American politics

Democracy in America

The Republican nomination

Red-meat delivery

Jan 19th 2012, 14:48 by J.F. | GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA

A MAN with my cholesterol levels has no business being fed as much pure red meat as was offered at last night's campaign event. Devoted to abortion and held by Personhood USA, about whom we've written before, the forum drew Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul to a rather dreary Hilton on the outskirts of Greenville (Mr Paul appeared via satellite from Washington, DC, having briefly stepped off the campaign trail to vote against a debt-ceiling increase) to answer a penetrating set of questions. Is life important? It is. Is there anything more important than life? There is not. Is abortion wrong? It is. When does life begin? At the moment of conception. So far, so unsurprising. The gems were further down in the questioning line.

Rick Perry went first. He was loose, funny and relaxed as only a man about to drop out of the presidential race could be. He genially floundered his way through some substantive questions about constitutional law, and declared his opposition to abortion so strong that he would bring government to a halt rather than sign any bill that included abortion-related funding. He sparked to life only when he started talking about Barack Obama ("this administration is at war with religion") and Mitt Romney. The latter's relatively recent discovery that he was in fact opposed to abortion rights was, Mr Perry charged, "a decision [he] made for political convenience, not an issue of the heart."

Mr Perry's problem has always been the culture-warrior's problem: only opposition moves him. He can rile a crowd as well as—and in the same way as—Pat Buchanan. Let a thousand pitchforks gleam! But then what? Ask Ron Paul why he wants to be president and he’ll bang on about fractional banking and the Fed and sound money and raw milk until he dislocates his shoulders from excessive twitching. Ask Newt the same thing and he’ll tell you why we’re at the most perilous point in human history and we need to fundamentally transform the way we breathe air and eat food and he’s the only American politician to ever truly understand human civilisation and by the way can he tell you about his plan to send poor children to mine tungsten on the moons of Neptune. Ask Mr Perry why he wanted to be president and all he could tell you is how awful the other guys are. That was necessary but insufficient. The crowd knew it, and apparently he does too now.

Still, he set in motion a contest—which candidate is most vehemently opposed to abortion rights, and who will do the most to curtail them—that the next three contestants took up with zeal. Newt Gingrich came out in full snarl, decrying "a secular judiciary that seeks to impose elite values on a country that deeply dislikes it." He offered a novel solution to this problem—one that went beyond his call for "aggressive, articulate leadership", a self-advertisement if ever there was one. If a court makes "a fundamentally wrong decision", the president can ignore it and Congress can abolish it. Mr Gingrich brushed off a panelist's suggestion this simply switched "tyranny by five justices for tyranny from one executive." If Congress sides with the Supreme Court against the president, it can vote to defund the presidency. If Congress supports the president, it can abolish the judiciary. "This is not something you would do capriciously," Mr Gingrich cautioned, in perhaps his first-ever understatement. "But I fully expect that as president there will be several occasions when we would collide." Phew! A Gingrich administration would see frequent rather than perpetual inter-governmental chaos. I'm relieved.

Rick Santorum also promised to "fight the courts". The president and every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the constitution; "we have just as much say as they do." One wonders what their response would be if Mr Obama decided he was going to unilaterally ignore the Citizens United decision. Or imagine he had a Democratic majority in Congress and they passed legislation outlawing corporate political contributions. That certainly is in line with the Gingrich-Santorum view of a weak and dismissible judiciary. Still, Mr Santorum's main target was not law but science. "Science", he declared in answer to a question about experimental cloning, "is not an ethics- or moral-free zone. It is something society has every right—in fact, an obligation—to curb." 

The crowd loved these attacks (though the night's biggest cheers went to Ron Paul's giant televised head), and there's nothing wrong with a little pre-primary pander. But what would America's schools look like under a president contemptuous of science and education? And if America's political system is fractious and prone to gridlock now, what will it look like when the president starts ignoring and undermining the courts? The best one can say about such full-on attacks on law and science is to hope the candidates are making them in bad faith.

(Photo credit: Reuters)

INTERACTIVE: Explore our map and guide to the race for the Republican candidacy

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

Beth A.

They'd look about like they did under the last couple Republican presidents contemptuous of science and education: segregated, with those not populated by the children of the rich destitute, and all schools with too few teachers because the working conditions aren't something anyone would willingly submit to. Don't worry, though, they'll blame the teacher's unions.

Santorum's wife would be dead or in jail if a fetus was a person. Romney used to say he supported abortion because his aunt did die from a botched illegal abortion. It takes cruel men to care more about becoming president than about the lives of the women they claim to love.

Konker

Haven't these debates about abortion been done yet? Secular democracies in the West decided these issues half a century ago. Why won't these supernaturalists move on!

