No, Let’s Keep Todd Akin

Unlike many on the political right (arguably) in America, I’m not going to argue for Todd Akin to drop out. In fact, I am going to argue that he should stay in his Missouri Senate race, as a sort of painful yet absolutely necessary medication for the Republican Party.

Akin, as I’m sure you are aware, is the bozo who went on the radio and said that in cases of “legitimate” rape, a woman’s body would shut down the pregnancy, thus abortion should be illegal. It has got to be the dumbest thing said in politics over the past ten years, if not the past fifty. Nevermind that there is no way for a woman’s body to know that it is being raped, and then determine it must abort on its own (I don’t even think a woman’s body can abort pregnancies like that), you just don’t put “legitimate” and “rape” in the same sentence, period, unless there is a “not” between them.

In any case, despite the national party disavowing the fool, and numerous calls from conservative leaders and conservative media outlets, Akin has decided to remain in the race. (He’s even attacked Mitt Romney for calling for him to step down.) Despite this monumental tomfoolery, I believe it would be good for the GOP to have Akin remain in the race…

…and then lose disastrously in November.

Why? It’s simple, really. There is still a segment of the Republican population that believes in views not too far removed from Akin, a bunch of hardcore social conservatives who somehow think that their backward views from a utopian 1950’s that never really existed is enlightened and the way forward. They even believe that the majority of the nation is with them. In fact, they’ve gone so far that a draft of the national GOP platform includes an absolute ban on abortion, with no exceptions:

 

Republicans drafting their party’s official policy platform on Tuesday ratified a call for a Constitutional ban on abortion that makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

The vote to endorse the party’s long-standing opposition to abortion and support for a “human life amendment” took place at a meeting of the GOP’s official platform committee in Tampa, the site of next week’s Republican National Convention.

The party’s official stance on abortion was approved after just a few minutes of discussion. The language in the platform must be voted on before the full Republican Convention next week, though Republicans say it is all but certain to pass.

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” the platform language declares. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

And the GOP somehow thinks that this will fly in 21st century America. Or maybe they’re looking to other nations as inspiration. Specifically, as the Raw Story has it:

 

So which countries provide no exceptions to their laws outlawing all abortion? There are currently only 5:

  1. Malta
  2. Dominican Republic
  3. El Salvador
  4. Nicaragua
  5. Chile

Even Saudi Arabia allows women to receive abortions for their own health or lives.

The list of countries that don’t allow women to receive abortions for health-related reasons (let alone rape or incest) is a bit longer, but it includes Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Andorra, Venezuela and (most famously for Americans) Ireland. Brazil, the Sudan, Mali and Bhutan don’t allow abortions to preserve the health of the mother, but they do allow rape and incest victims to receive abortions. Zimbabwe, Togo and Panama don’t allow women to have abortions to preserve their mental health, but they do allow rape and incest victims to do so.

But even if the GOP platform were amended to allow women to have abortions to preserve their own health or lives, by eliminating abortion access for rape and incest victims, the United States would join countries like Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Jamaica, Peru, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein.

 

So they want American to end up like these countries? Really?

The GOP needs to pull it’s head out of its ass. Americans do not buy that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, no exceptions. In fact, in 2011, a constitutional amendment in Mississippi with extremely similar language was defeated. If fricking Mississippi said no, do you really think that the rest of country will accept it?

Having Todd Akin go to the polls and lose disastrously over this may finally send a wake up call to the GOP, that the hardcore social conservatives who want thrust government’s fist up into the body of a woman should not be in the party. As I have written before, a pro-life position can fly provided that there are exceptions to the rule (and there aren’t any mandated consent or waiting restrictions.) But his no holds barred position is not something the GOP should tolerate. And contrary to some ideas, losing this group of voters will not cripple the GOP overall. That’s because they will be shored up by increasing number of independents who want less economic management and also greater individual freedoms. You know, all these people.

So yes, please, let Akin lose in November. Better to lose one Senate race this year than have the entire party go down the tubes over the next generation and become a non-entity, as the public turns gradually to the “left” on social issues.

