Page Two

The current assault on the construction of the new Planned Parenthood clinic is thuggery that is not pro-life, nor pro-anything. It is anti-women, anti-religious-freedom, anti-democratic, and anti-choice not simply in terms of reproductive rights but in much broader ways. This is not a boycott conducted by anti-choice construction contractors, but rather a campaign of organized threats against construction companies. If a company takes the job, then boycott organizer Chris Danze and his forces will do all they can to economically hurt, if not destroy, it.

If this effort succeeds, it will mark the moment Austin really begins to die. This city has survived growth, traffic, suburban dominance, and Central Texas' changing demographics. Sure, Austin is frustratingly contentious -- with not two but 20 points of view on everything -- but this is also one of its strengths. We talk too much, but we talk; everything is politicized, but everything is thus considered; we are too involved in our city, but we are so involved. Inevitably we are factionalized; just as inevitably the constituency of the factions changes.

Under the guise of free speech, this boycott is designed to shut people up. Claiming moral authority, the organizers implement a bullying strategy. Operating in God's name, they reflect only human ego. Pretending to protect women, they are determined to restrict their rights; in the name of serving families, the goal is to severely limit options.

Danze is blatant in his prejudices, telling the Austin American-Statesman that Planned Parenthood's decision to act as their own contractor was "good news for men who use women as sex objects. Bad news for women and children." Think about what he is saying: Danze doesn't care when life begins; this is aimed against sex, women's rights, personal responsibility, and individual freedom.

Danze is just as clear that this is not about personal conscience but the power of threat. The Daily Texan quotes him as saying, "The construction community here is very small, and when someone's working on a job, it's not something you can keep a secret very easily. We have people going by that job site two, three, four times a day. We're going to know everybody who works at that site."

There are those so passionate about life that they are unrelentingly against abortion, the death penalty, and war, while in favor of health care, education, and social services. There are others who sanctify life, but less absolutely. Their religious beliefs and their hearts tell them abortion is wrong. I would never suggest to any of these people that this boycott is so vicious they should support Planned Parenthood or the clinic's construction. But maybe they're willing to think about the consequences for the community.

They might also contemplate that the driving mission of Planned Parenthood is family planning, including preventing unwanted pregnancies. The vast majority of services offered are related to health, education, information, and counseling. If federal and state governments supported rather than opposed Planned Parenthood's goals, it would do more to limit abortion than all the protesting combined.

Then there are those who argue against abortion as proof of their moral superiority, another achievement award to get them into heaven. Danze and his ilk make this latter group look like moral giants. Pretending to be free-speech advocates, they use any tactic to silence others. Asserting a deep, Bible-based morality, they ignore all its cautions against self-righteous hubris. They do not do unto others as they would have done unto themselves; they simply do unto others. In the name of God, they offer reactionary fantasies of sex roles and relationships. Most of the legislators leading the drive against choice are just as adamant about restricting health services, education, and information about options, especially in regard to contraception and sex education. If all these groups succeed, what would it be like, with as little education as possible, almost no freedom over one's family or body, and no recourse for unwanted pregnancies? Danze is explicit about this, as well as labeling Planned Parenthood "a social movement that promotes sexual chaos, especially among our youth. Out of this chaos comes the violence of abortion." The concern is not conception; it is controlling behavior. The almost-insane conceit is that biological drives come not from nature but education. The unacceptable solution is ever-narrowing information resources and health services.

In the arguments above I really haven't considered those who support choice (to varying degrees); as anti-choice forces try to limit options and shrink freedoms, we are the defense. The fate of Planned Parenthood -- and this is really not just about a single organization but the health of the whole community -- will be determined by us, our action or inaction. The future is upon us and we are being called.

---

I used to think that the big lie was a government manipulation so expert the public bought it. Now I understand the public's complicity. The big lie becomes more than a lie not through repetition but through the range of folks who subscribe to it. Completely mystifying to me now is the ready acceptance that there is an unprecedented and widespread fanatical hatred of Bush that is more personal than political. After eight years of vicious Clinton-bashing, this is beyond astonishing.

Admittedly, using Statesman columnist Marvin Olasky as an example is shooting fish in a barrel. The "no president has ever suffered hatred as intense as Bush now is" arguments all offer the same points: 1) Such pure hatred is completely unprecedented; 2) hating Bush as a person has led to an irrational rejection of all his policies; and 3) there is, finally, the begrudging acknowledgement that maybe the right started things off on a bad foot by their good-natured hazing of Clinton, but against Bush, it's dramatically intensified.

Olasky acknowledges, "Mention of Clinton brings me to conservative complicity in the growth of political hatred: some conservatives rejoiced in his personal degradation. And yet, demonizing any opponent is wrong, especially for Christians." This is artistry: They rejoiced in Clinton's degradation instead of actively orchestrating it. The reality is that the right wing invented, developed, promoted, and profited from the modern packaging of political hatred. On dozens of talk-radio shows, Clinton was beyond demonized. He was called a traitor, a predator, a murderer, a coward, and much worse. More than $40 million was spent on an investigation of a couple of $100,000 land deals that ended up focused on a White House intern. Finally, Clinton was impeached. This is a lot more than a few jokes made at his expense.

Certainly, this set the tone for consideration of President Bush. But for all the denunciations of the anti-Bush hate, it's hard to find it. Sure, there are Democrats who don't like him, progressives who denounce him, presidential candidates running solely on a platform that they are against him. But I can name a herd of nationally syndicated and local talk-radio shows that attacked Clinton every day and still do whenever the opportunity presents itself. Where is the hatred-of-Bush wildfire burning? Not on talk radio -- they love him; sure, among Democratic politicians -- but, sadly, who still takes many of them seriously? The major media evidence of Bush-hate, presented in almost every piece, is Jonathan Chait stating in The New Republic that he hates Bush not just politically but personally. Never in its 90 years has The New Republic (forget the entire political press) enjoyed such cultural currency. On one side of the scale, we have thousands of hours of Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, and many others on radio and TV; books; reports; editorials; and the special investigator's conclusions. On the other side of the scale is Jonathan Chait's article. Turns out The New Republic piece is heavier! And we laughed when AOL "bought" Time Warner.

Olasky continues, "Chait, insisting that 'there seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters,' cited one pollster's report that Bush hatred is 'as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years of polling.' Conservative columnist Robert Novak agreed that we are now seeing 'hatred ... that I have never seen in 44 years of campaign watching.'"

Were these people off the planet for the last eight years? It's not the claim of hatred but that it's unprecedented. Novak has never had any idea as to what's going on. The Goldwater vs. Johnson campaign, the tens of thousands in the streets chanting, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Nixon, Nixon's impeachment -- they were all sweet-16 party times.

The real evidence of Bush-hate is not specific speech, apparently, but the news. To report on casualties in Iraq, negative diplomatic reactions by foreign countries, bad economic results, trade controversies, or bad polling numbers is to hate Bush. In fact, almost all news, instead of being "objective," is just Hate Bush positioning.

Don't get me wrong, the Democratic presidential candidates and legislative leadership are way too obviously disappointed by good news, quickly attempting to discredit it. This isn't hatred (or just hatred, if you must), but staggering incompetence. Sure, some of you are stretching to support Dean or Clark or even, God forbid, Kucinich, but truth is this lot looks lightweight next to 10 clowns recently emerged from a way-too-small circus car.

The vicious attacks on Clinton began with the man, then moved on to policies. Almost everyone I know rants about the Bush administration's activities long before they get to the man. But get "over" my "filter," because out of despair and cynicism, I've become overwhelmingly partisan, if only I could figure out for what.