Mitt Romney is now and has always been running the “I’m the white guy” campaign. The strategy’s not his alone. The GOP’s four-year approach to the 2012 election has been, “The President’s black! The President’s black!”

In case you missed it, Romney went birther today during an appearance in Michigan. “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.” Wild cheers from the all-white crowd followed.

Romney campaign officials tried to shrug it off as an off-the-script joke. It is not a joke. Nor was it off script. They’ve run at least five ads lying about President Obama’s welfare policies, claiming against all known facts that the President has eliminated the work requirement. Message: white America, Obama’s taking your money and giving it to lazy non-whites. Across the country, the Republican Party has led efforts to make it harder for non-white citizens to vote.

The Romney campaign believes it can win if just one clear thing about Romney is sold to voters: Romney is white. That’s why they are content to avoid all specific policy discussions, to hide their finances, to flip flop on issues they do discuss. None of it matters. This year’s election is, you might say, black and white.

We’re at a strange place in America with regard to race. Somehow, it is considered less polite to call racism racism than it is to do or say racist things. I don’t believe most Republicans are racist. I think many racists are Republicans. And I think many GOP candidates are more than willing to exploit racism and bigotry if it helps them win elections. Everyone knows this was Nixon’s famously successful “Southern Strategy.”

That just makes our reluctance to talk about these things publicly all the more shameful. None of the facts at hand are in dispute. It’s just that we don’t like talking about these things as they appear within the frames and narratives of race.

Over the years, conservatives have grown far more sophisticated in their use of race. While building the foundations of a New American Apartheid, they quickly turn accusations against them into attacks on their accusers. They say their critics are “playing the race card.” They talk of dangerous divisiveness. They make up stories of “voter fraud.”

More sophisticated, but no less morally condemnable. The Republican campaign has turned into a remake of D.W. Griffith’s sadly racist “Birth of a Nation.” Call it “The Birtherism of a Nation.”

Related Articles:

• Rick Perry and Race
• Read This And You Will Become Smart And Go To Heaven
• Right-Wing Voter Suppression Group Caught Using Fake Photo
• Possible Arson and the Right’s Houston Voter Suppression Effort
• Tea Partiers, Keep Your Damned Authoritarian Hands off of Thomas Jefferson

The male-dominated Republican Party really is engaged in a nationwide campaign to give government – the government of their dreams – control of women’s bodies, at least those women’s bodies that survive the deep cuts in women’s health care.

Todd Akin is no lone puppy. If anything, he’s just a weak follower of the GOP pack led by the likes of Paul Ryan and Rick Perry. The attack becomes even more sinister when Ryan and others deny it.

Ryan’s now the wolf in grandma’s clothes ready to gobble down Little Red Riding Hood. Ryan,  worried that a nation of Red Riding voters will run away, says, “Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody.” Asked about the big, sharp lie, he might have answered, “All the better to eat you with, my dears.”

A goodly number of Republican women voters are trying their darndest to overlook this medieval state of affairs. Some actively want to return to an era of female subservience. Others probably don’t really believe these dangerous and regressive policies will ever be in place.

We have to ask two questions: What so haunts these men that they want so badly to control ladyparts? Are they threatened? Given their embarrassing public statements about female physiology and biology, it’s clear that it’s not facts that worry them. Where have you gone Sigmund? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

The second question: Since they dress up in their grandmas’ nighties to disguise their intentions, they must realize that most women want nothing to do with their sick quest, right?

Run, Red. Run.

Related Articles:

• American Winter: The Right’s War on Education and Contraception
• The Right’s War on Birth Control
• Little Red Riding Hood Lied About Her Age!
• Poll Finds Americans Support Sex “Contraptions”
• We’re No Angels: Americans, Church Doctrine, and the Pill

Within a few hours of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, the film critic Roger Ebert made a provocative observation in a New York Times essay:

I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news…

…Like many whose misery is reflected in violence, he may simply have been drawn to a highly publicized event with a big crowd. In cynical terms, he was seeking a publicity tie-in.

