roseembolism (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
roseembolism) wrote2005-03-31 11:29 pm
roseembolism) wrote2005-03-31 11:29 pm
Winners and Losers
Those of a sensitive disposition, or who are easily upset by rampant cynicism should probably move along.
Well, we've all had the interminable Play-by-Play, so now all that's left for the mass media is to is tote up the winners and losers in the Terry Schiavo fiasco- I figure I'll get a leg up on the pundits. These comments are preliminary of course, as things may change as the post-death commentary gets going.
Winners
Religious Right: The big winner here: they have an energized base, have received major donations, and have a pretty good idea how much pull they have in Washington. Some people say this may mark the high-water of the movement, but I'd say that's optimistic, especially since Terry's case has been used for mileage in the "right to life" debate. Look for more instances of the RR exerting it's pull in the near future in its attempt to remake the U.S. in its image.
George Bush: Has reaffirmed his commitment to his most activist constituency, and can count on their support in the future. Has reinforced his image of a president of faith, passion and action. Some people may think he may be hurt by an upcoming backlash, but since he's as slippery as Reagan, I think he'll just come out of here with positives even if people disagree with his actions. He's annoying that way..
Jeb Bush: See George above: He can count on the RR's wholehearted support in the next election.
Republican Leadership: A clear and firm winner. Not only do they have their RR core firmly in the fold, they have a powerful tool in their ongoing attempt to emasculate the Judiciary. Will be able to say (in fact are saying now) "Terry would be alive now, except for the activist judges". Expect the current laws to drastically limit the purview of the courts to get pushed to the fore, and additional laws limiting judicial review to be introduced. One of them will probably be named "Terry's Law".
Losers
Judicial Branch: while they followed the law to the letter, the Judiciary will now be vulnerable to even more accusations on the right of "Judicial Activism" out of step with the mainstream of America (leaving aside the fact that nearly all of the judges ruling in the case were conservative). Look for more legislation to limit judicial review, and lots of rhetoric about how the judicial system is destroying America.
Democrats- again. Essentially silent in this debate, they wasted a HUGE opportunity to actually stake a position against the Republicans. Smart Dems would have framed this as an "Individual rights vs. an intrusive administration " issue, and could have brought up fears of the government interfering with the end of life. But this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. There is a chance that the Democratic party could use this as a wedge issue in the next election by capitalizing on the fact that the majority of the public did not support Washington's interference in a private issue; they could even get some traditional Republicans (spooked over the dominance of the RR) to switch parties...yeah right.
Michael Schiavo- He's lost his wife, is looking at major civil suits, and is reviled by a fair chunk of the nation. Definitely a loser- and I still give him a fair chance of not living out the year.
Terry Schiavo's Family: I have to wonder if they're quite ready to be put on the front lines of the culture wars, and I have the feeling they've got the tiger's tail here.
General Public: Estate planning and end of life planning has become rather more uncomfortable. The public is now aware that if a family member dies, the Federal government may intervene to keep them alive, no matter what their personal wishes are.
Terry Schiavo: She finally succeeded in starving to death; on the other hand, she's dead. I can't really put this in the win column.
Well, we've all had the interminable Play-by-Play, so now all that's left for the mass media is to is tote up the winners and losers in the Terry Schiavo fiasco- I figure I'll get a leg up on the pundits. These comments are preliminary of course, as things may change as the post-death commentary gets going.
Winners
Religious Right: The big winner here: they have an energized base, have received major donations, and have a pretty good idea how much pull they have in Washington. Some people say this may mark the high-water of the movement, but I'd say that's optimistic, especially since Terry's case has been used for mileage in the "right to life" debate. Look for more instances of the RR exerting it's pull in the near future in its attempt to remake the U.S. in its image.
George Bush: Has reaffirmed his commitment to his most activist constituency, and can count on their support in the future. Has reinforced his image of a president of faith, passion and action. Some people may think he may be hurt by an upcoming backlash, but since he's as slippery as Reagan, I think he'll just come out of here with positives even if people disagree with his actions. He's annoying that way..
Jeb Bush: See George above: He can count on the RR's wholehearted support in the next election.
Republican Leadership: A clear and firm winner. Not only do they have their RR core firmly in the fold, they have a powerful tool in their ongoing attempt to emasculate the Judiciary. Will be able to say (in fact are saying now) "Terry would be alive now, except for the activist judges". Expect the current laws to drastically limit the purview of the courts to get pushed to the fore, and additional laws limiting judicial review to be introduced. One of them will probably be named "Terry's Law".
Losers
Judicial Branch: while they followed the law to the letter, the Judiciary will now be vulnerable to even more accusations on the right of "Judicial Activism" out of step with the mainstream of America (leaving aside the fact that nearly all of the judges ruling in the case were conservative). Look for more legislation to limit judicial review, and lots of rhetoric about how the judicial system is destroying America.
Democrats- again. Essentially silent in this debate, they wasted a HUGE opportunity to actually stake a position against the Republicans. Smart Dems would have framed this as an "Individual rights vs. an intrusive administration " issue, and could have brought up fears of the government interfering with the end of life. But this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. There is a chance that the Democratic party could use this as a wedge issue in the next election by capitalizing on the fact that the majority of the public did not support Washington's interference in a private issue; they could even get some traditional Republicans (spooked over the dominance of the RR) to switch parties...yeah right.
Michael Schiavo- He's lost his wife, is looking at major civil suits, and is reviled by a fair chunk of the nation. Definitely a loser- and I still give him a fair chance of not living out the year.
Terry Schiavo's Family: I have to wonder if they're quite ready to be put on the front lines of the culture wars, and I have the feeling they've got the tiger's tail here.
General Public: Estate planning and end of life planning has become rather more uncomfortable. The public is now aware that if a family member dies, the Federal government may intervene to keep them alive, no matter what their personal wishes are.
Terry Schiavo: She finally succeeded in starving to death; on the other hand, she's dead. I can't really put this in the win column.
no subject
no subject
I'm going to have to agree with
Personally, I'm in favor of limits on judicial review. The courts are not the place to be making laws. That is what we have a legislature for. Judges aren't always elected. Legislators are. The ones who have to report to the people for a grade on their job performance are the ones who should be deciding how the people are governed.
I think that the intellegent members of the general public will get benefit out of the whole mess. This has really brought to light that stating, in writing, what one's wishes are should one end up in a vegetative state is a very important thing to do. I remember a friend of mine having to deal with a similar decision on turning the machines off or no... Having her father leave, in writing, what his preferences were clearly prevented more drama in what was already a very, very difficult time. I think from this some people will live and learn (if you will pardong the pun), and take steps to prevent their loved ones from having to face similar issues to what Terry Schiavo's loved ones had to.