Looks like Steve and I have strep throat. That’s probably what Ian’s been whining about for two weeks. Oh, well. Missed that one. Like I said, I’m a bad mother.
So, we’ve got a new pope. He apparently is no trail-blazing progressive, but it’s hard to tell because his previous position was The Whip-cracker. Whatever. We’ll wait to see what he does.
A bone to pick with some fellow bloggers.
When I was a kid and someone from the playground picked on my sister, I got all puffed up, defensive, and combative. Non-compatible DNA stains could not pick on my sister, because picking on her was MY job, not to be shared with outsiders.
I have to say that I’m dismayed at the anti-Catholic crap that I’ve seen in some of blogs. I just don’t get why non-Catholics give a crap about the church’s position on women clergy, abortion, or birth control. Nobody is dragging you up the aisle to receive Christ’s life blood.
If other Catholics don’t like it, they have a few options. Get their ashes and palms, and become “cafeteria Catholics” picking and choosing the doctrine they wish to follow. (Guilty) They can also write letters to their Bishops. If that does no good (probably won’t), well, there’s always the Unitarians.
What I find most distasteful is the liberal blogs that bash religious types. Where’s the diversity, people? Oh, diversity is only for the approved groups. No interest in being tolerant to the religious types. It’s like someone passed around an “Okay to Bash” list and put religious people way up on top. Face it, people. We live in a diverse country. That’s what makes it more interesting than countries like Sweden or Denmark. If you want to more than lip service to your call for diversity, you have to embrace every last one. Pucker up and kiss an evangelical.
Don’t fear diversity. Instead whip out the Federalist Papers and flip to #10. Don’t have it handy? Well, let me sum up.
In #10, Madison worries about the future of the fledgling democracy. Never actually practiced before, democracies were theorized to be volitile and likely to dissolve into demagogery. In particular was the worry over factions, minority groups that worked to surpress the rights of a majority. What protections could be put into place that would frustration those factions from destroying the newfound freedom? He proposed two solutions. One is a large diverse country, such as the new country, where there would be too many interests for one large one to form. The other was federalism, the system of states with a strong central government. Federalism would divide up interests making it highly unlikely for a faction to take charge of the national government. If it took control of one state, then the problem would be localized.
In the blogosphere, several liberals and certain pro-gay rights conservatives have held out federalism as the last hope for liberalism during the Republican era. Perhaps pockets of the country can support their cause, if not the whole country. But they propose this solution with a heavy heart.
Don’t fear. Federalism good. Federalism good.
Some corners of liberal academia have always embraced federalism. Some explain that the states have often been the sources for very liberal, innovative policy. David Osborne calls them “laboratories of democracy”. Others look at the expanded options for participation that federalism offers. It’s much easy to protest and lobby at the state level than at the national level.
David Brooks has an op-ed in today’s Times that is going to drive the chick bloggers bananas. Haven’t had a chance to surf yet, so if you send me some links, I would appreciate it. He writes that Roe v. Wade should never have happened. Abortion laws should have been determined by state legislatures. I’m not sure if it should have been the state or national legislature, but it should not have been court battle. Brooks is right — Roe v. Wade could be responsible for eliminated the filibuster. Like Brooks, I feel that this is a huge mistake; the filibuster is an important protection for minorities in the Senate. Unlike Brooks, I think that it’s impossible to overrule Roe v. Wade and made into law instead; Roe is here to stay.
But it is interesting to think about. What would happen if the states completely took over abortion laws? Okay, forget Louisiana. But I’m not sure that you would a huge difference accross the country. Some states would have a few more regulations than others, but I’m not convinced that the red/blue dicotomy would happen to abortion laws. In fact, I think it would strengthen abortion legislation, since it was locally decided by elected representatives.
God, I’m sick. What the hell am i doing blogging?
