Huckabee & the "Scourge" of Single Motherhood: A Personal Story

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing, and it’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.[sic]"     --Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

I was 25 years old when it became clear to me that my (now ex) husband didn't have the maturity, desire, or will to fight his severe drug addiction.  But it was the night he called me, high as a kite, and threatened to rape and murder me in front of our daughter that my decision was made for me.  I didn't want my daughter to grow up thinking that that's the way women are supposed to be treated, so I became a single mom.

Even so, it was an agonizing decision.  Not because of my ex-husband--his addiction and abuse had long since killed any positive emotion I had toward him--but because I was terrified of the prospect of becoming a single mother.  Growing up in the Bible Belt, I had been socialized since I was very young that women were incapable of raising a child on their own.  Becoming a single mother was not an easy decision to make, even if the alternative meant a lifetime of pain, abuse, misery, and neglect.

Why, In Spite of It All, Rhetoric Still Matters

In the Summer of 2010, fear was spreading across America.  Conservative pundits and politicians like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani and Sean Hannity spoke against it in the direst of terms.  Thousands of little-known local radio hosts, fringe religious leaders and no-name armchair pundits joined in the chorus.

In spite of all the concern from the Right,
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was an ally 
in the war on terror, worked with the FBI,
 and had never been quoted using violent,
anti-American rhetoric

They spoke about the disrespect to thousands of Americans who died four blocks away.  They warned of the danger that was to come by allowing such a violent religion, with it's violent "jihad" rhetoric, on our soil.  Bloggers claimed that building this mosque would directly lead to violence, as the rhetoric would turn Americans into violent Muslims.

Nationwide, there was protest, the burning of Korans, the burning of Mosques, and the passing of Unconstitutional planning ordinances to prevent Muslims from spreading their "hatred," because, as Newt Gingrich's movie warned us, America Was At Risk.

It seems that the Right has recently had a change of heart regarding violent rhetoric.

Democracy, Public Servants, and the Price of Violent Rhetoric

The moment I heard of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' attempted assassination, I was in total shock.  Here was a highly intelligent, attractive, moderate democrat who had been literally SHOT IN THE HEAD LIKE A DOG.

This resonated with me for many reasons.  First, I was formerly a political staffer for a controversial politician.  As her Legislative Assistant, I dealt with threatening and angry attacks on a daily basis.  I was the person who answered when you called her office, I was the person who had the first crack at the abusive emails.  I didn't agree with every policy position that the Senator took, but I supported her and researched for her and responded to emails for her because that was my job.

Gabe Zimmerman, Rep. Giffords' Director of Community Outreach, was just a political staffer doing his job.  He died in the attack, in spite of the fact that he made no political decisions.  His job was just to ensure that Rep. Giffords was as available to her community as possible.  And for that, he died.

I HATE Being Right: Why DADT Failed.

Photo: Katherine Cho, used w/out
permission. (Check out her photography
http://www.flickr.com/katherineC)

When I heard that DADT was going to be scheduled for a vote prior to the November 2010 elections, I knew better.  I said, publicly, that DADT had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and I caught a LOT of flack from my liberal friends for saying so.

When DADT failed, I was proven right.  But that brought me no joy.  In fact, I hate being right, especially when I'm conceding that the side I agree with most will lose.

I'd love to be a water carrier for the Democrats, but the truth of the matter is, I'm an independent.  I'm a hardcore, bona fide, bleeding heart liberal, but I have about as much respect for Democrats as I do for Republicans.  And I don't have faith that either of them will do what's best for the country unless it's politically expedient for them.

This view isn't unwarranted cynicism.  Rather, it's based on years of keen (even obsessive) observation and academic study.  It's not cynical to say that most Democrats and Republicans will do whatever it takes to get elected, even if it hurts the country.  That's a demonstrable fact, and I'll explain why.

A Brief History Lesson

Honest Abe, proof that
"Republican Liberal" hasn't
always been an oxymoron.

Most people don't realize that political parties don't exist to promote ideals or platforms.  If that was true, then political platforms would change very little over time.  They don't.  Political platforms are very fluid; all it takes is one charismatic leader or one history changing event to remake a political party.  For example, Republicans used to be liberals.  When it was founded in the late 1800s, the Republican party was the party in support of women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks, and labor rights for workers.  As a result, the Democratic party took hold in the South.  Since the Republican party was more popular in the industrialized North, it slowly became more pro-business.

Franklin D. Roosevelt,
savior of the poor

After Republican policies favoring business led to Black Tuesday and the Great Depression, a Democratic president won and began to change the ideological makeup of the two dominant parties.  F. D. R., through his policies providing support for poor families in need of jobs, food, and a way to retire, began attracting African American support en masse.  Southern Democrats, many of whom were conservative, moneyed white males, began to oppose the Democratic agenda of giving to the poor and regulating business.

Truman was one cheeky
bastard, and I LOVE him!

In 1948, Truman effectively realigned Democratic ideology by helping usher in significant civil rights reform, starting with a strong civil rights agenda in the Democratic platform and actions like desegregating the military.  Truman said of his push for equality in America:

"I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any [one] class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this."  

Many southerners weren't impressed.  They formed a conservative coalition, then finally switched to the Republican party.   (side note: I'm proud to be Southern, and I'm proud to be a Southern Liberal. Please don't lump all us Southerners in the category of racist, sexist, hyper religious and undereducated bigots!!!  I swear we're not all like that!)

KKK members campaigning for Barry Goldwater at the
1964 Republican National Convention in California.

