« Waiting for the liberals to calm down | Main | I forgot my hat, which shows I have an efficient brain »
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Since when do stem cells top the agenda?
So Obama's hitting the ground running -- jawboning Bush about Detroit, and so on -- and that's a good thing. Actually, he's running BEFORE he hits the ground, which doesn't happen until Jan. 20, but that's good too. The nation needs leadership in a time of economic trouble, and it hasn't had any lately.
Team Obama is also turning to some other priorities, such as shutting down Guantanamo (which, if and when it happens, will likely be cheered by John McCain as well -- even if he may quibble over what happens with regard to trying the prisoners), and signaling that it is NOT going to dismantle our intelligence apparatus (much to the consternation of Obama's base). All to the good, and all appropriate.
But one thing that the new team is signaling as a priority puzzles me. I first ran across it in the WSJ's weekend interview piece with Rahm Emanuel. Headlined with the quote, "Do What You Got Elected to Do," it looked at first as though it would make eminent good sense, invoking such themes as, "Barack Obama's message of change and Bush and the Republicans' record of incompetence." Fine. But then I got to this:
Asked what Barack Obama was elected to do, and what legislation he's likely to find on his Oval Office desk soonest, Mr. Emanuel didn't hesitate. "Bucket one would have children's health care, Schip," he said. "It has bipartisan agreement in the House and Senate. It's something President-elect Obama expects to see. Second would be [ending current restrictions on federally funded] stem-cell research. And third would be an economic recovery package focused on the two principles of job creation and tax relief for middle-class families."
At this point, I got whiplash. Say what? Hey, I'm all for Schip and all that -- for starters (it doesn't get us to a National Health Plan, but it's something). But I don't recall it being, specifically, a main topic in the election. But let it pass; it fits under the umbrella of a topic Obama DID talk a lot about.
But stem-cell research? You're kidding me, right? An issue from the very heart of the Culture Wars, the second priority of the new president? In what universe, other than that occupied by the NARALs on one side and the Right to Life lobby on the other?
Why would this supposedly pragmatic, triangulating new chief of staff choose such a pointlessly divisive cultural issue as Priority Two for a president who so famously wants to end divisiveness in the country? Does he want to make the biggest mistake since Bill Clinton, after winning as a Third Way Democrat, both lifted regulatory restrictions on abortion and tried to eliminate the barrier to gays in the military in his first days in office?
Obama making stem cells a top priority would be like ... I don't know... like a Republican getting elected and announcing that one of the first things he'll do is intervene in something like the Terri Schiavo case. One can quibble all day about the efficacy of different approaches to research in this field -- but lifting the very narrow restriction that exists on federal funding of this activity (not on whether the research will take place, but on whether we the taxpayers will pay for it) is all about bragging rights in the Culture War. It's a big deal to the left to lift the restrictions and a big deal to the right to keep them in place, but it doesn't bear much on the price of fish for the rest of us. In fact, the technology may be on the way to making the political argument moot.
At first I attributed this to some sort of misunderstanding. After all, this interview was conducted on the fly, in an airport, before Mr. Emanuel had even been officially offered the post of chief of staff. And it WAS couched in terms of what Obama's "likely to find on his ... desk soonest" from Congress, which is different from what his own priorities might be.
But then I started seeing other references to this Kulturkampf issue, references that indicated this would be a priority for the new administration. And I had to wonder why. Is this a sop Obama would throw to his base so they get off his back on intelligence matters? Maybe. And maybe it's just some partisans on his transition team getting carried away with themselves.
But it gave me pause.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 11:37 AM in 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, Democrats, Kulturkampf, Science, Technology, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef010535e586a9970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Since when do stem cells top the agenda?:
» Adderall. from Adderall without a prescription.
Adderall make knees numb. Adderall xr side effects. Adderall treating anxiety in adults. Snorting concerta adderall. Adderall. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 17, 2009 10:20:57 AM
Comments
It's not that stem-cell research "tops the agenda," it's just that there are a whole host of items that Obama could tackle via executive order, and that happens to be one of them.
The way Emanuel phrased it, it sounded like it would be part of legislative initiatives, but that was misleading or inaccurate. Obama can simply reverse Bush's executive order on stem-cell research. It will probably be one of the very first things he does, not because it's the most pressing priority, but simply because he believes in that position and he can easily issue the reversal of the order.
