The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’

Posted on | July 30, 2010 | 166 Comments

Phyllis Schlafly is one of conservatism’s great heroines. Both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter acknowledge Schlafly’s influence as a role model. Forty-six years after her rallying cry for Goldwater, A Choice Not an Echo, and three decades after she led the crusade to stop ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, she’s still driving liberals nuts:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for their living. For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .”

This is what we in the journalism business call a “fact”:

Those numbers are from an exit poll conducted by a notorious right-wing extremist group — CNN — and Schlafly’s explanation of why single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is neither new nor “extreme” nor uniquely hers. Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum in National Review, April 10:

Take a recent report entitled “Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women” by the Center for American Progress, the “progressive” nonprofit run by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta. The report reviews the problems of a growing segment of our society: unmarried women. They are poorer, more likely than other women to be unemployed, have less access to health care, and often struggle to care for children without support from fathers.
What’s CAP’s solution? More government at every turn. Among the recommended proposals are more generous unemployment benefits, more job-training and job-placement programs, greater subsidies for child care, more generous child-nutrition programs, direct welfare payments for those with children, government intervention to prevent foreclosures, expanded low-income-housing programs, an increased minimum wage, government intervention to increase the pay of occupations dominated by women, mandatory paid family and sick leave, and, of course, government-provided health care. In other words, complete cradle-to-grave, taxpayer-provided government support.
It’s tempting to call this paper sexist: Women — especially unmarried women — are portrayed as barely able to subsist without extra protection. One could also ruminate on CAP’s view of family formation, which seems willing to substitute a dependent relationship on the government for marriage. A woman without a man is encouraged to depend on Uncle Sam.

One might disagree with that analysis, but it is hardly “extreme,” and yet the Schlafly speech making the same basic point is being seized as a campaign issue by Democrats:

Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement. . . .
Democrats plan to jump on the 75 Republican candidates for federal office that Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has endorsed and donated to — a list that includes Todd Tiahrt in the Kansas Republican primary for Senate, Ken Buck in the Colorado Republican primary for Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his Senate Conservatives Fund and Sen. David Vitter. Already, reporters in Vitter’s home state of Louisiana are getting releases from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pressing them to ask Vitter if he agrees with Schlafly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing the same thing to Eagle Forum-endorsed House candidates, painting Republicans on dozens of ballots — including Rep. Michele Bachmann and Scott Rigell in the competitive VA-02 race — as “extreme” and saying the candidate should refuse Schlafly’s endorsement.

I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.

UPDATE: Linked by Da Tech Guy and liberal feminist Taylor Marsh, and there’s a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE II: Linked by Virginia Right and Scipio 62 at Red State, and featured by Red at Caught Him With a Corndog.

UPDATE III: Professor Donald Douglas suggests that Rocky Raczkowski is inviting renunciation. I’m not going to be hasty, like Vilsack throwing Sherrod under the bus.

The Blog Prof offers a primer in the techniques of liberal bias, as demonstrated by the Oakland (Mich.) Press News.

For the benefit of any Republican confused by all this uproar, let me explain the basic problem: The way to tackle feminism is head-on.

Feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. It is a radical egalitarian ideology based upon a fallacy, and should never be endorsed or appeased in the erroneous belief that, by kowtowing to ideologues, Republicans can win “The Women’s Vote” (capital-T, capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology).  A brief explanation:

Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal.
Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing may be substituted for the other without any difference in value. Only a fool could believe that men and women are equal in that way, and yet this is what feminists would require us to believe. And any man who dares contradict this egalitarian dogma is a sexist, an oppressor, a reactionary representative of the patriarchy.
All the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same, and therefore are not equal.

Do not think that you, a Republican, can benefit by attempting some sort of “me-too” feminism, nor should you fall into the error of thinking that there is some sort of “conservative feminism” which can be mobilized to elect you. Such foolish behaviors and atttitudes only betray your lack of judgment and courage.