Also, since education and science underpins development in China and much of Asia and is a priority in Europe, would these medievalists see America left behind along with the more extremist muslims in the middle East?

The reason they don't like education and science is because it creates people like J.F. who is prepared to highlight the nonsense that is spoken by these people. They want to take the world back to an unenlightened state. What can be done?

CJFSA in reply to Konker

Seriously, do you really care about what they do or say, as it is obvious that the rest of the world cares less and less each day about the USA. The display of lunacy is driving most people away. Most front pages around the world showed R. Perry standing on a podium with cowboy boots prominently displayed on a table while he was pointing a pistol in the air, and the headings read huge public mass gathering meant to invoke god's mercy at the USA. The world knows about the problems in the USA, and understands that they are just taunting their self righteous born again christian arrogance right in our face. I find that we have seen enough, and that it is time for us to move on to bigger and better things. As obviously, if they can't stop from flashing their non sense ideological rhetoric in our face, we can look the other way to ignore them. The USA brand name is now tarnished, and this for a long while.

MaximW

I agree also with the sentiments of many of the other readers; that much of the rhetoric of the Republican frontrunners would seem to threaten a demi-dictator president intent on imposing their own radical views and ideologies on the entire nation. I can only hope that this "who can shout the loudest" contest stops, and that we begin to see a campaign that presents more realistic issues and plans.

MaximW

I have to congratulate the author on producing such fantastically scathing sarcasm:

"Ask Newt the same thing and he’ll tell you why we’re at the most perilous point in human history and we need to fundamentally transform the way we breathe air and eat food and he’s the only American politician to ever truly understand human civilisation and by the way can he tell you about his plan to send poor children to mine tungsten on the moons of Neptune."

Truly enjoyed.

silencedogood20

As a lawyer, it is a pet peeve of mine when the "conventional wisdom" of the constitution gets bandied about in discussion boards on political issues. Pundits on the left and right tend to get things wrong, but hey, the President can't seem to follow the constitution these days so how can I blame regular people. A few quick facts on two of the most controversial issues:

1) Abortion is not constitutional--Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of the "right to privacy" which is not in the constitution and rests on constitutionally shaky grounds. It also ignores the right of the child to not to be deprived of its "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" without due process. The real debate is when life begins, but even if you take the most sustainable liberal position late term (i.e. partial birth) abortions are unconstitutional and should be illegal. The proper debate between right and left is where the dividing line is (i.e. no abortions whatsoever or only before a certain date). This is not something the courts are suited for and should be decided by the legislature and informed by the ever advancing medical science.

2) Civil unions between homosexuals is entirely constitutional. (Marriage is a religious issue). Getting married at the court house is a civil contract between two consenting adults. Only those who are legal age of majority (i.e. adults) may enter into valid contracts, thus answering the bogus argument of if gays can marry then people can marry a horse, child, etc. Gays are entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment. Therefore they are entitled to enter into civil unions. This doesn't necessarily convey the right to marry in a church (competing 1st amendment rights) or adopt but it would entitle them to protections under probate law, medical access, etc, etc.

3) The judicial branch is not supreme. It is co-equal. Only the supreme court is established under the constitution and the concept of judicial review was a power grab by the first Chief Justice John Marshall, which has been long accepted, in Marbury v. Madison. The Congress is entitled to change the court system below the S.C. level as it sees fit. It doesn't in practice because of the effort involved and the many problems that would arise from tampering, but if the system is broken (i.e. courts not following the law--subject for debate) Congress may reinvent the wheel.

Falling Rock in reply to silencedogood20

I dispute nothing else that you say other than as a non-lawyer, I want to know how your fruitless search of an enumeration for a "right to privacy" does not violate the 9th amendments protection on non-enumerated rights.

Also, how can I be safe in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures if I don't have a right to privacy.

Beth A. in reply to silencedogood20

The only reason abortion was decided on the right to privacy was because they didn't want to have to consider the 13th amendments prohibition of involuntary servitude.
Any attempt to give the government control over a woman's body and claim that a potential human has a greater claim to it than the woman herself is based on one of three "moral" foundations:
1) Men are afraid that their line will end if they are not able to reproduce without the willing assistance of a woman
2) Women aren't as valuable as the potential boy-children they carry
3) Pregnant women are sluts who deserve to be punished for having sex by being forced to bear their children to term

Any other moral foundation would also require the government to compel healthy adults to donate kidneys.