I don’t want to dismiss the extreme nature of Holmes’ obvious mental illness. Like psychiatrists say about Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle, Holmes might suffer from schizotypal personality disorder. Certainly he suffers from serious disturbances.

I do, though, want to make two additional points: 1) Recognition through violence is a common theme in American culture; 2) In the age of Facebook, Twitter and reality television, everyone seems to have access to a significant audience, but the recognition it brings is, usually, an illusion. When everyone’s a star, no on is a star.

Thinking a little about these things might open some avenues for understanding the epidemic of mass killings and other violent episodes in our recent history.

First, what do I mean by recognition? Isaiah Berlin said it best in his essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”:

What I may seek to avoid is simply being ignored, or patronized, or despised, or being taken too much for granted – in short, not being treated as an individual, having my uniqueness insufficiently recognized, being classed as a member of some featureless amalgam, a statistical unit without identifiable, specifically human features and purposed of my own. This is the degradation that I am fighting against – I am not seeking equality of legal rights, nor liberty to do as I wish (although I may want these too), but a condition in which I can feel that I am, because I am taken to be, a responsible agent, whose will is taken into consideration because I am entitled to it, even if I am attacked and persecuted for being what I am or choosing as I do.

All humans want such recognition. But two things combine in our culture to make it problematic: the celebration of individualism and a mass culture which renders the individual invisible.

The viability of violence as a road to recognition may be uniquely exaggerated in America. Cultural historian Richard Slotkin wrote of “regeneration” rather than “recognition,” but the centrality of violence to the pursuit is the same:

…the myth of regeneration through violence became the structuring metaphor of the American experience.

Consider this: we are so accustomed to the possibilities of recognition through violence that we place many cultural heroes in disguise to erase suspicions of self-promotion and to guarantee their nobility and devotion to others. Virtually every cartoon superhero has a secret identity. Then there’s the Lone Ranger (“Who was that masked man?”). Or Clint Eastwood’s “Man With No Name.” John Wayne’s Tom Doniphon in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance shoots the outlaw from a hiding place and gives mild-mannered Rance Stoddard (James Stewart) the credit.

The second point, that the recognition conjured by YouTube, Facebook, reality television, etc., is usually an illusion, seems self-evident and is certainly not original. It was 1968 Andy Warhol said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” The line is ironic. What it really means is that when everyone is famous, no one is famous.

The drive for recognition is too deep in us to take Warhol very seriously, of course. And it’s certainly true that some gain more recognition than others, at least for a little while. (Quick, name five people who have appeared in one reality show or another over the last decade).

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the frustrations caused by our relative invisibility and the drive for recognition lead to all kinds of aberrant behaviors, like the quasi-violent or abusive rhetoric of some blog commenters (masked as they are by a lone ranger anonymity).

Then there are the ever more extreme claims of a Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Obama’s fake, coded birth certificate!) or a Rep. Michelle Bachmann (Muslim terrorists in the State Department!) or Rep. Louis Gohmert (the Aurora shootings are the result of a war on Christianity!). The drive for recognition leads to an arms race of insanity.

Oh, it’s hard to get a little recognition. Still, Arpaio, Bachmann and Gohmert received massive media coverage. I am not saying these three are nascent James Holmes. But it needs to be pointed out that Holmes has received his media coverage, too.

It used to be enough for a journalist to simply to report the news. Few even knew what any given newspaper reporter looked like. Respect came from one’s peers or a small circle within one’s community. Now, however, reporters must be seen by millions. Celebrity and cable news appearances are a critical part of the job.

I don’t know what the answers are. A little restraint from the media would be good, a little less attention to extreme recognition addicts. Maybe some serious self-reflection by all of us. After all, the world might be a circus, but is our desire for recognition so irresistible that we are happy to become clowns – or worse?

