The recent passage of H R 2764, the appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign aid, is a good example of why the public's approval rating of Congress hovers in the low twentieth percentile. The debate and aftermath of this bill show how some on both sides, including John R Kuhl Jr and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), would rather ride hobby horses than show leadership on difficult issues.
Because most constituents consider foreign aid about as often as they make use of differential calculus, Congress can use it to appease busybody squeaky wheels with impunity. On the Republican side, those squawking are the most narrow-minded factions of the religious right. On the Democratic side, it's the Israel lobby.
Let's start with sex: one of religious right's pet issues is the primacy of sexual morality over the practicalities of AIDS prevention. In a world where the onset of puberty continues to be at a younger age, and where sexually transmitted diseases are killing a broad swath of the population of developing countries, this interest group is squeamish about any AIDS prevention strategy that acknowledges the realities of human sexual behavior.
In Uganda, a country where an "ABC" program (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) was perhaps having an impact, these latter-day Puritans reduced the program to "AB", since providing condoms might increase the incidence of pre-marital sex.
Condoms aren't the only issue. Brazil, a country that has an AIDS prevention and treatment program that is considered a model for the world, had to refuse US funding because the US program required condemnation of commercial sex work. Prostitution is legal in Brazil, and the Brazilian government wasn't going to sacrifice their pragmatic view of sex work to appease a few American Puritans.
The leader of these Puritans is Senator Sam Brownback. Here's his defense of the US position in Brazil:
We're talking about promotion of prostitution, which the majority of both the House and Senate believe is harmful to women.
That quote doesn't even pass the laugh test if you've studied the alternatives. In Uganda, prostitution is illegal, but 32% of young women are married before age 19, 1/5 of them in polygamous unions. Many of those women were married to get the "bride price", a payment from the new husband to the brides' family. The infection rate of young women to young men is 6:1 in Uganda. For women in Uganda, the alternative to prostitution is legalized enslavement to a husband who will have unprotected sex with his multiple wives.
That's why groups like the Gates Foundation are pouring money into barrier methods and microbicides that can be deployed by women. The smart money hopes to find a way that women can protect themselves. The dumb money looks to advance a moral agenda with eyes blind to facts on the ground.
So what does this have to do with the 29th? Let's look at Randy Kuhl's vote for an amendment [pdf] which would mandate that 1/3 of AIDS funding go towards abstinence education. That amendment failed, even though almost every Republican, and a few conservative Democrats, voted for it. The margin of failure (26) was close to the number of new Democrats elected in 2006.
I'd wager that a broad majority of the population would want us to spend our foreign aid on programs that work. Our own government studies [pdf] show abstinence-only programs don't work here. But no matter: Republicans in Congress are so wrapped around the special interest axle that they must continue to push the agenda of a tiny minority. This issue is one example of why the public is disgusted with its so-called "leaders" in Congress. Brazil and the Gates Foundation are leading in the fight against AIDS. Congress is following the dictates of a tiny group of vocal Puritans.
But let's not exempt the establishment Democrats from this critique. As soon as Randy Kuhl voted against the foreign aid bill, the DCCC sent out a press release criticizing his vote. The headline: "Representative Randy Kuhl Votes to Cut Funding for Israel". The template for this release was obvious: "[insert name here] Votes to Cut Funding for [insert well-funded vocal minority group here]". Every other worthy cause embodied in the bill (AIDS education, poverty relief, peacekeeping operations) wasn't a reason to criticize Randy's vote. Only the needs of another political squeaky wheel made the grade.
I understand that Israel is an important ally. I don't understand why we need to be pouring $2.4 billion into the economy of a country that has a per-capita GDP on par with Hong Kong, Australia and the state of West Virginia. But that's a question that a leader might ask, and we know there are precious few of those in Congress.
Comments
Excellent point about the Israel Lobby's influence over Democrats. Just a hint of criticism and you hear shouts of "Never again!" and "Nazi!" from the minority of Jewish-American who scare the bejesus out of politicians, scholars and commentators. As the recent Carter-apartheid controversy illustrates, rational discussion of Israel-American relations is impossible.
It's an albatross around the necks of thoughtful liberals and progressives, just as pro-life/family values considerations skew the behavior and calculations of thoughtful conservatives. One of these days, somewhere, they will come up with a true democracy that works, but representative democracy doesn't seem to be doing the job.
You're right that the Israel lobby has the media cowed, along with politicians. For example, the coverage of last year's Lebanon war by Haaretz was more critical of Israeli screwups than the coverage in the New York Times.
Also, I didn't mention it in the post, but I think the DCCC doesn't understand that most of the 29th is more like northern PA than New York City. The fate of Israel is not a major concern in Bath or Olean.
rotten, you have to look at the bigger picture, randy gets $$ from pro-israel $$ people, so the dccc is trying to show his donors he doesnt care about them, in order to stop his money flow, its not about issues its all about $$$>
Jerry, that could be true.
How about a little horse trading? Scrap the abstinence only regulations for a parental notification law. I would be in favor of that
It's a deal, but I need to look at the fine print.
I'm OK with a law that's consistent with other notification or consent that is required for other surgical procedures. What I object to is the extra requirements smuggled into these laws: mandatory waiting periods after parental consent is given, or making the consent requirements stricter (e.g., making both parents sign, or prohibiting legal guardians from signing, etc.)
In other words, I don't think abortions should require special parental notification rules, either less strict (as pro-choicers advocate) or more strict (as pro-lifers advocate).
I would want the parent to have 48 hours to talk to his or her child. 14 or under would need parental consent (from just one parent), over 14 just parental notification. 14 or under could get a waiver from a doctor or judge if she still wanted an abortion and couldn't get one of the parents to consent
On 48 hrs: the delay I object to is the mandatory one after the parents have given consent, which if I understand it correctly, is part of some laws. If it's 48 hrs or immediate if parents sign a waiver, that's probably OK with me.
I can live with that, but I don't see the big deal about waiting for 48 hours. It will just ensure that all involved have had time to think about it.