I really like AUL, and think highly of their head, Charmaine Yoest, but I think this recent interview that I ran across through the always wonderful Jill Stanek was very weak:
Yoest is the public face of AUL, and yet she seems very timid, quiet and unassuming. For a group as in-front as they are, I think they would be better served by someone with the panache and flair of a solid media personality like Amanda Carpenter or a more assertive and aggressive female. The time on national television is such a premium, and the real communicative moment so small, that it can't be left to chance or left to the host to get the idea across, Yoest needed more force, more passion and a clear soundbite: i.e. that the Democrats and the President are lying about healthcare abortions.
I suspect many political talking heads assume they can do well because they're good with interpersonal communication. However, just like all things in politics, it's a learned skill. One ought to practice and work on constant self-improvement. In this case, Yoest needs to control her voice better, project more, emphasize one central point and communicate a few key soundbites rather than going off the cuff.
The sounds of pro-life over the silence of the supposedly 'pro-life'
Not to be too depressed by the outrageously lackluster performance of the Senate Republicans, one bright spot has been the presence of pro-life agitators. Obviously many may find them obnoxious, but they are people who feel so marginalized, kept out of the media and stifled that they resort to these disruptive tactics. Considering that the Senate GOP can't fall over itself fast enough to lob obvious softballs at this all-but-certain Supreme Court Justice, it's nice that someone is speaking the obvious: that abortion is murder, that the unborn demand justice and that the intellectually dishonest legal abortion regime is the unspoken elephant in the room. The absence of 50 million children, and potentially 277 million through chemical abortions, is so rarely heard that it's fitting that these protesters voice that when their so-called 'pro-life' elected representatives fail them on that account.
Late Bloomer: the aged accomplishments of Ben Franklin
This is a snarky little graphic I made for MCFL, for the back page of the newspaper. It's pretty plain, in that the message is pretty simple yet, I hope, profound-- that the depression of everyday life ought to be put in the context of the great things to come. Let me know what you think.
Having sat through a very mendacious speech about pro-life battles a few months ago, that was all heavy on how pregnancy centers were the only ways in which to save babies in the pro-life movement, a statement that is either woefully ignorant considering Dr. New's wonderful research on the effectiveness of legal restrictions or intentionally deceptive which I believe to be the case, it occurred to me that there must be a generally standard set of steps followed by individuals who become fervently pro-life.
I would write this out in a longer article, but I don't really have the time and don't really think I have the credibility and, pragmatically, the audience, regardless:
1- direct action 2- education 3- legal issues/lawsuits 4- legislation 5- culture 6- pregnancy centers 7- local area, the most micro, solving it one by one level 8- disaffection, burn out, apathy
From what little I can tell, and what I can tell about my own personal experience, that seems to be the steps that happen most often, in that order. People float into one and then slowly float into the next and move along the path until they reach burn out or apathy. The challenge would be to figure out how to contain this, slow it, or ideally stop it among pro-life activists so that they don't burn out and stay active.
I suspect that the best answer would be to highlight their individual successes in a constant, routine basis. The Gerard Foundation's "Life Prizes" which I lightly criticized previously, might be a part of that answer, as is the development of alternative media outlets among other solutions.
Ed Burke of the Logos Institute, which I had never heard of until today or at least do not recall, wrote a critique of the March for Life that a friend sent to me recently. I found his observations to be very perfunctory and pedestrian. The March doesn't need a reinvention as much as it needs an evolution. I wrote and sketched out, at a previous pro-life position, an outline as to what that could be, if anyone was so curious I would be happy to share it if you want to email me for it. Of note, the friend who forwarded it claimed that some were trying to change and update the March, and others have made similar efforts in the past. Personally I have a difficult time attending only because it all seems like so much wasted opportunity.
Here's the bulk of the email:
The inherent idea behind the march can be put into question, but any teenager attending probably has the same thoughts. No, the real question is how to take this momentum that has at least 150k each year coming to the march, and more effectively use it.
Burke hits on part of that by mentioning the past use of lobbying to influence the legislators. However, any PoliSci 301 course can tell you that the difference between access-based and controversial-confrontational lobbying means that the latter won't work with issues that are 'divisive' - it's the grassroots, the candidate recruitment, the actual muscle behind the movement that has to make these clowns feel the heat so they'll find the light.
And sadly that heat is left to be brought by NRLC affiliates who are aged, tired, worn and too often complacent in old methods, tactics and history. Nellie Gray, God bless her, is who I had in mind when I wrote that sentence even though she's not NRLC.
Ways in which you could grab the march and use it for grassroots purposes:
1. training (already done by a few other groups) - too often the training is too academic though. People lose sight of the ways in which they can save a life, the actual way in which individual people make a difference. I find a lot of the NRLC crowd (I feel like I'm writing in way way way too big overgeneralizations here) who have this attitude of "we can do it, trust us, if only everyone did there'd be no abortion" and not tolerating alternative methods. We need a pro-life big tent, dare I say it, we need unity though perhaps not a unity flag.
