Victory from the jaws of death

Here’s Andrew Sullivan on the Schiavo case:

It’s been striking lately how the rhetoric of some conservatives has morphed into revolutionary tones. Bill Kristol, at heart an ally of religious radicalism, calls for a revolution against the independent judiciary we now have. Fox News’ John Gibson has argued that “the temple of the law is not so sacrosanct that an occasional chief executive cannot flaunt it once in a while.” Bill Bennett has said that the courts are not the ultimate means to interpret law and the constitution, that the people, with rights vested in the Declaration of Independence, have a right to over-turn the courts if judges violate natural law precepts such as the right to life. Beneath all this is a struggle between conservatives who place their faith in the formalities of constitutionalism and those who place their literal faith in the God-revealed truths they believe are enshrined in the Declaration, truths that alone give meaning, in their eyes, to America as a political project.

Andrew Sullivan also links to this discussion of the tension which some conservatives argue exists between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (An argument I believe nonsensical, which I have treated irreverently.)
What interests me as a political pragmatist is that the Republicans may be spelling their defeat in 2008 — much to the advantage of Hillary Clinton, who is all but certain to be the nominee.
As Sullivan argues elsewhere:

For others, the Schiavo case is a first battle to win over the religious right primary voters who will determine the next Republican nominee. The Republican leadership is gambling that the intensity of their religious base will outweigh the more general public’s disdain for this exercise in government over-reach. The broader public, they calculate, will forget. The zealots will always remember. And if Schiavo dies, they will have a martyr as well. And they will figuratively prop her up as a symbol in the campaigns to come.

The religious right primary voters will determine the next Republican nominee? But I thought that was precisely what Hillary Clinton wanted!
Anyway, the Republicans are right that as a general rule, the attention span of the American public is very short.
But I think there’s something about death which tends to make it the exception to this general rule. Most people spend their lives in mortal fear of death. And regardless of the merits of the Schiavo matter (as I’ve said, I don’t think her tube should have been pulled) the fact is that Big Government has poked its nose into one family’s struggle with death. This is likely to be remembered, and exploited.
And exploited.
(No matter what I say, please remember that these doomsday scenarios need not happen. My hat’s off to Bill Quick and Jon Henke for thinking ahead. And need I mention Glenn Reynolds?)
UPDATE: Just this morning, I see that Michael Schiavo is requesting an autopsy, contrary to earlier reports. Is someone thinking about 2008?
MORE: A lot of bloggers are debating whether the religious right has gone too far this time. InstaPundit links to a fascinating debate between Jeff Jarvis (who’s great, and who links to this excellent analysis by Joe Gandelman) and Hugh Hewitt, who articulates the conservative position better than anyone else, and makes a good point about avoiding stereotypes. The problem is that I find myself agreeing with much of what both Jarvis and Hewitt say, which prevents me from declaring either a “winner.”
But my truest sentiments are with The Anchoress:

Randall Terry and his zealots full of certainty and moral superiority are now coming off like their unbearable counterparts on the left. Their rhetoric is becoming the equivalent of “America is a horrible country because Bushitler is killing people in Iraq!”
Balance. Things are out of balance. But imbalance by the left is shrugged of in the press and never used against the democrats. Imbalance on the right, that’s another story. It is, as I said, the story that is gift, and it’s going to keep on giving.

And I still think that when the dust settles, ordinary voters will tend to remember this as Big Government trying to butt in.
And Glenn Reynolds is absolutely right about Randall Terry:

….[H]e needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you’re in the same boat as lefties who don’t want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.
(In fact, the Terry / Churchill axis is surprisingly close — they both view 9/11 as a necessary chastisement for a sinful America. If that’s not a distinguishing mark of full-bore idiotarianism, I don’t know what is).

(Of course, considering that Churchill is working for Karl Rove, can Hillary really be faulted for hiring Terry?)
STILL MORE: Jesse Jackson has arrived on the scene.
(Wouldn’t want to have a circus atmosphere develop….)
AND MORE (03/30/05): Nat Hentoff’s Schiavo piece in today’s Village Voice is an awfully good read, and provides food for thought to people who’d probably otherwise never hear it:

Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.
In February, Florida’s Department of Children and Families presented Judge Greer with a 34-page document listing charges of neglect, abuse, and exploitation of Terri by her husband, with a request for 60 days to fully investigate the charges. Judge Greer, soon to remove Terri’s feeding tube for the third time, rejected the 60-day extension. (The media have ignored these charges, and much of what follows in this article.)
Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn’t want to survive by artificial means, but he didn’t mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.
Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, nor a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, a specialist in heart-lung transplant surgery, has, as The New York Times reported on March 23, “certified [in his practice] that patients were brain dead so that their organs could be transplanted.” He is not just “playing doctor” on this case.
During a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, Frist, speaking of Judge Greer’s denial of a request for new testing and examinations of Terri, said reasonably, “I would think you would want a complete neurological exam” before determining she must die.
Frist added: “The attorneys for Terri’s parents have submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals,all of whom say that Terri should be re-evaluated.”
In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been?19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.
As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri’s parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri’s death sentence has been based on seven years of “fatally flawed” state court findings?all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

There’s more, and while I know everyone’s tired of reading about the Schiavo case, seeing Nat Hentoff accused of “wingnuttery” — by the same people who’ve just honored Kim du Toit with this breathtakingly ingenious exercise in academic wit — made me feel obliged.
MORE: John Hawkins’ Schiavo FAQ is well worth reading too.
UPDATE (03/31/05): While it’s probably too late to write an update that few will see, I feel obligated to make an exception here, because just as I realized that I’d forgotten to credit Glenn Reynolds for that link to Right Wing News’s Schiavo FAQ, I read this:

…[T]he entire “libertarian” culture []… is astutely ignoring the actual facts of Terri’s case, preferring to argue peripheral issues instead. InstaPundit happens to embody that culture to a tee, unfortunately.
(Once again, link via Glenn Reynolds.)

Sigh.
I guess that mean that I am not part of the “libertarian” “culture” — because I haven’t ignored the facts.
Has Glenn Reynolds?
I must ask: why would the “fact-ignoring” Glenn Reynolds bother with the RightWingNews link?
(I guess I should point out that one of the reasons I read InstaPundit is because I prefer facts to labels.)
FINAL NOTE: Considering that apparently sane people are still defending Randall Terry, this quote is well worth remembering:

“Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…. If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It’s that simple…. Our goal is a Christian Nation… we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I’ve got a hot flash. God rules.”
[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]

If this raging loony tune isn’t a theocrat, then who is?