It seems highly unlikely to me that GOP strategists are dumb enough to believe that modern women will tolerate this year's assaults on their rights. That many of them will, as in previous generation, vote for those who explicitly plan to take their rights away. Even women predisposed to prefer Republicans will--most of them, I hope--turn up their nose at this tactic. Why, then, would they be conducting this campaign? What good can come of disparaging and alienating half of the electorate in a election year?
These are ugly times for American government and economic institutions. The life support that Wall Street has been put on at the expense of the 99% has caused nausea by all, regardless of political orientation, and, consequently, most people are fairly disgusted by the two parties responsible (I won't name names...). We may blame different people, but regardless of which section of the political spectrum we're on, Americans carry an overwhelming feeling that something is broken. Many attempted to do something about it (for instance, by participating in the Tea Party), but soon discovered that their politicians had no intention of amending their ways. They've done nothing, and don't intend to.
How do I know? If the GOP had a plan to do things differently, don't you think they'd mention it? I mean, besides repeal all the regulations (of which there are none that are meaningful already) and "Drill, baby, drill," how exactly does the GOP expect to get people hired again? They don't have a plan because they don't expect to spend much energy on this. Welcome to the new normal, folks.
In this climate, you might start to see people begin turning their wrath on politicians, the economy system, and the state. The critical consciousness that could emerge in the process could lead to less participation in the political system and more activities against it (fingers crossed for a lively American Spring). So the right-wing patrons of our economic elites have pulled out a very old tactic to divide up the electorate and keep people's eyes on the ballet and out of the streets.
Find a scapegoat.
"Moslems" were an okay scapegoat for the Bush years, as long as liberals were willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the constitution should apply as equally to Arabs as it does to, well, at least Black folks. But thanks to the Obama administration's tacit acceptance of all (and more) of Bush's constitution-shredding activities, there's not a whole lot of mileage in attacking Arabs. This is the brilliance of Obama's decision to turn his back on all his campaign promises regarding the "war on terror." Since blowing up and/or abducting innocent Arab men, women, and children is no longer controversial in mainstream politics, it's hard for the GOP to drive up electoral fervor by talking about how terrifying Bin Laden and all of the rest of the people who look like him are, and how the only way people can be safe is by voting the only party people can be confident are all torturing warmongers. After all, this administration kept on in Iraq, vamped up in Afghanistan, has been bombing Pakistan, and has even made detours into several other countries. "We're pretty confident that the Democrats have got the bombing and torturing and pillaging covered," the electorate has replied. "What else you got?"
If this analysis is correct then the GOP have to find a scapegoat that the Dems have no choice but to at least superficial defend. Blacks? No (neo-Jim Crow, AKA the "War on Drugs," is healthy under Obama). Gays? No (the Democrats seem to be quite willing to throw them under the bus once their done taking their money and votes).
In that case, how about women? Ah yes, women. If women can be painted as the "Cause of All Our Problems" because they want to drive up the national debt and threaten religious institutions with their feminist-inspired sex mania, and because they Planned Parenthood to be allow to exist, then surely the Dems would come running. Not necessarily because they want to, at least not the men (I love this shot of Morning Joe's all-man panel discussing congress's all-man panel, including Lawrence O'Donnell). But enough women are just strong enough these days, just vocal enough about not wanting to continue to be second class citizens, and enough of a voting base for the Dems, that Obama will have to campaign on their side.
A controversial scapegoat is the GOP's reward for their efforts. A scapegoat that can only be adequetly punished, they promise, as long as they get elected. And who knows, perhaps the recent reactionary anti-feminist backlash makes it safe to run on a platform of "women who have sex without our permission are sluts." I mean, it's not like the GOP are popular among women anyway.
In any case, the main lesson here is to keep eyes on the prize. Political calculations on the part of the GOP or phony words of defense from the Democrats are not reasons to get back involved with the circus we call mainstream politics. The best and only way to fight for women is in the streets.
