KULTURKAMPF? NEIN DANKE!
On a personal basis, Sarah Palin comes over as a pleasant enough woman. She is refreshingly plain spoken and unpolished, and there is no doubt that her moral and ethical positions are informed by a deep and sincere religious faith she shares in common with many Americans.
It is worth watching this relatively recent video of her at her church in Wassila (thanks to Brett at Harry’s Place for uncovering this)
Her moral certitude over questions such as opposing same sex marriages, and opposing abortion should be a personal matter for her; and her cultural attitudes towards hunting and guns are understandable given her background.
The problem of course is that she doesn’t stop at holding these opinions as simply personal to herself, she is involved in politics and she seeks to extend her personal choices onto other people, who don’t share her beliefs and values. Understandably therefore, America’s social-liberals are aghast at the prospect of her becoming president (which would happen if 72 year old John McCain died while President).
Already the Obama campaign has run TV ads in several states lambasting John McCain as an opponent of abortion rights. And of course defending abortion rights is an important issue and it is important to mobilise the socially progressive vote to defeat McCain and Palin.
But the Republicans have sprung a clever Culture Wars trap. Palin is a hick from small-town America. The danger, and one that the Republican can only benefit from, is that the election becomes a battle defined by the right wing on the issues that they regard as being based upon morality.
Politics is always specific, and in America today the Culture Wars argument divides society to the electoral advantage of the right wing. The social attitudes in the metropolitan cities are much more liberal, the attitudes in the so-called Red States are much more conservative. In his 1991 book “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America” James Davison Hunter described a dramatic polarisation whereby a number of “hot-button” issues, such as abortion, gun politics, separation of church and state, privacy, homosexuality and censorship divide American society into two warring camps, on the basis of differing ideological outlooks. It has been the ability to exploit this divide that has seen George W Bush win the last two elections, and which provided support for the long running war of attrition against the Clinton administration, and the attempts to impeach him.
What provides the opportunity to undermine this Kulturkampf is the common ground that middle class (in the US sense of that expression) Americans feel due to the insecurity of the economy, the social and human costs of the war (disproportionately borne by small-town America), and the weak social safety net. These fundamental economic issues cut right across the Culture Wars battle lines.
Obama did well over this issue in his speech last week, in seeking to defuse it and find a point of overlap between the social-conservatives and the liberals. As he said: “We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for rural hunters in Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the second amendment [the right to bear arms] while keeping AK47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in hospital, and to live lives free of discrimination”
Although it is tempting for liberals and progressives to attack Palin for her socially conservative views, this is playing into the trap set by the Republicans. The trick is to keep talking about the economy, America’s oil dependency, social welfare and the war in Iraq.
And the fact that Palin has no real policy ideas on these issues- I heard a Republican senator being quoted earlier as saying he had no idea what her foreign policy would look like!
Comment by Steve — 4 September, 2008 @ 12:52 am
As an example of the knee-jerk response the Republians are counting on see Laurie Penny
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-abortion-rights-and-the-gender-agenda/
She writes:
“Thankfully, it’s not working. Feminists across the world have condemned Palin’s appointment, and none more vocally than British feminists, because we know - having lived through the Thatcher years and been dogged more recently by the apparitions of Widdecombe and Dorries - that a vote for a woman is not always a vote for women. We want women in power because we want politicians who care about women’s issues.”
Rather ignores the fact that “feminists accross the world” will not be voting in this election, but socially conservative Americans will!
Making it an international issue, and “and none more vocally than British feminists” would be a dream come true for the anti-choice lobby and the social conservatives in the USA, who can spin this even more as their moral and ethical values under attack from the Godless heathens.
It doesn’t seem to show any strategic or tactical sense whatsoever to allow the Republicans to set the agenda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 September, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Andy, I disagree with this, and may write a blog post explaining why in more detail. For a start, I’m not afraid of culture wars - I’m not sure why you are.
It may be because you think most Americans are socially conservative, but they’re not. This year the Democrats have bigger majorities and voters, and they’re way more socially liberal than Palin.
Talking merely about Iraq war and oil prices works and here is where Obama has the advantage. But his negatives have come from hiding in the culture wars and letting the Republicans set the agenda. Here they have a prime opportunity to attack Palin. While that will rally the socially conservative base (about 30% of voters), it will also rally the Democrat base (30%) and scare the independents off Palin (about 30%) because she can be legitimately painted as a creationist religious nutjob who had dodgy preachers and cannot handle the presidency if McCain keels over.
Comment by Sunny H — 4 September, 2008 @ 2:09 am
Perry makes some very good points, nothing knee-jerk about them. The events of the US election hit the international media instantaneously; problems and issues that women encounter in the US are shard across the world. But apparently folk should shut up because they might annoy hardline social conservatives, whom Andy seems so fearful off. Strange that; even in the US, they are in a minority. No one is making it an international issue, Perry was just giving her opinion. Setting the agenda? That’s precisely what Newman allows the social conservatives to do by asking folk to shut up (when they make perfectly reasonable points) because it may upset the social conservatives.
