Why Sexual Fundamentalists Dominate Politics and How We Can Stop Them Quote:
The author of "Delirium: The Politics of Sex in America" says the extreme right-wing is less popular yet more powerful than we imagine.
During the 2008 presidential election, historian and political commentator Nancy L. Cohen became interested in how sex has changed American politics. She was so intrigued by the gender issues that surfaced around Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that she began working on what would become Delirium: The Politics of Sex in America. The book is a meticulously researched political history of the Democratic self-destruction and Republican stealth that has allowed many of the gains of the sexual revolution to be lost.
|
The first bit of the interview:
Quote:
Mandy Van Deven: Why are we still talking about the legitimacy of birth control in America?
Nancy Cohen: This is precisely the question we should all be asking ourselves right now. To paraphrase James Carville, it's the vagina, stupid. This is not just temporary insanity triggered by the fear of a black president. It's not a populist backlash. We are having debates about the legitimacy of birth control in 2012 as a result of a multi-decade-long right-wing movement to take back the rights that women won during and after the sexual revolution in the 1960s. The long-term roots of this movement and what it means for the future is the story we need to focus on today.
|
She then described how Religious Right activists gradually took over the Republican Party, starting first in localities, then in the states, and by 2010, nationally, as the "Tea Party".
She also indicts the Democratic Party for cowardice, chasing mythical centrist voters rather than running on more progressive principles. Even when doing so often helps them win.
She warns that progressives have to be continually involved in politics, just as their opponents have been. This means involvement in down-ticket and midterm races, to help prevent a repeat of 2010's losses.
I'm reminded of Arthur Schlesinger I and II's cycles of US history, its alternations between liberal and conservative periods:
CYCLES OF AMERICAN HISTORY 1776-1788 -L- Liberal Movement to Create Constitution
1788-1800 -C- Hamiltonian Federalism
1800-1812 -L- Liberal Period of Jeffersonianism
1812-1829 -C- Conservative Retreat After War of 1812
1829-1841 -L- Jacksonian Democracy
1841-1861 -C- Domination of National Government by Slaveowners
1861-1869 -L- Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction
1869-1901 -C- The Gilded Age
1901-1919 -L- Progressive Era
1919-1931 -C- Republican Restoration
1931-1947 -L- The New Deal
1947-1962 -C- The Eisenhower Era
1962-1978 -L- Sixties Radicalism
1978-???? -C- Gilded Age II
The last one I'd earlier posted as
1978-1993 -C- Reagan Reaction
but after thinking it over, Bill Clinton's Presidency was at best an abortive progressive phase, a respite in Gilded Age II.
I'm concerned that the Obama Presidency is turning out much like the Clinton Presidency - a center-right one that lets itself be demonized as left-wing extremists and bullied by the right wing. Despite high hopes when both gentlemen were elected, they spent much of their time and political capital on health-care reform, and the right wing had a big surge in the middle of their first terms.
