|
|
How far can the moral backlash go?
In exit polls during the US presidential election, the
biggest group (22%) said that they were influenced by ‘moral’ issues (80% of
Bush voters). At the same time, voters in eleven states overwhelmingly passed
constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. John Kerry’s chief pollster
consequently argued that ‘culture-based politics’ had replaced ‘class-based
politics’. CHRISTINE THOMAS looks at the role that ‘moral’ issues played and at
how far Bush could go in implementing the reactionary social agenda of the
Christian right.
THERE IS UNDOUBTEDLY a real fear now amongst women, gays,
lesbians and minorities in the US that a Bush second term will lead to a
stepping up of attacks on their rights. "I hope we all realise that, as of
November 2nd, gay rights are officially dead. And that from here on we are going
to be led even closer to the guillotine", wrote Garry Wills in the New York
Times. Such fears are not surprising given the comments of some newly elected
Republican senators. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, for example, advocates the death
penalty for doctors who perform abortions. Jim Demint, Republican senator for
South Carolina, wants a ban on gays and single mothers teaching in schools.
Although Bush won substantial votes from Catholics and
mainstream Protestants, right-wing evangelical Christians accounted for more
than a third of his extra votes this time. Karl Rove, Bush’s main political
adviser, calculated that around four million evangelical Christians failed to
vote for Bush in the 2000 presidential elections. If they could be mobilised in
these elections, he reasoned, they could help Bush secure the presidency.
The Christian right has its roots in the ‘culture wars’ that
developed in reaction to the social protest movements in the 1960s against the
Vietnam war and for civil rights for blacks, women and sexual minorities, which
led to a general ideological and cultural shift to the left in society.
Opposition was focused on issues such as gay rights, women’s rights, prayer in
schools and parental control of school textbooks and curriculum. Although the
conservative groups are not homogeneous, their general aim is to restore
traditional moral and Christian values to social policy. In particular, the
family is considered central to the health of society. Family breakdown – the
undermining of traditional male and female roles, and moral control over
children – is blamed for the ‘moral and social degeneration’ of society itself.
Strengthening the traditional family and the ‘God-given’ role of men and women
are therefore paramount.
Opposition to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Roe v Wade,
which stated that women had a constitutional right to abortion, became a
rallying and unifying issue for the Christian right. Their opposition to
abortion is not just based on the ‘right to life’. They view abortion as
encouraging promiscuity amongst women and therefore challenging traditional
gender roles.
During the 1970s, the Christian right became more
politically involved. At the end of the decade, Jerry Falwell formed the Moral
Majority and Pat Robertson’s failed presidential campaign in 1988 spawned the
Christian Coalition which was primarily orientated towards electoral politics.
At a 1990 convention in Washington, Robertson declared his aim was to elect a
pro-family Congress by 1994 and a pro-family president by 2000.
Concentrating their forces at a grassroots level, the
Christian right gradually ‘infiltrated’ the Republicans, working to influence
nominations and party platforms and get right-wing pro-family candidates
elected. In some areas they succeeded in taking control of the party at a local
level. Their impact on policies has varied from state to state, but they have
undoubtedly become a significant electoral factor within the Republican Party.
In these latest elections, the Republicans mobilised 1.2
million grassroots volunteers, many of whom were from the Christian right.
Around 45,000 evangelical churches were involved in Bush’s campaign, handing
over membership directories and using evangelical radio and TV stations – the
‘electronic church’ – to broadcast their message to millions of potential
voters. In eleven states, initiatives to ban same-sex marriages were placed on
the ballot to energise the Christian right vote. "That certainly galvanised the
church", said one activist in Ohio. "The fact that there was a presidential
election was just another factor. People would have gone to the polls to vote on
the marriage amendment whoever was on the ballot for president". (The Guardian,
5 November 2004)
There is no doubt that the Christian right view the 2004
elections as a turning point and feel emboldened to more vigorously pursue their
‘moral counter-revolution’; as far as they are concerned it is payback time.