The training ought to be: "here's how to make yourself useful for a CPC; here's how to run for office from scratch; here's how to convert anyone; here's how to shut down a clinic" and related topics -- make people believe they can make a real difference and jettison all the feel good stuff like pro-life t-shirts and the billion methods that don't save any lives. 2. activation/radicalization: set goals for people who attend, encourage results and not thinking the right thoughts 3. capturing the data: Rod Martin tried doing this with LifeHQ, with Sean O'Hare. God bless them both, that's something the March should have done in an organized fashion for the past decade at least. I heard they both got threatened by the March organizers. They should collect this data, work to measure and turn out more and more people each year with reliable numbers and not just the WAG's that they typically use, and then share that data with any and all groups within the respective state where the person is from.
I ran across some old notes, about a planned Leadership Conference for pro-life campus leaders. My files have become somewhat of a repository of half-good old ideas that never went anywhere. That fact is quite frustrating. Here's the rough outline I had:
Leadership Conference and Training -over the summer in DC -name after a major donor -exclusive to 15-20 hand-picked students, probably have to ask 60 in order to get 20 to commit -train on education, rhetoric, skills, debating, recruitment -one day with meetings with people from across the movement -offer a quick training session on adoption/how to counsel women into keeping their children aimed towards younger women, to enable college students to speak the right language so as to facilitate adoption
It may seem, assuming anyone reads this with any regularity or consistency, that I am overly critical of nonprofits and conservative groups. There are two great groups I want to mention, though, the Alliance Defense Fund and Americans United for Life. And the work that the American Civil Rights Initiative does, working to overturn state race codes one by one, is great as well.
Pro-life injustices, and its opportunity for outreach
Walter Hoye has been jailed in California for standing on a sidewalk with an unpopular message. His 'crime' was talking to people, even the San Francisco Chronicle can't cover up the obvious in their story. Because of the content of his speech, because of what he was saying and what his personal principles are, he was jailed. This all leads one to the question of: does this offer an opportunity for group and activist development in churches. And I would have to say, probably not. Hoye's actions seem outside the range of normal church activities. Few churches, and virtually no Catholic churches, evangelize anymore or are used to such actions and activities. Using this as a catalyst seems stuck because our people are so unused to the tactic of taking any action outside simple prayer. They forget that prayer ought to rightfully lead to action. Prayer sanctifies as it leads one to move. That connection seems lost, so perhaps this incident can help us reach out to a different set of people: for example the "spiritual" moderates who would be offended by a pastor being jailed but are perhaps not of a particular denomination. I don't know, perhaps I'm overthinking this.
I hate seeming cynical or that I'm tearing ideas down, but it is damn frustrating to watch people get worked up over the 'red envelope' campaign. I know people have the best of intentions, but the return email I got for an announcement of the campaign was from Lindsay@republicanprofessionals.net - and so it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that this is a truly 'grassroots' enterprise as claimed here.
In fact, reviewing the FAQ, listen to this paragraph:
This movement is a true grass roots phenomenon. There is no entity behind this project other than the thousands of men, women and children that have volunteered their time, money, and effort to be involved. The Red Envelope Project has spread largely through emails and word of mouth. I believe that many have been moved by the Holy Spirit to do this. It has crossed all denominational lines, and has brought together the efforts of Roman Catholics and Protestants in our common value for life and the blood of Christ. Churches, schools, CCD classes, youth groups, religious communities, and small groups have joined in this effort.
This is ridiculous. Of course some group is behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be as organized. I don't mind that a group is behind it, I just don't want to be lied to about what's going on about it. AUL did a great FOCA campaign, there are several Students for Life of America projects that they occasionally announce - they're all good things, but claiming that it's spontaneous generation just irks me for some reason. Not the least of which is that I suspect this very very very passive activity, mailing an envelope, will ultimately be thrown away by the White House and will just build some mailing list for a pro-life group. And, as one working for a pro-life group, I understand the need for these kind of things, I just wish they'd be tied to effective action rather than ineffective action.
When Social Scientists Lie: Covering up Abortion Reductions
A group "Catholics in Alliance" has joined a variety of pro-Obama enablers to argue that 'social justice' issues are the strongest ways to reduce the incidence of abortion in America. In general, as a broad abstraction, they may be correct. More directly, and more provable, however, is that sensible pro-life state-level restrictions have had an effect on reducing the abortion rate in the country. This is timely because President-elect Obama has promised to make FOCA (The Freedom of Choice Act) his first action upon seizing the Presidency. FOCA will overturn every state-level abortion restriction in the country. Therefore, this issue of what has truly caused the real reductions in abortion is a very charged one. Joseph Wright attempts to critique Prof. Michael New's studies showing that state-level laws work. Wright fails miserably, and Dr. New easily dissect Wright's sloppiness and shoddy reasoning. At some point one has to acknowledge that these are not reasonable and rational differences, they are not preferences, rather they are the systemic and deliberate misconstructions of those who seek to increase the number of abortions in the country by enabling a man who will remove everything that has successfully reduced abortion. Because they fight with words makes them no less evil.
