Real conservatives v. the Religious Right

The GOP has been able to win 3 consecutive national elections based upon a coalition of 2 quite disparate groups: (1) true conservatives/libertarians, who care most about a very aggressive foreign policy and minimal governmental interference in people's lives (including their economic lives) and (2) religious, evangelic voters who don't really care about small government or personal liberty but care only about having a strong government advocate for and impose thier "values."

Even though the two groups have little in common (other than foreign policy views), the Republicans have been brilliant in giving just enough to each group to ensure ongoing support for Bush, even when one groups dislikes what the Administration does for the other group.

I think the Terry Schiavo case is the beginning of the end of that juggling game. It works only if the Administration doesn't go too far in accomodating one group to the point where the other group isn't just in opposition, but has their principles profoundly offended.

That's happening now with what the religious conservatives just did in intervening in the Schiavo case - it is profoundly offending real conservatives (polls show that a MAJORITY of those who identify themselves as "conservatives" oppose the GOP action in the Schiavo case).

The signs are unmistakable that this coalition is falling apart as a result of excesses by religious conservatives (which are only going to get worse, since they really believe they finally have REAL power and are entitled to get everything they want).

David Brooks' column this week in the NYT was significant, and Glenn Reynolds -- the conservative/libertarian University of Tenn. law professor who writes the most widely-read political blog on the Interent (http://www.instapundit.com) -- just wrote this column making clear how close the GOP coalition is to completely falling apart:

__________________

• March 23, 2005 | 11:24 PM ET

In their book, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge predict steady growth for the conservative movement in America, unless something goes wrong to derail its trajectory. But things can always go wrong. How could the Republican coalition fail? By being "too Southern, too greedy, and too contradictory."

Right now it's aiming at two out of three. Greed, of course, is not uncommon in politics, but as David Brooks notes, it's on the upswing, with Republicans engaging in the very kinds of behaviors they deplored from Democrats:

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!

Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?

Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this wa dnot a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.

Not very impressive. Nor is Jack Kemp's behavior in "actively shilling" for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. And, of course, the bankruptcy "reform" bill -- which, as I mentioned earlier, was a giveaway to big business -- seems to have been based on greed, too.

There's also a lot of contradiction lately. After talking about small government and the rule of law, Republicans overwhelmingly supported a piece of legislation intended to influence a single case, that of Terri Schiavo. As former Solicitor General Charles Fried observes:

In their intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter, Republicans in Congress and President Bush have, in a few brief legislative clauses, embraced the kind of free-floating judicial activism, disregard for orderly procedure and contempt for the integrity of state processes that they quite rightly have denounced and sought to discipline for decades.

I think he's right. As with Bill Hobbs, quoted below, I don't have an opinion on what should happen to Terry Schiavo -- though given the rather large numbers of judges who have looked at this case over the years I'd be especially reluctant to interfere. Can they all be deranged advocates of a "culture of death?" But regardless of the merits, Congress's involvement in this case seems quite "unconservative" to me, at least if one believes in rules of general application. Florida has a general law, and it's been followed. That people don't like the result isn't a reason for unprecedented Congressional action, unless results are all that matter.

Ryan Sager looks at this, in conjunction with last week's hearings on steroids and baseball, and comments:

In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.

It can all be summed up in two words: steroids and Schiavo. If there is an issue less deserving of Congressional attention than whether a few overpaid, bat-wielding jocks might have injected themselves with substances to help them wield their bats better, then it has yet to be discovered by the House's Government Reform Committee, which held last week's hearings.

...

But if Congress' dealings with the trivial are appalling, they are nothing compared to its exploitation of the tragic.

There, we have the sad case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman in a "permanent vegetative state" whose feeding tube had been removed at her husband's urging -- and based on a court's findings regarding her wishes on the matter only to have Congress and President Bush intervene ostensibly on her behalf.

Putting aside the tangled facts of the case for the moment -- which include some bitter family history and selective science on both sides -- the driving question here should be: Does Congress have a role?

And when it comes to a family dispute over a painful medical decision, one which at least 19 judges in six courts have already adjudicated, the answer must be a resounding "no."

The forums for matters such as the Schiavo case are state courts, upholding state laws. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives -- who want Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue of abortion moved back to state legislatures and courts -- should understand this better than any other group of Americans.

A while back, I wrote about the problem of "fair-weather federalism," but judging by the past week things look to be getting much worse. So will the Republican coalition fracture under these pressures?

Quite possibly. National security is the glue that has held Bush's coalition together. The war isn't over, and we haven't won yet, but it's going well -- Austin Bay notes that it's a war that we are winning -- and this is allowing the divisions to show. All of the people I've quoted are on the right, and they're all unhappy. One may argue that libertarians and small-government conservatives aren't a big part of Bush's coalition, but his victory wasn't so huge that the Republicans can surrender very many votes and still expect to win. So this is a real threat. (Some people are even writing articles with titles like Saving the Marriage: Conservatism and Libertarianism.)