Related Articles:

• Real True Grit
• The Blood of Eden
• The “Miranda” Blessing for Corporations

It’s tragic but not surprising that the election of the nation’s first black president would accelerate a racist, nationwide movement to disenfranchise people of color, the poor and the elderly. A new map of states with restrictive voting laws indicates the scope of the problem: racism is not restricted to the former Confederacy.

Many conservatives, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, argue that 1965’s historic Voting Rights Act is obsolete and in need of repeal. The opposite is the case. The VRA, which currently applies to a limited number of states, counties and townships, should be expanded to include all 50 states.

Conservative arguments for repeal are based in part on the election of Barack Obama. The New York Times 2008 election-night headline, “Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls,” says it all. Charles P. Pierce chides Americans about their “post-racial” wishful hallucinations with his repeated sarcasm, “It’s Not About Race because It’s Never About Race.” By 2011, though, even the NYT’s was forced back up a bit on the wish, running a piece by Toure′ pleading for an end to claims of a “post-racial America.”

We are not a nation devoid of racial discrimination nor are we a nation where race does not matter. Race and racism are still critical factors in determining what happens and who gets ahead in America.

Todd Donovan’s intriguing 2010 study, “Obama and the White Vote,” shows that racial context influences voting behavior. Obama did less well in states with large African American populations, confirming the “racial threat” theory that says racist attitudes among whites grow as the population of people of color increases. Donovan concluded:

Race was clearly a factor in the 2008 presidential election. Independent of innuendo about Obama that was associated with his race, there are reasons to expect that some white voters might still find it difficult to support an African American candidate for president.

The right-wing voter suppression movement is not new, but it has picked up steam. Every honest, thinking person knows that so-called “voter ID” laws are intended to suppress the votes of blacks, Latinos, the elderly, the infirm, and young college students – all constituencies that historically favor Democratic candidates.

The Right hides behind dubious claims of widespread voter impersonation fraud. Smiling innocently, voter ID advocates say they only want to guard the integrity of the voting system. Give me a break. These are the same people who in the past have, among other anti-democratic practices: 1) hired police impersonators to stand around polling places intimidating voters; 2) organized phone banks giving incorrect voting dates, times and places; 3) purged voter rolls with fraudulent felon lists.

As arguments in the Texas case concluded Friday before a federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., voter ID proponents had still failed to present evidence of voter impersonation fraud. While the federal government showed that about 1.4 million Texans lacked the necessary ID (and many lived 200 miles from a place where they could get one), Texas’ lawyers could dig up out of history only five instances of voter impersonation.

Because many would-be voters have to spend money on travel or fees for birth certificates etc. to secure the required documentation, voter ID represents a return to Jim Crow poll taxes and other barriers to the polls. Revealingly, John Hughes, an attorney for Texas, said in his closing arguments that even literacy tests would be okay under the VRA!

Just as revealingly, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai bragged to a private audience of Republicans following passage of the new restrictive law: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win Pennsylvania, done.”

Texas’ voter ID law will likely be overturned as violating Section 5 of the VRA. That’s the part of the law that requires Justice Department clearance of changes in voting laws and procedures. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will appeal to the Supreme Court in hopes of getting the court to declare Section 5 unconstitutional. That would gut the VRA.

American apartheid is the goal of the Right. That’s a fact hiding in plain sight. As the nation’s demographics shift, the Republican Party, which by its own admission is too white, is trying to protect its power by taking voting rights away from blacks, Hispanics, Asians and others.

Here is a chapter on voter suppression from my book, “The Threatened Habitats of Democracy” in The Politics of Deceit.

The Threated Habitats of Democracy

Related Articles:

• Why I Still Love Texas: Guy Clark and His Sidekicks
• The Aspirin Papers
• Immigrants, legal and otherwise, fuel Texas economy, job growth
• Why I’m calling it *gulp* for Michele Bachmann
• Obama Returns to His Moral Vision: Democrats Read Carefully

Governor Rick Perry’s decision to refuse to participate in federal Medicaid expansion will not only condemn millions of Texans to ill health, suffering and unnecessary death. It will force local taxpayers to pay for the suffering of others. And it means Texans’ federal tax dollars will be used only in other states to improve health and lives.