Most of all, do not think that you can benefit by throwing Phyllis Schlafly under the bus. Do you know how Phyllis Schlafly earned her way through college? Working in a munitions plant during World War II, when her job was test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition.

Think about that, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! BTW, did you hear what happened to the Republican billionaires who didn’t hit my tip jar?

Category: Conservatism 101, Feminism, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Comments

166 Responses to “When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’”

  1. Sunday Links
    August 1st, 2010 @ 2:25 am

    […] Schafley speaks the truth on why unmarried vote Democrat. (Hat Tip: […]

  2. Rule 5 Sunday : The Other McCain
    August 1st, 2010 @ 8:46 am

    […] must have access to the FBI archive, or something. How they managed to come up with a picture of Phyllis Schlafly test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammo is unknown, but impressive. The research into the pressing […]

  3. old white guy
    August 1st, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

    time to remove the right to vote from women. it was a bad idea.

  4. old white guy
    August 1st, 2010 @ 9:15 am

    time to remove the right to vote from women. it was a bad idea.

  5. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

    So I fear that going out of our way to insult these people is tantamount to leading with the chin.

    To some extent, perhaps. Then again, it is almost like it does not matter what you say, they will make up lies about you to generate dischord. So you might as well say the truth, as you see it. The art of it is doing it in a manner that you minimize the offending (because when you challenge someone the first reaction will be anger) but get your message across.

  6. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

    So I fear that going out of our way to insult these people is tantamount to leading with the chin.

    To some extent, perhaps. Then again, it is almost like it does not matter what you say, they will make up lies about you to generate dischord. So you might as well say the truth, as you see it. The art of it is doing it in a manner that you minimize the offending (because when you challenge someone the first reaction will be anger) but get your message across.

  7. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

    There are about 1.5 billion [a bit high but okay] moslems [spelling] in this world. The moslem countries that have bizarre [spelling] laws about gay people represent a small minority of them and in those countries, the people themselves are living in functional dictatorships [ahhh, every Muslim majority state other than arguably Turkey is a functional dictatorship, monarchy, or olicharchy]. I’d bet huge odds that a smaller proportion moslems than christians hate gay people – especially among American conservatives [where is this coming from?]. I am 100% certain that the number of moslems that think gay people should be killed is a tiny percentage [I am not aware of any Western state condoning anything like that, I know Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda promote doing that now]. It is extremism to imply that all moslems do. [Who implied that? This is a straw man argument].

    Those of you that think that parents of a fourteen year old pregnant girl don’t suck or that the child is a rationale player in her economic future, choosing a fabulous life on $500/month are idiots, spewing irrational talking points to further more uncaring cruelty. [I have no idea what you are saying].

    That said, I made no claim that there are no women that figure that welfare will take care of them, merely that it’s extremism to claim that all of them are. [My head is starting to hurt now reading this crap]. I made no claim the you, Roxeanne, are not an independent woman, I said that the characterization of any mother that doesn’t have a man as a parasite is extremism and, worse, a manipulative way of casting aspersions on independent women in general. (And, it’s worth noting, this started with Shafly talking, not about unwed mothers, but all divorced women, in this way.) [Roxanne is twice the man you are].

    When you “slut-slammers” talk about young unwed mothers in terms of “just keep your legs shut” you reveal a stupid cruelty that is unbearable but indicative of the fantasy life of conservatives. [Your perjoritives aside, that is not bad advice to start with, we all recognize it is hardly foolproof.] Children do not cooperate. [Duh.] They do dumb, counterproductive things all the time. [Duh.] The idea that society has the ability to force them not to screw is just plain dumb. People have tried everything from literal chastity belts, to shotgun marriages, to putting girls in prison, to immeasurable cruelties of all sorts. [You must be thinking of your Muslim pals noted above]. It never works. I love the idea that preventing sex education, ie, attempting to conceal the reality of sex from children, will make them more responsible. Pure fantasy. [Sex education on the mechanics of how pregnancy happens, explaining what controception is, and why having sex at an early age is a bad idea is fine, telling kids what fisting is all about or encouraging them that picking up strange adult men at bus stations is okay is not.]

