The similarities shared by religious conservatives–mohammedan and nazarene–exposing their own women to death while indiscriminately murdering congregants of other religions–are not lost on voters of the fairer sex. A lady’s survey of the political panorama through rational, what’s-in-it-for-me eyes, returns a bleak panorama of looter parties preying on superstition to get power to issue orders to men with guns. Is this attractive to women voters?
Even religiondispatches.org shows women are abandoning organized superstition in droves, and superstition and politics are what combine to make women less equal than citizens. Right now the US military forbids women to have sex and, if pregnant, forbids them abortions unless they can prove things no man would ever be asked to prove. Even then they have to pay, while for guys, shots for syphilis or a dose of clap are on the house.
So why are women who flee mysticism avoiding the Libertarian Party? We have the highest content of freethinkers (nearly thrice the general population), are fundamentally against coercion and intimidation, therefore against rape. Nor are we inclined to collectivism–including racial collectivism. But our adversaries never mention this. Republican, Prohibition, Tea Party and Constatooshun antiabortionists grudgingly praise the LP as misguided but still “right wing.” And there’s the rub of hot pepper in the eye of the average beholder.
Other looters (Dems, Communists, Econazis) curse the LP as “right wing,” by which they want THEIR useful idiots to understand “religious fanatics with guns out to force women to reproduce under duress.” To conservatives, what matters are Theodore Roosevelt’s ravings about “race suicide.” Twice as many libertarians answer to Jewish than in the general population. This would not be the case if our party were anything like the Christian Socialist “right” that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Our platform committee’s cowardice in keeping the “good faith” straddle in the libertarian platform explains why 3 out of 4 members–in a party that talks individual rights while currying favor with bigots–are NOT women voters. Bookies meanwhile bet their own money at 3 to 1 odds that the pro-choice Democratic party will get those government jobs. But might not a cowardly straddle be good political policy? The bitter experience of the Republican Party’s “moist” prohibition plank in the campaign of 1932 indicates that it is not. Pauline Sabin, usually a Republican, led women’s efforts to repeal the prohibition law. The Chicago Tribune reported in June, 1932: Mrs Sabin sees victory in defeat as women foes of dry law say good-bye to GOP.
Now ask yourself, which plank lead-in would likely attract YOU:
“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides…” or
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion…” or
“… We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days. We shall oppose all coercive measures to control population growth.” –1972 Libertarian platform, with a woman nominated for VP. This plank is what the Supreme Court copied as Roe v. Wade 45 days after our electoral vote was counted.
The GOP’s penchant for using IRS-style asset-forfeiture looting to enforce prohibition laws written and passed at Congressional Klan rallies wrecked the US economy for the third time in 2007. Those laws spring from superstitious mysticism, not science and medicine, but to kidnap youngsters for ransom or as inmates in government prisons–and to violently break up families. Do Crash and Depression, lawyer fees, prison, asset-forfeiture sound good to women?
After Scott Adams, I propose that dues-paying Libertarian women (and nobody else) write the LP choice plank. I’ll lay odds the result will be different from the disgraceful blot on our reputation in the eyes of women voters. Here’s what he said:
“My decision on abortion is to take a backseat to the collective opinions of women and try to support whatever women decide. With a topic as emotional as abortion, the top priority is to make the law as credible as possible so society can tolerate it. The opinions of men do not add to the collective wisdom about abortion but our involvement does reduce the credibility of whatever laws come out of it.”
If in need of translations of constitutional issues, laws or court cases, visit Speakwrite. Drop us a line or take issue with a comment.
Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.