There’s no political or government philosophy involved here. Perry and other GOP leaders are hurting real people to score political points against President Obama. Lives will be lost. Children will suffer needlessly. All in the name of Perry’s political advertisement.

Progress Texas PAC jumped on Perry’s inhumane decision quickly this morning. The full statement follows:

Texas Governor Puts Political Ambitions Above People by Refusing to Implement Key Tenets of Affordable Care Act

About 2 Million Texans to be Denied Medicaid by Rick Perry

(Austin, Texas) – Texas Governor Rick Perry has decided he will not accept the federal government’s free expansion of Medicaid in Texas or implement the health care exchanges called for by the Affordable Care Act (ACA.) Under the fully funded Medicaid law, a minimum of 1.8 million Texans could have been covered with health care. Instead, Texans will now see their federal tax dollars go to pay for the expansion of Medicaid in other states.

“Politics have always been more important than people to Rick Perry,” said James Moore, Director of Progress Texas PAC. “For political spite, Mr. Perry is condemning the uninsured to ill health and premature death simply because he doesn’t want to help President Obama. Texans already with health insurance will continue to pay for emergency care for the uninsured by having those costs rolled into higher premiums and local tax bills to fund hospitals because of Perry’s decision.”

Although the Texas governor seemed oblivious on national television today to how the ACA works, Texas will have a health care exchange funded by the federal government. Washington will institute the operation at a cost of about $7 billion. Medicaid care, however, will remain at its present levels under the law but could have expanded to cover almost two million more needy Texans and would not have required any federal or state tax increases.

“Rick Perry went on Fox News and said everyone in Texas has health care, which is an obvious lie, and by rejecting to establish our own exchange he’s asking the federal government to come do a job Texans could do,” said Moore.

According to the Republican State Comptroller, Texans are paying for $10.2 billion not compensated by insurance or direct care. Those are costs to local hospitals and clinics for providing care to the uninsured. The money is recovered through increased taxes at hospital districts or the state level. Uncompensated care in Texas is paid for out of increases in local property taxes. 1 out of 4 people in Texas is without health care, the highest rate in the nation.

“The situation for the insured and uninsured in Texas has grown completely absurd,” said Glenn Smith, Director of Progress Texas PAC. “We were just told that we have the worst health care system in the country and then a few days later the governor is turning down a federal program that could end suffering and provide a better life to millions of people in our state. Instead, our tax dollars are going to help people in other states get more affordable health care. Can anyone make sense of this? Is this Rick Perry’s idea of leadership? We need to stop planning for failure.”

Related Articles:

• No Related Related

We went to hear legendary singer/songwriter Guy Clark at the wistfully named One World Theater in the hills west of Austin last night. Clark is ill and in pain, but “he’s still jumping off the garage.”  He walked out slowly with a cane and sat in a cushioned chair. Clark was joined by his longtime writing partner, Verlon Williams, who sings like the Southern cousin of Steve Goodman.

It was a small, quiet crowd in a small quiet venue. The pain got to Guy more than once and he forgot the lyrics to several songs. He’d mutter, “Shit,” or, “Y’all are being very sweet about this mess.” His wry humor was there, you bet. There was no nervousness in the audience, no impatience, no tension. Just sympathy for his pain and joy at his effort.

Anyway, he launched into “Desperados Waiting for a Train.” He got through the verse about “they called me sidekick,” then he stumbled. The words escaped him. A moment later, faster than a mad dog cyclone, the audience sang them for him like they’d planned it all along. Hell, they even sang a little harmony. They sounded reverent and heaven-bound, like the choir that sings with Alison Krauss on “Down to the River to Pray.” Here’s what they sang:

One day I looked up and he’s pushin’ eighty
He’s got brown tobacco stains all down his chin
Well to me he was a hero of this country
So why’s he all dressed up like them old men

And that’s why I still love Texas. Guy’s love of people with all their faults and beauty is there in his lyrics. He made it real tonight with his very presence. His fans love of his love for people was there when they stepped in to sing a song they knew so well because they’ve been waiting, too.

