Wait a minute, Rick Santorum? I happen to know Rick Santorum intimately, because I once was Rick Santorum. I played him on stage in Moral Value Meal. In order to assume that role, I flirted dangerously with the dark side, an experience chronicled in my heartrending essay "Becoming Santorum."
Having in a single evening won more states than Mitt Romney has won all together, Santorum is enjoying a sudden squirt of momentum. It still seems like Romney is going to be the nominee, but I wonder if we'll ever have to admit that Romney would look like the nominee even if someone else won the nomination. On social issues, Santorum is to the right of everyone. Newt Gingrich has also been presenting himself as the socially conservative alternative, and Romney, finger to the wind, is turning up his volume on family values. Republicans are lurching toward social issues, and they have a lot to talk about. There has been some genuine progress, and they can't stand that.
The State of Washington appears to be on the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage, and a federal appeals court has ruled that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Now let's check in with Mitt Romney and see what he thinks: "Unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California, who voted to protect traditional marriage...I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will...appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices." (I think the Constitutional ban on gay marriage is somewhere in the Third Amendment or so, after the parting of the Red Sea.)
Proposition 8, the bitter ache on a joyous night, passed due to money and manpower from the Mormon Church. To an official statement much like Mormon elder Mitt Romney's, the Church added, "[We] urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion."
It's so nice that Mormonism sincerely emphasizes the virtue of civility. But respect? Proposition 8, just by existing, empowered the majority to grant or deny basic civil rights to a minority group. This is the opposite of respect. It's playground bullyism. If civil rights were decided by ballot initiatives, only the majority would have civil rights. It would be kind of disrespectful. I'm sure the Mormon Church is perfectly civil when it teaches of the "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome" people who, after god "had caused the cursing to come upon them," acquired "a skin of blackness." (Have fun.) But it somehow doesn't sound like respect.
You can't just say you respect people. Well, you can, but you're lying. It's like starting a hate group and calling it the American Family Association, where six or seven lobbyists call themselves One Million Moms.
This very crowd has declared war on J.C. Penney, for making Ellen DeGeneres its spokeswoman. The mythic million huffs, "Funny that J.C. Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families." They demand that J.C. Penney "remain neutral in the culture war." Oh, boy. We should have known it when we saw the whites of Santorum's eyes -- we're at war again.
On Fox News, Sandy Rios showed moderate civility, but very little respect, when she explained, "The problem is that Ellen DeGeneres has chosen to act out her lesbian lifestyle and marry her partner. It's what that represents. And the fact that J.C. Penney is supposed to be middle America, the place where families shop...and people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman and children should not be exposed and propagandized in homosexuality."
I am shocked to learn 1) that middle America believes marriage is between a man and a woman and children; 2) that everyone in middle America is heterosexual, homophobic, and strongly opposed to Ellen DeGeneres; 3) that the mere presence of Ellen DeGeneres is propaganda; 4) that Ellen DeGeneres would make a fine J.C. Penney spokeswoman if only she would live in denial and shame; and 5) that Americans have an unalienable right to visit major retail establishments without encountering even a picture of a gay person.
This kind of thinking suggests a basic misunderstanding of civil rights. The people who are outraged about Ellen DeGeneres consider this a violation of their rights. What rights are they talking about? You can't just make up a right. You don't have the right to go to a Chinese restaurant without being exposed to egg rolls. In the Cranston school prayer situation, the people who think a public school should have a prayer to god posted in its auditorium have argued that because the majority of the students believe in god, they have a right to have the prayer on the wall if they want it. They think they have this right because they live in a democracy, when of course, they don't have this right, because they live in a constitutional republic.
They also think Catholic hospitals and universities have the right not to comply with the Affordable Care Act, because of the Catholic Church's belief that birth control is immoral. And guess what -- the ACA does include an exemption for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not have to include family planning in the insurance policies it offers its employees, which is astounding. ("THIS IS THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY," mused Barbara Boxer, on Wednesday. "WAKE UP! LOOK AT YOUR CALENDAR! THIS IS THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY!") If you have a religious objection to envelopes, you have the right not to work in a stationery store, but if you work in a stationery store, you're going to have to sell envelopes. Your argument will not be strengthened if you accuse the management of attacking your religious freedom.
In fairness to Catholic hospitals and universities, though, the outrage seems to be coming mostly from Republican legislators and presidential candidates, ravenous for election-year wedge issues. The nation's largest Catholic university, DePaul, announced that it has been providing contraception benefits all along. (But DePaul does support "conscience protections," meaning that if your religion forbids the use of envelopes, and you work in a stationery store, you cannot stop the store from selling envelopes, but you may personally refuse envelopes to a customer who asks for them. Civil, but not respectful.)
Republicans want to yell about "religious bigotry" and "Obama's war on faith." They rub their hands together and cackle at the thought that lurking somewhere in the aisles of J.C. Penney, Ellen DeGeneres is plotting the molestation of your children. If 2012 is about the culture war, it will be because the Republicans have so chosen. But will that necessarily be to their advantage this time? A lot of Americans have progressed on these issues, and many more are concerned about other things at the moment. None of these guys look electable, but someone is starting to look re-electable.
Knowing where the votes will be in November, Mitt Romney and the fabled Establishment Republicans would love it if social issues never came up. But Romney just finished ten points behind Ron Paul in Minnesota, and it was Rick Santorum who had a clean sweep. Santorum makes the extremists look like moderates. He's opposed to all of it -- not just abortion, but contraception; not just gay marriage, but gay civil unions; not just religious bigotry, but separation of church and state -- while Romney merely says he's opposed to them.