"Make no mistake", wrote Richard Viguerie, a right-wing, direct-mailing
campaigner, in the New York Times. "Conservative Christians and ‘values voters’
won this election for George W Bush and Republicans in Congress. It is crucial
that the Republican leadership not forget this – as much as some will try". The
president of the American Family Association was even more forthright: "We are
going to hold their feet to the fire for the next few years". (Observer, 7
November)
Abortion rights
IN HIS FIRST term, Bush showed that he is prepared to use
Republican control of the presidency and Congress to promote conservative
‘moral’ values. One of his first acts was to reinstate the rule that overseas
organisations receiving US funds do not advocate or provide abortions, even
using their own money. Although often referred to as ‘symbolic’, this has
damaged the health and lives of many thousands of poor women internationally.
In the US, the Bush administration diverted $100 million
away from poverty programmes in order to use the welfare system to extol the
virtues of marriage. At the same time, the education department has promoted
abstinence in sex education. Over 100 such programmes exist in 25 states. But a
2004 report released by Democratic Representative, Henry Waxman, of the twelve
most widely used, federally funded projects, found the information they gave
"false, misleading and distorted". This included ‘information’ that HIV can be
contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy,
and a 43-day-old foetus is a conscious being. A Columbia University study
revealed that 88% of teenagers who took virginity pledges ended up having
premarital sex and that, when they did, they were less likely to use
contraception than other teenagers.
Abortion has in many ways been the touchtone for Christian
conservatives. The ultimate goal of many is for abortion to be made completely
illegal. From the moment that the Roe v Wade ruling was made, the
anti-abortionists mobilised against a woman’s right to choose. The first major
victory came in 1977 when the Democratic Party president, Jimmy Carter, signed
into law the Hyde amendment banning federal funding for abortions, except in
extreme cases. This effectively withdrew the right to abortion for poor women
who did not have health insurance and could not afford to pay to terminate an
unwanted pregnancy. Many working-class women found that a constitutional right
is meaningless if the resources do not exist on the ground to enforce that
right. In fact, only 13% of US counties now provide abortion services.
Tactics employed by the anti-abortionists have varied from
state to state, according to which party is in office at any particular time,
and how confident they feel of success. Extreme measures, carried out by
pro-life organisations like Operation Rescue in the 1990s, involving murdering
doctors who carried out abortions and blowing up abortion clinics, proved
counter-productive. They alienated public opinion, including many who considered
themselves ‘pro-life’. Most anti-abortion groups have since modified their
approach, concentrating instead on waging an ideological war aimed at creating a
climate which would be more conducive to further curtailments on abortion
rights.
In practice, the anti-abortionists’ ‘salami tactic’ of
whittling away abortion rights by stealth has had some effect. In the last seven
years, individual states have placed at least 300 restrictions on abortion,
including imposing waiting periods, limiting mobility between states in order to
secure an abortion, and implementing parental consent laws.
In November 2003, Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act, the first federal restriction on abortion for 30 years. It is not clear
exactly what the legislation will mean in practice as the wording is imprecise
and is currently under appeal in the courts. However, even the emotive name of
this act, which incorrectly refers to an abortion procedure carried out in the
second trimester, marks an ideological victory for the moral right. Encouraged
by this ‘victory’ and the election results, anti-abortionists have already
succeeded in inserting a clause into a spending bill in Congress, which would
allow healthcare companies, hospitals and insurance companies to not fund or
provide abortions, overriding state laws which require them to do so.
A raft of other anti-abortion measures is being drawn up.
Religious fundamentalists are also flexing their muscles in areas such as Dover,
Pennsylvania, determined that the creationist theory of ‘intelligent design’
becomes a compulsory part of the science curriculum. And, having failed by 19
votes to get the Senate to agree a federal amendment to the constitution banning
gay marriage, Bush will come under increasing pressure from the Christian right
to try again.