    But the most stupid thing I read here is the ongoing assertion about liberal motivation. I have been a politically active, thoughtful liberal for decades. [No kidding? I never would have guessed that.] I have protested, run campaigns, written articles, read books, engaged in every way. [You go girl]. I have never, ever known a liberal that has an affirmative motivation to replace the father, ruin families, encourage dependency, or any of the other dumb things you people have said. [Well, spend some time in a feminist book store and you might find what you say does not exists.]

    Never. To the extent that you base your viewpoints on that notion, you are 100% wrong. [This refers to the paragraph above?]

    Of course, you’ll call me a liar but that’s because the conservative mindset operates on a fantasy that, “if it makes sense to me, it must be true.” [Liar, no, you really do believe this shit.] Somehow you think that, given enough cruelty and intolerance, the things you dislike will magically go away. [Dude, did we hurt your feelings?] Think badly of me and fellow liberals and maybe that will be true, too. [Come on now, let’s smoke a bong and hug it out.]

    Or not.

  8. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

    There are about 1.5 billion [a bit high but okay] moslems [spelling] in this world. The moslem countries that have bizarre [spelling] laws about gay people represent a small minority of them and in those countries, the people themselves are living in functional dictatorships [ahhh, every Muslim majority state other than arguably Turkey is a functional dictatorship, monarchy, or olicharchy]. I’d bet huge odds that a smaller proportion moslems than christians hate gay people – especially among American conservatives [where is this coming from?]. I am 100% certain that the number of moslems that think gay people should be killed is a tiny percentage [I am not aware of any Western state condoning anything like that, I know Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda promote doing that now]. It is extremism to imply that all moslems do. [Who implied that? This is a straw man argument].

    Those of you that think that parents of a fourteen year old pregnant girl don’t suck or that the child is a rationale player in her economic future, choosing a fabulous life on $500/month are idiots, spewing irrational talking points to further more uncaring cruelty. [I have no idea what you are saying].

    That said, I made no claim that there are no women that figure that welfare will take care of them, merely that it’s extremism to claim that all of them are. [My head is starting to hurt now reading this crap]. I made no claim the you, Roxeanne, are not an independent woman, I said that the characterization of any mother that doesn’t have a man as a parasite is extremism and, worse, a manipulative way of casting aspersions on independent women in general. (And, it’s worth noting, this started with Shafly talking, not about unwed mothers, but all divorced women, in this way.) [Roxanne is twice the man you are].

    When you “slut-slammers” talk about young unwed mothers in terms of “just keep your legs shut” you reveal a stupid cruelty that is unbearable but indicative of the fantasy life of conservatives. [Your perjoritives aside, that is not bad advice to start with, we all recognize it is hardly foolproof.] Children do not cooperate. [Duh.] They do dumb, counterproductive things all the time. [Duh.] The idea that society has the ability to force them not to screw is just plain dumb. People have tried everything from literal chastity belts, to shotgun marriages, to putting girls in prison, to immeasurable cruelties of all sorts. [You must be thinking of your Muslim pals noted above]. It never works. I love the idea that preventing sex education, ie, attempting to conceal the reality of sex from children, will make them more responsible. Pure fantasy. [Sex education on the mechanics of how pregnancy happens, explaining what controception is, and why having sex at an early age is a bad idea is fine, telling kids what fisting is all about or encouraging them that picking up strange adult men at bus stations is okay is not.]

    But the most stupid thing I read here is the ongoing assertion about liberal motivation. I have been a politically active, thoughtful liberal for decades. [No kidding? I never would have guessed that.] I have protested, run campaigns, written articles, read books, engaged in every way. [You go girl]. I have never, ever known a liberal that has an affirmative motivation to replace the father, ruin families, encourage dependency, or any of the other dumb things you people have said. [Well, spend some time in a feminist book store and you might find what you say does not exists.]