Apt. 11d 
Laura,
Um, I think non-Catholics are interested in Catholic positions on these issues because they’re incredibly influential in the world, the temporal rather than spiritual world. If all that the Vatican’s opposition to birth control did was put guilty thoughts in the hearts of italo-irish fornicators in NJ, I think we’d all agree, not as big of a deal…
But then when you look at AIDS in Africa. Or family planning in South America. Or the potential of a Catholic-Born Again common front in the USA… People might get a little sensitive about this, justifiably, no?
LikeLike
Oh no, I was home with strep on Monday and Tuesday…and I visited your blog…with the two day incubation period, I appear to have infected you. My apologies. It sucks.
As for the Catholic opinions – being stuck in bed all day on Tuesday opened my eyes to what a huge news event this was. There was really no other story on any of the news outlets. All Pope. All the Time. I thought it was interesting – but very poorly covered by everyone, except Jon Stewart who managed to outdo even himhelf with the Daily Show’s coverage.
LikeLike
Of course, Excatholic, people should be interested in the positions of Catholics. If you were doing analysis of school vouchers or abortion laws across the states, you be remiss if you didn’t look at the number of Catholics in those states. The number of Catholics in PA or LA should be figured into the research. But it should also be noted that Catholics are really divided about almost every issue and the Catholic leadership has been weaker than one would think.
re: blaming on AIDs in Africa on the pope. That’s where I get really annoyed. That unfounded assumption really smacks of bigotry, because there’s so little muscle behind that claim. AIDs in Africa is a huge problem and one that has a multitude of causes. Probably the biggest cause is the fact that the political and social landscape of sub-Saharan Africa can be best described as a state of nature. Africa has never recovered from the imperialism of the past and countries are run by roving bands of teenage boys on the back of a pickup armed with semiautomatic weapons and high as a kite on home made hallucinogens. Schools are nonexistent in many areas. To say that the pope is responsible for their plight is so wrong that it makes my mouth gape open.
Also, in Northern Africa, the Islamic countries are much stricter (understatement) on premarital sex and contraception. Their Aids rate is zero. I’m not suggesting that we replicate their example, but just point it out to show that saying no to contraception does not equal rampant AIDs epidemic.
LikeLike
I’m not going to touch on the Catholicism issue.
I _am_ going to take issue at the mimimizing of the dangers of letting the question of abortion’s legality go to the states. I’m feeling directly threatened, on a very personal level, about this, as I am about to move to a red state with laws so stringent that a girl who becomes pregnant through incest could conceivably find herself having to ask that parent for permission to have an abortion — and then she’d also have to make two separate visits to the doctor and to state social workers for anti-abortion “counseling” — and then there are only doctors, in special hospitals, available in less than 10% of the state’s counties. And it’s not in the South, not Louisiana, and there are at least five other non-Southern states with similar profiles.
If I get pregnant in that state, while still on COBRA, that pregnancy becomes a pre-existing condition under the health insurance guidelines, and what would otherwise be a desired child becomes an enormous financial burden. Oh, and forget emergency contraception or even birth control — remember those “conscience” clauses for pharmacists? Will I end up driving across state lines to stay with family and get an abortion? Yes, and I will grieve every mile of the drive.
But not everyone has those “options.” I have a car, funds to endure taking off several days unpaid, family connections in bluer, pro-choice states, no small children to take care of — but what of those who do not?
Roe v. Wade may be a thin, imperfect layer of protection for those in need — but throwing it away and trusting the states to take the real dangers and hard choices of real women into account? Never.
And then for Brooks to imply that if we sacrificed this thin guarantee that women’s health and bodily integrity can’t be thrown into the dustbin politics would become magically “civil”? That radical right-wingers would instantaneously cease to challenge and undermine liberal progress? Delusion! Thanks, you a–hole, for saying that the only reason to care about women is so that privileged pundits don’t feel left out of the conservative boy’s club.
I understand that you’ve been sick, Laura, so I’m not mad at you about giving this jerk a pass — but I think you might want to rethink this when you’re feeling better.
LikeLike
The reason we don’t return abortion rights to the states is for the same reason that we don’t let states regulate freedom of speech, or freedom of religion–constitutional rights, which abortion has been ruled to be, are not subject to modification/regulation by state legislatures (or Congress, for that matter).
