This was a very provocative, and I think, instructive argument in The Daily Beast, written in the wake of the Hobby Lobby ruling focusing on how, in just ten years, gay marriage has gone from a radical social experiment brought forth via an activist judiciary in a liberal state, to a growing national consensus. At the same time, support for reproductive rights has gone from a bipartisan issue with broad popular support to a state by state history of defeat that neatly mirrors the state by state successes of the marriage equality movement. The author posits ten reasons why this is the case, but I would say the three are the following and could be cross-applied to other progressives issues:
4. Rights Lose. In addition to lacking compelling personal narratives, the “pro-choice” frame is itself a loser. This is why LGBT activists don’t use the term “gay rights” anymore: because no one likes them. In the nineties, “gay rights” came to mean “special rights,” which may be ridiculous, but which was a successful opposing frame. As with the act/identity dichotomy, “rights” also isn’t existential enough to persuade people. So LGBT activists changed their tune, shifting from rights-talk to love-talk, equality-talk, language about basic humanity. Gloria Steinem famously said that feminism is, at its core, humanism. But this message hasn’t trickled through. Many Americans still think reproductive justice is about the act of abortion, rather than the humanity of women.
Groups like Freedom to Marry and Marriage Equality USA had more success than the Human Rights Campaign, since they equated gay marriage with basic freedoms any human being should be entitled to under an American view of equality and liberty. That was a lot more affirmative and positive, asking for freedom from government interference (casting it in a libertarian light) and the same rights other people have (casting it in an anti-discrimination light).
The response to the Buffer Zone controversy is a great example of where the pro-choice movement is failing in this regard. In trying to defend the actual act of abortion it is trying to defend something a lot of people, even supporters, are uncomfortable talking about, rather than the broader concern that women in general should be free from harassment, discrimination, and second class treatment in modern America. Focusing on the women going into clinics to get basic services like cancer screenings, check-ups, etc. and emphasizing the full range of services women are now getting denied access to in more restrictive states or may be harassed for getting in our own backyard, is the better frame for this issue. And it may be time for the older generation that fought the battles for sexual liberation to recognize that the pitch that plays in Peoria isn’t a condescending slogan like ‘get your rosaries off my ovaries’ but something far more inclusive like ‘every woman deserves to see her doctor when she wants to’.
7. Capitalism. Because LGBT equality has been successfully framed in the context of discrimination and fairness, and because it has many privileged male champions, it has been easy for corporations to line up behind it, and reap the financial rewards of being seen as pro-gay. Sure, there are a few anti-gay outliers: Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, whatever. But this past month’s Pride festivities were like a showcase of Fortune 500 companies: banks, airlines, insurance companies. Meanwhile, I can’t think of a single A-list brand that is out, loud, and proud for reproductive freedom. That makes a big difference in terms of movement dollars and public awareness. Once again, more radical queers may bemoan the corporatization of the LGBT movement, but capitalism has a way of winning.
Again, I think expanding the fight for feminism to include not just reproductive rights but also pay equity, freedom from harassment and discrimination, and basic fair treatment in economic and personal decisions is the way to get corporate America on board. Even having to tolerate corporate feminism like the ‘Lean In’ model, to actually get respected female CEOs to go out of there way to endorse full feminism in the workplace and in society, and to get businesses to have this same kind of pride and ownership on the issue, is the best way forward.
9. Religion. Contrary to the myth of “God vs. Gay,” progressive religious leaders have been instrumental in the LGBT equality movement from its very beginning. Like African-American civil rights leaders, they have made not just a neutral case but a positive moral case for equality. Where are the religious leaders preaching the gospel of bodily autonomy for women? Yes, there are excellent organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice, the National Council of Jewish Women, and many others. But in my experience, I haven’t seen the message trickle down into the pews. Nor are faith leaders are central to the pro-choice movement as they seem to be in the LGBT movement. Just a few years ago, it seemed like the religious obsession with homosexuality was a curse. But it turned out to have been a blessing, because it provoked the ‘down-home’ moral conversations that changed people’s minds. Secular arguments about the separation of church and state may play well to the base. But they don’t move the middle.
I recognize that many progressives, particularly many at BMG, are secular humanist, agnostic, or free thinking in some capacity. But, it cannot be understated how important religious allies are as agents of social change and progressive politics. From the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War movement, the Anti-Nuclear movement, and more recently the marriage equality and Moral Monday movements have shown that religious leaders can be at the forefront of fighting for progressive policies from income inequality to feminism. Time to find some allies and get them to speak up.
Lastly, I think in any category, whether it is the fight against casinos, the fight for single payer healthcare, the fight against income inequality, the fight for organized labor, the fight for economic justice, the fight for gun safety, or the fight for reproductive rights-we need to frame the arguments in terms of fairness for our entire society, get business allies, and get religious allies. Those three factors are absolutely critical to achieving the policy victories we all want.
One nitpick re: religious leaders. I don’t deny that they were vital to the civil rights movement, but I think it’s simply suicide for us to rely on them for social change. What does happen, as President Obama will tell you, is that their lack of resistance makes a big difference. When Rick Warren essentially blessed Obama by not endorsing McCain, that helped Obama a lot.
The liberal coalition is broader than any one religion, and religious involvement tends to poison things for members of it. That’s not a shot at religion … no, scratch that, it is. Separate realms, just the way God and John Adams intended.
I think the media tends to focus on the conservative Cardinals and megachurch pastors who have the most extreme, easiest to caricature views, and arguably the largest pulpits and coffers to throw their weight around. But, most mainline Protestant and Jewish denominations, and not an insignificant number of leaders in those denominations, were vital to getting gay marriage passed in the legislatures of several states. My in-laws to be and my fiancee’s boss signed their names to a fairly large letter sent to the IL legislature endorsing civil marriage equality (a few Catholic priests even had the courage to sign as well).
The Moral Monday movement in North Carolina is also one of the most exciting things going on in Christian social justice circles in quite some time, all my friends attending Div school also were heavily involved in Occupy. There is a strong and proud religious left and religious middle in this country that is far more widespread than the religious right-it just needs to be taken credibly by it’s secular allies, the secular media, and to overcome it’s own reluctance about weighing in on public matters to become the vocal majority it should be rather than the silent majority it too often is.
I agree with Adams-and so do most Christians. As another founder, John Jay said, ‘Real Christians do not try and enforce their dogma’s upon one another or the nation at large’, and I wholeheartedly agree. Which is precisely why you need us to speak out on these matters, so that the voice of religion is not a sectarian and divisive one, but one that is proud of our pluralistic nation and eager to make it better for all it’s citizens.
I have to say if that’s true then it’s an awfully sad commentary on our situation. This is a country that was founded on the premise that we are endowed with certain unalienable RIGHTS, where the Constitution may not have been ratified without a promise to add a Bill of RIGHTS, where people on all parts of the political spectrum at one point or another start screaming about their RIGHTS. I’d prefer we not do another round of avoiding a term that we should be proud of (see also: “liberal”).
Rough economy, people feel squeezed. Rights are at a premium. Yes I know rights are different from money … but some people hear everything as money.
…there is not a limited supply of rights. The expansion of rights for some, at least thought of the right way, does not take away rights of others. At least in the gay rights/special rights example, unless you are claiming a “right to discriminate” (and I understand that some are, but that’s a bastardization IMO) allowing LGBT folks access to the same things we all take for granted, like marriage, doesn’t take away from the rights of others.
But we’re not talking reality, we’re talking perception.
If I have to hire a gay guy, I can’t hire my straight friend.
Added to this, of course, is the general mistrust of government.
Regulations = picking winners in a business.
Rights = privileges, as in privileges not going to me.
Taxes = money for bureaucrats and poor people. Not me.
…you just shouldn’t discriminate on that basis, though for reasons passing understanding such a prohibition is not yet federal law.
I was going to push back on your other points, but realized I’m preaching to the choir. I don’t know how to get through to some people.
….a bipartisan issue with broad popular support.
It’s a mistake to focus exclusively on Roe v. Wade. Our opponents don’t. Their target all along has been Griswold — freedom to practice contraception — and that’s the decision they really want to overturn. Hence the constant focus on “real rape”, the desperate fight over not paying for birth control, abstinence-only education, etc. etc.
But contraception enjoys immensely broad popular support, and in point of fact Choice also enjoys broad support. Sure, it can lose referenda and it can lose state legislatures, especially in red states. But marriage equality lost a referendum in California — California! — just a few years ago.
Nor is the argument about the clergy very convincing. Any successful US policy will have clerical backing; that’s the nature of American society. The Unitarian Universalists, the Friends, and Reform Judaism have been backing marriage equality for ages. But those churches backed racial equality from 1856 through 1948 without getting far, while enormous clerical backing for crusades against Temperance and in favor of censorship of novels, plays, and comic books were all rolled back without much effect.
When the time comes (how long? not long!), church leaders will be appear. I’m skeptical that they’re a necessary pre-condition.
Can you name a prominent pro-choice incumbent Republican of national importance? I can’t. And that was my point with bipartisanship. Marriage equality has been quite successful at getting prominent Republicans and even some conservative ones, to join it’s cause. That, and the fact that many prominent religious leaders have endorsed equality, and many business leaders have endorsed it, has helped the issue go from a radical social experiment in 2004 to a fait accompli in 2014. Women’s rights, labor rights, voting rights, and economic justice have taken deep slides during that same period. Criminal justice reform and drug reform have become more and more mainstream, thanks in part, to religious leaders, conservatives, business leaders, and law enforcement coming in to embrace them.
As the old Vulcan proverb went, only Nixon could go to China. Similarly, it is vital that liberals, via carrots and of course sticks (look at how Target has evolved on equality and why), get business and religious leaders on board with full equality for women, labor rights, and the fight to end income inequality (as some CEOs and religious figures already are).
Equal marriage is not a bipartisan issue at all.
There really haven’t been that many Republicans to come out strong for marriage equality, at least not relatively early. I can’t think of a single Repub in the conversations for a presidential run who is pro-equality. Some of the more notable Repub supporters also have LGBT family members – so that support kind of just proves they are not monsters, and also gets to the more important distinction between the issues.
It’s a lot easier to be against an action than against a fundamental characteristic of a person. This is something the author of the source article cites and I think is correct, and is also something harder to reframe from the choice side.
As far as trying to find prominent Repub pro-choice supporters of national importance, I think that’s a big problem with that party. Moderation is not embraced among primary voters and Congressional leadership. I can hardly even think of a nationally relevant female Republican, so I think the road to Repub pro-choice leaders on the national stage won’t be happening for a long time.
Today, by definition, no republican is pro choice, just as no southern democrat before 1958 was pro civil rights.
Lots of republicans are pro-contraception. I know of no significant Democrat who believes Griswold was wrong, but plenty of republicans do.
There is no point in seeking bipartisan consensus on abortion, unless you’re a republican hoping that the democrats will bargain away abortion, setting the stage for a rollback of contraception. In GOP fantasy, this is followed by an attack on suffrage, but it’s not getting to first base, much less third, In any reality we know,
I don’t know of any prominently Republicans who explicitly want Griswold overturned. This is not to say that such a desire does not burn quietly in their hearts, but, lacking the appropriate stethoscope, I’ve never detected that for sure.
There are easy-to-find conservative complaints that the 7-2 majority had “discovered” a right in the “living constitution” by relying on “penumbras” and “emanations”, i.e., through the machinery of judicial activism. However, even Justice Stewart in his dissent, said he thought the Connecticut law was silly; he just didn’t think the Court had the license to void it.
But I don’t pick up conservatives trying to ban contraceptives. Sources?
Don’t follow my bad example.
You don’t see it a lot in open discussion, even now: it’s usually couched in code, and more often than not the people pushing it will still deny that it’s where they’re going. But if you spend enough time looking at the radical Christian right you see it fairly frequently, and even a few politicians whose names we’ve heard will espouse it openly. Rick Santorum is the notorious one, who’s willing to say outright that contraception is both bad for society and very much the government’s business, but there are others.
Back when Griswold was decided, we didn’t have Christianist radicals as a major force in politics. This whole thing reminds me a little of the resurgence in opposition to teaching evolution in public schools — something that was taught to me as a historic curiosity when I was a kid. I would never have believed that it would come round again as a live issue, not in my lifetime; but here it is. Contraception is more broadly popular than evolution, and not a lot of mainstream politicians are attacking it out loud yet, but you could have said that about science education fifteen or twenty years ago. The anti-Griswold movement is coming from the same place, and it’s getting louder and more open.
The ten speculative reasons for the different outcomes for gay rights and reproductive rights (especially abortion) offered by the linked author are interesting, but there is likely a much more direct reason: the reasons supporting arguments against abortion are far more compelling than arguments against same-sex marriage.
Obviously the abortion debate sparks great disagreement, but one would be hard pressed to deny that there are legitimate philosophical, scientific, and moral arguments on both sides of the abortion issue. The arguments against same-sex marriage, by contrast, are based largely on tradition (“this is the way it always has been”) and/or outright animus against gays and lesbians.
This likely contributes to the continuing vitality of anti-abortion viewpoints, even (and perhaps especially, at least based upon polling data) among younger Americans, while the opposition to same-sex marriage continues to crumble away.
All of this is not to deny the importance of religious and especially business allies to political change. But abortion is simply not a similar issue to gay rights, so I doubt it would ever garner the same political support as same-sex marriage.