Can this marriage be saved? Only if one of the partners -- and it's not the libertarian side -- realizes that its behavior is hurting the marriage, and decides to restrain itself. Are conservatives capable of sufficient self-restraint? On the evidence, that's not to be taken for granted, and it may cost the Republicans. In fact, National Review blogger Jim Geraghty reproduces a couple of reader emails that illustrate how costly it may be:

Just to let you know - this conservative Republican, who has never voted for a Democrat... will probably start doing so - against my financial interests I might add - solely because of the Schiavo action by Congress. I am staunchy pro-life — but in this instance the matter has been litigated over and over, and the evidence is overwhelming that a) there's no hope for recovery for this woman and b) her wish would not to be forced to continue in this horrible state. (and yes, i am putting a value to life - hard to imagine anyone wanting to live this way - it's just common sense) I find her parents' actions unconscionable (the action of putting video of this poor woman out all over the world - how cruel), though I certainly understand the desire to see their child improve....

---

I'm Republican voter, voted for Bush twice, with high enthusiasm both times...

Today you asked:

"In November 2006, voters across the country will turn against the GOP because they fear that Congress will pass individually-targeted laws that prevent patients from being deliberately starved to death?"

This voter might. I am very, very unhappy right now. Use whatever language you like. This "law," using the word loosely, makes a mockery of federalism.

Geraghty thinks there aren't many voters like this out there. Republican strategists had better hope he's right.

AMAZING poll

This poll on the Schiavo matter, from CBS News, is one of the most amazing polls ever. It is even way more lopsided than even the ABC News poll from a few days ago.

82% disapprove of Congress' action in getting involved in the Schiavo case - 82% of the Americans almost never agree on anything. Overwhelmingly, all groups - conservatives, liberals, independents, Democrats, Republicans, even Catholics and evangelicals - strongly oppose government intervention and believe that Congress' action was motivated by political concerns.

I think this is going to be the turning point for religious conservatives - the trigger, the excessive trangression of anything tolerable, that finally caused Americans to tell them to fuck off:

_________________________

Poll: Keep Feeding Tube Out

NEW YORK, March 23, 2005

Courts Deny Schiavo Parents

(Photo: AP)

There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 7 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo.

(CBS) Americans have strong feelings about the Terri Schiavo case, and a majority says the feeding tube should not now be re-inserted. This view is shared by Americans of all political persuasions. Most think the feeding tube should have been removed, and most also do not think the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the case.

An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter. There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 74 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo. Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.

VIEWS ON THE CASE

Most Americans side with Terri Schaivo's husband in saying that the feeding tube should not be re-inserted now.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO TERRI SCHIAVO NOW?

Re-insert tube

27%

Do not re-insert

66%

Both Catholics and Protestants think the tube should not be re-inserted now. Liberals and moderates both believe the tube should not be re-inserted; conservatives are more closely divided. Most Democrats and Republicans agree the tube should remain out at this point. A strong majority of Americans in every age group says the tube should not be re-inserted now.

President Bush signed the legislation concerning Terri Schiavo on Sunday night, but a majority of those who voted for him last November do not think the feeding tube should be re-inserted. John Kerry's voters agree.

Most Americans do not now think the case ought to go further up the judicial system. A majority, 61 percent, says the case should not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, while 37 percent say the court should hear the case.

SHOULD SCHIAVO CASE BE HEARD BY U.S. SUPREME COURT?

Yes

37%

No

61%

Overall, views on what should happen to Terri Schiavo now closely match what Americans think should have happened to her leading up to now. 61 percent think that the feeding tube ought to have been removed, while fewer -- 28 percent -- think it ought to have remained in place.

But whatever their stance on the issue, more than three in four say they feel "strongly" about their views on the matter. Majorities of those on both sides feel strongly.

HOW STRONGLY DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE?

Strongly

All

78%

Don't re-insert tube now

85%

Re-insert tube now

77%

Not strongly

All

19%

Don't re-insert tube now

13%

Re-insert tube now

20%

That intensity of feeling cuts across religions, and religiosity. Both Catholics and Protestants feel strongly about their stance, as do both evangelical and non-evangelical Christians. Those who attend religious services frequently say they feel strongly, and so do those who attend less often.

More than three-fourths of the public -- 76 percent -- say they are following the story either very or somewhat closely. This is about as high as the 79 percent who reported they were closely following the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in May 2004, and higher than the 61 percent who closely followed the Congressional hearings surrounding the 9/11 investigation in April 2004.

INVOLVEMENT BY THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

The vast majority of Americans say Congress and the President should stay out of the Schiavo matter.

SHOULD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT BE INVOLVED IN SCHIAVO MATTER?

Yes

13%

No

82%

There are no partisan political differences on this issue: majorities of Democrats (89 percent), Republicans (72 percent), liberals (84 percent) and conservatives (76 percent) are in agreement that the government should not be involved. 68 percent of white evangelicals think that Congress and the President should stay out of the Schiavo case.

And Congress' motives for being involved are seen as driven by political calculations, not compassion.

WHY DO YOU THINK CONGRESS GOT INVOLVED?