mahagwa

this is really scary...
the us constitution calls for an independent JUDICIARY, EXECUTIVE, and LEGISLATIVE.. seperate but equal. this is intended to provide checks and balances.
the judiciary INTERPRETS the constitution. it is the final arbiter and matters relating to constitutionality.
for these morons to say they would undermine (worse yet IGNORE) the supreme court is essentially declaring their intent to impose a dictatorship on the country. what next, that they would ignore laws passed by congress, or circumvent congress in their spending directives?
bush jnr ursurped a lot of power from congress and placed it in the hands of the executive. states rights and citizens rights have already been SIGNIFICANTLY eroded.
people should be very, very afraid of what these retards are spweing out of their mouth.

shibakoen

Where do these audiences come from? Do party strategists pay for these people to come or give them special access to the politicians? My mind immediately thinks of pro-regime demonstrations in Syria and Iran. Are these people just stooges meant to rally hatred and vilify the enemy (Democrats, not Iran or "evil" as some of you may be thinking).

hourcadette

Religious zealots are increasing in power and popularity the world over... witness such disparate groups as the ones in Israel, in the Moslem world (especially in those countries associated with the Arab Spring), and the Tea Party in the USA. It is not a localized phenomenon.

Capn Fowl

Many, many thanks, notably for the "moons of Neptune" line - we laughed until we cried. Such is the essence of great journalism!

TS2912

Now that Newt is the only viable 'conservative' candidate, he should explain why he considers 'gay marriage' bad while advocating 'open marriage' (as per Marianne Gingrich on ABC News’s “Nightline”)

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/newt-gingrich...

Generic Dave

I'm no expert in Constitutional law (especially not US constitutional law) but as far as I am aware Judicial oversight of Congress and the Executive Branch are enshrined in the US Constitution.

For a group of men who profess love of the Constitution they don't seem to be aware of the powers it invests nor of where they are invested.

Not a direct mention no. But as I read it, any cases which come before it in law or equity, under the Constitution... etc...

So if someone brings a case about the constitutionality of a law, the courts have ultimate say over it. I think that enshrines oversight fairly well, even if it makes no direct mention of it.

fleetian in reply to Generic Dave

I think they want a political system with an "equality of results". As the American society evolves, they feel that they should have the right to alter the political system to perpetually reserve pride of place for white, conservative, Christian families.

21st century Publius

The popularity of rejecting science in America is scary. Rejection of new ideas in favor of religious dogma was the main reason Islam and China fell behind Europe between 1500-1800. Instead of falling on our swords we are falling on our crosses.

So is constantly being told your God doesn't exist. Or that there is no fundamental basis for morality and it sure as heck can't come from some "book". Or in being told that the beliefs that have been drilled into you since you were a kid - and that you rely on when times are tough - is dogma and obsolete.

Personally, I just never agree with anyone on matters of spirituality and philosophy - and often not with myself on different days of the week - so I'll spare you all this week's "truth".

Michel Lillu

I am an European and contrary to popular American believes, not all of us are crazed left wing socialists, thank you. But still I cannot believe the gibberish republican candidates let lose, just to the try to get get a job, they are - as proved by their nonsensical dribble - intellectually unable to perform, just as their party member, who was the lousiest President of the US in the last 100 years.

I cannot imagine a people, again falling for this horse..., but a people gets the government it deserves .... and the american people and the people of this world deserve better.

Michel Lillu - The Netherlands

DJ Glasnost

I'm sure Anita Perry is pleased that her husband won't use his admiration for her as a shield to protect him from unexpected questions and extemporaneous thought (At least on a national stage).

Orwelle

I really couldn't care less about abortion.

First, the world has enough people in it already.

Second, abortion is by no means the most pressing problem facing America. Scrutinising candidates on this issue (at the expense of their positions on other issues, effectively leaving them to chance) will produce candidates who are hopelessly ill-equipped to tackle the real issues.

Third, anti-abortionists also present a false choice. The choice is not between a world with abortions, and a world without. It is a choice between a world with safe, clean, legal abortion, and a world with dangerous, dirty, illegal abortions -- which will cause a great deal more net suffering to all those involved. Banning abortion will not stop people getting abortions -- ever heard of Prohibition? Or the 'war on drugs'?

Anti-abortion activists need to get a life.

Anakha82 in reply to Orwelle

Saying that abortion should be irrelevant is utterly wrong. The first purpose of a state is to protect the inherent rights of its people. This is an absolute obligation that overrides any other duties or goals that a government may have.

If you believe that the government currently allows for abortions after the fetus has achieved personhood, it is nothing less than routine state-sanctioned murder. This should rightly be a grave concern to anyone.

If you believe that the government currently prohibits abortions before the fetus has achieved personhood, it is nothing less than routine infringement of rightful liberty by the state. This should rightly be a grave concern to anyone.

Either way, legitimate questions as to whether or not the state is adequately protecting the inherent rights of its people are never unimportant.