I thought this article by Jill Stanek pretty well summed things up. There has to be a major reconsideration on pro-life strategy in this country. The fabled court strategy for the last 10-20 years has just exploded, and there is nothing in its place.
The first abortion-free state: South Dakota, now for some new goals
Planned Parenthood in South Dakota has recently shut down due to a vigorous informed consent law, so there is plenty of good news. However, this is not the end of the battle, and pro-life and pro-family advocates ought to take things even further and start restricting and regulating all sorts of vice out of town, as these things go together. The pro-life warriors ought to start identifying ways to regulate sex shops, strip clubs and pornography out of their state as well. Kick out the support legs that produce the crises the Planned Parenthood attempts to solve, not to mention reform the government school's sex-ed classes so they don't teach perversion, as they do in Massachusetts. Our goals should never end at what could be such a transient success, and the folks I worked with in 2006, namely the Unruhs, certainly have the fire in their bellies to keep that revolution marching.
The Gerard Health Foundation announced that they'll be dispersing $600,000 in pro-life awards in January. This is a great thing for the pro-life movement, and I see this same mentality found at groups like the Phillips Foundation and their Ronald Reagan scholarships or the Sam Adams Alliance and their activism prizes, and the others who have wealth and are rewarding good behavior. They think like a businessman, a donor, who proverbially "puts their money where their mouth is." But too often they lose sight that these people, these individuals, are rarely chosen for their results but rather for their image/brand/appearance. Look at the winners of the Reagan Scholarships this year, of which I wrote one recommendation letter I should add, and perhaps its a reflection of my own lack of information or of the type of biography that they're writing, but none seem accomplished as an activist. They are good people who are leading good lives, but they are not changing society and changing the world. There's a place for scholarships to reward the good, but I'd say that there ought to be some scholarship that rewards the bold. I respect the sidewalk counselor who saves a child, I respect the Student Government official that brings in a Pregnancy Resource Forum even though the only result are ideas, I respect an action with a result, a real measurable result that changes the world. I respect an organization that makes a system to achieve results, which I think is always stronger than one person who thinks the right way and markets themselves well. Let's focus on results and not so much the needs of individuals.
The Reagan scholarship and these new Pro-life awards risk only functioning to reward those who are well-connected and who game the system the right way. Neither characteristic is typical of an effective activist. Color me bitter, but I suppose it derives somewhat from the fact that the one activism event they identified, that of the Planned Parenthood racism project, was misattributed away from my friend James O'Keefe who actually made the calls, cut the videos and took the action, or that it was in concept an idea that James and I alone fleshed out, wrote out and planned out, but all the credit has gone to an individual, Lila Rose, who served primarily as the public face for the operation. I offer these facts not because I want any credit for this, but as an example to show how these sorts of awards that seek to function as replacements for action can come up short. They problem is that because the types of activists out there who really change the world are not the ones busy having lunch with the right foundations, or who have Michelle Malkin's private email address, they are the ones who are out there doing and often, suffering, for their actions. This is not to disparage Lila, whom I consider very intelligent, motivated and committed to pro-life affairs. Rather, this is to say that we only know what we know, and I wonder whether the pro-life movement even has the right judges for this kind of incentive, much less the right nominators, and I hope the right activists. I really admire Ray Ruddy, and I respect his continued massive investments in the pro-life movement, but I'm unsure that this is the right way to help out the pro-life activists around there. There are so few, and most are so ineffective, that there needs to be a creativity revolution within the movement first to start ginning up these activists, there needs to be training and leaders leading by example. I'd be afraid that this will likely end up rewarding those who know how to best market themselves. And this is not Ray's fault, this is the fault of a movement bereft of creativity, devoid of inspirational leadership, and floundering to find a way how to achieve results when they often don't even realize they're looking for results.
Everyone wants to end abortion, but apparently, no one can think of good ways how. I realize the Life Awards will hopefully flesh out those ideas, maybe my critique is more that they'll have the talent to truly pick out the gold from the pyrite and financially enable pro-life revolution rather than subsidizing pro-life ineffectiveness. For my two cents I would say that an effective way to structure the rewards is through anonymous nominations, akin to the Nobel prizes, rather than through asking organizational leaders who will likely only be nominating themselves. Reward the action, not the individual. And first and foremost, invest more than $600k in training pro-life activists how to win the prizes in the first place.
If anyone would like to donate such a sum to me, I'd be honored to radicalize a few hundred people to undertake effective activism.
