The hopeless, hapless Bill Frist

When the president expressed his support for public schools teaching intelligent-design creationism alongside real science, the intellectual wing of the Republican Party cringed. Bush’s own science advisor, John Marburger, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” For that matter, even the less-than-intellectual wing wasn’t happy with Bush’s pronouncement — Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum quickly announced that he’s “not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.”

Enter Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Here’s an experienced medical doctor who’s shown at least some willingness to break from party orthodoxy. Surely he wouldn’t embarrass himself by kowtowing to the James Dobson crowd on the basic understanding of modern biology, would he? Alas, he would.

Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.

Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.

“I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith,” Frist said.

Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.”

For what it’s worth, I think Frist’s foolishness is actually worse than Bush’s. The president is not, shall we say, a scholarly individual. His understanding of modern science is child-like, so when his opinions on the subject are misguided, it’s a national embarrassment, but it’s not a terrible surprise to anyone.

First, meanwhile, graduated from Harvard Medical School. He must know better.

Chances are, of course, that Frist was hoping to find his way back into the far-right’s good graces by embracing one of the right-wing’s pet causes. He doesn’t understand how this works.

When Frist announced late last month that he supports public financing of stem-cell research, the right was apoplectic. James Dobson said he felt as through he’d been “stabbed in the back by somebody that I thought was a friend.” Dobson even mentioned First by name when he equated stem-cell research with Nazi experiments.

Frist may be under the impression that he can placate the radicals by breaking ranks on a few key issues and then re-joining the fray shortly thereafter. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the far-right’s approach to politics: they only tolerate true believers. Consider, for example, what Gary Bauer said in a Washington Times op-ed today.

Recently, Sen. Bill Frist made two surprising announcements on the Senate floor. First, the Senate majority leader announced that he now supports expanding federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR). Secondly, he announced that he does not intend to run for president in 2008.

Well, Mr. Frist didn’t exactly say that he won’t run in 2008, but he might as well have. Because if he sticks to his decision to back legislation that would publicly fund the destruction of embryos for experimentation, the senator will be turning his back on pro-life conservatives, thus dooming his 2008 presidential nomination chances.

Does it matter to Bauer or his cohorts that Frist backed creationism a month later? Not really. They’ll gladly accept his support on their issue, but the bottom line remains the same — the base has no use for someone they consider to be occasionally reliable.

What Frist really doesn’t understand is that the far-right doesn’t have to settle. Frist won’t back the conservative agenda 100% of the time? No problem, Brownback, Allen, and Huckabee will.

What Frist really doesn’t understand is that the far-right doesn’t have to settle.

Yep exactly.

Allow me to scratch this a little deeper:

Democracy is based on both dissent and compromise.

CB argument is that the far right doesn’t tolerate either dissent or compromise.

We are now ready to state an obvious conclusion:

The far right doesn’t really believe in Democracy.

In other words: You are either with them or against them.

I believe in democracy. I believe in dissent and compromise. And so– I am against them.They are enemies of my America, and traitors to the Ameican ideal.

I think this case can be got up against them:

These folks are more dangerous to the freedom we love than arab terrorists will ever be.

Because these “democracy hating domestic terrorists” work from within to debase our democracy.

We have found the enemy. And it is them.
And no, I am not being facetious.
These people want to destroy our democracy.
Think about that once and a while.

  • I don’t think that Bill Frist so much has a problem with the far right, as he has a very basic problem with politics. His idea of pleasing a constituency is limited to the abject pander. Nobody wants to feel pandered to by their politician–they want to know that their politician shares their values. Clinton, true, was a panderer. But his panders were linked to a fairly consistent theme of values. They were popular values, so his panders were popular. Bush I was like Frist, and did not get reelected.
    Reagan was a master at projecting shared values, but he did surprisingly little substantive pandering to his base. And sometimes–as with his anticommunist base–he stiffed them. It was okay–they still thought he shared their deeper values. Or Howard Dean. His policy positions were mostly standard-issue DLC, but he shared the core anti-wimp values of his followers, who were mostly far to his left. No matter.

  • I love this:

    “I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith”

    So facts aren’t facts but voter driven results? If the majority says that, apologies to The Onion, Intelligent Falling makes more sense than gravity, that means IF wins regardless of the science backing it up? Or, at least, because someone, somewhere has an idea counter to all the evidence, they should be given a voice to ensure that “broad range of fact?”

    That’s the dumbest damned thing I’ve heard Frist express.

  • Remember the symmetry!

    Frist went to Harvard and supports ID,
    Bush went to Harvard and has no budget discipline, tax cuts at all costs, etc.

    It’s consistent – no amount of education touches faith!

  • I’m putting in my vote, once again, to have Frist referred to as Bill “Cat torturer” Frist.

  • Insightful analysis. But it does seem like the “religious right” does give some of its darlings a pass, some times on some issues. For example, they didn’t complain when W nominated an openly-gay ambassador. Frist’s problem is not recognizing the Right’s non-negotiables: 1)fetus=person, i.e. “life begins at conception”; 2) heterosexual exceptionalism, i.e. denigration or non-recognition of homosexuality and 3) biblical fundamentalism (“because The Bible says so…)

  • Frist = Forest

    “Pathetic is as pathetic does.”

    Or was that, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    There just seems to be so damn many of these “stupid does” Rethugs these days that one almost needs a scorecard to keep them straight (and I DON’T mean hetero, either)!

    I think I’ll go to the next Republican National Convention with a truckload of the “I”m With Stupid —>” T-shirts. I expect I’ll make a small fortune!!

  • Comments are closed.