They care about Terri Schiavo

13%

Trying to advance political agenda

74%

Congress' involvement in the case may have damaged the public’s view of that institution. In this poll, 34 percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job, down from 41 percent last month, while 49 percent now disapprove, up from 44 percent last month. This is the lowest approval rating Congress has received since December 1997, in the wake of Congressional hearings into Democratic fundraising practices.

CONGRESS JOB APPROVAL

Approve

Now

34%

2/2005

41%

Disapprove

Now

49%

2/2005

44%

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

In general, Americans believe the issue of whether a family can remove a patient from life support is not for government at any level to decide. Just 9 percent say the Federal government should decide such matters, 13 percent say these are state matters, and 75 percent say government should stay out altogether.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN DECIDING LIFE SUPPORT CASES

Federal government should decide

9%

State government should decide

13%

Government should stay out

75%

Americans of all political persuasions -- Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike -- share similar feelings on this issue.

The public also foresees troubling ramifications from this case: two-thirds are concerned that Congress' actions in this matter will set a precedent, making it easier for the legislature to intervene in individuals' lives in the future.

WILL CONGRESS' ACTIONS THIS WEEK MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO INTERVENE IN THE FUTURE?

Yes, and concerned about it

68%

Yes, but not concerned about it

9%

No

17%

ATTITUDES TOWARD LIFE AND DEATH

This poll also asked Americans general views on life and death decisions in these kinds of matters.

There is an overwhelming view among Americans that if they themselves were in a coma, they would want their feeding tube removed. 82 percent say so; only 14 percent say they would not want their doctor to remove the feeding tube to let them die in that scenario. This was also the case when the CBS News Poll asked the question back in 1990; then 85 percent said they would want their feeding tube removed.

IF YOU WERE IN A COMA, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR DOCTOR TO REMOVE THE FEEDING TUBE AND LET YOU DIE?

Yes

Now

82%

1990

85%

No

Now

14%

1990

11%

In general, 73 percent say if a patient is in a coma with no brain activity, a close family member should have the right to tell the doctor to remove the feeding tube and let the patient die. 17 percent say family members should not have this right. Conservatives are somewhat less likely than liberals and moderates to say this, but 62 percent of them still think so. Back in 1990, even more Americans -- 81 percent -- thought a close family member should have the right to tell a doctor to remove a feeding tube.

IF PATIENT IS IN A COMA, SHOULD CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER BE ABLE TO HAVE DOCTOR REMOVE THE FEEDING TUBE AND LET THE PERSON DIE?

Should

Now

73%

1990

81%

Should not

Now

17%

1990

13%

In general, in the absence of a legal directive, most Americans think a spouse has the ultimate authority in these matters. If a patient is in a vegetative state, has left no legal document stating what kind of medical care he or she would want, and family members disagree as to what should be done, 62 percent of Americans think the patient’s spouse should have the right to make the final decision about what should be done for the patient medically. 15 percent think the patient’s parents should make the final decision, and another 10 percent want the patient’s adult children to decide.

WHO SHOULD MAKE THE FINAL DECISION IF THE PATIENT IS IN A VEGETATIVE STATE AND DID NOT LEAVE LEGAL INSTRUCTIONS?

Spouse

62%

Parents

15%

Adult children

10%

In a separate situation, six in ten say if a doctor injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of drugs at the person’s request it is not the same thing as murder. 28 percent say it is.

IF A DOCTOR INJECTS TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT WITH LETHAL DOSE OF DRUGS AT THE PERSON’S REQUEST, IS THAT THE SAME AS MURDER?

Same as murder

Now

28%

1998

30%

Not the same

Now

63%

1998

61%

Views on the matter are similar to what they were in November 1998, shortly after CBS' 60 Minutes aired Dr. Jack Kevorkian participating in the death of a terminally ill patient. Back then, 61 percent said a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal dose of drugs at the person’s request was not murder.

LIVING WILL

The Schiavo case highlights the importance of living wills -- legal documents that detail what kind of medical care individuals would want should they become unable to make medical decisions themselves. This poll shows that Terri Schiavo is far from alone in not having such a legal document: only one in three Americans say they have a living will; 67 percent say they do not.

DO YOU HAVE A LIVING WILL?

Yes

33%

No

67%

Older Americans, those who are college-educated, and Republicans are the most likely to currently have a living will. A majority of Americans age 65 and older say they have one.

HAVE A LIVING WILL

Total

33%

Gender

Men

31%

Women

34%

Age

18-29

6%

30-44

23%

45-64

42%

65+

68%

Currently Married

Yes

39%

No

25%

Church attendance

Every week

42%

Less often

31%

Never

23%

Education

High School or less

27%

Some College

28%

College grad +

48%

Income

< $30K

24%

$30K-$50K

31%

Over $50K

40%

Party Identification

Republican

44%

Democrat

29%

Independent

28%

THE POLITICAL IMPACT OF THE SCHIAVO CASE

As mentioned earlier, Congressional approval ratings have fallen since last month and are at their lowest point since 1997, and President Bush’s job approval ratings have also declined. 43 percent now approve of President Bush’s handling of his job as President; 48 percent disapprove.

36 percent approve of President Bush’s handling of the economy, and 53 percent disapprove. Bush’s approval rating on Iraq has also dropped; 39 percent approve, down from 45 percent in late February; 53 percent now disapprove.

BUSH JOB APPROVALS

Overall

Now

43%

2/2005

49%

Economy

Now

36%

2/2005

38%

Iraq

Now

39%

2/2005

45%

There is a strong partisan element to these views; the President’s approval rating is especially low among Democrats (11 percent approve), while 85 percent of Republicans approve.

As a matter of national priority, the public continues to say the war in Iraq (26 percent) and the economy and jobs (15 percent) are the most important problems facing the U.S. today. Only 6 percent mention Social Security, about the same as last month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 737 adults interviewed by telephone March 21-22, 2005. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on all adults. Error for subgroups may be higher.

For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

RE: AMAZING poll

Amazing indeed! It looks like the American public is finally waking up from its long slumber, or perhaps recovering from its shock about 9/11.

My only quibble with the first post is that I don't think the Bush Administration won in 2004 because of classical conservatives and evangelical voters. Even combined, I don't believe there are enough of them to deliver an electoral majority. (It's worth remembering in this regard that not all evangelicals are literalist fundamentalists, and not all voters who consider themselves evangelical voted for Bush.)

I think what made the difference was the "scared" vote, made up of voters who otherwise might be swing voters. I think these are the less-well-educated, uninformed voters who haven't thought much about the moral/legal/constitutionalimplications of the Iraq War and who are among the reflexively patriotic ("my country, right or wrong"). I think enough of these voters bought Bush's tough talk, threats of imminent terror attacks, and his argument about not changing horses in midstream when we're at war (even though Bush was responsible for starting the war under false pretenses) to tip the balance in his favor. As a general rule, I also think most voters in 2004 weren't aware of the administration's radically reactionary domestic agenda, or its willingness to impose the religious/moral views of the few on the majority. The Republicans made no secret of their domestic agenda but they successfully diverted the attention of most of the public, which would find that agenda appalling, to nebulous threats of terrorism and the patriotic appeal of war and supporting our troops. (Of course, the administration's actual "support" for the troops, failing to provide them what they need to protect themselves and do their jobs and endlessly extending their tours of duty, doesn't jibe with the jingoistic administration propaganda and P.R.) In any event, it worked, and enough people were swayed by it to give the election to Bush.

However, the maxim that you can fool people once, but not twice, may be proving itself true, and voters in 2006 and 2008 may decide they no longer want to be fooled any more.

WOW! I just agreed 100% with everything that Doug posted! If I didn't believe in the End Times before, I guess I do now.

I remember lamenting of a time when there were, as Doug said, real conservatives. Republicans used to believe in less government and not interfering in people's personal lives. The problem was that no one was listening to their message. So, Newt Gingrich came along with his Republican Revolution, and he brought the religious right along with him. It was a brilliant political move, bringing two disparate groups together, both feeling powerless, and making them powerful together. The culmination of this effort is whst we have here today. But as DOug points out, it may be beginning to unravel. The best example I can think of is Tom DeLay. No matter what he has done or how corrupt he is becoming, he feels everything he is doing is justifiable in the name of God. Thankfully, it seems that the American people are finally waking up to what this bizarro version of the old GOP is all about.

Terry Schiavo is just the beginning of the end of the Republican Revolution. Hillary Clinton in '08 all of the sudden seems more like a reality than ever before.

This madness around the Schiavo case has united the country almost as much as 9/11. It is all people are talking about. As I've bopped around town today, I've made a point of asking people for their reaction. No one thinks prolonging Teri Schiavo's life with no hope of recovery is a good idea. Everyone is sad that someone is dying. But, NO ONE wants the government messing around any more in their private life than they already do.

I share that sentiment. Hopefully, this lunacy will serve as the wakeup call we need to start turning the tide on the rising Big Brother trend. The Schiavo situation seems to have shaken up a quite a few Republicans.

Not all that long ago, I had much more in common with the Republican party than the Democratic party. While my views have changed some, I don't think I left my party so much as it left me. The reality today is this: Neither party offers much for me. So, I took the coward's way out and am current registered as an independent. Sort of like kissing your sister.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I don't even remember why now, I commented to someone that I hoped the "weirdness" was reaching a peak and would soon start decreasing. Wow, who expected this? Just makes you wonder if any further shoes are about to drop?

What an amazing week this has been.

--EBG

>This madness around the Schiavo case has united the country

>almost as much as 9/11. It is all people are talking about.

Agreed. At first, I thought this case was just the latest installment of trash TV - a perverse, melodramatic reality show masquerading as news. But this drama quickly transformed into a proxy for real, fundamental political and social conflicts that Americans had to have out sooner or later.

It wasn't that long ago when people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were marginalized, freakish cartoons. But their views - and the pious conviction with which they hold them - have become mainstream, due largely to the quite cynical though brilliant exploitation of "values voters" by the national Republican Party, and also due to the dominance of our national political institutions by evangelical Southern "social conservatives".

