Look Left.
Maybe I've discussed this before, but chances are, if I don't specifically remember writing it, there's at least a distinct possibility that you won't remember reading it. But at some point, I think spending four years at Middlebury contributed greatly to it, but my political beliefs did a 180. When I was in high school (ie. before I was even legally allowed to vote) I got wrapped up in the glamour of the Republican Party - went to expensive dinner fundraisers, met Steve Forbes, a Bob Dole Rally... woah, the late 1990s were an exciting time. As I recall, I even went on a week-long, GOP sponsored, trip to Washington DC with other young political types and promising loyal party members. Ironically, the two people I maintained touch with are hardly the upstanding dyed-in-the-wool consertivitos, one ended up being one of the most liberal liberals I know, head of Middlebury's Green Party, and then later nationally recognized for her anti-sweatshop campaigns against Nike.
Anyway, I think I was always of the live-and-let live social liberal school. I was never religious so perhaps it is even more unbelievable that those Republicans got through with their Christian Coalition mumbo jumbo. I will qualify this by saying that I was a Connecticut Republican, a notably distinct wing that is socially liberal and financial conservative and a world from the Bible belters. At some point in college I think I came to the conclusion that I was an ideal libertarian, but dismissed formal association with the party (not the ideas) when the best candidate they can come up with is a high school grad, Harry Browne, and they have their annual convention in an elementary school gymnasium in Illinois or somewhere like that.
So where do politics come from and how do they matter? Summon the political scientist within. I basically know that there are a few schools of thought (Michigan and Berkeley) that state you are likely to have the same political value as your parents or whatever values are in the air when you are coming to age (roughly college age). I also know that it is extremely unlikely to change your affiliation once you have it. From a seminar on Congress, I also know that party matters very little. The way the committee system is structured and considering incumbent advantage, seniority usually outweighs party. Also, party seldom gets involved to swing votes (only when something is symbolically important) but for the most part, legislation is all about compromise and widdled down so much that most laws on the books are distinctively unpartisan.
Just the same, the only time politics really seems to get involved and laws have a stingy political charge is when they come from an insulated court. Maybe when you call yourself a democrat or a republican you are basically referring to the way you feel about issues that would face the Supreme Court - your typical abortion, death penalty, segregation, flag burning, individual rights kind of issues. Newsweek has a very interesting cover story this week, about the new facets of the abortion debate. There is a Pennsylvania law that protects unborn children - so basically if you murder a pregnant woman and the fetus dies as a result of your action, you can get charged with a double murder. This Penn rep in the House is trying to stir up a federal version of this bill, Laci and Conner's Law. The woman argues that this act doesn't deal with abortion cases, but frankly, it won't be hard to make the jump a few sessions from now. I am sure several people that support this law would love to see abortion made illegal again. Interestingly, the author compares two State examples in her article, both of which have significance to me - Connecticut and Wisconsin. CT courts rule, rightly, that a fetus is part of a woman's body. Wisconsin, after a high profile violent crime, now has a fetal-homicide law, a lax one that only takes effect after 24 weeks (some more conservative states begin at conception). But this debate has gotten a lot more complex - how you can not contradict your views and support a woman's right choose and still double punish fetal-mommy murders. How can you uphold the idea of a fetal homicide law from conception but still support first trimester abortions... but the article is really interesting, considers fertilized embryos in a frozen state for future in vitro transplants, stem cell research, and cloning. I know it seems cold in reference to crimes like those against Laci and Conner Peterson, but I'll stick to my guns and be pro-choice and not favor these kind of laws, cutting off the door to the slippery slope right now.
posted by lmjasinski at 11:29 PM
