Schiavo as Prologue

Schiavo as Prologue

The Terri Schiavo case goes to the heart of political choices confronting the country.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

The Terri Schiavo case was no sideshow. As her parents’ legal appeals failed repeatedly, as protests and press conferences wound into what was almost certainly the final phase of sorrow, recrimination and relief, the entire episode might have seemed a bizarre, media-driven distraction from pressing issues of war and the economy. In fact, the case goes to the heart of political choices confronting the country.

For leaders of the Christian right, the case was only their most recent attempt to elevate to the level of national crusade issues like gay unions and abstinence-only sex education. Each invokes moral alarm (the morality determined by the self-righteous) against considered, scientifically informed public policy, and each involves a demand for state intrusion into well-established zones of privacy and civil rights. Each also serves as a surrogate issue for a movement whose main target is abortion rights–rights that retain overwhelming public support. Antiabortion fanatics who preened before the Pinellas Park press corps were not so much speaking to the general public as raising the temperature of their own faithful.

The Schiavo case would probably have remained marginal but for the 2003 intervention of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who pushed through his state legislature the same kind of attack on unanimous Schiavo court rulings that Tom DeLay and the White House would later try at the federal level. The Bush clan takes on no issue without political calculation, and here the math was precise. The religious right remembers well that grandfather Prescott Bush was Planned Parenthood’s best friend in the Senate and that father George H.W. Bush was staunchly pro-choice up to the moment of his selection as Ronald Reagan’s running mate. Neither Bush brother ever misses a chance to prove his Christian-right allegiance. Just ten months after Jeb’s unsuccessful intervention in the Schiavo case, the votes and phone banks of Florida’s Christian right helped to determine a national election. DeLay, whose own family once made a life-ending decision like Michael Schiavo’s about DeLay’s father, now panders to the same constituency to save his own skin.

The attack on an independent judiciary is why the case is so relevant to the immediate future–notably the imminent confirmation battles over George W. Bush’s judicial nominees. The language of virtually every far-right leader discussing the Schiavo case was devoted to delegitimizing the federal judiciary and stoking resentment at the court system as a whole. Jerry Falwell: “Just because there is a judge somewhere in the world who would give an estranged husband like that the time of day tells you how bad the court system is.” Richard Viguerie: “The judiciary is out of control.” Such talk softens up the public for the confirmation battles ahead and, more important, feeds the right’s sense of its victimization by public institutions. Taking back the courts is the right’s post-Schiavo rallying cry.

Where is all this headed? In ways reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, polls suggest a welcome sense in the Schiavo case that the right overplayed its hand, that the American people maintain a bedrock commitment to privacy and an unease with the far right’s fervor. But it’s also important to remember that while impeachment failed, Democrats lost the White House in 2000. The White House is counting on the public sense of a delegitimized court system surviving longer than unease with moral crusaders. It is counting, as well, on the evident confusion in Democratic Congressional ranks about the real issues in the Schiavo case. Most important, the White House and Republican Congressional leaders are counting on the Christian right’s sense of being victimized by the courts to embolden their efforts; in the coming campaign to remake America’s federal judiciary, they see the protesters of Pinellas Park as their shock troops. They must not be allowed to succeed. The Schiavo case foretells a broader assault on courts as bastions of secular public policy. It is not a moral but a political crusade.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x