Related Articles:

• The Right’s Dreams of American Apartheid
• The Aspirin Papers
• Immigrants, legal and otherwise, fuel Texas economy, job growth
• Aristotle and the Cyberpoke
• Contempt for Democracy: Attacks on Voting Rights

You really don’t want to look under some rocks, but then sometimes the rocks are picked up by others and you have no choice. That happened to me this morning on Scott Braddock’s Houston talk-radio program (News 92 FM) .  I was on with Cathie Adams, a board member and international issues chairman of the national Eagle Forum. She’s also president of the Texas Eagle Forum and a former chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The topic was Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, and the (gasp) contraception controversy. Here are Adams’s words from under the rock:

“This young girl [Fluke] should be absolutely ashamed of herself. When she goes before a Congressional committee and then be off the record. C-span is going to show it.  The whole world should know it. So what did the girl call herself, other than irresponsible?”

And:

“As I matter of fact, I, as a woman, am very offended not by anything that Rush Limbaugh had to say, but that we have a coed at a Catholic University who goes before the United States Congress and testifies, and now her testimony is supposed to be taken off record. We’re not supposed to hold her to account for what she had to say. But she is demanding that you and I as taxpayers pay for her birth control.  That is absolutely something that that woman ought to be taking care of herself.”

I think she means that because she testified Rush Limbaugh should get to call her whatever names he wants to. Now, I suppose it’s not surprising that the paragonettes of moral virtue at the Eagle Forum see non-Eagle Forum members as sluts and prostitutes. They’ve more or less argued that for decades, ever since Phyllis Schlafly entered the national circus tent. But I have to admit that when Adams decided that calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute was okay and that Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers shouldn’t mind (much less the rest of the civilized world), I was shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Adams went on to repeat other right-wing lies about President Obama’s contraception policy,  making the contradictory claims that the policy forced people to purchase coverage they were morally opposed to and then saying the policy forced taxpayers to pay for the coverage for others. Oh, Adams also claims the policy will force taxpayers to pay for others’ sex change operations. Huh? Well, at least we won’t have to pay for their birth control, I guess.

Here are links to the audio of my little talk with Adams:

Part I

Part II

Related Articles:

• The Aspirin Papers
• We’re No Angels: Americans, Church Doctrine, and the Pill
• American Winter: The Right’s War on Education and Contraception
• Why Use Language of Hate and Violence?
• Before the Mountains: Sotomayor and Sitting Bull in America

Henry James’ novella, The Aspern Papers, is about an unscrupulous obsessive who tries to deceive two vulnerable women to obtain the objects of his desire, the letters of a long-dead poet.

This, “The Aspirin Papers,” is about a group of unscrupulous obsessives who try to deceive all of America to fulfill their obsessive desire: a return to an ancient dreamtime when men ruled the universe and women, when not dutifully and passively prone before their masters, kept their mouths shut.

Reference is made, obviously, to the following comment from Foster Friess the Fabulous Plutocrat and Rick Santorum mega-contributor:

You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.

Friess was commenting on the wildly anachronistic dust-up over contraception, during which some Catholic bishops and other members of Friess’ all-male club decided that employers ought to have the right to deny insurance coverage of contraceptives to their female employees.

The scoundrel and narrator of James’ story, says, “It is not supposed easy for women to rise to the large free view of anything.” Friess & Company agree, I assume, and call upon science to confirm that “the large free view” is simply unavailable to womankind owing to the decumbency of their holy and true vocations, pleasing men and birthing babies.