    Never. To the extent that you base your viewpoints on that notion, you are 100% wrong. [This refers to the paragraph above?]

    Of course, you’ll call me a liar but that’s because the conservative mindset operates on a fantasy that, “if it makes sense to me, it must be true.” [Liar, no, you really do believe this shit.] Somehow you think that, given enough cruelty and intolerance, the things you dislike will magically go away. [Dude, did we hurt your feelings?] Think badly of me and fellow liberals and maybe that will be true, too. [Come on now, let’s smoke a bong and hug it out.]

    Or not.

  9. Tennwriter
    August 1st, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

    Miss Attilla,
    Its libertarians who are the Chihuahuas who snap at the ankles of conservatives, thus distracting said Conservatives from forcing RINOs to pretend to be reasonable, and then the conservatives moving on to stomping the crud out of liberalism.

    AKA, if libertarians spent less time sniping at conservatives with their understandable social concerns (as Conservatism is based on Freedom and Virtue), then libertarians might see the expansion of Freedom they claim so loudly to support. However, one sometimes suspects they hate conservatives more than they love Freedom.

    Perhaps this is not you, but you might spread the word to the other libertarians eager to start fights that need not be fought now.

  10. Tennwriter
    August 1st, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

    Miss Attilla,
    Its libertarians who are the Chihuahuas who snap at the ankles of conservatives, thus distracting said Conservatives from forcing RINOs to pretend to be reasonable, and then the conservatives moving on to stomping the crud out of liberalism.

    AKA, if libertarians spent less time sniping at conservatives with their understandable social concerns (as Conservatism is based on Freedom and Virtue), then libertarians might see the expansion of Freedom they claim so loudly to support. However, one sometimes suspects they hate conservatives more than they love Freedom.

    Perhaps this is not you, but you might spread the word to the other libertarians eager to start fights that need not be fought now.

  11. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

    Tennwriter, there are lots of issues out there, but small “l” libertarians are not the problem. Big “L” losertarians, unfortunately, occasionally cost Republicans elections as spoilers.

  12. Joe
    August 1st, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

    Tennwriter, there are lots of issues out there, but small “l” libertarians are not the problem. Big “L” losertarians, unfortunately, occasionally cost Republicans elections as spoilers.

  13. cowboydave
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 12:10 am

    PLEASE CALL THE NRA 800 392 8683 PRESS #3 TELL THE REP. DO NOT ENDORSE harry reid….. PLEASE THIS IS IMPORTANT….. TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO CALL THEM, ALSO NRA MEMBERS PLEASE WRITE THE NRA DIRECTORS TELL THEM TO NOT LET THE NRA ENDORSE harry reid THANK YOU

  14. cowboydave
    August 1st, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

    PLEASE CALL THE NRA 800 392 8683 PRESS #3 TELL THE REP. DO NOT ENDORSE harry reid….. PLEASE THIS IS IMPORTANT….. TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO CALL THEM, ALSO NRA MEMBERS PLEASE WRITE THE NRA DIRECTORS TELL THEM TO NOT LET THE NRA ENDORSE harry reid THANK YOU

  15. Unexpected Endorsement for Schlafly : The Other McCain
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

    […] Arthur KoestlerUnexpected Endorsement for SchlaflyPosted on | August 2, 2010 | No CommentsRemember my defense of Phyllis Schlafly? Well, now comes some blunt truth from Patterico:Here is a generalization for you: when I see […]

  16. Foppish Munch-head’s Jacked-up Ruling: Annoying : The Other McCain
    August 7th, 2010 @ 6:24 am

    […] Graham Sadly Abdicated His Elected ResponsibilityThe Lonely ConservativeObi’s SisterPhyllisWhen Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’VA RightDaTechguyTaylor MarshRed StateThe Camp of the SaintsUS Message BoardWorlds Only Rational […]