There seem to be a lot of mixed signals about this. Podesta talked about these executive orders, but yesterday another spokeswoman insisted that "before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups."
Posted by: Phillip | Nov 11, 2008 12:25:18 PM
Thank God He's not letting Gays in the military as his first presidential action!!!
Posted by: Mike | Nov 11, 2008 12:30:16 PM
Brad, unlike McCain who needs to set aside one priority (his campaign) to address another (the financial crisis) it's possible that Obama can multi-task. As Phillip explained, stem cells is one of a collection of executive order issues.
I am once again suprised at your simplistic categorization of those favoring stem-cell research as NARAL types (darn that NARAL loving Nancy Reagan).
Yea Mike, thank God there are no gay people in the military (and there are none in Iran either according to Ahmadinejad).
Posted by: Randy E | Nov 11, 2008 1:50:08 PM
It is symbolic, like most of Obama's campaign, meant to feed red meat to the hard-core Democrats who whipped this non-issue into another "outrage", and excuse to vilify President Bush.
It panders to the abortion crowd, the junk science crowd, the government research money feeders, costs nothing, accomplishes nothing, and causes no real harm.
And it is a thumb in the eye of abortion opponents, and a signal to the pro-abortion crowd. It may be all they get, but it will innoculate Obama from criticism for not delivering for quite a while.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 11, 2008 3:01:17 PM
Looks like Bobby Jindal of Lousiana may come out as a front-runner on the Republican side next time. This article suggests he might be a good choice, especially a pro-lifer for universal health care. Much more qualified than Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Ozzie | Nov 11, 2008 3:18:06 PM
Brad, I partially agree, the stem cell issue is fairly minor. But a large majority of voters probably favor lifting the ban. This isn't going to be nearly so divisive and you suggest. But it probably could have been lifted without so much fanfare.
As for me, I'm disappointed he hasn't mentioned anything about Iraq yet. Surely that will come up soon. That's a major issue that he actually ran on.
Posted by: bud | Nov 11, 2008 3:28:58 PM
Well, bud... actually, he just ran for the NOMINATION on that. In the early stages. But thanks to the success of the surge he opposed, he was able to run his general election campaign on the economy, which is probably the single largest reason he won the election.
And so it was perfectly appropriate for him to make his first press conference after the election about that issue -- which should please you, since you like talking about the economy more than I do.
What's going to happen on Iraq? The same thing that would have happened if McCain had become president, although it will be presented differently: As the Iraqis stand up (which they've been doing, increasingly), we'll stand down -- and the troops and other resources will go to Afghanistan. Or to some other trouble spot we don't even know about yet.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 11, 2008 4:13:03 PM
Brad,
Let's recall who won the election: the Democrats, decisively and all the way around. That means they get to implement their program, with or without the Republicans who can protest all they like.
The Republicans had no problem in 2001 implementing their program over Democratic and secular objections. I fully expect the Democrats to protect a woman's right to choose; promote stem-cell research; vigorougly support the teaching of real science (i.e., evolution) in the public schools; end faith-based, government-financed initiatives, and eventually end the don't-ask-don't-tell policy concerning gays in the military and fully support their open inclusion in the U.S. armed forces and in all aspects of American life.
Let's face it: objections to abortion, gayness, stem-cell research, evolution, birth-control--you name it!--virtually all stem from religious considerations. When those concerns lack a purely secular purpose then they have no place in our law.
As I said, the Republicans lost the election--and decisively. This means that we Democrats get to enjoy the spectacle of their being outvoted and dis-established as a major influence in American life for some time to come.
The Republicans need to become the party of Lincoln again and recover their roots as fiscal conservatives who not only oppose excessive taxation but also oppose excessive spending, particularly on the military to prop up our empire in American blood and treasure.
To quote the French president not too long in dealing with his opposition at home: il est temps que les Republicains se taisent--i.e., it's time for the Republicans to shut up and acknowledge their defeat and all it truly means!
In addition, I would support constitutional reform of the Senate to reflect the population of the states in order to end the excessive influence of small states like South Carolina and South Dakota on national politics.
Posted by: Rich | Nov 11, 2008 4:44:06 PM
"Rich?" Is that you, Frank? Sorry; couldn't resist.