In particular, the conservative right will be looking to
Bush to tip the balance of forces in the Supreme Court in a right-wing,
anti-abortion direction. The nine Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
One, William Rehnquist, is seriously ill and others could retire soon. Judges
are nominated by the president but require Senate approval. Bush has declared
that his favourite justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the
most right-wing. They opposed a recent ruling to strike down anti-sodomy laws in
Texas, and Scalia warned of a homosexual agenda causing a wave of incest and
bestiality throughout America.
It is clear that the Democrats are preparing to give in to
Bush’s judicial nominations and, in a recent case, the Supreme Court upheld the
woman’s right to abortion by just one vote. There are serious concerns,
therefore, that a second term Bush presidency could see an all-out assault aimed
at overturning Roe v Wade. According to the Centre for Reproductive Rights, up
to 30 states are poised to make abortion illegal should that happen.
Shifting social attitudes
HOWEVER, SECURING LIMITED restrictions, at a state and even
federal level, which make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions is
very different from overturning Roe v Wade and criminalising all abortions. Any
attempt to do so could unleash a massive opposition movement.
At face value it can seem incredible that ‘moral’ issues
could be placed above the economy (20%), health care (8%), education (4%), or
terrorism (15%) and Iraq (15%) in influencing how people voted in the elections.
In the US, 36 million people live below the poverty line, a figure that
increased by 4.3 million under Bush. He is the first president since Herbert
Hoover in the 1930s to finish his first term with more jobs lost than when he
started. At the same time, a brutal war and occupation in Iraq has claimed the
lives of over 1,400 US troops. Yet, these were not necessarily separate and
distinct issues in the minds of voters. If you are living in what appears to be
an increasingly insecure world; if you fear losing your job, and with it health
care and possibly your home; if, at the same time, you are terrified of
terrorist attacks – a fear whipped up by politicians and the media – then, where
no alternative class programme or ideology is being put forward on a mass scale
which addresses the issues concerning you and your family, moral certainties can
appear attractive. Appeals to ‘good’ over ‘evil’, to the importance of
traditional values, to ‘the family’ and ‘faith,’ and opposition to anything
which appears to undermine these certainties, can gain an echo.
This is particularly the case in a country where religious
observance is relatively high compared to many European countries (although
there are regional differences, it being particularly concentrated in the
central states and the south). Nearly two thirds of those who voted for Bush and
41% who voted for Kerry go to church every week – compared with just 10% of
Labour and 13% of Tory voters in Britain – and 59% of Americans say that
religion plays a ‘very important’ role in their lives.
This does not mean, however, that everyone who cited ‘moral’
issues as most influential at the polls, including Bush voters, agreed with the
reactionary, social agenda of those on the Christian right who define
homosexuality as a sin and want to see abortion outlawed in all circumstances,
including after rape or when a woman’s health is in danger. Bush’s religious
support was much broader than just the socially conservative evangelical right,
with a majority of Catholics voting for him this time. And, ‘moral issues’ is a
very vague term which could mean different things to different people. Abortion,
for example, was not listed as a separate poll issue in these elections. It was,
however, in 1996 and 2000 when only 9% and 14% considered it important.
Interestingly, although the biggest group of electors mentioned moral values as
being the most important influence on the way they voted, proportionately, this
was less than in 1996 and 2000 when 40% and 35% said so.
There is no evidence to support the assertion of a swing to
the right in social attitudes over abortion or other ‘moral’ issues. In reality,
the so-called moral majority is a minority – 55% of the US population are
broadly in favour of abortion, 42% are opposed. This represents no change over
the last four years. A majority (60%) support either gay marriage or civil
unions and are opposed to changing the constitution to define marriage as being
between a man and a woman – which would effectively ban same-sex marriages. The
polls indicate, in fact, a society becoming more tolerant of gay rights, with
42% now saying that same-sex marriages should be legal compared to 27% in 1996.