Implicit in Friess’ statement is the belief that women are always there before their male superiors, their legs open and inviting. Depending upon circumstances, this is, in the Friess frame, either proper, wifely duty or such devilish temptation that it is too much to ask even god-faring men to resist. Therefore, steps must be taken. Here, ladies, please hold this aspirin in place with your knees until you are called upon.

Congressional Republicans are busy arguing that the issue is about religious freedom, not contraception. If a woman’s employer happens to be, say, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is morally opposed to contraception, then said Church should be allowed to deny contraceptives to said employee. To require otherwise of said Church violates the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. Pish posh. If that was true why did Congressional Republicans rush to file legislation giving that contraceptive-denying right to all employers?

And Friess, no stranger to Republican insiderdom, inadvertently let the cads out of the bag with his aspirin-between-the-knees comment. As I noted elsewhere, most arguments in America that claim our obedience to religious doctrine are mere comedy. We’re simply the best at ignoring these commandments. We are damn good at lying about it, too. Baptists are the best dancers. Catholics down more birth control pills than communion wafers. And Jesus’ pleas to aid the poor are taken about as seriously as an Ogden Nash poem.

Great heavens, this is 2012. Back in the 1960s a friend’s mom, rather scandalously at the time, pinned to her den wall a poster of the Pope pointing out toward the viewer like Uncle Sam. The caption read, “The Pill is a No-No.” That was 44 years ago. And the Pope’s message was being laughed at then!

Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who ran away with my World’s Best Blogger award last week when he quoted singer-songwriter Guy Clark (from “Rita Balou,” “You’d of thought there’s less fools in this world”) when writing about the new Virginia law:

…that requires women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion to have a probe stuck up in them so that they will be shamed like the sluts they are before God and the various meddling members of the House Of Delegates who believe that a woman’s place is in all those movies they watch for five minutes (or less) in their hotel rooms at the annual god-botherer’s convention in Atlantic City…

Anyway, Pierce has also worried aloud that the Republicans will ultimately prevail in this matter by shouting louder than the rest of us, a fear all-too-justified by recent history. By the time the election rolls around, the issue might appear to be over religious freedom and not the re-enslavement of women.

Already we see some Democratic strategerists suggesting the issue will pass when cooler heads (theirs) prevail and the debate returns to the economy, stupid. I hereby ask those tempted to vocally marginalize the progressive side of this debate to place an aspirin or maybe even an ibuprofen between their lips. (Ibuprofen, by the way was patented in 1961, the same year the FDA approved Enovid 5mg as an oral contraceptive, so the gesture would have some aesthetic symmetry.)

It is an issue the Right will use to turn out its base in 2012, and they will not quit shouting about it. If we don’t contest their poppycock, pardon, they’ll succeed in their rhetorical transubstantiation. It needn’t be said that public opinion is on our side on this issue. The proof of that lies in American beds. The issues are women’s health and equality before the law.

Related Articles:

• We’re No Angels: Americans, Church Doctrine, and the Pill
• The Right’s Dreams of American Apartheid
• Why I Still Love Texas: Guy Clark and His Sidekicks
• Eagle Forum backs Limbaugh, says Sandra Fluke “should be absolutely ashamed”
• American Winter: The Right’s War on Education and Contraception

Surprised that 65 percent of Americans support President Obama’s contraceptive initiative, we decided to look a little deeper into the poll. We were surprised only because we heard so many D.C. pundits go on and on about Obama making a mistake with the initiative. Still, we wanted to see where this overwhelming support was coming from.

It turns out that the answer is a little embarrassing for those of us who live in or near the more red neck enclaves of red states. I use the term “enclave” to protect the innocent. Anyway, in or near those enclaves,  it turns out that male voters think the controversy involves sex contraptions, not contraceptives. They are, it seems, intrigued by the prospect that their little darlins will now have access to some kind of new fun stuff for after closing time.

My guess is this support will evaporate soon as one of the male respondents gets up the guts to ask his new girl companion where her contraption is. It’s conceivable that it might be the last thing he ever asks, so maybe it won’t matter for support of Obama’s initiative in the long run.