They were able to get away with lots of mischief because Americans, understandably and correctly, were focused on anti-terrorism and foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11. It was only a matter of time before these True Believers pushed the envelope a little too far. This case was where everyone got reminded of exactly how odious they are.

>As I've bopped around town today, I've made a point of asking

>people for their reaction. No one thinks prolonging Teri

>Schiavo's life with no hope of recovery is a good idea.

>Everyone is sad that someone is dying. But, NO ONE wants the

>government messing around any more in their private life than

>they already do.

To the contrary, I know lots of people who think that the original Florida court made a questionable decision. I'm one of those people. For lots of reasons, I have serious suspicions about the veracity of Michael Schiavo's claim (made for the first time 7 years after she suffered her brain damage) that his wife expressed a desire to die.

But REGARDLESS of how one feels about the equities of this specific case, a consensus has emerged that these issues are, in the first instance, for families, and if there's a dispute, for the state courts. The LAST group that should be sticking their nose in these decisions is the Congress or the President.

And it's clear to most people that the pigs in Congress never cared an iota for Terry Schiavo - they thought they were riding a wave of public opinion and were using her dying body to promote a hidden agenda. How sweet to see it backfire on them.

Most Americans - instinctively - don't want the government or anyone else trying to control their private lives. The country was founded by free spirts who wanted, above all, to be left alone and unrestrained to pursue their own conception of happiness. That spirit, though diluted, still strongly lingers, and it's about to be re-awakened by those who seek to deprive individuals of the freedom to make their most intimate and personal choices without governmental interference.

>I share that sentiment. Hopefully, this lunacy will serve as

>the wakeup call we need to start turning the tide on the

>rising Big Brother trend. The Schiavo situation seems to have

>shaken up a quite a few Republicans.

Yup. The discontent with religious conservatives, and a firm unwillingness to tolerate these transgressions any longer, is quite evident among many, many Republicans who were previously willing to overlook the conduct of this faction.

>Just a couple of weeks ago, I don't even remember why now, I

>commented to someone that I hoped the "weirdness" was reaching

>a peak and would soon start decreasing. Wow, who expected

>this? Just makes you wonder if any further shoes are about to

>drop?

One thing you can be sure of - this ain't the end of this dispute - I think it's just the beginning. The religious conservatives saw 2004 as their coronation - the acquisition of total power they have been waiting for.

They don't intend to go quietly, and if anything, the death of Terry Schiavo will make them think that their pious mission is even more urgent than ever and that even more extreme means (including lawlessness) are justified to combat the godless, wicked heathens in the media, the judiciary and elsewhere. This loss will only spur them to even lower and more aggressive depths, fuelling this conflict even more.

>Agreed. At first, I thought this case was just the latest

>installment of trash TV - a perverse, melodramatic reality

>show masquerading as news. But this drama quickly transformed

>into a proxy for real, fundamental political and social

>conflicts that Americans had to have out sooner or later.

While I still find the Schiavo situation sad on several levels, I'm for anything that gets the country feeling more united again. While I'm not just that old, it wasn't all that long ago that you'd see groups of politicians stand up and say things like "This isn't quite the bill we wanted, but bipartisanship prevailed and we are united behind this [whatever] that is good for the nation as a whole". I believe I'd give up one of my less important internal organs to see that again on a regular basis.

>It wasn't that long ago when people like Pat Robertson and

>Jerry Falwell were marginalized, freakish cartoons. But their

>views - and the pious conviction with which they hold them -

>have become mainstream, due largely to the quite cynical

>though brilliant exploitation of "values voters" by the

>national Republican Party, and also due to the dominance of

>our national political institutions by evangelical Southern

>"social conservatives".

Are they really mainstream or do they just talk louder than everyone else? An awful lot of deeply religious people turn up their noses at those two in particular. Have been in Kansas quite a lot lately. While there, I regularly see the associate pastor of my mom's church. He is a decent guy, and he just cringes at the mention of either. Not all that familiar with the church any more. Haven't gone there myself in years.

>They were able to get away with lots of mischief because

>Americans, understandably and correctly, were focused on

>anti-terrorism and foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11.

>It was only a matter of time before these True Believers

>pushed the envelope a little too far. This case was where

>everyone got reminded of exactly how odious they are.

Let's just hope this doesn't fade away and die off. (No pun intended.) The nation needs to get shaken out of its collective complacency on politics. That said, I really don't want to just go back to business as usual.

>To the contrary, I know lots of people who think that the

>original Florida court made a questionable decision. I'm one

>of those people. For lots of reasons, I have serious

>suspicions about the veracity of Michael Schiavo's claim (made

>for the first time 7 years after she suffered her brain

>damage) that his wife expressed a desire to die.

Actually, left one little passage out. When I said "No one thinks" what I meant was, no one I talked to yesterday and today about this thinks. To much typing. And, any time a court makes a decision, there will be those questioning it. I really don't know enough about the facts prior to now to comment, so I'll refrain from doing so. From what I've read, I'm inclined to applaud Michael Schiavo for taking what appears to be the high road instead of the easy road. Agree or disagree, it would have been so much easier for him to just sign custody of his wife over to her parents.

We know as much truth as we'll ever know in this case, and, sadly, it isn't really enough. Meanwhile, I just made an appointment with the trust lawyer to make sure my living will, advance declaration and so on are 100% up to date. Once I get copies, I'm going to make sure my doctor and a few others hear my intentions from me, verbally, backed up by a copy of supporting documents. While I don't mind being in the papers, I really don't want to be in the papers as a vegetable.

>But REGARDLESS of how one feels about the equities of this

>specific case, a consensus has emerged that these issues are,

>in the first instance, for families, and if there's a dispute,

>for the state courts. The LAST group that should be sticking

>their nose in these decisions is the Congress or the

>President.

Precisely! That's exactly the sentiment I was referring to earlier. There is much discussion about the fine points, but, no one wants the US Congress, the President or anyone in Washington, DC interfering in their daily life. Thank heaven we as a nation remain dubious and skeptical of anything coming from Washington!

>And it's clear to most people that the pigs in Congress never

>cared an iota for Terry Schiavo - they thought they were

>riding a wave of public opinion and were using her dying body

>to promote a hidden agenda. How sweet to see it backfire on

>them.

Indeed. That has been rather pleasant to watch. My own Congresscritter, JD Hayworth, canceled a whole series of meetings around town over the break. Hopefully, this was the cause and he doesn't want to face his constituents.

>Yup. The discontent with religious conservatives, and a firm

>unwillingness to tolerate these transgressions any longer, is

>quite evident among many, many Republicans who were previously

>willing to overlook the conduct of this faction.

In the past, I sensed a certain amount of "what harm can they do" followed by some alarm. Now, I hope this highly motivated call to action continues until election day 2006. There is a lot of hard work to do between now and then.

>One thing you can be sure of - this ain't the end of this

>dispute - I think it's just the beginning. The religious

>conservatives saw 2004 as their coronation - the acquisition

>of total power they have been waiting for.

Total power must be wielded with total wisdom in order to be retained. Taking on the Schiavo case was not a good test case, for a lot of reasons.

>They don't intend to go quietly, and if anything, the death of

>Terry Schiavo will make them think that their pious mission is

>even more urgent than ever and that even more extreme means

>(including lawlessness) are justified to combat the godless,

>wicked heathens in the media, the judiciary and elsewhere.

>This loss will only spur them to even lower and more

>aggressive depths, fuelling this conflict even more.

By loosing here, they've shown they can be beaten. They've shown themselves to be bullies. I think a lot of the negative aspects of the evangelical right have been shown for exactly what they are. They don't really care about any one or any thing except their agenda.

Did you see that thread about "Finding Jesus at the Cracker Barrel"? That is worth a read. The root post has a pretty good history of the roots of this evangelical fervor we're all now enjoying. I'm feeling a bit of cautious optimism that the Republic will be just fine. Not that the next few years will be easy. But,

While I think they'll likely try endless shenanigans, I also think that another loss or two will take the wind out of their sails pretty well. Plus, I also think that after this, the coalition of power in the Republican party will show signs of strain. Once Delay is seriously challenged, and looses a couple more rounds, voices of moderation will be heard more loudly on the Republican side.

The lead-up to the 2006 election will be a most interesting period of time.

--EBG

Well said Dougie! This isn't over yet, and I have Republican friends that are starting to ask questions over this. I can only imagine that Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave...

>Well said Dougie! This isn't over yet, and I have Republican

>friends that are starting to ask questions over this. I can

>only imagine that Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his

>grave...

Actually, I think Barry has been spinning for a while, and perhaps the spinning today is at a decreasing rate. I detect some sanity returning to our Republic. People have united around this issue in rather remarkable ways. I'm happy to see it.

--EBG

>To the contrary, I know lots of people who think that the

>original Florida court made a questionable decision. I'm one

>of those people. For lots of reasons, I have serious

>suspicions about the veracity of Michael Schiavo's claim (made

>for the first time 7 years after she suffered her brain

>damage) that his wife expressed a desire to die.

Doug, I can understand where you might be suspicious, but look at it this way: Even if your spouse had expressed a desire to die rather than live as a vegetable, wouldn't you want to make every effort to help her recover? Perhaps it took 7 years for Michael to realize that there was no hope for Terry's recovery. It was then he decide to honor his wife's wishes, because she would never be anything other than what she is now.

>And it's clear to most people that the pigs in Congress never

>cared an iota for Terry Schiavo - they thought they were

>riding a wave of public opinion and were using her dying body

>to promote a hidden agenda. How sweet to see it backfire on

>them.

You tempt me with that word, Doug, but i promised myself not to use it any more in this forum.

I don't see evil intent on either side of this case, as it relates to Michael and the Schindlers. But I do see it in the politicians who are using this woman for their own gain.

