an issue on which conservatives can flex their intellectual might. The Conservatives are supposed to be, I might remind you, the realists. But in this debate, the conservatives have been anything but realistic. They don't approve of sex education because the "government shouldn't be teaching my children those things." So when a girl is making out with her boyfriend, and one thing leads to another and oh my god, they just had sex they didn't use a condom because they didn't talk about having sex beforehand because her parents and her church told her she "shouldn't" so the thought of actually doing it was so inconceivable, it didn't even warrant a conversation. Not to mention, having the conversation beforehand would be like premeditated sin, much worse, by Christian standards, than just doing it and asking for forgiveness later.
The problem with this is a thing called children. And the problem with Pro-Lifers, is that they are the most idealistic, most unrealistic group in the electorate.
The Evangelicals obsession with repentance and abortion has allowed the powerful elite to play them like a 3-year-old on a senseless errand.
I have long been suspicious of whether the Republican party's truly believes that wealth trickles down to us, if they really, truly believe national health care is dangerous and if automatic handguns make us safer as a nation.
After 20 years of Pro-Life Republican presidents, I am equally suspicious of whether that party truly wants Roe v. Wade stricken from the record, of if they want to keep it legal, just so they can exploit the issue for the political goldmine that it has been for too long.