The New Yorker: The Kansas Abortion Referendum Has a Message for Democrats

[NNadir]

The Kansas Abortion Referendum Has a Message for Democrats (John Cassidy, the New Yorker, August 5, 2022.)

Of all the reactions to Kansans’ rejection of an effort to overturn the abortion rights contained in their state constitution, the one that stood out to me most came from Senator Chris Murphy, of Connecticut. Murphy, a Democrat, isn’t up for reëlection this November, but, writing on Twitter, he offered some advice for colleagues in his party who will be on the ballot. “Run on personal freedom. Run on keeping the government out of your private life. Run on getting your rights back. This is where the energy is. This is where the 2022 election will be won.”

Murphy’s comments reminded me of a conversation I had, back in 2005, with Grover Norquist, the veteran Republican anti-tax campaigner who has long played a key role in uniting a fractious conservative movement, which he often refers to as the leave-me-alone coalition. “The guy who wants to be left alone to practice his faith, the guy who wants to make money, the guy who wants to spend money without paying taxes, the guy who wants to fondle his gun—they all have a lot in common,” Norquist told me. “They all want the government to go away. That is what holds together the conservative movement.”

Until now, it seems. In a state that already places strict limits on abortions after twenty-two weeks of pregnancy but allows terminations in other circumstances, the Kansas ballot initiative was an effort by conservative activists to open the way to a total ban. As my colleague Peter Slevin reported, opponents of the initiative portrayed it as an intrusive effort to extend government control into the private lives of Kansans—and this message hit home. Saline County is a Republican stronghold north of Wichita, which last voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in 1964, and which Donald Trump carried by thirty-one points in 2020. On Tuesday, Saline’s voters rejected the anti-abortion proposal by fifty-five per cent to forty-five per cent...

... For decades, the Republican Party has largely owned and exploited the language of individual liberty and freedom, even as many of its policies have favored the rich and powerful— from gunmakers to Big Pharma and Wall Street—over individual middle-class Americans. This cynical strategy has paid big dividends for the G.O.P., but Senator Murphy is right. With the overturn of Roe, and efforts to ban any transgressions against fundamentalist views, the zealots of the Supreme Court and the conservative base are presenting Democrats with an opportunity to seize the mantle as the defenders of long-established individual rights.

The freedom to make one’s own decisions about reproduction and health. The freedom to vote. The freedom to choose one’s dating and life partners. The freedom to hold elections without worrying about an authoritarian putsch. The freedom to send one’s kids to school without fear of a madman armed with an AR-15. These are all rights that the vast majority of Americans cherish, and the radicalized G.O.P. of Alito, Thomas, Trump, and Masters is threatening them. Freedom is a many-sided thing, and no political party has a monopoly on it. Democrats should stake their claim now.

I have nothing to add to these remarks.

[peggysue2]

1. Excellent advice!

We have a lot to learn from our Kansas friends. They framed the issue perfectly. Even the opposition agreed (begrudgingly) that the campaign was smart and highly effective.

Follow what works, tailor to the particular district/state and go for the win.

I like it!

[NNadir]

3. Not really. We just don't want the government in our bodies, our love life, and our personal...

...space. We don't want the Government run by religious bigots.

We believe that the Government has a role in our common space, for example, the environment, our educational system, the protection of human rights, etc.

[Solly Mack]

4. That's bullshit. Understanding the need for a strong federal government and the need for the

expertise that comes with an efficient and very much necessary administrative state in no way includes intrusion by the government into whether or not people have children.

It's not wanting to shrink the government to know that the government has no role in imposing warped religious beliefs/misogyny/bigotry and ignorance on its citizens.

[ancianita]

5. THIS.

Not just because Chris Murphy is right, but because the New Yorker has known what is true about America for over 100 years.

[Joinfortmill]

6. Spot on.

[Texin]

7. Totally agree. Call these trump-humpers, so-called *righteous" bible-thumping

retrumplicans out on their invasion into the very most private parts of people in this country after decades, after decades of their battle cry of "Big Government 'staying out of people's *personal rights*".

[Lonestarblue]

8. Would the white evangelicals like it if the government ordered them to follow Hindu law?

No, they would not, then why do they think it’s great for the government to order women to follow extremist Christian law? We are not a monotheistic society. It’s time to recognize that fact and refuse to allow one religious minority to rule over everyone.

[NNadir]

9. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is not limited to fundamentalist Christians.

In the Hindu case, there's Modi, and there are many other examples in other religions around the world, which is why we refer to the "Christian Taliban" in this country, which includes several vicious and unqualified members of our Supreme Court.