Seems like I've heard that same argument before -- from George W. Bush. Which is why we endorsed Obama and McCain for their respective parties, because both of them offered the promise of getting beyond all that "We won the election, so we're going to do what we damn' well please, no matter what the other 40-some-odd percent of the country wants" garbage.
And I fail to see why you fail to see that the main obstacle to governing in a way that can gain and keep the support of a consensus of the country is concentrating on PERIPHERAL issues such as federal funding of stem cell research.
Lead on the economy. Lead on America's place in the world. Lead on the things that matter. Leave the pointless culture wars for the interest groups to fight each other over. No one who would govern the whole country should waste his time and energy on that stuff.
You can't avoid nominating justices for the Supreme Court when vacancies occur. And thanks to the madness fostered by Roe, you can't avoid there being a full-tilt cultural battle over that when the time comes. But for the country's sake, don't go provoking any of that nonsense when you don't have to.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 11, 2008 5:01:38 PM
Ah, you're not thinking big, Brad.
Stem cell research....just like space exploration...SHOULD be federally funded, and it should receive intensive active government support up and down the line.
This is important, for obvious reasons, as we approach something more akin to a "universal" (some would say "ethical") healthcare system.
But have you considered national security?
A chemical or biological holocaust is, at present, far more likely, and far less preventable, than a nuclear holocaust.
Think about the ramifications. Think about what stem cells are, and the potential for what they can do. Think about the sorts of catastrophes further understanding might prevent, or even reverse.
The stem-cell thing is only a "Culture Wars" issue to people who make the choice to see it through that filter alone. But the world is moving too fast for America to get hung up on this sort of reactionary navel-gazing. Just as we had an obligation to beat the Nazis to a superweapon, and an obligation to hold our own in the Space Race, we also have an obligation to compete in the biological frontier. It's not too extreme to think that if our government doesn't take up that obligation, we could be mortally screwed.
Posted by: jfx | Nov 11, 2008 7:23:19 PM
So what if "a majority of voters favor lifting the ban" on federal funding of stem cell research using aborted babies (all other stem cell research is funded)?
a. Most voters don't know what a stem cell is, much less understand the medical ethics and other issues. That includes the Obama voters posting here.
b. Morals are not declared valid by majority will, much less by a tiny minority declaring that it is the will of the majority. You can legalize murder, but it is still murder. Oooops. Washington state just did that in this election, with "assisted suicide".
Posted by: Lee Muller | Nov 11, 2008 8:31:05 PM
So, Lee, you're not in favor of majority-rule democracy when it conflicts with your personal worldview or ideology? Gee. Fair-weather patriot?
FYI, nobody here is an arbiter or authority on morals. Nope, not you either.
Have you considered that most of the voters in favor of lifting the federal ban might actually understand the positive implications of all manner of stem cell research enough that they think it warrants aggressive federal support?
Or do you think all of us evil Obama posters just want to kill more babies?
Posted by: jfx | Nov 11, 2008 9:37:42 PM
Lee Muller, and sometimes, Brad Warthen, are the only sensible, reasoned and factually supported commentators on this blog, whatever the political social historical topic.
The ponderous others are clonoids of MTV sophist postmodern propagandized "college grads" PC educated beyond their intelligence. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Posted by: Camelot | Nov 11, 2008 10:42:18 PM
Brad,
Consensus means that we all more or less agree on something. I don't believe for a minute that we should arrive at consensus with the Republicans. They lost the election and it is they who spent the last eight years trying to impose their divisive religious values on everyone else.
It may be shocking in South Carolina to say that our government should not be organized around supposed "Biblical" principles, but when you fight against a woman's right to choose, a gay person's right to full equality, stem-cell research, evolution, and equal opportunity for minorities after STEALING THE ELECTION in 2000, how can I be considered the culture warrior?
You know, I lived in California and Massachusetts for years. And while I would never leave S.C. ever again except for a vacation, the mindset of the white people of this red state is OUT OF STEP with the rest of the Union. S.C. and the other red states that voted for McCain are not the intellectual and spiritual leaders of this country. The Republicans gained power for a time largely through the dirty tricks of yahoos like Lee Atwater, who gladly played to the baser instincts of the Republican Party.