MaximW in reply to Orwelle

Orwelle: Perfectly said. If the politicians have the country on an even keel with regard to the economy, education, public health, international relations, and infrastructure, then, and only then, do I think that they can appropriately and responsibly bring more subjective and more ideological issues to the forefront. This isn't a question of who is right and who is wrong, but instead, of who has the most sensible priorities.

Human Child in reply to Orwelle

I think I agree. Why is it that some issues that exercise people to such an extent in the USA don't even register with voters in almost any other country?

Abortion? Flag burning? Guns!!! Really?

To me, these are not just non-binary issues; they're not even issues in the first place. I really, really don't care about them. (OK I care a little bit: I don't like being shot at, I don't like to hear of young girls having dodgy operations in back alleys etc. but they really don't strike me as a citizen's primary concern.)

(I will concede that many other countries have their own bizarre obsessions: genetically modified crops in most of Europe, displaying religious symbols in France, a train station in Germany... but these don't have the defining power over politics and political speech that abortion has in the US)

Public Dude

If any of these jokers became Prseident and stuck to their crazy ideas, America will go further down in terms of educational standing in the world. "Curb science"? "Ignore the Constitution"?

The US will soon become a banana republic. It's funny that the same fools that blame Obama and cry out loud that his Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional talk about ignoring the Constitution themselves! Do they even listen to themselves?

Economist, please list good countries one could emigrate to.

RestrainedRadical

This is the problem with much of the secular left. They think science and morality are at odds. According to them, if you're pro-life or oppose human cloning, you're anti-science. What would such a presidency look like? Like the presidencies of Reagan or Carter.

"But Creationism is anti-science!" I agree and so does Rick Santorum. No Republican presidential candidate wants to teach Creationism.

RestrainedRadical in reply to Io Triomphe

Santorum is a victim of a popular narrative that he's a fundamentalist Christian fascist. It's partially his own fault. He's promoted the view in order to get the evangelical vote. But if you listen to his unfiltered policy positions, he's actually the most moderate Republican presidential candidate after Huntsman. About 10 years ago, Santorum supported allowing schools to teach "Intelligent Design." He's since come out in opposition. Forget Creationism, he doesn't even want "Intelligent Design" taught. And it's not just idle words. He resigned from the board of the Thomas More Law Center because they were defending a school district's teaching of ID.

Io Triomphe in reply to RestrainedRadical

I stand corrected, Santorum didn't have a problem backpedaling from his position when it could have cost him an election. He retreated from supporting the teaching of intelligent design to supporting "teaching the controversy" as some like to say, which is well established code for teaching that evolution doesn't really happen.
He also said that science is something that society has an obligation to curb... this is ludicrous. An American presidential candidate wants to "curb" science.
As a scientist and part-time volunteer science educator, I can assure you that curbing science is the last thing this country needs. Fortunately most sane people realize that Santorum is a religious nut (or pretends to be one for the evangelical vote) and he has no chance of winning.

jouris in reply to RestrainedRadical

Amazingly enough, that's not the position of the left (secular or otherwise). Nor the position of the moderates.

Rather, their position is that fundamentalist religion (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever) is anti-science. Once you accept that most religions fundamental documents are replete with parables and analogies used for teaching, rather than intended to be taken literally, there is no reason not to embrace religion and science. But the fundamentalists insist to literalism, which is contrary to the scientific view that ideas about how the universe works should be confirmed by testing.

Gordon L in reply to RestrainedRadical

If it is "left wing" to take the position that religion has no role in the science class room then the whole world outside of Afghanistan, Pakistan and some of the loonier of the US states is "left wing". Not so.

For most of us what gets taught in the science classroom is and ought to be science. No one believes that science and morality are at odds any more than astronomy and biology are "at odds": they answer different questions.

People are not pro-choice because they believe that science trumps religion, but because they believe that women ought to have the final say on issues having to do with their body. Science has nothing to say about it. Science may inform the debate around human cloning (e.g. the increased risk of deformed babies) but again it won't settle it and no one thinks that it can.

Spectacularj1

I wish republicans considered the importance of life the next time they feel like starting another pointless war.

About Democracy in America

In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The worst yet
From Baobab - 15 mins ago
American genes, European culture?
From Democracy in America - 24 mins ago
Neighbourly advice
From Babbage - 56 mins ago
Shades of grey
From Prospero - 57 mins ago
The battle to keep the FAA running
From Gulliver - 1 hrs 3 mins ago
Hail to the dragon!
From Cassandra - 1 hrs 51 mins ago
Bring on the lawyers
From Baobab - 2 hrs 54 mins ago
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.

Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter

See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.