Comment by Tom — 4 September, 2008 @ 2:25 am
Morning all,
I agree the selection of Palin sets up the kind of cultural battleground the Republicans will want to fight on, contrasting the mum and apple pie values she supposedly represents with the liberal elitism of Obama. This tactic may also be the closest they can get to opening up the issue of Obama’s skin colour/ethnicity, without appearing to do so. I wonder if they’ll try to make law and order an issue for similar reasons? As Andy says, this approach has worked twice for Bush (as it did for his dad) and I think it’s the Republican’s only hope.
But as others have said, there are two issues in Obama’s favour that give him a distict advantage - Iraq and the state of the economy. McCain is tainted by both and I think this will be decisive. Without predicting an iminant revolution, I also think many Americans have had enough of right wing neo-conservatism.
Not a scientific survey, but when I was in the capital three months ago, the mood for change was palpable, both amongst the tenant activists I was with, but also well-heeled DCers, many of whom already had ‘Obama’ posters on their lawns. I didn’t see one for McCain. Of course, socialists will be aware of Obama’s limitations, but I find myself in the unusual position of being more optimistic about politics in the US than here.
Comment by Glyn — 4 September, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Not scientific, Glyn. In DC they don’t count Democratic votes, they weigh them. It’s super solid Democratic territory.
Comment by Tom — 4 September, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I agree it’s a hugely obvious attempt to go for the “soccer mom” thing, the white picket fence. It’s utterly cynical. It’s an appeal to the emptiest and most unsophisticated instincts. Ideas, policies and experience were irrelevant to the Reps when they chose Palin. It’s all about packaging and demographics. Its like she’s CGI, utterly manufactured. However, that sort of insult is a product of this cynical gameshow, the slice and dice retail politics - not just about the Republicans per se.
The elitist tag on Obama is absurd - but that’s not to say he’s some sort of firebrand. However, to suggest he is any more elitist than John McCain is breathtakingly daft. Yet, some people swallow utter garbage like that. This nonsense has been effective for the Reps in the past - while their elites attack the unions, freeze the minimum wage, and watch health care costs spiral.
Comment by Tom — 4 September, 2008 @ 10:03 am
What the heck is wrong with Palins positions on guns? Surely all democrats, let alone socialists, support the right to keep and bear firearms? It is after all an elementary democratic position. A position only denied by idiots and pacifists.
Comment by Mike — 4 September, 2008 @ 10:03 am
The point about Lawrie Peny’s argumetn is not that she does or doens’t make good points, but that she pitches it as the heroic exposure of Palin by the feminist cavalry riding into to rescue Oobama.
And Sunny’s electoral maths is just wrong.
The Culture Wars argument favours the Republicans, I beleive this is not only a question of the numberrs of voters, but also the way the Culture Wars battle lines falls in such a way to favour the conservative states in the electoral college.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 September, 2008 @ 10:04 am
but that she pitches it as the heroic exposure of Palin by the feminist cavalry riding into to rescue Oobama.
That’s quite obviously your rather strained perception of what she was doing.
It could be that she was just making some pretty valid points - although you called them knee-jerk. You don’t fight the culture wars by flinching from them; you make the point that what Palin stands for - such as it is - indeed the Rep platform, doesn’t favour women. You make other moral arguments.
Comment by Tom — 4 September, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Tom, point about DC taken, but the conference I was at was attended by people from a dozen states all over the union, from a variety of political backgrounds, including Republicans. The mood was the same. Obama sent one of his staffers along (McCain didn’t bother) and his reception was euphoric.
Comment by Glyn — 4 September, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Andy: “Making it an international issue, and “and none more vocally than British feminists” would be a dream come true for the anti-choice lobby and the social conservatives in the USA, who can spin this even more as their moral and ethical values under attack from the Godless heathens” ie feminists should keep quiet.
This really is a remarkable example of your current trajectory. You admit that defending abortion rights is a major issue, but the only way that this can be acheived is by not campaigning to preserve those rights. What next, tradesunionists should defend their rights by leaving their unions?
An obvious question is why should we keep quiet about defending abortion rights and religous beliefs, but not about imperialism or iraq or racism? This is the sort of line we’d expect from Galloway, but not from a socialist.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 September, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Martin
This is a tactical question, not one of principle.
Over the next few weeks, the right wing would love to make this elections about abortion, and liberals and progressives should deny them that.
Let us be clear - extending womens’ choice is not the current context of the debate in the USA - the context is a rear-guard defensive battle to defend what we have. The bast appriach at the moment is to put abortion to one side and go on the offensive against the right over the issues they have less support over.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 September, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
I agree it’s a tactical question, the tactic being not to mention abortion is a popular one with gallowayites who are uncomfortable with open argument about such things.
Of course another way to look at it would be to use the election to win over the american voters to the principled position rather than trying to keep quiet about it, in that way any rearguard action would be significantly more sustainable.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 September, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Is it true she opposes contraception between married couples, even the Catholics couldnt get that one to work
But a Vice President with the bomb might just get it through
right on
guns and lots of sex
if you daughter gets pregnant you can always shoot the redneck father
Comment by Terry — 4 September, 2008 @ 6:44 pm