I remember listening to Dennis Kucinich during the 2004 campaign. He liked to talk about establishing a new cabinet office for a Department of Peace. (He’s still calling for this). I thought that was an extreme position. Don’t get me wrong, I thought the underlying rationale of his argument was sound. But I thought it was wacky to suggest a whole new federal bureaucracy to do what the State Department should be doing on its own. And, in a real time of war, what would a Department of Peace do that was distinct from the State Department? (The answer to that lies within their proposed domestic responsibilities).
The press treated it like a fringe-left proposal, and I didn’t really disagree. It seemed like a nice rhetorical device but a pretty unworkable idea. But it was based on some very heartfelt moral principles, a lot of them solidly rooted in Kucinich’s religious faith.
Yesterday, John McCain told a South Carolina audience:
“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”
That is what I would term a fringe-right position that is based on some very heartfelt moral princples, a lot of them solidly rooted in some people’s religious faith. But the press doesn’t treat this as a fringe-right position.
One explanation is that it has become more and more a mainstream Republican position. Most Republicans now profess a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. But, when you look at polls of public opinion, it is supported by a very small amount of people.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE; 3
“Would
you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision
concerning abortion, or not?Would: 29
Would Not: 62
Not Sure: 9
I can’t find any polling on a proposed Department of Peace. I doubt, however, that it polls much worse than 29%. I think both opposition to legal abortion and support for a Department of Peace share something in common. They are both based on some very fine principles, including religiously inspired principles. But they both break down when you start thinking seriously about implementing those principles in the real world. I don’t know that you have to insult people that support these things by calling them ideologues, fanatics, or radicals. I think it is enough to point out that their ideals, however noble, are trumping their judgment.
Of course, that is where the comparison ends. Anti-abortion supporters would impose their moral principles on people that do not share them and then take away the liberties of half our population. Department of Peace supporters would merely take away people’s tax dollars and perhaps muddle up our ability to conduct a coherent foreign policy. Most of the time they would be doing something useful like trying to ‘reduce the levels of domestic and gang violence, child abuse, and various other forms of societal discord.’ I encourage people to look into the Peace Alliance’s ideas on what the Department would do.
What I am getting at is that the GOP has become a fringe-right party on the issue of abortion even though they recently controlled all the levers of government. John McCain feels like he has to have a fringe-right position on abortion to win the Republican nomination. And the press just gives him a pass on it, while they treat Kucinich like a pariah for wanting a more peaceful world.
That’s the problem with both the press and the modern GOP. It’s high time for a rigorous center-right third-party challenge. I hope someone takes up the banner.
I suppose Giuliani is the center-right challenge. So far he hasn’t done much challenging, but it will be interesting to see if he uses his differences from McCain, etc., to advantage as the election draws nearer, or if he keeps blurring and ignoring those issues.
Re Kucinich’s proposal, I think there was a suggestion that the D of P might replace State, but I’m not sure. It might be well to remember that the “Defense Department” is just a newspeak propaganda veneer on what it always was and still is: The War Department. Keeping that in mind, a Peace Department might not seem so radical.
I don’t think the concept is radical. I think it is a quite reasonable idea in theory. It’s only radical in the sense that it takes a good idea and then tries to implement it into a system that can’t really digest it. You should visit their web site and see what you think.
I agree that it’s well-meaning but insubstantial. That makes it pretty useless as political rhetoric, but it did get Kucinich some attention from all the “wise men” who otherwise could speak of nothing but his height.
If you’re looking for a rough equivalent to overturning Roe v Wade, I suppose gay marriage would be a closer fit.
the ‘left’ equivalent’?
and why are equal rights and protection under the law a fringe issue? It should be a certainty not a battle.
I’m not sure what Dave means.
In the public perception, yeah. I think a majority sees gay marriage (not necessarily civil unions) as a radical leftist idea, like our side sees repeal of abortion rights as a radical right idea. That’s what happens when the media-defined “center” is well to the right of where the mainstream was 50 years ago.
I guess you are right about that considering most of the news media is nothing more than a mouth piece for the repugs and conservatives anyway.
well, if you want to make an equivalency argument on those terms, shouldn’t we go to the polling data rather than argue about the media driven center?
OK, here’s a recent AP poll where allowing gay marriage is opposed 63-34. That seems pretty typical.
Or take another standard: how many Dem candidates for any national office have publicly supported laws permitting gay marriage?
But that is the exact LACK of equivancy here. It would be equivalent if the left ignored those numbers and made support for gay marriage an article of faith within the party, and then the press treated that as a mainstream view. The end result might be legalized gay marriage. But on the flip side the end result might be the criminalization of abortion.
Kucinich is the only candidate thus far with any integrity or principle. You can rest assured that the repugs will try to make gay marriage and terrorism the main issues of the camnpaign. It will takes a strong and principled candidate to stand up to that and put forth a winning platform. Opportunists need not apply. I would love a Conyers Webb or a Boxer Feingold ticket or for that matter Bill Moyers. Let’s support progressives with guts — we can’t afford not to.