Obama and the culture war of the left
By Will Munsil February 8, 2012 at 9:25 pm 
Print This Post
In a year of financial crisis and largely bloodless economic debate, three recent developments have once again made social issues relevant. How this happened is a reversal of a common misconception that cultural conservatives have kept the culture wars alive against the wishes of liberals, who are tired of the whole thing.
In that light, the ramifications of the past week are fascinating. One implication is for President Obama’s re-election. Facing a party united in distaste for him, and in ambivalence toward his possible Republican rivals, it seems counterintuitive for his party and his allies to re-ignite controversies that galvanize social conservatives.
First, the Obama administration mandated that every health provider pay for contraception, sterilization and abortions for those covered.
This issue fuses two major critiques of the Obama administration in one electorally potent combination. First, it illustrates the unfriendliness of the Obama administration toward diverse economic self-determination. In other words, we know better, and there’s one best way to do social and economic policy, as David Brooks wrote this week. Second, it illustrates an unwillingness to understand and empathize with the deeply held moral beliefs of a huge segment of the American population.
The Susan G. Komen kerfuffle is another example of how liberals fight the culture war under the cover of the media.
As The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has observed, Komen’s purpose in cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood was to funnel the relatively small amount of money for cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood to other organizations better equipped to serve Komen’s main function — fighting cancer. Other organizations do the same work without providing abortions, and critics have argued that Planned Parenthood’s mammogram and cancer screening services are subpar. In any event, this was a decision a private charitable organization can make for itself.
If abortion isn’t a moral issue to you, then so be it.
I’d argue you’re wrong — an unborn child is fundamentally, self-evidently and emphatically a living human being, separated from those of us privileged enough to have been born only by age and location. But to argue that liberal support of Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion and is all about women’s health makes you either naïve or disingenuous.
Finally, another court has ruled that the will of the California people is invalid where the definition of marriage is concerned. While the court battle will continue, the timing of this decision reinforces a theme — that liberals like the democratic process until they lose, at which point they change the rules.
I’ve always thought that the next generation of cultural conservatives should think of political engagement as a great conversation between sides that assume the best of each other instead of as a battle to be joined.
What President Obama and his liberal allies are telling us is that they don’t see it that way. Maybe they never have.
It’s now possible that Obama and his allies have blundered into their own worst nightmare: A Republican Party united by opposition to the economic and social policies of the Obama administration and a coherent narrative about a president and a party that thinks it knows better than the American people.
Reach the columnist at wmunsil@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
More from The State Press:
Tags: conservative culture war election campaign liberal Obama Planned Parenthood Susan G. Komen for the Cure
“This issue [Health providers covering prenatal medical procedures is mandatory.] fuses two major critiques of the Obama administration in one electorally potent combination. First, it illustrates the unfriendliness of the Obama administration toward diverse economic self-determination.”
Yes. See how that has turned out over the last 3 decades or so? I would argue that economic self-determination has created both unintended and detrimental consequences for millions of USA citizens particularly those living in poverty.
“Second, it illustrates an unwillingness to understand and empathize with the deeply held moral beliefs of a huge segment of the American population.”
What about their ability to understand and empathize with those with beliefs that differ? Do many white heterosexual Protestants understand and empathize with black homosexual Muslims and their individual and collective experiences? Why should minorities be the one who takes the first initiative to understand and empathize with oppressors?
“If abortion isn’t a moral issue to you, then so be it.
I’d argue you’re wrong — an unborn child is fundamentally, self-evidently and emphatically a living human being, separated from those of us privileged enough to have been born only by age and location.”
People view morality in different ways. In other words, a moral action for one person may not be a moral action for another. This is why morality is relative. On what basis are you suggesting that abortion is morally wrong? Whatever your basis, this does not necessarily mean that your stance on abortion is correct from a moral standpoint.
Please note that there are both legal and biological differences between a fetus and a baby. In the USA, abortion is legal under certain conditions. This was meant to be a compromise. Many social conservatives do not like the fact that abortion is legal under certain circumstances and that is just too bad for them.
“But to argue that liberal support of Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion and is all about women’s health makes you either naïve or disingenuous.”
But one could just as easily argue that it is disingenuous to use wedge issues like abortion as justification to decrease funding for women’s health clinics.
“Finally, another court has ruled that the will of the California people is invalid where the definition of marriage is concerned.”
Personally, I do not believe that issues of equality should be on ballots. It was a close vote also: I believe that it was 52% favor and 48% oppose.
“While the court battle will continue, the timing of this decision reinforces a theme — that liberals like the democratic process until they lose, at which point they change the rules.”
Conservatives do this as well. Besides, since when has majority rule been taken into consideration in the USA regarding the legislative process? In fact, very few laws are made based on what the majority wants to have happen.
“I’ve always thought that the next generation of cultural conservatives should think of political engagement as a great conversation between sides that assume the best of each other instead of as a battle to be joined.”
That sounds both comfortable and convenient. Try this instead: If an individual is against abortion, said person should not have one. The same can be applied with same-sex marriage: If an individual does not want to marry someone of the same biological sex as said individual, then that same individual should not marry the person.
What is interesting about so many conservatives I have met is that so many of them value individual freedom, liberty, and limited government but only under certain circumstances. Also, the USA is not a theocracy. US Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment 1 states in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]” Evidently, many social conservatives want to have their beliefs reflected in law. I suppose that is understandable. I certainly would not mind my beliefs to correspond with what is outside myself.
It seems that many conservatives are fine with the status quo, despite the pain and misery it has inflicted on millions of our fellow citizens. This is the USA, where one is free to believe whatever one wants. However, where there is conflict between the sides is a question of what beliefs should be made policy to address social issues. Obviously, there is a battle. After all, one group wants their beliefs made policy and the diametrically opposed group wants their beliefs made policy. I know this sounds very general, but one should understand the point I am making. Both side are not backing down so it will be interesting to see the end result.