Related Articles:

• GOP Wolves In Grandma’s Nightie — Run, Red, Run
• We’re No Angels: Americans, Church Doctrine, and the Pill
• The Right’s War on Birth Control
• When We Fail to Inspire Hope, We Fail the Future
• Pants On Fire: A Lesson in Journalism Malpractice

What’s all the fuss about Americans not following religious doctrine? Seriously, we all know that none of us dance and drink as passionately as Baptists. Few are as happy with the invention of the Pill as Catholics. Many seem grateful that Jesus’ plea to help the poor is taken no more seriously than an Ogden Nash poem.

Oh, I have no doubt that Catholic Church leaders are quite frustrated that their flock no longer does what they are ordered to do by the self-regarding, closer-to-god Church hierarchy. And, it’s probably true that Mormons are, as these things go, a little more obedient to doctrine, right down to their underwear, than members of most other faiths. Credit where credit is due.

Lurking behind the church/state controversy over the morally righteous effort to make contraceptives available to American women is the certain truth that even the most devout Catholics ignore the Church’s medieval doctrine on this one. The controversy was truly like arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. There are no angels; there are no pins. Just pundits and panderers.

Denial may not be a river an Egypt, as the 12-steppers say, but it’s broader than the Mississippi in America. If there’s anything we do better than escaping religious doctrine, it’s denying that we escape it.

Now, it must be admitted that many can get themselves into a righteous snit when they discover that others have also sawed through the bars and run away across the fields. High-tailing it to freedom like the trio of miscreants in O Brother Where Art Thou, they look over their shoulders and shout at the escapees behind them, “Get thee back to God’s House, sinners!” Their indignation is born of two parents: seeing themselves unhappily mirrored in their doctrine-denying brethren makes their denial a little more difficult; and, they are worried about the lack of parking spaces near the bars, the dancehalls, and the contraceptive-dispensing pharmacies.

Speaking of the Coen Brothers’ O Brother, the scene where Delmar is saved by the preacher may be the most accurate portrayal of Americans and faith on film:

Delmar: Well, that’s it, boys. I been redeemed. The preacher done washed away all my sins and transgressions. It’s the straight and narrow from here on out. And heaven everlasting’s my reward.

Everett: Delmar, what are you on about? We got bigger fish to fry.

Delmar: The preacher said all my sins is washed away,
including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.

Everett: You said you was innocent of that.

Delmar: Well, I was lyin’. And the preacher said that that sin’s been washed away, too. Neither God nor man’s got nothin’ on me now.

Secretly, we’re all thankful for the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. God forbid (pardon the reference) that the State should enforce church doctrines under penalty of the criminal law. If we think we have a prison crisis now…

So what’s behind all the hooting and hollering over the Obama Administration’s contraception initiative? Why is it that even some progressive pundits are arguing for more deference to the Catholic Bishops on an issue that’s not even about religious freedom, but women’s health? I think it’s because they feel we’re not showing enough deference to pretense. That the health of American women would be put at risk by such deference is kind of beside the point.

I don’t mean to in any way mock religion. Many – most – of us draw deep and abiding values from the faith traditions we were raised in or discovered on our own. I think humans come with a wonderful ability to look for answers beyond what’s immediately at hand, and religions can facilitate that and a give us a sense of community, too.

But I do mean to mock those who argue that we must sacrifice women’s health on the altar of a religious doctrine no one in America takes seriously. On the other hand, Republicans who think this is a viable wedge issue might discover it’s a wedge between themselves and the rest of America. I’m tempted to say, go for it.

Related Articles:

• The Aspirin Papers
• GOP Wolves In Grandma’s Nightie — Run, Red, Run
• Eagle Forum backs Limbaugh, says Sandra Fluke “should be absolutely ashamed”
• Poll Finds Americans Support Sex “Contraptions”
• American Winter: The Right’s War on Education and Contraception