It seems to me that you're saying, hey, wait a minute, there are certain subjects that are taboo because they are divisive. If you want our support to create a government of national unity, then you must accommodate the party THAT LOST.
Wrong. What I voted for was a decisive shift to a European-style left in American politics. I want us to be international, urbane, sophisticated, nuanced, intelligent, educated, skeptical, and RESPECTED once again by people with brains outside this country.
This means that I DON'T CARE if you can hunt or fish; I don't care to have a government staffed with people who can shoot pool, fight, or drink me under the table (all of which would require some doing). I want my government to be BETTER than I am. I want my president to represent this country abroad with pride. I want to hear people worldwide oohing and aahing about how wonderful he is and how he represents the better angels of our nature.
I am not in the least bit interested in bowling with him (yup, I can do that better) or having a beer with him. If I ever met him and sat down with him for a few minutes, I would want to have tea and pick his brain about foreign policy. We elected a president--a leader, someone who can do what we cannot do, someone whose actions will fill us with national pride and deep, deep satisfaction.
That's not going to happen if we accept the Republican attitude that, yes, the conservatives lost the election decisively, but the winners dare not bring our country into the modern world.
Religious fundamentalism, yahoo conservatism, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism have been the hallmarks of a discredited, regional, dessicated, hypocritical Republican party that deserves absolutely no place in the halls of power for the next four years. And if they obstruct, then their obstruction must be made manifest for all to see.
No, it is time for the Democracy to lead, and for the GOP to follow.
Indeed, it is time for the GOP to recapture its legacy as the party of Lincoln and fiscal restraint while decisively jettisoning the RELIGIOUS RIGHT which has done so much damage over the last generation to America and to the world in the false hope that their mythical god will ever return.
It ain't happenin'. Sorry.
Posted by: Rich | Nov 11, 2008 11:31:28 PM
Rich, you're missing the big picture here.
Mr. Warthen IS a Republican Ayatollah, whether he's a card-carryin' knuckledragger or not is irrelevant. His style is not the Know-Nothing internet crank Lee Muller model but the ultimate vote from him is the same as Lee's.
His brand of cafeteria-style Roman Catholicism is the foundation of his political life. His version of religion/government is closer to the Islamic model than our seperation of church and state.
Abortion drives Mr. Warthen. He has some self-awareness in that he understands how radical his real philosophy is. He hides his opposition to birth control pills and his desire for the government to outlaw the same as he knows how strange and repugnant that assault on individual privacy would appear to the great majority of American society. He hides his abortion fanaticism by couching it in simplistic constitutional law terminology. The words "right to privacy" don't appear in the Constitution so it doesn't exist to Mr. Warthen. Ask him where the right to a fair trial is in the Constitution or the right to vote and he becomes mute.
Mr. Warthen's compartmentalization of his faith is further shown by his fervent support of capital punishment and his refusal to recognize his church's opposition to the other pillar of his being, the Neo-Con War in Iraq.
So, Rich, when you write of the Republicans and their attempts to force their religion down our throats; unfortunately, Mr. Warthen is one of the pitchfork people, albeit one with guile.
You must realize there is no value in exchanging views with Mr. Warthen; he is the epitome of religious ferver. He is right and refuses to consider any other opinion as his version of religion tells him he is right. He's happy to be civil as long as you don't object to his imposing his religious views on the rest of us.
Posted by: Guero | Nov 12, 2008 6:49:06 AM
Geez Geuro! What a pontificating, self righteous boor you are. I admit I have done my share of sermonizing in the past, but when I look at your voluminous screeds I have to take my hat off to a master bullsh*tter.
In any case, as usual we can leave it to liberals to reduce an issue with towering moral implications to the lowest common denominator and liken stem cell research to winning the space race, as jfx has done.
Way to go jfx, you have raised missing the big pic to an art form.
David
Posted by: faust | Nov 12, 2008 7:57:24 AM
Brad, you miss the point with stem cell research. It was Bush who changed it. Obama is merely restoring the situation to what it was before. Why is that devisive? I would suggest that 80% of all Americans favor stem cell research. You're nitpicking here. The Democrats won the election and they will push their agenda on the cultural issues.
As for Iraq, Brad, as usual, is completely wrong. Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq and will do so. McCain campaigned on a 100 year occupation. That's a pretty big difference to me. I hope he gets on with it.