This mirrors a shift in social attitudes that has occurred
in most advanced capitalist countries and is one which politicians have not been
able to ignore. When Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian candidate to become the
European Union justice commissioner, declared that homosexuality was a sin and
attacked single parents, the ensuing furore forced the withdrawal of his
candidacy. Even the Tories in Britain, who have formerly taken a right-wing
stance on ‘family values’, have recently adopted a more tolerant approach to
‘moral’ issues. A section of the party understands that to maintain a
reactionary attitude towards the rights of women, gays and lesbians, for
example, would be a barrier to breaking out of the party’s narrow social base
and attracting sufficient support to win a general election.
As has often been the case with regard to social issues,
political parties have responded to changes already underway in society. Canada,
the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised same-sex marriages and several other
countries have recognised civil partnerships. Elected following the Madrid
bombing, Spain’s prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, moved rapidly to
implement a radical social agenda, legalising gay marriage, introducing a law
against domestic violence, and reversing a ban on stem-cell research. These
policies reflect changing social attitudes in what was once considered a
conservative Catholic society and will be particularly welcomed by oppressed
groups in Spain. But they have also served as a useful distraction from PSOE’s
pro-capitalist policies which have nothing to offer working-class people.
Conservative family values which place women firmly in the
home no longer coincide with the needs of capitalism internationally. It is true
that the capitalists want to slash public spending in order to reduce their
share of taxation and boost profits, and that they therefore still rely on the
family, and women in particular, to pick up the slack by providing services for
free to ‘economically unproductive’ members of society. At the same time, they
want women in the workforce where they can exploit their labour. It is one of
the contradictions of capitalism that this places intolerable burdens on
families and personal relationships, leading to family breakdown. However, it is
not in capitalism’s overall interests to reverse the process of women’s
increasing economic participation in the workplace by pushing them back into the
home. And it is extremely unlikely that they would be successful in this, even
if they wanted to do so.
Nevertheless, the family is of continued ideological
importance for capitalism. There is no prospect of Tony Blair going into the
general election in Britain on a pro-life, anti-gay marriage platform as Bush
did. But he is preparing to emulate Bush by playing on people’s fears and
insecurities, particularly over crime, to win back the working-class support
which New Labour lost because of the war in Iraq and its pro-big business
policies on public services, etc. In a speech in July 2004, Blair blamed the
Sixties and ‘different lifestyles’ for crime and social breakdown. Parents are
made to feel totally responsible for juvenile crime and become a convenient
scapegoat for capitalism’s failures and inadequacies. Historically, capitalism
has relied on the family as a means of social control and continues to do so,
albeit with modifications.
The traditional bourgeois family ‘ideal’, comprising a
married male breadwinner with dependent female homemaker and children, has
gradually been broadened in response to social changes to incorporate women who
work outside the home. There is much more tolerance now of relationships which
do not fit this ideal – unmarried couples with children, lone parents and
same-sex relationships. However, because of the structural crisis of capitalism,
the family remains an important institution both economically and ideologically,
placing limits on how far capitalism can adapt and resulting in insoluble
contradictions.
This means that there is still a minority reservoir of
support for more backward ideas which the ruling class can draw on at a time of
crisis to sow divisions amongst the working class. It can also be exploited by
political parties, as with Bush and the Republicans, to win electoral support.
But it is a strategy which can backfire, threatening the interests of the
capitalists themselves.
Political backlash
IN APRIL 2004, one of the biggest marches in US history took
place in Washington DC against the piecemeal undermining of abortion rights
under Bush. Over one million people took to the streets, giving an indication of
what could happen on a much larger scale if the Supreme Court tried to strike
down a woman’s right to choose.
‘Moral’ issues can themselves trigger broader protests, as
happened in the ‘White March’ in Belgium in 1996 (see Socialism Today No.13).
The Belgian state’s handling of a paedophile ring became the catalyst for a mass
movement around which economic grievances, such as opposition to public-sector
cuts because of the Maastricht treaty, coalesced. But with no clear class lead
given to the movement, capitalist politicians were able to portray it as a
‘moral’, non-political protest and channel it in a safe direction.