In the 1960s, the very conservative Barry Goldwater completed the re-alignment of political ideology.  He soundly defeated liberal and moderate Republicans and attracted hoards of anti-government, anti-regulation, pro-business, and anti-civil rights folks to their cause.  At the same time, Democrats made huge gains with the liberal North, the poor, and minorities.  THEN came JFK, and more specifically, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" legislation, which solidified the Democratic Party as the party of Civil Rights.  With all the security net programs for the poor, the transformation was complete.


So the Parties switched ideology.  This is significant WHY?

Sen. Ben Nelson, Republican
from Nebraska.  Wait...he's a
Democrat?  You've gotta
be freaking kidding me!

Some people believe that political parties exist to promote an ideology.  If that were true, then it wouldn't be possible for a party to change so dramatically in the space of only 20-30 years.  The dirty little secret that most people don't know is political parties exist for one reason, and one reason ONLY:  To help their members get elected.

That means that it doesn't matter what the individual believes, all that matters is they are electable.  That's why Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln have a job!  Their ideology is more consistent with a moderate Republican, but because they're electable in their districts, the Democratic party doesn't care.  The parties don't care what you stand for, only that you can keep bringing money into their coffers and increase the party's national profile.

The "elect our member at all costs" motive isn't a secret.  It's a well known tenant of political science.  It's the actual, literal definition of a political party.

So what does this have to do with DADT?
No Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader brings a bill to the floor without knowing the outcome beforehand.  Period.  Harry Reid knew that DADT was dead in the water.  Senate Democrats knew, before the vote, that the measure would fail.

So why would Reid bring DADT to the Senate floor knowing it was doomed?  Simple.  He wants his folks to get elected.

Sen. Harry Reid talking to President
Obama.  No doubt, they're going over
their strategy for LGBT Rights
and being "Fierce Advocates!"
HA!  Just kidding.

Democrats have alienated their liberal base.  Liberals are sick of seeing progressive policies gutted in the name of "compromise," and then watching the Party of NO thumb their nose.  Even issues which have bipartisan support, like DADT, seem to just be twisting in the wind.

In addition, the failure of the vote has a twofold benefit for Democrats.  Firstly, it allows them to capitalize on the "Party of NO" attitude of Republicans.  I can see the campaign commercials now:  "The Republican Tea Party wouldn't even let the bill come up for a vote!  They let misguided ideology outweigh the need to support our troops.  First the unemployed, now the troops!  Who else will the Republican Tea Party make suffer in the name of obstruction?"

Secondly, scheduling this vote they knew would fail will lead to more public polling on the DADT issue.  It will also increase the dissatisfaction of average folks on both sides of the aisle with the fact that ultra-conservative misguided morality outweighed national security...again.  With supportive polling, it gives Democratic candidates confidence in tough elections, and might make people consider voting Democrat just because of their dislike of the Republican moral obstructionism.


Why getting rid of DADT doesn't make political sense for Democrats until AFTER the election
Democrats, who above all else want to win re-election, know they have an uphill battle in the upcoming election...but it's only recently become clear HOW far uphill they'll have to go.  Elections which don't feature a Presidential ticket have notoriously poor turnout.

These are the voters showing up to the polls.
This is what Democrats are so afraid of.
(Used without permission: Huffington Post
http://huff.to/cIyF2w)

In addition, American University compiled data from the primary elections, and noticed something interesting:  For the first time in AGES, Republican turnout was MUCH larger than Democratic turnout.  By a 4 million votes.  This is a clear indicator that the folks who will be voting in November will, by a relatively large majority, lean conservative.  So the Democratic party knows that they will need to move to the right slightly in their districts if they want to have a chance.

Allowing Democrats to vote on a bill they knew would fail allows them to say quietly to their liberal base, "Psst!  Hey guys!  See what we tried to do?  Lame that they blocked us, huh?  Vote for us, we've secretly got your back.  Just don't tell your moderate, independent, or conservative friends!"

At the same time, the fact that the only vote cast was a vote SIMPLY to open the bill up for debate allows Democrats in more conservative districts (or with strong conservative challengers) to go "I voted to bring the bill up for debate, but I still believe that the Military should have a final decision.  So, if you're conservative, you don't have to be afraid of me having a far left liberal agenda!  Vote for me, I'm sufficiently spineless!"

It's a win-win.  Liberals see the vote FOR the bill as a vote for the policy, and they know that the bad guys aren't the Democrats but the Republicans.  So they can't continue to blame Dems for their inaction.  WIN.  On the other hand, since it didn't pass, they can't be blamed by conservatives or Republicans for voting such a "morally bankrupt" policy into effect.  WIN.

For both parties, Politics is more important than Public Welfare.  Period.

Republicans are so proud of this troop
here.  So long as he's not gay and making
the homophobes uncomfortable!

This is yet another example of politics getting in the way of the good of the American people.  Don't think, even for a second, that the Democratic or Republican parties are more concerned with your welfare and our national security than their jobs.  If  a candidate from either party sufficiently pisses off the political parties that spend money to help them get elected, they write their own political suicide notes.

And since Political Parties exist for ONE reason and ONE reason only (to elect their members at all costs), they are willing to put on these big dog-and-pony shows which solidify their base without risking alienating the conservative voters they hope to persuade.  It's all part of the game.  And the truth of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many of them we vote out and how much new blood we bring in.  Unless we get rid of the whole Political Party system, things will always be the same.  And if you want to try and get rid of that system, good luck.  That'll be the one thing that both parties are willing to reach across the aisle to defeat.  Yay unity.

As for DADT, don't lose hope.  I expect to see DADT repealed, by the MILITARY, not Congress, in December of 2010 or January of 2011.  Keep your eyes peeled.

Remember folks:  Check your sources, Backup your words with FACTS, and NEVER accept that things are always as they seem.

~thechickabides