 

Unfortunately, a large component of the Republican base, particularly in red states, consists of people who are “compassionate conservatives” and the like. That is to say, these people are quite far to the right on social issues, but moderate to liberal on economic issues. And these people are not strictly an elderly voting bloc, but more so a regional one.

What really needs to happen to US politics is for the two major parties to split into four separate parties. There should be a socially liberal, fiscally liberal party (Green Party), a socially conservative, fiscally liberal party (Democratic Party), a socially conservative, fiscally conservative party (Republican Party), and a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party (Libertarian Party). The current bipartite system leads to an ambiguous mess where people are forced to accommodate either social or fiscal views that they do not agree with because of the coupling of issues within parties.

RT's picture

I agree with the 4 way split, the Pro Abortion, 1 the second TAX CUTTING FREEDOM ONLY PARTY 2, Expanding Government Party 3 and Rich old White Guys Party 4, The democrats would then join their freedom fighting normal thinking members in party number 2 and thus making 74% of america one party, BUT the GOP as it is IS A FAIL for my age bracket, 18-30 Vote just does not want any more limit in what you can do and not do, especially making laws against peoples body’s, and bibles instead of science, this is why religion and government is not should never mix, you want a mix move to Poland. Its not a turn off because of the religion, its a turn off because the lower bottom of the majority really don’t know their fat ass from a screw driver to fox anything around them, just consume and spew out made up information on the public, while other Republicans only stand for what matters FREEDOM, Smaller Government, This is where I cant join the GOP and i really don’t like the Democratic Party with their new rules and push of really poorly designed new laws limiting freedom instead of retracting laws and making people do what ever they want. Because it matters if you don’t wear your seat belt. So This Is ALSO what i thought the INDEPENDENT PARTY MEANT, we should HAVE an independent party.

Anonymous's picture

The problem is trying to discern if the tail is wagging the dog or the other way around. How large is that wing of the party? Majority? Plurality? If you look at some of the stuff coming out of the plank committee you have to wonder. If they suffered a monumental defeat this November would they blame it on positions like those coming from Akin, or would they blame the libertarian minded for not sucking it up for the team? I had a slightly different take on the Akin thing:

http://www.libertariansjustlikeyou.com/2012/08/akin-fusionism-and-wastin…

My issue is the idea of finding a home in the Republican tent. I see the Paulites get to have ‘Audit the Fed’ on the plank in exchange for not causing trouble. Should everyone be happy with a baby step? As you point out, the abortion plank really nixes that. In the long run who would end up in the leadership positions of the Republican party? Would it be Amish, Flake Paul people or would it end up being the Akin/Santorum types? I think they would flush the former, because the later can reliably be counted on to support the corporatists and neo-con wings when they need it. People like Akin cheer ‘limited government’ but what does that mean? Cut defense, maybe by letting the British defend themselves or not buying a duplicate, inefficient weapons system? NOPE. Reassert basic 4th Amendment rights when it comes to the PATRIOT Act? You want the terrorists to win! Demand that the president seek a congressional declaration of war before attacking Iran? DUH - Terrorists winning? And it goes on and on. I don’t see the big fusionism, incrementally change the party from the inside working out this year, in 2016, or even 2050. I think the system has far to much inertia, both sides are going to spend over a billion dollars to secure the presidency, why? Because they really care about us and our future? I have to agree with the comment above, we need a wrench thrown in the gears. The two party system places the plurality with activist support at the helm. For Dems that is the Pelosi San Fran progressives, and for the Reps it is still the Santorum ‘Jesus cries every time one of his chosen American people faps’ section. A few elections of Libertarians vs. Republicans vs. Democrats vs. Greens with no faction lording over the whole, would at the very least start a general realignment, in poli-sci speak, that seems to be desperately needed.

ptwalker's picture

He should stay and run the course as a reminder of what goes on in the average run of the republican. Where science is a fairy-tale and the bible is the standard source for information for every high school student. Where facts and facts from the bible meet in the same train-station for a daily derailment in thought not for the person but to show the mass population what really goes on those domes.

Anonymous's picture

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <u> <p> <br> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <pre> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <span> <img> <object> <embed> <param> <blockquote> <div> <table> <tr> <td> <tbody> <thead>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

More information about formatting options

 

Twitter


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.