Too often feminism or the fight for women’s rights gets reduced, by both sides, into a proxy battle over abortion. Anecdotally anyway, we have seen support for gay marriage go way up while support for seeing more Brokeback Mountain style films or public displays of affection still polls significantly lower than the question of basic civil rights. Similarly, feminists should reframe these issues (Hobby Lobby and bigger zones) around preventing discrimination and ensuring fair treatment for women-as opposed to rhetoric such as “my body my choice” that forces that more complicated issue int the drivers seat. My point is-there are moderate pro-lifers who oppose abortion but also support contraception (seems like the bulk of the MS voters who votes down “personhood” held these views), who support equal pay , and who would oppose an employer having that kind of power.
As the author pointed out-being gay is an identity someone is born with and abortion is an action. But women-and only women-are the ones who are confronted with the reality of abortion. Women are also “born that way” and gender identity is as much of an identity as sexuality and one that confronts inequity on a daily basis. Refocusing on the identity is the way to ensuring that choice, and other actions and choices, can be protected by asserting the humanity of women and their equality to men rather than simply focusing on the nominally libertarian question of choice and autonomy. Communitarian and egalitarian arguments win out over libertarian ones on these questions.
I think a comparison of social movements would be both interesting and instructive. This isn’t that.
Though what means did gay rights activists seek to exercise political power and influence in the past 40 years, versus the same for reproductive rights? That might tell you something.
(Yes 40 years. Marriage equality did not just pop out of nowhere starting a mere 10 years ago. This is one reason I cannot take the author seriously.)
Not everything in the clickbate is necessarily wrong (a stopped clock etc.) but the author provides no basis for his claims.
Marriage equality never would have come about if not for decades of work passing anti-discrimination statutes through the political process (still sorely lacking in many states).
In the late 1970s Justice Powell told his (gay) law clerk he’d never met any gay people. The clerk stayed silent for fear of losing his job and his career. In those days many, many people considered “the homos” a tiny perverted fringe element. People didn’t start realizing that community included people they knew and loved until those people identified themselves publicly as gay. That only happened due to the emergence of anti-discrimination laws (you’re far less likely to come out if it could cost you your job) and the moral imperative of the HIV epidemic.
Two articles from Vox may be apropos here. The first is the rather depressing article introduced as “The most terrifying graph on democracy is a flat line“. It is based on an academic paper by Gilens and Page. The abstract gives a hint of what you can learn from running regression analyses on 1779 policy issues:
An overview is available in the Vox article.
A second article is on Andrew Cuomo, the unMario:
One might hypothesize that elite opinion has decided it’s all in on marriage equality, but, as for abortion rights, equal pay, etc., well, it’s not so sure. As for returning to 1950s progressivity in the tax structure, forget it.
The heart and soul of the Democratic is at stake.
The second article is, in my view, both the most accurate and also the most devastating — at least for those who still believe in “the process”. It shows that “the process” has already been bought and bent to the will of the 1%. This should come as no surprise to any of us who have been appalled by the political choices of Barack Obama or, for that matter, Harry Reid. Money talks.
The force to change this direction will only come from below, from the 99%. The Occupy movement — were it to find and flex its political muscle — exemplifies the solution. Elizabeth Warren personifies the kind of candidate this movement can and should put forward.
Another strategic option progressives should consider is using our common economic interests to subvert and redirect the Tea Party. In fact, economic populism is a huge factor in the Tea Party popularity.
A combined and politicized Occupy/Tea Party movement, focusing into political terms the frustration, anger and pain of the 99%, is a potent political force more than sufficient to reverse the direction quoted in the second article.
I suggest that a return to 1950s progressivity in the tax structure is, in fact, inevitable if American democracy is to survive. We are learning that our consumer economy cannot sustain itself in a 21st century global economy while tolerating the shamefully high and increasing wealth and income concentration that we already see.
Our choice is to recapture excess wealth and income from the 1% (where “excess” is measured by the GINI coefficient or its analogs) or collapse (where “collapse” means fragment into regions or states).
I think a real and burning (pun intended) question is whether this difficult change can be accomplished without bloodshed. I suspect that the answer is “no”, and hope that the answer is “yes”. I suggest that each time we sweep another government beating of a minority (like we witnessed over the weekend), we increase the likelihood of literal class warfare. Our minority communities are growing in population. They are suffering as they are further plundered by the wealthy and nearly white 1%, and the NRA is making sure that have ready access to high-powered weapons and ammunition.
America tried this experiment once. It ended with the Great Depression, and it was only because of the political genius of FDR that we avoided class warfare and revolution that time around.
We must find and elect today’s FDR, and we must find and elect a House and Senate who will put that President’s agenda into action. That is, in my view, our path towards restoring “1950s progressivity in the tax structure”.
