Friday, February 24, 2006

"Food Fight!"

Yikes, every body's lining up for the"Food Fight."

I never liked the term "food fight" when talking about 1st tier memetic warfare. It minimizes the distress and sometimes terribly real pain that accompanies defending ones values. In the case of abortion rights, it's easy to see how conservatives and fundamentalists can, and do, believe in life begins at conception. No matter what scientific facts one might present to contrary, the facts just aren't going to change their minds (The jury is still out on evolution....heh, heh - G.W. Bush). For them, it's not about science.

Likewise, those who support a woman's right to choose/the right of privacy (not the same thing as supporting abortion...I know, I'm one of those) authentically believe that no one has the right to tell someone what they can and can't do to their own body.

Can both be right? Well, yes, from their own perspectives.

But what about a larger picture that transcends these two opposing views?

I'm going to suggest something that will, no doubt, piss a lot of people off. I'm going to suggest that we give the conservatives and the fundamentalists Roe v. Wade. Well, for a while, anyway.

Huh? I can hear the howling beginning already. hear me out.

How many voters in this country are single-issue voters? What number of those voters have abortion as their "one issue?" I did a quick google search, and while I couldn't find any statistics, I'll bet there's a lot of them.

How about enough to swing elections away from the far-right Bushie neo-cons to a more moderate middle if they are taken out of the equation? Here's what I think would happen if abortion were no longer an issue.

Voters who now include abortion as part of voting their moral values would have an opportunity to consider other "moral issues" such as:
  • not raising our hand to those who haven't harmed us
  • helping the homeless, the sick, and the poor
  • providing education for our children
  • loving our neighbors instead of fighting with them
  • spreading the wealth around, not letting just a priviledged few control it
Do these sound familiar? If you came up through Blue, they do.

Meanwhile, we give up Roe v Wade for a few years. There's a whole new generation of people coming who, because of technology, will look at the world very differently, We need to be nurturing that for the long run.

Consider it. Shoot holes in it. Play "what if" with it. There's more than one way to change the world, and maybe it's time we got smarter.

Just thinkin'......


crescentstreet said...

Gosh, Gary. There are a lot of reasons not to just "give up Roe vs. Wade" for a few years. What exactly do you mean by "Roe vs. Wade" anyway for a start? Too much to type here. Want to discuss this away from the page?

Bill said...

Hi Gary,

Interesting notion. This might work, but I'm not sure. The strategy of Republican strategists these days is to find an issue that stirs up hatred in the blue meme, just to "get out the vote". For example, lots of blue meme-ers went to the polls in 2004 to vote against gay marriage, and oh, while they were at it, voted for Bush. The same thing is happening now in '06. The issue de jour: gay adoption, which will appear on the ballots in several states this year. The Republican wish is for blue meme-ers to come out in droves, vote against gay adoption, and vote for Republican congressmen while they're in the voting booth.

So my thinking is that there will be no shortage of ideas Republican strategists will come up with to get people to the polls year after year. Your thoughts?


Gary Stamper said...

Hi Crescentstreet and Bill,

Of course, there a lots of reasons not to give up RvW...just the "suffering" by those desparate enough to have an abortion must be taken into account. I'm not saying this is "the" answer, I'm trying to spur some "out of the box" thinking, here. Obviously, what pro-privacy supporters have been doing isn't working. There's been quite a discussion on the iNYCs (New York Salon) site around this.

Anonymous said...

Your idea is a neat one intellectually, but falls apart practically because (1) all of the revolting, pointless women's suffering it would entail and (2) voters would in no way move onto those more salient issues you mentioned but rather to (for example) revoking and legislating against all "special rights" for homosexuals, or some other bright, shiny (and cruel) red herring. People, on a mass scale, will always be more motivate by their fears and hatreds than by their philantrophy and reason; and today's blue meme politicians are master technicians of fear and hatred.

Kai in NYC