LikeLike
Rana, I could have written a post that went like: “Fuck you David Brooks! You are big fat asshole who is clearly only interested in repressing the good sisters everywhere. Your op-ed is clearly a sign that you are a man with a very small penis.” I could have written that, but I knew that everybody else had probably already done that. Why bother.
Humor me. I’m a political scientist. I like to play with politics. I like to ask question like: what would happen if…. and what are the good (and bad) repercussions of a law or court case.
There’s been a lot of debate amongst progressive political scientists whether the courts or the legislatures are the best way to bring about change. Maybe because I’m familiar with that literature, I didn’t think that Brooks’ post was so weird. Maybe it’s because I have 101 fever. who knows.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, Laura. I guess I simply disagree that Brooks is the best person to discuss the issue, at least if he’s going to reduce the essence of right-left incivility to Roe v. Wade. There are a lot of other federal/state issues that echo that dynamic (Michael Berube has done a nice job pointing this out; Digby’s post at Hullabaloo is also useful). It’s not the notion that maybe we need to refigure the federal/state dynamic that bothers me; it’s the idea that women’s issues are a sacrificial lamb, an adjunct to “real” political debate that only serves to make people angry, rather than an area of significant concern to a sizeable segment of the body politic. It’s even more irritating when it’s suggested first that “the” reason the right and the left can’t get along is because the latter thinks that women’s right to bodily integrity is worth defending, and second that the “best” way to promote civil politics is for the left to cede that very important point.
It’s the language of the appeaser or the doormat, not of independent people standing up for important human rights — and, moreover, it’s not Brooks who’s going to end up being walked upon; it’s the female members of the working class that he claims to care so much about. I don’t find Brooks’ framing “weird” — I find it (unthinkingly?) elitist and out of touch with the lives of real people.
I will admit to being touchy about this because I’m going to be entering a position of real risk in regards to this, but that should, if nothing else, serve to remind us that “politics” may be tidy in the abstract, but on the ground it is messy and has real effects on the lives of actual people.
I hope you feel better soon!
LikeLike
It’s not so much of a federal/state thing as much as a court/congress thing. And I read Berube’s post and actually added a comment way at the end. Berube’s post was interesting and fun, but he’s too glib. There’s actually articles and books regarding Board v. Board of Ed. Many scholars think that Brown was a huge failure. It took years to work. The courts never had the muscle to back up the case. Many very progressive folks think that it would have been far better to work up the grassroots organizations and go about it through state legislatures or Congress.
But that is neither here nor there, because I understand your very real feelings about moving to a state that you feel is hostile to women. Very, very different from abstract academic discussions.
Well, I urge you to get active in local politics when you move out there. Give money to the right orgs. Get out the vote for the right candidates. And rant away. Give the real world perspective on academic discussions. That’s excellent and how it should be.
LikeLike
I just don’t get why non-Catholics give a crap about the church’s position on women clergy, abortion, or birth control. Nobody is dragging you up the aisle to receive Christ’s life blood.
If only that were true. The problem is that the church isn’t just taking positions on these issues with regard to Catholics, but rather working to institute their positions in civil law and society. And that does affect me and is my business.
More about this here
LikeLike
11D: Catholics, Federalism, and Bullies at the Playground
Even when she’s sick, Laura at : 11D makes more sense than most people in the blogosphere, especially her take on Catholics and abortion. I have to agree that while the pope isn’t aligned with theological or political views, he
LikeLike
Thanks, Jay. Religion and politics is a big time issue this week. Bill Frist, filibuster, the Democrats nuclear option. Wow. So, I’ll be sure to talk more about this and your post the first time I have a chance to get to the computer.
LikeLike
I agree with a lot of what you say Laura, actually everything except the part about the low AIDS rate in Middle Easst countries. The number of people with AIDS in those countries is serverely underreported. In recent years the number of reported cases has been rising dramaticly, mostly among internationally displaced persons and drug users, though sex is up there among the methods of transmission.
LikeLike