The Christian right helped Bush win the presidency and there
has been an increase in elected Republican senators sharing their views. But
these are not representative of the party as a whole. One wing of the
Republicans understands that if the party goes too far in pushing the moral
agenda of the conservative right they risk a political backlash, especially
amongst women, which could seriously undermine their future electoral prospects
and even split the party.
The big US corporations expect a second term Bush presidency
to vigorously pursue policies in their interests. It is one thing to use ‘moral’
issues as a smokescreen in elections, it is quite another for those issues to
dominate government, diverting attention from the real needs of big business.
When, in 1999, the Kansas state school board voted to change the science
curriculum to include creationism and present evolution as just one theory, an
Oregon firm immediately announced that it was reconsidering whether to locate
there. The school board’s decision gave Kansas the image of a backward state
which some sections of big business considered damaging to their economic
future. Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research is widely viewed as costing
the US its lead in important areas of scientific research.
So, while we can expect more attempts to impose restrictions
on abortion at a state level, and an all-out attack on Roe v Wade cannot be
totally ruled out, Bush will come under pressure from the big corporations and
his own party to tread carefully on ‘moral’ issues for fear of provoking a
political backlash. He will want to keep ‘moral’ issues on the boil, but is more
interested in privatising social security and other economic attacks.
The US elections have underlined how, particularly in a
situation of crisis and insecurity when no viable alternative is on offer,
social and ‘moral’ issues can be used to obscure class divisions in society by
diverting attention away from economic and ‘bread-and-butter’ issues such as
jobs and poverty pay.
If a mass workers’ party had existed in the US, with an
alternative class and ‘moral’ agenda, then the outcome of the elections could
have been very different. Pre-election polls showed that 55% of Americans
thought the country was moving in the wrong direction and only 49% approved of
the job that Bush was doing. Many of those who voted for Bush, including 36% of
union members and 40% of those earning less than $30,000 a year, could have been
won to a mass party that attacked the ‘moral values’ of a capitalist class that
thinks it acceptable for corporate America to make massive profits while
throwing millions of workers out of a job, destroying the environment, and
waging brutal wars for profit and prestige. An alternative class agenda, posed
on a mass scale, could also have energised the 43% who did not bother to vote at
all.
Clearly Kerry, a billionaire representative of big business
who supported war in Iraq, did not provide such an alternative. Even on ‘moral’
issues such as gay rights, Kerry did not come out clearly against Bush. He
supported civil partnerships but opposed gay marriage (the same position as Bush
on the eve of the elections). Although he has a pro-choice record on abortion he
was extremely apologetic on the campaign trail. Once in office, Democrat
promises on abortion rights have evaporated. Clinton failed to pass a
freedom-of-choice act or repeal the Hyde amendment. He restricted abortion
rights by denying federal funding for prisoners’ abortions and banned abortions
in military hospitals. When governor of Arkansas, he banned federal employees’
health insurance from covering abortion procedures. Now, drawing completely the
wrong conclusions from the election results, the dominant section of Democratic
Party leaders are discussing softening their position on abortion and gay rights
even further.
The US elections exposed clearly the need for a third party
– a workers’ party with an alternative class programme. The underlying weakness
of the economy means that class issues will inevitably come to the fore once
more if the US workers move into struggle. This does not necessarily mean,
however, that social issues such as abortion will ‘disappear’. On the contrary,
past struggles have shown that when working-class women in particular are
mobilised around ‘bread-and-butter’ issues, they also become radicalised on
social issues and begin to challenge all aspects of the double oppression they
face in society.
But it cannot be guaranteed that new political formations,
which arise in the future in the US and elsewhere, will have a clear programme
on social issues. When some unions came together a few years ago, for example,
in a (subsequently unsuccessful) attempt to establish a Labor Party, the new
formation did not adopt a clear policy on a woman’s right to choose. Genuine
socialists are therefore faced with the task of both campaigning for the
formation of workers’ parties and fighting for those parties to adopt an
alternative class programme which addresses all the concerns of working-class
people and clearly fights for the rights of all oppressed groups.
|