But maybe the old wedge issues aren't what they used to be. Maybe we should ask Karen Handel. Certainly, the Republican Party's outrage is looking desperate. Its presidential candidates are also looking desperate. When Matt Lauer showed Obama last week's New Yorker cover (depicting the president, beer in hand, watching Romney and Gingrich pummel each other in the Super Bowl), Obama smiled, looking exactly as he does in Barry Blitt's illustration. Democrats are also rubbing their hands together. I don't know what the right-wing lurch toward social issues means for the Republican primaries, but it does look like a sure sign that the economy is getting better.
Today's Times tells the story of Jessica Ahlquist, 16, of Cranston, Rhode Island -- clearly a remarkable young woman, who has taken a courageous stand in favor of the American Constitution, and against the American religious fanaticism which constantly seeks to undermine it.
Ms. Ahlquist is a student at Cranston High School West. Attached to the wall of the school's auditorium, there is an eight-foot-tall sheet on which a prayer is printed. Above the text is a headline: "SCHOOL PRAYER." Perhaps coincidentally (but I doubt it), the prayer was installed there in 1963, just after the Supreme Court decisions (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp) which established the prohibition of prayer in public schools.
In 2010, an anonymous parent filed a complaint about the prayer with the ACLU, and Ms. Ahlquist emerged as a passionate voice against theocracy during the ensuing school board hearings. She advocated removing the prayer, and started a Facebook group devoted to the cause. In March of 2011, the school board voted (4 to 3) not to remove the prayer, and the ACLU asked Ms. Ahlquist to serve as a plaintiff in a lawsuit. This month, a federal judge ruled, correctly, that the prayer's presence on the wall of a public school was unconstitutional, and it was covered with a tarp. Some angry and deluded residents of Cranston are demanding an appeal. Relying on the usual tactics of people who know they are wrong, and are unable to offer an coherent argument, they're abusing and threatening her. Police have had to escort her to school. Florists have refused to deliver roses sent to Jessica from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A state representative, Peter G. Palumbo, called her "an evil little thing." (Please help flood his office with pointed commentary.)
Cranston West graduate Donald Fox, speaking in favor of theocratic oppression, told the Times that "the prayer banner espouses nothing more than those values which we all hope for our children." Mr. Fox is wrong. The "prayer banner" espouses other things as well. It begins with the phrase "Our Heavenly Father," implicitly espousing the view that the universe was created by, and is controlled by, a fictional character. Its first line, "Grant us each day the desire to do our best," espouses the insulting notion that such things can (or even must) be "granted" by said fictional character. And then there's that smug heading, "SCHOOL PRAYER." Do the walls of the school have any other examples of massive signage which boastfully defies the United States Constitution?
The president of the Cranston West student council, Pat McAssey, admitted to the Times that the threats made against Jessica Ahlquist are "completely inexcusable." But, Goodnough writes, McAssey "added that Jessica had upset some of her classmates by mocking religion online. 'Their frustration kind of came from that,' he said."
Ah, I see. Some of Jessica's classmates were frustrated, because she exercised her right to free speech. Poor things. Is there any part of the First Amendment which they approve of?
In solidarity with Jessica Ahlquist, I suggest that we all mock religion online. Ready?
In honor of the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and in protest against the clowns competing for the Republican nomination -- each of whom gleefully advocates the continued erosion of women's rights -- here's one of our favorite Nero Fiddled sketches.
This begins Nero Fiddled's inadequate, intermittent coverage of the 2012 presidential election!
I know: You came here for comprehensive analysis of the Iowa caucus. Well, at this time, Nero Fiddled can project that the United States, with its 538 electoral votes, will go to President Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama's re-election needn't have been a sure thing. As you may have heard, the economy is lousy, and even the president's supporters have accumulated quite a list of frustrations and disappointments. To understand the projected landslide, we have to take a look at the losers.
It's been clear for a long time that Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner, and he is an ideal frontrunner in many respects. But despite Romney's handsome face, business experience, and magical underwear, his political ambitions are frustrated by the fact that nobody likes him.
We were surprised to learn that Santorum was doing so well among Iowa Republicans. The name sounded familiar, so we Googled it. Now we remember. The frothy Santorum surge was remarkable, but when an Iowa pizzeria put Santorum salad on the menu, everyone got sick and left the room.
Ron Paul's supporters certainly are enthusiastic! Luckily, there are only about four of them.
Not long ago, Newt Gingrich was doing well in the polls, but in the days leading up to Iowa he was crippled by attack ads from Romney-affiliated PACs. Since then, Newt's signature issue has been his staunch opposition to negative politics. (No punchline necessary.)
Michelle Bachmann was once thought to be a contender, but since her Ames straw poll victory in August, the anti-Romney vote fragmented. If you wanted paranoia, there was Ron Paul. If you wanted religious fanaticism, there was Santorum. If you wanted someone incapable of formulating a coherent sentence, there was...
There was another candidate in this race, but I can't remember who. Oops.
This concludes Nero Fiddled's in-depth coverage of the 2012 Iowa caucus. But this was only the first contest of many, and as the presidential race continues, who knows, maybe Nero Fiddled will bring you an occasional comment about it, with all the intermittent inadequacy you've come to expect.