>Doug, I can understand where you might be suspicious, but look

>at it this way: Even if your spouse had expressed a desire to

>die rather than live as a vegetable, wouldn't you want to make

>every effort to help her recover? Perhaps it took 7 years for

>Michael to realize that there was no hope for Terry's

>recovery. It was then he decide to honor his wife's wishes,

>because she would never be anything other than what she is

>now.

I recognize that it's possible that what you say is true and that Michael Schiavo is acting with the best of motives. But it's also quite possible that he's not.

People lie in litigation all the time. Since none of us was in the courtroom to hear the testimony, it's impossible for any of us to make dependable assessments about the credibility of any of the testimony.

But, it's clear that Michael Schiavo did have lots of motives to lie about what his wife wanted, so I don't see how anyone can be so sure that he's not lying.

For one thing, when he suddenly "revealed" for the first time that she supposedly wanted to die, she had been awarded $700,000 which he stood to inherit if she died. If she lived, all that money would be gone paying for her care.

Also, by the time he first started claiming that she wanted to die, he had met his new girlfriend and began having a family. It's not hard to imagine him wanting her to die in that case.

I can certainly understand that a husband would not want to accept that his brain damaged wife, especially one so young, would never recover. But even if he held out hope, you would still except him to say something like: "Terri said she didn't want to be kept alive artificially if there were no hope of recovery, but I'm not yet convinced that that's the case."

It's extremely odd that it wasn't until 7 years later, once she had all that money and he had the new girlfriend, did he suddenly claim that she wanted to die.

Moreover, EVEN IF he's telling the whole truth, I'm still not convinced that kind of off-the-cuff, informal comment should be binding if it's not in writing. It's easy to say that sort of thing when you're 25 years old and have just seen a movie; to me, it's only meaningful if someone means it enough to put it in writing.

Having said all of that, I'm not crticizing Michael Schiavo for anything he did with having the new girlfriend and kids, nor am I saying that I think he's lying. I just think that any reasonable person would have to entertain some serious doubts about whether he's telling the truth.

>I don't see evil intent on either side of this case, as it

>relates to Michael and the Schindlers. But I do see it in the

>politicians who are using this woman for their own gain.

I agree, and I've outlined the dangers I think exist from the religious conservatives.

But I think there's a danger on the other side, too. In places where euthenasia is now common, there begins to be a pressure on sick people, especially old sick people, to "just go and die already."

You can see posts from people like Taylor and Zipper-whatever saying things like "it's selfish for someone to want to live in this situation" or "it's totally stupid not to accept that the person should be dead."

If we start accepting the premise that some human life is not worth living and can be justifiably snuffed out, it's not to hard to imagine that turning into the notion that it SHOULD be snuffed out, and once we accept THAT notion - that some human life is so worthless that it SHOULD be snuffed out - all sorts of very serious mischief can occur.

That danger deserves as much attention as the dangers posed by the Religious Right.

>But I think there's a danger on the other side, too. In

>places where euthenasia is now common, there begins to be a

>pressure on sick people, especially old sick people, to "just

>go and die already."

In the US, currently, I think we maintain a good balance between the various interests if and only if someone has a written living will and an advance directive. (Have just made an appointment with the lawyer to revisit and update my own.) From personal experience, I can tell you that hospice care provided to the dying in this country is quite good. My mom is under hospice care currently, and doesn't have a lot of time left. The hospice people and the people at the nursing home have clear instructions on what to do when the time comes. There will be no heroics, no scenes from "ER" and no attempts to prolong a fading life.

Perhaps that's the equally barbaric part of the Schiavo mess? When your time comes, there is a lot to be said for dying with as much dignity as can be managed. Modern ERs and ICUs are not designed with much human dignity in mind. When my time comes, I'd like to die with as little fanfare as possible. That would be consistent with how I've lived my life.

Our family has sad, recent experience with these types of decisions. An older relative came home from some volunteer work one day, laid down to take a nap, and left home four hours later feet-first on an ambulance stretcher. Some combination of the flu and pneumonia. He rallied in the hospital and then slipped in to brain death due to somewhat unclear causes. He was clearly brain dead though. He was also in his 90s, frail and in failing health. After several days in the ICU, the doctors called us all together on a Friday and said let's watch this over the weekend, and on Monday, decisions need to be made.

When Monday came, there was no change and no improvement. (Also no living will.) Several of us watched as the neurologist did an exam, and there was just no life left in this man. We had a little meeting with the doctors, who said that under hospital policy, we had two choices. We could either put our relative in a long term intensive care situation, or wean him from the respirator and see if would breath on his own. The doctors said there was no chance of the latter, but it was the hospital's offer of a way out. We talked about the options, saw test results and so on. We took the respirator shutdown. We all said our goodbyes, then remained in the room. It was all over in just a few minutes. This relative loved life, and was quite the colorful, larger than life character. The man I knew was not there in that hospital ICU, just a shell, being kept alive by machines. We had a great funeral, a grand send-off, and a little special gathering for a few close friends by a bench at the golf course where he stopped to rest up for a moment. (Golfing in your 90s is a sign of a life well lived.) He would have loved it. Much better than anything involving machines.