Again, theseframing tools aren’t endorsing elitist politics at all-just reminding progressives that we can achieve a broader coalition without compromising our principles if we reach out to groups like businesses, religious leaders, and frame these issues in terms of fairness and equality. I think they are all connected.
I was telling another BMGer on facebook today, that in 2008 I had a fairly receptive audience in Rust Belt towns I campaigned in for Obama from self-identified ‘Reagan Democrats” or “Independents” that were sick and tired of the wars, costs going up while wages were going down, jobs going overseas, lack of employment, and a sense that we were a country in decline and nobody in Washington cared about them. In contrast to his caricature as a ‘cling to guns and religion’ liberal elitist-many of these people directly connected to Barack’s own personal story, liked that he was able to take on the Clintons, liked his policies, and were convinced he could do the job.
Due to historically bitter opposition from Republicans, his own incompetence and occasional waffling on some issues, and Scaredycats in Congress forgetting they were Democrats, we didn’t get to deliver those promises to those voters. Some of whom probably pulled ballots for Republicans in 2010. I think we can win those voters over again, I have been shocked how many of those types love Elizabeth Warren, but I guess I shouldn’t be. She is carrying on the Roosevelt, Truman, populist tradition of taking on the fat cats and fighting with relish. And to me that fighting spirit, far more than conciliation and ‘compromise’ and ‘bipartisanship’-will be what actually wins over conservative democrats and independents in the fall, and in 2016. And I think we can win them over to women’s rights as well, by following that same pattern.
Rather than frame it as an issue of church vs state, or church vs lascivious individuals, its an issue of big government and big business getting co-opted by extremists to deny fairness and equality to working women. Framing it like that can get us to win this fight. Get the working people in Aurora IL who lined up outside of Hobby Lobby to ‘show their support’ likely egged on by pastors, to really consider if they wanted their own employees to have that kind of power. Make this a worker v boss fight, and it’s a fight we win.
Make this a worker v boss fight, and it’s a fight we win.
And I think that is part of where this article, flawed and all, was coming from. The issue of women’s rights and choice can be retooled around that framework. Particularly since nominally Republican leaning women are breaking for the Democrats.
And the failure to make this connection is costing us at the polls and in Congress, and the failure to make this connection has cost a large portion of the Obama presidency. Our next Governor and next President can’t afford to make that same mistake.
Gilens and Page throws a lot of cold water on that idea. The did look at almost 1800 issues and “from below” does not drive very much change — unfortunately.
I’m somehow reminded of a peer-reviewed study, done at Pitt, that demonstrated conclusively that cold water softens a beard before shaving more effectively than hot water. Their conclusion was that millions of men have been doing the wrong thing for generations.
The rest of us guessed that, like so many other things originating in Pittsburgh, the researchers had blown the original premise in some way. I don’t doubt that their conclusions followed correctly from their premise. I’m not at all sure that whatever it was they set out to prove had anything at all to do with shaving or shaving comfort.
In a similar way, whatever it is that Gilens and Page throw cold water at, I’m not sure it has very much to do with driving change.
There are about three hundred million people living in the US. Almost all of the wealth this country is concentrated in about three to five million of that group.
If two hundred and ninety five million people choose to redistribute the wealth held by those three to five million, I think something is going to happen. If the regression coefficients are too small to support that premise, then perhaps the model needs to be re-examined.
I’m reminded of other studies that conclusively demonstrate global warming.
One out to be very careful about throwing out evidence contrary to one’s beliefs. And yes, there are flawed studies everywhere but a measure of whether a study is flawed or not is not whether you find its results agreeable.
Carl Sagan was found of reminding us that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The studies demonstrating global warming met that standard decades ago (and greatly enhanced our understanding of the phenomena while being defended). The study from Pitt about shaving did not.
On a lesser scale, studies whose results fail to pass the “smell test” are challenged frequently and successfully. One purpose of peer review is to identify and exclude biases, including confirmation bias, from their results. Another purpose is to provide a useful and constructive process for challenging research that is perceived to be faulty.
I guess the jury is still out on Gilens and Page. A great many aircraft that could never fly have done so. Ships that could never sink have done so. In my own field, quantum computing is demonstrating the ability to “communicate” at speeds in excess of the speed of light (depending, of course, on how the term “communicate” is interpreted) — a feat that was, while I was studying engineering in the early 1970s, “impossible” and that violates the most fundamental laws of physics.
Almost all such “impossible” outcomes result from identifying loopholes and limitations in the premises and assumptions that underlie otherwise perfectly valid research.
In any case, these studies are certainly provocative. I hope you’ll forgive me if I am reluctant to dismiss what I view as the lessons of history about the extent to which a small number of people are able to impose their will on a much larger number of people around them.