American politics
Vox populi
Reasonable results
Feb 3rd 2012, 18:28 by E.G. | AUSTIN
AN UPDATE to the previous post about the rift between Susan G Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood: Komen has announced that it will continue to work with Planned Parenthood. The reversal follows several developments, including, crucially, Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting at the Atlantic that the policy that Komen had initially cited in cutting off the funding—the policy of not giving any funds to organisations that are under investigation—was actually a new policy created in order to cover its desire to cut off the funds in question.
The debate over this will continue; unsurprisingly, both Komen and Planned Parenthood have raised a lot of money from their respective supporters over the last few days, and the whole fracas has pushed the abortion debate back into the political spotlight, where it will remain, despite the reversal. Komen's reversal may be bad tactics—as various wags have pointed out, the organisation has now irritated pro-life people in addition to pro-choice people—but on the substance, it was a solid call. Planned Parenthood is fundamentally a women's-health organisation, not a political combatant, despite what you hear from some segments of the right; and Komen is a charity with an interest in women's health.
One aspect of this that I think is worth flagging is that it is the second time in two weeks that vocally upset people have had a demonstrable effect on an issue. The first, of course, was over the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act. After a semi-centralised backlash around the internet—the Wikipedia blackout, the statements from big industry players like Google, and the clamour on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media—both bills have been postponed indefinitely. You can also, arguably, see this phenomenon at work in, for example, the end of ethanol subsidies. This suggests that public opinion can actually make a difference in politics, at least when the most compelling arguments are on its side. That's a cheering prospect for a small-d democrat, particularly in the age of SuperPACs and so on.
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Personality and polarisation: The big sort
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
What's good for democracy sometimes ends up good for good mob rule but cheers.
I think Komen had it coming for some time. Slapping every god damn thing under the sun with pink ribbons and getting grocery cash registers to pester you to make donations for what, "increase awareness?"
It's the classic case of an organization, once established, strive first and foremost for its own perpetuation rather than the actual goal it was meant to achieve.
I never understood the point of running for charity. I might want to donate in exchange for cookies or a tote bag but how is you running supposed to make me want to donate?
If Komen wanted to stop working with PP they should have taken the easy way out, just say they only wanted to fund organizations actually providing mammograms, clearly inline with their mission, problem solved. This whole ridiculousness was so avoidable.
Are mammograms the basic first step in fighting breast cancer?
If they wanted to to stop working with PP (italicized all that) that was their way out.
Trying to make a PR point, not get involved in the culture war flame throwing.
I wish I could share your optimism. Unfortunately, screams of those other than SUPER PACS is only heard during election times! If not for heated campaign season in the United States, politician whisperers from SUPER PACS would have easily had their way!
I've flip-flopped on Komen more in the last couple days than a bipolar politician. As of now pro-life groups are taking a wait-and-see approach. Based on some private statements from Komen people, some believe it's unlikely they'll continue to support PP.
What everyone, pro-life and pro-choice, seem to agree on is that this has been a PR disaster for Komen.
"What everyone, pro-life and pro-choice, seem to agree on is that this has been a PR disaster for Komen."
Ummm yeah. And then some. Right now, it sucks being Komen. It's going to lose support from both the left and right, plus it now has earned a reputation of being incompetent. And easy to bully. I think it might have been better to be Maggie Thatcher in this instance, make a firm decision and stick by it even if people pound on your car windows and call you a cow.
Komen announced a new policy that appealed to some of its staff and supporters. A sizable number of people complained loudly and threatened to stop supporting Komen financially. Komen issued an apology in which they reversed the new policy, but did so in a way that suggests they will probably re-implement the new policy in a quieter fashion once all the attention dies down (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-susan-g-komen... and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-komen-actually-...).
Replace 'Komen' in the previous paragraph with the name of any number of organizations -- both commercial and not-for-profit -- and it will match a news story from the last few years. This is less a win for democracy than it is a normal response to bad PR.
"One aspect of this that I think is worth flagging is that it is the second time in two weeks that vocally upset people have had a demonstrable effect on an issue."
Ah...the power of the internet. Still largely untapped, it's force for good (or ill) will only increase with time.
Looks like ACTA in the EU is next issue to get the treatment (see here).
You don't have to be a leftie to be grateful for this outcome. A politician targeted an enemy, opened an "investigation," and on the mere threat of the investigation, the enemy's business suffered. What is this, the Soviet Union?
My bet is that the pro-life crowd is more incensed, considering that the Komen foundation's reversal is likely to be interpreted as spitting in the face of all the pro-life donors that gave due to recent publicity.
Don't forget the check card fees and what not various banks have tried to implement and then backed off of.
That was the first thing I thought of.
Only when the issue in question provides easy good guys and bad guys so that people can get their outrage on.
The vast majority of the problems with a government becoming unaccountable to the people are over non sexy, obscure bits of legislation that are hard to get people incensed about. Rules about pollution or subsidies or regulation will get made now, but no one will make a fuss until years later when we their ill effect but it's too late to change.