>If we start accepting the premise that some human life is not

>worth living and can be justifiably snuffed out, it's not to

>hard to imagine that turning into the notion that it SHOULD be

>snuffed out, and once we accept THAT notion - that some human

>life is so worthless that it SHOULD be snuffed out - all sorts

>of very serious mischief can occur.

Especially, these days, in the US, with all this rapid growth of all things in officialdom. The last thing I want is some insurance guy or case worker or other party not representing my interests standing there saying time to go, bye bye. While our society isn't the best right now, human life is special. The spark of life is strong in all of us.

If you can't make a decision on your own, you owe it to those around you to leave written instructions.

>That danger deserves as much attention as the dangers posed by

>the Religious Right.

Perhaps even more.

--EBG

I agree with the notion of having a living will (which I have) to spell out the type of medical intervention you would want for yourself in the event you are unable to give directions to medical personnel. In the one I signed there were various scenarios where I had to indicate my personal wishes for the kind of treatment (or non-treatment) I wanted. When I prepared this document I was mindful of the experience my father had had several years earlier which demonstrates that things sometimes still don't go according to plan.

In his case he had had a serious heart attack in 1994 but one in which his heart muscle had not been too damaged as a result of timely medical intervention. However the doctors told him the next heart attack, if he were to have one, might have more serious consequences such as being left totally incapacitated. He took steps after that advice to change his living will and added the instruction of DNR-do not resuscitate- in the event of cardiac arrest.

Two years later he had another heart attack and was taken to the hospital. In the emergency ward, he went into cardiac arrest after a clot busting drug had been administered. My stepmother, who was never very good in a medical emergency (she literally froze) failed to advise the doctors about Dad's DNR request, and they went ahead and revived him. He was amazed when he regained consciousness at what had happened. BUT, with time he made a good recovery, and he went on to live another seven happy years in pretty fair health (even outliving his second wife by 3 years).

We sometimes talked about his experience with DNR and he would just shrug and give a wry laugh. "That's life!" he would say.

>So, I took the coward's way out and am current

>registered as an independent.

I'm curious about why you think that choosing neither party, when neither offers anything to you, is cowardly. What other choice is there? Holding your nose while registering?

>There will be no heroics, no scenes from "ER" and no

>attempts to prolong a fading life.

I don't mean to hijack anything, and perhaps there's a better place for this, but I have to weigh in. I DO want the heroics; I want the ER doctor to leap on the table, slice my chest open, break through my sternum, and manually massage a beat for my heart. Why? It might work. I'm guessing that your mother is at least 40 years my senior, though. I'm also not facing a persistent vegetative state. Perhaps those are very important differences?

>While

>our society isn't the best right now, human life is special.

>The spark of life is strong in all of us.

So maybe it isn't so selfish to say "I don't want to die"?

Luv2play, that's exactly the sort of scenario I fear. Thanks for the validation. I'm sure it wasn't intentional. ;-)

At the end of the day, it's unfortunate that Terri Schiavo's mangled body had to serve as the symbol for this cause. As a woman with an eating disorder, clearly very concerned with appearance, I imagine that she'd be the last one to volunteer for this exposure. The parents and husband should have protected her more.

Anyone that I've visited in the hospital has felt less than attractive. I'm sure than none of us would want to be plastered on CNN 24/7 in her state. I don't even dump the garbage before fixing my hair.

>I don't mean to hijack anything, and perhaps there's a better

>place for this, but I have to weigh in. I DO want the

>heroics; I want the ER doctor to leap on the table, slice my

>chest open, break through my sternum, and manually massage a

>beat for my heart. Why? It might work. I'm guessing that

>your mother is at least 40 years my senior, though. I'm also

>not facing a persistent vegetative state. Perhaps those are

>very important differences?

The phrase you are looking for is "quality of life". At best, my mom's quality of life is bleak. I'm guessing my mom is 50+ and possibly 60+ years ahead of you. She has Alzheimers along with several other serious health problems. She is in almost unbearable pain. (The pain medication bill alone is almost $1,000. a month.) Being young, were you to be injured, the ER doctor might indeed revive you with good prospects for recovery with an acceptable quality of life. My mom's time to just fade away is upon us. While sad, and knowing she'll be missed, keeping her alive past her time is not going to lead to a better outcome. That's the difference.

>>The spark of life is strong in all of us.

>

>So maybe it isn't so selfish to say "I don't want to die"?

Few do. Were your health to worsen, you might have a different outlook. In the mean time, live life with all the enthusiasm you can muster!

--EBG

I don't even dump the

>garbage before fixing my hair.

you dump you own garbage...:+

> I don't even dump the

>>garbage before fixing my hair.

>

>

>you dump you own garbage...:+

Straight down the chute ... two doors down ... I'm on the 19th floor.

Interestingly, about 2 weeks ago I opened the door, looked to make sure nobody was in the hall, and ran out to dump the garbage with no shoes on, and looking like a hobo. Wind from the patio forced the door shut and I was locked out. I had to go to the doorman to have my door opened (5 p.m. no less) with a master key. God only knows what he (and others in the lobby) thought about my appearance .... mental patient perhaps?