Posted by: bud | Nov 12, 2008 8:50:36 AM
"Let's face it: objections to abortion, gayness, stem-cell research, evolution, birth-control--you name it!--virtually all stem from religious considerations." - Rich
No, Rich, the objections to those things have more to do with right and wrong, common sense and instinct than religion.
Worshiping at the altar of Bill Maher won't get you to sociopolitical heaven, I promise.
Posted by: p.m. | Nov 12, 2008 10:21:19 AM
p.m. -- If religion is not the objection to the issues of homosexuality, stem cell research, birth control, and evolution, then I would love to hear the specifics as to why each of these things should be rejected.
Posted by: Birchibald T. Barlow | Nov 12, 2008 10:50:45 AM
Here's an issue that will rise rapidly to the top, energy. Mexico is poised to become a net oil importer in as little as 2 years. If that happens the U.S. will have to make up 11% of it's oil imports from somewhere.
Ex-official says Mexico may have to halt oil exports
By JENALIA MORENO and DAVID IVANOVICH Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 11, 2008, 11:32PMShare
U.S. could soon find itself scrambling to make up 11 percent in lost oil imports.
Mexico, the third-largest foreign supplier of U.S. oil, faces the real possibility of having to halt oil exports in four years, a former top Mexican energy official was reported as saying Tuesday in Mexico’s El Universal newspaper.
Rogelio Gasca Neri, the former head of Mexico’s federal electricity commission, blamed the inability of the nation’s oil industry to produce enough oil to meet rising demand.
Posted by: bud | Nov 12, 2008 11:39:53 AM
I have no morall problem with stem cell research as long as we do not destroy human embryos to do it and as long as government (more specifically, the american taxpayer) doesn't subsidize it.
Beyond that, have at it.
David
Posted by: faust | Nov 12, 2008 1:46:53 PM
On stem cell research, Birchibald, you're missing the point, succinctly stated by Faust.
It's not about the moral objections. It's about whether WE should be FORCED to pay for it with our taxes. The burden is on those who WANT federal funds to go for it, not on those who don't.
Or are you maintaining that this is a world in which everything that's not forbidden should be mandatory?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 12, 2008 2:22:00 PM
Brad -- Your point is well made on stem-cell research. I should have left that off the list of issues on that comment. We shouldn't be FORCED to pay for stem cell research with our tax dollars the same way we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for health care with our tax dollars the same way we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for retirement benefits with our tax dollars.
Posted by: Birchibald T. Barlow | Nov 12, 2008 3:09:46 PM
We most certainly should be forced to pay for what we don't like--especially when we LOSE ELECTIONS!
The Bill of Rights makes no provision for exempting from taxation those who object to the purpose of the levy.
For that matter, I'd start taxing church property.
Posted by: Rich | Nov 12, 2008 3:30:17 PM
Well, gee, if you put it that way, it sounds a whole lot better...
My point is that if there is something controversial of debatable benefit (and I mean reasonably debatable; it's POSSIBLE to debate anything), general tax revenues shouldn't be spent on it -- ESPECIALLY when it expresses the very essence of cultural divides in our society.
Obviously, we need to pay taxes that are demonstrably for the general good -- such as Social Security taxes. But such money should not be spent on matters that are the most divisive we have, such as to pay for abortions or support increasingly irrelevant kinds of stem cell research.
But my ultimate point isn't about the spending itself. It's about priorities. If you want to unify the country and get it moving in a positive direction, you don't waste precious political capital making gestures toward one side or the other in pointless, endless culture wars.
We've had enough of this... the Democrats win an election, and immediately flip the switch one way, infuriating the Republicans. Then the Republicans win an election, and immediately flip the switch the other way, infuriating the Democrats. Then the Democrats get back into power, and THE FIRST THING they can think of to do is whatever will infuriate the Republicans the most...
It's stupid, it's childish and it's destructive, doing far more harm than it's worth. Obama has the intelligence, and I believe the motivation, to break that cycle. And what I'm saying is that putting stem cell research in the first rank of the things you want to do is NOT the way to move forward. Which is why I hope Emanuel's statement on the subject does not reflect Obama's priorities.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 12, 2008 3:35:47 PM
