#144 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday September 15)
Good morning!
DOGS CHASING CARS
Most of us are familiar with the image of dogs chasing cars, for reasons that are unclear, except that they are playful animals and it’s something to do. There is a cartoon that has come to mind in the past couple of weeks. The first panel is a couple of dogs running behind a car, never likely to catch up. In the next panel, they have caught up to the car and one says to the other, “okay, we did it—now what?”
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU “WIN”?
An historical of one having achieved one’s goal, without a fully thought out plan for what to do next, was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Following the successful destruction of much of the Pacific Fleet, the Japanese were gloating in their success. Yet in their euphoria, they failed to destroy the oil storage facilities and airstrips near the fleet. The Japanese, having achieved what appeared to be an unmitigated success, failed to recognize that the next actions they took would be as or more important than the recent, incomplete, victory. More recent examples include the American victory in Iraq, followed by years lacking in strategy, or the American victory in killing bin Laden, without any thoughtful follow-up in stabilizing Afghanistan.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
There are two examples of dogs catching the car in the news that seem like singular successes to the victors but that pose significant challenges in the coming months and years. The first is the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan and the second is the pro-life victory in Texas. Each got what they wanted but now the consequences of these achievements must play out. Both may be classic examples of “be careful what you wish for…”
The Taliban Now Must Govern. Afghanistan has lots of issues that must be addressed, from food insecurity to infrastructure to unemployment to relations with Pakistan and other neighbors, just to name a few. After their quick victory, the Taliban now must deal with the tough task of governing. As the new rulers of Afghanistan, they inherit a country of vast mountains, disconnected valleys and uneasy tribal relationships—a country that stubbornly has resisted a centralized governmental infrastructure for generations. Plus they now face an insurrectionist movement of their own, threatening them from within—ISIS-K. We will see how they do.
The Taliban’s leadership (such as it is) claims to be more progressive than they were when they governed twenty years ago. They no doubt learned a lot from their last experience in power and hopefully they will heed their own rhetoric and govern more liberally and with greater respect for women’s rights and divergent views. For those who don’t think a political party can change in that period of time, just take a look at today’s Republican party! My hunch is that support may be wide but it’s not very deep and the people are wary of their next actions (and perhaps prepared and armed to defy them). We will see the “new” Taliban and how they govern under the watchful and critical eye of their citizens and the rest of the world.
The Anti-Abortionist Must Deal with the Ramifications of Victory. For the past decades, the “right to life” movement and social conservatives have rallied around laws seeking to roll back the rights to abortion granted by Roe v. Wade. The “wedge” social issues have been a way to energize the “true believers” on the right. So long as Roe v. Wade was healthy, political contributions kept coming in and the “base” could be persuaded to view each successive election as both a litmus test and an existential threat to their values.
In state after state, activists have persuaded right wing state governments to adopt restrictions on abortions. It has been a slow process and that slow erosion of rights suited the activists well, keeping the issue “front and center” and allowing it to continue to milk anxieties about the right to life and religious freedom in winning elections. The goal of “stocking the courts” with true believers was a great focus for the right—but now that has been achieved. Surprisingly, a ludicrously unreasonable and overreaching law in Texas represents what many argue is a near total victory. Texas law prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected (typically around six weeks) and grants enforcement power to ordinary citizens (rather than the state, which poses its own problems), who can earn a bounty for turning in their neighbors, friends and health professionals. This small victory, celebrated by some, is embraced less zealously by those who have used the issue as a political tool. The case may bring results not bargained for.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote of cowardice, without reasoning or a signed majority opinion, has declined to take the case, primarily because a controversy does not yet exist. We have learned two things from this recent escapade. The first is the lengths to which state legislatures are willing to go. The second is that the Supreme Court, in “supreme deference” to state legislatures, seems willing to allow these sorts of laws to survive. The fate of Roe v. Wade is now in doubt. I don’t want to go into the reasoning of that case, or even its flawed logic. The fact remains, however, that, regardless of what thinks of the case, it has been (as Justice Kavanagh said in his confirmation questioning) “settled law.” Women’s rights have never been so expansive and out of the reach of the government, all due to this case that has the benefit of precedence. That may change.
The law, of course, is intended to essentially eliminate the right to an abortion in the State of Texas. First, a heartbeat can be detected prior to when most women even know they’re pregnant. Missing a period, a not infrequent occurrence, does not typically motivate a woman to immediately seek medical help. But this law pretty much requires anyone with the foresight and financial wherewithal to immediately seek medical advice, must do so. If not, then by the time that second period is lapsed, it likely will be too late to consider an abortion (a decision often highly problematic in many cases). Add to this the absurdity of “putting a price on the head” of anyone seeking an abortion, driving someone to an abortion, performing abortions, or otherwise abetting an abortion, enforced by ordinary citizens. To think we will turn ordinary citizens into private police forces, inquiring into other people’s lives, unconcerned with the Constitutional rights of individuals who otherwise can avoid the prying eye of the state, citizens without training or restraint (but thanks to other Texas laws, with the right to carry weapons openly while enforcing these laws), one can see the grounds for mischief and unintended consequences. Obviously, there are many dangers associated with this law. But this is what the activists wanted and this is what the wise legislators in Austin delivered to their supporters.
What I would have thought were long odds a few weeks ago, that the Democrats could retain control of both houses of Congress, now seems a possibility. Were I a leader of the Democratic party, I would make this the focus of the message I would deliver to voters. I would want people to know just how extreme the Supreme Court has become and I’d want to remind people how much more unreasonable it could become under Republican leadership.
Up until now, social issues were the “wedge issues” that Republican candidates could use to motivate their base in defeating Democrats. Now, however, the worm has turned and this may now be a wedge issue for the Democrats. It was easy for the right to organize around the “theory” or the “promise” of adopting laws prohibiting a woman’s right to choose. It is quite something else for them to defend laws such as this, which effectively outlaw abortions. I believe other states may follow suit. What might have been a lukewarm Democratic electorate in 2022 may now be invigorated, angry and active, taking the offense against these overreaching infringements on personal freedom, rather than on the defense, fighting the efforts of the pro-life movement. The “burden of proof” has now shifted. It is easier to go on offense in attacking the law than being on defense, as the left has been for years. Now the right “owns” the issue and the ramifications of success. In the words of Colin Powell, admittedly uttered for a different purpose and in a different situation, “once you break it, you own it.” The obligation to defend laws limiting abortion rights now is an issue owned by the right. I’m not sure they’re prepared for the consequences.
WISHING GAVIN NEWSOM WELL
Today is election day in California. My guess is this is a low turnout election. After all, there is but one issue on the ballot, namely, the recall of the governor. For all sorts of reasons, including most notably, the anti-democratic nature of the cynical attempt of the Republican party to capture the governorship through questionable means, rather than in a fair and democratic election, this should be defeated. It should also be defeated because we have a “real” election in just two short years. If we actually recall the governor, what is to prevent every single election to be overturned a year or two later in a trumped-up recall? Hopefully, our fellow citizens will see the disingenuous claims of the recall effort (after all, malfeasance is not claimed; merely undesirability) and the questionable options to choose among in a cast of 46 candidates and send these knuckleheads away.
Best, Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: